Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: MI democrats to introduce AWB, large cap mag ban, and "universal backround checks"

  1. #1
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196

    MI democrats to introduce AWB, large cap mag ban, and "universal backround checks"

    FERNDALE, MI – State Rep. John Townsend (D -Royal Oak) said in the Detroit suburb of Ferndale Sunday that he and his peers in Lansing are creating three-pronged gun control legislation.

    "The issue of closing the loophole on gun purchases and requiring background checks and permitting, the issue of limiting the sizes of these bullet magazines and the issue of banning assault weapons, all three can be dealt with at the state level," Townsend told the Metro Coalition of Congregations at St. James Catholic Church. "I am very privileged to be preparing legislation on all three of those issues that I will be introducing with my colleagues in the very near future."


    http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in..._river_default


    I know a lot of people who claim to be "pro-gun democrats" here in MI, and that really confuses me. How can any pro-gun person continue to support a party that consistently attempts to strip you of your rights or stop you from further advancing them? Last year the dems rallied together to try and stop SB59, now they are planning an all-out attack on the 2A here in MI. I hope you "pro-gun democrats" remember this when you hit the ballot box next time.

    (i'm not saying the MI GOP is a strong ally to us, just saying it's obvious the MI dems are against us and will continue to attack the 2A every chance they get)
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  2. #2
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Hopefully we can close the gun show loophole. Long guns are used in so many more crimes than pistols. Must be because we have registration and background checks for all pistols.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  3. #3
    Guest
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Holland, MI.
    Posts
    266
    They just don't get it, and never will. They should have to wear signs saying their against the 2nd amendment, so we know who we don't have to protect in a bad situation.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Raggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wild Wild West Michigan
    Posts
    1,188
    Question for someone who can explain, the gun show loop hole is that people can buy rifles at gun shows without background checks? or any firearm without a background check?

    Quote Originally Posted by casper View Post
    They just don't get it, and never will. They should have to wear signs saying their against the 2nd amendment, so we know who we don't have to protect in a bad situation.
    My reasons to OC
    1. to raise awareness of the legality of open carry in Michigan
    2. To raise awareness that good people carry guns
    3. A deterrent to people so that I won't be targeted
    4. Because it's more comfortable than CC in most situations
    5. Because I can and want to
    6. Because it's perfectly legal
    7. Self defense

  5. #5
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573

    Re: MI democrats to introduce AWB, large cap mag ban, and "universal backround

    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    Hopefully we can close the gun show loophole. Long guns are used in so many more crimes than pistols. Must be because we have registration and background checks for all pistols.
    You Sir are a master of sarcasm. Nicely played.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  6. #6
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by detroit_fan View Post
    FERNDALE, MI – State Rep. John Townsend (D -Royal Oak) said in the Detroit suburb of Ferndale Sunday that he and his peers in Lansing are creating three-pronged gun control legislation.

    "The issue of closing the loophole on gun purchases and requiring background checks and permitting, the issue of limiting the sizes of these bullet magazines and the issue of banning assault weapons, all three can be dealt with at the state level," Townsend told the Metro Coalition of Congregations at St. James Catholic Church. "I am very privileged to be preparing legislation on all three of those issues that I will be introducing with my colleagues in the very near future."


    http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in..._river_default


    I know a lot of people who claim to be "pro-gun democrats" here in MI, and that really confuses me. How can any pro-gun person continue to support a party that consistently attempts to strip you of your rights or stop you from further advancing them? Last year the dems rallied together to try and stop SB59, now they are planning an all-out attack on the 2A here in MI. I hope you "pro-gun democrats" remember this when you hit the ballot box next time.

