TexasCHLforum.com

On July 27th, the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on "The Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010." This bill that would exempt firearms from the claims of creditors of people facing bankruptcy. The bill was introduced by Representative John Boccieri (D-OH).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-suga ... 59347.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The bill was introduced by Representative John Boccieri (D-OH)."

D? Dadgum a "D" is doing something to help gun owners? Maybe all isn't lost. YET.

MoJo wrote:"The bill was introduced by Representative John Boccieri (D-OH)."

D? Dadgum a "D" is doing something to help gun owners? Maybe all isn't lost. YET.

Why do you think the NRA is backing Harry Reid?

Not all Democrats are anti-gun. The current Governor of Missouri Jay Nixon is a Democrat and is a VERY big gun rights and hunting advocate. When he was Attorney General he worked to get Concealed Carry passed in the state.

I didn't understand the tenor of some of the statements made in the "news article" until I looked at the name and title of the author.

What a crock!

This should be posted in the "Lies of the Brady Bunch" area.

There are lots of Democrats who are "pro gun" (support the right to keep and bear arms). The stereotype of all dems being "gun-grabbers" is silly and doesn't fit with reality, but when it comes to politics, stereotypes and assumptions are the way lots of people go.

Notice that no anti-gun legislation has passed in the federal government since a democrat took office as president and the democrats took a majority in Congress? Gun legislation has, in fact, strengthened the RTKBA since that time.

I know that might be unsettling for some folks who rabidly cling to their misguided beliefs. Sorry. All that hysteria was for naught.

The party itself is anti second amendment (oh, sure, they'll let you keep a shotgun strictly for hunting purposes, because that's what the second amendment is really about dontyaknow?), just because some party members are for it don't mean squat. Even a broken clock is right twice a day (even that blinking one on your old VCR )

RiverCity.45 wrote:Notice that no anti-gun legislation has passed in the federal government since a democrat took office as president and the democrats took a majority in Congress? Gun legislation has, in fact, strengthened the RTKBA since that time.

I know that might be unsettling for some folks who rabidly cling to their misguided beliefs. Sorry. All that hysteria was for naught.

Woah just a minute....

I know there are pro-2nd Amendment democrats in congress, but they are in the minority of their party, not the majority. The last time we had a democrat in the White House with a democrat majority in both houses of Congress, we got the AWB and a bunch of other misguided firearms related legislation. You point out, rightly so, that democrats haven't passed any gun-grabbing legislation since 2008, but you are staking a claim to an alleged democrat party resolve to protect the RKBA which is simply not true.

The reason they haven't passed further restrictions is because 1993 taught them that it would be political suicide to do so. The reason the very liberal majority of the democrat caucus hasn't forced through more RKBA restrictions is that they have squandered nearly all of the political capital they had back in 2008 on very very unpopular legislation, and in so doing, have put their own reelection prospects at risk. Heck, even liberal political publications and websites are concerned about that possibility, and fervently liberal politicians are now trying to position themselves as "moderates" because they know what is coming in November.... payback being a harsh mistress.

But if you think that the majority of democrats in Congress wouldn't ram through some kind of additional RKBA restrictions if they thought they still had the political capital to do so, then you're being naive. The last time I checked, the "blue dog" democrats who support the RKBA are a minority wing of their party. It is only by virtue of blue dog democrats cooperating with republicans on the RKBA that we don't have further gun restrictions in place.

Republicans are not monolithically perfect on the RKBA either. And a few of them are downright hostile to it. But on balance, if you polled all democrat politicians with the question, "would you support further restrictions on gun rights if there were no political price to pay for it," most would answer in the affirmative. If you asked the exact same question to republicans, most would answer in the negative. Why? Because most democrats do not support the RKBA, and most republicans do.

Right now, the only reason we don't have further restrictions is because the democrat caucus minority of blue dogs, allied with the republican caucus majority who are pro-RKBA, are making sure that it doesn't happen. If there were no more blue dogs in Congress, and democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the executive, what passes for gun rights in California, New York, Illinois and D.C. would be what the national picture would look like. Those are democrat dominated states. The state of the RKBA in those states is what you get when "liberal" democrats have unfettered power to severely curtail the RKBA without a political penalty for doing so. That is the truth, and you can't credibly deny it.

