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

[detroit_fan]

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.

 

[DrTodd]

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....".

 

[Bikenut]

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?????

 

[mikestilly]

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.

 

[detroit_fan]

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.

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.

 

[Yooper]

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.

Colorado's house and senate have democrat majorities, and their Governor is a democrat.

However, on the flip side, when NM went shall issue, i believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that the had Dem majorities in both houses, as well as a Dem Governor (Richardson, I think)