The clever GOP strategy for defeat in November

I came to the realization that our Rights were long gone before most of us were even born. I was born in an America where Rights are dead, but still in practice only as priviledges.

Click to expand...

1865, to be exact

The Democrats may win control of the house and senate in the fall. Then for the next 4 years the people will again remember why they voted them out the last time. Then vote the republicans in again. Then the people will forget why once again and the cycle will start over again.
Just how it is.

If you maintain such a "picky" attitude towards our political allies, you will get absolutely no where with the RKBA. Don'tTreadOnMe

Click to expand...

In general, I agree, but you seem to be on the apologist side of being objective. I inferred that you would almost be lying down and accepting any fate that comes your way.

Frist deserves no credit. GOA told him what procedure to use.


This is going to become a thread diversion, but you're just not understanding the implications of that trigger lock law, and it should not be dismissed as benign. Why do you suppose they thought it was a good idea? Trigger locks had little to do with adding locks to guns, if gun makers were already largely compliant. It made gun owners liable for not using them, ultimately robbing them of liability insurance if they don't. Eventually failure to use a trigger lock will become a crime. Just follow the seat belt law model and you'll see where we're headed. All they need is a couple relevant incidents and bam!, it's a crime.

The first step was to require manufacturers to provide trigger locks and paperwork that verified a lock was provided when the gun was purchased. Then you can never say you didn't have a lock and it would be known which registered guns were associated with trigger locks. They gotcha. If the gun is stolen, used in a crime, and traced to you, you are civilly liable. Someday it will be criminally liable.

They can also at some point decide there is a critical mass of existing guns with trigger locks and then require ALL guns to have them as aftermarket retrofits, universal designs, etc.

I'm not being an apologist. I just do not see why or how people are being hostile to the Republicans based on RKBA issues. They have no argument. This assumes you take the entire issue of guncontrol from 1968 to present into context. If you do that, and look at the big picture, Republican control of the Congress and a Republican President lately has been a GOOD THING for us. People need to be reasonable.


As for the gunlocks thing. I agree with you as I did in my last post. It is a stepping stone, gateway legislation towards criminalizing not using them. Doesn't mean it will happen. We have to watch out for that down the road. As of right now, it isn't a bad thing. No need to be an alarmists over that particular issue.


As for the GOA. They, like many on this forum, are overly idealistic. GOA can't "tell" Frist how or what to do. I find GOA to be a good organization. They serve as a watch-dog organization over the NRA. They are the second opinion to the NRA on RKBA issues. However, they are powerless. The best they can do is complain, criticize, and offer opinions or alternatives. They are not the muscle in Washinton. The NRA is.


Frist did do fine for us. He isn't a RKBA champion, that's true, he's not. But he did his best to try and be like Delay and hammer that law through with the least amount of BS attached to it. The Senate works on compromises, you cannot strong arm everything like the GOA would like you to believe, because someday you will be the minority, and they will strong arm a ban down your throat.

Again, no apologies, just a fair assessment of the situation.


As the pro-gun movement that we are, we have NO legitimate grievances with the Republican party. No justification to be hostile towards them or to turn our backs on them on the issue of gun rights. They've done all we can expect a mainstream, national party to do in this currently disadvantageous American political climate -- not pass any anti-gun laws.

They've done all we can expect a mainstream, national party to do in this currently disadvantageous American political climate -- not pass any anti-gun laws.

Click to expand...

Says you, even after admitting there could be future implications. The Trojan Horse is already in the compound.

My understanding is that Frist's fill-the-tree strategy came from GOA. If some of those amendments had gone to a vote, some Republicans could have voted for them. And I say that as a staunch Republican supporter. I simply don't try to evade facts.

The parties are pretty clear on what they are against, mostly each other's intitiatives, but they are not in lock step when it comes to what they favor. You have to count on party leadership to keep some of those votes off the floor. Frist's leadership in that regard is pretty shaky certainly unimpressive. He was the one that chaired the GOP platform committee, which dropped any mention of support for gun owners. It was more like an evangelist's meeting than anything else.

I do agree that the GOP is the best choice, but let's drop the nonsense and acknowledge a few facts here and there. We have work to do.

