Ah yes, the principled "Gridlock" voters......

Gridlock. Oh, boy.

1) Our chances of rolling back RKBA restrictions just took a big hit.

2) What will "gridlock" be like if the Dems win the presidency in 2008 ?

There was no chance of rolling back RKBA issues to begin with. Who told you that the issue was even on the table?

Biker

The republican party has no one but themselves to blame for this beatin. They have sold out conservative principles constantly, not just on RKBA, and that was what cost them the election. The war was only part of it. If you look past the dem's gloating, most of the dem winners were very conservative and more telling the other ballot issues went very conservative across the country.

The property rights votes went the right way and from what I get so far, most other issues did to. The dem leadership probably won't learn from this and will likely go full bore socialist. It will be interesting to see if the conservative dems who were just elected meant what they said or were just blowing smoke. I have a guess.

An AR just went to the top of my want list. Just in case.

I'm torn on this one...

The Republicans have done little of anything useful in congress since Newt ran the show. The Senate leadership is weak and unimpressive as well. Kicking the useless leaders out of office willl send a message to the republican party that they aren't the conservatives that we want.

I wouldn't worry about the AWB coming up again at least until 2009. If Hitlery or Obama Osama win the presidency, you can kiss your EBRs goodby, and that will only be the start.:banghead:

Buzz Knox,

The proper analogy is about target identification. It's not an issue of owing a firearm, but of aiming at the right target. No one is talking about controlling someone else's vote. But when a person claims they want the fantasy of gridlock as a justification for a vote, that's subject to debate and ridicule.

Click to expand...

Fair enough point, at least the debate part. Just remember that some people believe that RKBA is a fantasy too.

So, if he's trying to control votes, aren't you trying to control his speech? Isn't that an anti thing to do?

Click to expand...

And where did I say he couldn't state his piece? I was bringing a different point of view to the converstation. If you don't understand the difference between point and counterpoint vs an attempt to control speech then you should really look up the principles of an oral (or I guess textual in this case) debate.

---------------------------

Hillbilly

Oh yes, ZePectre...you are soooo right about me.

I'm trying to control other peoples' votes by asking them questions after theyve already voted.

Click to expand...

Nice "mature" response both in the attitude and the crass misspelling of my 'nick. Way to take the high road.

I made no judgement about you, I was bringing up a counterpoint to your statements. If you don't want a debate then why are you here and why are you making posts like this?

Having said my bit I'm not going to participate in this thread any further since the "gridlock" concept does not appear to be open for debate in any civil manner here.

And where did I say he couldn't state his piece? I was bringing a different point of view to the converstation. If you don't understand the difference between point and counterpoint vs an attempt to control speech then you should really look up the principles of an oral (or I guess textual in this case) debate.

Click to expand...

You argued he was attempting to control votes. Look up the term "strawman" and you'll find your statement was pretty much a textbook example. You then used that strawman as a way to badger him for making his point.

Don't point fingers at others about The High Road unless you are walking it. Making a counterpoint requires using the initial point offered. You had to change the initial point (by suggesting he was part of a group trying to control votes) to make your argument work.

High Road or no road...

Art

I vote based on my belief system and my morals

No matter how unlikely it is that candidate stands a chance of winning, I vote for the person who best represents my beliefs.

By the people, for the people...

This post represents an apology for including a "Straw Man" argument in my first post (#18). buzz_knox called me on it, and after review I agree that he was correct. The "straw man" portion of the origional post has been edited out.

An unbidden apology is definitely High Road, and indicative of character.

I apologize for the rather . . . exuberant way I made my subsequent post. Since this apology is in response to yours, it says nothing of my character or lack of same.

There was no chance of rolling back RKBA issues to begin with.

Click to expand...

I consider allowing the AWB to expire, the Gun Industry Shield bill, the appointment of John Bolton, and the appointments of Alioto and Roberts to be positive steps for RKBA.

Not as much as we'd hoped, of course, but now it's going to come to a screeching halt.

Still, if you know of any administration in the last 100 years who did more for RKBA, let's hear it.

Aside from allowing the AWB to expire - which Bush was clearly against - the Pubs did *nothing* to roll back offending RKBA laws.

Biker

No grid lock this time.

It is certain with the solid Dem wins in the House and Senate there will be little gridlock. Bush is going to have to play along with the Dems our they might cut his funds for Iraq and/or try to Impeach him. THis is will be better for the country though probably not gun owners. Oh well this course needed to be set, otherwise the whole country would have gone off the end of the earth.

Ajax said:

Yea fella's in mean time enjoy that new AWB thats coming. By the way Malone you'll get your wish and then some on the senate. Both of those (I)'s vote like (D)'s so if the Dems win the last two seats like it looks they will they will basically have the house and senate. If you guys aren't NRA members yet I would recomend doing so soon because things are going to get hot for gun owners everywhere.

