[CS-FSLUG] [PD] Are Democrats to Blame for Gun Control? (was They have started already... HR6257 To Reauthorize the Assault Weapon Ban)

[David McGlone]

On Monday 10 November 2008 1:18:59 am Timothy Butler wrote:
> >>> If you go back in  history to 1934 When Roosevelt was president,
> >>> and
> >>> Democrats had majority, the national firearms act of 1934 was
> >>> largely enacted
> >>> to try and help keep firearms out of mobsters hands. Did Roosevelt
> >>> and
> >>> congress have bad intentions? I don't think so.
> >>
> >> 	Bad intentions really are irrelevant, bad results are what matters.
> >> You can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals by putting more
> >> restrictions on guns. Remember: criminals don't obey laws.
> >
> > That's true, but with all due respect, I don't think this is
> > relevant to the
> > point i'm trying to convey.
>
> 	True. Just a passing comment. Gun control really doesn't work in this
> area. :-)
>
> >> I don't think
> >> anyone opposes prohibiting criminals from getting legal guns.
> >>
> >>> he also
> >>> enacted "Firearms Owners Protection Act" Which relaxed some of the
> >>> laws for
> >>> sales of guns and ammunition,
> >>
> >> 	That sounds like the opposite situation of what you are arguing?
> >> This
> >> one is confusing.
> >
> > Sorry about that I should have attached references.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
>
> 	I remain confused. That seems to be a law to restrict *gun control*
> rather than guns.

What I'm trying to show here in this example is that if Republicans were so 
against gun control, why did'nt Regan just veto these instead agreeing to 
reform.

>
> >>> Finally he enacted the "Law Enforcement Officers
> >>> Protection Act" Which banned possession of armor piercing bullets.
> >>> So, If it
> >>> were the Democrats who were at it again as you say, then why is gun
> >>> control
> >>> getting support and being expanded by the Republicans? And the
> >>> Majority of the
> >>> house was Republican with George Herbert Walker Bush residing as the
> >>> president
> >>> of the Senate. Did they have bad intentions? I don't think so.
> >>
> >> 	Actually the Republicans did not gain a house majority until 1995.
> >> And, the veep does very little in the senate.
> >
> > Probably my bad on the Republicans, but point in case, whether the
> > veep does
> > little or not, he could do something if he wanted.
>
> 	Well, he could speak out against it, but as you know, the vice
> president doesn't vote in the senate except in the case of the tie, so
> he essentially has no more power than you or I do in most cases.
>
> >> 	The VP cannot break a tie in the house.
> >
> > Sure they can. United States Constitution, Section 3 Clause 4.
> >
> > "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the
> > Senate but
> > shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
>
> 	Right. The senate, but not the house. See what I said next:

A bill must be passed by both chambers the house and senate in order to be 
submitted to the president for approval.
 
> >> 	I presume you were referring
> >> to the senate. Now, given a 54-46 split in 1999,
> >> your argument doesn't't
> >> work very well here. That means (most likely without looking up the
> >> bill) that 4 Republican senators voted with the Democrats. The tie
> >> breaking vote of the veep brings it to 49 GOP again and 47 Dem for
> >> (and 4 GOP for).
> >
> > No, i'm referring to May 20th 1999 51-50 vote with Al Gore's vote
> > being the
> > tie breaker.
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/20/gun.control/
>
> 	Yes, that was my point. My off the top of my head guess was two
> senators off. Six GOP senators voted for it. By and large, that means
> that the GOP was against gun control, because the senate, it is said,
> is like herding cats... you can't get them all to vote one way or
> another along party lines on just about anything.
>
> > Now let us not turn this into a debate on the fact that this came
> > from CNN..
> > LOL
>
> 	Nah. I've always been fond of CNN, though I got disgusted with them
> when they went all pro-Obama and anti-Clinton. (I was rooting for
> Clinton, I'll admit it.)
>
> > It doesnt matter what get's attached to it, case in point,
> > Republicans started
> > and sponsored this bill, yet the democrats are being blamed.
>
> 	The proof will be in the pudding. Who actually gets the bill passed?
> It probably won't be Republicans.

Maybe so, but has anyone ever thought that the 5 republicans that presented 
this bill knows that the majority is Democratic. Hmmm. 

Let me put it this way. If you were a Republican or Democrat Rep in the house 
and you wanted to try to sway or reinforce public opinion your way, would you 
introduce a bill that you know the majority of the other side generally agrees 
with and your side disagrees with knowing full well it will most likely get 
passed? I'm not saying that politicians do this, but it is a possibility. Also 
most people don't even pay attention to the legislative process they just look 
at it as a "Whole" with whoever is majority and whoever is president.
>
> 	Here's a case in point. Sen. McCain often sponsors Democratic favored
> bills, such as Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The fact that he
> sponsors it doesn't mean that Republicans generally support Democratic
> favored bills.

This reinforces my argument that when a bill is introduced by a certain 
politician it is said to be sponsored by them, in other words it was the idea 
of the politician who introduced it and it reflects the way they think. Just 
because a couple Republicans or Democrats do not support the bill being 
introduced that is in favor of either side, does not mean that those ones that 
oppose will introduce a different bill that is favored by either side. They 
could also be in favor of the bill, but turn it away because they do not agree 
with it's entirety.

>
> 	More important than the question of whether some Republicans support
> gun control, as I said, is which party actually sponsors it as part of
> the party's platform? Which one has its rank and file supporting gun
> control? If one party had 10 or even 20% of its members supporting gun
> control and another party has 60 or 80% supporting it...

This is a good thing IMHO, because this is what helps keep one or the other 
party in check and forces everyone to find common ground. Just think if 
everyone in our government was either Democrat or Republican, where would that 
leave the U.S.? We would be under totalitarianism like N. Korea. 

-- 
David M.