PDA

View Full Version : Fiction: Democrats Sign More Gun Control Bills Than Republicans


Alaric
04-10-2011, 3:30 AM
Not sure anyone has ever correlated this before, so here goes.

Popular belief seems to indicate that Democrats are generally anti-gun and Republicans are pro-gun. This may be true to some degree among voters and perhaps even among politicians at the national level.

Is this true of California politicians? Let's look specifically at all of the former and current Governors of our state. How many of the gun control bills that have been signed in this state were signed by Democratic Governors, vs. Republican Governors?

The results were surprising. I took some of the information listed here: http://gunwiki.net/Gunwiki/LegalCaliforniaTimeline as well as some of the more recent laws passed from various sources.

I correlated this list with the list of California Governors found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_California

The first of the bills signed, the original concealed carry permit law of 1917 has little information available on it, including the exact date it was signed. It may have been signed by Hiram Johnson, who was first elected Governor as a Republican, but later became a member of the Progressive Party which he remained when he left office in 1917. Or by William Stephens, a Republican who succeeded him. Since Stephens was Governor for the majority of the year, I put this bill in the Republican camp.

The results? The first four gun control bills signed from 1917 to 1956 that established concealed carry permits and waiting periods for handgun purchases were all signed by Republicans.

The fifth was signed by a Democrat, Jerry Brown's father, Edmund G "Pat" Brown in 1965 and made the existing 3 day waiting period for handgun purchases five days.

The sixth was the infamous PC12031, the prohibition on loaded open carry, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1967.

So far, we're 5 to 1, Republicans leading.

The seventh went to Jerry Brown (D), extending the five day waiting period to seven days in 1976.

We made it through the 80's without a single gun control bill being signed.

In the 90's the Republicans extended their lead. Five more bills were all passed by Republicans.

Gray Davis (D) signed 3 gun control bills in the early 2000's before being recalled and replaced by the Governator who signed seven more, making him by far the single worst governor in this state's history:
AB 962 - the ammo registration bill
PC 12280 - the 50 BMG ban
AB 1471 - The microstamping bill
AB 821 - the lead ammo ban
AB 2728 - Changes to AW lists
...and 2 bills tightening up the "safe handgun roster" law.

Final tally (it's late, hope I got this right) -

Republicans - 17

Democrats - 5

I know many will point out that legislatures can override vetos, and not all of these bills may have been signed. True, I did account for this possibility.
Also, the definition of what a Democrat is and a Republican has changed significantly since 1917 - also true and not accounted for.
This list may not take into full account all the bills passed, especially those that resulted in minor changes to existing laws.

The bottom line is that partisan affiliation is not a good indicator of a candidate's willingness to restrict our freedoms. Vote with caution.

jshoebot
04-10-2011, 4:05 AM
Great analysis! As far as I'm concerned, the Democrats and Republicans are the same party. Democrats are driving a car as fast as possible towards the cliff, while Republicans are just jogging. They'll both take us to ruin, but one tends to go faster. Except on the gun front, it would seem! :p

E Pluribus Unum
04-10-2011, 4:10 AM
Forget about who signed it; many may argue that the governor should only use his veto powers in rare, very important circumstances.


Look at the vote of the legislature and see if democrats vote for less gun control. After all, the governor cannot write a law, some idiot has to do that first, and then several more idiots must vote for it.

NotEnufGarage
04-10-2011, 5:44 AM
A more valid analysis would be to show for each bill, what was the vote margin by which it passed the legislature. Blaming a Republican governor for signing a veto-proof bill is like blaming your dog for eating the steak you left laying on the kitchen floor. You can't blame a governor for signing something that he knows will be upheld on appeal. Most governors save the veto power for those cases where they know it won't be overturned in order to not be branded "the just say no governor" by you know who in the MSM.

Another facet that needs exploration is who has signed more Pro-2A legislation.

The governors rarely conceive of this legislation, or move it through the legislature. A thorough analysis would show which legislators and their districts originate such legislation. I'm betting most comes from very liberal representatives of very liberal districts, ala DeLeon and his ilk.

Seriously, putting the blame for any legislation on any governor is flawed. In this state, the governor does not set the agenda. He's the tail wagged by the legislative dog, which is why we need to get to a part-time legislature. The smaller the dog, the less impact the wag has on us.

Even implementation and regulation of these laws doesn't fall squarely on the governor in this state, since the Attorney General, Controller, and other cabinet level positions are elected and not appointed. That might be a reform California needs to look into, in order to make the Executive branch more powerful and thereby diminish the impact of the Legislative branch.

NotEnufGarage
04-10-2011, 5:57 AM
The bottom line is that partisan affiliation is not a good indicator of a candidate's willingness to restrict our freedoms. Vote with caution.

I would agree. NRA report cards and the like are probably more accurate. That said, I'd be willing to bet that there are a lot more Reps with A's and B's than there are Dems, overall. That might not be the case in this crazy state, though.

Look at this last election. Many here supported JB over MW citing his Pro-2A history and her Anti comments. I don't think there'd be a difference in the outcome of most state issues with either one "in charge", since neither would be. Fabio Nunez and Daryl Steinberg are the guys setting the agenda. The governor might have some input, but not much and even after any new law is passed, it'll be up to KH to implement it. Now, perhaps if Cooley had won the impact of such laws would be somewhat mitigated, since his staff would have been consulting with the legislature on the crafting of the bill but since KH won, her staff is doing that consulting which probably results in legislation that is more aggregious to those of us who value the 2nd Amendment.

The bottom line is no single elected official controls the states willingness to restrict our freedoms. Vote with caution, in all elections, not just the top spot.

daveinwoodland
04-10-2011, 6:05 AM
The main reason I am a Libertarian

NotEnufGarage
04-10-2011, 6:10 AM
The main reason I am a Libertarian

Who was the last candidate they elected?

Put away your moral superiority and pick a side. At this time, we have 2 viable parties in this state and country. If you're not voting for the one of them that most closely represents your beliefs, you're just helping the one that is most against your beliefs.

ivsamhell
04-10-2011, 6:28 AM
Forget about who signed it; many may argue that the governor should only use his veto powers in rare, very important circumstances.


Look at the vote of the legislature and see if democrats vote for less gun control. After all, the governor cannot write a law, some idiot has to do that first, and then several more idiots must vote for it.

Like to uphold the constitution?

yellowfin
04-10-2011, 6:46 AM
Who was the last candidate they elected?

Put away your moral superiority and pick a side. At this time, we have 2 viable parties in this state and country. If you're not voting for the one of them that most closely represents your beliefs, you're just helping the one that is most against your beliefs.
The problem is that the 2 sides have converged towards each other on much too much. Without pressure of an alternative to force them into line they've gotten away with as much wrong as they can for simply being able to debate which of the two is the lesser of two evils. Neither one of them is sufficiently strong in standing up for my beliefs.

jl123
04-10-2011, 7:02 AM
Who was the last candidate they elected?

Put away your moral superiority and pick a side. At this time, we have 2 viable parties in this state and country. If you're not voting for the one of them that most closely represents your beliefs, you're just helping the one that is most against your beliefs.

