Wayne LaPierre dreads a Hillary win in 2008

Status
Not open for further replies.
How about the real problem being the incompetency of the current President leading to the Democrats having a real chance to win?

Maybe Wayne should call up Bush and tell him to take his Vitamins or something.

If Hillary gets in - look at Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld as the causal agents.
 
Wrong nightmare scenario

The real nightmare scenario
--Hillary as POTUS and,
--Bill as Sect'y General of UN replace Kofi
--Senate controlled by democrats

Yes, we can spank Bill for doing NAFTA as and agreement, but remember not one single solitary republican or republican bootlicking organization has yet to file a suit in federal court challenging the designation of NAFTA as an agreement and not a treaty.
 
Gun owners, WAKE UP!

If Hillary gets in - look at Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld as the causal agents.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with that; if Hillary wins in 2008, let's place the blame where it belongs: On the idiot gun owners who help vote her in.

Do the math -
There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S.
In the 2004 election, there were 122,293,332 votes cast for President.
Bush got 62,040,610 votes (and 286 electoral votes).
Kerry got 59,028,111 votes (and 251 electoral votes).
Bush won by a mere 3,012,499 votes.

The undeniable fact is this: There were tens of millions of so-called gun owners who voted for Kerry - the most antigun politician to ever run for the Presidency.

We have a little over two years until the 2008 election. Gun owners had damn well better get their priorities straight by then. They had better get them straight by November of this year. If Hillary wins in 2008, she will be the American gun owner's worst nightmare - especially so if she inherits a Democrat controlled Congerss.
 
Steelheart - the problem with your analysis is that:

1. You think everyone who owns a gun is a RKBA zealot and a one issue voter. That is not true.

2. You think, as some gun folks do, that guns are the paramount and most important issue. You would tolerate any other flaws for a good gun position. The majority of gun owners are not that way.

3. The positions of the GOP on other basic rights and the candidate's basic competency can be so bad as to generate significant damage to the country and the BOR that exceeds the damage possible by gun legislation. Thinking people may not be one issue candidates faced with some of the crap from the conservative right wing of the GOP and the incompetency of the current administration.

The basic preservation of gun rights has not been at the Presidential level. Bush would have signed the AWB and Gonzalez said he still would. The idea that he was a genius politician by supporting the ban as he knew that it would fail in Congress, simply demonstrates a lack of moral integrity. He certainly pissed his pants getting over there to 'Terry Schiavo' but he wouldn't oppose the AWB? What crap!

The current attack on other civil liberties is as equally important as gun rights but some gun folks don't see that. As long as they can play gun boy, the government can be as dictatorial as any. Wait, till the rights which are taken away are tuned against you, gun boy. I recently called Blade-Tech. I don't want the government saving that so if they do go after guns, they know I'm an owner (if they don't already - :D ).

Naive analysis of every gun owner just voting on guns is nice but won't work today. What is needed is an effort to make gun rights seen as fundamental to all and not the province of a small clique of Republicans.
 
What Mr. Meyer said x 2

When Dubyah said that he would sign the AWB if it passed was the pinnacle of political cowardice. Trying to have his cake and eat it too. That demonstrates how much he values gun rights.
No cajones.........

Ineptness in prosecuting the war in Iraq, corruption, fourth amendment issues and failure to communicate with the people have driven the President's numbers down. His administrations arrogance is another factor that has helped the other side. The sad thing is that the Dems are not going to do too much better I fear. If they turn to investigations and fingerpointing instead of taking care of the nations business. :(
 
The sad thing is that the Dems are not going to do too much better I fear.
Click to expand...
So let's vote for them and give them political power out of spite toward the R's because of Bush? Bush trampled the Constitution, so let's give the leftist/Democrat/socialists their turn to destroy the one part Bush missed?

Great plan.:barf:

The current attack on other civil liberties is as equally important as gun rights but some gun folks don't see that.
Click to expand...
And some folks see it as an excuse to vote for antigun bigot politicians - either out of spite and vengance (which equals immature ignorance) or because they agree with them on the right to arms issue.

The above outlook which Mr. Meyer seems to espouse is the same line of thinking that says of all our rights, our gun rights are dead last. They are expendable above all others - after all, there are "other (read more important) issues to consider."

You have to draw the line smewhere - I draw it at the Second Amendment.
As long as they can play gun boy, the government can be as dictatorial as any. Wait, till the rights which are taken away are tuned against you, gun boy.
Click to expand...
With these snide and asinine comments, Mr. Meyer reveals his true colors. Guns are not toys that we run around and play cowboy with. Guns are the tools of liberty, our liberty teeth as The Founders called them. They are the tools with which we defend ourselves, our families and if needed, our liberty and enforce our right to self defense - which is a human right as well as a Constitutional right.

"Gun boy" - how immature, childish and short sighted:barf:
 
Last edited:
Hillary or who?

I wouldn't want Hillary, but I think she's too "East" to win but I sure don't like what the Bush et. al. are doing either.
And furthermore:
I'm a history teacher. I've always thought that Isolationism and Libertarianism are, and always have been, just below the surface in the US. I think that we are seeing both of them rising up.
A candidate for the '08 election? I don't see any on the horizon that I could support.
 
Hillary as POTUS, with either Bayh or Obama as VP... Negates the East Coast stigma and moderates the overall tone(as long as you don't scratch the surface too deeply). Also sets one of those two up for a solid run in 4 or 8 years. At this stage, I can see it playing that way and, Frankly, I'd be about as scared of Evan or Obama as if Hillary. Globalist wolves in socially conservative sheep skin...
 
3. The positions of the GOP on other basic rights and the candidate's basic competency can be so bad as to generate significant damage to the country and the BOR that exceeds the damage possible by gun legislation. Thinking people may not be one issue candidates faced with some of the crap from the conservative right wing of the GOP and the incompetency of the current administration.
Click to expand...

