All is Lost

[vito]

Uness the Republican base gets out and votes in high numbers, all is lost. The Dems will win and we will get to see Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House and Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader. I truly fear for the future of this country, let alone my rights under the 2nd Amendment. I have been voting in every election since 1964 and I have never felt so down as I do with this election. But I did vote (early), to do what I could personally do to try to avoid this catastrophe. Please vote, and vote for those who protect your rights.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I am part of the Republican base, but won't be supporting them much this round.

My congressional district was recently changed, and we are in a situation where parts of 2 districts were combined to create a new district. There ended up being an NRA A rated Democrat running against an NRA A rated Republican.

I have decided to go with the Democrat. I hope the Democrats take the House, and the Republicans hold on to the Senate. That way, the monopoly on power will be split, and hopefully the Neo-Conservative agenda of the Republican Party will be stopped in the House, while still letting the Republicans hold the Senate so Bush can hopefully get conservative judges confirmed.

Letting the Republicans hold all the cards for the last 6 years has not really helped us much on the 2nd Amendment. I really was expecting a little more progress than we got. But, they did accomplish a number of things that I think are bad, like Campaign Finance Reform and Medicare Reform.

 

[progunner1957]

Brady II = gun confiscation. The threat is REAL.

Hang tough, Vito. It's not a done deal yet, in spite of what the leftist/socialist media would have us believe.

I saw Bill O'Reilly on the David Letterman show a couple of nights ago. Dave asked him what he thought the outcome of the election would be. Bill said, "I think the Democrats will improve their position; They won't win control of the Senate. As far as the House, I don't think they will win control, but it is really too close to call."

I'm hoping O'Reilly is right. Pelosi as Speaker of the House - two seats removed from the Presidency - is a scary thought. Very scary.

If the leftist/Democrat/socialist politicians win control of both the Hoouse and Senate, we are screwed, blued and tatooed. They will take up where they left off in 1994, making Brady II the law of the land. For those who are unfamiliar with Brady II, look it up and read it. Some of its features incude:

-Ban on magazines over 6 rounds capacity.

-Ban ALL semiauto firearms.

-Ban ranges in counties of 200,000 or more population. In other words, there will be whoe states with no shooting ranges.

-Ban manufacturing of firearms in counties of 200,000 or more population.

-Ban or severly restrict reloading equipment.

-Require arsenal license for individuals to possess more than 4 firearms and 250 rounds of ammo.

-National registration of all guns (and therefore gun owners).

-Ban gun shows.

-Eventual ban of possession of all handguns.

-Ban concealed carry.

-Ban possession of military caliber ammo (9mm, .45ACP, .223, .308, .30-06. .300 Winchester magnum)

Brady II is not a symbolic ban, as was Clinton's asinine gun ban. There will be no grandfathering of weapons owned prior to it becoming law. In other words, we are talking about GUN CONFISCATION.

We cannot allow this to happen in the UNited States of America.

The best way to stop this nightmare is to vote ONLY for NRA endorsed candidates and/or candidates that are "A" rated by the NRA. To find out who these candidates are, click here: www.nrapvf.org

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Come on, progunner. Unless Bush, who is a Republican, signs Brady II, it won't happen.

If he does sign it, then he is a much of a problem as any of the Democrats you are so afraid of.

 

[Shield529]

My whole state has NRA A rated Democrats aganist A rated Republicans. The religious extremists in the right have got me voting about 75% Democrat this year.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Yeah, and maybe if we get all that bad stuff, the Republicans will start actually backing candidates with a spine, who actually want to protect our borders, and actually want to uphold the US Constitution and restore federalism.

 

[t_lashley]

Are you kidding me???

The house are the ones who "GET IT". Nazi Pelosi would be a short step from the Presidency and shes one nut that I could see trying to make that happen. If the Dems take the house, they would be in charge of the Congressional Agenda, and take over every committe. Are you kidding me??? You think you have problems now. Say goodby to the Second Ammendment. They already tried to destroy the First with the Path to 911. Finally, what do you think would happen when the dems defunded the wars in Iraq and Afganastan??? We just bring our troops hope and all is nice??? Please. They would eat us up. Nukes in Iran, North Korea, Hugo Chavez setting up the entire Central and South Americas for take over. Are you kidding me??? What about Syria and Lebanon??? Think about it UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, AS FREE AMERICANS, CAN THIS COUNTRY BE TURNED OVER TO THE Democrats. WE WILL NOT SURVIVE. These could very well be biblical times we live in.

 

[22-rimfire]

IF the Democrats take control of the House, the first thing you will see in terms of gun legislation will be the Clinton ban revisted and I'm sorry to say that Bush will probably sign that. Bush is not a supporter of the so called "assault" weapon. Those will be the targets if the Democrats win either the House or Senate. From there, it will depend on how the voting goes. The Democrats as a party support more restrictive gun legislation. The mayor's conference recommendations will be put forth in a bill.

