Guns are violent???

[JBusch8899]

Like I said, I have no "evidence" to believe they aren't being truthful in their summary (i originally wrote "reason" in my post but changed it for obvious reasons). That link was just a quick and ready example, not the final authority. If you have any information that would lead me to think otherwise then post it up so that I can become more educated on the subject. I'm more than willing to listen to FACTUAL counter-arguments. If not then my judgement stands.

I've read the last draft of of the previous version of the bill. It was a disaster. I scanned the bill that became law. The changes were only variations upon a theme.

The incredible amount of governmental intrusion boggles the mind. Increased governmental regulation will not lower healthcare costs, and will not increase healthcare services. Those who have a belief otherwise, should prepare themselves for a rude disappointment.

Instead of addressing the rationale for increasing healthcare costs, the law instead, addresses the costs themselves.

While business may have to comply with the law, people within healthcare occupations will protest with their feet. All one is required to do, is look to the Canadian system of healthcare to view the very real and current crisis of the shortage of people within needed healthcare occupations.

If anyone believes that the U.S. healthcare system in crisis now, just wait until this healthcare law becomes effective.

My suggestion is to read the law, instead of relying on someone else's interpretation of the same.

 

[erbo12]

I wonder where our freedoms would be today if it were'nt for guns,even the idiots who say there shouldn't be guns in this country who enjoy the freedoms.

 

[finity]

I've read the last draft of of the previous version of the bill. It was a disaster. I scanned the bill that became law. The changes were only variations upon a theme.

The incredible amount of governmental intrusion boggles the mind. Increased governmental regulation will not lower healthcare costs, and will not increase healthcare services. Those who have a belief otherwise, should prepare themselves for a rude disappointment.

Instead of addressing the rationale for increasing healthcare costs, the law instead, addresses the costs themselves.

While business may have to comply with the law, people within healthcare occupations will protest with their feet. All one is required to do, is look to the Canadian system of healthcare to view the very real and current crisis of the shortage of people within needed healthcare occupations.

If anyone believes that the U.S. healthcare system in crisis now, just wait until this healthcare law becomes effective.

My suggestion is to read the law, instead of relying on someone else's interpretation of the same.

Still no evidence.

Just the typical vague references to the law & hyperbole.

So what part, specifically, will make these people leave healthcare? Where exactly will they go? There are few countries (that aren't third world cess-pools that people don't want to live in anyway - at least people who have achoice) that don't already have socialized medicine or at least some kind of cost controls.

Even with those price controls in place the health care industry makes HUGE amounts of profit each year. They aren't in trouble - anymore than the rest of us at least & probably WAY better off than most. I'm not going to shed a tear when Thurston & Lovey can't continue to sip the most expensive champagne on their 100 foot yacht (if you don't get the reference ask someone over 40) while John & Jane Doe die because they can't afford health care.

The only crisis we have in health care is fact that many (most?) people can't afford it.

Every law passed by ANY government ANYWHERE is a form of government intrusion. It's the nature of the beast. Unless you want anarchy, some government intrusion is necessary & legitimate, especially when large numbers of lives are at stake.

So what exactly, in your opinion, should have been done to lower health care costs &/or provide coverage for more people who previously couldn't afford it?

 

[JBusch8899]

Still no evidence.

Just the typical vague references to the law & hyperbole.

So what part, specifically, will make these people leave healthcare? Where exactly will they go? There are few countries (that aren't third world cess-pools that people don't want to live in anyway - at least people who have achoice) that don't already have socialized medicine or at least some kind of cost controls.

Even with those price controls in place the health care industry makes HUGE amounts of profit each year. They aren't in trouble - anymore than the rest of us at least & probably WAY better off than most. I'm not going to shed a tear when Thurston & Lovey can't continue to sip the most expensive champagne on their 100 foot yacht (if you don't get the reference ask someone over 40) while John & Jane Doe die because they can't afford health care.

The only crisis we have in health care is fact that many (most?) people can't afford it.

Every law passed by ANY government ANYWHERE is a form of government intrusion. It's the nature of the beast. Unless you want anarchy, some government intrusion is necessary & legitimate, especially when large numbers of lives are at stake.

So what exactly, in your opinion, should have been done to lower health care costs &/or provide coverage for more people who previously couldn't afford it?

I'm not debating the rationale for government. We are in complete agreement, stipulating your concurrence that too much government, or misdirected government is harmful as well. I'm also not debating the amounts of excessive greed within not only the field of healthcare, but of virtually every other industry; again, stipulated upon your concurrence, that profits are reasonable and necessary for any business, including healthcare, to survive. After all, a pill may only cost 5 cents to manufacture, but the R&D to produce such a drug, may have cost $500,000,000 USD.

After spending a majority of my professional career in healthcare, government and industry regulation has me wanting to get out of the profession altogether. I'm tired of know-it-all bureaucrats, enforcing ridiculous laws for my profession, that do nothing but harm people within a profession that is supposed to heal, or otherwise help people. After just getting past accountants making healthcare decisions from insurance companies, now it will be accountants from the government. Is there any difference?

Additionally, when someone has $300,000 in student loans for an undergraduate and medical school education, the thought of not making enough to live semi comfortably because of such obligations, is discouraging.

However, if you wish to have real answers, I would restate my previous commentary and suggest that you read the actual law itself. When you complete same, then we can have a rational and informed discussion of the respective merits and disparities of the law.

 

[groovatron]

snip.Did I go over the top when I pointed out maybe we shouldn't get rid of the guns but should get rid of the people??????? Duce<><

Sounds like some of us are a weentsie bit too obsessed with their guns.....it's like something my shut in Aunt would say about her cats.

Just sayin'......

 

[oldbikelvr]

My views on social issues, including spending (with some limitations), are why I have generally considered myself a liberal. But (discounting social spending) libertarian is more technically correct, I guess. I liked Ron Paul (mostly) & voted for Perot, if that means anything. The vote for Perot could just mean that I'm cazy, though.



I don't think that, when the rubber hits the road, the anti-gun mentality is as strong with liberals as it once was.

Guns sales & gun licences have sky-rocketed. Not all of that can be accounted for by conservatives. We have a Democratic congress & prsident but there has been no overt signs of any new gun-control measures put in place. As a matter of fact we can now legally carry in National Parks, which was a law enacted by this congress/administration. Before it was just an administrative rule that could be changed on a whim by the the head of the NP service.

I'm not trying to say that all the Democratic leadership is pro-gun (or that their aren't a good amout of anti-gun liberals, either) but I think they realize that their base wouldn't be as willing to accept any more infringements on their gun rights. I think you can probably thank the Bush administration policies for that. Those 8 years really opened up the eyes of a lot of the previously anti-gun liberals to the dangers of an un-opposed government running rough-shod over our civil liberties.

 

[JBusch8899]

I don't think that, when the rubber hits the road, the anti-gun mentality is as strong with liberals as it once was.

I'll somewhat agree with your point on this matter, but for an entirely different rationale.

The progressive crowd that had pervaded both the GOP and the Democratic Party, has also realized that overt gun control results in a political backlash from voters, despite the dogma of it's false reasoning.

Of course, such hyperbole is almost always accepted by the population in larger, urban geographies; that include Southern California, Chicagoland, and a large part of the Northeastern continental United States. I am, however, still at a loss how Wisconsin still tolerates the restrictions upon concealed carry. It must be too much cheese and bad beer; I'll not make any judgments of the Packers.

 

[finity]

The progressive crowd that had pervaded both the GOP and the Democratic Party, has also realized that overt gun control results in a political backlash from voters, despite the dogma of it's false reasoning.

Those 'voters' you speak of ARE the progressives (aka liberals) not just the office-holders. The elected officials of those parties know that they will be put out of office by those same voters if they try to infringe too much on the 2A. Not all Democrats/progessives in office are anti-gun. How do you think those people got elected in the first place?

Of course, such hyperbole is almost always accepted by the population in larger, urban geographies; that include Southern California, Chicagoland, and a large part of the Northeastern continental United States. I am, however, still at a loss how Wisconsin still tolerates the restrictions upon concealed carry. It must be too much cheese and bad beer; I'll not make any judgments of the Packers.

In the early days of the gun-control movement the majority of people in the US believed that the problems of violent crime & 'gangsters' could be controlled by removing guns from common circulation. The claim has been shown to be false. That's why people on the progressive side of the spectrum aren't as gung-ho for gun-control as they once were. They are seeing that it is a failed idea.

