Losing the 2nd Amendment again in 2008?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
3,213
Location
Amerikan Twilight Zone
I guess we'll have to see what happens in the 2006 mid-term elections,
but I hear a lot of people are fed up with the way things have been
handled by the Executive branch and how the Repubs on the Hill seem
more concerned about towing the party line rather than listening to
their people at home. It will be interesting to see how many of them
will be looking for jobs over the next two years.

My concern, of course, is that this will lead to handing both the Executive
and Legislative branches back to the Dems by 2008. We can then expect
to see a re-vamped attack on the 2A.

It's a sad thing to see how many single-issue conservatives were lulled
into a false sense of temporary security regarding the relaxation of gun
control over the last few years, but in the long run we may have already
lost out on many other issues that are making many Americans justifiably
angry.

We have the newly redubbed "long war" which I can only imagine how
history will look back on our Middle Eastern involvement (btw, I was
deployed to Iraq) and the ever-changing leaking of the truth from the
Executive branch --example: a dozen wire tap cases turned into 1500
that bipassed FISA; foreign take-over of 6 ports turns into 22. And,
all in the meantime, the executive claims sole privilege with a "whatever,
whatever, I do what I want attitude."

Yes, I look at 2008 with fear and loathing.....but we have been warned
of this in the past:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded
because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the
parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and
debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the
domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive
is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is
multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of
subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism
may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud,
growing out of a state of war...and in the degeneracy of manners and
morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the
midst of continual warfare." --James Madison, April 20, 1795 (Works. Vol. 4,
Pp. 491-2)
 
I don't understand. Are you blaming the Republicans for what you think the Democrats might do at some future time?

Wouldn't it be a little more, umm, logical to blame the Democrats for what the Democrats do, if and when they do it?

:confused:
 
I think he is blaming the Republicans for failing to provied leadership that the American people can trust; therefore, they might lose the support of the people and we could see another Democrat controlled Congress and White House in 2008.
 
fink's right.

The Democrats have NOTHING to offer swing voters in terms of policies or personalities. They've attached themselves to some real idiots like Howard Dean and Michael Moore. Moore has faded from the limelight, but they made Dean their CHAIRMAN! And too many of them are appearing with Cindy Sheehan.

If they win, it will be the fault of the Republicans, just like Bush's narrow victory -- yes, the recount did confirm it -- had as much to do with Gore as anything.
 
There's no small irony in that the Dem who seems to draw much of the ire around here (Dean) comes from one of the few states that doesn't license and regulate CCWs at all, and is one of the few prominent Dems at the national level to get good marks from the NRA.

There are plenty of Dems we should worry about. Dean isn't one, at least as far as guns are concerned.
 
Huh. I guess I'll never understand some of the prevailing beliefs on this board.

When the Republicans control government and gun rights improve, well, the Republicans don't deserve any credit. When the Republicans aren't in control of government and gun rights suffer, it's the Republicans fault for not being in control of government.

When the Republicans lose elections (even elections that haven't happened yet), it's the Republicans' fault for not providing leadership. When the Libertarians lose election after election, it's the Republicans' fault for not voting 3rd party.

When Democrats enact more gun control, it's the Republicans' fault for not stopping them. When a Republican suggests voting Republican because it prevents the Democrats from enacting more gun control, he gets shouted down.

The sky is falling, and it's because of the Republicans, even if the sky isn't falling. At least, that what it sounds like around here sometimes.


Fly is right: "Damned if we do, damned if we don't."

(Here endeth my ranting...)
 
Karl Rove isn't worried about the '06 elections - and he's predicted that '08 Hillary will win the Democratic nomination but lose the election. If he's not worried, I'm not worried.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3ws.htm

As for the 2006 congressional elections, Rove was upbeat.

“Republicans will keep the House, Republicans will keep the Senate,” he predicted. “The question is, what will be the margin? Will we gain a couple of seats? Will we lose a couple of seats? Will we lose more than a couple seats? I’m frankly very optimistic.”
 
Helmetcase-

Dean comes off as completely unhinged and unfettered by reality, most notably lately in his statements about Abramoff, which were known to be false when he made them. He may not have known they were false, but that would simply show that he's not paying any attention to the news.

I am still shocked that the Democrats made Dean the chairman, and even MORE shocked that they've kept him for so long. He's just not a credible individual to anyone but the blinded-by-Bush-hatred community, which isn't going to vote Republican no matter what.

I wouldn't trust him with my gun rights, any more than I'd trust Bush to improve border enforcement.
 
