The Back Door To Gun Control

[SirRealism]

Like a lot of people, I too am a libertarian with a small "L". And, while I agree that the two major parties are the ones who can put up winning candidates, it's clear that they don't always offer us a viable candidate. I have no qualms with voting third party for two reasons:

1. If I go pull the lever for someone I know would be a bad choice, I'm lying to myself.
2. If the Republican party becomes improvident big spenders (gee, do you think it's possible?) and ignore the BoR, then the only way I see to make them adjust their thinking is through the ballot box. They don't listen to us once they're elected. This is not taking an idealist stand.

Voting for Republicans merely because they're Republicans is not the right answer. When I vote, I don't apply just one simple principle. I have to weigh the potential outcomes. In this past election, IMHO, as much as I was disappointed in McCain as the R option, I saw Obama as such a threat that my conscience compelled me to vote for McCain.

I've you've ever heard Andy Horning speak (it's tough, since the local media don't like to cover him when he runs), he makes a very compelling argument for voting your mind. I have no qualms with voting for him because he's one of the few candidates who seems to understand the Constitution.

Sometimes, when wading through tough issues like this, I'm left with just a lot of conjecture and one absolute truth. The conjecture (if we do this, then that might happen) is sometimes confusing. But to me, the truth is compelling: If we were to elect people like Horning (I'm using him as an example; there are other candidates with similar principles), then we would be in much better shape: our rights and our money would be more secure.

 

[SirRealism]

Howwever, what if all the people that want 3rd parties actually voted for them? I have never voted anything but Republican in my life but I am 100% Libertarian. Not saying it would matter, but what if everyone like me who wants Libertarian voted for them? Seems to me they would have a huge following since most Republican hold Libertarian values.

It would matter. If people could sit through a few hours of debate where the party affiliations were unknown, the candidate with libertarian stance might well win But we have to let party affiliation get in the way of voting for the candidate who will best serve our country. (I agree with BoR that the Libertarian party is often not viable because they're so one-issue-oriented – and a little goofy, to boot.)

Don't get me wrong though, I cussed at 3rd party voters this election because I knew they didn't have a chance.

IMO, voting third party in the past presidential election was a bad idea because of the consequences of electing Obama, not because the 3rd party candidates didn't have a chance of winning.

 

[jedi]

Unfortunately, I cannot credit the entire Obama Victory to the disgruntled 3rd Party Voters; ACORN and the voters who simply did not exercise their right to freedom by not voting insured an Obama Presidency but we reap what we sow and I'm very afraid that a grim harvest is upon the USA.

And that is why ACRON is going to get 405 million in an earmark in the new $900 Billion econemomy package in the house. Never mind the fact that ACRON is under criminal investiation ins 13 states right now!

 

[jsgolfman]

What David said. My dad used to do the same for me, been shooting since I could hold up a .22

 

[SirRealism]

4sarge, while I agree with you that wasting votes on candidates who cannot win is a shame, I'd like your take on this: In a situation where the Republican candidate goes against my principles, how much is my vote worth if they know they'll get it? I think that's the crux of it for me. If my vote is a given, then they need to do nothing to earn it. I don't like that scenario.

 

[CarmelHP]

I was not old enough to remember what life was like pre 86 so I have to use history as my guide.

1. I have not seen any laws that required people to sign for a box of ammo pre 86.
2. I have not seen any laws that required an ffl to ship a single cartridge case.
3. From what I read the laws of 68 stopped the sale of out of state guns. (Ok not Regan, but Nixon)
4., 5., 6. I cannot fina ANY laws regarding these. Do you mean that these were stopped?
7. This wasn't Regan, it was BUSH. Another republican.


All this talk how Regan helped us with the 87 carry laws and stopped the anti-gunners in their tracks. We can NEVER have a new machine gun again. It is much harder to reverse a law then it is to stop it in it's tracks.

I am not slandering his record here. His DID ban machine guns. DID. He took that right away from us forever.

My question is what would you say if he was a democrat? Far worse I am sure. Everyone hates Obama because he WILL ban guns. Well Regan DID ban guns. So did Nixon, and Bush. Everyone wants to talk about Clinton, but we got those rights back. We never will with Regan.

No slander here. Just the cold hard truth. Republicans might say it, but their record says otherwise.