Don't Tread On Me said:

I just do not see why or how people are being hostile to the Republicans based on RKBA issues. They have no argument. This assumes you take the entire issue of guncontrol from 1968 to present into context. If you do that, and look at the big picture, Republican control of the Congress and a Republican President lately has been a GOOD THING for us. People need to be reasonable.

Click to expand...

How has it been a good thing? Last I checked, the only gun law we've actually gotten rid of was the AWB. Everything is as it has been. Nothing has actually changed. I wouldn't call that a good thing. Its neutral at best.
What has happened is the Republicans have compromised our right into a privilege. You now need permission in most states to conceal a weapon. You have to pay the government for permission for this privilege.

I would love to hear an explanation on why the right to keep and bear arms requires a permit issued at the expense of the bearer. I'd then love to hear why thats a good thing.

Last I checked, the only gun law we've actually gotten rid of was the AWB. Everything is as it has been. Nothing has actually changed. I wouldn't call that a good thing. Its neutral at best.

Click to expand...

So you and the rest of the rocket scientist libertarians think the solution is to dilute the 2nd amendment vote between the libertarians and republicans. Letting an anti 2nd amendment gun grabber Democrat get into office, brilliant strategy! No wonder the libertarians can't even get over 2% in the vote. Their strategy is to marginalize themselves and lose.
The country will go to hell that much faster but at least your conscience is clear .

can anyone tell me how to post my own thread ????

You're acting like the Republicans are pro-gun in the first place.
They are pro-election and pro-vote.

The republicans do not care about your gun rights which is why we've seen almost no improvement of gun laws (read: repeal/removal) on a national level.

The problem is that while you continue to vote for Republicans to save your rights for a little longer, you turn a blind eye to the same group destroying other rights. When did it become OK to ignore the 4th amendment? Bush certainly did it by spying on the public. He admitted to it and nothing happened!
The PATRIOT act was forced in by republicans. The republican president lied to the people and sent us to war.

I guess thats OK as long as the lying, gun grabbing Democrats don't get in power. Its all good because you still have permission to carry your gun. May your chains rest lightly upon you.

Bush certainly did it by spying on the public. He admitted to it and nothing happened!

Click to expand...

Nothing happened because he didn't break the law. With everyone and their brother doing anal exams on this administration nobody is getting away with anything.

The republican president lied to the people and sent us to war.

Click to expand...

He didn't lie, read the Iraq War Resolution. All the reasons for going to war are spelled out.

I guess thats OK as long as the lying, gun grabbing Democrats don't get in power. Its all good because you still have permission to carry your gun. May your chains rest lightly upon you.
Today 05:30 PM

Click to expand...

I live in a Democrat controlled state (Illinois) and cannot carry a gun.

GoRon said:

Nothing happened because he didn't break the law. With everyone and their brother doing anal exams on this administration nobody is getting away with anything.

Click to expand...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121605Q.shtml
Spying on people without a warrant is a big no-no. People will be investigating this and with some NSA members refusing to participate, I don't think Bush is going to totally get away with it. He should be impeached if 4th amendment violations are discovered.

Iraq War Resolution said:

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Click to expand...

And where exactly were these weapons?
UN inspectors never found them. US inspectors never found them. The weapons weren't there and Bush sent troops anyway.

So much for your right to keep and bear arms. Even in "red" Nevada, I need a permit to carry mine. If you have to ask permission, its not a right.

The weapons weren't there and Bush sent troops anyway. - Clean97GTI

Click to expand...

That statement is dishonest, misrepresenting the sequence of events.

I'm sorry, could you explain how its dishonest or incorrect?

UN inspectors went in and found nothing.

US troops went in and overthrew a sovreign nation.

US inspectors found nothing. Charles Duelfer (head of the Iraq Survey Group) said Saddam didn't have the weapons Bush said he did.


Inspectors did find some chemical and biological agents, but inspectors already knew about these. There was nothing new. I'm sorry, but either Bush acted on some piss poor advice and evidence, or he ignored evidence and went in for other reasons.

I'm sorry, could you explain how its dishonest or incorrect?

Click to expand...