Couple that with the rights trampling that went on in the Bush years & you see a sea-change in peoples views of gun-rights.

Even in the larger cities people are starting to finally see that gun-control doesn't work. Why do you think we've seen 3 stories in as many weeks out of Chicago of people using 'illegal' handguns to defend themselves.

I guess I should say 'especially in larger cities' since that is where the majority of crime is concentrated. It's not like we have that much crime to worry about in Auburn (I know...I'm not saying it's 'safe', just that the odds are a lot less of it happening here than, say, LA)

 

[superstorm]

some people will never understand that once they start taking away your right it will not stop till you have none so take away our guns and see what kind of country you will live in then they will want guns.

 

[JBusch8899]

Those 'voters' you speak of ARE the progressives (aka liberals) not just the office-holders. The elected officials of those parties know that they will be put out of office by those same voters if they try to infringe too much on the 2A.

Save the examples of Kennedy, Feinstein, Metzabaum, Schumer, Lautenberg, Daley, etc., etc., etc.

Not all Democrats/progessives in office are anti-gun. How do you think those people got elected in the first place?

It would be more accurate to state "Democrats/Progressives/Republicans", as there are elected officials of the GOP, that are anti gun, or have strongly supported anti 2A legislation.

Officials in large measure, are elected by special interest and their money, at least initially.

In the early days of the gun-control movement the majority of people in the US believed that the problems of violent crime & 'gangsters' could be controlled by removing guns from common circulation. The claim has been shown to be false.

Agreed. Thus the reason for the NFA, as well as the GCA of 1968.

That's why people on the progressive side of the spectrum aren't as gung-ho for gun-control as they once were. They are seeing that it is a failed idea.

They've seen it so much as a failed idea, that the acts named supra, neither has yet to be repealed. Add to that the provisions of FOPA, and the AWB; failed or not, the agenda is continued to be pushed, quietly.

Couple that with the rights trampling that went on in the Bush years & you see a sea-change in peoples views of gun-rights.

I would quantify it to be more a change in people's view of rights, in general.

Even in the larger cities people are starting to finally see that gun-control doesn't work. Why do you think we've seen 3 stories in as many weeks out of Chicago of people using 'illegal' handguns to defend themselves.

Berhnard Goetz type incidents occur all the time. The media's motivations to reporting such stories has little to do with the values people attribute to gun rights. It does, however, have everything to do with advertising and circulation revenues.

I guess I should say 'especially in larger cities' since that is where the majority of crime is concentrated. It's not like we have that much crime to worry about in Auburn (I know...I'm not saying it's 'safe', just that the odds are a lot less of it happening here than, say, LA)

Crime distribution, per capita, would be a more accurate to utilize when speaking of the disparities between the urban, suburban, and rural areas. Though, I do understand and agree with the spirit in which you state it.

 

[finity]

Save the examples of Kennedy, Feinstein, Metzabaum, Schumer, Lautenberg, Daley, etc., etc., etc.

Yep, & even with those anti-gun leaders in office, a Democratic majority & an anti-gun President there has pretty much been not one peep of more gun-control measures from Congress or the even the President. When, in the beginning, there was talk of a new AWB Pelosi & Reid stated in no uncertain terms that there is no plans to re-instate it & there would be no talks about one at all. Even with those anti-gun leaders in office we've had several pro-gun laws passed (or almost passed, including national reciprocity) in the last couple of years. It sure seems to me that the anti-gun forces on the left are on the run & not just from the conservatives but from pro-gun voters in their own party/political camp.

It would be more accurate to state "Democrats/Progressives/Republicans", as there are elected officials of the GOP, that are anti gun, or have strongly supported anti 2A legislation.

Huh. That's interesting.

How is it that when others (aka conservatives) try to throw the anti-gun moniker solely onto liberals, no one (besides me) mentions the existence of the anti-gun Republicans. But when someone (me) states the fact that the anti-gun ideology of the progressives is waning then all of a sudden that statement has to be minimized by suddenly stating that there are anti-gun Republicans.

There are also anti-gun conservatives. You may not like it but if a person has every belief (besides gun-control) that would make them a conservative then they are conservative. Sarah Brady's husband (yes, THAT Brady) was once in the Reagan adminstration. Every other view they have is conservative. That would make them, by defintion, anti-gun conservatives. John McCain has recieved an F rating on gun issues but I don't doubt his conservative credentials on almost everything else. Neither did most conservatives since he was the guy put up against Obama as the conservatives greatest hope against "socialism".

