Does Anyone Think Dem's Have Forsaken Gun Control?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's a link and an excerpt where the Democrats let it slip that they are not to be gun friendly in 2006, in case anyone had any ideas that they have changed their stripes on guns.
Click to expand...

At the risk of sounding like a broken record...

we are seeing this already:

the left wing of the party will be purged in a most brutal manner and the Democrats will largely move to the right in an effort to regain national relevance.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the changes are coming from below, not above, and those changes are slow in coming. I doubt they will be complete before 2008 or even 2012. what y'all are seeing is the death rattle of the far left left-wing of the democratic party.

I was amazed and pleasantly surprised by the outcry when Hackett wasn't allowed to run, as an example. Oh, well...they live and they learn.
 
Nope. The Republicans are squandering the nation's hard-earned tax dollars even faster than the Democrats, as well as trashing the nation's civil rights. They differ from representatives of the Democratic (sic) party in name only.
Click to expand...

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I posted. Read my first post again and try to at least reply to what I said. Okay? Paying attention will serve you well in life.
 
Claiming "one side is as bad as the other" or "they are no different from the other" on ANY issue only shows ignorance. This is a lazy way out for people not wanting to realize nothing is perfect and we must make decisions even though the best option is still not perfect. Throwing your hands in the air and exclaiming how everything sucks is just....kinda......stupid.

If you honestly think the Democrats are not anti gun you have been in a cave for about four decades.

I know when gun related issues are being tossed around in DC Democrats are ALWAYS anti gun and the republicans are PRO GUN. It is amazing what one can see when they open the two orbs above the nose.

Republicans are far from perfect but when it comes to gun legislation in DC they are the only people standing against the Democrats and the socialist media.

I'll wait for the pie in the sky but for now I am willing to keep my 2A rights as opposed to pissing my vote away on a Democrat or a sure loser nobody. - hwp
Click to expand...

This is a great post that I identify with strongly. The only thing I would change is to learn how to spell Democrat.
 
And yes, I know voting for a third party may very well put the worst of the candidates in. So, as mentioned earlier, working from the local levels upward makes sense.

Edit : My comment above is a sell-out.
:banghead: Hell.
 
Last edited:

It's not complicated. Both parties are politically tone-deaf unless the sound is backed up by millions of dollars from the special interests.

Under current rules, if Vladimir Putin or the Saudi Government or the Carlyle Group wanted to buy a Presidential candidate, they could do it.

In our history, when political parties became this corrupt and blind to the public, they have been replaced. I think we are there.

Bob


 
In our history, when political parties became this corrupt and blind to the public, they have been replaced. I think we are there.
Click to expand...

I don't think most people care anymore. They have been lulled into a sense of complacency by mass media and consumerism. As long as they can buy cheap stuff at Wal Mart and watch the NFL, most people don't give a damn. Its a sad commentary, but this is our fundamental problem.

Do you think Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Paine would have allowed themselves to be disarmed by the government in the wake of Hurricane Katrina?
 
Just look at the progress the latter is making under Comrade Bush on the U.N. front.
Click to expand...

Care to back this up with some data? Considering that John Bolton was roundly criticized in both the world press and the U.S. press for not signing on to the original 2001 UN Small Arms conference and the current representative is being painted with the same brush during the 2006 conference, I don't see a single shred of evidence for your position.
 

I don't think most people care anymore. They have been lulled into a sense of complacency by mass media and consumerism. As long as they can buy cheap stuff at Wal Mart and watch the NFL, most people don't give a damn. Its a sad commentary, but this is our fundamental problem.

Do you think Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Paine would have allowed themselves to be disarmed by the government in the wake of Hurricane Katrina?
Click to expand...



True. However, the apathy of a large segment of the public is not new. We've always had an oligarchy and probably always will. Unfortunately, the oligarchy has been thoroughly lied to by both parties in the name of serving the deep pocket interests.

As for the former leaders you mention, no, they wouldn't have allowed themselves or the general public to be subjugated by the government the way the people of New Orleans and the rest of the country have.

Bob

 
Bartholomew Roberts
Care to back this up with some data?
Click to expand...
Data?.