Maybe and maybe not

Carl maybe upbeat, but that is his job. The author of the Contract for American was quoted saying that the Republicans could loose the House and the Senate in 06. The good news is that the Primaries are coming and it gives the Republicans an opportunity to clean house. So the ball is in the Republican court as whether Americans choose to keep the Republicans in control or allow the Democrats to take charge.:eek:
 
Fabfink is pretty close. And, I'm certainly not saying that the previous
8 year resident of the WH didn't dictate by Executive Order. However,
yes, I'm saying there is a major leadership issue that is making many
people angry and if the rest of the Repubs don't start following the
will of the people over the internal politics of the Party, then you will
see DC full of anti-gun donkeys again.

This is not a "damned...don't" situation for Repubs if they want to start
by getting on track with their constituents now.
 
Well, I believe that problem that is being articulated is that SUPPOSSING THAT WE EVER HAD ONE, we seem to have lost OUR VOICE in the government. I have written my senator, my congressman, my state reps, my local reps, the governor, the white house, just about everyone that can be written about the "handeling" of the border situation and NOTHING has been done.

The problem that I see with the current system, is the Senate. Seriously. Every state has an equal voice and I CANNOT un-elect Barbara Boxer or Herr Kerry.

So when people tell me, "If you don't like how things is going, then you need to vote", I actually want to scream. They DON'T count votes for Feinstien in Texas.....

Go back to the state legislatures electing the senators.
 
Rubikees-

Newt's right that the Bush Republicans are not appealing to their libertarian-leaning conservative base. They seem to be religious-statist, which might okay with another part of what the GOP considers its "base", but alienates many of the religious types too, since a large group also trends libertarian except for abortion.

It's important to remember that many pro-life voters have a lot in common with libertarian conservatives, except that they believe that a fetus is a human life deserving legal protection just like someone who has been born.

This is NOT fundamentally a statist tendency, or a collectivist tendency. It's a difference of opinion with non-religious libertarians about the meaning of "life" and it's implications.

Who knows about the "center", though? Not me. I'm not much of a "centrist", personally. My opinions are subject to change given new and good information, but in general...

"A man who straddles fence too much ends up with a sore crotch."
 
One point is that they have missed the boat for gun bans.

Let's think back to the last real gun ban we had: the '94 AWB.

The first real high-capacity double-column pistol, the Glock 17, was introduced to the US in 1987. It started gaining sales momentum around 1990. Revolvers were just past the peak of their dominance in the market. Clinton got in the White House in 1992, right around the time scary plastic high-capacity pistols were appearing on the scene. Only a handful of states had CCW. Simultaneously, "evil" rifles, the AR-15 in particular, was just starting to make the transition from being "exotic" to "popular". In that climate, these guns were exotic enough to seem scary, and they were rare enough that there wasn't a huge community of owners of these things. That was the time to ban them.

Flash forward to today, 2006. Now, double-column pistols are the standard handgun. Revolvers and single-column pistols are specialty items, not the standard "working" guns. CCW reform has swept the nation, so millions of people are now carrying these pistols. Also, for various reasons, AR-15s are now common ordinary rifles. Every serious gun enthusiast (outside of CA, NY and NJ) has an AR-15.

It's a lot easier to ban something which is exotic than it is to ban something which millions of people own and carry. And that's the transition we have had.

Finally, Dems are staying away from the gun issue. It hurts them every time they get close to it.

I don't want to encourage anyone to get complacent, but the climate has changed, regardless of who is in the White House.

If W wants to give us all a parting gift, he'll do something about that last noxious gun law still on the books: the '86 MG ban. He doesn't even need congress to help; he could order the Secretary of the Treasury to declare an amnesty and start taking new registrations. And if he wants to seal a pro-2nd amend legacy, he would work to get some kind of national CCW in place, to bring CCW to places where we don't have it, namely CA and NY.
 
Big Taco, I hope you are right.

I predict that Bush will leave with a sputter, not a bang. But, the White House silverware will remain.
 
I predict that Bush will leave with a sputter, not a bang. But, the White House silverware will remain.

He's going to live with a sputter, as quietly and quickly as possible. He has been a disaster of a president, something that will not be universally apparent until around 2010 or so.

But he has been fairly good on gun rights. In my view, 2004 was the last shot ever at a Federal AWB. They missed that, and now these guns are "standard". Back in 1994 a lot of gun owners had negative views of "evil" rifles and "combat tupperware". Now those same gun owners own those very same guns. Part of that is that the quality of today's combat tupperware and black rifle is impressive enough to make them worthy.

So things have changed. The risk right now is from the states that have been left out, namely CA and NY, which have the biggest chunks of votes in Congress and the electoral college.
 
Note that many presidents have been seen very differently by history than by the people who judged them while in office.

2010 is too soon, really. But Bush will likely be remembered for things (good and/or bad) that resulted from what he did and that matter to people in the future. He probably won't be remembered for a lot of what is on the news right now.