 

[CDignition]

Lonegunman... Try to think about the big picture here..your local guy may be ok gunwise, but if the Dems seize power due to your Dem vote, he will be powerless to prevent any anti gun legislation they may try to pass...

Also, dont foget, we only have 2 more years of bush...if dems get a Prez in 2008, along with a Dem Snate/Congress...we would really be sunk...

It could happen, as 2 years isnt really long enough for the voters to see the bad that their newly elected freaks can do... we would see unprecidented gungrabs, thats a gaurantee...

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

And hopefully Americans will be so outraged by all that that they will demand real conservative, Constitution-upholding, Republican candidates for the next election.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I understand its risky to give the Democrats control of the House.

But under Republican control, we got Campaign Finance Reform, Medicare reform, Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act, and Real ID. They have refused to stop illegals from invading. Bureaucracy has expanded. Government spending is out of control.

At least if the Dems have some power, there might be some gridlock.

 

[Dan from MI]

For those who want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

It took SEVENTY-FIVE years to reform the CPL laws in Michigan so that people in more than 12 counties could carry.

While outside of Bill Clinton, Arkansas dems are usually better than California Democrats, we would be stuck with Pelosi, the Facist Henry "People who are scared of government shouldn't own guns" Waxman, Pete Stark, John Conyers, Jim Moran, Charlie Rangel, and other like them as chairs. Rahm Emmenuel, Nita Lowey, Bob Wexler, Lynn Woosley, Diana DeGette, and Dale Kildee are no prizes either.

In the senate, Schumer, Feinstein, Kennedy, Leahy, Boxer, Hillary, Kerry, Harkin, and Jack Reed. No thanks.

 

[dragongoddess]

Again allow me to point out a few things.

1. A senator can stall any action on any bill if they so choose. Now tell me there is not one senator that the NRA cannot count on.

2. Given #1 Above it then becomes a questions of votes. Are there 60 votes in favor of the bill if not it won't come to the floor. As a result allone needs is 41 votes to kill any bill using Senate Rules.

3. Given the expanding rights for gun owners "Castle Doctrine" to name one along with the growing ranks of Conceal Carry across the country I find it hard to see how the Dems can push anything forward.

4. Face it Gun Control is not a front burner issue today. In fact due to the increasing numbers of Conceal Carry Lic. being issued any form of gun control will face overwhelming opposition. Those who are carrying are going to vote to continue their right to carry.

5. At best the Brady Bunch may be able to restrict some items from being imported and if there is a sufficient market for the product you will see someone here pick that product up and produce a US version.

6. Now one should not feel comfortable. Every gun owner needs to make it a habit of staying in contact with their local,state and national reps. to remind them that you vote and you do not want to see further erosion of your rights. Use short hand written notes. This type of correspondence carries a great deal of weight as it tells the Rep. that one of his constitutes are concerned about an issue.

 

[progunner1957]

Ever hear of override?

Come on, progunner. Unless Bush, who is a Republican, signs Brady II, it won't happen.

Come on, Lone Gunman. If Congress passes Brady II and Bush vetos it, a Democrat Congress could and would override his veto. Brady II then becomes law.

If the leftist/Democrst/socialists win big, expect an impeachment witch hunt of Bush. If that happens, IMHO he would sign Brady II to try to appease them.

Either way, we would be screwed.

If you want to have any right to arms or any guns, you cannot allow the Democrats to take over power in Congress. It's that simple. Look at the voting records of the Democrats who currently sit in Congress - 90 to 95% of them have shown themselves to be virulently antigun and antigun owner.

Any gun owner who votes for such people is a fool and is cutting his own throat - along with the rest of our throats.

 

[dragongoddess]

Again a lot of you are showing your ignorance of how our system works. The result is we are looking like a bunch of freaks "who shouldn't even own a plastic fork let alone a weapon".

NOW.

An override of a Presidential veto requires a 2/3 recorded vote by both houses of Congress. Even if the Dems win they won't have that many votes. So if Bush vetos such a bill that's the end of the story.

People learn how your government works. All of this hysteria is not productive.

 

[TallPine]

I've become pretty much convinced that all has been lost since April, 1865 - but it has just taken most of us quite a while to figure that out.


Neither party is worth a anymore as far as liberty is concerned. They have both gotten us into unneccessary wars and taken away liberties (just different ones, mostly).

I'm not sure which is more worrisome ... "Brady 2.0" or Hillary in the White House with all the "anti-terrorist" laws that the Bush Republicans have enacted

 

[Sergeant Bob]

An override of a Presidential veto requires a 2/3 recorded vote by both houses of Congress. Even if the Dems win they won't have that many votes. So if Bush vetos such a bill that's the end of the story.

Please, remind me of all the unconstitutional bills which Bush has vetoed?

 

[vito]

I don't really understand how some of you can't see the difference between how this country is today under the Republicans (certainly not perfect, but from a personal freedom point of view, much better than it was 6 years ago, plus we are actually trying to do something to fight the terrorists) and how it would be under the Democrats (higher taxes, restrictions or confiscations of at least handguns, liberal law making judges on the Federal bench, more government interference and regulation of our daily lives, and appeasement or worse when threatened internationally). 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. I personally am much more willing to give stronger tools to the government to fight foreign terrorist threats than to give up my personal right and ability to defend myself and my family.