So instead of trying to fix the problem voters should perpetuate it?

sounds like sound logic.

NotEnufGarage
04-10-2011, 8:17 AM
So instead of trying to fix the problem voters should perpetuate it?

sounds like sound logic.

How does voting for a candidate with no chance of winning fix anything?

Apply your efforts to changing the one side that appears to be changeable, or so the recent budget events in Washington would appear to make it seem that way. Pressure from the Tea Party against the establishment Republicans seems to be changing the direction. In past years, a cut was a reduction in the growth of government spending. This year, for the first time ever, we see an ACTUAL CUT in the amount of money government is spending since last year. It's not a big cut, but it's a start in the right direction.

The Democrats, as a collection of special interests, all who view more spending as the solution to every problem, seem unchangeable to me.

AEC1
04-10-2011, 9:52 AM
The argument about third parties is tiring. We all know the arguments from both sides...

bwiese
04-10-2011, 10:09 AM
We've had a helluva lotta sellout Republcans in CA. Nationally, east Coast Repubs are pretty lame. Romney may well have a chance of being a Pres candidate and he's for an AW ban - though he'd likely nominate judges (solely on a coincidental basis) with a better understanding of RKBA than any Obama candidate.

In CA, quite a few CA Rs were often the last minute will-o'-the-wisp swing votes that could have killed bad gun legislation: gun laws typically only pass by a relatively few votes.

And then their CA party has the gall to try to appeal to CA gun owners (Whitman, Poizner, etc.)

Some of the progress or attempted progress in CA gun rights has involved various Central Valley Dems.

anthonyca
04-10-2011, 10:15 AM
Gary Johnson vetoed 750 bills and used the line item veto thousands of times as a republican in mostly democratic New Mexico. That was more than all the other 49 governors combined. Our republican governors just had no guts, or back bone, or $&//5.

loose_electron
04-10-2011, 10:47 AM
The Democrats, as a collection of special interests, all who view more spending as the solution to every problem, seem unchangeable to me.

And Republican are not the same?

Must be good Kool-Aid, can I have some?

The biggest deficit over spenders in recent history were Reagan and GW Bush.

The only president in recent history to get to a budget that was balanced was Clinton. (Admittedly with some Newt G. prodding!)

barthel
04-10-2011, 11:42 AM
The Republican party (in general) in California would be considered Democrats anywhere else in the free world.

I try to think more along the lines of Conservative and Liberal rather than Republican and Democrat.

cortayack
04-10-2011, 11:53 AM
Yeap!! All those bills, where writen by Democrates, well, at least during the Governator's term..........:p and got no resistence passing the Democrate committees.....But its true the republicans in this state act like Democrates in one way or another! We are screwed no matter what! Can we vote Libertarian now.......?

Don29palms
04-10-2011, 12:08 PM
Arnold was a Republican in name only. Arnold is a DEMONRAT!

NotEnufGarage
04-10-2011, 12:21 PM
Yeap!! All those bills, where writen by Democrates, well, at least during the Governator's term..........:p and got no resistence passing the Democrate committees.....But its true the republicans in this state act like Democrates in one way or another! We are screwed no matter what! Can we vote Libertarian now.......?

Only if you can convince a Democrat to vote for the Green Party. Then it's a wash.

E Pluribus Unum
04-10-2011, 12:28 PM
The Republican party (in general) in California would be considered Democrats anywhere else in the free world.

I try to think more along the lines of Conservative and Liberal rather than Republican and Democrat.

The problem is that the libertarians cannot find anyone that has a snowball's chance in hell of winning and then you are left with Ross Perot syndrome.

Better to capitulate and vote for the lesser of two evils when he has a real chance of winning.

HondaMasterTech
04-10-2011, 12:45 PM
New Hampshire is one of the most gun friendly states in the nation. Guess what, the governor is a democrat. I think he's on his 4th term.

chris
04-10-2011, 1:20 PM
Like to uphold the constitution?

they could'nt fathom such a concept in this state.

lomalinda
04-10-2011, 1:51 PM
A republican, Deukmejan, signed the ultimate turkey law into effect.

bussda
04-10-2011, 2:10 PM
And using similar deductive logic, I can show the Democratic party is very racist, antienvironmentalist, againt personal liberty, homophobic, for big business and the party of the rich.

Anything can be proven with deductive logic. Prove it with inductive logic and then it may be a valid point.

Alaric
04-10-2011, 4:20 PM
I'm going to disagree that this is an example of deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or logic, is used to gain new knowledge where none exists.

For example:
What is a Figmignet?
A Figmignet has feathers.
Only birds have feathers.
Therefore a Figmignet must be a bird.

What I did was a simple examination of the correlation between the political party affiliated with the CA Governors who signed particular types of bills. What I found was that, contrary to popular bipartisan belief systems, political party is not a good indicator of whether a Governor of any particular party is going to sign a bill. If anything, I've used data to show the lack of correlation between popular belief and political reality.

I think it goes without saying that there is a dire need for a viable alternative (or two, or three) to the current 2-party system we currently have. The more people come to understand just how limited, contrived and undifferentiated our two viable choices have become the closer we can get to creating the viable alternatives.

advocatusdiaboli
04-10-2011, 4:30 PM
Who was the last candidate they elected?

Put away your moral superiority and pick a side. At this time, we have 2 viable parties in this state and country. If you're not voting for the one of them that most closely represents your beliefs, you're just helping the one that is most against your beliefs.

Some of us believe the two parties are really nearly one given the fact that they are both beholden to the very same monied special interests. We further believe that those of you who don't see that really don't want to see it and prefer not to think through issues independently. We believe you would rather vote by convenient label—a label prepared for you by the special interests to make you think your vote gives you power and be tricked into to wasting it.

Josh3239
04-10-2011, 4:35 PM
My thoughts;

1) The study was done for only California politicians. How many Republican politicians where in this study? 20? This is possibly a useful way to gauge Republican candidates from California, not Republican politicians in the rest of the country nor the party as a whole.

2) This doesn't take into effect the terrible games politicians play. Things like a Governor agreeing to sign a bill he doesn't like and in return the state legislature sends him something he wants to sign. Unfortunate and "whorish" but considering the circumstances, sometimes politicians have to what they do with the hand they are dealt. I don't like it, you don't like it, but that is politics and if the circumstances were different the outcome would likely be different.

3) Concealed carry permits and waiting periods are really a tiny piece of the pie of gun control. Look at major gun control nationally; FDR signed NFA, GCA signed by LBJ, AWB signed by Clinton. We don't have to look too hard. And the Governator, I don't care what little letter sits next to his name, he is no Republican as far as I am concerned.

Alaric
04-10-2011, 4:47 PM
1) The study was done for only California politicians. How many Republican politicians where in this study? 20? This is possibly a useful way to gauge Republican candidates from California, not Republican politicians in the rest of the country nor the party as a whole.

Here's the breakdown for CA Governors, by party:

Democratic (16)
American (1)
Republican (22)
Progressive (1)

I agree, my work was focused on California, so this is not necessarily applicable to the country at large. It would be interesting to do a similar study on states nationwide and on Presidents at the national level. In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't been done before.


