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

[Timothy Butler]

>>>
>>> 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.

	The wise anti-gun control person, it sounds like, would support this  
bill. If you know you aren't going to overturn the gun laws, but you  
can lessen them -- you ought to lessen them.

	Politics is a pragmatic sport.
>>
>>>> 	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.

	Right. All I noted was that the VP cannot break a tie in the house.  
He has no authority there.
>>>
>>
>> 	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.

	Right. Well, that's most meaningful, in many ways. If I'm talking  
about Republicans, it does me a great deal more good to say, "on  
average the GOP does thus and so," rather than saying, "this liberal  
Republican voted like a Democrat, so Republicans are exactly the same  
as Democrats."

	That would be a non sequitur.

>
>>
>> 	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.

	True. I'm not disagreeing. All I'm saying is the fact that five  
Republicans supported this bill does not suggest something about the  
overall party -- particularly when you are talking about the very  
large House of Representatives. The vast majority of Republicans  
probably would oppose the bill. The vast majority of Democrats  
probably support it. Therefore, it is fitting to say gun control is a  
Democratic issue.

	Am I missing your point?

>
>
>>
>> 	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.


	Of course. I'm all for multiple parties. I'm even for disagreement  
within parties. That's not my point, David. :-)

	Let me try to explain again, simply, what I am trying to say. Let's  
pick a different topic. Taxes.

	The Republican Party almost always supports lower taxes across the  
board, the Democrats support targeted tax cuts combined with targeted  
tax increases. Now, some Democrats would like to keep the Bush tax  
cuts and some Republicans would probably prefer the Democratic  
approach. It does not follow from that that both parties are the same.  
Right?

	-Tim

---
Timothy R. Butler | "The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the window- 
panes,
Editor, OfB.biz   | The yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle on the  
window-panes
tbutler at ofb.biz   | Licked  its  tongue  into the  corners  of  the   
evening,
timothybutler.us  | Lingered upon the pools that stand in drains."
                                                                 --  
T.S. Eliot