All is Lost

[p35]

The current Congress gives Bush anything he asks for, and the man is completely out of touch with reality and barely competent to wipe his own, uh, nose.

When you have the houses controlled by different parties, they have to compromise on any major legislation, making it a lot harder to pass radical stuff, whether it be the AWB or the Patriot Act. If you believe that the government is best that governs least, gridlock is the way to go.

 

[dragongoddess]

You know its strange how people flail away at Democrats. They cry and whine that the Boggy Man (Pelosi) is comming for their gun. I really am believing that some of you shouldn't even have a plastic fork. Be that as it may.


Quite complaining.

Run for Office.


Get involved


Quit whining like a 4 year old.

If it really means anything to you then you are going to fight for it. Take it from this liberal Democrat who is a gun toting grandmother.

 

[liberalgunnut]

Grandma 3.0, You have my vote

 

[Joe Demko]

dragongoddess,
Been around gun boards long? If there is one thing the denizens of gun boards absolutely love, it is bitching and whining about how persecuted they are. If they can't whine over how persecuted they are now, then they whine about how persecuted they are going to be.
Loved your post though. If you ever run for anything, you have my vote too.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

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.

People aren't whining because of the casualties. People are whining because they do not see a sufficient cause to justify asking their fellow Americans to place their lives in serious danger in a foreign land. George Washington was fighting for American liberty. I know that's what our soldiers are told they are fighting for in Iraq too, but the problem is few believe that line, and rightly so. Failure to invade Iraq would not have threatened our liberty at home one iota. It made some sense when we invaded Afghanistan, but makes absolutely none in Iraq. Therefore, people are not happy that we are at war there because Sadam didn't seem to most of us to be a viable and immanent threat to our liberties at home, even though that's what Bush kept trying to persuade us of.

 

[longeyes]

the age of the monkeywrench

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.

I don't envision gun battles, I envision the beginning of a new phase of pervasive and sizeable disaffection with all authority that will make the price of illegitimate governance ever higher and stimulate "asymmetric creativity."

 

[hps1]

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

And, let me see now, just which party was in control in La. and N.O. and ordered the gun confiscation in the first place? Please explain to me how we can improve our 2nd Amendment rights by voting for more of the same.

Regards,
hps

 

[Lone_Gunman]

And, let me see now, just which party was in control in La. and N.O. and ordered the gun confiscation in the first place?

We were talking about national politics, specifically the Congress. No one in Congress ordered any gun confiscations after Katrina. Ray Nagin is a bad apple, no matter what party he is a member of.

Which party controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency during Katrina and yet failed to immediately intervene with force are restore the civil rights that Nagin had violated in New Orleans??? Yes, Bush could have immediately put an end to gun confiscations in the same way that Eisenhower sent military personnel to ensure integration in Arkansas.

My point is, there is plenty of fault to go around in the Katrina situation, but to try to hold all Democrats responsible for what Nagin did is unreasonable.

 

[Thin Black Line]

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.

True. And they will use this when it comes to a transparency bill showing
where all the tax money is really going, but none have lifted a finger when it
has come to RKBA. Why? The answer is clear. They couldn't give a _____.

 

[vito]

Don't put all of your hopes on the ability of the Senate to filibuster. Just as the Republicans threatened to bypass the filibuster for court appointees (the "nuclear option"), I do not see it as beyond reality for the Democrats, if they regain control of the Senate, to just permanently eliminate the filibuster under the rules of the Senate for all legislation.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Vito, we're talking about the "secret hold" tactic that apparently any single
Senator can use to block a bill. Yes, single Senator. So again, one
must ask why a Senator with an R behind his name has never used that
when it comes to upholding the Constitution and protecting your RKBA?
I'll quote myself for that answer:

Why? The answer is clear. They couldn't give a _____.

 

[RealGun]

My point is, there is plenty of fault to go around in the Katrina situation, but to try to hold all Democrats responsible for what Nagin did is unreasonable.

Excuse me, but who exactly opposed consequent bills to prevent a reoccurence of gun confiscations?

 

[RealGun]

Don't put all of your hopes on the ability of the Senate to filibuster. Just as the Republicans threatened to bypass the filibuster for court appointees (the "nuclear option"), I do not see it as beyond reality for the Democrats, if they regain control of the Senate, to just permanently eliminate the filibuster under the rules of the Senate for all legislation.

The filibuster question has only been in regard to "executive session", not "legislative". The executive is one in which they talk about rules changes or especially voting for judge nominations. According to how they do things now, there is no way to eliminate the filibuster in legislative session. You might need it for your own pet bill or amendment some day.

 

[buzz_knox]

Excuse me, but who exactly opposed consequent bills to prevent a reoccurence of gun confiscations?

And which party held who nearly solely to blame for Katrina? Same one, as I recall.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Excuse me, but who exactly opposed consequent bills to prevent a reoccurence of gun confiscations?

RealGun, maybe you didn't read through the whole thread and follow what I was saying, because we are now going round and round.