EDITED TO ADD:
You said:

Gun legislation has, in fact, strengthened the RTKBA since that time

Maybe at the state level, but not really at the national level. What we really have on the national level is two very important SCOTUS decisions. IF those decisions had gone against the RKBA (and praise God they didn't), don't imagine for one second that the current majority wouldn't have pounced on that. You wan't proof? Go back and reread all the comments made by democrats after the Heller decision.

RiverCity.45 wrote:There are lots of Democrats who are "pro gun" (support the right to keep and bear arms). The stereotype of all dems being "gun-grabbers" is silly and doesn't fit with reality, but when it comes to politics, stereotypes and assumptions are the way lots of people go.

Notice that no anti-gun legislation has passed in the federal government since a democrat took office as president and the democrats took a majority in Congress? Gun legislation has, in fact, strengthened the RTKBA since that time.

I know that might be unsettling for some folks who rabidly cling to their misguided beliefs. Sorry. All that hysteria was for naught.

Feh. Stereotyping is political sport, and the Democrats are masters of it.

• Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Democrats were opposed to it. Republicans passed it over the veto of the Democrat President.
• Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1871 despite Democrat opposition.
• Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, after Strom Thurmond, a Democrat Senator at the time, set the record for the longest filibuster in the history of the Senate, 24 hours and 18 minutes.
• The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by an overwhelming majority of both houses. That was a reaction to the horrible abuse of blacks by southern Democrats including Bull Connor, George Wallace and Orville Faubus, exposed on national TV for all to see, as well as the murders of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, three civil rights activists, in Mississippi and the assassination of John F. Kennedy, who had reluctantly adopted the civil rights movement despite his party's opposition. Democrats had finally learned their lesson. They then immediately began to change course and paint Republicans as racists. That tactic has been so successful that the vast majority of black Americans vote a straight Democrat ticket despite a century of murders and abuse by Democrats and their supporters in the Ku Klux Klan and many other segregationist groups.

Ask any uninformed citizen today (and there are many), and they will tell you without hesitation that Republicans are racists. The Tea Party accusations are merely the latest example.

As for your assertion that Democrats are supporters of the 2A I have two words; Mayor Bloomberg.

I'm sure in another hundred years (if the country lasts that long - that's certainly not ensured) Democrats will be cast as the defenders of the 2A and Republicans will be the gun grabbers and every ignorant citizen alive will believe that as well.

I don't see why someone who owns four of five thousand dollars worth of guns should not be required to sell those guns to pay on a debt, but I think bankruptcy laws are too lenient to begin with.

baldeagle wrote: As for your assertion that Democrats are supporters of the 2A I have two words; Mayor Bloomberg.

While I agree 100% with you and TAM, be careful using Mayor Bloomberg as an example. He was a lifelong Democrat until 2001, but ran for all his elections as a Republican. Don't bet that both parties won't/don't use his name and anti 2A reputation to underscore their position and point fingers at the other party. Republicans will point to his lifelong Democrat affiliation and his anti RKBA positions to advance their point that Dems are anti RKBA, and Dems will use his current party affiliation to say, "even Republicans support stricter gun control measures."

A friend brought it to my attention via a PM that my previous post was worded so as to make it sound like I thought that democrats were unwelcome on this board. Let me categorically state that I do not think that at all.

My statement was about the difference between democrats and republicans, very generally, at the national level, with regard to RKBA issues. I have only to look at the nation's largest population centers, which tend to favor electing democrats to office, and look at their respective local stances on the RKBA.

That said, vote your conscience. I might disagree with your decision, or with your reasons for making it, but it is your vote, not mine, and at the end of the day, we all have to figure out how to live amongst one another. I call myself a conservative republican, but my very best friend back in California is a liberal democrat attorney. I'll still very gladly hoist a beer with him, and I enjoy his company tremendously. We just disagree, that's all.

