More gun control already on the horizon

[AteUp]

If you're wavering on whether or not to pick up some more high-cap mags, go ahead and get them now.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dems12nov12,1,7832196.story?coll=la-headlines-politics&ctrack=1&cset=true

Liberal groups expect postelection results

Activists who helped Democrats secure Congress make clear they intend to get their reward.
By Peter Wallsten and Janet Hook, Times Staff Writers
November 12, 2006

WASHINGTON — After toppling the long-dominant Republicans in a hard-fought election, the Democratic Party's incoming congressional leaders have immediately found themselves in another difficult struggle — with their own supporters.

Some of the very activists who helped propel the Democrats to a majority in the House and Senate last week are claiming credit for the victories and demanding what they consider their due: a set of ambitious — and politically provocative — actions on gun control, abortion, national security and other issues that party leaders fear could alienate moderate voters and leave Democrats vulnerable to GOP attacks as big spenders or soft on terrorism.

The conflict underscores the challenge facing the Democrats in line to lead Congress — Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco in the House and Harry Reid of Nevada in the Senate. Each has pledged in recent days to "govern from the center," after a campaign in which anger over the Iraq war and GOP scandals helped their party attract some unusually conservative candidates and a large share of independent voters.

Turning off those new voters could undermine Democrats' hopes of solidifying their new majorities and taking the White House in 2008. But to the leaders of interest groups who are core supporters of the Democratic Party, and who had been barred under Republican rule from the inner sanctums of power, the new Congress means a time for action, not compromise.

Lobbyists for the American Civil Liberties Union, for example, are all but counting on Democrats to repeal the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorist law pushed by the White House that some critics call unconstitutional. They also want to end President Bush's domestic wiretapping program.

"We are not going to let them off the hook," said Caroline Fredrickson, the ACLU's legislative director, of the newly empowered Democratic leaders in Congress.

"We will hold their feet to the fire and use all the tools we can to mobilize our members."

Similar vows are coming from lobbyists for abortion rights, who want to expand family-planning options for poor women and scale back Bush's focus on abstinence education, and from gun-control advocates, who hope to revive a lapsed ban on assault weapons. Labor unions, a core Democratic constituency, are demanding universal healthcare and laws discouraging corporations from seeking inexpensive labor overseas.

"It's been kind of a drought for 12 years, and there is some pent-up energy," said Bill Samuel, legislative director for the AFL-CIO, the labor federation that has long been a Democratic Party stalwart and spent millions of dollars on get-out-the-vote activities.

Several of the labor movement's less-controversial goals, such as raising the minimum wage and allowing Medicare to seek discounts on drug prices, are found both in the AFL-CIO's brochures and on a Democratic leadership wish list designed to appeal across ideological lines.

But labor officials said they expected Pelosi, Reid and others to go further.

The day after the election, labor leaders declared a mandate for their causes and called on the new Congress to immediately reverse anti-union policies enacted by the Bush administration and promote affordable healthcare "for all."

"We're realistic about the congressional timetable, but we have our own view about why people went to the polls," said Samuel. "We think it had to do with their unhappiness with Republican inaction on the economy…. They're expecting Congress to tackle these issues, not play short ball."

Eli Pariser, executive director of the political action committee associated with the liberal activist group MoveOn.org, warned that Democratic leaders would be ill-advised to ignore the party's base.

"A huge number of people were involved in putting them over the top," Pariser said. "There's a huge group of people engaged and energized and ready to support Pelosi and company when they boldly lead — and to hold them to account if they stray."

Pressure on Democrats is especially acute to redirect U.S. policy in Iraq. Many Democrats say the issue was the most important one driving the party's victory.

Democratic lawmakers have not unified behind a single Iraq policy. If they could find common ground with Bush on a continued troop presence, they might fend off GOP efforts to label them as weak on national security — but they would probably infuriate a growing antiwar movement that helped propel the party back into power.

"American voters have done their job; now it's time for Congress to do theirs," said former Rep. Tom Andrews (D-Maine), national director of the antiwar group Win Without War. "The message couldn't be clearer. It's time to start the orderly withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Our eyes are on the new Congress."

Other interest groups are pointing to Tuesday's results as vindication of their particular causes, and as proof that Democrats should embrace their issues rather than shun them as too liberal.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which advocates abortion rights, pointed to victories by like-minded candidates in conservative states and a rejection by South Dakota voters of an abortion ban. The result, the group says, should be that Democrats view their causes as mainstream, rather than part of a liberal agenda, and should devote more money to contraception and other family-planning options opposed by religious conservatives and scaled back by the administration.

"I honestly believe there was no bigger winner in this election than Planned Parenthood Action Fund and women's health," said Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, referring to the group's political arm.

At the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the leading gun-control advocacy group, President Paul Helmke has high hopes for the assault weapons ban — and he can list races where candidates backed by his group defeated those supported by the National Rifle Assn.

But Helmke, a former Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., acknowledged that his challenge was to convince Democrats that his cause was not "radioactive." Many Democratic strategists have come to believe that supporting gun-control laws alienates rural voters and many independents.

"Guns are a tricky issue," Helmke said. "But the elections show there's nothing to be afraid of."

Still, the issues of abortion and guns underscore the tough decisions facing Reid and Pelosi as they try to please the party's core supporters while appealing to centrist voters.

The party's winning formula this year, after all, required candidacies from cultural conservatives such as Rep.-elect Heath Shuler in western North Carolina and Sens.-elect Jon Tester in Montana and Jim Webb in Virginia.

A preview of the tussle that awaits Reid and Pelosi has been playing out on the Internet since election day, with liberal bloggers decrying party centrists as out of touch with the Democratic majority. The complaints have been serious enough to draw Reid's attention, prompting him to host a conference call after the election with more than a dozen of the country's most prominent liberal bloggers.

Reid himself has learned to navigate these issues in order to win election in largely rural Nevada. He calls himself pro-gun and, according to a spokesman, opposes abortion except in cases of rape and incest and when the woman's life is endangered.

In the Senate, matters are further complicated by the fact that at least five Democrats — nearly 10% of the caucus — are considering presidential bids in which they may need to win the liberal base to gain the nomination but then campaign to the center in a general election.

Republicans have already said they intend to take back power in 2008 by portraying Democrats as big-government tax raisers who would rather safeguard civil liberties than interrogate terrorists.

Conservatives, though splintered over Iraq, immigration and other issues, had succeeded in keeping power since 1994 in part by forging a coalition built on compromise and shared goals — a practice that Democrats have yet to perfect.

Senior Democrats say they will figure out a way to bridge the divide.

"Tension is inherent in politics, and maybe a little bit of tension is good," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. "But on the core, fundamental issues, everyone's in line."

Wary that the interest groups' demands may turn off the centrist voters who put them in the majority, some Democratic pragmatists are preparing to press for greater independence.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the committee that designed the party's Senate campaign strategy, is publishing a book in January that is expected to lay out a plan for long-term Democratic dominance. He is expected to embrace a philosophy somewhere between the Democrats' old New Deal reliance on government and conservatives' outright disdain for government.

Schumer signaled as much after the election when he called on the party to "push aside the special interests and always keep our eye on the average American family."

peter.wallsten@latimes.com

janet.hook@latimes.com

[maxcam]

Ateup they swore they wouldnt do such a thing....Grouser even said it wouldnt happen! :rolleyes:

[daking]

Guys, you gotta love this. Not yet even sworn in, some of their maybe members are still in recounts and they already have an internal problem. What Pelosi and Reid have forgotten is that the American public is very staunch on both the right to keep and bear arms and that abortion is wrong. Their kook, nutwing fringe will demand that they move on these items because,well, that's what kook nutwing fringe folks do. The people who for whaterver reason held their nose and voted Dem this time will not be around in 08 if they screw with these two issues. Election day was not a new rising for the donkeys. It was the beginning of the end. The next two years are going to hurt because they'll screw the economy, but it will drive them from the temple for another 12 years.

[trust me]

I'll say it again: Join The NRA.

[grouser68]

Ateup they swore they wouldnt do such a thing....Grouser even said it wouldnt happen! :rolleyes:


Sorry max, well,gather all your guns up and I will be by to pick them up.I only hope you have some nice bird hunting shotguns.


Seriously............I would'nt believe everything I read! I also believe we all know the revolt that would ensue should any legislation pass banning weapons.But, there have to be those few that are calling for the end, funny thing is most of them seem to be members on this site!

[Wildcat]

I'm so supprised and shocked they would try such a thing, who would have thought????

Yea, right.

Charlie Rangel D NY, soon to be the Chairman of the House Ways and Means said this morning on TV that the tax cuts renewal was dead on arrival.

Gun control and higher taxes? What's next?

[grouser68]

I'm so supprised and shocked they would try such a thing, who would have thought????

Yea, right.

Charlie Rangel D NY, soon to be the Chairman of the House Ways and Means said this morning on TV that the tax cuts renewal was dead on arrival.

Gun control and higher taxes? What's next?

Ateup, your a moderator and really should have known better than to post this!:D

Guys, go back and look at all the political threads started recently.Most of the political threads were started by republicans touting gloom n doom.Before the election you guys posted up drivel from the radical right rags and sites, after the election your posting up drivel from the looney left! YOU GUYS ARE THE MOST NEGATIVE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD!

Before the election your call sign was BEWARE! Now it's TOLD YOU SO!

PARTISAN BITTERNESS IS ALL IT IS!

For all you negative doomsdayers, I will come by and pick up your guns and the taxes you will have to pay! That way we wont have to hear all the negativity and party bashing and maybe, just maybe you can find something positive to post!