Yes, I know you have no idea of what you're talking about, life didn't exist before you, right? You had to do all of those things pre-'86. You couldn't buy a rifle on an out-of-state hunting trip before '86 even if both state laws allowed it. The influx of cheap surplus guns and ammo began because of Reagan. GHWBush stopped it, but I didn't defend him or his idiot czar, Bill Bennett. I have not had any use for Bush I since the 1980 primary and even less after his AW ban. Criticism of Bush I is fair, Reagan isn't. Please try to know what you're talking about before spouting off, it is slander otherwise and now that you've been corrected, it's intentional.

As for the machine freeze, you obviously didn't read anything I wrote. He signed a bill that gun owners clamored for, mostly because it contained a legislative veto provision. Unfortunately, legislative vetoes were ruled unconstitutional, but it certainly isn't Reagan's fault.

 

[antsi]

This sir, is ENTIRELY true. Look at who has banned guns in the past. Republicans are more likely to ban them then democrats. FDR and Clinton for the Dems. Clinton's had a sunset. We got those rights back. So 1 and 1/2 for the democrats. Regan and Bush for the republicans. That is 2 for the republicans.

Who will ban your guns based on history

Republicans 2
Democrats 1 1/2

This is an extremely slanted viewpoint, and glosses over a number of important facts.

The Clinton AWB did not have a sunset clause at Clinton's or the Democrats' insistence. The Democrats reluctantly and grudgingly included the sunset clause in order to pick up a couple of RINO votes they needed to pass the thing. If anything, the Democrats were responsible for the AWB and Republicans were responsible for attaching the sunset clause.

The sunsetting of the AWB WAS NOT a Democrat initiative. Several times, Democrats in Congress tried to renew the AWB - and Democrats proposed several laws that would have massively strengthened the AWB by expanding the definition of what was considered an "assault weapon." It was largely Republican maneuvering that prevented these measures from passing, and it was a Republican Congress and a Replublican president that allowed the AWB to sunset.

The major leaders of the anti-gun movement in Congress are all Democrats - Kennedy, Boxer, Schumer, McCarthy, Feinstein. There is no Republican you can name who has the consistent extreme anti-gun record of these folks.

Your analysis also totally overlooks significant pro-RKBA legislation over the past several years. Many states have passed shall-issue CCW. It has been largely Republicans who supported this. In the states that don't have CCW, it has been Democrats who have blocked it. Many states have passed Castle Doctrine and other similar laws to protect the rights of those who use firearms for self-defense. The federal protection of lawful commerce in firearms act was a Republican initiative and protected gun and ammo makers from junk lawsuits designed to destroy the firearms industry. Lawsuits brought by Democrats, mind you. The Tihart amendment protects gun owners from NICS data being used as an all-purpose federal gun registry - again, a Republican initiative.

In this past election, the Democrat candidate for president had renewal of the AWB as part of his campaign platform. The Republican did not, and specifically spoke out against AWB renewal.

I am not saying that the Republicans are consistent supporters of RKBA, or that they do the job as good as I would like. Nor am I saying that I agree with the Republicans on all issues, or I consider them in general to be a superior party. However, they clearly have the better record on RKBA and gun control. I didn't say a perfect record, an ideal record, or an optimal record - but clearly a better record than the Democrats.

However, to suggest that Republicans and Democrats are equal and equivalent on RKBA issues is ludicrous. Only someone who is deliberately deluding themselves can possibly believe that.

To suggest that Democrats are actually more RKBA-friendly is beyond ludicrous.

In order to make this charge, you are cherry-picking a few issues and misrepresenting others to support your point, and ignoring a large number of salient facts that are contrary to your position.

 

[antsi]

Re, voting for third parties:

I don't think there's one right answer to this for every situation.

Even when third parties don't win, having a big third party turnout makes a big impression on the major parties. It sends a message that they are alienating part of their constituency and can change their future behavior. So there can be a positive practical effect of voting third party even if they aren't going to win.

I do think that in very close races when one of the alternatives is substantially worse than the other, voting third party can hurt you.

So, for me, factors I would consider whether or not to vote third party:

1) If one of the major parties has a candidate I really like, I'm voting for them. Duh.

