Hope for 2A - Trump now leading in latest CNN poll

Status
Not open for further replies.
CNN is doing deliberately I believe.

Its like a prime time TV show. They will keep it looking close until the end to keep viewership up.

Days before the election, CNN will declare a glorious victory and surge for dear leader.
 
As far as guns and politics go, I don't have any idea what Hillary actually believes. The Clintons were thought to be centrists in most regards, but the Democratic party took a bit of left turn with the Bernie campaign, and Hillary has adjusted her campaign to attract those voters.


Just as Trump engaged in nearly outright racism to garner his initial support, and is now attending black churches, Hillary's actual goals in office may have little to do with what is said on the campaign trail. As I pointed out earlier, some of our most liberal Presidents have done almost nothing in regards to gun control, and our vaunted conservative stalwarts have done a lot of damage.

I often think that gun control, like abortion and faith "issues", are false flags designed to draw in the votes of single issue voters and draw attention away from the real issues - like economic policy.
 
I believe one thing is certain - if Hillary gets elected, she will nominate up to 4 Supreme Court justices and SCOTUS will rule against 2nd Amendment for decades.
 
I believe one thing is certain - if Hillary gets elected, she will nominate up to 4 Supreme Court justices and SCOTUS will rule against 2nd Amendment for decades.
It is certainly possible she will try to find 4 judges that aren't good judges, but who is going to ratify them?

Sandra Day O'Connor was supposed to vote "conservatively", which was why Reagan appointed her. But she turned out to be an impartial judge, not a political tool. I doubt the ability of any President to pack the court with any sort of unjust Justice.
 
They only need a majority of............one.

Gun owners are screwed if Hillary selects the next ones, regardless of having to get them "approved".
 
They only need a majority of............one.

Gun owners are screwed if Hillary selects the next ones, regardless of having to get them "approved".
I wasn't aware that the Republican controlled Senate was going to automatically confirm whomever the future president nominates. Has the Constitution recently changed?
 
I wasn't aware that the Republican controlled Senate was going to automatically confirm whomever the future president nominates. Has the Constitution recently changed?

So you have full confidence that pro-gun republicans will hold the senate for the next 4-8 years AND will stand up to a Democrat president whose first selection is the judge that they didn't have the courage to rule on when Obama nominated him?

As far as guns and politics go, I don't have any idea what Hillary actually believes. The Clintons were thought to be centrists in most regards, but the Democratic party took a bit of left turn with the Bernie campaign, and Hillary has adjusted her campaign to attract those voters.

Maybe you should stop listening to what they say on the campaign trail, and look at their records on what they have actually done.
 
So you have full confidence that pro-gun republicans will hold the senate for the next 4-8 years AND will stand up to a Democrat president whose first selection is the judge that they didn't have the courage to rule on when Obama nominated him?



Maybe you should stop listening to what they say on the campaign trail, and look at their records on what they have actually done.
No. I have a little bit of confidence that gun control is a dead end issue for law makers, and that even the fully Democrat controlled House and Senate we had not so long ago failed to pass any "liberal" law.

Congress can't pass a budget, let alone a highly divisive gun control law that no one there really cares about. Gun control is just another bread and circus non-issue to mollify single issue voters so they don't pay attention to what Congress is actually doing with its time.

"Should we pass a budget or work on the massive trade deficit?"
"Nah, how about we make speeches about gay marriage and guns instead? That will sell better when I'm dialing for dollars 20 hours a week."
 
Then I guess that would beg the question as to why anyone would support a candidate based on the assumption that the opposition party will keep them from doing things that violate their belief system?
 
Because your belief system contains more than one item, and you think the candidate is more reliable for the kind of day to day governance important to run a country?
 
<sigh>

I point out my signature line once more.....
 
Exactly. All of your principles, not just one of them.
What about any of them?

Then I guess that would beg the question as to why anyone would support a candidate based on the assumption that the opposition party will keep them from doing things that violate their belief system?
Seeing as it was not 'principle' but 'pragmatism' that landed us with these choices (both of them) why on Earth are we gun owners in such a poor strategic position? Where exactly have we followed our principles to our own peril, as opposed to dragged against our principles, kicking and screaming about what a short-sighted and self-defeating decision is being made? I keep hearing people say principles are worthless, or puposeless, and that winning is all that matters. If that's the case, I welcome all of you to go join the winning side.