I wish I were more like Wildcat and had the foresight to put all this drivel on disk so I could bring it back up to you guys.........when you don't lose your weapons, and your taxes don't go up , and the world does'nt end in the next 2 years!

Exactely one week after the elections and you guys are still trying your best to tear the guts out of any bipartisanship! Let me play the soothsayer this time like you guys just once.........................My crystal ball says:

The radical right on this site will continue to try and divide to their dying breath!

[daking]

Now wait just a doggone minute Grouser. Let's reel back a few months and look at some of the things YOU posted. Maybe you're a bit divisive? You never wrote snotty things about the present administration? You never imputed future acts on the present folks?

You sound like a number of people on here who wrote about other issues (League politics and deer hunting weapons to name a few) who said "we won, you lost, get over it". Well, you've dished it out. It seems only fair that you should man up and take it.

[Wildcat]

Ateup,
I guess that means we are NOT suppose to post anything on the news either from the print or TV news . Keep it quite until after it passes.;)

Yep, first thing to go is Freedom of Speech.

[Foam Steak]

I am not sure I follow? Bush did not loose his veto power in this election and the Democrats do not have a big enough majority to get around that, do they?

[grouser68]

Now wait just a doggone minute Grouser. Let's reel back a few months and look at some of the things YOU posted. Maybe you're a bit divisive? You never wrote snotty things about the present administration? You never imputed future acts on the present folks?

You sound like a number of people on here who wrote about other issues (League politics and deer hunting weapons to name a few) who said "we won, you lost, get over it". Well, you've dished it out. It seems only fair that you should man up and take it.

Daking, first of all you should address your posts to someone whom actually respects you and your opinions. After your impuning my integrity last week, and failure to "Man Up" and apologize,I hold absolutely no respect for you.

Secondly, any negativity I may have shown was for the current admin. you know, the ones in there now, the ones making the laws now! No negetivity was shown for who would be coming in, or what the ol' crystal ball said they were going to do! What has the new congress done to change anyones life to date?

[grouser68]

Ateup,
I guess that means we are NOT suppose to post anything on the news either from the print or TV news . Keep it quite until after it passes.;)

Yep, first thing to go is Freedom of Speech.

Wildcat, your letting me down! I have bragged on you in the past for your ability to do the research! Try and go find us on some govt. sight where the newly elected congress has changed even one law!

Foam, your right! It's just parisan doomsday talk due to election bitterness! The prez would veto any gun control, and everyone knows it, they just wanna complain.

[Highbow]

I have taken further steps to see this go to the proper sources and let's see how much truth ends up coming from more of republican supported reports. I can look at who post this stuff and know a lot about it from there, hang tuff Grouser and we'll see when the elections roll around again.

[AteUp]

Ateup, your a moderator and really should have known better than to post this!:D


It's not like it's speculative rumor coming from the other side. It's coming straight from the side who is taking over power. It's a fact that the special interests groups want their due. I feel it is important enough for everyone to read or else I wouldn't have posted it. The CJ must have thought so too, or else they wouldn't have printed in the Sunday edition. I don't post just to rile people up. I do want us to be informed on issues that may directly affect us sportsman. No rules against moderators being able to do that.
PS: (don't forget, I'm actually still a registered Democrat.:eek: )

[trust me]

In Ateup's defense...
I did some googling and came up with lots of similar articles around the nation in the last week. Some groups that have been waiting and biding their time are now ready to come back to action and get their piece of the pie. It's only natural; that's the way it works. You wait til the political environment is friendly to your cause and then you make the best of it while it lasts.

As sportsmen, we can't afford to let partisan politics and blind loyalty jeopardize our rights regarding guns. It's not good enough to say, "It'll never happen," or "Bush will veto it," or "If they try, the nation will revolt." As we've seen in other countries and in our own states, gun control is accomplished in increments. A little bit here, and little bit there, and as long as my favorite shotgun and my favorite sport are still legal, then I don't care too much if they take away your favorite gun, and your favorite sport. Then suddenly one day I wake up and my old favorite is on the ban list.

The Democratic Party's leadership is wholly anti-gun. That is not partisan, inflammatory or stirring the pot. It is simply the truth. Do a google search with Pelosi, Schumer, Kennedy, or Reid with the phrase "gun control" and see what you find. They have sponsored or supported bills that would make your semi-auto illegal, your deer ammunition illegal, and your handguns banned and confiscated. Again, this is historical fact and you can look it up yourself. They are now the leadership, and in a position to make these laws happen. We're two years away from a Presidential race. What if the Democrats elect an anti-gun candidate to the White House? Do you think they will hesitate to pass more control?

I personally don't care if the Demos or the Repubs or whatever is in control, as long as they pass common-sense laws that the people want and support. I personally don't think the Democrat Party as a whole supports gun control. But I know for a fact its leadership does, and they get to make the laws, not the voters.

Call it gloom and doom, but first prove me wrong.

[Swampthing]

Although he hasn't said it since the AWB expired, at the time Bush did say he would sign it if Congress sent it to him. Right now the White House is more interested in getting his approval ratings up before they head back to Texas so he will be remembered favourably. AWB plays well with soccer moms now turned security moms. In case nobody has noticed he is lurching to the left, abandoning conservatives. In the end he may Out-Schumer Schumer.

[AteUp]

I personally don't care if the Demos or the Repubs or whatever is in control, as long as they pass common-sense laws that the people want and support. I personally don't think the Democrat Party as a whole supports gun control. But I know for a fact its leadership does, and they get to make the laws, not the voters.

I agree Trust me.

[grouser68]

Guys, the last 3 posts smell of little common sense talk.Where I would call it a little gloom n doom is........Bush ran on banning gay marriage and overturning roe vs wade.in his 8 years with the last 6 having FULL control, he has'nt accomplished a thing. It has actually gotten worse! How many years do you think it would take to overturn the second amendment? 50?100? I say never! It cannot be done her in America! I stress again, we are Americans, not Canadians, or Australians!

Now, who in his right mind thinks any lawmaker is gonna overturn the second amendment?The second amendment, more of an American tradition than any other. Sure there will always be those that get loud, and a few that try, but can anyone honestly see America thumbing our noses at our forefathers and abolishing the second amendment?I can NEVER see that happening! Keep listening to ol' Hannity,let him and his kind lead you around by the nose and they will have you believing the sky is falling!

I for one could care less about the lions roar,but I will watch him, and just before he pounces I will take him down!

Let em roar!

[grouseguy]

They are now the leadership, and in a position to make these laws happen.

Not exactly. From my perspective, they may be able to bring up the issue in some committee, but the leadership can't "make these laws happen" by themselves. They will need a majority of both houses of congress plus the President's signature. IMHO, if this were a "slam dunk" then the R's would have banned abortion during the past 6 years when they controlled the whole show. However, mainstream America simply wouldn't support a ban on abortion, just as they don't support overly restrictive and nonsensical forms of gun control. Sure there are some D's that support gun control...R's too (don't forget which party the Brady's came from)...but there simply isn't sufficient support to accomplish their goals, just like the R's found out with abortion. I have no problem with remaining vigilant and informed, as I don't support gun control either, but the continued politics of fear is getting tiresome.

[ptbrauch]

I wonder if every member on here were to send just one letter to their congress person expressing their feelings on this issue, just how many letters would get sent?

Lord knows how much effort we put into bashing each other for deer vs rabbits, 15" spreads vs does the first week of deer season, cougars vs sasquatch in Ky, but we won't sit at the same computer and send an email to our congressperson letting them know our feelings on things they can control.

[Manzanita]

Well, for what it's worth, I ordered two hi-caps for my Witness 9mm the day after the election. I originally bought the pistol back in the mid 90's and it only came with one 10rd magazine. They arrived yesterday.

[Willie]

No surprise there.....


.

[trust me]

Grouser68,
I don't watch Hannity, and nobody leads me around by the nose.

It can and has already happened in our country, the United States of America. Go to New York City, Grouser, and try to buy a handgun.

Drive through Chicago on the way to Wisconsin to do a little grouse hunting, and let the Chicago police find your shotgun in the back seat. You better hope your gun is disassembled and the parts stored separately or you've had a bad, bad day. That's gun control.

Gun control doesn't mean overturning the 2nd Amendment. Gun control is chipping away at it until it is meaningless.

Gun control is Patrick Moynihan proposing a 1000% tax on all ammunition.

Gun control is getting enough Supreme Court Justices to agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't even address private ownership of guns, and instead means that the National Guard gets to have its own guns. Sound stupid? That's what the Brady Campaign says it means, and a lot of lesser court judges agree. Thank goodness they are being overturned regularly by higher courts.

Gun control is allowing product liability suits to bring gun manufacturers (S&W, Colt) to their knees with frivolous lawsuits over guns that were perfectly legal and in perfect working order, but used in an evil way. This was finally stopped by a Repub-led Congress, over the objections of many of our elected officials. Hannity didn't tell me that, by the way. I read it in the newspapers as it happened.

Gun control is having to wait 5 or 7 or more days to legally buy a legal handgun for legal purposes. That's what the waiting period did that we endured for 10 years. Some states still have to put up with it.

You say it won't happen; I say it started way back in 1969.

[Foam Steak]

When I made my statement earlier I was just pointing out a fact that we still have some checks on the gun grabbers. I don't think the sky is falling but we need to remain vigilant.

Personally I am bored and tired of politics so I distill my vote down to two issues. Taxes and Gun Control. If someone wants to raise my taxes or take my guns then they don't get my vote. Between the NRA and the National Taxpayers Union I have an easy time figuring out my choices on a ballot.

I admit that perhaps I am being led by the nose by the NRA and NTU. So be it.