2) This doesn't take into effect the terrible games politicians play. Things like a Governor agreeing to sign a bill he doesn't like and in return the state legislature sends him something he wants to sign. Unfortunate and "whorish" but considering the circumstances, sometimes politicians have to what they do with the hand they are dealt. I don't like it, you don't like it, but that is politics and if the circumstances were different the outcome would likely be different.

Politics - the oldest profession in the world.


3) Concealed carry permits and waiting periods are really a tiny piece of the pie of gun control. Look at major gun control nationally; FDR signed NFA, GCA signed by LBJ, AWB signed by Clinton. We don't have to look too hard. And the Governator, I don't care what little letter sits next to his name, he is no Republican as far as I am concerned.

So, does it matter to you that Reagan was a huge supporter of the Brady Bill (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html), that the Bush's (Jr and Sr) were both anti-gun (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/powell1.html) and that Dick Cheney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident) probably set back hunting-related gun rights by 10 years all by himself?

CalBear
04-10-2011, 5:12 PM
I'm not going to blindly vote D or R, no matter how much people believe it's a wasted vote.The only thing I consider a waste is not voting. Most people don't even bother to send out their ballot. Voting your mind is never a waste. In the vast majority of elections, your vote will never "matter." You won't be the tiebreaker.

In many CA jurisdictions, voting R is a "wasted vote" by some logic. But are you telling me, you'd move to SF, and vote for Democrats, because no Republicans ever stand a chance? By your logic, you can't vote for someone with "no shot" at winning. So the logical choice in those areas is to only vote Democrat. Give me a break. If you see a better 3rd party candidate, vote for him/her.

Republican governors haven't been good for the 2A in California. We have some great representatives in Sacramento, but most of the governors have been terrible.

bussda
04-10-2011, 5:14 PM
I'm going to disagree that this is an example of deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or logic, is used to gain new knowledge where none exists.

For example:
What is a Figmignet?
A Figmignet has feathers.
Only birds have feathers.
Therefore a Figmignet must be a bird.

What I did was a simple examination of the correlation between the political party affiliated with the CA Governors who signed particular types of bills. What I found was that, contrary to popular bipartisan belief systems, political party is not a good indicator of whether a Governor of any particular party is going to sign a bill. If anything, I've used data to show the lack of correlation between popular belief and political reality.

I think it goes without saying that there is a dire need for a viable alternative (or two, or three) to the current 2-party system we currently have. The more people come to understand just how limited, contrived and undifferentiated our two viable choices have become the closer we can get to creating the viable alternatives.

With that logic, anything can be proved, but it does not mean it is correct.

Using only the governors, you logic works. But it ignores who ran the legislature and thus presented the bill to the governor. And what was the prevailing opinions at that time. These are important datum.

More than two parties! Look at history and other countries. It does not work well. The reason both parties appear undifferentiated is because they listen to the same people. Fix that and you fix the problem.

sreiter
04-10-2011, 5:28 PM
How does voting for a candidate with no chance of winning fix anything?



ask jesse venture, or a ross perot (who i believe would have won if he didnt sound like he was insane with the helicopters following his daughter thing).


the problem is people refusing to vote their heart, thinking the little guy cant win, so they dont vote the right person in. Nader would be a better pres then we've had for the past 30-50 years

Ripon83
04-10-2011, 5:42 PM
Looking at history is fine, and attaching blame is all good, but if you want to use it to cast your vote for a "R" or a "D" its just fool hearty. Taking the OP meaning we should all vote for Democratic governors....BS....carrying it all further we should all vote for the "Democrats" at all turn. In other words the OP has provided a wonderful bit of "part" propaganda that would make any Democrat proud...I'm not even sure that was his intent its just the result.

When I look at my politicians today - mine is not writing legislation to ban ammunition, restrict open carry, or concealed weapons permits. In fact every single ONE of those actions is being written today by DEMOCRATS! So based on my patheticly short research we should all be voting Republican!

dfletcher
04-10-2011, 6:21 PM
New Hampshire is one of the most gun friendly states in the nation. Guess what, the governor is a democrat. I think he's on his 4th term.

That's fine, but in my home state of NH the Democrats also passed a ban carrying concealed in the state house. One can debate "good idea/bad idea" but the bottom line is the bill was supported and passed by Democrats.

Gov Lynch took a "no change" stance on NH gun laws which means he was opposed to reversal of that bill and the "10th Amendment" bill passed last year. On guns, he was not nearly as good as his Republican opponent.

I do not support the "Dems bad, Rep good" on gun control ALL the time - I'll take a southern Democrat over a northern Republican on guns nearly any time. But on gun control in general I would ask a simple question - please show where a gun control bill that has been approved by a legislature with a Republican majority. Do the same with respect to a Democratic majority, let's see where the gun control bills come from.

The problem with the Democratic Party is that much of their leadership comes from the northeast, west coast and big cities where gun control is supported by their party. The Democratic Party, as a result, has had gun control in their national platform since about 1964 I believe. Put a couple of "good old boys" in charge of the Democratic Party and I suspect things would loosen up a bit, that this is not the case probably harkens back to LBJ and the civil rights bill beating the hell out of the Democrats starting in '64.

TRICKSTER
04-10-2011, 7:02 PM
We can't change the past, but we can change the future. What counts now is what party is currently authoring these anti gun bills and right now it ain't the republicans. If it was, I would be contacting the party and telling them that I would no longer support, contribute or volunteer time to the party until their politicians stopped proposing these laws. Are the democrats here willing to do the same?

Alaric
04-10-2011, 7:48 PM
We can't change the past, but we can change the future. What counts now is what party is currently authoring these anti gun bills and right now it ain't the republicans. If it was, I would be contacting the party and telling them that I would no longer support, contribute or volunteer time to the party until their politicians stopped proposing these laws. Are the democrats here willing to do the same?

That's a nice idea, but not supported by the facts. Looking at the data presented, even in the most recent past, it was Republican Governors doing the most damage to us as gun owners.

You should be contacting the CA Republican party and telling them to support your gun rights. It's the silence of the constituency that allows for such regrettable acquiescence.

TRICKSTER
04-10-2011, 7:57 PM
That's a nice idea, but not supported by the facts. Looking at the data presented, even in the most recent past, it was Republican Governors doing the most damage to us as gun owners.

You should be contacting the CA Republican party and telling them to support your gun rights. It's the silence of the constituency that allows for such regrettable acquiescence.

You missed the point. (intentionally?) I am talking about the hear and now, who is authoring these bills? The fact is at this point in time it's the democrats. And yes I have done this when the republicans have done things in the past.

barthel
04-10-2011, 7:58 PM
We have some great representatives in Sacramento.....................

:puke:

CalBear
04-10-2011, 8:27 PM
:puke:
Dude, we do. Anyone who watched the end of the last legislative session and saw Kevin Jeffries and some of the other legislators who stood up for our rights knows there are some quality people working for us in Sacramento. They're just greatly outnumbered by idiots like Kevin De Leon. As for governors, very few governors, including Republicans, have been good to us.

RRangel
04-10-2011, 8:45 PM
Not a very scientific conclusion. The most restrictive gun laws were enacted in a little more than the last two decades. California is a blue state. It's nice to see political officials who get it regardless of political stripes and voters should always use their influence accordingly.