    (i'm not saying the MI GOP is a strong ally to us, just saying it's obvious the MI dems are against us and will continue to attack the 2A every chance they get)

    Wasn't it a Republican that DID "kill it"?
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  7. #7
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    Wasn't it a Republican that DID "kill it"?
    If you want to call snyder a republican, sure. but from his tendency to raise taxes and fees and his willingness to ignore most conservatives social agenda, i think the argument can be made he is clearly a RINO.

    that's why included the last part about thestate GOP not necessarily being a strong ally.

    with that said, he did sign a couple somewhat-pro2A bills, like HB5225. Those bills would not have been signed by Bernero if he had won. The MI GOP may not be advancing gun rights, but they aren't attacking them like the MI dems are.
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  8. #8
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by detroit_fan View Post
    If you want to call snyder a republican, sure. but from his tendency to raise taxes and fees and his willingness to ignore most conservatives social agenda, i think the argument can be made he is clearly a RINO.

    that's why included the last part about the state GOP not necessarily being a strong ally.

    with that said, he did sign a couple somewhat-pro2A bills, like HB5225. Those bills would not have been signed by Bernero if he had won. The MI GOP may not be advancing gun rights, but they aren't attacking them like the MI dems are.
    If Bernero would have signed them or not is pure conjecture, he's not in office, Snyder is. Snyder is the Governor and I believe received support from the Republican Party... and I believe he was present at the state convention and received many rounds of applause indicating that many members, if not most of them, continue to support his policies.

    I must say, though, that the lack of any REAL changes in regards to the 2nd Amendment with a Republican majority in the house... and the senate... and with a Republican governor, still garner support from gun owners with legislation that you admit is only "somewhat-pro2A".

    I also seem to remember a certain governor, a Democrat, who signed bills which furthered the 2A in Michigan and also gave a few opinions as Attorney General that did the same... DESPITE what her personal views may have been at the time.

    I don't think the national GOP is any better than the state party... to even nominate Romney in the last election indicates that the 2nd Amendment was not even a passing consideration in choosing the Republican Party standard bearer.
    Last edited by DrTodd; 02-25-2013 at 08:28 PM.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  9. #9
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    If Bernero would have signed them or not is pure conjecture, he's not in office, Snyder is. Snyder is the Governor and I believe received support from the Republican Party... and I believe he was present at the state convention and received many rounds of applause indicating that many members, if not most of them, continue to support his policies.

    I must say, though, that the lack of any REAL changes in regards to the 2nd Amendment with a Republican majority in the house... and the senate... and with a Republican governor, still garner support from gun owners with legislation that you admit is only "somewhat-pro2A".

    I also seem to remember a certain governor, a Democrat, who signed bills which furthered the 2A in Michigan and also gave a few opinions as Attorney General that did the same... DESPITE what her personal views may have been at the time.

    I don't think the national GOP is any better than the state party... to even nominate Romney in the last election indicates that the 2nd Amendment was not even a passing consideration in choosing the Republican Party standard bearer.
    Sure snyder received backing once he was nominated, but to be fair, we really had no idea where he stood on this issue, he was never pressed on it. I know i voted for someone else in the GOP primary, i think many gun owners did. Once he was nominated the choice of supporting the unknown commodity appeared better than the alternative, who was (and still is) an active opponent to our common goals.

    I wouldn't say the state GOP has the support of gun owners, most that I know speak out against them pretty regularly, including myself. Personally I'm a libertarian, so i really don't have a horse in that race, but when presented with the option of having a party that doesn't advance but doesn't limit, and a party that attempts to limit, i am going to choose the former.

    That gov that you mention said that she regrets signing those bills, and if she had to do it over again she would veto them. i interpret that as lack of knowledge as opposed to doing the right thing regardless of personal opinions.

    The national GOP is no better, but to be fair, it was citizens that nominated romney. apparently the people voting in the GOP primaries were not concerned enough about gun rights to make it an issue, which is a shame. I know it is one of the reasons i did not vote for him in the primary, and voted for Ron Paul instead.

