seeker_two
Member
antsi said:
...but would a conservate-GOP-controlled Congress LET him do that...and take the credit?
New President, does that mean new gun laws
- Thread starter BIGDADDYLONGSTROKE
- Start date
- Status
...but would a conservate-GOP-controlled Congress LET him do that...and take the credit?
Lone_Gunman
Member
I think there is a chance he would have vetoed some or all of that stuff, though not on Constitutional grounds.
I think if a Republican Congress had sent Gore the Medicare Reform bill, he would have likely vetoed it. Not because Gore thought the free drugs for seniors was a bad idea, but because it didnt go far enough.
The end result would have been political gridlock, and NO law would have been passed. We would be better off because of that. Ideally I would like a President to stand up and veto something because he thinks it is unconstitutional. But, in the absence of that, vetoing something just because your political opponents support it is fine with me, if it means a law like Medicare Reform doesnt pass.
Instead, Bush signed the largest increase in government welfare since LBJ was in office. Not exactly what the leader of a political party supposedly dedicated to limited government and fiscal conservatism should do.
---------quote--------------
I think if a Republican Congress had sent Gore the Medicare Reform bill, he would have likely vetoed it. Not because Gore thought the free drugs for seniors was a bad idea, but because it didnt go far enough.
-----------------------------
Well, we can debate this all day long - it's pure speculation.
I would say that there was high political momentum for campaign finance reform and for a medicare drug benefit from both Republicans and Democrats and on both these issues, passing some kind of law was inevitable. In this case, whether the R or D were in control only determined the fine details, not the general outcome.
On guns, I maintain that a Gore presidency would have resulted in not just renewal of the AWB, but a "new and improved" AWB with another increment of more restrictions. He was actively campaigning on gun control and it would have been a major agenda from the white house.
I think if a Republican Congress had sent Gore the Medicare Reform bill, he would have likely vetoed it. Not because Gore thought the free drugs for seniors was a bad idea, but because it didnt go far enough.
-----------------------------
Well, we can debate this all day long - it's pure speculation.
I would say that there was high political momentum for campaign finance reform and for a medicare drug benefit from both Republicans and Democrats and on both these issues, passing some kind of law was inevitable. In this case, whether the R or D were in control only determined the fine details, not the general outcome.
On guns, I maintain that a Gore presidency would have resulted in not just renewal of the AWB, but a "new and improved" AWB with another increment of more restrictions. He was actively campaigning on gun control and it would have been a major agenda from the white house.
Lone_Gunman
Member
You need to go back and look at the debate that occurred when Medicare reform was being discussed. I followed that closely as I am in the medical field. Gore is on the record as having opposed the bill.
All of the Democratic leadership, Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, Clinton, etc voted against the bill that became law. I do not think passing anything was inevitable, and I do not think Gore would have signed it.
I find it interesting that you are certain Gore would have pushed for the AWB, yet you accuse me of speculating when it comes to what he would have done with Medicare Reform.
Even if Gore had pushed for the AWB, with a Republican controlled house and senate, it would have still gone nowhere.
RealGun
Member
The fat lady hasn't even warmed up yet. Don't assume that the next President will be Democrat, and certainly don't assume the Dems will pick Hillary to run. If the next President is a Republican, why would the party support reinstating a law they explicitly allowed to expire? A President can't do that alone, just as George Bush had little if anything to do with the expiration of the AWB. Congress did that, and it was due to a GOP majority.
308win
Member
I believe that many moderately (if there is such a classification) anti-2A Americans and many who were apathetic are now moderately or strongly pro-2A for two reasons: The lawlessness in LA after Katrina and the illegal alien issue. The gun stores are doing a lot of business with much of it from first time buyers; the wait for an appointment to apply for a CCW permit is two+ weeks and the county where I got mine has a full-time and one part-time person taking and processing applications; it is almost impossible to get range time evenings and weekends unless you have a membership walk-ins can forget it. Call me a bliss ninny but I believe that an anti-2A action by congress would be a dicey proposition. As for Executive orders all bets are off.
---------quote------------
I find it interesting that you are certain Gore would have pushed for the AWB, yet you accuse me of speculating when it comes to what he would have done with Medicare Reform.
---------------------------
You misread me. I was accusing us both of speculating. We're both guessing about events in a past that never happened.
However, gun control was a major campaign issue for Gore. I think I am speculating on fairly safe ground there. He advocated a national firearms licensing scheme and was a major supporter of the AWB. Nor do I think it's a safe bet that the Republicans could have defeated Gore's anti gun agenda. For fence-sitting RINOS and Republicans from mixed districts, it was relatively easy to just let the AWB die from neglect. If those same RINOs had to go on the record voting against the AWB, the outcome could have been very different.
