Charlie Rangel & Gun Control

C

Camp David

New member
The Dems didn't wait long to take their leadership out for a spin...

"It’s not just committees — our influence within the House Democratic caucus will grow enormously,” Mr. Rangel said in an interview. To that end, he sketched out an expansive federal agenda: Teaming up with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on gun control,..."

Hang on to your guns... the Dems don't like them...
 
Pride Goeth Before a Fall

As an ex New Yorker I know that New Yorkers are nowhere near as smart and sophisticated as they think and coming as they do from a one party town
and from a section of the country where politics are skewed to the Left they have little if any understanding of the are west of the Delaware River, nor do
they care. IMHO they're in for a rude awakening. The greatest threat to the
RKBA is the states-New York has no RKBA in its state constitution and no
Initiative andb Referendum to serve as a check on the political class.
 
Maybe the good people of PA could annex the state of NY with force of arms while the unarmed NYers are napping, then build a giant wall cutting off NYC & NJ...
 
Here we go.
(sigh)
I can not believe that other people will not leave us alone. Like we are the problem in society? Come on! We are the best part of society.
Gun Owners = self-reliant, independant, strong individuals that you do NOT want to have leave your society.
 
As an ex New Yorker I know that New Yorkers are nowhere near as smart and sophisticated as they think
Click to expand...

Most of my extended family hails from NY and CT. I've been there a few times. That attitude is definitely prevalent, right up until you debate them on an issue with real substance...............
 
No doubt they will start up the anti-gun machine again. They've been given a "mandate" by the American peepul don'tcha know? :eek:

It would not surprise me to see them pushing some new gun scheme that's not needed while trying to force an end to the Iraq mission. The major news coverage of the Iraqi debate would bury the gun-control news on page 12A.

Nor would it surprise me if we experience another significant terrorist event on American soil during this period.
 
"Maybe the good people of PA could annex the state of NY with force of arms while the unarmed NYers are napping, then build a giant wall cutting off NYC & NJ..."

Yeah and give Philly to New Jersey. :barf:
 
2ndamd, that's EXACTLY the problem. You intimidate them simply by being who you are (not what you do). They cannot control you, so they will change the playing field so that they can [control you]. That is, they will grab your guns so you won't be so damn independent..., and intimidating. sundog
 
I used to watch West Wing when it was fairly well written. That being said they had one good story where someone challenged one of the staffers. He asked them why they wanted to outlaw guns.

They gave some usual claptrap answer, and the questioner said 'Thats not it at all. Its not the guns, you dont like the PEOPLE who want guns.'

Independent thinkers are a danger to a socialist government. If you go along and do what you're told, things run smoothly. They dont run WELL, but they run smoothly. You start getting people who question things, and it all becomes very hard for the government.

It boils my blood that the ACLU will go to war ovwer someone's right to burn a flag, but are revolted when the idea of gun ownership comes up.
 
What really gets my kishkas in a roil....

....that as a born and raised New Yorker, it is well known that all these anti-gun politicos themselves, have concealed weapon permits...and it goes without saying, that the Clinton's security team is very well armed....word I just got was that there was some talk as to whether retired NYPD folk really need to have "carte blanche" concerning concealed weapons...one of the few perks of having retired from NYPD was that your retired ID card was your CCW permit....now some well armed politico wants to change that.:(
 
I know sundog,

But, it gets old. I have to watch what I say here because the 1st amd is not protected on this private site. But suffice it to say that any attempt at gun control will NOT be "ignored" by me.....and I am sure many of you.
 
Heist,

Nor would it surprise me if we experience another significant terrorist event on American soil during this period.
Click to expand...

Any specific reasons why? Who would be at fault?
Click to expand...

From what I've heard and read, there have been a number of foiled attempts to smuggle in the necessary items to create another catastrophic event. It has been 5 years since 9-11 without a serious American-soil incident. That's a pretty good record ... so far. I think it is naive to think that we caught every one of them and/or have interrupted every plot.

But consider that there will be a juicy target coming up (swearing in of a new Congress) with lots of live TV coverage. With a Dem-controlled Congress, hitting the U.S. as early as possible, during a transitional phase, would be a coup. Plus, the Dems have a track record of trying to ban anything involved in such incidents and restricting liberties in the aftermath.

As to who would be at fault - who cares? Placing blame is unproductive when the real focus should be on recovery and our national response.
 
Charles Rangle like many of his cohorts don't really want gun control. They strive for no guns for the citizenry, therefore no gun control needed.
 
There's only one thing we need to know about Charles Rangel. He's introduced bills multiple times to REPEAL THE SECOND AMMENDMENT. He's been on TV advocating such.
 
Another event

From enemies, foreign or domestic, [our govt] is all it would take to impose martial law. Then it's all messed up, just like Katrina. There is no doubt in my mind that the Government would take advantage of the situation. Why would they do it? They have sold out. Who would be at fault? We the the people for letting it happen. The globalist s have every thing to gain. They have to disarm us if the last plank is to be put in place.They are scared of us.
 
But consider that there will be a juicy target coming up (swearing in of a new Congress) with lots of live TV coverage. With a Dem-controlled Congress, hitting the U.S. as early as possible, during a transitional phase, would be a coup. Plus, the Dems have a track record of trying to ban anything involved in such incidents and restricting liberties in the aftermath.
Click to expand...

I think terrrorists would recongize that the Dem response to terrorism has typically been no response at all, or to carry out criminal investigations that typcially go nowhere. The reason we haven't had a strike since 2001 is because we reacted so strongly and so out of what they perceive to be our character. With the Dems coming into power and Bush's approval ratings low and his ability to operate constrained, they can reasonably expect that a mid-level strike would not result in retaliation at a level they can't handle.

Simply put, the cost/benefit ratio of striking the US has swung back in their favor.
 
I think the dems are unlikely to do anything major...at least prior to the 2008 election.

If a Dem gets to the white house and they maintain control of the house/senate....then maybe

But it has been a losing proposition as of late
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top