[AteUp]

If they just reinstated the assault weapons ban it would be a huge loss. It is a waste of money that serves no purpose other than publicity and like trust me said, it chips away at the foundation of gun ownership. I have a hard time believing a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds can make the country any safer.

[grouser68]

Grouser68,
I don't watch Hannity, and nobody leads me around by the nose.

It can and has already happened in our country, the United States of America. Go to New York City, Grouser, and try to buy a handgun.

Drive through Chicago on the way to Wisconsin to do a little grouse hunting, and let the Chicago police find your shotgun in the back seat. You better hope your gun is disassembled and the parts stored separately or you've had a bad, bad day. That's gun control.

Gun control doesn't mean overturning the 2nd Amendment. Gun control is chipping away at it until it is meaningless.

Gun control is Patrick Moynihan proposing a 1000% tax on all ammunition.

Gun control is getting enough Supreme Court Justices to agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't even address private ownership of guns, and instead means that the National Guard gets to have its own guns. Sound stupid? That's what the Brady Campaign says it means, and a lot of lesser court judges agree. Thank goodness they are being overturned regularly by higher courts.

Gun control is allowing product liability suits to bring gun manufacturers (S&W, Colt) to their knees with frivolous lawsuits over guns that were perfectly legal and in perfect working order, but used in an evil way. This was finally stopped by a Repub-led Congress, over the objections of many of our elected officials. Hannity didn't tell me that, by the way. I read it in the newspapers as it happened.

Gun control is having to wait 5 or 7 or more days to legally buy a legal handgun for legal purposes. That's what the waiting period did that we endured for 10 years. Some states still have to put up with it.

You say it won't happen; I say it started way back in 1969.

Good points Trust! So, whats the answer? Down with all dems? A larger NRA? I don't have the need to go to NY and buy a handgun. I generally don't get pulled over.If I did, my shotguns are always in their cases and in the back.

A waiting period of 5-7 days has'nt killed or harmed anyone as far as I can tell.Matter of fact, it may have saved a few! Some people wait months for their deer to get mounted, and yet you can find room to complain over 5-7 days on a handgun?

Did that 1000% tax on ammo pass?

We do need to keep up the good fight Trust! When the congress elect actually go to office, and ACTUALLY start up gun control issues again, we all need to stand tough! I really don't see it happening on Jan.20th, but then again I am an optimist!

We need a good reliable, common sense, organization to speak for us.One that can speak for ALL sportsman!IMHO the NRA was a good idea that went too far right.We need another!Note:I said in my humble opinion!

[Wildcat]

Guys, the last 3 posts smell of little common sense talk.Where I would call it a little gloom n doom is........Bush ran on banning gay marriage and overturning roe vs wade.in his 8 years with the last 6 having FULL control, he has'nt accomplished a thing. It has actually gotten worse! How many years do you think it would take to overturn the second amendment? 50?100? I say never! It cannot be done her in America! I stress again, we are Americans, not Canadians, or Australians!

Now, who in his right mind thinks any lawmaker is gonna overturn the second amendment?The second amendment, more of an American tradition than any other. Sure there will always be those that get loud, and a few that try, but can anyone honestly see America thumbing our noses at our forefathers and abolishing the second amendment?I can NEVER see that happening! Keep listening to ol' Hannity,let him and his kind lead you around by the nose and they will have you believing the sky is falling!

I for one could care less about the lions roar,but I will watch him, and just before he pounces I will take him down!

Let em roar!

Grouser,

You are the only one that says anything about overturning the Second Amendment, nobody else does.

The Second Amendment will always be there and it would take a civil war to repeal it.

BUT...

There are over 20,000 firearm control laws in the books nationwide, federal, state and local. Everyone of them are wrong.

As for all those others in the report, nobody said it happened yet. The report is about the democrats supporters pushing for their ideas to go though. I for one do not think it's wrong to report about what they are up to nore do I think it's wrong for it to be posted here.

The democrats are going to bring the AWB back. So far President Bush hasn't used his veto power for anything. To understand how it works Congress passes a bill and then sends it to the President to sign or veto
it. If he vetos it then it goes back to Congress so they get a chance to try to over ride his veto. If it gets less than two-thirds vote then it's defeated and is dead for good until it's brought up in a different bill that's different than the first one.

[Wildcat]

A couple more things,

The new Congress is sworn in office Jan 3, 2007, not Jan 20.

The Second Amendment DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT NORE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Under the Second Amendment our favorite grouse shotgun, Glock ,40 and AR-15 is the same.

[trust me]

Good points Trust! So, whats the answer? Down with all dems? A larger NRA? I don't have the need to go to NY and buy a handgun. I generally don't get pulled over.If I did, my shotguns are always in their cases and in the back.

A waiting period of 5-7 days has'nt killed or harmed anyone as far as I can tell.Matter of fact, it may have saved a few! Some people wait months for their deer to get mounted, and yet you can find room to complain over 5-7 days on a handgun?

Did that 1000% tax on ammo pass?

We do need to keep up the good fight Trust! When the congress elect actually go to office, and ACTUALLY start up gun control issues again, we all need to stand tough! I really don't see it happening on Jan.20th, but then again I am an optimist!

We need a good reliable, common sense, organization to speak for us.One that can speak for ALL sportsman!IMHO the NRA was a good idea that went too far right.We need another!Note:I said in my humble opinion!

Down with the Dems? Not all of them. A larger NRA? Good idea! I can sign you up if you want. The NY law doesn't do a thing to you or me, but it sure affects 3-4 million a little Northeast of here.

The 5 day wait was an infringement on the 2nd Amendment you and I both hold so dear. And it cost me two trips to Lex instead of one.

What if you were a battered woman whose crazy husband swore to kill you? Would you sleep easy knowing that Restraining Order was in place? If you wanted to go buy something to protect you, it would be a mighty long 5 day wait. I just hope the crazy husband waits 5 days. (This isn't so far fetched. It actually happened, thankfully he didn't kill her, just beat her up again.)

No, the ammo tax didn't pass, thanks to some congress folks supported by the NRA. And keeping up the good fight is exactly what the NRA does, and very well.

[grouser68]

Down with the Dems? Not all of them. A larger NRA? Good idea! I can sign you up if you want. The NY law doesn't do a thing to you or me, but it sure affects 3-4 million a little Northeast of here.

The 5 day wait was an infringement on the 2nd Amendment you and I both hold so dear. And it cost me two trips to Lex instead of one.

What if you were a battered woman whose crazy husband swore to kill you? Would you sleep easy knowing that Restraining Order was in place? If you wanted to go buy something to protect you, it would be a mighty long 5 day wait. I just hope the crazy husband waits 5 days. (This isn't so far fetched. It actually happened, thankfully he didn't kill her, just beat her up again.)

No, the ammo tax didn't pass, thanks to some congress folks supported by the NRA. And keeping up the good fight is exactly what the NRA does, and very well.

Heres another hypothetical Trust, lets say a murderer goes in and buys a handgun off the shelf, goes three blocks away and kills a bunch of kids in a school.

I recieved my invitation to join the NRA last week.Let me read you just one line......Remember,the NRA is a non-parisan grassroots membership organization. From non-partisan on is boldly underlined.

Now Trust, be honest buddy, do you really believe the NRA is non-partisan?

They also say they represent MY FREEDOM! (that was capitalized) As I sat in uniform reading that I just had to laugh!

I respect you and your desicion to be a part of the NRA, and I really hope ya'll can do some good.I am in an organization that fights for all our rights, I think I will stick with that one.

[trust me]

Grouser,

Is the NRA non-partisan? Check out this website:
http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/State.aspx?State=KY#U.S.%20HOUSE%20OF%20REPRESENTA TIVES

You'll see a fair amount of Demos that received the NRA's endorsement over their Repub opponents. Happily, almost all the candidates received an "A" rating from the NRA. Yarmuth was an exception of course, but most all candidates from Federal to State got a good grade.

[Multidigits]

Sorry max, well,gather all your guns up and I will be by to pick them up.I only hope you have some nice bird hunting shotguns.


Seriously............I would'nt believe everything I read! I also believe we all know the revolt that would ensue should any legislation pass banning weapons.But, there have to be those few that are calling for the end, funny thing is most of them seem to be members on this site!

Ever heard of the Assault Weapons Ban?

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I50820-2004Aug08

[grouser68]

Grouser,

Is the NRA non-partisan? Check out this website:
http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/State.aspx?State=KY#U.S.%20HOUSE%20OF%20REPRESENTA TIVES

You'll see a fair amount of Demos that received the NRA's endorsement over their Repub opponents. Happily, almost all the candidates received an "A" rating from the NRA. Yarmuth was an exception of course, but most all candidates from Federal to State got a good grade.

Yeah I have seen that site, I think Wildcat has posted it a couple of times.

So, we have some dem's and some rep's for gun control. We have the majority of dem' and rep's against it. We have a couple of liberals in leadership, who by the way only hold one vote each, for gun control. I don't see the arguement.

The majority will prevail!

[Swampthing]

Anybody remember when you could mail order a gun? Look how far we've come. We already have gun control.....the fight now is to keep what little of the 2nd amendment we have left.

[Wildcat]

Yeah I have seen that site, I think Wildcat has posted it a couple of times.

So, we have some dem's and some rep's for gun control. We have the majority of dem' and rep's against it. We have a couple of liberals in leadership, who by the way only hold one vote each, for gun control. I don't see the arguement.

The majority will prevail!


Can you name "some rep's for gun control"?

I would like to know their names.

[grouser68]

Can you name "some rep's for gun control"?

I would like to know their names.