 

[mountainclmbr]

I voted early because I will probably be away on business travel on election day (either in CA or NJ). I am registered Libertarian, but voted mostly for Republicans. I never vote for Democrats anymore since I realized their base are mainly Marxist belivers with their "common good" slogans. With legislative politics, a vote for a pro-liberty Democrat (if there is really such a thing) places the leftists in greater power.

Speaker Pelosi, I sure hope not!

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Look at the voting records of the Democrats who currently sit in Congress - 90 to 95% of them have shown themselves to be virulently antigun and antigun owner.

Now that is a blatantly invalid statistic.

The Congress changes hands every two years, and only a couple of gun-related laws have been passed.

One was the gun maker lawsuit protection bill. 45 Democrats were co-sponsors of that bill. A total of 63 Democrats voted for it, and 137 voted against it. That means, at worst, about 68% of the Democrats are anti-gun. This is an interestingly low number, especially when considering that Democrats are greatly funded by trial lawyers who don't want any lawsuits banned, let alone ones against gun makers.

Additionally, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection was passed to prevent future gun confiscations like after Hurricane Katrina. 98 Democrats (approximately 50%) voted for it.

This discussion will be more meaningful if you stop making up statistics. If you can show me a valid statistic that indicates 90% of Democrats currently in Congress have voted in some way against the 2nd Amendment, I would love to see it, and will apologize and retract my comments.

Progress is being made to make the Democrats more gun-friendly, but there is still a long way to go of course. Pro-2A Democrats need to be rewarded, and anti-gun Republicans need to be voted out!. This is no time for blind party loyalty.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Much as I am not keen on the anti free market activities of GOP, my impression is that DFL would be a lot worse on the gun issues.

On some issues, such as gay rights, DFL is more proactive and would likely do as much damage (with the best intentions) as Johnson did with his Great Society programs.

I would prefer process-savvy libertarians like Ron Paul (with whom I agree most of the time). Absent that, I am left with entirely disagreeable choices. "At best", I won't vote for either, but likely pick GOP.

Some column I read recently stated that a drunk dying of cirrhosis of the liver should quit rather than switch whiskey brands. The nalaogy would appeal to me, as I don't drink at all...but if forced to drink something, I'd rather have whiskey (GOP) than methanol (DFL).

Practically speaking, we'll likely have a lot more DFL influence because enough people forgot their record and also because GOP has screwed things up royally (as any party in power would, LP included).

 

[longeyes]

So Bush doesn't sign Brady II, so what?

The real question is will Hillary, Obama, McCain, or the Mysterious Stranger sign it?

And if they do, then what? Is that the end of the Second Amendment?

 

[liberalgunnut]

buck up... don't you have any faith in Karl Rove and his polling data?

Karl Rove, President Bush's top political strategist, says he doesn't believe the polls -- at least the public polls that claim the Republicans are likely to lose the House of Representatives and possibly even the Senate on Election Day.

source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6376549

Don't forget you also have Diebold on your side...

Days after the 2004 Presidential election, Diebold agreed to pay $2.6 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the State of California alleging that they had sold shoddy voting equipment.[2]
In December 2005, Diebold's CEO Wally O'Dell resigned following reports that the company was facing securities fraud litigation surrounding charges of insider trading. [3]
In May 2006, a registered lobbyist for Diebold Election Systems contributed the individual maximum of $10,000 to the election campaign of Republican Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell - whose office approved Diebold's selection as a vendor and negotiated the price of its machines for county election boards.[4] One month earlier, Blackwell claimed that his purchase of 178 shares of Diebold stock had been the result of an oversight by his financial manager.[5]
Stephen Heller, a former employee of a law firm representing Diebold, is currently facing three felony counts for allegedly stealing documents exposing irregularities in some of Diebold's electronic voting machines. One of the memos warned Diebold that uncertified software it had installed in machines used by Alameda County violated California election law. Stephen Heller has been called a "quintessential whistleblower" by Michael Kohn, general counsel for the National Whistleblower Center. [6][7]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold#Ethics_Concerns

Heck if you can't win with Rove and Diebold... maybe all is lost...and if on election day you find that all is not lost, you've won, and the bad dream is over maybe you should concern yourself with the state of elections, democracy, the constitution, and your country.

 

[RealGun]

I read all the hand wringing about what happens with a Democratic House majority. Little mention has been made of it, but what I think you will see is John Conyers on camera every day talking about who to impeach or investigate next. This is the guy who never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like. You will get at least two years of it, so get ready. The biggest visible impact will be the changes in Committee chairmanships.

 

[telomerase]

Please, remind me of all the unconstitutional bills which Bush has vetoed?

Good point, Sergeant Bob. IIRC Bush has vetoed less than any President ever.