I realize that Gore was opposed to the Medicaid bill that was passed. However, Gore has always been a supporter of socialized medicine schemes and I think you are speculating on rather shaky ground if you are saying that a president Gore would have vetoed any Medicaid prescription drug bill that crossed his desk, just because out-of-power-gadfly Gore was opposed to the Republicans' version.
I just think you are advocating a dangerous strategy by voting for the more anti-gun party and hoping the other party will be able to defeat their agenda. Even if there is a "moderate" Democrat running in your state/district, by electing him/her you are handing over power to ALL Democrats, not just that individual. That puts people like Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstein, etc in the drivers' seat by being able to control what legislation gets introduced, control of committees, etc.
You're mad at the Republicans and disappointed that they moved away from core principles. I am too. But I still don't think your strategy of voting for the left-wing socialist gun control party is a good way to support conservative principles and RKBA.
I find it interesting that you are certain Gore would have pushed for the AWB, yet you accuse me of speculating when it comes to what he would have done with Medicare Reform.
---------------------------
You misread me. I was accusing us both of speculating. We're both guessing about events in a past that never happened.
However, gun control was a major campaign issue for Gore. I think I am speculating on fairly safe ground there. He advocated a national firearms licensing scheme and was a major supporter of the AWB. Nor do I think it's a safe bet that the Republicans could have defeated Gore's anti gun agenda. For fence-sitting RINOS and Republicans from mixed districts, it was relatively easy to just let the AWB die from neglect. If those same RINOs had to go on the record voting against the AWB, the outcome could have been very different.
I realize that Gore was opposed to the Medicaid bill that was passed. However, Gore has always been a supporter of socialized medicine schemes and I think you are speculating on rather shaky ground if you are saying that a president Gore would have vetoed any Medicaid prescription drug bill that crossed his desk, just because out-of-power-gadfly Gore was opposed to the Republicans' version.
I just think you are advocating a dangerous strategy by voting for the more anti-gun party and hoping the other party will be able to defeat their agenda. Even if there is a "moderate" Democrat running in your state/district, by electing him/her you are handing over power to ALL Democrats, not just that individual. That puts people like Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstein, etc in the drivers' seat by being able to control what legislation gets introduced, control of committees, etc.
You're mad at the Republicans and disappointed that they moved away from core principles. I am too. But I still don't think your strategy of voting for the left-wing socialist gun control party is a good way to support conservative principles and RKBA.
-------quote-----------
I believe that many moderately (if there is such a classification) anti-2A Americans and many who were apathetic are now moderately or strongly pro-2A for two reasons: The lawlessness in LA after Katrina and the illegal alien issue. The gun stores are doing a lot of business with much of it from first time buyers; the wait for an appointment to apply for a CCW permit is two+ weeks and the county where I got mine has a full-time and one part-time person taking and processing applications; it is almost impossible to get range time evenings and weekends unless you have a membership walk-ins can forget it. Call me a bliss ninny but I believe that an anti-2A action by congress would be a dicey proposition
-----------------------
I won't call you a blissninny, and I do hope you are right.
However, public opinion on these things is rather fickle. Think about the kind of person who would have been in favor of gun control before Katrina, then suddenly changed their mind because they saw some lawlessness on TV. All we need is another Columbine or some such to dominate their TV screens for a week or so, and those same people are liable to blow right back the other way.
I believe that many moderately (if there is such a classification) anti-2A Americans and many who were apathetic are now moderately or strongly pro-2A for two reasons: The lawlessness in LA after Katrina and the illegal alien issue. The gun stores are doing a lot of business with much of it from first time buyers; the wait for an appointment to apply for a CCW permit is two+ weeks and the county where I got mine has a full-time and one part-time person taking and processing applications; it is almost impossible to get range time evenings and weekends unless you have a membership walk-ins can forget it. Call me a bliss ninny but I believe that an anti-2A action by congress would be a dicey proposition
-----------------------
I won't call you a blissninny, and I do hope you are right.
However, public opinion on these things is rather fickle. Think about the kind of person who would have been in favor of gun control before Katrina, then suddenly changed their mind because they saw some lawlessness on TV. All we need is another Columbine or some such to dominate their TV screens for a week or so, and those same people are liable to blow right back the other way.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
A bit of thread drift, but a point of information: During the 2000 campaign, Gore campaigned in Tallahassee and thereat proposed Free Pills for me and the rest of us Old Farts. (I find it ironic that Bush got that passed.)
Art
Art
- Status