We were already in Iraq when it became apparent that we were not going to find WMD. I watched the hearing when the Senate got the report. Saying that Bush knew all that going in is not fact. It is a conspiracy theory.

That is not true.

UN inspectors had already said they couldn't find these weapons at the time they left and American and British troops moved in.

US inspectors confirmed what UN inspectors had been saying. Dr. Hans Blix even stated that he believed Iraq had destroyed the required weapons in the summer of 1991. Others believed it came later, but the fact that these weapons weren't found and the US has since called off its search is great evidence that Saddam had actually complied.

How has it been a good thing? Last I checked, the only gun law we've actually gotten rid of was the AWB. Everything is as it has been. Nothing has actually changed. I wouldn't call that a good thing. Its neutral at best.

Click to expand...

Its amazing how no new gun laws are considered a major victory and the reason why the GOP should be kept in.

How about getting rid of the BAFT....how about getting rid of 1968 laws and the all regulations. Then maybe I'll do a jig.

Click to expand...

For starters, you guys are not understanding that it is a victory (in a sense) that no gun control has been passed. While I am not satisfied, I recognize that the alternative is an anti-gun government that will push us much further back. There is absolutely no argument against that. A vote for a 3rd party will weaken the Republican chances and unquestionably bring the Democratic Party into power. I wouldn't say this if the Libertarian party had a chance to win. It is a fact that they will not even get 3% of the vote. Don't kill the messenger.

The question then is, is a vote for a 3rd party a method by which we can "punish" the Republican Party into being more sympathetic to our cause? If you are of that school of thought, then the idea is one of reforming the current party/system.

If you believe that reforming the Republican party is futile, and that the best vehicle for reform is a 3rd party. More power to you, but that is an idealistic approach doomed to failure. This is my opinion, I'd love to be proved wrong and see our Rights restored.

Secondly, the abolition of the BATFE isn't going to happen anytime soon short of a revolution. If you want to get rid of the 1968 gun control bill, you can start by chipping away at all the various other restrictions and proving to mainstream America that these laws do not work, or that their repeal has led to no ill effects. Most of America believes that the current set of gun control laws are just fine. Some want more, and fewer want less.

I, like anyone else here, would LOVE to see that law just repealed in one shot. But that's not reality. That's not America right now. It's not how things work.

Clean97GTI said:

What has happened is the Republicans have compromised our right into a privilege. You now need permission in most states to conceal a weapon. You have to pay the government for permission for this privilege.

I would love to hear an explanation on why the right to keep and bear arms requires a permit issued at the expense of the bearer. I'd then love to hear why thats a good thing.

Click to expand...

This is bogus. What you're suggesting is that they are part of the problem. If you recall your history, the ban of carrying firearms or concealed weapons occured in most places around the country long before you or I were even born. Long before. The vast majority of gun control has been the product of Democratic (leftwingers, progressives, socialists, big government lovers) governments throughout the 20th century. This is an institutionalized problem that isn't that easy to solve. Our citizens have been led away from believing in the RKBA via media propaganda bombardment and government-run education camps (public schools) for many, many decades. So we're fighitng a hearts and minds war.


Should the Republicans have demanded unregulated licenseless concealed carry? Sure. I'd love that. But they would have never won it. Remember, American's vote. And they vote for a lot of idiots that hate guns and the 2nd Amendment. Last time I checked, we still live in a democracy and people have a say in things.


Look at the difficulty in trying to pass carry laws in Kansas, Ohio and other states! Do you think having a hard-line, zero compromise, idealistic, demanding approach to concealed carry would result in any success? Keep dreaming. A lot of American voters have put and keep putting people in office that vote against LICENSED carry, what on God's green Earth makes you believe that a Republican demand of unregulated carry would change their vote?

To achieve carry at all, a lot of Democrats had to cross over the party line. Some did it based on reason, others needed compromises. The only thing you can say is that we should not have concealed carry at all, and just wait it out till we have such an overwhelming majority of 2nd Amendment purists in office that we can then get unregulated carry.

Look, I hate licensed carry as much as you or anyone else. A Right is not a priviledge to where I need to pay for it or ask permission. This goes without saying and most THR folks agree on this. But the reality is that the alternative is no carry at all.

