Romney says he'd have signed the AWB renewal on Meet the Press

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Here we go again...

The modern Republican Party has done more to reduce gun control than any other party in the history of the nation.  Perfect?  No, of course not.  But better than anything else out there.  I shudder to think of what our gun laws might be like if Clinton and his Democrat congress had been able to pass any anti-gun bill they wanted back in '94.  How many more anti-guin bills might have been passed after the AWB if Republicans hadn't managed to take congress away from them?

Piss and moan all you want.  The reality of our country is that you have three choices of political party: Democrat, Republican, or nothing (third party).  Democrats pass more gun control whenever they're able to.  Republicans manage to reduce the net of gun control in the country ("two steps forward, one step back").  Third p[arty has never managed to accomplish anything, either positive or negative.  Of those options, the choice of best RKBA support is a no-brainer. 

To borrow from Churchill, the Republican Party is the worst party we have, except for all the others.

[Len Budney]

His whole point is that were it not for Republicans in both houses and the White House we would still have an AWB.  How does that translate into "my gun grabber is better than your gungrabber"??

You keep discussing the past as if what "republicans" did in 1996 has any bearing on the fact that the leading candidates in 2008 are all gun grabbers. Someone with an (R) did something good in the past. Relevance to the fact that Rudy McRomney are a gun grabber? NONE.

HTG is making the same argument that a Clintonista might have about Lewinsky: "Presidents don't probe interns in the oval office with a cigar. It's never been done. Presidents since George Washington have had too much class to stoop that low." True: before Clinton no President managed to be THAT disgusting. But also irrelevant: Clinton WAS that disgusting.

Lest you miss the parallel, I'll explain it again. Suppose that every Republican since Lincoln till today has been an absolute, 100% second-amendment purist. Just suppose. What would that tell us about whether Giuliani is also a defender of 2A rights? Yes, kids, that's right! NOTHING! Pointing to other republicans' records when we already know for a fact that Giuliani is a gun grabber isn't just bad logic; it's embarrassingly stupid.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

To borrow from Churchill, the Republican Party is the worst party we have, except for all the others.

You just said, "It's a given that our guns are going to be grabbed. So I'd just prefer they be grabbed by a republican."

Aristotle pointed out a foolproof way to spot an invalid argument: if an argument is valid, it remains so after replacing the terms with anything you like. I regularly use this technique to reveal flawed arguments, but people (who probably don't know about Aristotle's clever technique) get bogged down in my choice of terms. Your argument has the form: "It's inevitable that X. Therefore I'd prefer X by Y." The folly of the argument is easily exposed. Some examples:

• It's inevitable that I'm going to be murdered. Therefore, I'd prefer to be murdered by my mother. (The ignorant would respond: that sentence doesn't make any sense.)
• It's inevitable that my wife is going to be raped. Therefore, I'd prefer for her to be raped by my best friend. (The ignorant reply, "Why do you always mention rape?")
• It's inevitable that abortions will be performed. Therefore, I prefer that they be performed by licensed physicians. (The ignorant become distracted and reply, "Wait--I agree with that one!")

Of the infinitely many examples I can make up, I prefer the one using rape, because nobody is idiot enough to say, "... so I'd prefer to be raped by a Republican." This might clue them that their entire argument is bogus. The fact is that (1) it's not inevitable, and (2) submitting to such an infringement is out of the question. If you aren't willing to lay your life, fortune and sacred honor on the line for freedom, then stop puffing out your chest and pretending to be a man.

--Len.

[The Rabbi]

To borrow from Churchill, the Republican Party is the worst party we have, except for all the others.

You just said, "It's a given that our guns are going to be grabbed. So I'd just prefer they be grabbed by a republican."

Do you honestly think the two statements above are equivalent?  Because if you do there is no point discussing this further.  You are either incapable of reading and understanding the point being made or you are deliberating distorting what is being stated.   The third possibility is that you know the difference between what HTG writes and what you write but you are engaging in argument for its own sake to satisfy some basic need you have.
So which is it?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

His whole point is that were it not for Republicans in both houses and the White House we would still have an AWB.  How does that translate into "my gun grabber is better than your gungrabber"??

You keep discussing the past as if what "republicans" did in 1996 has any bearing on the fact that the leading candidates in 2008 are all gun grabbers. Someone with an (R) did something good in the past. Relevance to the fact that Rudy McRomney are a gun grabber? NONE.

HTG is making the same argument that a Clintonista might have about Lewinsky: "Presidents don't probe interns in the oval office with a cigar. It's never been done. Presidents since George Washington have had too much class to stoop that low." True: before Clinton no President managed to be THAT disgusting. But also irrelevant: Clinton WAS that disgusting.

