Bartholomew Roberts
Member
These are just my thoughts on this election. This is the way I see the numbers from the view that incrementalism can work for us as well as it has worked against us. Let's take a look at where we stand in the 2004 election, so we can get an idea of what is at stake here.
In the House, we have 230 NRA A-rated candidates out of 435. This means that we have a pro-gun majority in the House. Even using the more strict GOA grading, we maintain that majority (but with much slimmer margins). In Texas, we will stand to gain 1 or 2 seats from the redistricting (most of the Dems being replaced were pro-gun too, so no strong gains).
Overall, our chances of maintaining or expanding our lead in the House look good.
In the Senate, the antis still lead. In March, the Senate voted 52-47 to attach an amendment renewing the semi-auto ban to S.1805. Four of the Senators who voted to renew the ban are retiring in strong, pro-gun states. This leaves those seats open to a competitive race and in some (South Carolina) GOA A-rated candidates have already won the Republican primary. In South Dakota, Tom Daschle (GOA F-rated) (who also voted to renew the ban) is in a very tight election against a GOA B-rated candidate, John Thune.
In some states (Alaska and Oklahoma), there are no anti candidates running. Senate candidates on both sides have strong pro-gun ratings from both NRA and GOA.
We have the potential to pick up as many as six pro-gun seats. Illinois is a very unlikely win; but we have better than 50% chances in the other races. The March 2002 vote in the Senate could easily swing from 52-47 in favor of the ban to 47-52.
Even if we pick up only half of the competitive seats for pro-RKBA candidates, we will still improve the margin by three seats. That means the 52-47 March vote to renew the ban would become a 49-50 vote against it.
This also means that we finally have the opportunity to repeal and change legislation for the first time since the 1986 FOPA. Not only that; but with pro-RKBA majorities in the House and Senate and control of both, we have much greater control over killing poison pills that might be attached.
Of course, the key to this, is we have to have somebody in the White House who is either A) sympathetic to our cause or B) unwilling to veto such legislation.
I propose that this election is the wrong one to send a protest vote. Whether you like George Bush or not, he represents the best chance we have seen in some time to see legislation repealed. Even if you don't believe he has any love for the Second Amendment, he does have a 100% record of signing every piece of legislation put before him. Instead of letting that be a negative, we can make it a positive by supporting pro-gun candidates for the House and Senate.
Finally, he also has a strongly pro-gun VP. Should we only win two Senate seats (49-49), the VP will cast the deciding vote on any gun legislation in the Senate. Either John Edwards or Dick Cheney will be in a position to make that vote, who do you want?
Now I don't think that even with electing GWB and several pro-gun Senators we will see sweeping repeals of stuff. The Dems can still filibuster and certainly will. If you are looking for repeals of the GCA 1968 and NFA 1934 and won't settle for anything less, then don't bother voting for GWB because you'll just be disappointed and those of us with more gradualist tendencies will not have to hear "I voted for GWB in 2004 and yet I still don't have my government subsidized M16/M203!" in 2006/2008.
But if you want a good chance to repeal some of the smaller pieces propping up the larger structure of unreasonable gun laws directed at law-abiding citizens, I think this election is a very good one to move toward that goal.
In the House, we have 230 NRA A-rated candidates out of 435. This means that we have a pro-gun majority in the House. Even using the more strict GOA grading, we maintain that majority (but with much slimmer margins). In Texas, we will stand to gain 1 or 2 seats from the redistricting (most of the Dems being replaced were pro-gun too, so no strong gains).
Overall, our chances of maintaining or expanding our lead in the House look good.
In the Senate, the antis still lead. In March, the Senate voted 52-47 to attach an amendment renewing the semi-auto ban to S.1805. Four of the Senators who voted to renew the ban are retiring in strong, pro-gun states. This leaves those seats open to a competitive race and in some (South Carolina) GOA A-rated candidates have already won the Republican primary. In South Dakota, Tom Daschle (GOA F-rated) (who also voted to renew the ban) is in a very tight election against a GOA B-rated candidate, John Thune.
In some states (Alaska and Oklahoma), there are no anti candidates running. Senate candidates on both sides have strong pro-gun ratings from both NRA and GOA.
We have the potential to pick up as many as six pro-gun seats. Illinois is a very unlikely win; but we have better than 50% chances in the other races. The March 2002 vote in the Senate could easily swing from 52-47 in favor of the ban to 47-52.
Even if we pick up only half of the competitive seats for pro-RKBA candidates, we will still improve the margin by three seats. That means the 52-47 March vote to renew the ban would become a 49-50 vote against it.
This also means that we finally have the opportunity to repeal and change legislation for the first time since the 1986 FOPA. Not only that; but with pro-RKBA majorities in the House and Senate and control of both, we have much greater control over killing poison pills that might be attached.
Of course, the key to this, is we have to have somebody in the White House who is either A) sympathetic to our cause or B) unwilling to veto such legislation.
I propose that this election is the wrong one to send a protest vote. Whether you like George Bush or not, he represents the best chance we have seen in some time to see legislation repealed. Even if you don't believe he has any love for the Second Amendment, he does have a 100% record of signing every piece of legislation put before him. Instead of letting that be a negative, we can make it a positive by supporting pro-gun candidates for the House and Senate.
Finally, he also has a strongly pro-gun VP. Should we only win two Senate seats (49-49), the VP will cast the deciding vote on any gun legislation in the Senate. Either John Edwards or Dick Cheney will be in a position to make that vote, who do you want?
Now I don't think that even with electing GWB and several pro-gun Senators we will see sweeping repeals of stuff. The Dems can still filibuster and certainly will. If you are looking for repeals of the GCA 1968 and NFA 1934 and won't settle for anything less, then don't bother voting for GWB because you'll just be disappointed and those of us with more gradualist tendencies will not have to hear "I voted for GWB in 2004 and yet I still don't have my government subsidized M16/M203!" in 2006/2008.
But if you want a good chance to repeal some of the smaller pieces propping up the larger structure of unreasonable gun laws directed at law-abiding citizens, I think this election is a very good one to move toward that goal.
:banghead:
