TimH
Member
I can't see Hillary on the supreme court. She would only be 1 of seven. Not the most powerful woman in the world if she became president
How active will Kerry be against guns?
- Thread starter jefnvk
- Start date
- Status
I can't see Hillary on the supreme court. She would only be 1 of seven. Not the most powerful woman in the world if she became president
What was the first thing Clinton did when he got elected?
Pushed the "gays in the military idea.
What's the first thing W did?
De-funded federal funding of abortions on military bases.
Neither was much of an issue in the campaign. But they did kind of a payback to their supporters.
What will Kerry do? Who knows? But, he did vote on pretty much only ONE thing last session. To ban YOUR GUNS. That includes shotguns and rifles. So much for being a "hunter".
Pushed the "gays in the military idea.
What's the first thing W did?
De-funded federal funding of abortions on military bases.
Neither was much of an issue in the campaign. But they did kind of a payback to their supporters.
What will Kerry do? Who knows? But, he did vote on pretty much only ONE thing last session. To ban YOUR GUNS. That includes shotguns and rifles. So much for being a "hunter".
Cosmoline
Member
Even with a Democratic Senate, there's a limited amount of overt gun banning Kerry could accomplish. The House will continue to block the wild-eyed stuff like Kennedy's "cop killer" bill. What worries me more are wolf-in-sheep's-clothing bans and executive actions. Kerry can instantly make it far more difficult to import any firearms. He can put so many new requirements on imports in the name of national security that the supply will come to a halt.
He can also bring in an anti AG and that person can launch litigation against the "gun industry."
In short, he can do a lot. And he almost certainly will. His voting record speaks for itself. The man makes Gore look like a high road member.
He can also bring in an anti AG and that person can launch litigation against the "gun industry."
In short, he can do a lot. And he almost certainly will. His voting record speaks for itself. The man makes Gore look like a high road member.
If Kerry were elected, you'd see the power of the Brady Campain's propoganda machine kick into high gear.
If they can make gun control sound like a good thing to the public and get the bills through congress, Kerry would sign them.
If legislation removing restrictions on guns gets through congress, but the propogands can make the sheep think it's scarry, then he's veto it.
Do I think he'd veto legislation that has strong popular support that relaxes gun control? I doubt he'd take a strong stand against anything that did really well in opinion polls.
He doesn't have the backbone to lead where the public doesn't want to follow.
If they can make gun control sound like a good thing to the public and get the bills through congress, Kerry would sign them.
If legislation removing restrictions on guns gets through congress, but the propogands can make the sheep think it's scarry, then he's veto it.
Do I think he'd veto legislation that has strong popular support that relaxes gun control? I doubt he'd take a strong stand against anything that did really well in opinion polls.
He doesn't have the backbone to lead where the public doesn't want to follow.
rock jock
Member
Man, that is so far off the mark that I have to question your understanding of our legislative and judicial process. Its also pretty obvious that gun control is pretty high up on Kerry's list, maybe not as high as abortion, but still way up there.
Here are some realistic gun-control measures that we could see with Kerry in office:
1. AWB addressing ALL semi-auto rifles, or a large subset, e.g., all gas-operated SA rifles
2. Huge tax on factory ammo and gunpowder
3. Quantity limitations on possession of ammo and/or gunpowder
4. National registration of all handguns and banned rifles
5. National FOIDs with high renewal fees
6. Elimination of FTF transfers
7. National ban of all 50 BMG rifles
8. Push for elimination of CCW in individual states
9. Loss of rights for RKBA for certain misdemeanors
10. Federal lawsuits against firearm companies by HUD, HHS, and DOJ
Gordon Fink
Member
I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again. If you like G. W. Bush and what he stands for, then please vote for him.
I don’t, so I won’t.
~G. Fink
I don’t, so I won’t.
~G. Fink
txgolfer45
Member
He will be very active. He has an F rating from the NRA. He has voted against gun ownership rights at every turn.
Scott
Scott
sumpnz
Member
1. Definatly EBRs, but going after BARs and 7400s would piss off too many hunters.
2. Maybe
3. Impossible to enforce, and too many people would get PO'd.
4. Won't fly
5. Won't fly
6. Maybe, but I doubt it
7. Definate possibility
8. Won't fly - too popular and all the doomsaying didn't play out in a single state
9. Definate possibility - anything remotely violent or drug related, also likely to be made retro-active like the Lautenberg bill stripping RKBA from domestic violence convicts even those who had long since served their sentance.
10. Guaranteed
rock jock
Member
sumpnz,
I understand your skepticism, but some of these things, e.g., the FOIDs and licensing, are already mandatory in many states. Congresscritters from those states would vote for them on a federal level FOID w/o blinking. It would then be a small effort to get the remaining votes necessary for a majority.
I understand your skepticism, but some of these things, e.g., the FOIDs and licensing, are already mandatory in many states. Congresscritters from those states would vote for them on a federal level FOID w/o blinking. It would then be a small effort to get the remaining votes necessary for a majority.
sumpnz
Member
Regards FOIDs and registration, more states don't require it than do, and it is highly unpopular in most parts of the country. I think it would be huge effort for the folks from Cali, NY, and NJ to get all the flyover states, and most of the south to go along.
