The biggest divide I've seen here is demographics, with the party membership being more ancillary to it. Democrats have a stronger representation in urbanised compact areas, whilst Republican have a stronger base in more rural areas. The minority of Dems who voted against it come from metropolitan areas, and that is where it is unlikely to find alot of Reps in office. Dems from more rural areas with a stronger foundation with guns voted for the law, and that is the majority of them.

In my experience, Dems in rural areas are generally pro-2nd Amendment just like GOPers there. And in suburban areas, Reps often dislike guns and want them heavily restricted because in those areas Rep policy doesn't run on morals and guns as much as it runs on protecting their financial concerns and 'tough on crime' platforms. They likewise have little connection to the 'gun culture' and see them as tools of criminals that threaten their security ('the fenced gate community') and favour 'get tough on crime' initiatives.

Even Dubya's former Secretary of the Environment, Christine Todd Whitman, signed a bill as the GOP Governor of New Jersey declaring BB guns to be illegal assault weapons (patently absurd using common sense) and making the sale of BB guns in New Jersey at any price to constitute 'arms trafficking of an assault weapon' with a sentencing range allowing life imprisonment without parole. Once I saw Dubya put her in his Cabinet despite knowing that she would make me such a felon by possessing and/or transferring a mere BB gun, all the partisan rhetoric became hooey to me--my 2nd Amendment rights are not protected by either party by virtue of membership and support.

I think the far better approach for all 2nd Amendment supporters (generally those of rural areas) is to try a bipartisan effort to educate those of metropolitan areas (bipartisanly unattached and afraid of weapons) about the differences in culture and how weapons play a significant, necessary and often positive role in society in various ways. People are a product of their experiences, and the weapons of the rural people are seen as the sawed-off shotgun, Saturday-Night special, and murder/heist weapons of nuts, gangsters and drug-crazed felons in the metropolitan ones. There is truth to both perceptions given where each live, but the full picture is never conveyed across the spectrums of each.

And, after all the personal firearms are banned?

We go after those dangerous swords!


http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1180732006


There is no 2nd Amendment right in the U.K.

__________________
[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Arial Black"][SIZE="2"]Don't worry about what people think. They don't do it very often.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

Gee is this how gun haters think? Apparently the 2nd amend only applies to the year it was put into the constitution.
So if we apply this logic to the other rights, these rights only protect what was around when the right was placed into the constitution. So the internet is not protected under the 1st amend. Same can be said about TV, radio, and telephones. There is no 1st amend right protecting these communications devices. Using gun hater logic these items were not around when the 1st amend was put into the constitution. So the leftist aka progressives have no argument against the government listening in on your phone calls or reading your e-mail.

__________________
Gun haters are people that defend gun control laws.
8bal by any other name is still a gun hater.

There is no requirement to be in a militia to bear arms. That would be an infringement!