No I really can't name any repubs for gun control Wildcat. But that site that you, and now Trust Me have posted have more than one with an F for a grade. I would take it that means it's a bad thing when it comes to gun control!

[trust me]

Grouser,
So, I have tried to convince you the NRA isn't partisan. Since they endorsed a bunch of proven gun-friendly Democrats, I think I'm right on that.

I've proven to you that there are plenty of gun control laws going strong in America right now, and while they may not impact you or me, they are impacting people somewhere just like us, and that's just as bad. We are fortunate enough to live in Kentucky, not Illinois, California, New York, or Massachusetts. Thank God for living in the mountains of Kentucky! But shouldn't we be concerned for those less fortunate, and unable to own handguns?

I've proven to you that gun-control advocates are alive and well and in positions of leadership now. Pelosi and Conyers and Rangel have been among the stoutest anti-gunners, and now they lead Congress and key committees. The traditionally gun-rights conservative politicians have been sent packing, and our best gun-rights Prez since Teddy is on thin ice in two years. As a gun owner, am I wrong to be more than a little concerned?

You state that you'll stick with being in the Armed Service instead of joining the NRA. You seem to take offense at the NRA's statement that they are fighting for your freedom. Is the NRA not truly fighting for your 2nd Amendment right, the freedom to bear arms? Can't you belong to both organizations? What, if any, is your objection to the NRA?

I'm truly not trying to stir the pot. I just want to know where you are coming from.

[Carl]

The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America is not about hunting or self defense from criminals. It is about arming the people against the possibility of a tyrannical government and the dissolution of our rights.
If they do try to take our guns, it is time for a revolution, time to use our guns and time to fight the tyrants. I only hope there are enough true patriots, both democrat and republican, civilian and military, that have he backbone to do what needs to be done.
Freedom is what makes this country great. If we lose our freedom, we have lost our country.

Never surrender your firearms.

[grouser68]

Grouser,
So, I have tried to convince you the NRA isn't partisan. Since they endorsed a bunch of proven gun-friendly Democrats, I think I'm right on that.

I've proven to you that there are plenty of gun control laws going strong in America right now, and while they may not impact you or me, they are impacting people somewhere just like us, and that's just as bad. We are fortunate enough to live in Kentucky, not Illinois, California, New York, or Massachusetts. Thank God for living in the mountains of Kentucky! But shouldn't we be concerned for those less fortunate, and unable to own handguns?

I've proven to you that gun-control advocates are alive and well and in positions of leadership now. Pelosi and Conyers and Rangel have been among the stoutest anti-gunners, and now they lead Congress and key committees. The traditionally gun-rights conservative politicians have been sent packing, and our best gun-rights Prez since Teddy is on thin ice in two years. As a gun owner, am I wrong to be more than a little concerned?

You state that you'll stick with being in the Armed Service instead of joining the NRA. You seem to take offense at the NRA's statement that they are fighting for your freedom. Is the NRA not truly fighting for your 2nd Amendment right, the freedom to bear arms? Can't you belong to both organizations? What, if any, is your objection to the NRA?

I'm truly not trying to stir the pot. I just want to know where you are coming from.

Naw Trust, I don't take offense by the NRA. They may do great things. I don't take offense that I recieve a letter to join right before the election and they name 2 senators, and 1 representative they are against, that just happen to be democrats. That shows me they are a partisan group.

You keep up the good fight in your organization, and I will do the same in mine Trust! Good luck!

[struttin&ruttin]

Just like Alan Jackson says:" did you go out and buy a new gun?" I have several times since then. I plan to do it again this spring! Don't get me wrong. I am being sarcastic here. Only a lib would ever have an abortion. The Republicans aren't conservative enough for me. They had been getting a little lax and feeling too cocky and confident. However, if the dem leadership push hard to the left, I predict another slide to the hard right in the next election. Sometimes the best deal with politics is when they get absolutely nothing done! I do believe you guys might be right about libs pushing for more gun control if they can. The dem leaders are the most left wing of the party. Pelosi, Rangle, Conyers, Clinton, those guys will push their hard left wing agenda. Bush will have to step up to the plate and veto.

[Multidigits]

No I really can't name any repubs for gun control Wildcat. But that site that you, and now Trust Me have posted have more than one with an F for a grade. I would take it that means it's a bad thing when it comes to gun control!


dang, another post without doucumentation. :D

[Swampthing]

Banning BB Guns


11/13/2006

You might think that Massachusetts can't become any more anti-gun.

Well, think again. Now there's a proposal to ban BB guns in Massachusetts. Complete with a BB gun amnesty period. And a BB gun buyback program.

Millions of kids have grown up with BB and pellet guns. I don't know of any that were turned into criminals by their Daisy Red Ryder BB gun.

But that doesn't matter to the politicians in Massachusetts. They think BB guns are bad, and they want them outlawed.

In fact, these politicians not only plan to ban BB guns in Massachusetts, they're sending letters to Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island to ask those states to do the same.

In the words of one of these anti-gun politicians, their goal is to make "New England an area free of pellet guns and BB guns."

'Scuse me, but isn't Massachusetts the same home state of some of the bravest patriots to fight in the Revolutionary War? Paul Revere must be rolling over in his grave right now.

In Massachusetts, they've gone from the cradle of liberty to a state that treats its residents like children.

http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=64

[grouseguy]

The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America is not about hunting or self defense from criminals. It is about arming the people against the possibility of a tyrannical government and the dissolution of our rights.
If they do try to take our guns, it is time for a revolution, time to use our guns and time to fight the tyrants. I only hope there are enough true patriots, both democrat and republican, civilian and military, that have he backbone to do what needs to be done.
Freedom is what makes this country great. If we lose our freedom, we have lost our country.

Never surrender your firearms.


While I agree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendments original purpose, I don't agree that it is any longer valid due to changes in technology. In the late 1700's the government and the citizens both had basically the same arms...muzzleloading, single shot firearms. Today, I have several high powered rifles, some nice shotguns, and even a couple of muzzleloaders, most of which are vastly superior to anything the 18th century citizen would own, while the government has tanks, missles, rpg's, planes, helo's, etc. A group of 18th century citizens could make a realistic stand against a similar size of governmental troops, but 21st century citizens, while better armed than their ancestors, could not make a realistic stand against governmental forces even with vastly superior numbers. Times have simply changed to the point that the 2nd Amendment no longer provides protection from government tyranny.

[grouser68]

dang, another post without doucumentation. :D
- Anti Gun Republicans -


Sources: recorded votes in the United States House of Representatives, United States Senate and other legislative bodies, see Gun Owners of America Congressional Gun Votes (http://www.gunowners.org/cgv.htm) and Gun Owners of America State Alerts. (http://www.gunowners.org/statetb.htm) See also GOA House Rating for the 107th Congress (http://www.gunowners.org/107hrat.htm) , GOA Senate Ratings for the 107th Congress, (http://www.gunowners.org/107srat.htm) and GOA 2002 Congressional Candidates Ratings, (http://www.gunowners.org/votetb02.htm) lastly see the Gun Owners of America Congressional Vote Archive, 104th - 106th Congresses. (http://www.gunowners.org/105archive.htm)

(http://www.gunowners.org/cgv.htm)Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL)
2002 Cong. Candidate- State Rep. Jeb Bradley (NH)
Rep. Tom Davis (VA)
Rep. Michael Ferguson (NJ)
(http://www.gunowners.org/cgv.htm)Former Rep. Bob Franks (NJ)
Rep. Greg Ganske (IA)
Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (MD)
Rep. James C. Greenwood (PA)
Rep. Stephen Horn (CA)
Rep. Nancy Johnson (CT)
Rep. Peter King (NY)
Rep. James A. Leach (IA)
Rep. Constance A. Morella (MD)
Rep. Doug Ose (CA)
Rep. Marge Roukema (NJ)
Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (FL)
Former Rep. Dick Zimmer (NJ)

US Senator Lincoln Chafee (RI)
US Senator Peter Fitzgerald (IL)
US Senator Arlen Specter (PA)

Is that enough for you Multi, or do you need more? Brady Bill,as GG said, I believe the Brady's were repubs! Easy to find Multi, just go goggle "Republicans for gun control" . Seems your party too has their work cut out for them on gun control!

[trust me]

Jim Brady was indeed a Republican until wife Sarah started the Brady Campaign. At that point, when they got no support from their party, they switched over to Democrat and have supported them ever since, making a lot of campaign stops in the urban areas where their message gets more traction. We don't see much of them in Kentucky for obvious reasons.

For those under 30, Jim Brady was President Ronald Reagan's press secretary during his first term. When the Hinckley assassination attempt occurred in 82 (81?) Jim Brady took a 22 in the forehead and suffered extensive and permanent paralysis as a result. After his limited recovery, he and his wife started the campaign to ban many and restrict all handguns. They started the Brady Campaign and also work closely with Handgun Control, Incorporated (HCI). These groups work as lobbyists, just as the NRA does, to garner support for their cause among the voters and among elected officials.

I can't find any record that the Brady's were active one way or the other on gun control until after his injury in the assassination attempt.

[grouseguy]

What, if any, is your objection to the NRA?

I'm truly not trying to stir the pot. I just want to know where you are coming from.

Personally, I used to belong to the NRA for several years, but started noticing a definite movement of their position away from hunters and in favor of the "gun nut" extremists (that descriptive comment is not meant to inflame, it's just the best description I could come up with). Also, it became more obvious that the NRA was more interested in creating controversy, which they used to drum up more donations, than actually addressing the issue and seeking a suitable compromise. Think about it this way...what would happen to the NRA if a solution were reached and there was no longer a threat to the 2nd Amendment? The NRA prospers and gains more influence by creating and perpetuating controversy, and they use fear and overstatement as their primary tactic. It's like most other things in politics/government...you should always follow the money if you want to find the truth, and in this case...for the money to continue flowing, there must be continued controversy.