    Please don't mistake me for a GOP apologist, I'm anything but that. What i do see here in MI though, is that the MI democratic party has made it clear it has NO intentions of working to advance gun rights, and fully intends to to attack them whenever given the chance. That is something that should be on every voters mind when they cast that vote.
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  10. #10
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    I'll be watching closely to see how the new representative for the 110th district votes on gun bills. Unfortunately, the republican that held the seat last year lost in the election. On the plus side, for now, the democrat that replaced him was "A" rated. The democrats from the western U.P. can and do buck the trend of those downstate when it comes to the gun issue.
    Rand Paul 2016

  11. #11
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445
    The founding fathers would be shooting by now.

  12. #12
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573

    Re: MI democrats to introduce AWB, large cap mag

    Quote Originally Posted by dougwg View Post
    The founding fathers would be shooting by now.
    This is correct. They knew the stakes. Today's U.S. is far from motivated and easily made to bow to the will of the "elites". Most citizens today would sit by and watch their neighbors be carted off for offenses against the "crown". They would only become alarmed when the "authorities" came stomping up their front walk.

    Hopefully we never have to count on their resolve...
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    Hopefully we can close the gun show loophole. Long guns are used in so many more crimes than pistols. Must be because we have registration and background checks for all pistols.
    Ya buy a piece of property from a private seller ..

    they want regular people to all of a sudden become gun dealers?

    Sell 5/yr and you need a ffl.

    seems like sarcasm ...

  14. #14
    Guest
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Holland, MI.
    Posts
    266
    What is an assault weapon ?

  15. #15
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by detroit_fan View Post
    Sure snyder received backing once he was nominated, but to be fair, we really had no idea where he stood on this issue, he was never pressed on it. I know i voted for someone else in the GOP primary, i think many gun owners did. Once he was nominated the choice of supporting the unknown commodity appeared better than the alternative, who was (and still is) an active opponent to our common goals.

    I wouldn't say the state GOP has the support of gun owners, most that I know speak out against them pretty regularly, including myself. Personally I'm a libertarian, so i really don't have a horse in that race, but when presented with the option of having a party that doesn't advance but doesn't limit, and a party that attempts to limit, i am going to choose the former.

    That gov that you mention said that she regrets signing those bills, and if she had to do it over again she would veto them. i interpret that as lack of knowledge as opposed to doing the right thing regardless of personal opinions.

    The national GOP is no better, but to be fair, it was citizens that nominated romney. apparently the people voting in the GOP primaries were not concerned enough about gun rights to make it an issue, which is a shame. I know it is one of the reasons i did not vote for him in the primary, and voted for Ron Paul instead.

    Please don't mistake me for a GOP apologist, I'm anything but that. What i do see here in MI though, is that the MI democratic party has made it clear it has NO intentions of working to advance gun rights, and fully intends to to attack them whenever given the chance. That is something that should be on every voters mind when they cast that vote.
    My point was that many people assume that the GOP is going to further gun rights and the fact of the matter is that they don't. People assume that the Dems are "against" gun rights... some are, some aren't. In fact, former Senator LeGrand(D) submitted bills the past few years that would have eliminated the "No CC zones". Whether a person is a Democrat or Republican is not a reliable indication of where a person stands in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Also, IF the Republicans were upset about Snyder's stance on the 2nd Amendment, we certainly would hear about it. I haven't heard anyone in the party publicly criticize his veto, nor of his negotiation tactics which turned a half-way decent bill into something that many felt gave up too much.

    What IS a better indication of where a person stands is whether the district they represent is rural or urban, but even this is fraught with exception. Some of the most ardent supporters of the right to keep AND bear arms have been members of both parties, as have some of its most harsh critics.

    My point in bringing up the former governor was not to give her a general endorsement but rather to express my longing for a governor that would choose to follow the will of the legislature instead of insert personal opinion into the process; I am unaware of her statements that she in any way regrets signing any bills. However, since she is now a private citizen she can spout off anything she desires. I would think that her interest in getting support for a spot in the national Democratic Party may be why she would make such statements. But, as I said, she can SAY whatever she wants to get whatever support she feels she needs from Big City dems to be able to do that. I look at what a person actually does versus what they say they will or will not do. That's why I feel that had Romney been elected, we would most likely face the same issues that we do today on the national level... his history speaks for itself as does Obama's.

