Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

There are occasions when this Republican Congress has risen to the challenge. Shutting the door on some of Pres. Bush’s spending suggestions and this issue are examples, IMO. I believe the government has the right to lay down laws in the public interest regarding how guns are used, but, to ban them is an abridgement of the intent of the founding fathers that an armed milita is the best protection the people have against an oppressive government.

I abhor violence. But, no government has the right to deny individuals or groups of individuals the right to self defense against foes with arms.

Can’t argue with that. AP jumps on the ‘me too’ train.

I agree also. The 2nd Amendment is the glue that holds our Constitution together.
It’s weird how they have some of the strictest anti 2nd Amendment laws but still have one of the highest crime rate.
Like DR said, this is one of the few things the GOP lead congress has actually gotten right. I still can’t believe Bush was wise enough not to push the so called assault weapons ban.

I watched part of the debate of this bill on c-span yesterday.
Eleanor Norton, the DC House Rep said if this was passed crime and murders would skyrocket in in DC, especially since the “assult weapons ban” expired.
When it was pointed out that 9 of the last 10 yrs. that DC led the nation in crime , her reply..Just think what it will be if everyone has guns?
When it was pointed out that states with very high gun ownership, even those with concealed carry, crime was a tiny fraction of the DC rate.

She then went into a spew about DC having too many drug-dealers and gangs to relate DC to other states ?? She pointed to the low gun crime rate in England where guns are all but totally baned.

When it was pointed out that since England had passed that law, the murder rate has doubled, her reply…drum roll…even if it doubled its still far lower than here!!

Question…How do people this stupid get elected ?, and why don’t the DNC leadership put a muzzel on the really dumb ones this close to a national election ?

Beagle, Norton is not stupid. But, she is, IMO, wrong on this issue. I think most opposed to gun ownership adhere to the principle that if there are no guns, people won’t be killed by them, and some who would have been killed by a gun would not be killed at all.

That may be true, but, England stands as evidence that it also may not be true, here in the U.S. What I think really motivates them though is the unspoken belief that somehow guns empower criminal behavior and if guns were not available, crime would go down. That too, may or may not be true.

But the one argument they can’t seem to wrap their mind around, is that most gun owners are law abiding and that it does not make sense to most Americans to deprive one large group of people a freedom guaranteed by the Constitution in order to control the behavior of another group that can’t or won’t handle the responsibility. The gun banners will eventually give up on this issue, it just does not have legs politically.

Beagle, that said, I cannot fathom how pro-gun owners can also be so adamantly opposed to medical marijuana use. That just blows me away. They will fight to the death to keep their weapons of death, but, their are scared constipated by the notion that medicine might also make you euphoric.

Absurd.

Chicago has similar misguided laws that prohibit guns anywhere in the city, making a criminal of anyone who uses a weapon to defend his family against intruders.

If Chicago’s murder rate wasn’t enough to dissuade someone from living there, then being prohibited from defending himself against those murderers should be.

David,
I’ll agree with you somewhat on the med-pot issue, however, will you agree to work on the bill , in a totally bipartasian manner, that writes the bill in such a manner that could never be used as a “slippery slope” for making pot legal for everyone ?

Nototh,
Detroit was much the same as Chicago untill Mi. passed a law that every non-felon can carry concealed weapons, and NO city can limit that right.
Guess what happened , carjackings went wayyyyy down in a few short months!!

All violent crime has gone down, and MI. hasn’nt turned into “dodge city” like the liberals said it would.

Detroit was much the same as Chicago untill Mi. passed a law that every non-felon can carry concealed weapons, and NO city can limit that right. Guess what happened , carjackings went wayyyyy down in a few short months!! All violent crime has gone down, and MI. hasn’nt turned into “dodge city” like the liberals said it would. Posted by Beagle at September 29, 2004 03:04 PM

Looks like common sense won out over raw emotionalism in Michigan. Good for them!

I wouldn’t expect the great state of Illinois to take a similar action anytime soon, however. Common sense is in short supply in Springfield and not likely to improve for the forseeable future, since Chicago pretty well runs the state, IMHO.

Criminals will have guns no matter what the law says because potential criminals don’t follow the law. Fancy that.

Anyone who says, “If there are no guns, then how will the criminals get them?” does not understand what a global economy means. We’re bordered by two countries, both of which could potentially import firearms. This is assuming that Americans don’t begin smuggling firearms as we did during the ’20s and prohibition. “Weapons of death” will always exist; it depends on how much someone wants to get them.

Beagle, you are asking me personally what I would do. Personally, it was never consistent to me to uphold citizen’s rights to own and carry potentially dangerous weapons like guns and alcohol while driving, but oppose a responsible adult’s right to alter their perception by other means.

Now let me be clear, I am talking about non-addictive substances. I absolutely support prohibitions against non Rx addictive substances which unlike alcohol would make an addict of anyone who used the substance. But, prohibiting ‘recreational’ substances is hypocritical in the extreme by those who support responsible gun ownership.

Back in the 60’s and 70’s I experimented with a few non-addictive substances, and some of the experiences profoundly changed how I assess the world about me, even to this day. But this is a separate issue from medicinal MJ use and the non-THC content hemp industry that could be providing jobs in America were it not for such overly compensating and inappropriately reactive laws based on fear and misunderstanding of what different drugs are and do.

David,
As I said before, I could support med-pot use if the bill was written properly so that some liberal judge could’nt rule that it meant anybody and everybody, for any reason.
I really don’t think you’ll ever see pot leagalized for everyone, and I’ll offer a few reasons.
As far as I know there is no “instant” test that will measure content in the body, like they can with alcohol, can’t have people driving stoned.
Same thing for operating machinery, you can’t have factory workers or heavy equipment operators working stoned.
Highschool kids would likely have greater acess to it, stoned in the classroom would hamper learning, (that may be part of todays problems?).
I personally don’t care if you roll yourself “a fatty” on the weekend to relax, but you likely would’nt do that just before you filled out your income tax forms, would you ?.
There is an old saying …”If you remember the 60’s, you wern’t there”.

Untill they come up with a reasonable test for content/effect for pot, you’ll never get it legal.

Hows that for being an “open minded” REpublican ?

Beagle, your argument is impressive. You have convinced me that it is a valid argument. I agree, that non-rx legalization of pot would have to be contingent upon enforcement by employers and police of no use, no effects, while driving and working.

You are of course absolutely correct, I would not even think of doing my taxes on the pot of old days. I hear the pot of these days is far more potent as well. Wouldn’t know, been decades since I have seen any good quality pot, but, I a family member has advised me seen some oregano is still floating around, cheap! :-)

Actually, there are a number of conservative views I agree with, and others I respect but disagree with, just not a preponderance.

David,

Thank you for being reasonable in discussing an issue, if everyone could do that everyones views could get a fair “hearing”.
Just my opinion.