Lest you miss the parallel, I'll explain it again. Suppose that every Republican since Lincoln till today has been an absolute, 100% second-amendment purist. Just suppose. What would that tell us about whether Giuliani is also a defender of 2A rights? Yes, kids, that's right! NOTHING! Pointing to other republicans' records when we already know for a fact that Giuliani is a gun grabber isn't just bad logic; it's embarrassingly stupid.

--Len.

Your reading comprehension skills are failing you, Len.  My remarks in this thread have been limited to political parties.  I haven't discussed the current crop of candidates for '08. 

The current Republican Party is the same Republican Party from the '90s and '00s, with the same support base and the same basic ideals.  It's the same Republican Party that is running for office again in '08, so to discuss what the Party is likely to do in '08 based on what the Party did in the recent past is entirely reasonable and appropriate.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

To borrow from Churchill, the Republican Party is the worst party we have, except for all the others.

You just said, "It's a given that our guns are going to be grabbed. So I'd just prefer they be grabbed by a republican."

Aristotle pointed out a foolproof way to spot an invalid argument: if an argument is valid, it remains so after replacing the terms with anything you like. I regularly use this technique to reveal flawed arguments, but people (who probably don't know about Aristotle's clever technique) get bogged down in my choice of terms. Your argument has the form: "It's inevitable that X. Therefore I'd prefer X by Y." The folly of the argument is easily exposed. Some examples:

• It's inevitable that I'm going to be murdered. Therefore, I'd prefer to be murdered by my mother. (The ignorant would respond: that sentence doesn't make any sense.)
• It's inevitable that my wife is going to be raped. Therefore, I'd prefer for her to be raped by my best friend. (The ignorant reply, "Why do you always mention rape?")
• It's inevitable that abortions will be performed. Therefore, I prefer that they be performed by licensed physicians. (The ignorant become distracted and reply, "Wait--I agree with that one!")

Of the infinitely many examples I can make up, I prefer the one using rape, because nobody is idiot enough to say, "... so I'd prefer to be raped by a Republican." This might clue them that their entire argument is bogus. The fact is that (1) it's not inevitable, and (2) submitting to such an infringement is out of the question. If you aren't willing to lay your life, fortune and sacred honor on the line for freedom, then stop puffing out your chest and pretending to be a man.

--Len.

You're trying to put words in my mouth in a vain attempt to refute me.  It's the classic strawman argument, and it doesn't work around here.  (If you're as well-versed in traditional logic as you represent, you should be able to easily understand and recognize your argument for fallacy it is.  One can only conclude that you make your false argument knowingly and deliberately.) 

I never said that its a given that our guns are going to be grabbed.  Actually, I've argued just the opposite: as long as Republicans control the government, we tend to see a net reduction in gun control.  I don't want my guns to be grabbed by anyone.  I want the Republican Party to call the shots in Washington precisely because that's the party that won't grab my guns.

[Len Budney]

You're trying to put words in my mouth in a vain attempt to refute me.

You haven't denied the basic fact that the leading republican candidates support gun control, yet you continue to support them. That's not a straw man; that's precisely what you're doing in this thread. You can't weasel out of it, I'm afraid.

(If you're as well-versed in traditional logic as you represent...) 

PhD in mathematics, if you're curious. Mentioning my degree in no way constitutes an appeal to authority, BTW. That's why I explain the principles rather than simply asserting things.

I don't want my guns to be grabbed by anyone.  I want the Republican Party to call the shots in Washington precisely because that's the party that won't grab my guns.

That's the part where you're making no sense: the leading republican candidates all support gun control. Since they're on record supporting gun control, your claim that they "won't grab your guns" is ridiculous. I already dealt with that fallacy earlier. You keep saying, "Republicans oppose gun control." That may even be true as a general observation--but Giuliani, Romney et al had explicitly said they support gun control. Why don't you get that? Perhaps "republicans" don't, but the candidate you plan to vote for DOES.

--Len.

[Paddy]

Actually, I've argued just the opposite: as long as Republicans control the government, we tend to see a net reduction in gun control.

Well, you're wrong because that's blatantly false.  There has been a net increase in gun control legislation under Republicans. To wit:

Consider the following legislation, all of which occurred within the last six years:

?        GET THE U.S. OUT OF THE U.N.  ( June 4, 1997 ) 

The House defeated a pro-gun amendment, by a vote of 369-54, to pull the United States out of the anti-gun United Nations.  In recent years, the U.N. has been working to establish gun control laws worldwide and is seeking ways to lead member states like the U.S. toward stricter gun control laws.