2) If one of the major parties is running a candidate I very strongly dislike, and the race is close, I will probably vote for the candidate most likely to beat him - even if that means voting for someone I consider so-so/mediocre. Voting against a candidate I really dislike in a way most likely to defeat him IS voting my conscience, just as much as voting for someone I really like.

3) If it is not a close election and the outcome is a foregone conclusion, I'll vote the party that best represents my views without regard to whether they have a chance to win.

4) I won't vote for some fringe party or (fringe candidate in a primary) unless they really do represent my views quite closely. For instance, I generally agree with the libertarian philosophy but the LP candidate for president this year was not at all impressive. In other words, if I'm voting against tactical realities to stand on principle, I better be getting a very good representation of my principles.

 

[CarmelHP]

Sorry, with all the other nonsense you've been spewing, I missed this gem:

I am currently working on a response but the republicans just scored another goal. Making republicans twice as likely to ban guns than democrats. Nixon in 68.

Republicans 3
Democrats 1 1/2

If there was any question concerning your slant, it's answered here. I hate defending Dick Nixon, though I will in order to point out another of your defamations. Nixon was elected in November 1968, being sworn in on January 20, 1969. The GCA '68 was signed by President JOHNSON on October 22, 1968. President JOHNSON also signed another Act that year, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. President JOHNSON called for Sen. Dodd's GCA to be passed because he didn't think the OCCSSA went far enough in it's anti-gun provisions. In his final State of the Union before leaving office, January 15, 1969, President JOHNSON called for a comprehensive licensing and registration system. Do the niceties of what actually happened just not matter to you when your on a political smear mission? Do you just make it up as you go along?

 

[RaiseTheBlackFlag]

You really can't blame a hardcore republican that refuses to see any other way. Thats why they have and will continue to support the party they think caters to the 1 percent of the population that is in control of 1/3 of this nations wealth. No matter who stands in their way. The funny thing is, people don't even realize that the liberals stand for the exact same thing. The majority of this country including the hard core right and hard core left really think that there are 2 seperate parties, when if fact there is just one giant one with 2 different candidates spouting a couple different views (abortion,tax,welfare,war..etc.) to try and win an election and do what they MUST to get re elected. If that means giving the rich corporations tax breaks, going to war to try and gain control of a huge percent of the worlds oil or spouting some rhetoric about some sort of "change", the same rhetoric Clinton used for his campaign...whatever the majority of the population believes is all that matters to get re elected. Right or wrong, people will vote for what benefits them...and usually thats about money.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Yes, I know you have no idea of what you're talking about, life didn't exist before you, right? You had to do all of those things pre-'86. You couldn't buy a rifle on an out-of-state hunting trip before '86 even if both state laws allowed it. The influx of cheap surplus guns and ammo began because of Reagan. GHWBush stopped it, but I didn't defend him or his idiot czar, Bill Bennett. I have not had any use for Bush I since the 1980 primary and even less after his AW ban. Criticism of Bush I is fair, Reagan isn't. Please try to know what you're talking about before spouting off, it is slander otherwise and now that you've been corrected, it's intentional.

As for the machine freeze, you obviously didn't read anything I wrote. He signed a bill that gun owners clamored for, mostly because it contained a legislative veto provision. Unfortunately, legislative vetoes were ruled unconstitutional, but it certainly isn't Reagan's fault.

1. I know life existed before me, that's where the dinosaur's came from.

2. I do not intentionally put a slant on things, after reading as much as I can on the subject I posted. I didn't know that about LBJ, thanks for the info. Regan did create the ATF (a whole new topic, small government) however.

3. I couldn't find the laws pre-86. Only what was banned. So I can only go off of that.

4. It makes no sense to me, while they were banning guns they were giving rights back as well?

5. The bill may have been clamored for, but it still took away our rights. Rights that we will never get back. I take an uncompromizing approach to gun control. It is wrong. You will find our friends in the brady campaign do as well.

The whole point is that even though republicans say they are out to protect our rights, plenty have been taken away. While they stood by. Maybe the answer is to make them more accountable. Maybe a third party is the answer. I really don't know. But know that no one is working to protect ALL of your rights.

Thank you everyone for the intelligent conversation. Just remember, you can't hear inflection from a screen.

 

[dburkhead]

1. I know life existed before me, that's where the dinosaur's came from.

And we were grateful for them.