Even now when someone (besides me) brings those anti-gun Republicans/conservatives up on their own they STILL have to throw ALL progressives into the anti-gun category with the anti-gun Republicans & Democrats.

NOT ALL PROGRESSIVES/LIBERALS ARE ANTI-GUN & THE NUMBER SEEMS TO BE LOWERING ALL THE TIME. There is that plain enough for you.

They've seen it so much as a failed idea, that the acts named supra, neither has yet to be repealed. Add to that the provisions of FOPA, and the AWB; failed or not, the agenda is continued to be pushed, quietly.

You know as well as I (or should) that once a law is passed, unless it has an automatic sunset clause built in, it's very hard to get it repealed. Those laws are still on the books not necessarily because people think they work so much as it being the nature of our legislative process.

Tell me why, since we had all those pro-gun Republicans in office & a pro-gun President (yeah the one that sent a federal attorney to argue AGAINST Heller ) from 2000 to 2006, if it's so easy to do, weren't those failed laws repealed then? I mean, you guys had six years to get it done with a solid majority & still couldn't do it. Why not?

I would quantify it to be more a change in people's view of rights, in general.

Ok, but that doesn't change the gist of my statements or position: that liberals (or even the population as a whole) are not as anti-gun as they once were.

You (& the other conservatives here) sure are putting forth a lot of time & effort to try to argue against a statement that you guys should welcome. If, of course, your goal is really promoting the 2A & not just bashing & discrediting 'liberals'. Methinks that the latter is more likely than the former. How sad.

Berhnard Goetz type incidents occur all the time. The media's motivations to reporting such stories has little to do with the values people attribute to gun rights. It does, however, have everything to do with advertising and circulation revenues.

But the media does follow the popular trend in order to sell more papers/get more viewers & there has definitely been a trend in the media toward more positive reporting of gun owners/incidents. You can draw whatever conclusions you want from that.

 

[JBusch8899]

Yep, & even with those anti-gun leaders in office, a Democratic majority & an anti-gun President there has pretty much been not one peep of more gun-control measures from Congress or the even the President. When, in the beginning, there was talk of a new AWB Pelosi & Reid stated in no uncertain terms that there is no plans to re-instate it & there would be no talks about one at all. Even with those anti-gun leaders in office we've had several pro-gun laws passed (or almost passed, including national reciprocity) in the last couple of years. It sure seems to me that the anti-gun forces on the left are on the run & not just from the conservatives but from pro-gun voters in their own party/political camp.

I disagree with your statement, "one peep". Such provisions are continuously and deeply written into other laws. The GOA, as well as the NRA, and a whole host of other organizations, continually report upon these matters.

Huh. That's interesting.

How is it that when others (aka conservatives) try to throw the anti-gun moniker solely onto liberals, no one (besides me) mentions the existence of the anti-gun Republicans. But when someone (me) states the fact that the anti-gun ideology of the progressives is waning then all of a sudden that statement has to be minimized by suddenly stating that there are anti-gun Republicans.

I cannot speak of others, nor their motivations. I do know, however, that whole number of the members of the GOP have been complicit in such matters.

There are also anti-gun conservatives. You may not like it but if a person has every belief (besides gun-control) that would make them a conservative then they are conservative. Sarah Brady's husband (yes, THAT Brady) was once in the Reagan adminstration. Every other view they have is conservative. That would make them, by defintion, anti-gun conservatives. John McCain has recieved an F rating on gun issues but I don't doubt his conservative credentials on almost everything else. Neither did most conservatives since he was the guy put up against Obama as the conservatives greatest hope against "socialism".

I'm old enough to remember Jim Brady, Press Secretary to Reagan, as I was in high school when the shooting incident that nearly killed him occurred. I am not familiar with Sarah Brady's political stance upon positions than other of gun control, and personally, I couldn't care less. McCain, IMO, is a disgrace to the title he proclaims as a "Reagan Republican". From his actions, I suspect he is little more than a version of the on again, off again, Arlen Spector.

Even now when someone (besides me) brings those anti-gun Republicans/conservatives up on their own they STILL have to throw ALL progressives into the anti-gun category with the anti-gun Republicans & Democrats.