It shouldn't be assumed that informed Second Amendment advocates are voting along party lines when it really matters as it concerns gun rights. It would also be very hard for you to come to the conclusion that today's left is pro gun as a matter of institutional policy.

CalNRA
04-10-2011, 9:07 PM
You missed the point. (intentionally?) I am talking about the hear and now, who is authoring these bills? The fact is at this point in time it's the democrats. And yes I have done this when the republicans have done things in the past.

True. The OP has shown time and time again he has a partisan agenda.

Alaric
04-10-2011, 10:22 PM
True. The OP has shown time and time again he has a partisan agenda.

Indeed, I'm a 3rd party partisan. Absolutely no faith left in the major parties.

TRICKSTER
04-10-2011, 10:31 PM
Indeed, I'm a 3rd party partisan. Absolutely no faith left in the major parties.

Then why the deception and obfuscation. Bills can't be passed if they are never written. Do your same research going back 10 years, only this time identify who authored the bill and which party was in charge of the legislature when it passed. I am looking forward to your results.

CalNRA
04-10-2011, 10:43 PM
Indeed, I'm a 3rd party partisan. Absolutely no faith left in the major parties.

Must be nice to be so morally superior to the realities of the world.

CalNRA
04-10-2011, 10:44 PM
Then why the deception and obfuscation. Bills can't be passed if they are never written. Do your same research going back 10 years, only this time identify who authored the bill and which party was in charge of the legislature when it passed. I am looking forward to your results.

Don't hold your breath.

Alaric
04-10-2011, 10:49 PM
Then why the deception and obfuscation. Bills can't be passed if they are never written. Do your same research going back 10 years, only this time identify who authored the bill and which party was in charge of the legislature when it passed. I am looking forward to your results.

What deception? If you're calling me a liar, then please present your evidence or retract your statement.

I presented a small study on a little known fact about the reality of gun control in this state. If you don't like the conclusion I came up with, too bad. Do your own damn study. Otherwise you're just lazy and a hypocrite.

Alaric
04-10-2011, 10:50 PM
Don't hold your breath.

You can hold yours. I won't miss you.

RugerFan777
04-10-2011, 10:53 PM
Using Rep and Dem is misleading at best. Figure out how many liberal/progressive signed which bill and how many conservatives did will tell us allot more.

Schwarzenegger was a Liberal/Progressive republican and agrees 90% with the dems on every issue.

Touting him as some kind of conservative constitutionalist is way misleading. He is and always will be part of the Kennedy clan and never votes far from that perspective.

Alaric
04-10-2011, 10:56 PM
Must be nice to be so morally superior to the realities of the world.

Your "realities of the world" is the same tired excuse for people not taking responsibility for their political future that we've been faced with for the past century. It's the same excuse that allowed countries like Germany or Russia to fall to totalitarian rule. When the ruling parties become so undifferentiated so as to in effect become the same party, we don't have a democratic republic - we have something else.

If you want to be a sheep and stay in your little pen, fine. I'm sure it's safer in there for people like you.

Alaric
04-10-2011, 11:00 PM
Using Rep and Dem is misleading at best. Figure out how many liberal/progressive signed which bill and how many conservatives did will tell us allot more.

Schwarzenegger was a Liberal/Progressive republican and agrees 90% with the dems on every issue.

Touting him as some kind of conservative constitutionalist is way misleading. He is and always will be part of the Kennedy clan and never votes far from that perspective.

OK, who in your mind would be a better example? Maybe Reagan? He was after all the closest thing to a conservative messiah on top of his experience as CA Governor and President.

Sgt Raven
04-10-2011, 11:10 PM
Some of us believe the two parties are really nearly one given the fact that they are both beholden to the very same moneyed special interests. We further believe that those of you who don't see that really don't want to see it and prefer not to think through issues independently. We believe you would rather vote by convenient label—a label prepared for you by the special interests to make you think your vote gives you power and be tricked into to wasting it.

They're just the left and right wings on the same Turkey. :rolleyes:

dfletcher
04-10-2011, 11:10 PM
Indeed, I'm a 3rd party partisan. Absolutely no faith left in the major parties.

I'm not too far behind but I'd ask again - point out a Republican controlled state legislature that has passed gun control measures. I know of none but would be interested to know the answer for certain.

Your example segued broadly from politicians in general to CA politicians to Governors and upon reaching governors used only them as an example there's no difference between the parties.

It may not be true that where we see Democratic majorities we always see gun control, but so far as I know where we see gun control we always see Democratic majorities.

Alaric
04-10-2011, 11:19 PM
I'm not too far behind but I'd ask again - show me a Republican controlled state legislature that has passed gun control measures. I know of none but would be interested to know the answer for certain.

It may not be true that where we see Democratic majorities we always see gun control, but where we see gun control we always see Democratic majorities.

Sure, a recent example would be Utah. Not only is their Governor a Republican, but both houses of legislature are controlled by very conservative Republicans.

They just passed a bill that tightens up their CCW laws for out of state card holders.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2011/03/utah%E2%80%99s-ccw-permit-system-sees-changes

TRICKSTER
04-10-2011, 11:24 PM
What deception? If you're calling me a liar, then please present your evidence or retract your statement.

I presented a small study on a little known fact about the reality of gun control in this state. If you don't like the conclusion I came up with, too bad. Do your own damn study. Otherwise you're just lazy and a hypocrite.

No, I'm being truthful and informative, you sir, after being caught in you thinly veiled attempt to put the majority of the blame on republicans, are trying to change the subject. If that is not the case, you are totally ignorant on how bills are authored, passed, and sent to the governor to become law.
Your Saul Alinsky tactics will not work here.

Alaric
04-10-2011, 11:29 PM
Trickster (informatively named), do your own study on who controlled the legislature and who authored these bills that were passed.

I look forward to reading your thread on it.

CalNRA
04-10-2011, 11:30 PM
Your "realities of the world" is the same tired excuse for people not taking responsibility for their political future that we've been faced with for the past century. It's the same excuse that allowed countries like Germany or Russia to fall to totalitarian rule. When the ruling parties become so undifferentiated so as to in effect become the same party, we don't have a democratic republic - we have something else.

If you want to be a sheep and stay in your little pen, fine. I'm sure it's safer in there for people like you.
yes yes, being beer hall intellectuals that despises everyone else always works out.

InGrAM
04-10-2011, 11:31 PM
Indeed, I'm a 3rd party partisan. Absolutely no faith left in the major parties.

Just from your posts on the jerry brown owns guns thread and this thread we can all tell you are a liberal. Quit the charade Alaric.

CalNRA
04-10-2011, 11:32 PM
Just from your posts on the jerry brown owns guns thread and this thread we can all tell you are a leftist ideologue. Quit the charade Alaric.

/thread.

Thank you.

locosway
04-10-2011, 11:32 PM
Who was the last candidate they elected?

Put away your moral superiority and pick a side. At this time, we have 2 viable parties in this state and country. If you're not voting for the one of them that most closely represents your beliefs, you're just helping the one that is most against your beliefs.