Northslope Nimrod
Member
First, PLEASE don't forget the importance of Supreme Court appointments. It is one of the most important issues in selecting the right president! Remember, they "interpret" the constitution. Remember, the Constitution is not what it says it is.....it is what the Supreme Court says it is. Trust me....I deal with Supreme Court cases everyday!
Second, Kerry will be as active against guns as he dares. If power in the Senate shifts and Kerry is elected.....you can guarantee that a new AWB will be passed and it will be broader than the last. No, it won't be radically different.....at least not to the general public. But a limited magazine capacity...say to 10 rounds.... is not radical to much of the public. It is, however, a big deal to us....those that use and understand firearms.
I think they could introduce another AWB without much political fallout.
FOUR MORE YEARS!
Second, Kerry will be as active against guns as he dares. If power in the Senate shifts and Kerry is elected.....you can guarantee that a new AWB will be passed and it will be broader than the last. No, it won't be radically different.....at least not to the general public. But a limited magazine capacity...say to 10 rounds.... is not radical to much of the public. It is, however, a big deal to us....those that use and understand firearms.
I think they could introduce another AWB without much political fallout.
FOUR MORE YEARS!
It just dawned on me that many of the people going 3rd party are relying on a Republican Congress to gridlock any gun control legislation. Why? Aren't they voting against Republican Congresscritters as well? How can you have a real 3rd revolution unless you get rid of the two parties on all levels? Or are they just expecting the status quo in Congress to remain the same?
The_Antibubba
Member
How do you vote?
Some of us live in uncontested states-Kerry will only be coming to Kali to pick up his contributions
So I was free (via absentee ballot) to vote as I choose-although even in the 3rd parties, pickins were mighty slim.
But for those of you in critical states, you shouldn't be wasting time arguing here-you should be putting in time to swing a few more fencesitters our way.
As for Congressional races, I have to wonder if the GOP has anyone running it. Here in Kali, the Repub candidate, Bill Jones, has been virtually invisible; Barbara Boxer is taking the time to "campaign" in small towns of less than 5,000 people-all because Jones' campaign has had less motivation than many of the 3rd parties have had.
As for SCOTUS, there are supposed to be quite a few 2A courses working their way through the system that could get to the High Court during the next four years-so this next term of office is critical.
Some of us live in uncontested states-Kerry will only be coming to Kali to pick up his contributions
So I was free (via absentee ballot) to vote as I choose-although even in the 3rd parties, pickins were mighty slim.But for those of you in critical states, you shouldn't be wasting time arguing here-you should be putting in time to swing a few more fencesitters our way.
As for Congressional races, I have to wonder if the GOP has anyone running it. Here in Kali, the Repub candidate, Bill Jones, has been virtually invisible; Barbara Boxer is taking the time to "campaign" in small towns of less than 5,000 people-all because Jones' campaign has had less motivation than many of the 3rd parties have had.
As for SCOTUS, there are supposed to be quite a few 2A courses working their way through the system that could get to the High Court during the next four years-so this next term of office is critical.
RavenVT100
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,107
What if Kerry is elected and the Supreme Court, with the involvement of judges that are of his ilk, rules that the second amendment only applies to "state militias?" (I.E. the National Guard).
Like I said in the other thread, is that worth a third party vote in this particular election? Will you be satisfied with being stripped of your right to own a firearm, just so long as you retain the satisfaction of having "voted your conscience?"
Supreme Court rulings are a little bit difficult to reverse, you know.
Like I said in the other thread, is that worth a third party vote in this particular election? Will you be satisfied with being stripped of your right to own a firearm, just so long as you retain the satisfaction of having "voted your conscience?"
Supreme Court rulings are a little bit difficult to reverse, you know.
Gordon Fink
Member
Even if that happens, how is that any different from the Congress (or a state legislature, for that matter) passing one unconstitutional gun-control “law†after another, which is already happening?
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
Kerry wants your guns
This is one thing Kerry has never flip-flopped on.
He wants to ban guns period. He has already said if he were Bush during the last days of the AWB he would have been pushing as hard as he could to get it renewed.
If that were not enough he is Co-sponsor of a bill (right now) that far exceeds what the old AWB limited, like the mini 14 and the M1 garand.
I hope you don't like shoot high power hunting rifles because he also supported a ban on ammo for them.
To sum up, Kerry is so anti-gun he makes Clinton look pro-gun.
This is one thing Kerry has never flip-flopped on.
He wants to ban guns period. He has already said if he were Bush during the last days of the AWB he would have been pushing as hard as he could to get it renewed.
If that were not enough he is Co-sponsor of a bill (right now) that far exceeds what the old AWB limited, like the mini 14 and the M1 garand.
I hope you don't like shoot high power hunting rifles because he also supported a ban on ammo for them.
To sum up, Kerry is so anti-gun he makes Clinton look pro-gun.
In case you hadn't noticed, we're pushing back against that tide. How hard do you think it'll be to continue this effort with someone in the White House who is 100% dedicated to the defeat of our cause (even more so than Clinton), and who can set the entire federal appartus against us?
