Imbroglio, you irritate the crap out of me.  I have overlooked your bashing of Republicans but now wish to respond.  Anyone who thinks the politics of today are as simple as one party is all good and the other all bad is an uninformed  moron.  You had to look clear to Montana, for God's sake, to find a small screwing by one Repub.  Name me ONE big-time Republican anti-gun politico.  I challenge you.  I can make you a LOOOONG list of DemocRATS--Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, Boxer, Durbin,  Metzenbaum, Roberti, Roos, Gephart, oh, and we can't forget Clinton--times two now.  Don't forget your beloved party has had an anti-gun plank in its Presidential Platform every four years for about the last 35.  I did not see Sarah Brady kissing Bob Dole at the Republican Convention in 1996--center stage during prime time.  I guess that's because she was doing same to William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, a DemocRAT.  Pro-gun DemocRATS are an anomaly within the party and do not fit in.  Please don't give me the line about DemocRATS being for the "little guy."  I know that is true--they are for the guy with a little brain, little ability to think for himself, little common sense, and little I.Q., who needs Big Brother to take care of his every need.    Of course, this all comes in exchange for large amounts of money and liberty.  I am not saying the Republicans are much better.  Just noticably so.  Every anti-gun law passed has been done by your party.  Wise up.

Calling the guys who shut down the C3 manufacture for private citizens and the guy who banned the import of so-called assault weapons (and set the stage for the Clinton AW ban) anti-gun is really stupid?

Look at NY for some more answers.

Again, please carefully read my post.  I did not say the Repubs were any better.  They're just not as bad--overall.  Any liberal, regardless of party, will be against us.  My point was only that the big-time anti's are all DemocRATS.  I am not guilty of what I condemned--thinking one party (Repubs) is all good and the other all bad.  We had better hang together now more than ever.  Geo. H. W. Bush, for no reason whatsoever, banned the importation of several wonderful firearms (HK-91, 93 come to mind) and I have hated him for it since.  BUT, I did vote for him over Klinton in '92--lesser of two evils.  Ditto in '96 with Dole.  In 2000 the choice was clearer--Bush got elected in Texas the first time by running (mostly) on the promise to sign CCW into law after it was vetoed--I think twice--by the DemocRAT Ann Richards.  He kept his promise, and was overwhelmingly elected to a rare second term.  Do I think he may screw us now as Prez?  I hope not but it wouldn't surprise me in some b.s. "compromise".  Personally, I do not compromise on liberty.  I was only trying to open up Imbroglio's thinking.  And, BTW, I am aware of the situation faced by New Yorkers.  What do you expect in a state as liberal as NY?  I live in Illinois which isn't much better.  I work hard for change, I hope you do.  

BTW, SP10, you answered your own question--SOME Republicans joined with THE Dems.

This is absolutely true.  It is reprehensible of the scum who do this.  Imbroglio, I based my (perhaps incorrect) assumption regarding your politics on several other posts you made, all of which seemed to bash Repubs, with a much softer tone toward Dems.  In re-reading my first post I probably came across more harsh than I intended.  I have grown so weary of the so-called Union Mentality that is pervasive in my local area--Decatur, Illinois.  Remember our times in the national news--Jesse Jackson here last year, the Staley strike several years ago, the Caterpillar strike before that.  I hear so many gun owners who are die hard Dems who refuse to see any fault in them.  If this is not you, then I apologize for assuming incorrectly.  For sure, I did not intend to "pick a fight."  We, of all people, had better stick together like glue to fight the enemies of liberty, rather than each other.  The ugly reality is that either a Dem or a Repub is going to win major elections for the foreseeable future and the other parties mentioned above are insignificant, even if they are pro gun.  I don't really think the repubs would push anti gun stuff if not for some perceived expediency, though evil, to "get along."  The Dems promote these things in virtually every case.  Then liberal Repubs join when it seems "safe" in political terms.  Gun owners get screwed regularly.  I guess there just aren't enough of us left.  I don't know what the answer is, but I know for sure fighting among ourselves can only be bad.  Again, I am sorry if my words seemed like a personal attack.  

Good.

The SUR import ban, done by executive order by Bush.


The elimination of the manufacture  of machine guns for private citizens, signed by Reagan, and I am sure sponsored or co-sponsored by many Republicans as it was put forth as a bill that was "good" for us. Even called the "Firearm Owners Protection Act" ROTFLMAO.

Isn't the SSN put on hunting licenses to track down non-residents buying (much) cheaper resident licenses?  Also, one is never required to give their SSN for non Social Security business, by law.  Just curious, as I am not familiar with this case in Montana.

I just read the link in Imbroglio's first post and you won't believe it--it is to track down "deadbeat dads" who owe child support!!! UNBELIEVABLE!!  I don't owe child support or agree with those who don't pay (scum, in my book), but how is this the right way to go after them?  Sportsmen should fight this, but I agree with you, this is more of a liberty issue than a gun issue, if the two can be separated.