That's a stupid view. If everyone picks one of the two parties we have now then nothing will change. If more people jump on board with the Libertarian party we could really see a difference. The idea is about voting for your beliefs, not picking a lesser of two evils.

TRICKSTER
04-10-2011, 11:38 PM
Sure, a recent example would be Utah. Not only is their Governor a Republican, but both houses of legislature are controlled by very conservative Republicans.

They just passed a bill that tightens up their CCW laws for out of state card holders.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2011/03/utah%E2%80%99s-ccw-permit-system-sees-changes

OMG, do you even read the articles that you point to as proof. This is an example of gun control legislation? The bill is to fix problems with training that is causing other states not to honor Utah CCW's for people that don't even live in Utah and yet have a Utah CCW. And heaven forbid they ask non residents to try and get one in their own state before they apply in Utah.

Alaric
04-10-2011, 11:42 PM
I'm seeing what happens when you point out an inconvenient truth to those who follow the Republican Party like religious zealots.

They accuse you of lying.

They accuse you of being a beer hall intellectual and morally superior.

They accuse you of being a leftist ideologue.

Where's the evidence to support any of these insults? There is none.

When they can't rebut the message, they attack the messenger. Stay classy guys.

locosway
04-10-2011, 11:43 PM
I'm seeing what happens when you point out an inconvenient truth to those who follow the Republican Party like religious zealots.

They accuse you of lying.

They accuse you of being a beer hall intellectual and morally superior.

They accuse you of being a leftist ideologue.

Where's the evidence to support any of these insults? There is none.

When they can't rebut the message, they attack the messenger. Stay classy guys.

It goes both ways... Both parties are terrible, and anyone who blindly follows deserves what is coming to them. Are you some how suggesting anything other than this?

Alaric
04-10-2011, 11:48 PM
OMG, do you even read the articles that you point to as proof. This is an example of gun control legislation? The bill is to fix problems with training that is causing other states not to honor Utah CCW's for people that don't even live in Utah and yet have a Utah CCW. And heaven forbid they ask non residents to try and get one in their own state before they apply in Utah.

Like it or not, this bill makes it harder to get a Utah CCW for many out of state residents. The Utah Legislature should be making it easier for people to defend themselves, not harder.

But you seem to think people should just get a ccw in their home state. Really? You do know that for many of us living in states like CA that isn't an option, right?

Alaric
04-10-2011, 11:49 PM
It goes both ways... Both parties are terrible, and anyone who blindly follows deserves what is coming to them. Are you some how suggesting anything other than this?

I completely agree with that.

InGrAM
04-11-2011, 12:02 AM
You are welcome to your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be.

As far as Arnold's record, you have to look at the whole thing. He signed multiple gun control laws while in office - he stunk. And don't forget, JB has actually been in office as Governor LONGER than Arnold was. He's now in his third term as Governor.

So yes, I am glad I voted for him, and his long record as Governor speaks for itself - no one gun control bill signed thus far.

There was this as well: AP article on Jerry Brown: "Gun ownership is a fundamental right."



You typed this did you not? In the governor jerry brown, gun owner thread.

From your admitted voting of governor Jerry Brown and obvious dislike of arnald (I'm with you on that one). And your posts on (jerry brown, gun owner) and this thread post. I conclude that you are a leftist leaning person.

An observation of mine, that from what I can see, has a valid point.

CalNRA
04-11-2011, 12:02 AM
I'm seeing what happens when you point out an inconvenient truth to those who follow the Republican Party like religious zealots.

They accuse you of lying.

They accuse you of being a beer hall intellectual and morally superior.

They accuse you of being a leftist ideologue.

Where's the evidence to support any of these insults? There is none.

When they can't rebut the message, they attack the messenger. Stay classy guys.

the very fact that you chose the verb "sign" rather than "pass" or "make" means your little "unbiased study" already had a pre-determined outcome.

Drop the facade of "3rd party" already.

Spetsnazos
04-11-2011, 12:08 AM
Who was the last candidate they elected?

Put away your moral superiority and pick a side. At this time, we have 2 viable parties in this state and country. If you're not voting for the one of them that most closely represents your beliefs, you're just helping the one that is most against your beliefs.

most UNAMERICAN thing I have read on these forums to date.

You should be ashamed, enjoy your tyrrany...

TRICKSTER
04-11-2011, 12:10 AM
Trickster (informatively named), do your own study on who controlled the legislature and who authored these bills that were passed.

I look forward to reading your thread on it.

Why post a separate thread when I can start right here with the most recent bills mentioned in your original post.

AB 962 - the ammo registration bill Author: De Leon (Democrat)
PC 12280 - the 50 BMG ban Author: Koretz (Democrat)
AB 1471 - The microstamping bill Author: Feuer (Democrat)
AB 821 - the lead ammo ban Author: Ridley-Thomas (Democrat)
AB 2728 - Changes to AW lists Author: Klehs (Democrat)

All authored by Democrats with Democrat controlled Assemblies, but I'm sure you already knew this and is why you refused to even acknowledge the fact that if a bill is never authored, it can never become a law.

sfbadger
04-11-2011, 12:10 AM
These days I think it's best to vote with your conscience but put your faith in the courts!

Alaric
04-11-2011, 12:13 AM
You are welcome to your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be.

As far as Arnold's record, you have to look at the whole thing. He signed multiple gun control laws while in office - he stunk. And don't forget, JB has actually been in office as Governor LONGER than Arnold was. He's now in his third term as Governor.

So yes, I am glad I voted for him, and his long record as Governor speaks for itself - no one gun control bill signed thus far.

There was this as well: AP article on Jerry Brown: "Gun ownership is a fundamental right."



You typed this did you not? In the governor jerry brown, gun owner thread.

From your admitted voting of governor Jerry Brown and obvious dislike of arnald (I'm with you on that one). And your posts on (jerry brown, gun owner) and this thread post. I conclude that you are a leftist leaning person.

An observation of mine, that from what I can see, has a valid point.

I did write that, correct. I also voted for Fiorina over Boxer for US Senate and Cooley over Harris for AG. I choose to vote for candidates over parties and policy over personality.

If you want to dismiss me as a partisan leftist, so be it. I do after all support abortion rights, marijuana legalization and gay rights. However I also support a smaller federal government, lower taxes, increased illegal immigration enforcement, and a strong military coupled with a pro-active foreign policy.

Kinda hard to stick me in a little box now isn't it? I used to call myself a liberal libertarian. Now I just call myself politically disenfranchised. :pinch:

TRICKSTER
04-11-2011, 12:14 AM
Like it or not, this bill makes it harder to get a Utah CCW for many out of state residents. The Utah Legislature should be making it easier for people to defend themselves, not harder.

But you seem to think people should just get a ccw in their home state. Really? You do know that for many of us living in states like CA that isn't an option, right?


This is an example of "Gun Control"? If only we were so lucky here in CA.
Utah doesn't have to issue CCWs to non residents and yet they do. And they are still not denying permits no non residents, all they are asking is that you try and get one in your own state first.

InGrAM
04-11-2011, 12:21 AM
I did write that, correct. I also voted for Fiorina over Boxer for US Senate and Cooley over Harris for AG. I choose to vote for candidates over parties and policy over personality.