Someone said 90-95% of Democrats are anti-gun.

I said, no they are not, and cited the fact that 50% of the Democrats voted in favor of the bills to prevent confiscation of firearms after Katrina.

The whole point of my comments was to dispute the fact that 90-95% of Dems are NOT antigun, only about 50%.

 

[ken grant]

Blame for Katrina???????

Blame Bush?
Blame Repugs?
Blame Demorats?
How about the people? Most of the people taken off the roofs of flooded houses had flooded cars,trucks,vans and etc. sitting in their yard. Why didn't they get out?
To keep this post gun related,Why has N.O. not returned peoples guns after Courts told them to?
Compare Southern Miss. and Ala. people to the ones in N.O.
They went to work cleaning up and helping each other out while the people of N.O. just set on their A$$E$ and waited for the Government to bail them out. This is the same as it was before Katrina,generations of families depending on tax payers for support.

I will never forget the FAT LADY sitting on her can saying we need help. All they are GIVING us is Army food and we can't eat that stuff.

 

[buzz_knox]

The whole point of my comments was to dispute the fact that 90-95% of Dems are NOT antigun, only about 50%.

And if next Tuesday goes as a lot of THRs want it to go, those 50% will be in charge. They will be able to control what bills do or do not get out of committee, and what goes to the floor for votes. So the other 50% of Dems will have to tow the party line or they won't get their bills introduced or passed, and won't get to go tell the voters how good they are come next election.

 

[RealGun]

RealGun, maybe you didn't read through the whole thread and follow what I was saying, because we are now going round and round.

Someone said 90-95% of Democrats are anti-gun.

I said, no they are not, and cited the fact that 50% of the Democrats voted in favor of the bills to prevent confiscation of firearms after Katrina.

The whole point of my comments was to dispute the fact that 90-95% of Dems are NOT antigun, only about 50%.

You are correct that I missed that context, but I think it is academic. The Senate Democrats are 100% anti-gun and the House has only 13 pro-gun Democrats by GOA rating. That is hardly 50% where it counts. The 90-95% number is not inappropriate, when speaking of Congress.

 

[ken grant]

Parties

Both the Demorats and the Repugs are determined to go on with THE SELLING of AMERICA.
The Repugs just a little less so than the Demorats.
If you only have two evils to choose from,it is better to choose the lesser evil!

 

[DRZinn]

Someone said 90-95% of Democrats are anti-gun.

I said, no they are not, and cited the fact that 50% of the Democrats voted in favor of the bills to prevent confiscation of firearms after Katrina.

The whole point of my comments was to dispute the fact that 90-95% of Dems are NOT antigun, only about 50%.

That only means that 50% were in favor of that bill. There were anti-gunners who, for various reasons, did not vote for that bill.

To find a percentage that are anti-gun in either party, you'd have to find which have a tendency to vote for anti-gun bills in general. That probably approaches 100% for the Democrats and 75% for the Republicans.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

To find a percentage that are anti-gun in either party, you'd have to find which have a tendency to vote for anti-gun bills in general. That probably approaches 100% for the Democrats

There is no data that would support that. The House changes hands every two years. There have been very few gun bills for them to have voted on, and of the few gun related bills that have come to a vote in the last few years, no where near 100% of Democrats have voted anti-gun.

You can believe whatever made-up statistics you want, but the Democratic party is slowly changing to a less anti-gun stance. Hopefully this trend will continue, but it won't unless we support pro-gun Democrats.

 

[LAR-15]

WHICH PARTY BLOCKED RENEWAL OF THE 1994 US SEMI AUTO BAN?

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!

 

[LAR-15]

What anti gun bills have the Democrats sponsored that the Republicans have ignored?

TOTAL BAN on the FN Five-Seven pistol

Putting 50 caliber centefire rifles under the NFA

Ressurecting and expanding the 1994 gun ban

Putting ANTIQUE firearms under the purview of the GCA

National handgun licensing

Ballistic fingerprinting

 

[DRZinn]

The House changes hands every two years. There have been very few gun bills for them to have voted on, and of the few gun related bills that have come to a vote in the last few years, no where near 100% of Democrats have voted anti-gun.

I'm talking about the entire voting history of each individual member.

You can believe whatever made-up statistics you want,

Notice how I said "probably." That and the glaring overgeneralizations were, I thought, ample evidence that it was a number I pulled out for rhetorical value, and not as a "made-up statistic." I don't know, any more than you do, what the actual percentage is. Luckily the NRA, GOA, et al do a pretty job of letting us know that. But using one one bill to demonstrate definitively that only those who voted in favor of that particular bill are anti-gun? I couldn't let that pass.

 

[progunner1957]

"D" is for Democrat - and Denial

This coming from the party that brought us the "Vince Foster murder"? There are enough lunatics to go around to make sure no party is left out.

Vince Foster "comitted suicide" by shooting himself in the back of the head.

Nope. Nothing fishy about that. Happens all the time. Obviouusly not a murder...