Probably due to the fact that they all deserve each other.

NOT ALL PROGRESSIVES/LIBERALS ARE ANTI-GUN & THE NUMBER SEEMS TO BE LOWERING ALL THE TIME. There is that plain enough for you.

Without the sarcasm, yes. However, I don't see Progressive/Liberals/Democrats/Republicans looking to (again) repeal anti gun laws. Just because one or more aren't supporting new legislation, doesn't mean that those one or more, aren't anti gun.

You know as well as I (or should) that once a law is passed, unless it has an automatic sunset clause built in, it's very hard to get it repealed. Those laws are still on the books not necessarily because people think they work so much as it being the nature of our legislative process.

Those laws are still effective, because special interests would burn those individuals in effigy, if they did. The pro gun interest should push for those laws to be repealed, for fear of a bigger fire.

Tell me why, since we had all those pro-gun Republicans in office & a pro-gun President (yeah the one that sent a federal attorney to argue AGAINST Heller ) from 2000 to 2006, if it's so easy to do, weren't those failed laws repealed then? I mean, you guys had six years to get it done with a solid majority & still couldn't do it. Why not?

See above response.

Ok, but that doesn't change the gist of my statements or position: that liberals (or even the population as a whole) are not as anti-gun as they once were.

Even make-up will make an ugly women look more presentable. It still doesn't change the fact she is still ugly. (Sexist remarks no withstanding, it was a metaphorical argument, so please nobody get their panties in a bind. )

You (& the other conservatives here) sure are putting forth a lot of time & effort to try to argue against a statement that you guys should welcome. If, of course, your goal is really promoting the 2A & not just bashing & discrediting 'liberals'. Methinks that the latter is more likely than the former. How sad.

I'm deeply concerned if you believe that I'm "bashing" you, or your beliefs. I thought that I was presenting a rationale argument. If however, you believe that I am doing so, perhaps your presence would be more welcome on another forum, such as the 'Democratic Underground'?

You are, however, welcome to stay. Though, you might occasionally encounter, as I do, those who disagree with my position. It's not bashing, merely disagreement.

But the media does follow the popular trend in order to sell more papers/get more viewers & there has definitely been a trend in the media toward more positive reporting of gun owners/incidents. You can draw whatever conclusions you want from that.

As most media sources have demonstrated a propensity to make the "news", anything they wish; I'm not encouraged by much of anything that any source has to report. This is the reason why I choose to, "read, but verify".

 

[finity]

I disagree with your statement, "one peep". Such provisions are continuously and deeply written into other laws. The GOA, as well as the NRA, and a whole host of other organizations, continually report upon these matters.

I say "one peep", you say "continuously". I apologize for my party in the war of absolutes. There may have been a few attempts at anti-gun laws being passed but there are VERY few (a small handful?) that have been successful. The majority of the big laws that have been passed related to guns have been positive.

I'll have to dig it out but I think it was last months American Rifleman had an editorial stating how successful the NRA has been passing laws with current legislature.

I'm old enough to remember Jim Brady, Press Secretary to Reagan, as I was in high school when the shooting incident that nearly killed him occurred. I am not familiar with Sarah Brady's political stance upon positions than other of gun control, and personally, I couldn't care less. McCain, IMO, is a disgrace to the title he proclaims as a "Reagan Republican". From his actions, I suspect he is little more than a version of the on again, off again, Arlen Spector.

You see, that's what seems to happen with conservatives. They elect a person to office (or try to) & then they turn around & try to claim that he's not a real conservative when he doesn't follow every one of their agenda items EVEN THOUGH they knew from the beginning how that person has voted historically & they put them in office ANYWAY.

However, I don't see Progressive/Liberals/Democrats/Republicans looking to (again) repeal anti gun laws. Just because one or more aren't supporting new legislation, doesn't mean that those one or more, aren't anti gun.

It looks like you might be one of those who think that if someone supports any laws at all dealing with firearms then they are "anti-gun". Anti-gun to me (& I think to most reasonable people) means those who want to ban all civilian possession of firearms. If you aren't for the complete banning of all civilian firearms but support SOME restrictions on possession/carry your not anti-gun just not 100% pro-gun. The world isn't as black & white as you seem to be making it.