The U.N.'s own agenda has been spelled out on many ocasions in it's own hundreds of documents etc. It is no secret what is down the road, and the idea that the United States is going to be riding a veto power indefinately is ridiculous. As is the notion that somehow we will be continuing to take part - yet retaining exclusive legal and regulatory conditions on a issue such as firearms - while the entire rest of the world falls into line.

It is not going to happen. You are either for these people or against them. And waiting until they are at the gates is not the time to suddenly announce you are against them and try to shrug them off.

Which brings us back to those at the helm in Washington DC. Where do their loyalties lie? That's easy.

George W Bush, like those in recent history before him, has had the power to disengage the United States from that international criminal organization with the stroke of a pen for a good number of years now.

But like those before him, he is not going to do it for the same reasons. It is run by his political and corporate cronies for their own ends.
Considering that John Bolton was roundly criticized in both the world press and the U.S. press for not signing on to the original 2001 UN Small Arms conference and the current representative is being painted with the same brush during the 2006 conference, I don't see a single shred of evidence for your position
Click to expand...
Criticism means very little when speaking of the fate of nations. Bolton, for what it's worth, was criticized. I wonder why he is not still the "current representative"?

What is the current representative doing exactly - other than running us in alittle deeper?

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

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
LAK said:
Criticism means very little when speaking of the fate of nations. Bolton, for what it's worth, was criticized. I wonder why he is not still the "current representative"?
Click to expand...

He is not the current representative because he was promoted to be the overall United States ambassador to the UN; but I am happy to see you are making informed criticism here.

What is the current representative doing exactly - other than running us in alittle deeper?
Click to expand...

He is blocking an international treaty of the type you seem to fear by stating that the U.S. will not go along with it; just the same as predecessor.

Look at the Korean war. Prior to that conflict, the Soviet Union decided the UN was just a tool for the imperialists and so they bycotted it and refused to participate. As a result, there was no one to veto the security council resolution against North Korea and the entire UN came in on the side of the United States.

What do you think the status of firearms law would be in the rest of the world if neither the US or the NRA stood up to IANSA in the UN?
 
I'm afraid gun control is not a big issue for folks, except us.

The Democrats have no use for the RKBA for the most part. If they are from a progun area, they vote RKBA as Gore did. When they move on the national scene, they ditch it like Gore did.

The Republicans think the better social issue to rile up their masses are abortion and gays. Thus, guns are on the backburner. While the Bushies have done some gun thingees they are basically reflexive and not proactive.

However, the handling of the war, now seen as incompetent by all, except Bush loyalists will probably sink the GOP congress and get ready for new gun bills.

I've done a great deal of reading on the war by conservative and military commentators and one must sadly come to the conclusion that Bush and his crew were tragically unable to understand the situation or fix it. That will sink the RKBA.
 
I can remember when Democrats were not anti-gun on any big scale. Mind you, it was the 1960's, and hardly anyone was anti-gun then. Until the Kennedy (both JFK and RFK) and MLK assassinations that is. There are still some Democrats who are not anti-gun. The congressman who's district covers Detroit, so far as I am aware votes for pro-gun stuff, and against anti-gun stuff. But he is the rare exception these days, compared to 40+ years ago.

In reality, it's a shame. I actually agree with many other Democratic party ideas. But I split with them on the gun issue, which is paramount to me, as it is the best means of self-defense available. Without my guns, and the legal right to use them, I might not be here today.
 
Democrat philosophy and gun ownership cannot coexsist

Does Anyone Think Dem's Have Forgone Gun Control?


No.

Which is why we should not only work to be sure that they don't regain control of Congress or White House, and to put pressure on the Pubbies to be pro-gun. In my world, the mere expiration of the AWB is insufficient evidence of the latter - all they had to do was nothing. Where's the pro-gun legislation: the killing of the '86 machine gun ban, the national CCW recognition act, the elimination of "sporting use" as a criteria for regulating guns and ammo, the removal of import bans?

BTW, the possibility of the Dems coming back into power should cause all of us to buy more guns, and to stockpile ammo, components (for us reloaders) magazines and other accessories. The graboids will be back someday, and it is best to be prepared.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head, Sam Adams!

We have some Democrats here whining, "For God's sake, the Democrats don't want to trick people into voting for something they don't want!!! They just want to represent the people!!!"