A lot of people view this as a sport, the results defined by the big victory. But that is only the beginning, a setting in motion of events that are then largely out of the electorate's control. Merely winning at all costs, or to inflict a punishment on the opposition, is a self-defeating proposition (as it should be).

Might does not make right, it just dictates the terms of the present. THAT is the real truth behind enlightenment governance.
 
I actually think that gun rights have been severely damaged by the "principles" that 2A people think they are upholding by endlessly repeating that the BoR is literally true. This means that they refuse to take command of the gun control dialogue.

If you aren't participating, you can only be on the defensive. It is always a losing position. And foolish.


Other industries and interests figure out how to short circuit efforts to eliminate them by taking over the conversation and usurping the opposition's power.
 
In my very small neighborhood, there are 6 Trump signs, including mine.

No other names.

My feelings, the people who want to vote Trump, and will, but say "No way" I think, are many individuals.

My Fixit Guy, an Italian, "We always vote Democrat" and that is that.

We will wait and see.
 
why on Earth are we gun owners in such a poor strategic position?

My perspective on that is that basically, we are, or were, just a bunch of hobbyists. It is only lately (call it 30-40 years) that we have re-awakened to the possibility that our assorted firearms were for anything but "sporting purposes."

Hence the recent catchphrase, "The second Amendment ain't about hunting."

On the other hand, there has been a long term push from statists* to eliminate the possibility that the original purpose of the second Amendment might be exercised.

And with the growth of the cities, residents therein had (or have) little opportunity to plink tin cans off the back of their porches. So the "hobbyists" have naturally been reduced in number.

And it is only recently that demand for self-protection in the crime-ridden cities has resulted in the concealed carry movement and awakened others, including of course, city dwellers, to the notion that the second Amendment might possibly mean what it says, in the broader political sense.

Still, with the acculturation to the idea that the second Amendment doesn't mean what it says, we have compromise after compromise. A nibbling away, as it were, at the piece of cheese called personal freedom and responsibility.

"We," whomever "we" is, are now in the position where, to many of us on this board, GCA 68 is certainly within the bounds of "reasonable regulation."

But.

And this is an important but, the "statists" whomever they are, have a completely different notion of what is "reasonable" from thee and me.

Or hopefully, "thee."

That's my perspective on it from my 77 years, and possibly why Mr. Trump is now a candidate for the Presidency.

Terry, 230RN

* I was sore tempted to use the term "professional statists" here.
 
Last edited:
This idea that there are "statists", and they are the root of evil is fascinating. I have yet to meet a conservative that is an anarchist (the opposite of statist), or a liberal that wishes to have anyone control their whole life.


What happened in the US is partially that gun owners, in part due to the connection between rural life, guns and (sometimes) poverty have not represented themselves in political life because of cultural/educational gap that makes it less likely for someone who grew up hunting to become a policy maker or person of influence than someone who grew up in a good school district, has a newscaster accent and goes to college and maybe grad school. This doesn't mean that gun owners are dumb or poor, it means that a gun owners aren't representing themselves at the level where laws are made as much as people not from gun backgrounds are.

Mix with that the disdain gun owners espouse for even having to defend a right (other groups don't find it absurd that rights need to be defended - that's why there is an ACLU), because they have been told by people with no legal or historical understanding of the history of the BoR that it describes something literal and absolute.


Conservative politicians do not care about your guns. They are wealthy people and would have guns even if you could not. They do not think that you will need to overthrow them, either. Politicians care about votes, and since people with conservative values are more likely to be rural, they are more likely to want 2A protections promised along with other conservative platform items. When no one is looking, Reagan, Bush, Nixon, etc are just as ambivalent about your rights as any other politician.


Why does this matter? Because the "anti's" are often people of reverence - like doctors, economists, police chiefs and civil rights leaders. Their opinions (and that's all they are) carry weight with everyone. On the pro-gun side we have one so-so academic (Lott), one stand up celebrity (Heston) and some embarrassing yahoo celebrities like Ted Nugent. And none of them have conveyed a message of any substance to the general population. The "cold, dead hands" thing and "its my G.D. Constitutional right!" stuff doesn't convey anything more than a two year old yelling "NO!" at bath time. That's a huge problem.


Until someone decides to talk about us bringing something to the table instead of looking at anything like that as foul compromise, we will continue to be ignored and maneuvered around. We are not acting like grown ups, but like a special interest that demands to be catered to. That needs to stop.
 