Even make-up will make an ugly women look more presentable. It still doesn't change the fact she is still ugly. (Sexist remarks no withstanding, it was a metaphorical argument, so please nobody get their panties in a bind. )

You are being intellectually dishonest if you can't even bring yourself to admit that not all liberals are anti-gun & that there is (even slightly) a trend away from the anti-gun ideology among progressives.

I'm deeply concerned if you believe that I'm "bashing" you, or your beliefs. I thought that I was presenting a rationale argument. If however, you believe that I am doing so, perhaps your presence would be more welcome on another forum, such as the 'Democratic Underground'?

You are, however, welcome to stay. Though, you might occasionally encounter, as I do, those who disagree with my position. It's not bashing, merely disagreement.

First, you need to pay attention around here a little more often. It's rare to read a thread in which someone doesn't throw a jab at "liberals". Just because you are blind to it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I'm also not saying specifically that in this thread you have bashed liberals, though it has come close. I seem to recall other threads where you have. If I'm incorrect I apologoze but there are a majority of the conservatives here who make a habit out of bashing, not using "rational argument".

Rationality is in the eye of the beholder. You seem to completely deny the basic premise that (as stated above) "not all liberals are anti-gun & that there is (even slightly) a trend away from the anti-gun ideology among progressives". That's not rational.

I have no problem with disagreement & I'm not so thin-skinned as to call all disagreements as "bashing". I welcome lively debate & discussion.

Second, thank you for being so gracious in your invitation for me to stay but the last I checked you were in no position to extend that offer or ask me to leave.

 

[JBusch8899]

I say "one peep", you say "continuously". I apologize for my party in the war of absolutes. There may have been a few attempts at anti-gun laws being passed but there are VERY few (a small handful?) that have been successful. The majority of the big laws that have been passed related to guns have been positive.

I'll have to dig it out but I think it was last months American Rifleman had an editorial stating how successful the NRA has been passing laws with current legislature.

I'm quite confident that the NRA has been effective in supporting laws favorable to gun owners. However, many executive actions taken, have not required a legislation per se, but had the effect of law. Additionally, court decision from a judge legislating from the bench, have had similar effect.

There's an old phrase that states, "Justice delayed, is justice denied." John Donne might have paraphrased a response to such, by writing, "Any man's right infringed, diminishes me because I am too am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. . . ."

You see, that's what seems to happen with conservatives. They elect a person to office (or try to) & then they turn around & try to claim that he's not a real conservative when he doesn't follow every one of their agenda items EVEN THOUGH they knew from the beginning how that person has voted historically & they put them in office ANYWAY.

I let it slide before, but have I admitted to being a conservative? In some matters, I imagine I am conservative, and others, quite liberal.

However, Brady was not elected to any office. At least none that I am aware.

It looks like you might be one of those who think that if someone supports any laws at all dealing with firearms then they are "anti-gun". Anti-gun to me (& I think to most reasonable people) means those who want to ban all civilian possession of firearms. If you aren't for the complete banning of all civilian firearms but support SOME restrictions on possession/carry your not anti-gun just not 100% pro-gun. The world isn't as black & white as you seem to be making it.

Banning firearms to the general citizenry isn't the only method to being anti 2A. The late Senator Daniel Moynihan, wanted a 10,000% tax upon ammunition sales, virtually putting the availability of ammunition out of the reach of the average person. NY State has a law, stating that if one is seen by any person deemed to be a mental health professional, for any reason, a compulsory basis to revoke or deny a CCW. As such, I believe that I demonstrated that absolute bans, are not the only method to infringe upon the right.

You are being intellectually dishonest if you can't even bring yourself to admit that not all liberals are anti-gun & that there is (even slightly) a trend away from the anti-gun ideology among progressives.

I never said they were. As a matter of fact, I did answer your question by an affirmative response. I also qualified your remarks to state that a number of non liberals were also anti 2A. Here is the text of such:

Quote:
Originally Posted by finity
NOT ALL PROGRESSIVES/LIBERALS ARE ANTI-GUN & THE NUMBER SEEMS TO BE LOWERING ALL THE TIME. There is that plain enough for you.

And my response to such:
Without the sarcasm, yes. However, I don't see Progressive/Liberals/Democrats/Republicans looking to (again) repeal anti gun laws. Just because one or more aren't supporting new legislation, doesn't mean that those one or more, aren't anti gun.