2. I do not intentionally put a slant on things, after reading as much as I can on the subject I posted. I didn't know that about LBJ, thanks for the info. Regan did create the ATF (a whole new topic, small government) however.

From the ATF's own web site:

ATF is the youngest tax-collecting Treasury agency, separated from the Internal Revenue Service by Treasury Department Order No. 120-1 (former No. 221), effective 1 July 1972.

3. I couldn't find the laws pre-86. Only what was banned. So I can only go off of that.

Actually, you can go off the experiences of people who were there.

4. It makes no sense to me, while they were banning guns they were giving rights back as well?

For the most part, the bill was appropriately named: The Gun Owners Protection Act (GOPA--sometimes rendered as FOPA with "Firearm" replacing "Gun"). The clause against registering new machine guns was a late addition.

5. The bill may have been clamored for, but it still took away our rights. Rights that we will never get back. I take an uncompromizing approach to gun control. It is wrong. You will find our friends in the brady campaign do as well.

Frankly, on balance, it was probably in our favor. It's an open question whether we (as gun owners) would have gotten the protections we got if that "sop" to the anti-gun crowd were not included. Maybe yes, maybe no. (I have my own opinion, but you know what they say about opinions.) It is definitely unfortunate that the "fix it later" plans on the MG provision never materialized. Still by that point and beyond (at least to 94) the tide had really been against gun owners and their rights.

The whole point is that even though republicans say they are out to protect our rights, plenty have been taken away. While they stood by. Maybe the answer is to make them more accountable. Maybe a third party is the answer. I really don't know. But know that no one is working to protect ALL of your rights.

And the point in return is that, bad as the Republicans have been, the Dems have been far worse. (In both cases I mean as a group--certainly there have been some Democrats better than some Republicans). And just counting Presidents under which bills have passed isn't much help when you consider which party controlled Congress during the time those bills were passed.

The problem with "uncompromising" is that it's another way of saying "all or nothing." As I said above, the tide was very much against us. Maybe a harder line would have held out better. But then again, maybe not. I do remember growing up, a lot of gun owners and NRA members complaining that it was "too political." How many of them would have been driven away if the NRA had taken a "harder" stance against the gun grabbers? I don't know. Maybe a hard line would have been a Rorke's Drift. But then again, maybe it would have been a Little Big Horn. Hard to say after the fact.

A lot of people speak with great conviction that if the NRA had just done this, then that result would have happened. I, however, am not so certain. Reality has a habit of throwing curve balls that come right around and smack you in the behind.

As for a third party, at least for the Presidency, I don't think it's "doable." Or rather, it might be "doable" but it would be easier to coopt one of the existing parties. (Everything you would have to do to "take over" the Republican party you would have to do to create a viable new party but starting from a smaller "base.")

I'm not sure that there is an answer. There are some promising signs. The recent gun buying frenzy, for instance. A lot of Obama supporters went out and bought guns in fear (justified, IMO) of new bans/restrictions. That says a lot about what the "court of public opinion" has to say about the matter. The replacement for Senator Clinton, although a Democrat (no surprise there) is a "pro-gun" democrat (about as "pro" as you can expect out of New York). Heller is small, but important, and there are cases making their way through the courts that have a reasonable chance of hitting the Supreme court before Obama can shift the balance of power there. Those could well give us incorporation. And a recognized individual right to keep and bear arms is a very strong foundation on which to build. It's how the civil rights movement got started--once you get the base recognition of rights in place, you can make things snowball with each victory making the next case stronger and the inevitable setbacks less damaging.

Of course, in darker moments I remember Katrina. The National Guard was told to collect up people's guns and they did it. And the people were told to hand over their guns and they did it.

Thank you everyone for the intelligent conversation. Just remember, you can't hear inflection from a screen.

 

[Bill of Rights]

+1 couldn't agree more.

Howwever, what if all the people that want 3rd parties actually voted for them? I have never voted anything but Republican in my life but I am 100% Libertarian. Not saying it would matter, but what if everyone like me who wants Libertarian voted for them? Seems to me they would have a huge following since most Republican hold Libertarian values.

Then again it could just results in them Dems winning is a landslide. Wait, didn't that pretty much happen.