[daking]

Yes, grouser, those guys are anti-gun republicans. Given the opportunity, I'd vote against the entire lot of them.

No grouseguy, you're wrong. There is no "technically" The constitution has the plain meaning of its words.

The NRA is a reflection of what its members want. If you don't want to join, don't. We'll still protect your rights, even though you won't protect them yourself. We're nice like that.

[Multidigits]

While I agree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendments original purpose, I don't agree that it is any longer valid due to changes in technology. In the late 1700's the government and the citizens both had basically the same arms...muzzleloading, single shot firearms. Today, I have several high powered rifles, some nice shotguns, and even a couple of muzzleloaders, most of which are vastly superior to anything the 18th century citizen would own, while the government has tanks, missles, rpg's, planes, helo's, etc. A group of 18th century citizens could make a realistic stand against a similar size of governmental troops, but 21st century citizens, while better armed than their ancestors, could not make a realistic stand against governmental forces even with vastly superior numbers. Times have simply changed to the point that the 2nd Amendment no longer provides protection from government tyranny.


The Government is always going to have superior weapons. No way to compete with tanks, and nuclear weapons, billion dollar planes and other arms. You argument is not correct. The 2nd Amendment stands on it's own, as do the other amendments. Nothing in any of define what arms, or what freedom of speech, or what ever. If it says arms, it means arms, period.

Thankfully we have the NRA that realizes the difference and what the 2nd says. If not, the Democrats would have already banned most semi-auto shotguns and a lot of other useful guns that hunters use.

[trust me]

grouseguy,
You are right, of course, in stating that NRA follows the money. They hype and inflame, and the firebrands come to front and center. I don't deny that and don't defend it, I just acknowledge its presence.

But I don't see much chance that the NRA will ever be unneeded. I think that the NRA acts like, perhaps, a police officer with a peevish personality. You may not like him, but he does a darn good job protecting your interests, and it's in our best interest to overlook his flaws and appreciate the job he does.

John Bolton recently threw the UN into a conniption when he flat out said, "We won't discuss any form of global small arms control." Of course, when one of the Big 5 says no, then it doesn't happen. The rest of the UN views us as uncivilized savages, cowboys of days gone by, obsessed with guns and violence. Alarmingly, there is a faction in the US that agrees, and wants to see all private ownership banned. Call them the loopy fringe element, but when George Soros starts throwing his money around, they can come off the fringe real quick and become relevant. Add in the Hollywood crowd with their name recognition, and you can start to have effect with voters and politicians alike.

That's why we need the NRA and their sometimes obnoxious spokesmen, to get the word out on a national level and counteract some of the garbage that we individuals can't fight. I can choose to turn off the tube when Rosie O'Donnell is on, but the rest of the world may listen to her. It takes an organization like the NRA to muster up the media volume to counteract her. Little old "me" can't do it, but millions like me, each putting their 25 bucks together, can.

[gwhilikerz]

I think the only thing I have against the nra is their spending member's money to buy things like the Whitington Center or whatever it is called. Nothing more than a hunting club for the biggies in nra and their cronies. my opinion

[Bray]

Some of you can act so childish. "I am a Republican the only good Democrat is an unelected one." "I am a democrat, all republicans are BAD". The fact is is that there are some people who want to take your guns away. There are some people who want to outlaw hunting. Some of these people are republicans some of them are democrats. The fact that some of will go so far as to defend some of your party memebers despite the fact they want to take away what you love so much blows my mind. If your party has braiwashed you so much that you would vote for someone who is anti-gun (it doesn't matter what party, you all have shown that there are republicans and democrats both) then our political system has issues.

I don't think that anyone needs to own an assault rifle or a sawed off shotgun. But I will be damned if I support someone who wants to restrict that right. That is your GOD GIVEN FREEDOM. That is what this nation was founded on. If you aren't hurting anyone elses than that's your business. When you committ a crime that's when you are prosecuted, not the other way around. I don't think that a soccer mom needs a 400 horsepower 4 wheel drive that guzzles the gas and has more emmisions than a semi, but that's her freedom of choice.

The NRA is a great organization. And Grouser I agree with you, they have shifted to the right a little more than needed. But I don't see any other organization that is willing to do what they do.

[grouseguy]

trust me,

I think we've both done a good job of expressing and defending our respective positions. Neither of us are likely to change their stance, but possibly we had an effect on some unknown lurker. At least we gave them a view of the issue from two opposing positions. You and I agree on most things, but even on the things where we differ, I enjoy debating the issues with you. I've said my peace, so I'll leave this thread, but I want to thank you for the well articulated exchange.

[Swampthing]

Gun control is a global movement. It worked so well in the UK they are about to ban kitchen knives.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=579102005

Dr Hern said: "Many assaults are impulsive, often triggered by alcohol or misuse of other drugs, and the long pointed kitchen knife is an easily available, potentially lethal weapon, particularly in the domestic setting. Government action to ban the sale of such knives would drastically reduce their availability over the course of a few years."
Scotland's most respected pathologist, Professor Anthony Busuttil, said: "All the statistics show that for the last 15 years, victims of stabbings, whether fatal or seriously injured, are caused by kitchen knives such as steak knives rather than knives bought specially for the purpose."

[Wildcat]

While I agree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendments original purpose, I don't agree that it is any longer valid due to changes in technology. In the late 1700's the government and the citizens both had basically the same arms...muzzleloading, single shot firearms. Today, I have several high powered rifles, some nice shotguns, and even a couple of muzzleloaders, most of which are vastly superior to anything the 18th century citizen would own, while the government has tanks, missles, rpg's, planes, helo's, etc. A group of 18th century citizens could make a realistic stand against a similar size of governmental troops, but 21st century citizens, while better armed than their ancestors, could not make a realistic stand against governmental forces even with vastly superior numbers. Times have simply changed to the point that the 2nd Amendment no longer provides protection from government tyranny.

This is a perfect example of the difference between a liberal and a conservative.

The liberal philosophy is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should change with the times and mood of the people.

Conservatives on the other hand want to keep it as was writen by the Founding Fathers, they want to stick with tradition. That's where the word conservative comes from. As hunters we should understand the word conserve, meaning to presereve. Like to conserve wildlife, forests, etc.

The thing is our Founding Fathers made a way to change anything in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The only way to change an Amendment is with another Amendment and it has to go though all the same things to pass as the others.

If people beleive an Amendment is outdated then there is a way to change it but it takes more than a simple majority to do it, much more.

[grouseguy]

This is a perfect example of the difference between a liberal and a conservative.

The liberal philosophy is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should change with the times and mood of the people.

Conservatives on the other hand want to keep it as was writen by the Founding Fathers, they want to stick with tradition. That's where the word conservative comes from. As hunters we should understand the word conserve, meaning to presereve. Like to conserve wildlife, forests, etc.

The thing is our Founding Fathers made a way to change anything in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The only way to change an Amendment is with another Amendment and it has to go though all the same things to pass as the others.

If people beleive an Amendment is outdated then there is a way to change it but it takes more than a simple majority to do it, much more.

It appears you continue to argue against points that were never made.:rolleyes:

[Wildcat]

You posted ," I don't agree that it is any longer valid "

To me the Second Amendment is as valid as the day it first passed.

I was pointing out the difference in policial philosophy.

[grouseguy]

You posted ," I don't agree that it is any longer valid "

To me the Second Amendment is as valid as the day it first passed.

I was pointing out the difference in policial philosophy.

Wildcat,

You are the king of overstatement and misstatement. If you aren't preaching your "politics of fear", you're taking someone's words out of context to further your agenda, but all you are doing is costing yourself what minimal credibility you have remaining.

If you will reread the post in question...the word "valid" clearly refers to Carl's contention that the 2nd Amendment provides the citizenry with the opportunity to overthrow a tyrannical government, which was part of the original intent, but is no longer realistic given the advancements in technology. My post had NOTHING to do with the overall "validity" of the 2nd Amendment, as you have tried to mischaracterize.

[Wildcat]

I read all the posts and kept up with it. Like someone else posted the Second Amendment does not say anything about technology. Also like someone else post, I say your argument is not correct, so I'm not alone in the argument just like you are not either.

The only thing you are putting up is the govt using tanks, missles, rpg's, planes against their own citizens.

Sure against a tank I can't win but I'll die trying if the govt ever tries to go against their citizens. That doesn't mean the Second Amendment is not valid.

It seems to me some on here don't have that much of a problem with the govt going arned against it's citizens.

Go back and re-read my post about the difference between the liberals and conservatives. I guess some can't stand it that the First Amendment covers us all and not just a chosen few.

[Multidigits]

I wasn't aware that our Constitution was out dated or effected by technology???

[grouser68]

I wasn't aware that our Constitution was out dated or effected by technology???

It would appear you also did'nt know that many in your own party were anti-gun!:D

What every member on here does'nt know.......would probably be amazing!

[Multidigits]

It would appear you also did'nt know that many in your own party were anti-gun!:D

What every member on here does'nt know.......would probably be amazing!


There are no anti-gun Republicans. You haven't posted any evidence other than a few individual votes. A Republican that might have voted on a gun bill with Democrats is a far cry from the likes of the Pelosi's and Kennedy's out there.

[grouser68]

There are no anti-gun Republicans. You haven't posted any evidence other than a few individual votes. A Republican that might have voted on a gun bill with Democrats is a far cry from the likes of the Pelosi's and Kennedy's out there.