Click to expand...

What makes you think the Democrats going to be so effective at passing anti-RKBA legislation in the next two years? The Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and the Presidency for the last two years and they've got zero pro-RKBA legislation to show for it...

I might be missing something but most of these X vs Y number of Senate seat tallies seem to be counting only Dems vs GOP. Let's not forget Lieberman, who's a IINO and has stated that he'll join the Dem caucus. Sure, he sez he supports our troops, but don't count on him for the other issues :banghead:

the Pubs did *nothing* to roll back offending RKBA laws.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that. I said "positive steps for RKBA."

Pay attention.

When the republicans lose an election by a margin that is less than the amount of people that voted for an independant that is going to make them ask themselves how to get those votes back. The people who vote "republican or die" have no voice in that party at all, your votes are already counted. The people who are not voting Republican today but might tomorrow are going to be the voice of that party.

We will get a new AWB only if Bush (a Republican) signs it.

Are you saying that you have no confidence in our Republican president to stop the AWB??? I thought everyone here thought Bush was secretly against the AWB, and only saying he supported it to get elected.

Click to expand...

Big time, whats the problem. Republicans are pro-gun...right

Silver Bullet said:

I didn't say that. I said "positive steps for RKBA."

Pay attention.

Click to expand...

Oh really? I direct you to your own words in post #26.

Silver Bullet in Post#26 said:

Gridlock. Oh, boy.

1) Our chances of rolling back RKBA restrictions just took a big hit.

2) What will "gridlock" be like if the Dems win the presidency in 2008 ?

Click to expand...

Speaking of gridlock...

I'll give you an example: Please think about the kind of judicial appointees that will be acceptable to the newly empowered Democratic side of the Senate. If Bush were to get to appoint another scotus justice, it would probably have to be someone like Ruth Bader Ginsberg to be acceptable to the Democrats.

IOW, Bush conservative appointees will have minimal chance of approval.

We'll soon get to sample the next level of socialism.

Lone Gunman, you have consistently stated your position that Bush is a full-fledged AWB supporter. You have argued in favor of a Democrat-led congress, despite the likelihood of their trying to pass another AWB. Yet, you call this strategy "gridlock?"

If we accept your premise that Bush is an ardent supporter of the AWB, and you are urging us to elect a pro-AWB Democrat congress, that's not exactly "gridlock." It's more like a formula for passage of another AWB.

Are you actually in favor of a new AWB? From the opinions and tactics you advocate here, it would certainly seem so.

You accuse Bush of being in favor of gun control based on a statement by his press secretary some years ago. Yet, you are advocating a political strategy that is likely to result in more gun control laws. From where I sit, it looks like you are at least as strong, if not stronger, gun control supporter than the president is.

I consider allowing the AWB to expire, the Gun Industry Shield bill, the appointment of John Bolton, and the appointments of Alioto and Roberts to be positive steps for RKBA.

Click to expand...

Most people here don't understand the significance of these things.

Bolton, especially.

Bush may be a lousy President in many ways, but the way he's dealt with the UN is a bright spot, about to go out.

Personal attacks will cease in this thread.

Those who have made good, kudos.
Those who have not........

Are you actually in favor of a new AWB?

Click to expand...

No I don't support a new AWB.

I do think Bush would sign a new AWB if it passed. Many Republicans are unwilling to face this fact and are still in denial about him. But I do not believe that the newly elected Democratic House is going to be any more interested in an AWB than the Republican House was. Both parties know it is a losing idea, and if they pass it, they will get voted out in 2 years.

There certainly are members of the Democratic Party in the House who would support a new AWB. But these people are few and far between. Most of the support for an AWB comes from Democrats in the Senate, such as Schumer, Feinstein, Kerry, Clinton, etc.

I don't think liberal Democrats have enough votes in the House for an AWB to pass. I think many of the newly elected Democrats are as conservative as the Republicans they replaced.

Of course, I might be wrong. If so, we might end up with a new AWB. However, even if we do, I think the change of power in Washington was worth it. The 2nd Amendment benefits the neo-conservatives have given us are meager and outweighed by the multitude of bad legislation they have pushed for. Campaign Finance Reform, Medicare Reform, No Child Left Behind, Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act, etc, are all worse things than a new AWB.

I realize the risk to the 2A that is inherit in allowing Democrats to be in charge. I think we needed to take that risk though to stop the runaway agenda of the Neo-Conservatives. However, we need to be extra-vigilant now on the issue of gun rights. I intend to write my new congressman and explain that his re-election hinges on keeping his hands off the 2A. We also need to continue to support the NRA with donations. They will need more money now than ever before.

Bush

GW is a weak, uninspiring sort of guy. Will he have the Cajones to veto bills.... I personally doubt it.

Yes I would have liked gridlock, but it is what it is, deal with it.