All is Lost

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brady II will not pass during the next two years. But other legislation may pass and think of the legislation that won't get out of committee if the Democrats control either the House or Senate. The Speaker and Senate majority leader has a lot more power than you think.
 
While I'm far from pleased about some of the things that have happened (border insecurity and massive spending), I'm old enough (56 yrs) to remember Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, etc. Massive unemployment, incredible interest rates, stagflation, enormous taxes.

For those that claim Bush shouldn't get credit for a good economy, low interest, all time highs in the Dow, etc. you should be reminded that he's the first one to get blame if something goes wrong. After all, it was Bush that created global warming that caused all the hurricanes last year.:scrutiny:

Odd, the same media that crucified Bush for that says nothing this year when there hasn't been hurricane one.

If you think back just a few years, remember all the posters here whining about the AWB??? "I can't have 17 round mags for my Glock", etc. Now Bush & Co. may not be ultra vocal about 2A, but they don't have to be. For most, gun rights have expanded considerably in the past 6 years.

My son-in-law works in a trailer factory and my daughter teaches elemetary. They got an extra $4,000 back on their refund due to tax cuts. If the dems take control, the FIRST thing that will happen is to raise taxes. If you think it's on the "rich", think again pal. Their idea of "rich" is anyone over 50k/year.

As for the Patriot Act, the ACLU was asked by a media source to document the civil liberties violations that have resulted. Couldn't come up with one. Not one.

The biggest problem with voters is their short memory. If it hasn't happened in the last 30 seconds, it doesn't count.

So, go ahead and vote for dems. Even if your local guy is OK, it gives control of the committees to them. Charlie Rangle as chairman of Way and Means. There's a comforting thought.

Dems have control of California. You can expect the same laws and more nationwide. Better get the bonfires started so you can throw in your milsurps, AR's etc. Somebody needs to post one of the pictures from Australia of steam rollers running over piles of firearms. Maybe it'd get thru to some here.
 
I love these discussions...

Folks, the gov't can only take your guns away if you let them.

They can only take them if, when they drive down the road in the gun collection / amnesty truck, you carry out your collection and throw it in the back. Or, if they bust your door down armed for bear. Either way, you are going to have to decide whether or not you are going to comply with their law.

The founding fathers seem pretty clear on private ownership of Arms in general. While there are some folks out there that seem to think that the 2A refers to state sponsored militias, this is not necessarily the case. Remember that a little more than 200 years ago, someone in the gov't thought that a country's subjects should not be armed. This, along with several other disagreements, resulted in the birth of a new country based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

The question that remains is simple: does history repeat itself?
 
Passage of Brady II (as described in this thread) would trigger violence. Period.

Sometimes I think thats what many of the anti-GOP conservatives and libertarians want. They honestly believe that if the DNC takes over and gets all heavy handed that they can trigger some sort of new civil war or new revolution.

Problem is, the end result of a new revolution would likely be a hard line Fascist police state.


We're better off re-electing the RINOS and slowly picking them off during the primariy season than we are letting the DNC win just to "teach the GOP a lesson" or whatever.

So yeah, I'm begining to feel that all is lost, and to quote pogo "We have met the enemy and he is us."


Folks, the gov't can only take your guns away if you let them.
If I have to kill to keep my guns, then America is over and all is lost ... I don't care if I get to keep my guns for an extra week or two (until I'm found and killed).





Yeah, I know, I'm one of those that's been bitching about the amount of negativity in these forums and yet here I go.
:uhoh:
 
Folks, the gov't can only take your guns away if you let them.

They can only take them if, when they drive down the road in the gun collection / amnesty truck, you carry out your collection and throw it in the back. Or, if they bust your door down armed for bear. Either way, you are going to have to decide whether or not you are going to comply with their law.

The founding fathers seem pretty clear on private ownership of Arms in general. While there are some folks out there that seem to think that the 2A refers to state sponsored militias, this is not necessarily the case. Remember that a little more than 200 years ago, someone in the gov't thought that a country's subjects should not be armed. This, along with several other disagreements, resulted in the birth of a new country based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
This is pretty much sums up the foolish drivel that propels the unlearned here. This is what the gun owners in Australia said..."can't happen here..."they'll never take my guns"

Yeah tough guy...you're gonna stand there when cops come to confiscate your stuff and fight them off...good luck. You can be as tough as you want sitting at your keyboard. When you're looking down the barrel of a pistol, you'll be wetting yourself and crying for momma.