Sorry to burst your bubble Multi! Thats not a voting list......those really ARE anti-gun republicans! Now, you prove me wrong! Nevermind, you can't, I just felt like using your favorite line!:D

[Wildcat]

I for one do not doubt there are some republicans that vote for gun control but you will never find a gun control law passed by a republican controled Congress.

Of the 4 major parties that held power though American History, Federalist, Whig, Democrat and Republican, only ONE party has ever passed gun control laws. The Democrat Party.

[Rabbit Runner]

Guys, the last 3 posts smell of little common sense talk.Where I would call it a little gloom n doom is........Bush ran on banning gay marriage and overturning roe vs wade.in his 8 years with the last 6 having FULL control, he has'nt accomplished a thing. It has actually gotten worse! How many years do you think it would take to overturn the second amendment? 50?100? I say never! It cannot be done her in America! I stress again, we are Americans, not Canadians, or Australians!

Now, who in his right mind thinks any lawmaker is gonna overturn the second amendment?The second amendment, more of an American tradition than any other. Sure there will always be those that get loud, and a few that try, but can anyone honestly see America thumbing our noses at our forefathers and abolishing the second amendment?I can NEVER see that happening! Keep listening to ol' Hannity,let him and his kind lead you around by the nose and they will have you believing the sky is falling!

I for one could care less about the lions roar,but I will watch him, and just before he pounces I will take him down!

Let em roar!
I believe trust me's reply is the best i have heard so far. I dont believe we should do nothing just because we think it could never happen.

Our forefathers founded this country and made it very clear that it was a christian nation, and they intended it to stay that way. I would say we have "thumbed our noses at our forefathers" as far as that goes, because this nation has turned its back on christianity for the sake of not wanting to hurt anyones feelings. So maybe not doing away with the second ammendment but they could try to re-interpret and say the average joe does not need to own a gun because that was not the inent of our forefathers.

[grouser68]

I for one do not doubt there are some republicans that vote for gun control but you will never find a gun control law passed by a republican controled Congress.

Of the 4 major parties that held power though American History, Federalist, Whig, Democrat and Republican, only ONE party has ever passed gun control laws. The Democrat Party.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/powers/powers2.html

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm


Wildcat, I hope these sites will stop your Democrat bashing. Republicans have introduced and passed many gun control laws. I am not posting these for argument sake, posting so that all will know the truth.

The republican controlled congress have passed many of the gun control measures that have been posted on this thread and complained about.


Since 1964 every single federal gun control law was passed by a Democrat controlled Congress. 100%FALSE!

[Art]

There's a HUGE difference in many gun control laws IMO. Some are good and some are bad. I think any law that makes it harder for a criminal to get a gun but still allows an honest man to do as he wishes is a good gun law. Like background checks- good law. Banning Hi-cap magazines-stupid.

I think that more "stupid" gun control laws are on the way. As soon as Pelosi can stop the riff in her own party that she is causing she will jerk the troops out of Iraq in a heartbeat. Once she does that then I'm sure she will turn her attention to gun control at some point. This is why I have been at a loss as to why some of you guys support a San Francisco liberal, especially if you are a hunter from a southern state. I think this lady is going to test the faith of many Democrats after a while, everyone except Grouser that is.:D

[Wildcat]

Grouser,

I'm glad your doing some research but you need to read them before posting.

The first link you posted shows only TWO bills passed.

The first one was that 6 Republicans sided with ALL the Democrats forcing a tie allowing VP Al Gore to vote and brake the tie.

The next one was a bill to require tha pawn shops to do the same paperwork as all the sporting goods stores does when selling firearms.

The UN bills had nothing to do with gun control, go to the Congressional Record and read the bill itself. Michael Powers put that in himself.

As for the second link, a big THANK YOU!!!!

Read that link, heck it PROVES what I've been saying the past several months about the election.

It shows the gun control push doesn't come from the grassroots but from the top. If you'll go back and re-read some of my posts you'll see I said several times that some of my best friends are democrats and I hunt & camp with them, they are strong supporters of the Second Amendment BUT they follow their party. Same with local democrat Congressmen and Senators, they miight support the Second Amendment but will follow the party. Look at the top 25 Democrat Party leaders and their RECORD, they are 100% anti-gun and the rest of the party will follow them.

I'll give you that one that Al Gore helped push though and change my singature. Do you like this better? ;)

By the way, your statement, "The republican controlled congress have passed many of the gun control measures that have been posted on this thread and complained about." is 100% FALSE!

[grouser68]

Grouser,

I'm glad your doing some research but you need to read them before posting.

The first link you posted shows only TWO bills passed.

The first one was that 6 Republicans sided with ALL the Democrats forcing a tie allowing VP Al Gore to vote and brake the tie.

The next one was a bill to require tha pawn shops to do the same paperwork as all the sporting goods stores does when selling firearms.

The UN bills had nothing to do with gun control, go to the Congressional Record and read the bill itself. Michael Powers put that in himself.

As for the second link, a big THANK YOU!!!!

Read that link, heck it PROVES what I've been saying the past several months about the election.

It shows the gun control push doesn't come from the grassroots but from the top. If you'll go back and re-read some of my posts you'll see I said several times that some of my best friends are democrats and I hunt & camp with them, they are strong supporters of the Second Amendment BUT they follow their party. Same with local democrat Congressmen and Senators, they miight support the Second Amendment but will follow the party. Look at the top 25 Democrat Party leaders and their RECORD, they are 100% anti-gun and the rest of the party will follow them.

I'll give you that one that Al Gore helped push though and change my singature. Do you like this better? ;)

By the way, your statement, "The republican controlled congress have passed many of the gun control measures that have been posted on this thread and complained about." is 100% FALSE!

Sorry Wildcat, that dog just will not hunt! You did'nt take the time to post it all, I am positive those that take the time to read those will see the truth. Whitewashing it wont work here! The facts are out there and they appear to be to ugly, keep your head in the sand.

Art, splitting hairs? I proved Wildcats claims of no republican controlled congress has ever passed any gun control to be false, period!

I wont argue this point further, no need when you have the facts to back you up.

[Wildcat]

Sorry Grouser but it's YOU that didn't read it.

In YOUR first link there were ONLY TWO (2) bills passed, the rest DID NOT pass so they NEVER became law.

It PROVES that YOUR statement "The republican controlled congress have passed many of the gun control measures that have been posted on this thread and complained about." is 100% FALSE!

Please leave the links up for all to read so they can see for themselves. If you don't want to then I'll re-post the links.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/powers/powers2.html

[grouseguy]

Wildcat,

You are the king of overstatement and misstatement. If you aren't preaching your "politics of fear", you're taking someone's words out of context to further your agenda, but all you are doing is costing yourself what minimal credibility you have remaining.



You just keep proving and reproving the above point. Thank You!!!

[Wildcat]

You just keep proving and reproving the above point. Thank You!!!

I have to hand it to you. You LOVE to make personal attacks against me.

I made a post about a STATEMENT YOU made and pointed out the difference between liberal and conservative then you make a personal attack against me. And now you bring it up again. I guess that's all you have.

But I also guess it proves something I've always said, some on here are allowed to break the rules while the rest of us are forced to follow them.

[Carl]

Its a rough job but someone has to try to show these poor lost souls the errors of their ways.. Lets face it debating most liberals is like target practice, it’s easy to shoot down an unarmed can. Fun to do but not much sport.;)

I have to hand it to you. You LOVE to make personal attacks against me.

I made a post about a STATEMENT YOU made and pointed out the difference between liberal and conservative then you make a personal attack against me. And now you bring it up again. I guess that's all you have.

But I also guess it proves something I've always said, some on here are allowed to break the rules while the rest of us are forced to follow them.

[Carl]

If they try to take our guns, I don't think they will be using planes or choppers to drop bombs on our houses. It will be UN police and they will be going door to door. There will be much resistance and there will be many "sheep", who will lay down. I will never surrender my firearms as many others will not. I will consider them as "the enemy" and I will take as many of them as I can. "We can win"
While I agree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendments original purpose, I don't agree that it is any longer valid due to changes in technology. In the late 1700's the government and the citizens both had basically the same arms...muzzleloading, single shot firearms. Today, I have several high powered rifles, some nice shotguns, and even a couple of muzzleloaders, most of which are vastly superior to anything the 18th century citizen would own, while the government has tanks, missles, rpg's, planes, helo's, etc. A group of 18th century citizens could make a realistic stand against a similar size of governmental troops, but 21st century citizens, while better armed than their ancestors, could not make a realistic stand against governmental forces even with vastly superior numbers. Times have simply changed to the point that the 2nd Amendment no longer provides protection from government tyranny.

[slickhead slayer]

http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/powers/powers2.html

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm


Wildcat, I hope these sites will stop your Democrat bashing. Republicans have introduced and passed many gun control laws. I am not posting these for argument sake, posting so that all will know the truth.

Since 1964 every single federal gun control law was passed by a Democrat controlled Congress. 100%FALSE!

I have read both post, and I am not seeing it. Can you tell me what gun control legislation was passed under a Repub controlled congress? Because I am not seeing it.

[john4]

How does the potential Republican presidential nomine Rudy Guiliani feel about gun control?

[maxcam]

How does the potential Republican presidential nomine Rudy Guiliani feel about gun control?

He thinks all responsible citizens should be able to own a gun.....Why do you ask?

[trust me]

He thinks all responsible citizens should be able to own a gun.....Why do you ask?

We better research that one, Maxcam. The City of New York, under Rudy's leadership, was one of the first cities to jump on the "sue the manufacturer" bandwagon. It didn't fully succeed, but it did put some gun manufacturers out of business and stressed others enough (Colt, S&W) that they made concessions to get out of the threat.