If you want to dismiss me as a partisan leftist, so be it. I do after all support abortion rights, marijuana legalization and gay rights. However I also support a smaller federal government, lower taxes, increased illegal immigration enforcement, and a strong military coupled with a pro-active foreign policy.

Kinda hard to stick me in a little box now isn't it? I used to call myself a liberal libertarian. Now I just call myself politically disenfranchised. :pinch:

No, actually it is not. You stated this after I called you out on your political leanings. The typical leftist thing to do....

Say something promoting your party, then back off and say you are not affiliated with that party and that you are independent or "3rd party".

Spetsnazos
04-11-2011, 12:26 AM
No, actually it is not. You stated this after I called you out on your political leanings. The typical leftist thing to do....

Say something promoting your party, then back off and say you are not affiliated with that party and that you are independent or "3rd party".

no thats what blind (R) voters do. OMG dem Obama is takin my der gunz, Go Reagan!!

While Reagan is the one that took your rights away and Obama hasn't even touched them.

Facts, I bring them.

Alaric
04-11-2011, 12:29 AM
....
All authored by Democrats with Democrat controlled Assemblies, but I'm sure you already knew this and is why you refused to even acknowledge the fact that if a bill is never authored, it can never become a law.

It's no great surprise that there are anti-gun Democrats. What seems to be inflicting a visceral reaction amongst the party faithful is the notion that /gasp/ Republican Governors in CA could be responsible for signing over 3 times as many gun control bills as Democratic Governors.

It might be explainable if only there were 3 times as many Republican Governors as Democrats in this states' history, but as I pointed out earlier the R's have a slim lead there.

InGrAM
04-11-2011, 12:30 AM
no thats what blind (R) voters do. OMG dem Obama is takin my der gunz, Go Reagan!!

While Reagan is the one that took your rights away and Obama hasn't even touched them.

Facts, I bring them.

? Thats not what I said at all...... why don't you READ before you post.

Alaric
04-11-2011, 12:36 AM
This is a fun read...

Why I'm for the Brady Bill
By Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan, in announcing support for the Brady bill yesterday, reminded his audience he is a member of the National Rifle Association
Published: March 29, 1991


"Anniversary" is a word we usually associate with happy events that we like to remember: birthdays, weddings, the first job. March 30, however, marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot.

It was on that day 10 years ago that a deranged young man standing among reporters and photographers shot a policeman, a Secret Service agent, my press secretary and me on a Washington sidewalk.

I was lucky. The bullet that hit me bounced off a rib and lodged in my lung, an inch from my heart. It was a very close call. Twice they could not find my pulse. But the bullet's missing my heart, the skill of the doctors and nurses at George Washington University Hospital and the steadfast support of my wife, Nancy, saved my life.

Jim Brady, my press secretary, who was standing next to me, wasn't as lucky. A bullet entered the left side of his forehead, near his eye, and passed through the right side of his brain before it exited. The skills of the George Washington University medical team, plus his amazing determination and the grit and spirit of his wife, Sarah, pulled Jim through. His recovery has been remarkable, but he still lives with physical pain every day and must spend much of his time in a wheelchair.

Thomas Delahanty, a Washington police officer, took a bullet in his neck. It ricocheted off his spinal cord. Nerve damage to his left arm forced his retirement in November 1981.

Tim McCarthy, a Secret Service agent, was shot in the chest and suffered a lacerated liver. He recovered and returned to duty.

Still, four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special -- a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol -- purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance.

This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981.

Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.

While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.

The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser's sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill -- on a nationwide scale -- can't help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.

And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.

Critics claim that "waiting period" legislation in the states that have it doesn't work, that criminals just go to nearby states that lack such laws to buy their weapons. True enough, and all the more reason to have a Federal law that fills the gaps. While the Brady bill would not apply to states that already have waiting periods of at least seven days or that already require background checks, it would automatically cover the states that don't. The effect would be a uniform standard across the country.

Even with the current gaps among states, those that have waiting periods report some success. California, which has a 15-day waiting period that I supported and signed into law while Governor, stopped nearly 1,800 prohibited handgun sales in 1989. New Jersey has had a permit-to-purchase system for more than two decades. During that time, according to the state police, more than 10,000 convicted felons have been caught trying to buy handguns.

Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns.

This level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them. If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.

And there would be a lot fewer families facing anniversaries such as the Bradys, Delahantys, McCarthys and Reagans face every March 30.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html

Wait, not THE GIPPER! NO!!!!!

TRICKSTER
04-11-2011, 12:44 AM
? Thats not what I said at all...... why don't you READ before you post.

It's intentional, he is quite adept at assigning statements to people when they never said it. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=6076639&postcount=406 That is one of Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals techniques. When your losing the debate, change the subject and discredit the other person.

InGrAM
04-11-2011, 12:47 AM
It's intentional, he is quite adept at assigning statements to people when they never said it. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=6076639&postcount=406 That is one of Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals techniques. When your losing the debate, change the subject and discredit the other person.

Thanks, thats good to know. It seems to happen a lot on this forum. (sadly)

TRICKSTER
04-11-2011, 12:52 AM
It's no great surprise that there are anti-gun Democrats. What seems to be inflicting a visceral reaction amongst the party faithful is the notion that /gasp/ Republican Governors in CA could be responsible for signing over 3 times as many gun control bills as Democratic Governors.

It might be explainable if only there were 3 times as many Republican Governors as Democrats in this states' history, but as I pointed out earlier the R's have a slim lead there.

And what I have pointed out, and you intentionally ignore, is that there is nothing that we can do to change the past, but we need to concentrate on the present and future. At the present time, it's the Democrats that are causing the problems by authoring these bills. Let's deal with that now. If in the future, if republicans start authoring anti gun bills, I will treat them the same way as we should treat the democrats now. You are the one fixated on blaming narrowly targeted people from the past, yet you ignore the present and future. A very narrow minded and politically bias viewpoint.

TRICKSTER
04-11-2011, 1:01 AM
Thanks, thats good to know. It seems to happen a lot on this forum. (sadly)

Yep, the typical MO is once they are exposed they move on and start up on some other thread. Once enough people catch on, maybe it will stop.

Alaric
04-11-2011, 1:06 AM
And what I have pointed out, and you intentionally ignore, is that there is nothing that we can do to change the past, but we need to concentrate on the present and future. At the present time, it's the Democrats that are causing the problems by authoring these bills. Let's deal with that now. If in the future, if republicans start authoring anti gun bills, I will treat them the same way as we should treat the democrats now. You are the one fixated on blaming narrowly targeted people from the past, yet you ignore the present and future. A very narrow minded and politically bias viewpoint.

??? Now you're just reading into my posts in a very narrow minded and politically biased way. :rolleyes:

I blame both parties for the mess we're in here in CA. It's the authors of the bills, the legislators who vote for them and the Governors who sign them. Without any one of those elements, the bill wouldn't pass (duh).

