In key contests, Democrats championing gun rights

[Leon]

Dems finally getting the message. Better late than never, I guess

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...ests_democrats_championing_gun_rights/?page=1

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Democratic candidates in key states are embracing gun owners’ rights, winning favor from the National Rifle Association, a lobby that has long been the target of disdain from the party faithful.

In New Hampshire, Representative Paul Hodes, a Democratic Senate candidate, has an “A minus’’ NRA rating, potentially insulating him from progun rights attacks in a state that’s big on hunting and personal liberties.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid, in a bruising campaign for reelection in Nevada, has conservative activists buzzing because the NRA is considering endorsing his reelection.

......

Leon

 

[Double Trouble]

Unfortunately, I don't think they are getting the message as much as they are just saying whatever they think will get them elected. There's little doubt that when they get into office most of them will do whatever they can to restrict gun ownership rights.

Reid is kind of an interesting twist though. Reid is a typical politician that will say/do whatever he thinks will get him re-elected, and at the same time do the opposite when needed. He voted for the Brady bill, and yet has actually been fairly helpful in getting pro-gun rights legislation added to other bills. I'm sure he's looking for NRA help since he's in trouble.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Its just like they all become fiscal conservatives during elections as well.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

You realize that gun banning isn't a Universal issue in the (D) party right? I'm a (D) but I'm fiercely pro gun ownership and 2nd ammendment.

Yes there are many ultra left that want them banned but I'd be surprised if it was even half of the party.

 

[werepossum]

Not too surprising, Dems usually run for election as conservatives in most of the country. 2006 & 2008 were outliers in that the Pubbies had become so rank that almost everywhere the Democrats were free to run as themselves and still get elected. Rest assured that these Democrats will vote exactly like the Democrats we have now.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Unfortunately, I don't think they are getting the message as much as they are just saying whatever they think will get them elected. There's little doubt that when they get into office most of them will do whatever they can to restrict gun ownership rights.

/Thread

 

[Moonbeam]

Not too surprising, Dems usually run for election as conservatives in most of the country. 2006 & 2008 were outliers in that the Pubbies had become so rank that almost everywhere the Democrats were free to run as themselves and still get elected. Rest assured that these Democrats will vote exactly like the Democrats we have now.

The notion that gun ownership is a conservative trait is absurd. Millions of conservatives don't own guns and millions of liberals do. While gun nuttery is a religion that makes a lot of noise, owning guns has nothing at all to do with politics. Some folk like guns. Some like to hunt. Some like the challenge of marksmanship, an Olympic sport, very international and therefore left wing. Some need home protection. Some have them as family heirlooms. None of this has a fucking thing to do with where you fall on the political spectrum. It's just another right wing wedge issue the fucktards drive in their goal to divide America and destroy it as the will-goal of their unconscious self hate.

 

[Moonbeam]

/Thread

When the brain dead hit the wall they go splat.

 

[cubby1223]

Meh. Like Clinton said during the funeral of the late Senator Byrd, Democrats often say things during the campaign process they don't mean, just to get elected.

Just because a candidate says he will be pro-gun rights, does not mean he will vote that way.

 

[nick1985]

When the brain dead hit the wall they go splat.

Why is he brain dead? Look at Sotomayor for example. In her confirmation hearings she said she supported the 2nd amendment. First chance she got to vote against 2nd amendment rights, she did.

You are the brain dead one moonbeam, you dont know one thing about anything.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why is he brain dead? Look at Sotomayor for example. In her confirmation hearings she said she supported the 2nd amendment. First chance she got to vote against 2nd amendment rights, she did.

You are the brain dead one moonbeam, you dont know one thing about anything.

You mean, when the brain dead hit the wall they don't go splat? Come on.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why is he brain dead? Look at Sotomayor for example. In her confirmation hearings she said she supported the 2nd amendment. First chance she got to vote against 2nd amendment rights, she did.

You are the brain dead one moonbeam, you dont know one thing about anything.

