Will Pres Obama cause more pro gunners to retake congress?
- Thread starter Contingency
- Start date
Playboypenguin
Moderator
If we had a republican candidate to vote for I would be doing so...but since we do not it is a toss up.
I do not like the direction this country is taking and McCain is just four more years of stay the course, cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy, and keep cheap labor flowing in to staff those corporation's factories.
Right now any change would be better. When you are jumping from the tigers mouth you don't always have the luxury of looking where you are going to land. You just know it has a good chance of being better than where you were.
If Obama gets in it might be different. It might be better and it might be worse. If it is better, then that is a great thing. I do not let myself be blinded by party loyalty. I am not a sheep being told what to think or how to react. I will judge his accomplishments and failures on their own merit.
If he turns out to be worse, those four years might be enough to convince middle America that they hate the leftists posing as democrats just as much as they hate the neo-cons posing as republicans. Only then will the republican party have a chance to rebuild from the ashes or reemerge as a viable third party.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I'm with Penguin. (Except the corporate tax cuts).
I will grant any POW who keeps enough of his senses afterwards not to come off as insane a free ride to the senate, the free health care, pension and everything that goes with it, but not to the White House, and neither will most Americans.
Lets see some real Republican statesmen. I'm not supporting the Republican party until they do, even if they will give me a fat tax break.
I will grant any POW who keeps enough of his senses afterwards not to come off as insane a free ride to the senate, the free health care, pension and everything that goes with it, but not to the White House, and neither will most Americans.
Lets see some real Republican statesmen. I'm not supporting the Republican party until they do, even if they will give me a fat tax break.
Citizen Carrier
New member
Yeah, I loved the progression there.
If you were just going to disagree with the notion that the NRA and gun owners were the powerful force in the 1994 election, why not just do that from the get go?
Did he really suppose that I was making up what Clinton said? Why would I do that?
Source!?
Okay...well...yeah, he said that. But what did he know about politics anyway?
Funny how the same people would probably categorize the most recent House and Senate elections as a backlash against one or two pet issues, like immigration.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
It would be nice to see reason from the people and not excuses from the defeated. Like I said, what are the top concerns expressed by voters now and then? I think the NRA is trying to take advantage of circumstantial events and Clinton is trying to shift blame. There is not much evidence to support that statement. At least none that I can see. I am looking but cannot find it. Anyone else having luck finding anything to support Clinton's statement? or is this the one time people are willing to just take him on his word because they like what he said? 
Clinton also said that oral sex is not sex. Try to convince your wife of that fact.
Clinton also said that oral sex is not sex. Try to convince your wife of that fact.
Tigers ...
If not then, your supposition of working to build a stronger Republican platform and party over the next four years is the silver lining behind the storm. The only "fly in the ointment" is how much irrevocable damage will be done to the country over four years?
So very true.
Many Republicans have already turned away from the extreme NeoCon right and are moving toward the center. I suspect as more of the Lefts socialist agenda is exposed many Democrats will also move to the center later rather than sooner. Excepting any great surprises by either candidate, McCain stands a good chance of surpassing Obama, especially at the critical time to pull the voting lever.
If not then, your supposition of working to build a stronger Republican platform and party over the next four years is the silver lining behind the storm. The only "fly in the ointment" is how much irrevocable damage will be done to the country over four years?
Playboypenguin
If you truly want to judge Obama on what he stands for, then read this previous thread in this forum.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304430
My take is that you really do not care that Obama is a Socialist, and will destroy this country. I'm not telling you how to think......but you had better think long and hard before you vote for Obama to lead this country. If you find yourself wanting to vote for the man, you had best do some serious introspection and try to figure out how is that a supposed "conservative" could ever do such a thing.
If you truly want to judge Obama on what he stands for, then read this previous thread in this forum.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304430
My take is that you really do not care that Obama is a Socialist, and will destroy this country. I'm not telling you how to think......but you had better think long and hard before you vote for Obama to lead this country. If you find yourself wanting to vote for the man, you had best do some serious introspection and try to figure out how is that a supposed "conservative" could ever do such a thing.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
No, what I do not care for is wide sweeping, reactionary, alarmist statements such as this one.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I know how much damage can be done in seven years.
Citizen Carrier
New member
I don't suppose sweeping statements about Obama are anymore ridiculous than the grandiloquent, sweeping, messianic statments Ron Paul supporters made about him for the last year or so.