Furthermore, a lot of Al Qaeda and Iraq intelligence has been kept under wraps. Honestly, the more of each that comes out, the more credit I give the Bush Administration for their various actions. If you don't know what I'm talking about, read some recent stuff!

What the Bush Administration has been truly TERRIBLE at is explaining what the hell it is doing. History won't care about that, because more information will be available in the future, either way.

And contrived political crap like flag burning, gay marriage, etc. won't matter at all.
 
The republicans passed the 1986 FOPA, and let the AWB become law.

The 'liberal' 9th circuit court is the ONLY court actively telling congress that it has to much power.

What has GWB done for gun owners?

The Dept. of Homeland Security was the largest ADDITION to the goverment. All under Republican control.

I vote Libertarian. They actually believe in a limited, constitutional based government.
 
Before the good republicans get on too much of a high horse, I would like to point out that John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani will compose the Republican ticket in 2008, and they are not friends of freedom in general, nor the 2nd amendment in particular.

I think we will be just as screwed with them in charge as Hillary Clinton.
 
Much like LG, I'm not feeling like we're going to have a friendly option either way. I think alot of people are going to vote democratic just to not vote republic. If the democratic ticket has hillary on it, its doomed. Bush even agreed to sign another awb if it crossed his desk right? I don't think republicans will have Mccain and Giuliani, but I'm not sure it'll be a true 2nd amendment supporter either way. Same goes for the illinois governor race though, I think republican or Democrat we're going to have an anti gun governor. As a libertarian I'm used to feeling screwed however I vote though.
 
As a libertarian I'm used to feeling screwed however I vote though.

Great quote. That's how I feel every time I head to the polls. I have voted Libertarian every time, in almost every race, for the past ten years or so. Of course, I'm in California, so there's no mystery about who is going to win, so the best thing I can do is make a protest vote, by going Libertarian.

As for the White House in '08: Yeah, lots of anti-freedom candidates on both sides. Hilary seems unelectable, but who is running against her? Gore might be taking another shot. Who knows on the Repub side? A lot of things can change. Dark horse candidates are quite likely in this election. Normally you would expect the veep to run, but Chenney is a) unelectable and b) I don't think his heart condition is good enough for a grueling campaign. So that makes it too early to call right now. We have no idea who might end up on the tickets.
 
As for the White House in '08: Yeah, lots of anti-freedom candidates on both sides. Hilary seems unelectable, but who is running against her? Gore might be taking another shot. Who knows on the Repub side? A lot of things can change. Dark horse candidates are quite likely in this election. Normally you would expect the veep to run, but Chenney is a) unelectable and b) I don't think his heart condition is good enough for a grueling campaign. So that makes it too early to call right now. We have no idea who might end up on the tickets.
Cheney could win handily. So could Rice. But neither want to run.

Republican voters won't go to the primaries and vote for Guilliani or McCain. Both are way too liberal for the Republican base to support. Bush and Reagan have set the standard for how conservative a viable Republican candidate has to be, and neither McCain or Giulliani come close.

Recall that everyone thought McCain was a shoe-in for the nomination back in 2000. He won the first primary in New Hampshire, and he looked like he was well on his way towards winning the nomination. Then Bush came along and promised to be more conservative (tax cuts, education reform, etc), and he managed to wrest the nomination away. (And McCain has never forgiven him for that.)

Anyway, while it's way too soon to guess who's going to be the Republican candidate for Prez in 2008, I really doubt it will be McCain or Giulliani. The Republican complaints about Bush are that he's too moderate/liberal (prescription drug welfare, border security, etc). The Republicans won't stomach anyone more moderate/liberal than Bush.
 
Agreed.

We don't know who the candidate is.

Last election, remember how many books were published about how rotten each candidate was?

I don't think anyone, on either side, wants to give a 2-year heads-up to anyone on the other side!

Hillary is singleminded in her lust for power. She has let the cat out of the bag. But no one else would be so stupid.
 
Republican voters won't go to the primaries and vote for Guilliani or McCain. Both are way too liberal for the Republican base to support. Bush and Reagan have set the standard for how conservative a viable Republican candidate has to be, and neither McCain or Giulliani come close.

You're right, Bush has set a standard for how conservative a viable Republican candidate has to be - and what a trend setter he is.
 
I am afraid the system is broken. Just look at the line up of so-called leaders on either side. I wouldn't trust anyone of them with a dime. They are all globalists and statists, of slightly different flavors. They all have realized that campaign promises are meaningless and the voters will not keep them accountable for anything, so long as the voters are kept properly scared.

The only hope for fixing this country is the emergence of alternatives. Both major parties are otherwise irreparable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top