BULL FECES. What they want is POWER.

The Democrat party is controlled by socialists. To rise to the national level in the Democrat party, you must be a socialist and have a pedigree of socialist thought, action and voting.

The Democrat party wants socialist rule by autocratic means - in other words, the Democrat party wants absolute power with no accountability to We The People. This cannot be achieved with an armed citizenry who can resist arbitrary rule.

We can expect the national level Democrat candidates to attempt to portray themselves as gun friendly - like John Kerry did, parading and posing for the press in his never-before-worn duck hunter costume.

We can expect them to attempt to paint themselves as "moderates" and to try to run from their antigun/socialist history, as Hillary Clinton is so desperately trying to do at present. We can expect them to join bogus "progun" organizations - but not true gun rights organizations, such as the NRA, GOA or Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Gun control, registration, banning and confiscation are the holy grail issues of the Democratic party - they are at the very core of the socialist political philosophy with which they are pathologically obsessed. Do not expect the Democratic party to TRULY forsake their holy grail.

You will sooner see a busload of nuns head off to South Padre Island during spring break and star in a "Girls Gone Wild" video than you will see the national level Democrat party forsake gun control/registration/banning and the ultimate goal - confiscation.

Don't buy their con job.
 
+10, Progunner and Sam Adams!

The DemDonkeys have simply pushed "gun control" down to the state and local level.

For now.

When you look at all the new gun control measures at those state levels, the politicians behind them inevitably have a "D after their name. And when these folks graduate to national political office(s), do you really think they'll suddenly change their stripes?

Fat chance.

And they'll always have the "ballistically illiterate" news media, Hollywood, and the academic left in their corner... to filter reality and press agenda-driven cultural/ideological conditioning on the public.

For the present, the Kennedy/Kerry/Schumer/Durbin wing of the U.S. Senate will continue to propose confiscatory bills that go nowhere... but help the party raise $$ from the wealthy-elitist/urban pacifist/left. However, just give this gang control of the Senate, and/or the White House -- along with some future widely-publicized mass-shooting event -- and we'll see a batch of new gun control legislation faster than you can say "For The Children."

And a raft of non-ideological Republicans (i.e., "practical/flexible" RINOs) will jump on that train and sell us out "For The Common Good" (*cough*).
 
No in Mass we have seen a small change of heart from even th emost strident anti-gun liberal and conservative(plenty of them in this state). It seems that even in "liberal" Mass politicans are starting to notice that the populace is not for strict gun control. Anyway we have low crime rate in the state so most people are not effected by guns as in other states.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should send a note to the Mayor of Boston - he has apparently not gotten the message, at least as indicated in the editorial he wrote complaining about gun violence and whining for more stringent gun control.
 
Does Anyone Think Dem's Have Forsaken Gun Control?


Of course not. The government can never have complete control as the liberals wish as long as one man can vote from the rooftops in a very special recall election.
 
-------quote-------------
Each President since Reagan has been consistently worse.
--------------------------

W is worse than Clinton?
 
No in Mass
Click to expand...
Then whats with all the crap from Boston about NH, ME, VT contaminating Boston with Guns? This includes your large bill boards sugesting this. Ya right they pols have changed, get your head out of the sand. MA gun rights are doomed.
 
It's PAST time for a relevant 3rd party. Got any viable candidates???
Click to expand...

Got any viable third partys?

If you had one, what would it stand for? Would it be moderate enough to get elected by voters with a different agenda? Does it impose ideals on a voter base with different ideas? Is it a small group of self styled elitists who think they know what's best for everyone?

What I see that might fly is reforming Congress. Get rid of the horse flop in Washington. Anything else is a house built on sand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Democrats rethink gun-control stance
Replies
23
Views
950
publius
P
D
  • Locked
The Democratic Plot that Deceives Gun Owners.
2 3
Replies
55
Views
4K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
H
  • Locked
Dems recast Gun Control image
2
Replies
44
Views
1K
Standing Wolf
S
H
  • Locked
Politicians holster the polemics on gun control
Replies
14
Views
534
Standing Wolf
S
D
  • Locked
Some Democrats move delicately to the right on gun control
Replies
10
Views
694
WilderBill
W
Back
Top