169 House Republicans voted against the amendment.

?        HATCH-CRAIG GUN CONTROL AMENDMENT (May 14, 1999) -

In response to the Lautenberg amendment and its harsh gun control provisions, Senate Republicans presented a less stringent version.  The amendment offered by Orrin Hatch (RUT) and Larry Craig (R-ID) passed by a 48-47 vote.   

The Republican bill provided several restrictions on gun ownership.  It would require background checks for any private sale at a gun show. Additionally, it would assign a U.S. attorney to every district for the purpose of harassing gun owners. 

47 of 55 Republican Senators voted FOR this legislation. 

?        BANNING PRIVATE SALES OF FIREARMS AT GUN SHOWS

This amendment would ban private sales at gun shows unless the buyer first submits to a background registration check.  The amendment would also impose numerous restrictions on gun show promoters. 

On May 20, 1999 , this amendment passed.  Six Republicans sided with the Democrats in favoring this anti-gun legislation, resulting in a 50-50 tie vote and allowing Vice President Al Gore to cast the tie breaking vote. 

?        BACKGROUND REGISTRATION CHECKS (May 20, 1999)-

Senators Gordon Smith (R-OR) and James Jeffords (R-VT) introduced more restrictions on gun sales with this amendment.  It subjects pawnshop and repair shop transactions to the same registration and background check requirements as purchases from dealers.   

The amendment passed 79-21, with 34 of 55 Senate Republicans voting FOR the gun control legislation.

?        JUVENILE CRIME BILL (May 20, 1999) 

The Senate passed the anti-gun juvenile crime bill by a 73-25 vote.  Senate Bill 254 contained several gun control amendments in addition to the various provisions related to punishing juveniles who commit crimes.

31 of 55 Senate Republicans voted FOR the anti-gun bill.

?        OMNIBUS REPUBLICAN GUN CONTROL PACKAGE 

On June 18, 1999 , the House defeated the Hyde-McCollum Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act by a 280-147 vote.  This bill contained many anti-gun provisions, including trigger locks, a young adult gun ban, and lifetime gun ban for certain juveniles.

137 House Republicans voted for the gun control package.

?        ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING GUN LAWS AND PROTECTION OF GUN OWNERS

Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) offered a resolution that called for more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws, tougher penalties for gun-related crimes and protection for the rights of law-abiding gun owners.  On May 17, 2000 , the non-binding vote passed 69-30.

52 of 55 Senate Republicans voted FOR more stringent enforcement of existing gun laws.

?        NO U.N. GUN CONTROL ( July 18, 2001 )  

Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) offered another amendment to withdraw the United States from the United Nations.  Paul argued that the country should boycott the international gun control organization, which is actively taking guns away from civilians.

164 House Republicans voted against the amendment.

President Bushs promise to extend the assault weapon ban is hardly the first time that alleged pro-gun Republicans have chosen to infringe upon 2nd Amendment freedoms.  At least Democrats are honest in their pledge to disarm the populace.  The GOP, on the other hand, uses treachery and deception to mislead the citizenry into thinking that they will protect the right to keep and bear arms.  Yet, it is clearly evident that they are enemies of liberty as well. 

http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/powers/powers2.html


Bush fully supported extending AWB, until it became clear he wouldn't be re-elected if he did.

When you're wrong, you're wrong, HTG.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

You're trying to put words in my mouth in a vain attempt to refute me.

You haven't denied the basic fact that the leading republican candidates support gun control, yet you continue to support them. That's not a straw man; that's precisely what you're doing in this thread. You can't weasel out of it, I'm afraid.

(If you're as well-versed in traditional logic as you represent...) 

PhD in mathematics, if you're curious. Mentioning my degree in no way constitutes an appeal to authority, BTW. That's why I explain the principles rather than simply asserting things.

I don't want my guns to be grabbed by anyone.  I want the Republican Party to call the shots in Washington precisely because that's the party that won't grab my guns.

That's the part where you're making no sense: the leading republican candidates all support gun control. Since they're on record supporting gun control, your claim that they "won't grab your guns" is ridiculous. I already dealt with that fallacy earlier. You keep saying, "Republicans oppose gun control." That may even be true as a general observation--but Giuliani, Romney et al had explicitly said they support gun control. Why don't you get that? Perhaps "republicans" don't, but the candidate you plan to vote for DOES.

--Len.

GWB said he'd sign the new AWB, too.  And yet, he didn't sign a new AWB.  ("Bush lies!!")

I'm beginning to doubt whether you understand the roll political parties play in our government. 