If, in the future, you choose to see that the Republicans share this blame with the Democrats based on clear and incontrovertible evidence like I've presented in my OP, then I hope you're sitting down. Such a shock might overwhelm the simplistic bipartisan zeitgeist you've been taught to accept and result in other profound insights. For instance, you might begin to recognize shades of grey and colors, whereas before everything appeared black and white.

TRICKSTER
04-11-2011, 1:12 AM
You know you are losing the debate when you have to quote someone who hasn't been President for over 20 years and dead for almost 7.
It's almost like Godwins Law, but instead of using Hitler or Nazis, they use Reagan

Alaric
04-11-2011, 1:18 AM
Now you're just threadcrapping trickster.

Zombie Reagan No Like Threadcrappers, AAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHH!

http://donpalabraz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/zombie-reagan.jpg

TRICKSTER
04-11-2011, 1:24 AM
??? Now you're just reading into my posts in a very narrow minded and politically biased way. :rolleyes:
.

No I'm not, my post are nothing like you original post, now that was narrow minded and politically bias.
I have already stated that I will treat any anti gun legislators equally, but unless you have invented a time machine, I can't do anything about the past, just the present and future. And at the present time, it's the dems that are authoring the anti-gun legislation. I can't control your denial of the facts as they pertain to what is happening now and I will no longer waste my time trying.
I would normally end by telling you to have a blissful day, but it appears that you already are.

Werewolf1021
04-11-2011, 1:25 AM
Now you're just threadcrapping trickster.

Zombie Reagan No Like Threadcrappers, AAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHH!

http://donpalabraz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/zombie-reagan.jpg

Ok now.....

Alaric
04-11-2011, 1:32 AM
And at the present time, it's the dems that are authoring the anti-gun legislation. I can't control your denial of the facts as they pertain to what is happening now and I will no longer waste my time trying.


OK, I've got one for you that comes to mind - Mitt Romney.

He's currently leading in Republican straw polls for the Presidential nomination. He's also a supporter of the AWB. In fact, he even signed an AWB for MA.

Want more?

Mooseeyes
04-11-2011, 2:12 AM
How does voting for a candidate with no chance of winning fix anything?

Apply your efforts to changing the one side that appears to be changeable, or so the recent budget events in Washington would appear to make it seem that way. Pressure from the Tea Party against the establishment Republicans seems to be changing the direction. In past years, a cut was a reduction in the growth of government spending. This year, for the first time ever, we see an ACTUAL CUT in the amount of money government is spending since last year. It's not a big cut, but it's a start in the right direction.

The Democrats, as a collection of special interests, all who view more spending as the solution to every problem, seem unchangeable to me.

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree: 100%

TRICKSTER
04-11-2011, 2:57 AM
OK, I've got one for you that comes to mind - Mitt Romney.

He's currently leading in Republican straw polls for the Presidential nomination. He's also a supporter of the AWB. In fact, he even signed an AWB for MA.

Want more?
Wow, you threw out a name, how does that relate to what is being written now. By the was, what party authored that AWB and what party was in charge of the legislature?

#1. He is not currently in office, once again you dwell on the past.

#2. What anti-gun legislation has he recently or is currently authoring?

#3. If he expresses a anti-gun position as a candidate this time, I will not vote for him.

#4. Do you really want to turn this into a nationwide search of what politicians have supported anti gun positions, because besides delving into the past, which we can not change, it will blow your entire first post right out of the water.

#5. Why am I even wasting my time on someone who is trolling?:yawn:

Falconis
04-11-2011, 4:00 AM
I realize everyone here has their own skewed view on politics here. Like opinions and ***holes, everyone has a view on their politics. I guess that falls into the opinion line. Before I continue, I know not everyone here will agree with my opinion and I know I will probably get flamed on my views.

Politicians are all slimey bastards as far as I am concerned. Well maybe not all, but 99.9 percent of them. I don't think I have seen anyone here disagree on the statement that a politician sees his only job as getting re elected as opposed to representing the people and blah blah blah. That being said, I have voted republican most if not all my life primarily due to the lack of gun rights in this state. Only time I voted democrat was in a local election and that's because the republican canadite just turned me off by the time he finished giving his spiel.

This is how I see gun control. If something bad happens, most politicians are going to sign something into law. Red or Blue. It's gonna happen. I unfortunately now judge by how much of an infringement one goes by. My view is that democrats (liberal california ones anyways) want to out right ban everything under the sun including sling shots. Republicans capitulate a lot, but also push back as much as they can. I guess Roberti-Roos was the exception here. Well most do and I know people here will disagree with me.

Based on the OP and his sources (with the exception of AHNOLD, whom I've grown to despise), republicans did sign infringements on 2A rights for the most part until ahnold, but they were annoyances more than anything else (again Roberti-Roos being the exception). Democrats were the ones who signed outright bans on the ownership of firearms for the most part. It was a democratic legislature and a governor. It is the outright bans I am most concerned with. The bear part I feel is another fight that should remain compartmentalized to a certain degree. I just feel bringing the fight as one big clump is way too risky to do.

I don't ever remember California having a republican legislature since the late 70's. I feel the number of democratic representatives have only grown. Someone please correct me if I am wrong and give the dates as to when CA had a republican legislature. So with that, thought in mind, I often wonder which party is the driving steam for all the bans. I understand politicians will cave in when all the numbers and stars seem aligned against them, but there are some politicians who aggresively go after gun rights, Kevin DeLeon (D).

My perceptions are based on the fact that the Federal AWB was done by a democratic congress and president. Most if not all ownership bans in California were written by a democratic legislature and most were signed into law by a democratic governor. Some people here will not agree with me, but I throw schrawznegger into the democratic pool. I don't care what his party card says.

I understand the OP has his views, but my view remains that the democrats are the ones hostile to 2A rights in general and are the aggressors into stripping us of our freedoms in that regards. The republicans,when the don't fight for us, merely seem to buckle under the pressure. It's not good nor excusable, but it's a lot less "evil" than what the democrats seem to do.

I'm sure people here can fight over all the details, but when it comes down to it, I still blame the democrats and liberals for the degradation of gun rights in Ca. I blame republicans for caving in when they do.

CalNRA
04-11-2011, 7:40 AM
no thats what blind (R) voters do. OMG dem Obama is takin my der gunz, Go Reagan!!

While Reagan is the one that took your rights away and Obama hasn't even touched them.

Facts, I bring them.

oh right, because his appointees like Sotomayor, Kagan and Holder are all such liberty lovers.

You are the blind one here.

CalNRA
04-11-2011, 7:42 AM
It's no great surprise that there are anti-gun Democrats. What seems to be inflicting a visceral reaction amongst the party faithful is the notion that /gasp/ Republican Governors in CA could be responsible for signing over 3 times as many gun control bills as Democratic Governors.

hey the "unbiased one", there you go again, "signing". Nice choice of wording there. Essentially now you are blatantly giving Democrats a pass for being anti gun. Your cover, if there was any left, is completely blown now.

CalNRA
04-11-2011, 7:50 AM
You know you are losing the debate when you have to quote someone who hasn't been President for over 20 years and dead for almost 7.
It's almost like Godwins Law, but instead of using Hitler or Nazis, they use Reagan

Exactly!



The sixth was the infamous PC12031, the prohibition on loaded open carry, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1967.




