pdowg881
Member
Just curious, who are some of te pro gun candidates for the senate, and 2008 presidential elections and other "important" government positions?
2008 pro gun candidates
- Thread starter pdowg881
- Start date
- Status
beerslurpy
member
This years election is the 2006 election amigo.
In Florida we have a choice between
-Unpopular but ostensibly Pro-Gun Katherine Harris (who I suspect is something more of an internationalist type republican who just beats the conservative drum because she is in FL).
-Slightly less unpopular moron and gun grabbing socialist Bill Nelson.
I will go vote for Katherine Harris, but almost no one else I know plans to. Right now I just dont see it happening and I give Harris low odds on winning. It is a real shame, because Nelson is completely inept and way left of the state as a whole. The republicans just didnt bother to challenge him. Which is weird, because you would think the republican party has a use for more Senate seats lol filibuster override.
And Nelson will be safe for another 6 years, where he can continue to vote for higher taxes and against gun rights.
In Florida we have a choice between
-Unpopular but ostensibly Pro-Gun Katherine Harris (who I suspect is something more of an internationalist type republican who just beats the conservative drum because she is in FL).
-Slightly less unpopular moron and gun grabbing socialist Bill Nelson.
I will go vote for Katherine Harris, but almost no one else I know plans to. Right now I just dont see it happening and I give Harris low odds on winning. It is a real shame, because Nelson is completely inept and way left of the state as a whole. The republicans just didnt bother to challenge him. Which is weird, because you would think the republican party has a use for more Senate seats lol filibuster override.
And Nelson will be safe for another 6 years, where he can continue to vote for higher taxes and against gun rights.
pdowg881
Member
ya but im really interested in the 2008 presidential election. Compadre.
I haven't really ever been into politics, but do people who are neutral on guns or the majority of people really care if a politician is pro or anti gun? Other than Hillary, when I see backgrounds of politicians on cnn or whatnot, it never seems to come up.
I haven't really ever been into politics, but do people who are neutral on guns or the majority of people really care if a politician is pro or anti gun? Other than Hillary, when I see backgrounds of politicians on cnn or whatnot, it never seems to come up.
beerslurpy
member
Right now getting another 10-20 progun senate seats (regardless of which party they belong to) would be worth 100x more than the presidency. The senate is currently full of gun grabbers like Nelson. The House is IMO safely pro-gun (to the point that it will completely block all gun control in its current state) but the Senate is anti-gun enough that we have a very hard time making any headway. RINOs are to blame as much as the Kennedy's and Feinsteins.
Another 20 pro-gunners replacing antis or neutrals in the Senate would unleash a tidal wave of pro-gun legislative action in my estimation. Who the president happens to be at the time would be irrelevant IMO- even the grabbers are largely pretending to be pro-gun and would be afraid to give the NRA lots of campaign ad material. Remember what the 4 horsemen picture did for Kerry. You couldnt go near a range, gun show or gun store without seeing Kerry coming for your guns lol subtle.
My only opposition to the Dems at the moment (and this is a pretty huge issue) is that a majority would put all sorts of horrible people into committee chairmanships. Beasts like Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein and Boxer would all be heading very important committees like judiciary, defense, ways and means etc. This would allow them to start tucking nasty stuff into appropriations bills (like we currently do to screw with the ATF), blocking pro-gun SCOTUS nominees, etc. They would all gladly do it and then go home and brag to their constituents in leftitst, antigun cesspools like MA, CA and NY. We are IMO one justice away from having a pro-RKBA, pro-Individual supreme court, which hasnt been the case since the 1920s. The worst thing we could do would be to throw that away by losing the Senate in 06 or 08.
Another 20 pro-gunners replacing antis or neutrals in the Senate would unleash a tidal wave of pro-gun legislative action in my estimation. Who the president happens to be at the time would be irrelevant IMO- even the grabbers are largely pretending to be pro-gun and would be afraid to give the NRA lots of campaign ad material. Remember what the 4 horsemen picture did for Kerry. You couldnt go near a range, gun show or gun store without seeing Kerry coming for your guns lol subtle.
My only opposition to the Dems at the moment (and this is a pretty huge issue) is that a majority would put all sorts of horrible people into committee chairmanships. Beasts like Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein and Boxer would all be heading very important committees like judiciary, defense, ways and means etc. This would allow them to start tucking nasty stuff into appropriations bills (like we currently do to screw with the ATF), blocking pro-gun SCOTUS nominees, etc. They would all gladly do it and then go home and brag to their constituents in leftitst, antigun cesspools like MA, CA and NY. We are IMO one justice away from having a pro-RKBA, pro-Individual supreme court, which hasnt been the case since the 1920s. The worst thing we could do would be to throw that away by losing the Senate in 06 or 08.
DunedinDragon
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2005
- Messages
- 374
Agreed...I can't believe the GOP can't come up with someone better than Harris to contend for this spot. I'll vote for Harris, but I have a feeling it's going to be a wasted vote.
I sure wish Charlie Crist would have challenged for that seat rather than seek Governor...although he's going to be a GREAT Governor....should be a landslide.
the pistolero
Member
Yep, and what's worse, we have party apparatchiks like Hugh Hewitt trying to sell us the idea that voting for someone like Mike DeWine from Ohio (who was endorsed last week by Handgun Control) is actually in our best interests. Of course, I am from Texas and don't have to worry so much about not having an at least decent choice on who I'd like to send to the Senate, but I'd like for Mr. Hewitt and those like him to tell the voters in Ohio, Rhode Island and other such places, what exactly is the use of voting for someone who is consistently going to vote against your interests.
Why, heck, son, you're not going to have to wait until 2009 to see another assault weapons ban. Chances are the Democrats are going to regain control of Congress this fall, that means you should see a new AWB early next year. And Bush has already said, many many times, that he will sign an assault weapons ban if it hits his desk. So you see, you won't have to wait to see who gets elected in 2008.
beerslurpy
member
I think you overestimate the dem's ability to retake congress, especially the house.
The House is where their best chance of regaining total control is. I figure they'll pick up just enough seats in the Senate that with the help of a few RINO's the Democrats will be in effective control there. It will almost be a miracle if the Republicans retain control of the House.
AirForceShooter
Member
The Florida GOP begged Harris NOT to run.
She's my Congress critter. She's defnitely a RINO.
AFS
She's my Congress critter. She's defnitely a RINO.
AFS
I'm not so sure about this... The polls do show dissatisfaction with House members, but in the end, House members get re-elected 98% of the time. Why? Because we Murcans might hate Congress, but we tend to thnk our own rep is doing a fine job.
Just my 2 bits worth. Let's see what happens...
- Status