Bush was able to say he'd sign the AWB precisely because he knew the Party would make it unnecessary for him to do so.  I don't think he ever really wanted to renew it.  Saying he wanted to allowed him to gain some votes both for himself and for his Party, thus ensuring that it wouldn't be renewed.  When fighting against a policy that has popular support, you make it look like you support the policy publicly, while working privately and discretely to produce your real intentions. 

These are the sorts of games politics necessitates.  These are the games the winners in politics master.  This is how mainstream Republicans managed to reduce gun control.  This is why candidates who don't know how to play *ahemRonPaulcaughahem* lose elections and fail to influence policy.

[Len Budney]

GWB said he'd sign the new AWB, too.  And yet, he didn't sign a new AWB.

Because he wasn't presented with one to sign. So he confesses his opposition to our RKBA, but you give him credit because he didn't actually infringe that right--for lack of opportunity? Wow.

I'm beginning to doubt whether you understand the roll political parties play in our government. 

Here comes the song and dance about how supporting enemies of the 2A is actually the smartest way to defend the 2A. 

Bush was able to say he'd sign the AWB precisely because he knew the Party would make it unnecessary for him to do so.  I don't think he ever really wanted to renew it.

So you're saying he bluffed--i.e., lied to the American people--trusting that his bluff would never be called? He really supports the RKBA, but professed to oppose it for political expediency? Wait, are you defending Bush, or damning him? Suddenly I can't quite tell.

These are the sorts of games politics necessitates.

Believe it or not, I agree with you: politics without lying is like pound cake without butter. But rather than embracing the lies, I would prefer to abolish the entire criminal business. It's positions like yours that guarantee that the soap box won't work, and the ballot box won't work--leaving no recourse, ultimately, except the cartridge box. Or slavery. You've already picked slavery in principle, hastening the day when we will be fully enslaved in practice.

--Len.

[Jamisjockey]

Well, duh. You can't sign a bill if you can't ever get elected!

EXACTLY!  Yet the Republican candidate who YOU vote for (if elected, and that's doubtful)  will inevitably infringe on your RKBA.  So you're willing to vote to limit your gun rights.

Like I said, ye suckers

ifyoualwaysdowhatyoualwaysdidyoualwaysgetwhatyoualwaysgot.

Go ahead.  Vote Republican.

Amen!  People always combat the third party argument with "but they can't get elected".....so....we all hate the status quo, but nobody will step up and vote third party.....
Ron Paul has my vote, too. 

[nico]

Renewal had the support of a majority of Americans.  Most Democrat congressmen wanted to renew it.  They would have, if the Republican majority hadn't prevented them.

There's a big difference between thinking something you know nothing about is a good idea (most people are in favor of "tax increases for the rich" as long as they think they're not "rich") and caring enough about the issue for it to affect your vote.  If there was widespread support for the AWB it would have become a significant campaign issue.  It didn't because there wasn't

It was the Republicans who put the sunset provision in the bill in '94.

noone's denying that.

It was the Republicans who squashed the renewal effort in '04.

The Republicans?  Hmm, I seem to remember writing a few letters and making a few phone calls that year, as I'm sure plenty of other non-Republican gun owners do.  The NRA had a little something to do with it too.

The simple truth is that you'd still be paying $100 for hicap magazines and debating muzzle brake vs flash hider if not for your (my?) Republican Party.

Yup, and where would the Republicans be if independents weren't willing to bite their tongues and vote for the lesser of two evils?   

You're welcome.

back at ya

[The Rabbi]

To borrow from Churchill, the Republican Party is the worst party we have, except for all the others.

You just said, "It's a given that our guns are going to be grabbed. So I'd just prefer they be grabbed by a republican."

Do you honestly think the two statements above are equivalent?  Because if you do there is no point discussing this further.  You are either incapable of reading and understanding the point being made or you are deliberating distorting what is being stated.   The third possibility is that you know the difference between what HTG writes and what you write but you are engaging in argument for its own sake to satisfy some basic need you have.
So which is it?

I repost this because you continue to distort what HTG has written into almost the opposite of what he clearly means.

[Len Budney]

Do you honestly think the two statements above are equivalent?

Not exactly: his statement is meaningless without context. In the context of his posts on this thread, yes: that's exactly what he's saying. He doesn't even try to contest that the candidates he supports all support gun control.

You are either incapable of reading and understanding the point being made or you are deliberating distorting what is being stated.

Are you on some sort of kamikaze mission to get us both suspended again? If you can't speak civilly, I suggest you don't speak to me at all.

--Len.

[mtnbkr]

Didn't take long for this one to get personal...

Chris