There's a very very big difference. What the legistature takes away, it can later be given back just as easy.
A supreme court ruling is rarely reversed. A supreme court justice can serve for decades, and their rulings echo forever. If we get a solid RKBA court, we can win the "gun debate" forever. And the opposite, an activist court can deep-six our RKBA and other rights for all times.
If Kerry wins, you might as well sell your guns, because he will appoint left wing activist judges, and those judges will rule that the RKBA is a collective state right, and not an individual right. That will inevitably lead, sooner rather than later, to the confiscation of all our arms, like England and Australia have done.
Gordon Fink
Member
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4. The Congress merely has to do its job. If all checks and balances fail, then …
~G. Fink
The ultimate check and balance lies with the people, and their willingness to do what is right and necessary to protect their rights. The right and necessary action in the current circumstance is not to give the most anti-gun and anti-sovereignty individual to receive a presidential nomination the chance to gain the power necessary achieve his ends.
If you are relying on Congress, then you've abdicated your role in this fight.
By the way, who interprets what the check and balance system really means? You guessed it, the very same Supreme Court you're willing to give to Kerry.
The check and balance system only works if we fill it with the appropriate people. It doesn't work if we stand back and let the wrong ones take it.
Gordon Fink
Member
During the last debate, President G. W. Bush said he would appoint strict-constructionist judges. This was a bald-faced lie.
President Bush would really appoint judges who would restrict our freedom of expression, curtail our right to privacy, and limit our access to fair trials. If we’re not too unlucky, such a judge may also think that common citizens should be allowed certain inoffensive firearms for recreation and possibly even for self-defense. However, “reasonable†gun-control “laws†will almost certainly be acceptable.
If you like this kind of judge, if you like imperialistic wars, if you like expansion of the police state, if you like corporate welfare, if you like ignoring our immigration problems, if you like pillaging the environment, and if you like economic protectionism, then please vote for George W. Bush.
~G. Fink
President Bush would really appoint judges who would restrict our freedom of expression, curtail our right to privacy, and limit our access to fair trials. If we’re not too unlucky, such a judge may also think that common citizens should be allowed certain inoffensive firearms for recreation and possibly even for self-defense. However, “reasonable†gun-control “laws†will almost certainly be acceptable.
If you like this kind of judge, if you like imperialistic wars, if you like expansion of the police state, if you like corporate welfare, if you like ignoring our immigration problems, if you like pillaging the environment, and if you like economic protectionism, then please vote for George W. Bush.
~G. Fink
2nd Amendment
member
Of course another reason to vote for Bush would be if you can see through Fink's twisted partisan agenda and misrepresentations AND if you actually know Kerry's record.
But, if you are a thoughtless Dem who cares nothing about anything except putting a "D" in the White House, then please vote for John F'in Kerry. That is the only possible reason TO vote for him, afterall.
But, if you are a thoughtless Dem who cares nothing about anything except putting a "D" in the White House, then please vote for John F'in Kerry. That is the only possible reason TO vote for him, afterall.
Gee, why go to DU when you can see the same type of stuff here?
Imperialistic wars? I didn't realize we were establishing colonies somewhere, or that we were stealing a country's resources from its people. Oh, wait. I forgot, we're not. In Iraq, the Iraqi oil ministry controls production, and in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we are setting up gov'ts elected by the people under international scrutiny. How imperial.
Corporate welfare? Take a look at how Enron's practices developed under Clinton's administration (and with his tacit blessing) before you even mention this crap.
Economic protectionism? Try "creating a level playing field." Foreign corporations are routinely subsidized by their respective governments. Their import policies are designed to impede imports, not facilitate them. All we are doing is playing by their rules, in the hopes that they will see that the rules need to change.
Pillage the environment? That's hilarious. I work for a federal utility that is investing billions in clean air technology in order to meet the administration's clean air requirements. Why would we do that if we had the go ahead to pillage things? Besides, show me what's being pillaged?
Police state? Expansion thereof? I'm absolutely comfortable walking out the door, or posting on the internet, the faults of George W. Bush. I think he's got a lot of them. I'd do the same to his face, with equal respect. I see hundreds of thousands of people who feel the same way doing exactly that via the 'net, in marches, in songs, etc. If you feel comfortable doing that, you don't live in a police state. Not to mention, if you can buy an M4gery and the ammo to go with it, you don't live in a police state.
Ignoring our immigation problem? Yup. You finally got one. If we cut down on illegal immigration, the Democrats would lose a major (albeit illegal) voting bloc. But it's a tough nut to crack. How exactly do we deal with it, unless we put the Army on the border and issue citizenship papers. But, that's hard to do when you are trying to avoid a police state. And it's even harder to use law enforcement to deal with it when their efforts are called discriminatory by liberals.
As for Bush's judges, you're right. He's been horrible in the ones he selected. Like Pickering, a man who had the courage to see that in a cross burning case, the DOJ shouldn't be allowed to call for a greater sentence on a conspirator rather than the one who actually burned the cross but rolled over. Calling for fair and just treatment it evil, isn't it?
- Status