Sorry, there's no real way any thinking person could view the Dems' gloabalist, welfare state, pro-infanticide, anti-gun, pro-criminal, tax-jacking centralized-bureaucracy, anti-property rights platform as less damaging than the Repubs'. The latter might or might not be bad, but the Dems are seeking to build a new, euro-socialist, nation and the BoR be damned. The only reason to vote Dem is if you're looking for a free handout and couldn't care less whether every aspect of your life except the sexual is monitored and taxed 24/7.
 
Hang on - wasn't NRA membership at record levels during the Clinton years? Leadership that is openly anti-gun would appear to be good for the NRA, membership roles swell and I'm going to assume contributions increase. Maybe LaPierre and company would be busy during this time, but if I were in his position I wouldn't dread it.
 
Take it or leave it, Steelheart. Reading lists like this I have seen folks proclaim that they want guns to protect liberty and then:

1. Want to take away freedom of expression.
2. Gut the 4th Amendment and 5th.
3. Want to abolish or significantly weaken the separation of church and state. Some say it never existed.
4. Be happy with the state controlling aspects of consenting adults sexuality and women's reproduction.
5. Flip out if any race other than white demonstrates with firearms.
6. Want the state to intervene in family medical decisions because of more religious crappola.

Just search this group, GT or THR and all these loonie crap from gun boys who proclaim 'freedom' will be evident.

What do these folks want the guns for anyway? Those who really think that the 2nd Amend is the only one truly operative in having freedoms or protecting them are politically naive. A significant portion of folks would be quite happy with an authoritarian government that was antifreedom if they had guns and the other rights violated weren't theirs.

Note: I am avoiding a Godwin's law violation.

I call them as I see them.
 
+1 Glenn E. Meyer; I really enjoy reading your posts.

steelheart, you might take issue with the "gun boy" characterization, but you're about the last person to be in a position to label somebody as "immature" or "childish." Within this thread alone, you've managed to characterize enter segments of the American population as "idiots" and "sheeple", and resorted to a middle-schooler's level of humor ("SSDS"). Within another thread running concurrently with this (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210953), you've described Hillary Clinton as "the one with tits." Who exactly is behaving like an immature child at this point in time?

-1 steelheart.
 
1. Want to take away freedom of expression. That would be the Dems, or Leftist in general, if you prefer

2. Gut the 4th Amendment and 5th. A failing of both parties, but a Leftist goal

3. Want to abolish or significantly weaken the separation of church and state. Some say it never existed. That would be because it did not. There was never any such phrase except that used in a relatively obscure letter assuring the Danbury Baptists their freedom of religion would not be restricted. The whole argument stems from the Founders desire to not allow a state funded and mandated official religion, NOT any desire to stop kids from praying at graduation, etc. The Left needs to try and grasp this simple fact

4. Be happy with the state controlling aspects of consenting adults sexuality and women's reproduction. Unless you can present genetic evidence that the unborn are not human, and/or physical evidence we know and can predict the beginning of brain function accurately in every case the claim it's about "reproductive rights" is a pathetic diversion. It's about murder, and was always accepted as such until the Left made an end-run around the legislative process to inflict their views on this nation. If you'd like to claim the state has no authority over murder the be my guest, I won't even bother to argue against it...

5. Flip out if any race other than white demonstrates with firearms. Just downright silly. A lame effort to throw out the race card

6. Want the state to intervene in family medical decisions because of more religious crappola. Wanted the state to intervene because of legitimate questions regarding a specific case

A BIG -1 BIG, big,big -1.
 
steelheart, you might take issue with the "gun boy" characterization, but you're about the last person to be in a position to label somebody as "immature" or "childish." Within this thread alone, you've managed to characterize enter segments of the American population as "idiots" and "sheeple", and resorted to a middle-schooler's level of humor ("SSDS"). Within another thread running concurrently with this (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/....php?t=210953), you've described Hillary Clinton as "the one with tits." Who exactly is behaving like an immature child at this point in time?
Click to expand...
I stand by my statement: Any so-called gun owner who will vote for an antigun bigot like Clinton is an idiot, period. Whether you like it or not, I dare say the majority of gun owners - on this forum or anywhere else - would agree with that statement.

and resorted to a middle-schooler's level of humor ("SSDS").
Click to expand...
Like it or not, your arbitrary classification of my humor does not make it so. BTW, it was "SSDD" - Same Stain, Different Dress. If you are going to attack my humor, how about being competent enough to get it right, if that's not too much of a struggle?

As for the rest, once again your self aggrandizement assumes that what you think has any relevance to my life, however slight.

It does not.
 
Last edited:
I've noticed that that no matter who you vote for your screwed. You can have half of your rights either way. If you vote for giant douce you get gun rights, If you vote for turd sandwich you dont get wiretapped. So unless we get a Libertarian or a decent independent we are screwed.
 
Nothing I read disconfirms my initial statements. In fact, many of them reinforce my beliefs about a segment of the gun world.

As long as I have a gun, then let the social conservative erosion of rights and privacy continue- that's the mantra. I won't belabour the points for the true believers.

I don't speak to you in your defined space of gun owners must be social conservatives. I speak to say that if we want gun rights to succeed, then the correlation of gun owners being social conservatives must be broken.

So blind - sigh.
 
Oh, wow! An abortion debate and name-calling in just barely two pages!

I'm so proud.

Deep breaths, everyone. And the next person who either starts a foaming-at-the-mouth abortion debate or affixes labels like "asinine" to other poster's opinions will find themselves looking for a new venue to practice their debating skills.

Capisce?

Lights out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top