Sandra Day O'Connor was far from impartial. IIRC she wrote a book on the Bill of Rights that went 1st amendment, 3rd amendment, 4th amendment,.....
She was one of the anti-gun majority that caused the NRA to try and scuttle Heller before it got to SCOTUS. Luckily she retired before the case made its way through the appeals process.
“I do not see the need for a resident of the United States to have an assault weapon.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/04/sandra-day-oconnor-guns-assault-weapons
 
Mix with that the disdain gun owners espouse for even having to defend a right (other groups don't find it absurd that rights need to be defended - that's why there is an ACLU), because they have been told by people with no legal or historical understanding of the history of the BoR that it describes something literal and absolute.

The NRA is the largest civil liberties protection group in the USA and possibly the world. This speaks volume for the willingness of gun owners to defend their rights. The active state level organizations, the many active internet fora again are proof that you are wrong.
The federal level ACLU is a left wing pressure that does not recognize gun ownership as a right, they see it as a liability. The state level ACLUs may take a different view.

Until someone decides to talk about us bringing something to the table instead of looking at anything like that as foul compromise, we will continue to be ignored and maneuvered around. We are not acting like grown ups, but like a special interest that demands to be catered to. That needs to stop.

OK. You just pointed out that politicians don't care about anything but votes and money, so in what way are American shooters not being grown up by playing the special interest voting block game?
I'm Australian. I've had to line up to hand in my firearms for destruction. We played the 'civilized members of society, hunting, Olympics, yada yada' and were disarmed.
The NRA played the same game up till the Cincinnati revolt and went backwards for decades.

Since then they have pushed through FOPA, helped get rid of Bush the First after he back stabbed gun owners, took away the Democrats majority in Congress after they passed the Assault weapons ban, and more recently shut down the newest attempts at assault weapons bans after Sandy Hook, when another 'reasonable' pro-gun group tried
bringing something to the table instead of looking at anything like that as foul compromise

American gun owners are treated like 19th century Indians. The treaties are open for re-negotiation, interpretation or negation by the State whenever the State thinks it can get away with it. When white man speak with forked tongue, all compromises are foul.

In a dirty war you fight dirty. The anti-gun forces in America have money and media (which translates into free advertising dollars). The pro-gun side has a voting block worth 5% of the election in a good year. Playing the special interest pro-gun voting block card is a grown up decision, in fact the only one that can be made. As you have pointed out the big govt. special interest lobby controls the media and 'right' schools. They co-opt the governing class at an early age and indoctrinate them into their mindset. A block vote is the tool to prevent an anti-gun agenda from being implemented.
 
the law was allowed to expire and We The People were given another chance without resorting to drastic measures. Despite awesome gains at the state and local level, we've largely squandered our chance at the federal.

"We" didn't, "we" elected a Republican POTUS, and majority in both houses of Congress. "They" just decided to do nothing, so they could keep a large voting block handy.
 
So RX-79G, do you have any solutions, or do you just like to tell gun owners who want to vote against gun grabbers how ridiculous we are, and how we should not be afraid to vote for one of the most anti gun politicians there is, then just hope for the best because somehow she is better for America than Trump, despite her hatred of gun owners, her desire to ban guns, and her hatred for the NRA, which is our biggest ally. All you sound like to me is sand in the grease, bound to cause trouble and slow the machine down, if not bring it to a stop.

The chance Hillary will appoint anti gun/anti freedom supreme court judges that will take away our guns for generations, if not forever, is just too high.

Is that part of the hope and change? We just hope she can't do it? That's ridiculous, because the odds are heavily in her favor that she surely can should she be elected.
 
RX79G said:
This idea that there are "statists", and they are the root of evil is fascinating. I have yet to meet a conservative that is an anarchist (the opposite of statist), or a liberal that wishes to have anyone control their whole life.

Most of the government programs that cause people to adjust their lives around them were designed by liberals, such as social security, and -- need I say it? -- "Obamacare."

RX79G said:
What happened in the US is partially that gun owners, in part due to the connection between rural life, guns and (sometimes) poverty have not represented themselves in political life because of cultural/educational gap that makes it less likely for someone who grew up hunting to become a policy maker or person of influence than someone who grew up in a good school district, has a newscaster accent and goes to college and maybe grad school. This doesn't mean that gun owners are dumb or poor, it means that a gun owners aren't representing themselves at the level where laws are made as much as people not from gun backgrounds are.