Reagan was a huge supporter of the Brady Bill


The biggest deficit over spenders in recent history were Reagan and GW Bush.


no thats what blind (R) voters do. OMG dem Obama is takin my der gunz, Go Reagan!!

While Reagan is the one that took your rights away and Obama hasn't even touched them.

Facts, I bring them.

This is a fun read...



http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html


Now you're just threadcrapping trickster.

Zombie Reagan No Like Threadcrappers, AAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHH!

http://donpalabraz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/zombie-reagan.jpg


You lefties' obsession with Reagan is just flat out unhealthy.

Mesa Tactical
04-11-2011, 8:20 AM
The only difference between the parties is rhetoric. There is essentially one party in America, the Party in Power. "Democrat" and "Republican" are two rhetorical wings of the same party.

RugerFan777
04-11-2011, 8:41 AM
OK, who in your mind would be a better example? Maybe Reagan? He was after all the closest thing to a conservative messiah on top of his experience as CA Governor and President.
Reagan still believed in violating the constitution, so no. Though on a evilness scale he be far less than clinton/bush/obama.

Ron Paul would be a good example of a constitutionalist.

dfletcher
04-11-2011, 9:04 AM
Sure, a recent example would be Utah. Not only is their Governor a Republican, but both houses of legislature are controlled by very conservative Republicans.

They just passed a bill that tightens up their CCW laws for out of state card holders.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2011/03/utah%E2%80%99s-ccw-permit-system-sees-changes

Well, I did ask for only one .... :(

But do you really think this qualifies as "gun control" when the net result, according to the article and fellow who wrote the law, is that UT permits will be more widely recognized out of state? For the sake of discussion let's say this is clearly gun control - if this is the best example of gun control brought to us by Republicans I'll accept it, it pales next to Demecratic Party endeavors.

We can name a few anti-gun Republicans all day long, being from the Northeast a few minutes thought and I can rattle off a few more. But as a group, Democrats are and for a long time have been a far, far greater threat to gun rights than the Republicans. It really strains credulity to suppose otherwise or mention a few names as though that proves the point. Just my opinion.

Spetsnazos
04-11-2011, 9:10 AM
You know you are losing the debate when you have to quote someone who hasn't been President for over 20 years and dead for almost 7.
It's almost like Godwins Law, but instead of using Hitler or Nazis, they use Reagan

are you mad that the facts are being revealed to you for the first time about your hero who destroyed America as we know it??

Spetsnazos
04-11-2011, 9:13 AM
oh right, because his appointees like Sotomayor, Kagan and Holder are all such liberty lovers.

You are the blind one here.

have any of those put any gun restrictions or laws into place? I thought so.

Did Reagan pass GUN legislation or not?

Has Sotomayer, Kagan, Holder or Obama passed GUN legislation or not?

Stop living in fantasy land and open up a history book.

tankarian
04-11-2011, 9:20 AM
Here is the TRUTH:

generally speaking...

-R leaning States have the most nonrestrictive gun laws.
-D leaning States have most laws infringing on the 2nd A and restricting RKBA

You liberals can twist and turn this faster than a Maytag washer on spin cycle; but the truth is the truth and it is NOT on your side.

dfletcher
04-11-2011, 9:26 AM
have any of those put any gun restrictions or laws into place? I thought so.

Did Reagan pass GUN legislation or not?

Has Sotomayer, Kagan, Holder or Obama passed GUN legislation or not?

Stop living in fantasy land and open up a history book.

Reagan signed anti-gun legislation and supported the Brady Bill - I don't think I'd hold him up as a great friend of gun owners. About the only postive thing I can think of is that after having been shot he publicly stated he did not support gun control in general - sort of a "he helped us by not screwing us" moment I guess.

None of the above can "pass" antigun legislation but that three have been elevated to positions where they can have a negative impact on gun rights is the concern, I think. The jury is still out on Kagan I suppose, Sotomayer and Holder have already shown they are antigun.

gatesbox
04-11-2011, 11:54 AM
Man this snit is Bannanas! First off how is the OP a troll? This is his thread! Why is it tHat the guys that think they have a mastery of logic and rhetorical skills are the ones that resort to the name calling "lefty" stuff.

I am a second amendment Democrat why? because I am not so stupid as to be charmed like a cobra by one issue.

Thank you OP for being brave enough to use your brain and consider candidates individually.

In the last Election cycle there were more Dem NRA endorsed candidates than Rep, why because if their record is the same the NRA endorses the encumbant.

Taxes, I vote Dem because I don't make over two hundred thousand a year, if you are like me and think your taxes will go down at all with a rep, tea, or any other party, your candidate is secretly laughing all the way to the bank.....

Good job RKBA lemmings....nothing will change, the rich will get richer, poor poorer, and your redneck tea party candidate just got a new jet, a new office and a tax break, you probably didn't...

I am a sane, middle class, white guy...no one will ever take my guns, I will always pay about the same tax, and though I might have to think ahead I will always be able to purchase a firearm that will put big holes in paper, deer, boar, or bad guys...

However do you realize what the Queers are doing to the soil?

ddestruel
04-11-2011, 12:18 PM
The statistic and BS / partial presentation of fact meter in this thread is pegged out. There is a ton of partial information being used to substatiate a claim that is not addressing the whole subject. Blind support for your party is one thing denial of all the documented damage that a specific party has done through legislative actions and bills is in-disputable. Govenors and presidents are a small portion of the problem the dont write it and they dont submit it. spend some time researching all the bills drafted proposed and voted on by various legislative bodies post facts not partial claims then it'll be worth a debate until then this thread belongs in Chit Chat

gatesbox
04-11-2011, 12:22 PM
If you do not agree with the Borg you will be assimilated.....

Alaric
04-11-2011, 1:07 PM
We can name a few anti-gun Republicans all day long, being from the Northeast a few minutes thought and I can rattle off a few more. But as a group, Democrats are and for a long time have been a far, far greater threat to gun rights than the Republicans. It really strains credulity to suppose otherwise or mention a few names as though that proves the point. Just my opinion.

If you re-read my OP, you'll see that I said this is a very limited study, focused on CA Governors. It was never my intention to paint the entire Republican Party as though it wears the same stripes as the party found in CA politics.

Here is the TRUTH:

generally speaking...

-R leaning States have the most nonrestrictive gun laws.
-D leaning States have most laws infringing on the 2nd A and restricting RKBA

You liberals can twist and turn this faster than a Maytag washer on spin cycle; but the truth is the truth and it is NOT on your side.

Again, this isn't about other states, it's about CA. In CA, some high-profile Republican politicians have been complicit in limiting our 2nd A freedoms.

Govenors and presidents are a small portion of the problem the dont write it and they dont submit it.

Governors are supposed to be a "check and balance" on the mistakes made by the legislature, and use their veto power appropriately. The Governors who have signed anti-gun rights legislation in this state, both R and D should be held accountable for their failings to do so.

History is important people. Either we learn from it, or we're doomed to repeat it.

Kestryll
04-11-2011, 2:17 PM
Partisan trolling from Alaric!?!!?

Say it isn't so!!!

This is the same stuff that got you tossed out of OT.