With no carry, it isn't very easy to make the argument that concealed carry is SAFE and effective at reducing crime is it?

That's the key. We need to change people's minds. Eventually as concealed carry spreads and becomes more and more acceptable, the general population will relax their hysteria and paranoia about guns..and that is how we achieve real reform. Not by demanding a totally unregulated 2nd Amendment from day one. Doing that is like a Jehovah's Witness knocking on the Vatican's door. No one's interested in what you've got to say. You want to be marginalized and laughed out of Washington D.C., advocate the repeal of the 34, 68, 86 or 89 bans.


The time is not right.

It's no wonder people disagree on the war in Iraq. They have their facts wrong. Neither UN nor US inspectors had ever received real cooperation from Saddam. If he wanted to maintain the fear that the weapons were there, it was a good strategy. There was never any confirmation or loss of hope in finding WMD until well after troops were in country.

Maintaining the status quo of privileged carry and infringed rights is NOT a victory.
I'm not going to debate this with you DTOM. There is no middle ground with you as you already occupy it and are content there. Your consistent votes for maintaining a compromised position seal the deal.

RealGun, perhaps you can explain how Hussein wasn't cooperative with US inspectors when he was in hiding or later captured.
How about reports from UN inspectors that specifically said he didn't have the weapons Bush said he did. What about reports from the US inspectors that agree with UN findings?

I don't think you've actually checked up on this. A quick google search will give you a wealth of information on the subject.

FYI,

The anti-gunners do not go a 3rd party to seek a vehicle for the total and complete ban of firearms. They use the Democratic Party to do it. They use an incremental approach. They work the system. They use media and education (and propaganda).

Our system is like a tug o' war. We would have absolutely nothing today if it weren't for the NRA and Republicans blocking their extremist legislation. Do yourselves a favor and go to Thomas.loc.gov and research all the anti-gun bills that have been submitted. Quite frightening.

The same way we block them, they block us from repealing the the bans that have become accepted by mainstream America.


OH, I need to add. The libertarians are actually being quite anti-RKBA. The law we're trying to pass in Florida (keep firearms in your car while at work) is being undermined by the idiotic libertarian "scholars" who favor private property rights over the RKBA. The problem with that is, private property rights are a red herring. A totally unrelated, irrelevant, and unapplicable part of this particular debate. No private property rights are being threatened in any way, shape, or form.


These morons have undermined our efforts in Florida by creating a schizm among libertarian leaning gun owners and non-libertarian gun owners on this issue by using deceptive arguments.

Good thing that RKBA is the only right we have to defend.

Are your guns not property as well?


how about you post a link to what you're talking about.

I don't have time to read all the republican apologist bufoonery that must be above my post.

Point is.........they had their chance and they blew it.

I suspect that this current strategery is a clever ploy to get us to feel sorry for them dumb sonsabitches that got snookered by the nasty evil Democrats and that dumb is better than evil.

Sorry.

I refuse to choose between stupid and evil.

I will go with the Libertarians.

I refuse to choose between stupid and evil.

I will go with the Libertarians.

Click to expand...

So you will vote for irrelevant.

And you still will end up with stupid or evil.

Voting libertarian is paramount to quiting. You don't get all you want right away so you take your toys and go home.

Why bother voting? So you can go on forum boards and proclaim your moral superiority and look down on all those who compromise in your eyes?

Voting for one's chosen candidate is not irrelevant nor is it quitting.

If the Republicans stance and actions suit you, then by all means, vote for them. However, if they do not, then vote for someone else.
Its not like your vote matters anyway.


I'm truly sorry that voting your conscience is seen with such disdain around here.

Why bother voting? So you can go on forum boards and proclaim your moral superiority and look down on all those who compromise in your eyes?

Click to expand...

Voting is a civic responsibility. Just because I am morally superior is no reason that I should not vote. It is further no reason that I should not point out that you republicans comprimised.

Hey, face it. You comprimised.

In your eyes, Bush was better than (who? Gore?, no sorry Kerry), so you comprimised.

Yes, I am morally superior to a voter that would comprimise his morals to put an inferior leader inplace because of fear of an even more inferior potential leader.

You should be ashamed.

But, thank you for your observation.