Mix with that the disdain gun owners espouse for even having to defend a right (other groups don't find it absurd that rights need to be defended - that's why there is an ACLU), because they have been told by people with no legal or historical understanding of the history of the BoR that it describes something literal and absolute.

What a bunch of ineffable twaddle!!!!!! Haven't you heard of the N.R.A.?? If what you say is true how come the liberal politicians who are always trying to pass more gun control laws are always whining about the "strangle-hold" the NRA has on congress?



RX-79G said:
Why does this matter? Because the "anti's" are often people of reverence - like doctors, economists, police chiefs and civil rights leaders. Their opinions (and that's all they are) carry weight with everyone. On the pro-gun side we have one so-so academic (Lott), one stand up celebrity (Heston) and some embarrassing yahoo celebrities like Ted Nugent. And none of them have conveyed a message of any substance to the general population. The "cold, dead hands" thing and "its my G.D. Constitutional right!" stuff doesn't convey anything more than a two year old yelling "NO!" at bath time. That's a huge problem.

"Because the "anti's" are often people of reverence ..... " L.O.L.!
Oh, you mean like Senators Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, et al?? Oh yea they're "people of reverence" all right! As far as doctors are concerned, MY doctor is very PROgun, and many people who are in law enforcement are too. Police Chiefs? They're political appointees. Sheriffs are often elected and my local one is VERY progun.
You may not like the " 'cold, dead hands' thing and 'its my G.D. Constitutional right!' stuff doesn't convey anything more than a two year old yelling 'NO!' at bath time. That's a huge problem," stuff, and yes there's more to do than JUST that, but sometimes it IS necessary to yell at the dog that keeps pooping on the rug.;)
 
RX-79G remarked,

This idea that there are "statists", and they are the root of evil is fascinating. I have yet to meet a conservative that is an anarchist (the opposite of statist), or a liberal that wishes to have anyone control their whole life.

Heh-heh. I doubt that anyone actually believes that the distribution of opinion is as binary as RX-79G subtly accuses us of believing.

May I subtly accuse RX-79G of offering a straw man argument?

Surely we understand that while the terms conservative and statist are used in a similar way to "us" and "them," there is a continuum of opinion on gun control. Which also has to include "fence sitters." These are terms of convenience to indicate the span of divergent opinions from "turn them all in, Mr. and Mrs. America" to "the second Amendment is my carry permit."

And also, of course, the "gee, I don't know" group.

But is is only recently that "the second Amendment is my carry permit" group has found its voice in response to the "turn them all in" push-push-push of... <ahem>... "them."

Terry
 
So RX-79G, do you have any solutions, or do you just like to tell gun owners who want to vote against gun grabbers how ridiculous we are, and how we should not be afraid to vote for one of the most anti gun politicians there is, then just hope for the best because somehow she is better for America than Trump, despite her hatred of gun owners, her desire to ban guns, and her hatred for the NRA, which is our biggest ally. All you sound like to me is sand in the grease, bound to cause trouble and slow the machine down, if not bring it to a stop.

The chance Hillary will appoint anti gun/anti freedom supreme court judges that will take away our guns for generations, if not forever, is just too high.

Is that part of the hope and change? We just hope she can't do it? That's ridiculous, because the odds are heavily in her favor that she surely can should she be elected.
Lot's of reactions, so I'll just reply to this your's for now:

Yes, I have a solution. We sell a solution to the American people. That solution does not have to be what the anti's want to be, but it has to sound like we actually give a damn about gun violence - which we normally do not. We have said "Too bad, not our problem" over and over, when it clearly is our problem. Not our fault, but our problem. We can propose solutions and receive benefits of doing so, or we can continue to be outside the dialogue.



Aside from that, Trump isn't going to win. I wish there were a better candidates on both sides of the fence, but there isn't. Republican politicians are publicly not voting for him.




As far as the "persons of reverence" statement about doctors, do you guys really think that having the CDC or AMA go anti-gun is meaningless? While YOUR doctor might own an AR, his professional fraternity does not represent him.

If gun rights were a political office campaign, we're Ralph Nader. Time to wake up.
 
The one hope through Hillary winning is a Cruz presidency in 2020 bringing a nationwide revival

Ted Cruz was right about Trump and Hillary
Hindsight is 2020
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top