First, you need to pay attention around here a little more often. It's rare to read a thread in which someone doesn't throw a jab at "liberals". Just because you are blind to it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I cannot speak for others. I can, however, choose to disassociate myself from other's opinions, if I so wish. I occasionally throw a few jabs myself, but don't consider it exclusive to merely the liberal believer.

Rationality is in the eye of the beholder. You seem to completely deny the basic premise that (as stated above) "not all liberals are anti-gun & that there is (even slightly) a trend away from the anti-gun ideology among progressives". That's not rational.

See above statement that I stated that I agreed with your position.

I have no problem with disagreement & I'm not so thin-skinned as to call all disagreements as "bashing". I welcome lively debate & discussion.

Second, thank you for being so gracious in your invitation for me to stay but the last I checked you were in no position to extend that offer or ask me to leave.

Of course I cannot speak for the site ownership or the moderators. However, it was an attempt to convey to you that I welcomed your commentary. While I am aware of those who act to the contrary, please don't lump me in with those that you feel to be disingenuous. I am quite sincere in my statements, save those in purple text or obviously meant to be otherwise sarcastic.

 

[finity]

I'm quite confident that the NRA has been effective in supporting laws favorable to gun owners. However, many executive actions taken, have not required a legislation per se, but had the effect of law. Additionally, court decision from a judge legislating from the bench, have had similar effect.

There's an old phrase that states, "Justice delayed, is justice denied." John Donne might have paraphrased a response to such, by writing, "Any man's right infringed, diminishes me because I am too am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. . . ."

Maybe I've missed something but could you please point me to these "many" executive actions or judicial decisions you claim have infringed on our gun-rights.

I've heard rumors & inuendo but nothing concrete. It's always "he's going to..., there's a good chance of..., they are trying to..."

What EXACTLY has been executively ordered by the Obama administration to restrict gun rights? Which specific court cases have limited the 2A?

Court cases are a little funny when it comes to infringing rights, though. Not all courts affect all people except the SCOTUS. You also have to look at the trend in decisions being made - are the decisions moving toward more gun rights freedoms or less. I think you will see most courts becoming more gun/self-defense friendly, not less.

State & local laws are the same. While there may be hold-outs that still deny basic firearms rights the overall trend has been to restore the 2A not infringe on it.

I let it slide before, but have I admitted to being a conservative? In some matters, I imagine I am conservative, and others, quite liberal.

Fair enough.

However, Brady was not elected to any office. At least none that I am aware.

True but he was appointed by the political rights' golden-boy of conservatism. That should count for something when looking at ideological credentials.

Banning firearms to the general citizenry isn't the only method to being anti 2A. The late Senator Daniel Moynihan, wanted a 10,000% tax upon ammunition sales, virtually putting the availability of ammunition out of the reach of the average person. NY State has a law, stating that if one is seen by any person deemed to be a mental health professional, for any reason, a compulsory basis to revoke or deny a CCW. As such, I believe that I demonstrated that absolute bans, are not the only method to infringe upon the right.

I'm not trying to say that just because someone doesn't use the word "ban" they are pro-2A.

I think you're trying to split hairs. I hope you understand that I wasn't just talking about overt bans but also effective bans as well. There isn't much practical difference between banning guns, banning ammunition for those guns & taxing the guns/ammo out of the ability for people to pay for. I don't consider them any different for "banning" purposes. Please don't insult my intelligence.

Where the mental health issue is involved, there are well meaning people who honestly think that they are doing a good thing by preventing potentially unstable individuals access to firearms. Does that mean that they are anti-gun for everyone else? Not necessarily. I don't agree with their method, however I can see their concern for keeping firearms away from those who don't have the mental capacity to use them responsibly.

To me, I think it is a reasonable infringement to restrict access to firearms for children (under 18, without their parents specific permission) & mentally defective individuals (Do I now also fall under your definition of anti-gun? ). The main problem is to ensure that you don't unecessarily restrict someone who is not a true danger. If you are totally correct about the NY law then I think that it goes too far & there are not enough protections built in to prevent abuse.

Of course I cannot speak for the site ownership or the moderators. However, it was an attempt to convey to you that I welcomed your commentary. While I am aware of those who act to the contrary, please don't lump me in with those that you feel to be disingenuous. I am quite sincere in my statements, save those in purple text or obviously meant to be otherwise sarcastic.

