Is gun control a big issue in this years elections?
- Thread starter LAR-15
- Start date
- Status
Waitone
Member
Gun control is a big issue simply because one party has convinced itself it lost an election or two because of their anti-gun stance. So rather than change position the party simply shuts up and says nothing about the issue. Gun control has not gone away. It is merely sleeping quietly until friendly forces assume power. We will then see all kinds of initiative resurrect, one of the first of which will be the long considered dead S&W agreement.
Shanghai McCoy
Member
It is not being brought up here in Kansas but I can tell you that the Governess,the potential new AG and the potential new Dist 2 Rep are all going to be against what we hold dear once they get into office...
Starting to miss Oklahoma again,sigh.....
Starting to miss Oklahoma again,sigh.....
Green Lantern
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,665
Speaker Pelosi
Judiciary Chariman Conyers
Schumer, Feinsten and Kennedy on the Judiciary Committee.....
Yep, I'd say it's an issue, at least nationally. No matter how "pro-gun" YOUR Democrat is, the order of the day for the party as a whole seems to be "grab guns or BUST!"
Judiciary Chariman Conyers
Schumer, Feinsten and Kennedy on the Judiciary Committee.....
Yep, I'd say it's an issue, at least nationally. No matter how "pro-gun" YOUR Democrat is, the order of the day for the party as a whole seems to be "grab guns or BUST!"
beerslurpy
member
If the dems retake either house, it will be a big issue in 08.
But like the supervillain who habitually celebrates his victory by kicking Bruce Banner in the balls, I think they will inevitably undo whatever victories they manage to accumulate.
But like the supervillain who habitually celebrates his victory by kicking Bruce Banner in the balls, I think they will inevitably undo whatever victories they manage to accumulate.
Zen21Tao
Member
I think that the gun issue is a very important issue for personal freedom but only recognized as so by mostly gun enthusiests. Most citizens tend to place the economy and social issues above gun rights. It is sad because they don't realize that it is the 2nd Amendment that allows them to retain the rights they charish and hold above the rtkba.
NailGun
Member
Gen. Wesley Clark just admitted on Fox a few minutes ago that he accepted campaign money from Soros. I think it will be a national issue.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
The so-called "gun control" issue is the elephant in the living room no one dares mention aloud.
If representatives of the Democratic (sic) party retake either house of Congress, purely vindictive so-called "gun control" will be high up on their list of objectives.
If representatives of the Democratic (sic) party retake either house of Congress, purely vindictive so-called "gun control" will be high up on their list of objectives.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Does a tiger become a vegetarian between meals? Has Mayor Nagin returned the guns his police confiscated from their lawful owners in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina? Have Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Rosie O'Donnell, and Michael Moore joined the NRA? Has John Kerry done any hunting since he got his shotgun and orange vest? Has the United Nations said it's okay for you and other U.S. citizens to own firearms?
Here's the link to the NRA web site on which you can find its endorsements of candidates in this next election: http://www.nrapvf.org/ . Scroll down that page, enter your ZIP code, and see which candidates should get your vote.
Here's the link to the NRA web site on which you can find its endorsements of candidates in this next election: http://www.nrapvf.org/ . Scroll down that page, enter your ZIP code, and see which candidates should get your vote.
wolfman01
Member
You can bet that it's on their agenda. That said, they are gonna make sure that it's kept as quiet as possible. Right now, they are too busy with their "all Republicans are bad, and you need to vote for us" campaign. Since this is the best they can do, they simply cannot afford to alienate a single voter on the gun issue.
progunner1957
member
The silence of the leftist/Democrat/socialist party on guns is deafening
The Japanese gave out "friendship medals" to Americans a month before they bombed Pearl Harbor.
Just like the Japanese did in 1941, the leftist/Democrat/socialist party is rocking gun owners to sleep before they cut our throats.
Dead on, Bob. +10,000.
You too, Wolfman!
The Japanese gave out "friendship medals" to Americans a month before they bombed Pearl Harbor.
Just like the Japanese did in 1941, the leftist/Democrat/socialist party is rocking gun owners to sleep before they cut our throats.
10-Ring
Member
In CA, it always seems to be an issue. This year it seems as tho....again :banghead: Most noteably all those "Off List Lower" (ar 15 lowers) that have entered the state need a decision as to what will happen to them...assault weapon registration??
Nitrogen
Member
green lantern said:
I don't worry about it as much. Remember the will Rogers saying, "I am a member of no organized party - I'm a Democrat!"
I think Pelosi, Fienstien and Kennedy can be as gun-grabbing as they want. I think the Democrats realise that gun control and the AWB lost them the congress, and I don't think the rank and file are eager to lose it again over a future AWB, or other gun control. The grabbers might push for it, but remember, the Democrats have historically had little control over their rank and file.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Nitrogen:
I don't understand what you mean.
You said in one sentence that you "don't think the rank and file are eager to lose [the Congress] again over a future AWB, or other gun control."
And you said in the very next sentence that "the Democrats have historically had little control over their rank and file."
When I put those two thoughts together they mean that it doesn't matter to the Democratic Party's leadership that the party's rank and file don't want to lose the Congress over gun control. And that means that the party's leadership would feel free to introduce another Assault Weapons Ban and other gun control because it doesn't matter to them what the rank and file thinks.
In any event, I respectfully suggest, you miss the point of what's happening. The majority party leadership in each chamber of the Congress gets to set its agenda and appoint its committees. When Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi--a fiercely anti-gun advocate--becomes Speaker of the House, there can't be any reasonable doubt that she will set an anti-gun agenda for it. And when Congressman John Conyers--a fiercely anti-gun advocate--becomes Chairman of its Judiciary Committee, there can't be any reasonable doubt that he will pursue the same anti-gun agenda. The NRA gives most of the Democratic candidates for House seats an F or D rating on gun issues, and a majority of the Democratic incumbents in the House are anti-gun. So an anti-gun leadership and a majority of anti-gun votes has to result in anti-gun legislation.
It's naive to expect just a renewal of the old Assault Weapons Ban. Anti-gun legislators have been introducing much more stringent controls that would effectively ban all semi-automatic firearms and even more severe measures. Read what the NRA has been publishing on its web sites and in its magazines, or do the research yourself: this game will be over very quickly when anti-gun legislators bury those who have been keeping the lid on for your benefit.
The anti-gun people know the simple fact that seems to elude a great many gun owners who aren't worried: the final solution to the gun ownership problem is to ban and confiscate guns and ammunition. When there are no legal guns there are no legal gun owners, and the problem is solved. All that will remain are former gun owners who will have demonstrated that they were unable to vote together to save themselves. No one--certainly not I--will believe that if they didn't work together to prevent the disaster they will work together to recover from it. And how could they recover? Once a gun is destroyed, it can't come back to life.
Expect no help from Americans who don't own firearms and aren't interested in owning them. If gun owners aren't worried or don't care enough to vote together to prevent the disaster, how can they expect anyone else to do it for them?
It's foolish to underestimate Pelosi, Feinstein, Kennedy and others in that camp. They are extremely intelligent, capable people who have the skill, the knowledge, and the resources to do what they are determined to do. You might not admire their goals or their principles but it's the height of folly to believe that they attained political prominence by being incompetent idiots or to base your actions on such a blind belief.
Never forget.
I don't understand what you mean.
You said in one sentence that you "don't think the rank and file are eager to lose [the Congress] again over a future AWB, or other gun control."
And you said in the very next sentence that "the Democrats have historically had little control over their rank and file."
When I put those two thoughts together they mean that it doesn't matter to the Democratic Party's leadership that the party's rank and file don't want to lose the Congress over gun control. And that means that the party's leadership would feel free to introduce another Assault Weapons Ban and other gun control because it doesn't matter to them what the rank and file thinks.
In any event, I respectfully suggest, you miss the point of what's happening. The majority party leadership in each chamber of the Congress gets to set its agenda and appoint its committees. When Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi--a fiercely anti-gun advocate--becomes Speaker of the House, there can't be any reasonable doubt that she will set an anti-gun agenda for it. And when Congressman John Conyers--a fiercely anti-gun advocate--becomes Chairman of its Judiciary Committee, there can't be any reasonable doubt that he will pursue the same anti-gun agenda. The NRA gives most of the Democratic candidates for House seats an F or D rating on gun issues, and a majority of the Democratic incumbents in the House are anti-gun. So an anti-gun leadership and a majority of anti-gun votes has to result in anti-gun legislation.
It's naive to expect just a renewal of the old Assault Weapons Ban. Anti-gun legislators have been introducing much more stringent controls that would effectively ban all semi-automatic firearms and even more severe measures. Read what the NRA has been publishing on its web sites and in its magazines, or do the research yourself: this game will be over very quickly when anti-gun legislators bury those who have been keeping the lid on for your benefit.
The anti-gun people know the simple fact that seems to elude a great many gun owners who aren't worried: the final solution to the gun ownership problem is to ban and confiscate guns and ammunition. When there are no legal guns there are no legal gun owners, and the problem is solved. All that will remain are former gun owners who will have demonstrated that they were unable to vote together to save themselves. No one--certainly not I--will believe that if they didn't work together to prevent the disaster they will work together to recover from it. And how could they recover? Once a gun is destroyed, it can't come back to life.
Expect no help from Americans who don't own firearms and aren't interested in owning them. If gun owners aren't worried or don't care enough to vote together to prevent the disaster, how can they expect anyone else to do it for them?
It's foolish to underestimate Pelosi, Feinstein, Kennedy and others in that camp. They are extremely intelligent, capable people who have the skill, the knowledge, and the resources to do what they are determined to do. You might not admire their goals or their principles but it's the height of folly to believe that they attained political prominence by being incompetent idiots or to base your actions on such a blind belief.
Never forget.
BobTheTomato
Member
Is it important? YES. Look at alot of the canidates that the Democrats are fielding. They are PROGUN (or so they say). They know that in most of america being pro gun control is a good way to lose. They saw that in 94'. Now the question is if all of these people, like say Bob Casey in PA, are elected will they fall in line with the party leaders or will they have a backbone????????
Hyunchback
Member
Kim posted:
I don't know how many took money from Soros but there ARE Democrats who earn (and I mean EARN) their A from the NRA. This isn't "pro-gun when running, anti-gun when elected".
There are also plenty of Republicans who earn their Ds and Fs. Remember that Bloomberg is a Republican.
There are those who criticize the NRA and claim they don't really investigate but I don't see that in the races in my state. Here they actively work to support the right candidate, not just the one with the right letter after their name.
I don't know how many took money from Soros but there ARE Democrats who earn (and I mean EARN) their A from the NRA. This isn't "pro-gun when running, anti-gun when elected".
There are also plenty of Republicans who earn their Ds and Fs. Remember that Bloomberg is a Republican.
There are those who criticize the NRA and claim they don't really investigate but I don't see that in the races in my state. Here they actively work to support the right candidate, not just the one with the right letter after their name.
Feel free to disagree with me. But, gun control is the missing issue in most races for this midterm election. This is, I believe, a good sign. It means that Democrats have realized it is, for the most part, a non-starter with the voters. They are practical politicians. MOST of them want to be in office more than they want to push a losing cause. Are there die-hard ideological anti-gunners? You bet. But, by no means do I think they are anywhere near a large part of Democratic politicos. If they get elected, they will want to stay in office. I'm not expecting a wave of anti-gun legislation from the Dems.
K
K
They still lie. It all depends on what Is Is. There was a 1 hour show on CNN called Broken Government yesterday.. It highlighted that the Dems are running some good ole boy sounding candidates. Thinking that the Whats the matter with Kansas book author thesis is correct. The two Demo actors on that show have also written a book. They showed one of them shooting a bow then he whipped out his gun to shoot at a target. He said the gun issue is dead. Democrats are not going to take your guns. But and this is the Big But I saw these same two country guys on Meet the Press. Russert asked them about the gun control issue. They said the Democrats were not going to take peoples guns but things like Assault Weapons were of coarse a different matter. Most people support reasonable GUN SAFETY. They are flat out LIARS. You can not trust a politician unless they say The Second Amendment supports and individual Right and needs the same protection as other individual rights. Dressing up in Camo and holding a dead duck or goose means nothing. And when Orwellian Speek like gun safety is used you know you are screwed.
longeyes
member
Of course it is. Just unspoken. EVERYTHING that is fermenting in the cultural and political battles today in America revolves, in the end, around the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Left cannot get where it wants to end up without disarming all private citizens. That is and will remain the goal, whether it's in the foreground or the background.
Green Lantern
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,665
That's sig material right there!!! Manedwolf
member
It's certainly an issue in some local races. In MA, it's Kerry Healy's status quo vs. Deval Patrick's likely attempts to disarm all law-abiding citzens while at the same time coddling criminals, taking "soft on crime" to levels yet unseen in history.
Thankfully, the NH police chiefs' associations have just come forward with the fact that most of the violent crime in NH lately is due to repeat offenders with pages of history of serious offenses and minor punishments...coming up from MA.
Still want that wall.
Thankfully, the NH police chiefs' associations have just come forward with the fact that most of the violent crime in NH lately is due to repeat offenders with pages of history of serious offenses and minor punishments...coming up from MA.
Still want that wall.
Thefabulousfink
Member
In WA I have yet to see any gun control argument brought up except from Seattle. In fact, most of the challenging candidates have almost no stated position on guns. I probably end up voting for mostly incumbents (better the devil you know) with the exception of Maria Cantwell (I have a more affectionate term for her but it isn't High Road). WA state has been doing pretty good for gun rights lately, I'd like to see full auto's legal, but I can't complain too much.
- Status