Don't get me wrong though, I cussed at 3rd party voters this election because I knew they didn't have a chance.

What if all the people who wanted 3rd parties voted for them? The numbers that truly want that are probably statistically very small, so I'm guessing nothing. The bigger issue, however, is that we can "what if" all day long and it's not going to make it fact. The fact is that the Dems and the GOP focus on winning elections and no one else does. If we want libertarians in office, we need to find them, get behind them with a political "machine" and get enough of a following for them that the GOP (or the Dems) will support those candidates with their machine. (I know the Dems won't and that we would not trust one of their candidates to be for us, but what I'm saying is that it will take one of those two parties to get someone in office other than the occasional (powerless) "token".

IMHO, we need to concentrate less on "what if"s and more on how to make votes happen for who we want.

Speaking of which, I appreciate the vote of confidence, turnandshoot. I've had a few on here say similar. I think it is fair to say, however, that even if I could count on every person registered on INGO to vote for me (which is logistically impossible- I know I have no chance at a national-level office, and we each vote for our own district for state-level offices) that would still only be ~2500 votes, and that's not enough to win anything in and of itself. Keep in mind also that here, I'm "preaching to the choir"-we all support gun rights, but even here, we have some who think I'm off-base on this or that. I'm a realist in addition to being a libertarian, and at this point in time, that means that a run for office would be a wasted effort and a waste of whatever money people were willing to donate to a campaign. We all work way too hard for our money for me to in good conscience accept it from anyone without at least a significant chance of winning. Time will tell if that happens or not.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
The major leaders of the anti-gun movement in Congress are all Democrats - Kennedy, Boxer, Schumer, McCarthy, Feinstein. There is no Republican you can name who has the consistent extreme anti-gun record of these folks.
...

Um... Dick Lugar?

I agree with most of your post. That one line screamed for an answer, however.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[CarmelHP]

Um... Dick Lugar?

I agree with most of your post. That one line screamed for an answer, however.

Blessings,
Bill

No, not even Lugar. Lugar never introduced anti-gun bills, he just could never bring himself to vote against one. How he managed to stay this long is beyond me. I can think think of one Paul Helmke, what an *$&#@.

Frankly, on balance, it was probably in our favor. It's an open question whether we (as gun owners) would have gotten the protections we got if that "sop" to the anti-gun crowd were not included. Maybe yes, maybe no. (I have my own opinion, but you know what they say about opinions.)

It's important to remember how it went down. There was a Democrat House majority, but the NRA and others had whipped enough Democrats in line to vote for the bill in the House. S.49 had passed the Senate. The restrictions on full-auto firearms are a result of the Hughes Amendment (99th Congress, H.AMDT.777). Rep. William Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed the amendment late in debate and at night when most of the members of the House were gone. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a long proponent of gun control, was presiding over the House at that time and a voice vote was taken. Despite the fact that the Amendment vote appeared to fail, Rep. Rangel declared the amendment approved and it was incorporated into House Bill 4332. Calls from the floor for a rollcall were gavelled down. Once passing the House, H.R.4332 was incorporated in its entirety into S.49. The Senate passed the final S.49 on April 10, 1986 by voice vote and it was signed by the President on May 19, 1986. The long delay was due to pro-gunners trying to get the Amendment stripped. Because there was Democrat House majority they got the gavel and were able to push through this Amendment. Since they controlled the calendar, they would not allow any conference changes in order to vote on a bill stripping the Hughes Amendment. Since the ultra-liberal Democrat House leadership would not reconsider the bill the only was to pass it was as an Amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 49. The only way it got to floor in the first place was on a discharge petition. The bill was all but passed in it's original form and was changed in the final seconds by a sneaky Democrat trick. That's the harm in allowing a Democrat majority in either chamber. It doesn't matter who casts the votes, it's who and how they count them.

 

[jsgolfman]

Hopefully, the national republican party got the message that the base was not happy with the direction it was going. Perhaps this may be the push they need to start behaving like they should.

 

[SirRealism]

Hopefully, the national republican party got the message that the base was not happy with the direction it was going. Perhaps this may be the push they need to start behaving like they should.

I hope you're right. I fear that there's an ever-increasing group of apathetic (or unaware) people in the middle that makes such an enticing target for a candidate to swing "moderate".