Again, fair enough.

 

[JBusch8899]

Maybe I've missed something but could you please point me to these "many" executive actions or judicial decisions you claim have infringed on our gun-rights.

I know there are more, but two larger ones that I can think, right off the top of my head:

1998: Clinton order to permanently ban importation of > 50 semiautomatic "assault weapons"

1989: George H. W. Bush order banning importation of semiautomatic rifles of certain characteristics.

What EXACTLY has been executively ordered by the Obama administration to restrict gun rights? Which specific court cases have limited the 2A?

While Mr. Obama may not have, at this time, penned his name to an executive order, it's not unreasonable to believe that he is, in fact, anti gun. Source:

Barack Obama on Gun Control

Judicial action that infringe upon 2A rights, occur all the time. As such, the list is entirely too long to list here. However, a quick Google search will provide pages of such instances.

Court cases are a little funny when it comes to infringing rights, though. Not all courts affect all people except the SCOTUS. You also have to look at the trend in decisions being made - are the decisions moving toward more gun rights freedoms or less. I think you will see most courts becoming more gun/self-defense friendly, not less.

Save specific instances of specific judges, to include most instances when the 9th circuit is involved.

State & local laws are the same. While there may be hold-outs that still deny basic firearms rights the overall trend has been to restore the 2A not infringe on it.

Save specific instances of specific localities. Urban areas are generally speaking, less tolerant to such.

True but he was appointed by the political rights' golden-boy of conservatism. That should count for something when looking at ideological credentials.

Of course, Supreme Court Justices Souter and Stevens were nominated by "Conservative" Presidents GHW Bush, and Ford, respectively. I doubt if that would count for anything upon viewing ideological credentials

I think you're trying to split hairs. I hope you understand that I wasn't just talking about overt bans but also effective bans as well. There isn't much practical difference between banning guns, banning ammunition for those guns & taxing the guns/ammo out of the ability for people to pay for. I don't consider them any different for "banning" purposes. Please don't insult my intelligence.

I wasn't attempting to insult you at all. I just wished to clarify that one needn't endorse an outright ban to qualify as anti gun/anti 2A.

......If you are totally correct about the NY law then I think that it goes too far & there are not enough protections built in to prevent abuse.

Unfortunately, NYC controls the political agenda in NYS. Short of downstate falling off into the ocean, the rest of the state is at the mercy of the five ultra-left boroughs.

 

[finity]

I know there are more, but two larger ones that I can think, right off the top of my head:

1998: Clinton order to permanently ban importation of > 50 semiautomatic "assault weapons"

1989: George H. W. Bush order banning importation of semiautomatic rifles of certain characteristics.

Ok I thought we were talking a little more recent history.

While Mr. Obama may not have, at this time, penned his name to an executive order, it's not unreasonable to believe that he is, in fact, anti gun. Source:

Barack Obama on Gun Control

I haven't denied that Obama was anti-gun. That's the reason I've given on numerous occasions for why I didn't vote for him.

But that (along with the two anti-gun EO examples you gave above) does kind of make my point for me.

In 1986 Reagan had no problem signing the GCA 86. In 1989, Bush I had no problem signing his executive order, in 1998 Clinton had no problem signing his executive order. In 1994 the Democratic Congress with the support of a whole bunch of Republicans passed the AWB & the Democrats were promptly shown the door because of it. They all knew or thought that public support was with them when they did it. Clinton found out otherwise in '94 when his Democratic support was voted out.

We now again have a very anti-gun president & all that goes along with it & a (mostly) anti-gun Congressional leadership & yet laws coming out of that Congress & signed by the President dealing with guns have been pro-gun.

When the President's AG started talking about renewing the AWB he was promptly shut-down by none other than Nancy Pelosi, another staunch anti. There's a reason for that. That reason is that they know that if they start passing stronger gun-conrtol laws, they will be out of a job. they remember what happened during Clinton's first term & they aren't going to have it happen again. They aren't concerned how the conservatives feel about them. They already know where they stand with them. They don't want to alienate the center & left & both are moving toward more gun rights as evidenced by the recent surge in gun buys & carry permit applications, not all of which were done by conservatives.