    I too am a libertarian; Ron Paul was my first vote for President... when he was the Libertarian Candidate. My position is more left-libertarian than I was then but still very much in support of many parts of the national Libertarian Party platform. I don't support the goals of the Democratic Party nor do I support those of the Republican Party. My thought is both parties support big government: Republicans focus on legislation that gets support from their constituency as do the Democrats. Their both using your money to buy votes from segments of this country.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  16. #16
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    I don't really disagree with anything you said DrTodd. I do think that if we were to generalize though, it is clear the the majority of politicans who support the 2A are GOP, and the majority that want to restrict it are Democrats, of course there are examples on both sides that do the opposite. Under Democratic control I believe we are MUCH more likely to see Rights restricted than we are with a GOP controlled legislature. jmo
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  17. #17
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Quote Originally Posted by detroit_fan View Post
    Under Democratic control I believe we are MUCH more likely to see Rights restricted than we are with a GOP controlled legislature. jmo
    At the state level, I think it's kind of not so clear what could happen, though i doubt they really want to piss off all the CPL holders and others who like guns.

    At the federal level, it's pretty simple. Reagan, after beating the anti war counter culture into submission as well as destroying gun rights as the PRK governer, became president and banned machine guns. His VP, Bush sr went on to become president and sign the ban on Norinco's. Then we have Bush jr who steadfastly said he'd sign another homeland defense weapon ban if it came across his desk.

    I'm pretty much right in line with Dr Todd in everything he said in this thread. I'm a leftist libertarian, but tend to vote straight libertarian. The last time I voted for a non libertarian in fact I was living in Arizona, and that was over 4 years ago now.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    The goal is NOT magazine limits or an "assault weapons ban" in the name of "safety and protection from mass murderers". The goal is to scare everyone with the threat of those so folks will they they are avoiding them when they "compromise" (now there is a dirty word!) and settle for universal background checks.

    And we all know that "universal background checks" is really spelled "complete and total registration of all guns".... but ...

    "complete and total registration of all guns" is really spelled....

    Now that we know who owns what guns "we the government" can easily confiscate them and have total dominion and control over .......... "them the people".

    "Compromise" is a false premise when the choices are only shades of evil presented by those who are evil.

    There isn't any "compromise" when the bully offers you the choice of agreeing to being beaten by his fists or beaten by a stick. Your only choice is how badly you will get beaten but you still get beaten so why agree to it? The only way to win when presented with that kind of "compromise" is to refuse to play the bully's game and kick him in the nuts instead.
    Last edited by Bikenut; 02-27-2013 at 06:49 AM.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Sorcice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    382

    MI democrats to introduce AWB, large cap mag ban, and "universal backround chec

    Quote Originally Posted by Raggs View Post
    Question for someone who can explain, the gun show loop hole is that people can buy rifles at gun shows without background checks? or any firearm without a background check?
    In some states(not sure if all) the "loophole" is that if sold by a private seller(most notably at gun shows even though it happens all the time in parking lots, living rooms, etc) you don't need a background check just as if you sold a spare tire.. Whereas if you are a ffl even at a gun show you must run a background check. The "loophole" is misinformation used to make an issue where there isn't one.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorcice View Post
    In some states(not sure if all) the "loophole" is that if sold by a private seller(most notably at gun shows even though it happens all the time in parking lots, living rooms, etc) you don't need a background check just as if you sold a spare tire.. Whereas if you are a ffl even at a gun show you must run a background check. The "loophole" is misinformation used to make an issue where there isn't one.
    I'm sure you, and many others, understand that the big to do about the so called "loophole" isn't about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals... it is the government using that excuse in order to have a record of who owns what guns where .... so they know where to go to confiscate them.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  21. #21
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    At the state level, I think it's kind of not so clear what could happen, though i doubt they really want to piss off all the CPL holders and others who like guns.