[maxcam]

We better research that one, Maxcam. The City of New York, under Rudy's leadership, was one of the first cities to jump on the "sue the manufacturer" bandwagon. It didn't fully succeed, but it did put some gun manufacturers out of business and stressed others enough (Colt, S&W) that they made concessions to get out of the threat.

I have researched it.....Rudy is in favor of a gun owners liscensing program.....Much like a hunters education card, where one shows the ability and capablity to own a firearm.

Not that he is my first choice as president. I am hoping that Newt runs in 08!

[Swampthing]

Rudy's own words.


All gun owners should pass written test

I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we’re talking about all dangerous weapons.
Source: Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000

http://ontheissues.org/Domestic/Rudy_Giuliani_Gun_Control.htm

[maxcam]

Rudy's own words.



http://ontheissues.org/Domestic/Rudy_Giuliani_Gun_Control.htm

Yep that is exactly what I read......If you are responsible you can own a gun.....

[grouser68]

I have read both post, and I am not seeing it. Can you tell me what gun control legislation was passed under a Repub controlled congress? Because I am not seeing it.



<FONT face=Georgia>HATCH-CRAIG GUN CONTROL AMENDMENT (May 14, 1999) -<B>

Go to the first site and look for that header Slick! There are more! Hope this clears any confusion!

[BiggerBuck]

Could you fine sportsmen please tell me how this new Congress is going to take our guns away.
Who are these special interest groups that is going to influence this agenda? what are the specifics of what they want to pass?
Are they going to take my Browning so I cant get a deer this year or are they going to take my assault rifle that I am saving for my last day of work?

[Art]

I for one doubt that our guns will be taken away anytime soon but I do expect some stupid laws in the next couple of years. I just hope it doesn't effect the honest gun owner/ collector.

[Multidigits]

<FONT face=Georgia>HATCH-CRAIG GUN CONTROL AMENDMENT (May 14, 1999) -<B>

Go to the first site and look for that header Slick! There are more! Hope this clears any confusion!


Hatch-Craig was not a gun control bill. It was a better option than what was planned at the time by thr Dems and Lutenberg. The main part of the bill required back ground checks for gun show sales, which at the time was the target of the Dems to close the so called "gun show loophole".

[grouser68]

Hatch-Craig was not a gun control bill. It was a better option than what was planned at the time by thr Dems and Lutenberg. The main part of the bill required back ground checks for gun show sales, which at the time was the target of the Dems to close the so called "gun show loophole".

I did'nt know congress passed "options". I wonder if they will ever pass an "option" on min. wage, roe vs wade, or any other subject?

Too funny Multi! Made my morning!:D

[Multidigits]

I did'nt know congress passed "options". I wonder if they will ever pass an "option" on min. wage, roe vs wade, or any other subject?

Too funny Multi! Made my morning!:D


Again, another Dem who can't handle the truth. You posted a link to a bill that was not gun control in any way. The bill that it made go away would have been. All lawmakers have options when a bill come up, but the Dems most always choose the anti-gun option 9 out of 10 times. You have the option to look up the bill and it's history and why it was passed, assuming you can handle the truth.

[grouser68]

Again, another Dem who can't handle the truth. You posted a link to a bill that was not gun control in any way. The bill that it made go away would have been. All lawmakers have options when a bill come up, but the Dems most always choose the anti-gun option 9 out of 10 times. You have the option to look up the bill and it's history and why it was passed, assuming you can handle the truth.


<FONT face=Georgia> HATCH-CRAIG GUN CONTROL AMENDMENT (May 14, 1999) -<B>

<FONT face=Georgia color=#000000>In response to the Lautenberg amendment and its harsh gun control provisions, Senate Republicans presented a less stringent version. The amendment offered by Orrin Hatch (R–UT) and Larry Craig (R-ID) passed by a 48-47 vote.

[grouser68]

<FONT face=Georgia> HATCH-CRAIG GUN CONTROL AMENDMENT (May 14, 1999) -<B>

<FONT face=Georgia color=#000000>In response to the Lautenberg amendment and its harsh gun control provisions, Senate Republicans presented a less stringent version. The amendment offered by Orrin Hatch (R–UT) and Larry Craig (R-ID) passed by a 48-47 vote.


Living in denial that your party MAKES, and PASSES gun control seems to be the actual truth you can't seem to handle!

[Wildcat]

Could you fine sportsmen please tell me how this new Congress is going to take our guns away.
Who are these special interest groups that is going to influence this agenda? what are the specifics of what they want to pass?
Are they going to take my Browning so I cant get a deer this year or are they going to take my assault rifle that I am saving for my last day of work?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No where does the Second Amendment say anything about hunting. Does that mean it's illegal to have a DEER HUNTING RIFLE? NO. It covers all firearms. You want to pick and choose which firearms we can have. One question. What give YOU the right to choose which firearms I can own??

For years we've fought tooth and nail for our firearm rights, we've won most of the battles but have lost a few. There are over 20,000 firearms laws across the nation federal, state and local. All of them either ban some firearms out right or set limits on certain firearms.

Here are some of the groups and their supporters.


http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=14


http://www.pinkpistols.org/antigun.html

http://www.temple.edu/finaleig2004/links/antigun.htm

http://www.georgiapacking.org/links_antigun.php

[Multidigits]

Living in denial that your party MAKES, and PASSES gun control seems to be the actual truth you can't seem to handle!


Compared to the Lautenberg option it was a lesser of the two. Required some common sense on the Republicans. The requirement in the bill was to fix an over site in the current provision of the Gun Control Act in place. That's the truth and I can handle it. If someone sells a gun at a gun show, they need to follow the procedure that us FFL dealers follow in our shops. That's not gun control, but common sense.

[Swampthing]

Yep that is exactly what I read......If you are responsible you can own a gun.....

The 2nd amendment says nothing about requiring a special license to own a weapon. In essence this amounts to further government approval before one could make a firearms purchase, then maybe ammo, spare parts, etc. etc.

[Auk1124]

The 2nd amendment says nothing about requiring a special license to own a weapon. In essence this amounts to further government approval before one could make a firearms purchase, then maybe ammo, spare parts, etc. etc.

Yup, it is scary. Sounds like a cop-out to me. Republicans should be as wary of their national leaders as Democrats are of theirs. Neither parties' hands are clean when it comes to gun control.

[trust me]

If you have to pass a test to qualify for the 2nd Amendment rights, then you may have to pass a test to qualify for your 1st Amendment rights as well. If we start reserving rights for the smart, or the rich, then what have we become?

I wish our Founding Fathers could come back to life and slap a few folks in Washington around.

[Multidigits]

If you have to pass a test to qualify for the 2nd Amendment rights, then you may have to pass a test to qualify for your 1st Amendment rights as well. If we start reserving rights for the smart, or the rich, then what have we become?

I wish our Founding Fathers could come back to life and slap a few folks in Washington around.

It's not a test, it's just certifacation that your legal to buy and possess a firearm. Most states that have the system are under Democratic control, such as Illinois. NYC would be as close to that as possible. You need what is called a Firearms Owner I. D. card to carry in Illinois. No reasonthe dealer should have to verify that a person is legal to be served. If he has a current card, then he's good to go. Indiana also has something similar inplace for handguns.

[aceoky]

The Second Amendment will always be there and it would take a civil war to repeal it.



Umm........not "exactly".......

The U.S. President can suspend any and all laws (even more true due to the Partriot Act).........due to his interpretation(s) of "national security" or "a threat to the U.S.) (ONLY the Pres can make that distinction, I have to wonder HOW Hillary would interpret a "threat" of gun ownership) :mad: .........now it's supposed to be "temporary", but as I recall, Hitler's power was also supposed to be temporary........AND also remember the US supreme court has the "duty to interpret what "is" IS , IF they were to state that it ONLY applies to for example the National Guard and NOT the citizens (doesn't matter WE all know better) then guess what the "highest court in the land has decreed what the 2nd Amendment actually means, And that IS what it means legally)

To "assume" anything is "written in stone" thus "untouchable" is a dangerous idea......imho, not saying it will happen any time soon, but it most certainly could and can......:eek:

[BiggerBuck]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No where does the Second Amendment say anything about hunting. Does that mean it's illegal to have a DEER HUNTING RIFLE? NO. It covers all firearms. You want to pick and choose which firearms we can have. One question. What give YOU the right to choose which firearms I can own??

For years we've fought tooth and nail for our firearm rights, we've won most of the battles but have lost a few. There are over 20,000 firearms laws across the nation federal, state and local. All of them either ban some firearms out right or set limits on certain firearms.

Here are some of the groups and their supporters.


http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=14


http://www.pinkpistols.org/antigun.html

http://www.temple.edu/finaleig2004/links/antigun.htm

http://www.georgiapacking.org/links_antigun.php

I read alot of these sites and I cant believe that I was a member of the YMCA as a child and I went to a Methodist Church! These are the organizations that are against our rights to bear arms according to the NRA:
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association of Suicidology
American Ethical Union
Americans for Democratic Action
American Jewish Committee
American Jewish Congress
American Psychiatric Association
American Public Health Association
Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America
The Bible Holiness Movement, International
B`nai B`rith Women
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Central Conference of American Rabbis
Child Welfare League
Church of the Brethren, Washington Office
Citizens For Safety
The Communitarian Network
The Council of The Great City Schools
The DISARM Education Fund
Fellowship Reconciliation
Friends Committee on National Legislation
International Ladies Garment Workers Union
Jesuit Conference Office of Social Ministries
Jewish Community Center Association
Loretto Community
Mennonite Central Comm., DC Office
National Association of Social Workers
National Council of Jewish Women, Inc.
National Council of Negro Women, Inc.
National Urban League, Inc.
North American Federation of Temple Youth
Pan American Trauma Association
Presbyterian Church USA,
Social Justice and Peacemaking Ministry Unit
Union of American Hebrew Congregations,
Religious Action Center
Unitarian Universalist Association
United Church of Christ, Office for Church and Society
United Federation of Teachers
United Methodist Church, Board of Church and Society
U.S. Conference of Mayors
U.S. Student Association
United Synagogues of America
Women`s League for Conservative Judaism
Women`s National Democratic Club
YWCA of the U.S.A.