Destroying America? Well, with a Democrat House and Senate behind him, he can certainly move us further to a European-style welfare state than any President has been able to do sincle Lyndon Johnson.
As far has him being a socialist, he had the most liberal voting record of any Senator in 2007. That means he out-liberaled Leahy, Clinton, Biden, Kennedy, and that kook from Vermont--Bernie Sanders--who probably does refer to himself as a socialist.
Destroying America? Well, with a Democrat House and Senate behind him, he can certainly move us further to a European-style welfare state than any President has been able to do sincle Lyndon Johnson.
As far has him being a socialist, he had the most liberal voting record of any Senator in 2007. That means he out-liberaled Leahy, Clinton, Biden, Kennedy, and that kook from Vermont--Bernie Sanders--who probably does refer to himself as a socialist.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Are you asking if I read it or if I allowed myself to be convinced by an extremely biased editorial which is wrong and misrepresentative in many places and manages to leave out key details in others?
Citizen Carrier
New member
Well, there is one thing that supports that statement.
The Democrats, for some reason or other, haven't made a serious attempt at gun control legislation since 1994.
Doesn't that kind of...suggest...something?
Fourteen YEARS without a major attempt at gun control legislation? Not even with Columbine and Virginia Tech?
Remember the 1980s? Something like Columbine or Virginia Tech would've been used to pass whatever gun control the Democrats wanted.
And the sunsetting of the Assault Weapons Ban? They let that die without any kind of fight to speak of. Just a little whining from Bill Clinton.
Are those the Democrats we know?
So what changed? What altered their passion for using any and all shootings to ban guns? And did you notice how many pro-gun Democrats were instrumental in their recent takeover of Congress? Do you think that was by accident? Coincidence?
You can only really point to the 1994 elections. That scared the living crap out of them.
If it wasn't 1994, perhaps you can explain what the real reason is?
Playboypenguin
Moderator
If by "shoot the messenger" you mean not believe everything I am told even when it is blatantly biased...then yes, I am good at that. I guess some people want facts and basis and others just want their own opinions validated.
I get the same crap from my more left friends when I refuse to listen to their "Bush is the devil" crap.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
It suggests that the republicans have had control for most of that time and in fact there has been a lot of talk about gun control lately and some bills introduced...by republican politicians.
I will once again ask, if the current politicians learned that people vote based on gun laws, what have they done to garner favor with this group? Where is the pro-gun legislation? Seems like all the victories have come from court decisions and not the politicians.
Citizen Carrier
New member
Within recent memory?
Besides all the states that have in the last few years adopted concealed carry?
In 2004 and 2005 McCain voted to ban frivilous lawsuits against gun companies designed to bankrupt them with legal fees and settlements.
I'd say that was pretty good.
1999, McCain voted NO for background checks at gunshows...presumably for sales done between two private citizens, not dealers.
Then there's various signings of the Castle Doctrine at state level, which a google search of "pro-gun legislation" would've pulled up (how hard were you looking for this stuff, anyway?).
Like here:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=2779
That's Texas.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=4113
There's something from Massachuessetts. A Republican stripped out a tax increase on firearms liscensing and dealer's fees from a governor's bill. Not too shabby.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=4015
Ohio's Castle Doctrine signed into law by Democrat Ted Strickland. You know, I almost kind of like that guy.
Here, I'll make your tough "research" easier for you. You want to find pro-gun legislation to find out "what have they done for me lately?", go here:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/State/
See that big map of the United States? Well, click on a state and it will pull up pro-gun legislation bulletins or alerts from that state. Maybe that will make it easier for you.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Those are good points for McCain.
As for some of the stuff you mentioned, wasn't a lot of that done by ballot measure? Should politicians get credit for that?
That link is pretty cool that you provided.I have never seen that specific page. Now I have some reading to do today.
Don`t think anyone can deny when compairing Clinton Admin. to Bush Admin on gun laws the differences are astounding. We can at least under this Admin. know the ruling of the 2nd. Admen. which has been legally kept hostage from us for years. As for Obama directly attacking gun laws maybe not but as Clinton he`ll surely not help our views. There`s more ways to hurt gun owners than attacking laws that are on the books.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
There is no question that Obama will be more hostile towards gun rights. The question is..."If he gets in and the middle class sees things it likes such as affordable health care, reduced taxes, increased opportunities to attend higher education, a withdraw from Iraq, and other things will they even care about gun issues?"
And if they see things they do not like will the opposition's stance on gun rights be the thing they are looking for in a counter to Obama?