The dems don't give a crap about anything the founding fathers believed in, unless it supports their agenda. The dems lost the white house, senate, and house and they're PISSED. It's their right to have power and they're gonna get it any way they can. Lie, cheat, steal, it's gonna be theirs. Period. They've tasted what it's like to be second class and they don't like it.

Remember, you're too stupid to handle your own money, so they're gonna take it. You can't be trusted with guns, so they're gonna take those.
 
Problem is, the end result of a new revolution would likely be a hard line Fascist police state.
Yes, that's one stage, but that is the goal of all revolutions, i.e., instigate the ruling power to crack down on their own people with a hard line police state. The hoped for result is an overthrow of the ruling power by the people. This is classic revolution theory. It worked for the Communists very well for most of the Twentieth Century.
 
If you check out the numbers on realclearpolitics.com it appears that the election is going to be very close. If the current numbers hold on election day the Democrats will control the House by two seats (they need 15 to gain control and it looks like they might get 16) and the Republicans will control the Senate by 1 vote. Of course some of these races are so close that they could swing either way and if things swing even slightly in favor of he Republicans they could still retain control of the House. So in this election it is very important for anyone who is voting in one of the very close races to make the right choice.

What I would like to see happen is for this to be as close as possible but still have the Republicans retain control of both houses. They need a spanking and perhaps such a close call will wake them up. What I am afraid of is that the Republicans will get the wrong message if they lose and assume that the reason they lost is that they are too far to the right when in fact it is because they are too far to the left and have not worked hard enough on the issues that real matter to their base.
 
...the voters have short memories...if it didn't happen in the last thirty seconds, it doesn't count...

Excellent point. September 11, 2001 was way more than thirty seconds ago, so Dhimmicrats seem feasible to many voters:eek:
 
All is lost if you are a Republican.

But if you are a true American than it will be a glories day. What is going to happen on D day is that the Republicans will loose control of the House and probably the Senate. There is a growing anti-republican tide that is going to sweep many weak incumbent Republicans out of power. After the election Hopefuly the Dems will take it to Bush, and show Americans the abuses that he has done while in office. I feel the the next few years will be nothing more than complete chaos in Washington. Which is good for America. We need to clean house. After the Dems make known what the Republicans have done while in office, the Republicans will the minority party in both houses for a very long time.
 
What I am afraid of is that the Republicans will get the wrong message if they lose and assume that the reason they lost is that they are too far to the right when in fact it is because they are too far to the left and have not worked hard enough on the issues that real matter to their base.
Your concerns are well founded. It is the common wisdom that when Republicans lose it is because they were not far enough to the left, when in fact history always proves just the reverse in national elections. The national press believed that lie too, and for this reason painted Ronald Reagan as an "extreme conservative," which is an oxymoron if you understand the meaning of the word conservative. They thought that this would assure his defeat, however it had the exact opposite result. He won in a landslide. They tried it again for his second run, and he won in an even bigger landslide. The more principled conservative a national candidate is perceived to be, the more likely he is to win a national election, especially for president. The proof of this is to consider the popular perception of Ronald Reagan during his runs for the presidency with the popular perception of Mr. "thousand points of light" George H. W. Bush in is second run, and compare the results. Bush was perceived during his second run (once people saw for themselves that he was no Reagan as president) as a wishy washy middle of the roader, i.e., not a principled conservative, thus he lost big time. Dole also was not perceived as a principled conservative, so he lost big time.

The base of the Republican Party will not go out of their way to help elect wishy washy middle of the road establishment Republicans. Give us a principled conservative like Reagan (at the very least, that's how he was perceived), and we will give an arm and a leg to help get out the vote for him. The establishment Republicans can never seem to learn this very obvious lesson of history. The reason they never learn it is because the establishment behind the national Republican Party is full of Rockefeller (read neo-con) Republicans. They are convinced that we base Republicans don't know what's best for us, for the country, or for the world (the latter of which is what mainly motivates them). They need to manipulate us into the "right kind" of candidates, they think. That's why if we ever get a principled conservative as a presidential candidate, they will hedge their bets by making sure that the vice president (in line for future coronation as president) is an establishment man. Until that is changed, this problem will persist.
 