These groups do not want me to defend myself so they all must be evil! We can start with the Churches and work our way to the YMCA!!!
Who is with me??

[Wildcat]

Every single one of them and much more has PUBLICLY stated they want all guns outlawed. Look them up and you will see for your self.

Why are you calling them evil? Nobody else is. if you think this is a joke then you really need to start looking up and learning about gun control more.

Hours after Columbine the first people to speak up for stronger firearm control was the churches.

[BiggerBuck]

I know!
We need to unit against the Churches and the Teachers and all others that are against our freedom to have guns and shoot eachother!
Lets go get em!

[BiggerBuck]

I dont think that this is a joke.
I just thought that it was the Dems that were against guns until I entered the sites that you suggested and I found out that all of these groups that I trusted are against guns too.
Thanks for the info. I'll never look at the church the same again since I know what they are up to.

[Art]

Who is with me??

I AM!!! And I'm dead serious. I don't give a damn about any of those groups, if they are against me then I'm going to return the favor. None of them have ever done anything for me.

[yote hunter]

I dont think that this is a joke.
I just thought that it was the Dems that were against guns until I entered the sites that you suggested and I found out that all of these groups that I trusted are against guns too.
Thanks for the info. I'll never look at the church the same again since I know what they are up to.
i would bet $1000 dollars that 95%of the groups you listeds members are dems.

[grouseguy]

I was a member of the YMCA as a child and I went to a Methodist Church!

Radical!!!;) :rolleyes: :cool: :p

[grouseguy]

i would bet $1000 dollars that 95%of the groups you listeds members are dems.

American Jewish Committee
American Jewish Congress
Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America
The Bible Holiness Movement, International
B`nai B`rith Women
Central Conference of American Rabbis
Church of the Brethren, Washington Office
Fellowship Reconciliation
Jesuit Conference Office of Social Ministries
Jewish Community Center Association
Mennonite Central Comm., DC Office
National Council of Jewish Women, Inc.
North American Federation of Temple Youth
Presbyterian Church USA,
Union of American Hebrew Congregations,
Religious Action Center
United Church of Christ, Office for Church and Society
United Methodist Church, Board of Church and Society
United Synagogues of America
Women`s League for Conservative Judaism

Yeah, there's some real left wing liberal nut jobs on that list.:rolleyes: Sometime I wonder if some of you guys ever read or think about what you write...FUNNY stuff.:p

[aceoky]

Yet another second amendment point, anyone remember the UN bill to make us give up our guns? It didn't get very far (that time) since they knew GW wouldn't allow it, plus with Rep control in place it was an exercise imho, to just get it out there and debated............NOW consider with the "right" US President in place, and with the right majority also in power, WHAT then just might happen?

WE (more correctly the people WE elect) have given up most of our National soveringty as it is, World Courts, fighting under the UN flag/uniform etc. it's likely a matter of time when some decide WE all have to follow what the UN wants "for our own good", IF that takes place look for big changes ,among the first of which will very likely be the Bill of Rights being on the "endangered species list" to our own downfall.....

Who would have ever thought NAFTA had a real chance, that our own government would create a system for OUR jobs to be "outsourced" to others right under our own noses???

[yote hunter]

American Jewish Committee(jewish liberals)
American Jewish Congress(jewish liberals)
Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America(black liberals)
The Bible Holiness Movement, International(?)
B`nai B`rith Women(persian liberal women)
Central Conference of American Rabbis(jewish liberals)
Church of the Brethren, Washington Office(any church in DC probably black liberals)
Fellowship Reconciliation(?)
Jesuit Conference Office of Social Ministries(catholic liberals)
Jewish Community Center Association(more jewish liberals)
Mennonite Central Comm., DC Office(only beleive in flintlocks)
National Council of Jewish Women, Inc.(more jewish liberals)
North American Federation of Temple Youth(young jewish liberals)
Presbyterian Church USA,(white ultra liberals)
Union of American Hebrew Congregations,(hmm M.J.L)
Religious Action Center(more black liberals)
United Church of Christ, Office for Church and Society(white liberals)
United Methodist Church, Board of Church and Society(white liberals)
United Synagogues of America(M.J.L)
Women`s League for Conservative Judaism(more liberal jewish women)

Yeah, there's some real left wing liberal nut jobs on that list.:rolleyes: Sometime I wonder if some of you guys ever read or think about what you write...FUNNY stuff.:p
as i said allmost all dems.

[john4]

"Who would have ever thought NAFTA had a real chance, that our own government would create a system for OUR jobs to be "outsourced" to others right under our own noses???"


Don't forget about CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) which passed recently under a Republican President, House, and Senate. The votes went straight down party lines and passed narrowly, thanks to a Republican majority.

[grouser68]

as i said allmost all dems.

Your comments on those groups were not only totally wrong, they were racial.Without doing any research you labeled those groups.You had better check, the evangelical groups are known to be right wing radicals!I think you labeled them as ultra white liberals, they probably would'nt appriciate that.

[yote hunter]

Your comments on those groups were not only totally wrong, they were racial.Without doing any research you labeled those groups.You had better check, the evangelical groups are known to be right wing radicals!I think you labeled them as ultra white liberals, they probably would'nt appriciate that.
maybe you better check your facts bud you posted them.and i woundnt be calling any body racist you dont know me at all.

[yote hunter]

"Who would have ever thought NAFTA had a real chance, that our own government would create a system for OUR jobs to be "outsourced" to others right under our own noses???"


Don't forget about CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) which passed recently under a Republican President, House, and Senate. The votes went straight down party lines and passed narrowly, thanks to a Republican majority.
just a little history lesson it was a republican house and a democratic senate and democratic president that gave us nafta.thats when i left the democratic party for good.the dems were supposed to be on the side of the working people but proved to me they were not.there holy trinity now is abortion,gays,and gun controll.

[grouser68]

maybe you better check your facts bud you posted them.and i woundnt be calling any body racist you dont know me at all.

1.I did the research, one of the black liberals groups you pointed out was actually a multi racially diversified group in Wa.

2.True, I do not know you, but with this comment, it is nothing shy of racial profiling.



Church of the Brethren, Washington Office(any church in DC probably black liberals)


3. Another failure to research, grouseGUY made that post, I am grouseR68

[yote hunter]

1.I did the research, one of the black liberals groups you pointed out was actually a multi racially diversified group in Wa.

2.True, I do not know you, but with this comment, it is nothing shy of racial profiling.



Church of the Brethren, Washington Office(any church in DC probably black liberals)


3. Another failure to research, grouseGUY made that post, I am grouseR68
F.Y.I if racial profilling didnt work the cops and the feds woundnt use it.and if your losing your argument and you are a liberal you can always call the other guy a racist,fashist,bigot or other derogatory names.please for my own good point out anything that are racist in my post and explain why it is racist.

[aceoky]

"Who would have ever thought NAFTA had a real chance, that our own government would create a system for OUR jobs to be "outsourced" to others right under our own noses???"


Don't forget about CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) which passed recently under a Republican President, House, and Senate. The votes went straight down party lines and passed narrowly, thanks to a Republican majority.

'tis true, also NAFTA was first started under Bush #1, then Clinton finished making it happen!!

[yote hunter]

'tis true, also NAFTA was first started under Bush #1, then Clinton finished making it happen!!
clinton the dem for the working man didn't have to sign it.its called a veto.

[yote hunter]

clinton the dem for the working man didn't have to sign it.its called a veto.
sorry ateup we have kinda drifted off subject.

[aceoky]

clinton the dem for the working man didn't have to sign it.its called a veto.

What's "odd" is that ole "slick Willy" was against almost every other single thing Bush #1 did, other than NAFTA!!

Besides I'm only pointing out, that both parties had a huge hand in that one...

[john4]

What's "odd" is that ole "slick Willy" was against almost every other single thing Bush #1 did, other than NAFTA!!

Besides I'm only pointing out, that both parties had a huge hand in that one...

Your right, both parties did play a role in NAFTA. What most surprised me is that even after seeing how NAFTA played out, the Republicans still pushed for CAFTA. CAFTA passed straight down party lines, the Repubs "yea" and the Dems "nay".

[maxcam]

Your right, both parties did play a role in NAFTA. What most surprised me is that even after seeing how NAFTA played out, the Republicans still pushed for CAFTA. CAFTA passed straight down party lines, the Repubs "yea" and the Dems "nay".

So what are you so pissed about? It cost the Dems more union votes? Come up here and find out how the union is costing Ford up here in Louisville......The big 3 are hemoraging from the deferred cost of pensions and your crying about CAFTA......Sorry but you can only beat the dog so long before he bites!

[john4]

So what are you so pissed about? It cost the Dems more union votes? Come up here and find out how the union is costing Ford up here in Louisville......The big 3 are hemoraging from the deferred cost of pensions and your crying about CAFTA......Sorry but you can only beat the dog so long before he bites!

It cost the Dems union votes??? What are you talking about? Do you have any idea what CAFTA is? I am against CAFTA cause of it's affect on the small farmer, not whatever you are talking about with Unions, Ford, and whatever is happening up in Louisville.