Oh and by the way, ignoring for a moment how Sotomayor voted here or there, why she did so, and whether it contradicts something she may or may not have said, she is not a majority of democrats and she wasn't elected. When you go spouting off about somebody not knowing anything, don't do it from a position of total and complete ignorance as to what, in this case, was just said. Thank you, though, for exposing inability to follow a line or reasoning so I could contribute to your better thinking next time.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Why is he brain dead? Look at Sotomayor for example. In her confirmation hearings she said she supported the 2nd amendment. First chance she got to vote against 2nd amendment rights, she did.

You are the brain dead one moonbeam, you dont know one thing about anything.

Pretty much sums it up.
Don't forget, when Obama got the cold shoulder in PA he blamed the people for clinging to their guns and religion.

Dems, like 99.9% of politicians will say anything to get elected and then do exactly the opposite of their campaign promise.
As far as politisizing guns, Republicans didn't do it. Dem's didn't do it. People in the rural areas didn't do it, people in urban areas's didn't do it. It was done by the founders of our nation because it was put in the Constitution that the people could posses arms (weapons/guns).

 

[MovingTarget]

Better nate than lever indeed. Perhaps if the Democrats pushed this a little more, they could regain several Southern states.

 

[Carmen813]

You realize that gun banning isn't a Universal issue in the (D) party right? I'm a (D) but I'm fiercely pro gun ownership and 2nd ammendment.

Yes there are many ultra left that want them banned but I'd be surprised if it was even half of the party.

That's impossible, all Democrats must think the same! If you diverge from the progressive/liberal side of the party on so much as a single issue you are no longer a Democrat!

Oh wait a minute, I'm getting the two parties confused again...

 

[hal2kilo]

You realize that gun banning isn't a Universal issue in the (D) party right? I'm a (D) but I'm fiercely pro gun ownership and 2nd ammendment.

Yes there are many ultra left that want them banned but I'd be surprised if it was even half of the party.

Basically only Democratic big city mayors are the only universal block for gun control left in the Democratic party. The rest of the Democratic party has been silent or pro-gun since before the 2006 election. Otherwise they would not have been elected.

Keep up!

 

[Moonbeam]

Basically only Democratic big city mayors are the only universal block for gun control left in the Democratic party. The rest of the Democratic party has been silent or pro-gun since before the 2006 election. Otherwise they would not have been elected.

Keep up!

Yup, and those mayors are being elected by folk who support gun control on themselves, and their right of self governance is being blocked providing justification for a revolution. The people have a right to the form of government that they think will best effect their own safety and happiness.

 

[nick1985]

Yup, and those mayors are being elected by folk who support gun control on themselves, and their right of self governance is being blocked providing justification for a revolution. The people have a right to the form of government that they think will best effect their own safety and happiness.

Its being blocked by the Constitution, which supercedes city law last time I checked.


Keep trying to justify gun grabbing, it only makes you look more and more silly

 

[Leon]

Yup, and those mayors are being elected by folk who support gun control on themselves, and their right of self governance is being blocked providing justification for a revolution. The people have a right to the form of government that they think will best effect their own safety and happiness.

So, constitution aside, if people, say, choose to kick out darkies and homosexuals (to "ensure their safety and preserve institution of marriage"), would you be happy Moonbeam? After all, the people have a right to the form of government that they think will best effect their own safety and happiness

 

[Throckmorton]

Yup, and those mayors are being elected by folk who support gun control on themselves, and their right of self governance is being blocked providing justification for a revolution. The people have a right to the form of government that they think will best effect their own safety and happiness.

I don't think you can legitimately argue that position. The excessive gun restrictions and gun bans are unjustifiable. They were politically viable before because of emotionalism, but people are more savvy regarding their rights these days. Maybe it's because of lawyer shows, or maybe because of 24 hour news making wonky politics more accessible, but Americans generally now realize that what you feel and want aren't the same as law. Another example would be the expanding support for civil unions and gay marriage.

 

[classy]

Why is he brain dead? Look at Sotomayor for example. In her confirmation hearings she said she supported the 2nd amendment. First chance she got to vote against 2nd amendment rights, she did.

You are the brain dead one moonbeam, you dont know one thing about anything.

