Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Democrats Divided On Gun Legislation

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Sun195, May 14, 2009.

  1. Sun195

    Sun195 Pugetropolis, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,081
    Likes Received:
    375
    I heard this story on NPR Morning Edition today:

     
  2. SheepDog223

    SheepDog223 Salem Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    193
    Quote - Democrats may enjoy a near filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but when it comes to voting on guns, it's a party divided. In February, 22 Senate Democrats joined most Republicans to amend a District of Columbia voting rights bill so that it essentially forbids the city from restricting gun ownership.

    President B.H.O really has brought us together in a bipartisan effort! :thumbup:
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2009
  3. tionico

    tionico Thurston County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    127
    NPR does it again.......
    this from the article:
    And although police officers in Oakland and Pittsburgh have been killed in recent weeks by gunmen armed with assault weapons, Senator Durbin says lawmakers appear unmoved.

    Once more, weapons that are no more "assault weapons" then my old Browning BAR .30-06 or an antique M1 Garand, are mislabeled. No, those shooters did NOT use "assault weapons". They were semi-auto hunting rifles with shorter barrels, and "furniture" attached to them. A Ruger 10/22 is just as much an "assault weapon" as what they used.

    Don't these lot know "assault weapons" are illegal for anyone but law enforcement and military to even possess? WHY do they persist in this campaign of misinformation?

    I recently watched an interview with some retired Los Angeles area LEO. In the twenty six years working in crime in LA County, they had confiscated some incredible number of weapons in gang and drug related activities. In all those tens of thousands of guns confiscated over twenty six years, NOT ONE was full-automatic, not even one was converted to fire in full auto. In Los Angeles County, no less...... and they want me to believe there is a problem with "assault weapons"? What are they smoking? (or what do they think I am smoking?)
     
  4. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,196
    Likes Received:
    4,388
    Let's face it. One portion of congress is representing their constituencies, and voting on gun legislation the way the majority of Americans want them to.
    The other side of congress is once again trying to tell the American people, through their legislative actions, how to think and how to act, and that we need to sacrifice for "the collective."
    Ultimately this carries the limitation of our ability to resist them if they get too overbearing.

    Hence the need for the 2nd Amendment. Gotta love the founding fathers, they saw it coming over 230 years ago.
     
  5. tionico

    tionico Thurston County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    127
    The other side of congress is once again trying to tell the American people, through their legislative actions, how to think and how to act, and that we need to sacrifice for "the collective."
    Ultimately this carries the limitation of our ability to resist them if they get too overbearing.

    Hence the need for the 2nd Amendment. Gotta love the founding fathers, they saw it coming over 230 years ago.


    "they saw it coming"? sort of... by looking backwards. A goodly number of the signers of the Declaration of Independence lived and/or had their businesses in and about Boston, the first place Parliament's stooges tried to disarm the colonists. They'd BEEN there. IN fact, it was the Brits attempting to seize their arms and powder caches at Concord and Lexington that drew the line in the sand... past which the colonises said "enough is enough.. this far and no more" Those shots sounded so loud they were heard in London, Paris, and Calcutta. Most of the remainder of those signers of the Declaration served in the (all volunteer citizen's) army, most lost lands and business to the abuses of the Brits, ALL had a price put on their heads and knew it. And they participated actively and aggressivly as the rag tag lot of farmers with their squirrel guns set the Redcoats in their rightful places over the next few years. They knew all too well that had the British been successful in carrying out their orders to disarm the colonists, it would have been a lost cause. By that time, it had been seen that as the British Empire expanded, it was at the point of a loaded gun, and against an unarmed local populace.

    Problem is, those who would impose their values and thinking on the lot of us against our better judgement know full well that, as long as we remain armed, their cause has no future. So, their highest priority is to disarm the general population. Then, just as with the Brits in Africa, India, the American colonies (Guyana, Belize, Jamaica, Bermuda, etc) the one WITH arms rules, the ones without submit. We all know the litany of political leaders in the twentieth century who first registered, then confiscated, the arms of their intended target, then overran them and subdued them handily.

    Now, none in Congress would admit to having this scheme in mind..... but there are a few who subsribe to it, either subtly or as the stooge of another power.

    OUR business should be about discovering those who consistently vote against the rights God has given to us, and vote those louts out of their cushy "jobs" and positions of power. We've got a few of our own here in Washington and Oregon, perhaps we should start there..... then, carefully evaluate anyone running for national office, same game.