The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 28, 2012, 09:02 AM   #26
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,089
Quote:
This isn't a Red or Blue issue, and we do ourselves a disservice by assuming such.
Bingo:

At least two R members of the US house changed their minds and voted for the AWB after appeals from Ronald Reagan, the "gunowners champion": The house minority leader voted for the AWB.

In 2004 the US senate voted to extend the AWB as part of another bill. Ten R senators voted in favor of extending the AWB: Six D senators voted against extending the AWB. The vote became mute when the cover bill was voted down.
thallub is offline  
Old July 28, 2012, 12:25 PM   #27
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,539
Uncle Billy, the Parks carry deal cost him no votes and benefitted only a very few people. IOW, innocuous and made him no enemies. The Brady Bunch has little audience, generally.

My understanding is that as both a state senator and as a US senator, he voted in favor of all gun control bills that came up for a vote.

And some internal emails from DOJ to or from BATFE did indeed mention the political capital which could be had from making it look like Evil Dealers and gun shows let Terrible Guns go to Mexico. That's been known for quite some time.

People focus too much on the apparent views of the Main Man, and don't look at the views of appointees such as Holder. Holder's anti-gun views had to be well-known to Obama before the appointment. Easy enough for Obama to be out front making happy noises, while Holder et al work behind the scene. Ancient political game.
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old July 28, 2012, 02:24 PM   #28
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
"There are a great number of Democrats who are quite supportive of the 2nd Amendment..."
Better put, a small minority of democrats support gun rights. Thanks to the mods for cleaning up the Pew Research polling data in the other thread showing that 2/3 democrats and 3/4 of self-described liberals are anti-gun rights. That is just a fact beyond dispute. I know we we are not supposed to look at the facts, but it is a fact that if there were no RHINOs or liberals in the House, Senate or the White House, we would have more gun rights. So lets work with the 1/3 of democrats who are pro-gun and make our world a better place. Nice to have a thread where we can at least discuss the facts. BTW, the RHINOs and democrats have every right to try and supress my rights. In our Republic, votes have consequences.
jmortimer is offline  
Old July 28, 2012, 06:58 PM   #29
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,686
Given the large population of the USA, a 1/3 of a group can be an absolute large number of folks.

Let all pro-gun people work together on that issue. Very simple.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old July 28, 2012, 08:50 PM   #30
Master Blaster 2
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2011
Posts: 895
It is all a ruse.
Master Blaster 2 is offline  
Old July 28, 2012, 10:01 PM   #31
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,322
We're drifting a bit too far into partisan politics, and we don't want that. Let's stay on the subject of the legislation at hand.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 29, 2012, 12:15 AM   #32
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
It won't pass in the house so any ban would have to be by way of regulation from executive branch. As noted above it just won't get to the president's desk.
jmortimer is offline  
Old July 29, 2012, 10:24 AM   #33
Master Blaster 2
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2011
Posts: 895
New York Hawaii, and California residence can't have over 10 round mags anyways thus opinion some.
Master Blaster 2 is offline  
Old July 29, 2012, 12:02 PM   #34
2amencw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2008
Posts: 143
Magazine Ban

Regardless of whether or not we think this amendment will be passed we as citizens need to write to our legislators and give our opinion. It is our Right and DUTY to make our voices heard by those we elect to represent us. All the Patriots who have made the ultimate sacrifice to secure our rights deserve no less than our active participation in the legislative process. Thank You
2amencw is offline  
Old July 29, 2012, 01:44 PM   #35
Master Blaster 2
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2011
Posts: 895
new on Drudge
Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scali...lated-20120729
Master Blaster 2 is offline  
Old July 29, 2012, 06:05 PM   #36
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,675
What Scalia actually said that the reporter parsed in a way calculated to create maximum controversy and thereby draw eyes to the story:

"When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. "We'll see," he said. '"It will have to be decided."

As an originalist scholar, Scalia looks to the text of the Constitution—which confirms the right to bear arms—but also the context of 18th-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne," he told host Chris Wallace."

Pretty much the same thing he said in the majority Heller decision.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10070 seconds with 9 queries