Personally, I think we are all better served if neither party controls the White House, Senate, and House at the same time. I would just like to have some decent candidates to choose from. I can't believe that Bush, Kerry and Gore are the best and brightest this country has to offer. The upcoming prospective roster of presidential candidates doesn't look much better.

Both parties produce candidates that cater to the extremes, but most of America is fairly moderate rather than far right or far left.
 
Maybe it won't be such a bad thing. The sooner they try to take our guns, the sooner we can get this over with.
 
Those who think the Patriot Act and other related War on Terror legislation has infringed upon our liberty, I would like to hear of examples of where liberties were actually lost or even compromised.
Just wait until Hillary or Schumer or some other leftist Democrat is sitting in the White House ... :uhoh:
 
Regarding GWB's veto power... he has already stated he will sign an AWB renewal if it reaches his desk. Given that statement, I think he will have a hard time not signing one if it is sent to him. Our main hope would be that Democrats get too greedy and go for more than the original bill and give Bush an out.

However, I don't really want to face that scenario. I would rather we maximize our chances. I am not happy with the GOP or all they have supported and the GOP did not receive a majority of my votes in the November General Election. Despite that, the place to make a protest vote is in the Primary, not the General election. If you are voting in a close race in the General election, you have two things to consider:

1) What type of character does the person I want to vote for have?
2) Will they be able to maintain that character when the entire weight of their political party is brought to bear on them and if not, what will that result be?

ETA: The "All Is Lost" comment is a little melodramatic. We have made good gains on RKBA in the last eight years and they won't be easily reversed. We also faced much worse odds during the Clinton years when we had a concerted media onslaught, a Democratic Congress, Democratic President and no internet to coordinate our activities. If the Republicans lose control of Congress, it will be because of their own errors rather than any Democrat success. It definitely won't be good for us; but we have already survived worse.
 
Last edited:
Both parties produce candidates that cater to the extremes, but most of America is fairly moderate rather than far right or far left.

I hear this all the time from San Fransisco liberals but it is total BS. The problem is both parties are too far to the left. The Democrats are way to the left and the Republicans are only slightly to the left. That is the real problem is that we are being given a choice of how far to the left we want to go when many (most of those in the "red" states I suspect) want to move to the right. So we are effectively not being offered any choice.
 
Those who think the Patriot Act and other related War on Terror legislation has infringed upon our liberty, I would like to hear of examples of where liberties were actually lost or even compromised.

People that make comments like that are not looking at the big picture.

First, the Patriot Act does give the government more information than they need. For example, certain financial transactions over $10,000 require government notification. If you buy a house and take out a mortgage, you have to sign paperwork regarding the Patriot Act. This isn't the government's business. They don't need to know this. They are intruding on your privacy.

Secondly, do you trust future presidents to behave as benignly as Bush? Do you think Shumer or Hillary might be willing to use information obtained through the Patriot Act in a nefarious fashion?

Any power you give Bush today will belong to someone else tomorrow.
 
Any power you give Bush today will belong to someone else tomorrow
Ok, then why in the world would you support the dems??? See, they're the big civil liberties party, but they're the ones everybody's scared of.
Regarding GWB's veto power... he has already stated he will sign an AWB renewal if it reaches his desk. Given that statement, I think he will have a hard time not signing one if it is sent to him. Our main hope would be that Democrats get too greedy and go for more than the original bill and give Bush an out.
It was easy to say he'd sign it IF it came to his desk. The Republicans easily control the house and there's no way it was gonna make it that far. The Republicans wouldn't even let it be submitted to committee.

You know, I saw a special on George Washington at Valley Forge some time back. The Revolution was in it's 4th or 5th year (somebody will correct me). Soldiers were starving, no clothing or ammo. No money. Troops were being executed for mutany. If we had to endure something 1/10th that bad we'd all be crying like school girls. We've been in Iraq for 2 years and we're whining like puppies. Every lib wants to bail out cause we don't have an established government there. We've had this country over 200 years and we're still trying to get the government straightened out.
 
Colt1911a2,

Engaging superior forces who outnumber you, wear body armor, are armed with full automatics, and have limitless back up, up to and including APC's and helicopters might not be the best way to defend the 2nd Amendment.
 
dragongoddess
perhaps 1 senator can, but remember the Senate can limit debate with a vote of 60 Senators. So in reality we need to have 41.
 
As it stands today, if you vote for a Dem you're voting, ultimately, for a socialist, Pelosi. If you vote for the socialists you are voting away your 2d Amendment rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top