2a rights looking grim right about now.

Everyone seems to have their panties in a wad over the prospect of new restrictive gun laws.

Well, here's a little test we can all watch: There are several PRO gun laws that have been moving through both Houses that would make things easier for gun rights.
Now let's see how many of those go through... or are stopped in their tracks.

I'll take up a new bet that NONE of that beneficial (to gun right advocates) legislation will ever see the light of day again, and once the Dems have cleaned up that "mess", they'll immediately start working on the more restrictive gun laws. Remember, the ultra Left now believes that they have a MANDATE to govern.

The Dems were furious that the Clinton AWB sunsetted, and I can guarantee that bringing it back and making it permanent will be one of the goals of the Dems in the near future.

Here's some interesting post-election comments taken directly off the Brady website:

Here are some random election observations (both related to the Brady Campaign and more general):

1. Candidates supporting a common sense approach to gun violence prevention did very well. In races where the Brady Campaign endorsed candidates went head-to-head with competing candidates endorsed by the NRA, Brady won 5 of 5 Governorships (Patrick in MA, O’Malley in MD, Rendell in PA, Doyle in WI, and Blagojevich in IL) and 4 of 4 U.S. Senate seats (Cardin in MD, Cantwell in WA, Stabenow in ME, and Nelson in FL). Candidates endorsed by the Brady Campaign won over 95% of their races. It appears that candidates endorsed as “A” rated by the NRA lost in 109 U.S. House races and 18 U.S. Senate Races.
At least four of six U.S. Senate candidates that the NRA spent more than $1 million in total trying to re-elect went down to defeat, and the other two are losing. On the other hand, supporters of common sense gun laws in the Senate, like Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Edward Kennedy, Deborah Stabenow and Richard Lugar were reelected handily.

In multiple key battles for Congressional seats supporters of tougher gun laws won, including Pennsylvania’s Joe Sestak, Ohio’s Betty Sutton and Colorado’s Ed Perlmutter. “I’m so grateful to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence for supporting me early on,” Perlmutter said. “Not only did they help me win my primary, they’ve helped bring the issue of gun violence front and center in Colorado’s 7th district.”
The gun lobby lost key Gubernatorial fights where the candidates waged brutal policy battles publicly over guns in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. It lost Governors’ mansions in the other states as well, including Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, and Colorado, where victors Deval Patrick, Martin O’Malley, Eliot Spitzer and Bill Ritter proudly accepted the Brady Campaign endorsement. Keep checking our web page for additional details.

Gun rights advocates may not be screwed at this very moment, but give it a couple more moments...

Carter
Click to expand...

The Brady Bunch are deluding themselves if they think the election had ANYTHING AT ALL to do with gun control. I'll bet if pollsters asked voters if gun control was an important issue to them, less than 1% would reply "yes".
 
Pelosi and the dems have their eye firmly on '08 right now. They're not going to do anything rash to jeopardize or diminish their shot at the white house in '08. They also still remember that the 1994 AWB is one of the main issues that pushed them out of power in Congress in 1994. Pelosi may not be our friend, but she's NOT stupid - she's a shrewd political operator and not going to push an issue that could easily spell political suicide for her party in '08. And not just at the white house, but as mentioned in a previous post, in many of the house and senate seats which were won by slim margins. Remember many of the newly elected dems are blue dogs, and far more moderate than the traditional left wing liberal democrat.

What many of you forget is that it was largely due to the blue dogs (and the Congressional Black Caucus...for their own reasons) that the 1994 AWB had so much trouble going through the first time around. Many southern democrats back then didn't want to vote with the party (and against gun owners) because they knew it was political suicide. They were right, and that fact hasn't been lost on Pelosi. Gun control may not be completely off the table, but until the '08 elections I highly doubt they'll do anything radical. Even so, Bush has nothing to gain by signing such legislation, so a veto would be likely and the dems know it.
 
Thanks to Rich Lucibella for setting me straight on the quote. I misspoke (or actually mis-typed). :o

Pelosi didn't say she wanted to take all guns away. Actually, once I saw his reply, I checked real quick, and found she tends to say that taking guns is a bad thing because of the backlash it may cause.

My mistake. I stand humbled.
 
Leopards don't lose their spots, sexual predators can't be rehabilitated, and democrats will never be our friends on the gun issue. You can bet that control is going to come up in a democrat controlled Congress. Maybe not right now because they have to consolidate their power first before introducing new gun control bills. But it will come up.

Prudent people would be well enough advised to wisely use the time between now and when the Ds turn back into pumpkins to stock up on rifles targeted by an AWB II and full cap mags for everything they own or anticipate owning.
 
There may be a tinfoil lining (at least) behind the overcast skies.

The Republicans, if they wish to regain power, will take a hard look at why they got their arsies kicked. Some of it simply wasn't within their collective control. The entire GOP didn't 'make 'Tom Delay get himself arrested for conspiracy and money laundering. They didn't 'make' Mark Foley, a 'get-tough advocate for anti-child predator laws', exchange sexually explicit notes with a teenage boy- resulting in his resignation from Congress in disgrace.

There were individual choices by prominent members of the party which, in my opinion, made it easy for folks to vote against the party as a whole. The steady stream of bad news friom Iraq, and the President's own reluctance to take immigration seriously, were icing on the cake. Add to this the fact that many Republicans had become so moderate as to be indistinguishable from their adversaries, and a major loss for the GOP was inevitable.

The question was not "if"- but only "when?" That question was answered yesterday.

IF the Democrats have been paying attention, they will rush to the "Harry Truman" side of the ship. They will abandon some of the freak/fringe lunacy that made them distateful to regular folks-once the backbone of their support base-for so long. With a little luck, 'gun control' will be be among the first smelly cargo that gets tossed overboard. Even their darling Bill Klinton acknowledged that it was a key factor in their mass eviction notice from office, in 1994.

Hopefully, both sides will learn from this. Hopefully.

Until then, gun owners had better exist in 'political condition orange.' I think that whenever new gun control legislation is introduced, the sponsors (regardless of party affiliation) NEED to get letters from gun owners telling them that they have been idenified as a threat to the Second Amendment- and asking them if they are old enough to remember the 1994 election.
 
Last edited:
Until then, gun owners had better exist in 'political condition orange.'
Click to expand...

I live in Illinois. There's no setting below orange.

Now that I mention it, I do live in Illinois. I'd wager a lot of people responding with the "geez, don't freak out" message are unaware of what it's like living in a state like this.

Every winter, and I do mean every winter, Illinois comes within a hair's breadth of a non-retractable full semi-auto ban. HB2414. Look it up. It goes down with slimmer and slimmer margins every year. And every year, Daley and cronies pull some kind of "bill still on the floor for the next 365 days" deal so they can attempt strategic late-night votes if they feel they can sneak it through. Until you see how that goes down time after time, you may not realize how precarious it all is.

If the last gun control thing you experienced was 1994, your only point of reference is a molehill to the grandiose Everest that is modern slimy gun control.

And now - it has arrived at the federal level. You think the handgun bans, AWB bills, ammo bans and all that other stuff from CA/IL/MA/NY was meant as anything other than practice for the bigtime?
 
Pelosi didn't say she wanted to take all guns away. Actually, once I saw his reply, I checked real quick, and found she tends to say that taking guns is a bad thing because of the backlash it may cause.
Click to expand...

That's correct, Pelosi did not say that. The person who DID say that is Pelosi's bestest girl friend, Dianne Feinstein:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

-Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, discussing the 1994 "crime bill", one of the largest gun control bills of the last 30 years.
Click to expand...

As is now known, Ms. Feinstein has done a total 180 on her position and now fights vehemently for extending gun rights for Mr. and Mrs. America.

Oh wait, I mis-spoke...

Carter
 
Every winter, and I do mean every winter, Illinois comes within a hair's breadth of a non-retractable full semi-auto ban. HB2414. Look it up. It goes down with slimmer and slimmer margins every year. And every year, Daley and cronies pull some kind of "bill still on the floor for the next 365 days" deal so they can attempt strategic late-night votes if they feel they can sneak it through. Until you see how that goes down time after time, you may not realize how precarious it all is.
Click to expand...


I live in the People's Republic of Illinois, and it's true. The situation is bad, real bad. No right to carry, and the new democratic majority state senate is poised to pass any anti-gun law since they now have a veto-proof majority.


Why did the republicans lose? I think perhaps because the neo-cons and religious extremists in the party turned off a lot of people. People like Santorum. You have a very strong christian-taliban wing in the GOP that turns off 98% of the population who chooses to THINK.

The Repubs accuse Dems of "tax and spend" but the repubs "borrow and spend" to the same degree. The GOP has long abandoned it's fiscal conservative, small government stance, and has raped civil liberties and the constitution. Bush is all for passing the AWB is ever passes his desk.

So the GOP decided to become big government, rape civil liberties, borrow and spend, and kowtow to the religious-facists.
 
Last edited:
Start by replacing the judiciary's power (those "activist judges") with draconian laws prohibiting victimless activity and restricting judicial "activism" (better known as "judgment"). After all, we're doing it "for the children".

Then, because the result is so many very unjust sentences, let a few of them make their way to the Supreme Court.

Then, because that court has been stacked with non-"activist judges", decisions that strongly attenuate our 4th and 6th amendment rights are made and now stand as precedents.

Next, let most people get fed up with that situation and cause power to change hands.

Oops! Picking away at the rights you didn't happen to like has just put the one you do like at risk.

I doubt that Democratic rule will cause widespread gun confiscation. But those attenuations of the other rights will make such a confiscation much easier to accomplish if I'm wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top