    At the federal level, it's pretty simple. Reagan, after beating the anti war counter culture into submission as well as destroying gun rights as the PRK governer, became president and banned machine guns. His VP, Bush sr went on to become president and sign the ban on Norinco's. Then we have Bush jr who steadfastly said he'd sign another homeland defense weapon ban if it came across his desk.

    I'm pretty much right in line with Dr Todd in everything he said in this thread. I'm a leftist libertarian, but tend to vote straight libertarian. The last time I voted for a non libertarian in fact I was living in Arizona, and that was over 4 years ago now.
    well, are state republicans introducing AWB, large cap mag ban, and universal BR checks? no. are state democrats? yes. how many state democrats supported SB59 last session? how many republicans? i think it's very clear that the MI GOP may not be in the business of advancing gun rights, but also isn't trying to limit them. i also think it's clear that state dems ARE interested in limiting them, and have no intentions to advance them. reagan and bush sr definitely sucked when it came to gun laws, but i would say that democrat clinton did much more damage than reagan & bush sr combined. also, bush jr said that knowing that the gop congress would never pass the bill, it was all politics for bush jr.
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  22. #22
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by detroit_fan View Post
    well, are state republicans introducing AWB, large cap mag ban, and universal BR checks? no. are state democrats? yes. how many state democrats supported SB59 last session? how many republicans? i think it's very clear that the MI GOP may not be in the business of advancing gun rights, but also isn't trying to limit them. i also think it's clear that state dems ARE interested in limiting them, and have no intentions to advance them. reagan and bush sr definitely sucked when it came to gun laws, but i would say that democrat clinton did much more damage than reagan & bush sr combined. also, bush jr said that knowing that the gop congress would never pass the bill, it was all politics for bush jr.
    I actually think that state some Republicans ARE trying to limit gun rights... look at the former SB59. Republicans want to appear to the gun rights constituency that they are supportive of gun rights BUT really, using my "look at what they do rather than what they say" it appears they don't. I'm not saying that there aren't some real supporters in the party... and yes, as a party, the Republicans may have more individuals that seemingly act on their convictions regarding their support of gun rights. But to make a blanket statement that "Republicans support gun rights" denies that there are some very powerful influences within the party that work against that belief.

    I think a strong case can be made that both parties exist only to perpetuate themselves by saying they support their respective constituents but, when it comes to actually doing something that backs that up... evidence is lacking. Think of it this way: IF I were a person who supports "gun control", would I be pleased that there has been no real NATIONAL movement to actually enact anything of substance? If current prognoses are correct, the possibility of enacting anything of substance is reduced every day. Why? Because in the end, the actual votes will not be there despite all of the hyperbolic rhetoric to the contrary. Yes, some individuals are able to push some things from both sides, but the national parties as a whole are really quite impotent.

    Back to my very first point in this thread: having an R or D behind a person's name tells a person next to nothing about where a particular candidate stands in regards to the 2nd Amendment. We need to do our homework and instead of lumping people into categories which truly aren't very helpful instead ask how our legislators will turn their claims of pro-2A leanings into actual actions...and hold them to it instead of being reduced to using terms like "At least they....".
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    All this talk about which party supports the right to keep and bear arms... fall flat when History itself shows that whenever gun control rears it's ugly head... no matter what party is supposedly in control at the moment... gun control wins.

    This isn't by chance... Democrat or Republican ... the party affiliation matters not one whit because the members are still.................................... politicians.

    And what does a politician value the most? .... Remaining in power.

    That is the bare bones truth of the matter. The simple facts of political life. Whatever promotes the individual politician's career as a politician is what will be supported and made into law.

    Oh... "we the people" think they have rights? Well... 'rights' are a threat to the politician's power and career... and the rights of 'we the people' have been circumvented, controlled, and virtually eliminated through the use of...........

    the law.

    And those who control the law, nay, those who MAKE the law,... the lawmakers called politicians... control the rights of................. 'we the people'.

