Comments on: Democrats and guns

By: Smacklug

Smacklug — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 04:25:29 +0000

Gildas, you know that HR1022 is from last year, and that it’s dead in committee, right?

Anyways, don’t expect to see any viable anti-gun legislation pass through Congress for the next 2 years at least. Meanwhile, I’d recommend trying to educate more progressive voters about the fact that the 2nd amendment is as important as the rest of the Bill of Rights.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 03:23:06 +0000

Hey, even Paul Helmke’s a Republican.

Do anti-gun R’s seem more vocal than pro-gun D’s to anyone else?

By: Linoge

Linoge — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 01:46:40 +0000

Well, just like firearm rights should not be a bipartisan concept, it would appear as though gun control is not either.

Shiny. Unfortunately, these half-wit sell-outs are predominantly from blue states, so I cannot honestly hope for their eventual loss in an election… This is probably exactly what their constituents want.

By: Gildas

Gildas — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 01:04:03 +0000

Yeah – that’s because the Dems have their own version: HR1022 (67 co-sponsors): http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

By: Ron W

Ron W — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:34:46 +0000

I wonder how many co-sponsors…or even a sponsor, if this weapons ban applied to government officials and agents. You know, according to “the equal protection of the laws” clause in the 14th Amendment.

All of this gun control stuff is inverted. “We the people” have the rights and we only give “delegated powers” to our government employees. Gun control laws should be at least applied to them exactly as they are too us.

Now that would be CHANGE I could believe in!!!

By: Yu-Ain Gonnano

Yu-Ain Gonnano — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:41:09 +0000

Isn’t this the same bill from here.

By: Tomcatshanger

Tomcatshanger — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:31:45 +0000

Yeah, I saw this a while back. It’s a poorly worded version of the 94 ban again.

Republican doesn’t equal pro-gun. There just tends to be more pro-gun Republicans.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:53:43 +0000

Actually, you’ve got four cosponsors plus the sponsor, so that makes five Republicans. But with one exception, they’re blue state Republicans, which I think makes a difference here.

By: mike w.

mike w. — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:17:32 +0000

Castle has always been notoriously anti-gun.

By: Ron W

Ron W — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:33:18 +0000

RINO’s?? Republicans aren’t necessarily pro-Bill of Rights anyway. They CLAIM to have a “big tent”, but it seems that those of us who are pro-2nd Amendment, pro-Bill of Rights and pro-”republican form of governemnt” as prescribed by the Constituion aren’t welcome under the tent…except on Election Day.

Otherwise I suppose these Republicans can help provide cover for Democrats with pro-gun rights constituencies.

By: BobG

BobG — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:12:58 +0000

Hell, most of those politicians with an (R) behind their names are RINOs.

By: ben

ben — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:49:24 +0000

Neither are there any Republicans in the senate from the west coast.

By: N.U.G.U.N.

N.U.G.U.N. — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:31:42 +0000

FYI, Christopher Shays lost his re-election. That guy was just a political hack RINO anyways.

Of course, his loss means there are now no Republicans in Congress from New England.

By: JWilliams

JWilliams — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:18:15 +0000

I read the bill that was submitted and it has a sunset clause (10 years) as well as a review clause (saying that if the bill does not seem to be making a difference, then it can be repealed after 2 years). I think the reason they did that was to put a bill in place that can be overturned more easily than one that Reid or Pelosi might have submitted… that’s all I got!

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:21:04 +0000

It’s called Honesty in Government. The democrats said there wouldn’t be a democrat-sponsored bill in the house this year, and they were telling the TRUTH!

By: Kim du Toit

Kim du Toit — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:06:44 +0000

If you look at the “questions” asked of this piece of junk, ’twas I who posted the one about the Data Quality Act.

In fact, under the DQA’s terms, there is NO statistical underpinning for any kind of assault weapon ban, and I would imagine that another AWB could be challenged in terms of the act.

As for the bill’s sponsors, I don’t understand their logic, as Republicans. Was it to get the AWB renewal out in the open and bottle it up in committee? Kirk (RINO, IL) is not renowned for his pro-gun credentials, by the way.