Most Important Election In History

They must be voted for by Congress, which is Republican controlled.
Click to expand...

The entire House and 1/3 of the Senate is up for elections this year, AND every two years. No one can assure that the Congress will stay Republican especially since one of the incumbant GOP Senators (Lincoln Chaffee) has already said he is does not support Bush. If he pulled a Jim Jeffords right now, the Senate would be under Democrat control.

Dont place your hopes on something you have absolutely NO control over!
 
Handy: "Please tell us how the 2001 McCain/Feingold bill wasn't the product of a Rep. Congress and a Rep. President."

I'm not saying that, nor am I saying that M/F was "moderate." Far from it; it was the most direct assault on the Bill of Rights ever, IMO.

The Brady Law does not have an "expiration date." The AWB did. Both toothless pieces of legislation, just as you say. But not "moderate" by any means.

And the "plastic gun" ban did pass in 1988 (or 1989?). Dick Cheney was one of just two congressmen to vote against the ban. That's what I call a "moderate" bill. It bans something that doesn't exist. I can live with that...for awhile anyway, until somebody comes up with a polymer or other material that would make a fantastic gun.

I agree that Bush reaches compromises with the other side, many of which I don't like. Sometimes he reaches a compromise that is kind of funny. His tax cut, for example. He wanted $1.6 trillion, the Democrats didn't want any. He got $1.3 trillion and they claimed victory.
 
ML,

Why are you arguing, then? I said that opposing Congress/Presidents made for moderate laws. You then cite a law that is both extreme, and made by an un-opposed Congress/President??? That's the point I was making.


FYI, the AWB is the Brady Bill. The Brady Bill expired one month ago, ending the enclosed ban on some AWs.
 
Handy, if the Brady Law expired last month, then please go into any gun shop anywhere in the US and try to walk out with a gun purchase without a background check.

The "assault weapons" ban was part of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The Brady Law was a separate part of another piece of legislation.

Before we begin to discuss which laws are "moderate" and which are not, please do some research, so that we can compare apples to apples.

Thanks,
Dick

When it comes to guns, no law is "moderate."
 
You are correct, sir. I was thinking of the Crime Bill and AWB, which are the same animal.

In any case, could you explain how the McCain/Feingold act serves as a counterexample of what I said?
 
Handy, with the media love-fest over "campaign finance reform" (note that I use quotation marks because nothing was reformed, just reshuffled), McCain/Feingold would have passed whether we had Republican congress and president or not. Both Bush and Gore supported it in their campaigns.

And nothing that Bush has done infuriates me more than him signing that bill with the hope the SC would strike it down.

Back to the subject of "moderate" gun legislation: there's nothing moderate at all about gun control laws. Each law appears to be moderate on its face, but that's by design. It's only when you view them collectively that you realize the proverbial frog has already been boiled (or close to it).
 
It is clear that the most important issue in this election is not RKBA the Patriot Act or most of the other things that people are angry about. As has been said, the appointments to the Judiciary are the most important. Presidents will come and go, and make things some better or worse, but the judges and SC Justices remain for a generation. They are the ones who say what the Constitution means, regardless of what the Founders meant it to say. It means what the USSC says it means.

Accordingly, the direction and future of this nation hinges upon getting wise and godly judges on the bench. Otherwise, we will continue to lose rights including gun rights. If Kerry gets elected we are down the tube.

It is also important that the election give a large enough majority in the Senate to stop filibusters and confirm judges.

So those who claim to vote on principle and vote for a third party are doing damage to this nation, and they will pay the price, along with the rest of us, if Kerry gets in.

Jerry
 
If being godly means that you like guns and are for the 2nd amendment, you better come up to detroit and straighten out all of the preachers and ministers here because they don't agree with you. They don't believe in gun rights. I believe they must be godly to have a church, and people to preach at, I am not sure that is your department.
 
Dan,
[If being godly means that you like guns and are for the 2nd amendment, you better come up to detroit and straighten out all of the preachers and ministers here because they don't agree with you. They don't believe in gun rights. I believe they must be godly to have a church, and people to preach at, I am not sure that is your department.]

Having a church does not mean one is godly in the true meaning of the word. Godliness is to follow the commands and precepts of God, as found in the Holy Bible.
I have no way of knowing any specifics regarding the ministers there. They sound liberal to me, as most are today.

However, I must admit that there is nothing in the Bible that addresses gun rights as our Constitution addresses it. I wish it did address that, but it does not. The fact that Jesus told the disciples to get a sword does not establish that the 2nd Amendment says what we believe it says, or that if we do not agree with the intrepretation by the courts that we have the right to disobey.

The most important issues, aside from the judiciary issues, are those which are directly addressed, such as homosexuality, abortion, and righteousness in other areas. I consider those more important than even RKBA, although that is a very important issue with me. If we were a more righteous nation we would not have lost so many liberties, including gun rights.

I would have to say that there are godly people who like guns and those who do not. There are very ungodly people who like guns and those who do not. That issue does not define godliness.

Jerry
 
Judges - that's the issue

From the Supreme Court to Appellate courts to Federal judges throughout America, the next president will determine the parameters by which all presidents and congresses govern for the forseeable future. At least one and maybe as many as four Supreme Court positions will be filled by the next president. The various appellate court circuits will have many openings. The stakes are more important than ANYTHING the president and congress do the next 4 years. Look at the damage Clinton did in his 8 years. We will pay for the circuit court damage for generations to come. Presidents are fleeting. Congress is mostly handcuffed by the near-even split that has existed for decades. The courts, however, are overwhelmingly liberal as a result of the Clinton disaster. We simply cannot afford another liberal administration right now. Not only our 2nd Amendment rights, but EVERYTHING we value is under attack.
 
Accordingly, the direction and future of this nation hinges upon getting wise and godly judges on the bench. Otherwise, we will continue to lose rights including gun rights.
Click to expand...


I would have to say that there are godly people who like guns and those who do not.
Click to expand...

So we could get godly judges and still lose any or all of are rights. Or are Judges who don't like guns Godly but not wise?

So what is the religion that is saying all this, I don't know how to phrase it because I am sure that Martin luther King was against violence but was he against guns?
 
sounds like we have an important job to do Tuesday, eh? don't forget to take a close look at your local elections and local issues as well; they are just as important as voting for your president.
Nice to see TFL back online!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top