    Am I full of it? Really? Think this through carefully... exactly what rights do you have that are not controlled or restricted? And who passed the laws that do the controlling or restricting?

    Hmmmm?????
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Macomb County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by detroit_fan View Post
    well, are state republicans introducing AWB, large cap mag ban, and universal BR checks? no. are state democrats? yes. how many state democrats supported SB59 last session? how many republicans? i think it's very clear that the MI GOP may not be in the business of advancing gun rights, but also isn't trying to limit them. i also think it's clear that state dems ARE interested in limiting them, and have no intentions to advance them. reagan and bush sr definitely sucked when it came to gun laws, but i would say that democrat clinton did much more damage than reagan & bush sr combined. also, bush jr said that knowing that the gop congress would never pass the bill, it was all politics for bush jr.
    In Michigan I would agree but in other states I disagree. There are repube's who vote anti-gun and lead the charge for it with bans (Colorado being a state that passed several anti-gun bills recently. On a national level there are also repube's working on anti-gun legislation with the liberal democrats. Wait and see the latest bill should be around next month if not April.

    There are non-conservative repube's all over the party. Which is why I never blanket vote or support any republicans. The republican party has no balls in congress and has been useless and no better then the democrats. Compromise just like MOCs will do nothing but hurt everyone in the end.

  25. #25
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    I actually think that state some Republicans ARE trying to limit gun rights... look at the former SB59. Republicans want to appear to the gun rights constituency that they are supportive of gun rights BUT really, using my "look at what they do rather than what they say" it appears they don't. I'm not saying that there aren't some real supporters in the party... and yes, as a party, the Republicans may have more individuals that seemingly act on their convictions regarding their support of gun rights. But to make a blanket statement that "Republicans support gun rights" denies that there are some very powerful influences within the party that work against that belief.

    I think a strong case can be made that both parties exist only to perpetuate themselves by saying they support their respective constituents but, when it comes to actually doing something that backs that up... evidence is lacking. Think of it this way: IF I were a person who supports "gun control", would I be pleased that there has been no real NATIONAL movement to actually enact anything of substance? If current prognoses are correct, the possibility of enacting anything of substance is reduced every day. Why? Because in the end, the actual votes will not be there despite all of the hyperbolic rhetoric to the contrary. Yes, some individuals are able to push some things from both sides, but the national parties as a whole are really quite impotent.

    Back to my very first point in this thread: having an R or D behind a person's name tells a person next to nothing about where a particular candidate stands in regards to the 2nd Amendment. We need to do our homework and instead of lumping people into categories which truly aren't very helpful instead ask how our legislators will turn their claims of pro-2A leanings into actual actions...and hold them to it instead of being reduced to using terms like "At least they....".

    i don't think i made a blanket statement that state "Republicans support gun rights", in fact i think i pointed out many times that they are not a strong ally to us going back to the OP. I said in general they are MORE supportive than state democrats , and I still stand by that. I never said having an R or a D next to a name automatically made them a friend or an ally.

    Quote Originally Posted by mikestilly View Post
    In Michigan I would agree but in other states I disagree. There are repube's who vote anti-gun and lead the charge for it with bans (Colorado being a state that passed several anti-gun bills recently. On a national level there are also repube's working on anti-gun legislation with the liberal democrats. Wait and see the latest bill should be around next month if not April.

    There are non-conservative repube's all over the party. Which is why I never blanket vote or support any republicans. The republican party has no balls in congress and has been useless and no better then the democrats. Compromise just like MOCs will do nothing but hurt everyone in the end.
    My opinion was about only MI R&D's, each state definitely has different circumstances. We could point out Sen Mark Kirk from Illinois, who is a very anti-gun GOP senator, but look at the AWB, every sponsor/co-sponsor is a democrat. Even as a national party, the Democratic Party's official platform this past election called for an AWB and other restrictions while the official GOP position was very strongly worded in support for the 2A.
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •