Jeb Bush talks gun control on Late Show

[PhilMc]

The RKBA is up to us, not the people in Washington DC. We as law abiding gun owners need to rally and become a larger voice that can not be ignored. It is estimated that there are 100-110 million gun owners and most of them just sit and remain silent. The NRA only has around 5 million members currently. I don't always agree with everything they say and do, but they are a big voice for our side. As is the 2nd Amendment Foundation, which win a large number of decisions in court for us.

Bottom line don't just sit and complain but do something to further our cause. Get involved, spread the word among your friends and family. We should have a minimum 50-100 million folks actively involved in the fight to protect our rights to keep and bear arms!

Do not depend on a politician to take care of your rights, they need to be reminded that "We The People" are in charge not them.

 

[TimSr]

They rather vote for someone who says what they want to hear, but can't when a general election rather than to vote for someone who can win.

Wow. That's EXACTLY what the establishment said during the primaries of Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.

What is obvious in today's polls is that people are sick of voting for people who say what they want to hear, and don't DO anything after they get elected. The most popular candidates are not the most popular because because agree with all their positions, but because people believe they will actually DO something.

The establishment needs to learn some realities.

1. "If we put up a RINO he will attract Democrat votes, while conservatives will HAVE to vote for the RINO." FALSE! Mitt Romney didn't get any Democrat votes and because conservatives stayed home. Having said that, I don't believe ANY of the republican candidates would cross congress on the gun issues, but we need an active pro gun agenda driven by the president.

2. "We need a uniter to help bring congress togther, so they can work together". FALSE! We want representation that will FIGHT for our interests! We have a pro gun House, a pro gun senate, and we want a pro gun Whitehouse, and with these majorities, we have no reason to "work together" with aniti-gunners.

Whoever the next president is, Democrat or republican, he will be pushing a whimpy spineless congress around, so he had better be pro gun, as well as congressional leadership if we want to make gains in RKBA.

 

[Bigdog57]

After having suffered through Jeb's tenure as Governor during my employment at a state agency in Florida (we all never forgot "Black Friday"....), I can say that NO state employee or retired state employee in Florida with more than two working brain cells to rub together would consider voting for Jeb Bush.
Like all Bushes, he's a nice feller personally and I have spoken with him. But I do not think his ideas, such abominable failures at the state level, should be allowed to go national. If it comes down to a Dem and a Bush on the POTUS ticket, I will vote Independent.

 

[Praxidike]

After having suffered through Jeb's tenure as Governor during my employment at a state agency in Florida (we all never forgot "Black Friday"....), I can say that NO state employee or retired state employee in Florida with more than two working brain cells to rub together would consider voting for Jeb Bush.
Like all Bushes, he's a nice feller personally and I have spoken with him. But I do not think his ideas, such abominable failures at the state level, should be allowed to go national. If it comes down to a Dem and a Bush on the POTUS ticket, I will vote Independent.

And that would be a de facto vote for the extremely antigun, much more so than Bush, Democtat nomonee. This is my point.

 

[DLam]

And that would be a de facto vote for the extremely antigun, much more so than Bush, Democtat nomonee. This is my point.

ah yes, the old tried and true "wasted vote" mantra that the RINO establishment trots out with each piss poor progressive candidate they nominate...

I have news for you, my vote is NOT wasted or defacto sent to the liberal side if I decide not to support "the lesser of two evils"... the lesser of two evils is still evil in my book.

 

[Praxidike]

Wow. That's EXACTLY what the establishment said during the primaries of Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.

What is obvious in today's polls is that people are sick of voting for people who say what they want to hear, and don't DO anything after they get elected. The most popular candidates are not the most popular because because agree with all their positions, but because people believe they will actually DO something.

The establishment needs to learn some realities.

1. "If we put up a RINO he will attract Democrat votes, while conservatives will HAVE to vote for the RINO." FALSE! Mitt Romney didn't get any Democrat votes and because conservatives stayed home. Having said that, I don't believe ANY of the republican candidates would cross congress on the gun issues, but we need an active pro gun agenda driven by the president.

2. "We need a uniter to help bring congress togther, so they can work together". FALSE! We want representation that will FIGHT for our interests! We have a pro gun House, a pro gun senate, and we want a pro gun Whitehouse, and with these majorities, we have no reason to "work together" with aniti-gunners.

Whoever the next president is, Democrat or republican, he will be pushing a whimpy spineless congress around, so he had better be pro gun, as well as congressional leadership if we want to make gains in RKBA.

With the changing demographic and the reality that a majority of the country does not own firearms, how do we fight AND win if votes and support from other demographics and even some red state Democrats aren't courted? Logically and mathematically, how do we?? How do we fight and win with, according to your own admission, our side is sitting out elections AND/OR, just like Bigdog57 suggested, are splitting the votes?

If you sit this one out, split the vote, or nominate a guy that can't when the general election don't complain when the next extremely restrictive antigun law comes before the Supreme Court, and we lose because the 1 or 2 new Democrat nominated Justices voted against our interest. Even if you don't like the Republican nominee, you only have to deal with him for 4-8 years, but you'll have to deal with the Justices an antiguner President nominated for their lifetime...

 

[Praxidike]

Either way you phrase it, the reality is that only two parties have a chance of winning, and you're not voting for the party, out of the two, that is the most progun nor are you voting against the party that's antigun. That's only making the progun control candidate that much stronger. I don't take an all or nothing approach.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Is it easier to legislatively control a president who is less than optimal for supporting the RKBA but supportive of economic policies that obviously benefit the majority of Americans or would it be easier to legislatively control a president who is optimal for supporting the RKBA but supportive of economic policies that obviously benefit a minority of Americans to the detriment of the majority of Americans? There does not appear to be any candidates from either major party that are optimal for supporting the RKBA and economic policies that are beneficial to the majority of Americans. That is a dilemma that requires use of the lessor of two evils principle. What do THR members consider the lessor of those two evils?

 

[DLam]

Is it be easier to legislatively control a president who is less than optimal for supporting the RKBA but supportive of economic policies that obviously benefit the majority of Americans or would it be easier to legislatively control a president who is optimal for supporting the RKBA but supportive of economic policies that obviously benefit a minority of Americans to the detriment of the majority of Americans? There does not appear to be any candidates from either major party that are optimal for supporting the RKBA and economic policies that are beneficial to the majority of Americans. That is a dilemma that requires use of the lessor of two evils principle. What do THR members consider the lessor of those two evils?

in all honesty, at this point in time, as fervent as I am for RKBA, we need a POTUS that is keenly cognizant of the financial peril facing the US. I feel this will necessitate a POTUS that is truly in favor of smaller and more limited government, which will in turn, by default, suggest that said candidate is more favorable to RKBA.

 

[Nom de Forum]

in all honesty, at this point in time, as fervent as I am for RKBA, we need a POTUS that is keenly cognizant of the financial peril facing the US. I feel this will necessitate a POTUS that is truly in favor of smaller and more limited government, which will in turn, by default, suggest that said candidate is more favorable to RKBA.

Well then just where will the government be shrunk to reduce the financial peril? Seems to me significant reductions have already been made over the last 45 years regarding the size and power of the bureaucracy that regulates the financial industry and multi-national corporations yet the country is in more financial peril than it was 45 years ago. Perhaps any creation of smaller and more limited government should occur in other areas. Maybe a reduction in the bureaucracy that supports such things as farm subsides to huge corporations and other forms of corporate welfare.

 

[DLam]

Well then just where will the government be shrunk to reduce the financial peril? Seems to me significant reductions have already been made over the last 45 years regarding the size and power of the bureaucracy that regulates the financial industry and multi-national corporations yet the country is in more financial peril than it was 45 years ago. Perhaps any creation of smaller and more limited government should occur in other areas. Maybe a reduction in the bureaucracy that supports such things as farm subsides to huge corporations and other forms of corporate welfare.

Maybe I am missing something in your post. The Federal Government has grown EXPONENTIALLY in that 45 year time frame.

Since 1965, the following cabinet level departments have been created and incorporated into the federal beaurocracy:

Housing and Urban Development
Transportation
Energy
Education
Veterans Affairs
Homeland Security

The incursion of the federal government into the average citizens every day life (and pocketbook) through the Affordable Care Act is staggering. There are multitudes of areas that can be reduced or eliminated to decrease the financial obligations of the Federal Government. We just need a Congress and President with the fortitude to make those kinds of decisions.

 

[TimSr]

With the changing demographic and the reality that a majority of the country does not own firearms, how do we fight AND win if votes and support from other demographics and even some red state Democrats aren't courted? Logically and mathematically, how do we?? How do we fight and win with, according to your own admission, our side is sitting out elections AND/OR, just like Bigdog57 suggested, are splitting the votes?

I'm saying the conventional wisdom of who the establishment claims "can win a general election" is bunk and they have repeatedly proved themselves wrong. I did gag and vote for Dole, McCain, and Romney, and yes, I'd probably swallow my own vomit and vote for Bush if that was my only choice, but an awful lot of conservative voters are unable to do that, and don't think out the long term consequences .

Here's a more novel approach: How about courting your own base first, and then reach for the fence sitters, the moderates, and the independants 2nd instead of courting the opposite end of the spectrum and assuming the base and the middle will be forced to come along. A majority of the public is in fact, pro gun, which is why the antis coudn't even push anything through congress even after Sandy Hook, and why even those republicans with questionable pro gun tendancies are saying the right things.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Maybe I am missing something in your post. The Federal Government has grown EXPONENTIALLY in that 45 year time frame.

Since 1965, the following cabinet level departments have been created and incorporated into the federal beaurocracy:

Housing and Urban Development
Transportation
Energy
Education
Veterans Affairs
Homeland Security

The incursion of the federal government into the average citizens every day life (and pocketbook) through the Affordable Care Act is staggering. There are multitudes of areas that can be reduced or eliminated to decrease the financial obligations of the Federal Government. We just need a Congress and President with the fortitude to make those kinds of decisions.

Apparently you did miss I did not address increases in other areas only the near disastrous decreases in two areas that have had the most profound effect in reducing the standard of living of most Americans. Those two areas have had more negative impact on Americans than all the others you listed combined.

 

[Teachu2]

I see this as America's very last two party election. The "Dems" are
very divided (with the exception of hating us of course...) and over 50%
want a much further left, even more Socialist party now. I see them headed
for a split into two parties after this election.
The first will be what remains of the present party and the second will be a
"Socialist/Workers/Minority driven" abomination.
The other party (I am an Independent) with facture into two as well. The
first will also be what they presently are (weak, Dem-lite and spineless) The
second will be a "Conservative/Patriot driven" party. I see it having much
deeper "right values" and more "True American" values.
Guess who I'll support and defend?
P

Unfortunately, that sounds like the messes that constitute "government" in many European countries - where the main function is using tax revenue to bribe others to be part of a ruling coalition. This process contributes to the further decline of that country as a world power.

 

[fastbolt]

If Jeb gets the nomination, the Rs will lose the election, no matter who the Ds nominate.

FWIW, I tend to agree.

I also suspect that if the significant majority of the current repub candidates were to get the nomination, the repub's would still lose.

 

[Praxidike]

FWIW, I tend to agree.

I also suspect that if the significant majority of the current repub candidates were to get the nomination, the repub's would still lose.

I concur

 

[SSN Vet]

It's interesting to see that the more Mr. Blow Hard (aka Trump) spouts off, the more Mr. Mild Manners (Carson) raises in stature.

Trump is tapping into the raw nerve of extreme anger that is festering in the middle and the right. But even as much as I share much of that frustration, I sure do hope that he doesn't get the nomination. Ultimately, I think he's all huff, puff and fluff, and when it comes right down to it.... a swindler at heart.

 

[loose noose]

I respectfully disagree with the point that the Republican party will lose with whichever nominee is selected.

I do agree that the vast majority of the American public is upset with the federal govt. such as business as usual, and an out of control Supreme Court, misinterpreting the constitution on a unprecedented rate.

Therefore I believe a non-politician, could re-instill in this country the values, that our forefathers fought for, more than two centuries ago, definitely our cherished 2ND Amendment Rights.

Myself I'm completely fed up with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, who as far as I'm concerned are a bunch of career politicians, and do nothings.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

FWIW, I tend to agree.

I also suspect that if the significant majority of the current repub candidates were to get the nomination, the repub's would still lose.

Yep...

 

[Sol]

I have never actually seen a Jeb supporter out in the wild.

The media is this guys only lifeblood, keeping him clinging to life.

Therefore, his opinion is irrelevant and reeks of UBC.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Should Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Donald Trump, etc. win the nomination and / or the election, the powers that be in the Republican party are afraid their power will greatly be diminished, and they're gonna fight like heck to see that doesn't happen.

How are they going to prevent it?

The people will decide who the nominee is (in the primaries) and who the President is (in the General Election.)

 

[Nom de Forum]

How are they going to prevent it?

The people will decide who the nominee is (in the primaries) and who the President is (in the General Election.)

Technically is does not work that way. The delegates to the convention vote to nominate a candidate and the electors of the electoral college choose who will be president. So far we have the wildest and most wide open contest since the 1940's. It is possible the convention delegates and electors of the electoral college may decide to surprise everyone.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Technically is does not work that way. The delegates to the convention vote to nominate a candidate and the electors of the electoral college choose who will be president. So far we have the wildest and most wide open contest since the 1940's. It is possible the convention delegates and electors of the electoral college may decide to surprise everyone.

In the Republican Party, the delegates chosen at local level are enough to nominate the candidate, regardless of what the others want.

And the Electorial College can chose someone the people don't want -- but they would have to leave the country after doing it.

 

[Praxidike]

I respectfully disagree with the point that the Republican party will lose with whichever nominee is selected.

I do agree that the vast majority of the American public is upset with the federal govt. such as business as usual, and an out of control Supreme Court, misinterpreting the constitution on a unprecedented rate.

Therefore I believe a non-politician, could re-instill in this country the values, that our forefathers fought for, more than two centuries ago, definitely our cherished 2ND Amendment Rights.

Myself I'm completely fed up with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, who as far as I'm concerned are a bunch of career politicians, and do nothings.

We didn't say none of them could win. We said most that are running can't.

 

[TruthTellers]

Is your ability to determine what people are thinking but not saying limited to Jeb Bush or is it more generally applicable? For example, what am I thinking but not saying right now?

Just Jeb Bush.