Facts on Sotomayor

Sotomayor was thus nominated on November 27, 1991, by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

On June 25, 1997, Sotomayor was nominated by President Bill Clinton to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit...
With complete Democratic support, and support from 25 Republican senators including Judiciary chair Orrin Hatch, Sotomayor was confirmed on October 2, 1998, by a 67–29 vote.

She has had the respect of Republicans since the beginning of her judgeship.



Here is the dissent

http://www.independentamerican.org/2nd-amendment-justices-breyer-ginsburg-and-sotomayor-dissent/

JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, dissenting.

In my view, JUSTICE STEVENS has demonstrated that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “substantive due process” does not include a general right to keep and bear firearms for purposes of private self-defense.



I bolded the self-defense part for good reason. You and several others have floated the idea that gun ownership lowers crime. And you guys have stated many different countries. But in most of those countries, you can not own a gun for self-defense. As a matter of fact in several of those countries you can even buy automatic weapons or carry unless you are part of some type of security. As I have said before the way gun ownership is practiced in this country is not like other countries and the result is a less safe society.


She did not vote against the 2nd Amendment, she voted that is not limitless. Big difference.

 

[werepossum]

Facts on Sotomayor

Sotomayor was thus nominated on November 27, 1991, by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

On June 25, 1997, Sotomayor was nominated by President Bill Clinton to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit...
With complete Democratic support, and support from 25 Republican senators including Judiciary chair Orrin Hatch, Sotomayor was confirmed on October 2, 1998, by a 67–29 vote.

She has had the respect of Republicans since the beginning of her judgeship.



Here is the dissent

http://www.independentamerican.org/2nd-amendment-justices-breyer-ginsburg-and-sotomayor-dissent/

JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, dissenting.

In my view, JUSTICE STEVENS has demonstrated that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “substantive due process” does not include a general right to keep and bear firearms for purposes of private self-defense.



I bolded the self-defense part for good reason. You and several others have floated the idea that gun ownership lowers crime. And you guys have stated many different countries. But in most of those countries, you can not own a gun for self-defense. As a matter of fact in several of those countries you can even buy automatic weapons or carry unless you are part of some type of security. As I have said before the way gun ownership is practiced in this country is not like other countries and the result is a less safe society.


She did not vote against the 2nd Amendment, she voted that is not limitless. Big difference.

Democrats and liberals (but I repeat myself) always have a reason why this particular gun grab/gun ban is absolutely required, sane, and Constitutional, even when they have to campaign as solid supporters of Second Amendment rights. After repeated applications of this pattern, most people get a clue and figure out that what they SAY is not what they DO.

Some folks not gettem clue.

 

[classy]

Democrats and liberals (but I repeat myself) always have a reason why this particular gun grab/gun ban is absolutely required, sane, and Constitutional, even when they have to campaign as solid supporters of Second Amendment rights. After repeated applications of this pattern, most people get a clue and figure out that what they SAY is not what they DO.

Some folks not gettem clue.

Most dems and liberals do support 2nd amendment rights. The right makes the accusations because dems believe in framework that should shape the 2nd amendment. The right wants to have the 2nd Amendment rule without any governship whatsoever. Most people don't have a problem with gun ownership, but instead the types of guns and how they are owned.

 

[Moonbeam]

Its being blocked by the Constitution, which supercedes city law last time I checked.


Keep trying to justify gun grabbing, it only makes you look more and more silly

Exactly. We had English law which superseded colonial law and we fixed it by revolution. We are telling city mayors they can't do the law folk want enacted because all the assholes in the rest of the country who own guns that aren't a problem aren't getting killed themselves. People are made to die because of your religion and they can't even institute law as to them seems best.

 

[hal2kilo]

Exactly. We had English law which superseded colonial law and we fixed it by revolution. We are telling city mayors they can't do the law folk want enacted because all the assholes in the rest of the country who own guns that aren't a problem aren't getting killed themselves. People are made to die because of your religion and they can't even institute law as to them seems best.

Why do these gun debates always remind me of the first Conan the Barbarian movie?

guns=steel? Oh yea I forgot, then snakes