So I apologize if I offended anyone.

G26ster wrote:

baldeagle wrote: As for your assertion that Democrats are supporters of the 2A I have two words; Mayor Bloomberg.

While I agree 100% with you and TAM, be careful using Mayor Bloomberg as an example. He was a lifelong Democrat until 2001, but ran for all his elections as a Republican. Don't bet that both parties won't/don't use his name and anti 2A reputation to underscore their position and point fingers at the other party. Republicans will point to his lifelong Democrat affiliation and his anti RKBA positions to advance their point that Dems are anti RKBA, and Dems will use his current party affiliation to say, "even Republicans support stricter gun control measures."

I would argue that Bloomberg is a typical politician, running on whatever ticket he thinks gives him the best chance of being elected. Besides, northeastern Republicans are Republicans in name only.

Whatever arguments people want to make don't really hold much water with me. I look at what politicians do, not what they say. The reality is that Democrats, across the country, have consistently been anti-RKBA. From Washington, D.C, to Chicago, to California, to the Congress, the White House and the courts, Democrats have been anti-RKBA. Are there exceptions? Of course, just as there are in anything. But to deny that the Democrat party opposes our rights is to argue against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

baldeagle wrote:

G26ster wrote:

baldeagle wrote: As for your assertion that Democrats are supporters of the 2A I have two words; Mayor Bloomberg.

While I agree 100% with you and TAM, be careful using Mayor Bloomberg as an example. He was a lifelong Democrat until 2001, but ran for all his elections as a Republican. Don't bet that both parties won't/don't use his name and anti 2A reputation to underscore their position and point fingers at the other party. Republicans will point to his lifelong Democrat affiliation and his anti RKBA positions to advance their point that Dems are anti RKBA, and Dems will use his current party affiliation to say, "even Republicans support stricter gun control measures."

I would argue that Bloomberg is a typical politician, running on whatever ticket he thinks gives him the best chance of being elected. Besides, northeastern Republicans are Republicans in name only.

Whatever arguments people want to make don't really hold much water with me. I look at what politicians do, not what they say. The reality is that Democrats, across the country, have consistently been anti-RKBA. From Washington, D.C, to Chicago, to California, to the Congress, the White House and the courts, Democrats have been anti-RKBA. Are there exceptions? Of course, just as there are in anything. But to deny that the Democrat party opposes our rights is to argue against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Again, I agree. But you referenced what "others" will believe, not yourself, when you said, "I'm sure in another hundred years (if the country lasts that long - that's certainly not ensured) Democrats will be cast as the defenders of the 2A and Republicans will be the gun grabbers and every ignorant citizen alive will believe that as well." That's what I was responding to. There are too many uninformed folks that "do" believe what politicians say, and not what they do. If enough Dems point to the fact that Bloomberg is a Republican, regardless of his lifelong Democratic ties and his reasons for running as a Republican, and therefore it makes their point that Republicans are anti RBKA, there are enough uniformed people around that will believe it. I just believe it's a far better idea to stay away from pointing to any anti RKBA politician that is in any way associated with the Republican Party. There are enough anti RKBA Dems around to point to in order to make the point that the Democratic Party, as a political entity, is anti RKBA. MHO.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Maybe at the state level, but not really at the national level.

The only gun related law that I am aware of that has passed at the federal level strengthened the RKBA just a little bit. The law made it legal to carry in national parks in accordance with state laws. This does not mean the current Congress or administration supports guns, but RiverCity .45 had a point. It also does not mean the fear was not justified. This fortunate situation (no anti-gun laws passed) might have been a result of the Democratic fear of reprisal shown by the gun owner's fervor.


Baldeagle:


As long as we want to keep an eye on history (a good thing, IMO), we should remember why Texas was run by the Democrats from 1877 to 1978 - reconstruction. The Republicans demonstrated they could be just as bad as the Democrats.



I did see an interesting bumper sticker the other day. It read "Change: it takes a Carter to get a Reagan." Somehow, that seems appropriate to this topic.