Pro-gun Democrats? Not in Congress...

[The_Shootist]

Dems Anti-Gun

I don't personally care about what the Republicans did wrong (and in an economy with lower taxes, a 12000+ Dow Index and an unemployment rate below 5% - not much).

The Iraq war...umm....I seem to recall we kill 2800 on the highways every 3 weeks. Guess we should cut and run from the nations Interstates. Frankly I'm quite tired of the bitching of the progress on the Iraq war. Wars mean fighting fighting means killing. If we had the same media / same left wing scum for Democrats 60 years ago, half the world would be speaking German (or Jap...or Russian possibly).

Given the above, yeah I'm a one issue voter with respect to the 2nd Amendment. Yeah, after Katrina I figure I DO need an assault weapon. Its about my safety, my ability to concealed carry and to purchase firearms at MY discretion.

The Democrats in congress in no way strengthen these needs or benefit me as a citizen.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

You now have a Democrat Congress, no more Sam Alitos or John Roberts's will be made justices, you have pulled that off sir.

<Insult removed by Art>

First I would point out that the Supreme Court is already a fairly liberal court, despite the fact that 7 out of 9 Justices are REPUBLICAN appointees.

Second, I would point out that Clarence Thomas, the most conservative member of the Supreme Court, and the most ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, was confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate.

The point at which I quit caring about having Republicans pick the SC justices was when Bush nominated Harriet Miers. The fact that he would pick his personal lawyer, and a legal unknown, for one of the most powerful jobs in government either shows a lack of understanding of the importance of the role, or contempt for the Supreme Court. One of the Roman Emperors nominated his horse to the Roman Senate, and Bush's nomination of Miers was little different.

 

[GoRon]

The point at which I quit caring about having Republicans pick the SC justices was when Bush nominated Harriet Miers.

I would take her over any pick the Democrats would send up.

One area this President hasn't compromised us is in his judicial appointments (H Miers notwithstanding).

He has renominated a bunch just recently that were rejected due to the Dems earlier. So he may "stay the course" with judicial nominees.

This is the arena where the real battles are being fought for the soul of the country.

Libertarian and populist rhetoric aside, putting the Democrats in positions of power is a major step backward for ALL our freedoms.

The Democrats have a very progressive view of the constitution and judiciary. They believe the constitution can be interpreted to mean anything and that the courts should be used to impose social justice.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I would take her over any pick the Democrats would send up.

Really. See, I would rather have another Clarence Thomas (did I mention he was confirmed by Democrats?), over an unknown like Harriet Miers.

 

[GoRon]

Really. See, I would rather have another Clarence Thomas (did I mention he was confirmed by Democrats?), over an unknown like Harriet Miers

That goes without saying, so would I.

I was speaking of a H Clinton or J Kerry appointment.

 

[Dan from MI]

Really. See, I would rather have another Clarence Thomas (did I mention he was confirmed by Democrats?), over an unknown like Harriet Miers.

We're now more likely to get Stephen Reinhardt now.

 

[geronimotwo]

if i were a republican political strategist, this democratic coup would be exactly what i would want for 2008. the power to veto is still in the white house, and they will point out all the shortcomings of the democratic leaders for the next two years. i'm sure that the major rallying cry will be taxes, as someone has to cover the expenditures of the current administration. how can we go from the greatest surpluss to the worst debt in 6 years? (did someone just whisper halliburton?) any responsible politician will need to address this. the republicans knew if they taxed us for the war, we would have been found lacking in "moral justification" to go forward. so, heads up for the republican "revolution" of 2008.

 

[glennv]

Look at where the Dems gained seats. Indiana, Virginia, Montana! One mention of gun control and they loses these seats next election. Let's hope they raise the issue this term so we can be done with them.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I was speaking of a H Clinton or J Kerry appointment.

The Senate only confirms appointees. They don't get to pick. So, I would ask, why do you think Bush would appoint Hillary or Kerry?

Do you have that little faith in our Republican president?

 

[GoRon]

The Senate only confirms appointees. They don't get to pick. So, I would ask, why do you think Bush would appoint Hillary or Kerry?

Do you have that little faith in our Republican president?

I was pointing out the past and probable future Democrat Presidential nominees. If the trend of kicking out republicans continues you will see how bad SC nominees can be and we will be wishing for someone like a H Miers.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I was pointing out the past and probable future Democrat Presidential nominees.

Oh, Ok. The rest of the thread is about Democrats in Congress... like the title mentions.

 

[Phetro]

Quote:
A never-ending War on Terror

Um, the Republicans didn't start this...the terrorists did...in the 70's. The Republicans just decided to fight back, how horrid.

That's right--and the war won't be over until the very last of our liberties falls.

Someone above said something like "is it wrong to serve the majority of the people?" or some such nonsense. The answer is yes. This is why democracy is a failed system. It is why America was supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. Most people are weak-minded, and will be led like sheep to make weak decisions, as well as elect "leaders" who will drive the country ever leftward. Democracy is the problem, not the solution.

 

[woerm]

Zundfloge

Well in reply to:
Zilch? You think if Dems were in charge the AWB would have sunset? You think the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act would have made it through this new congress we're about to get?

In addition we got no new gun control laws.

even the dimwits can see that voting for an AWB would get them unemployed,

the reptiles Renewed with a voice vote the George the Duce's sig the BAN on even researching polymer weapons(plastic guns) despite a 40 yr old DOD RFQ for reliable corrosion resistant polymer weapons.

and the trigger lock bs in the 'lawful commerece' bill,

so yes the reptiles failed us in
a not getting rid of regulations,
b passing more dimwit restictions.

grr

 

[Art Eatman]

Pro-gun: Cong. Dingell, D-Michigan.

 

[Zundfolge]

even the dimwits can see that voting for an AWB would get them unemployed,

If you honestly believe that a Democrat controlled house and senate would NOT have voted to renew the AWB than there's really not much point in discussing this with you further.

The vast majority of Democrats voted FOR renewal.

 

[woerm]

Zundfloge

Uh,

even slick willie aka bj kintoon said the awb cost the dhimnwits the house in 94.

why do you think the dhimnwits did not play any evil guns routines this trip

I do fully expect an awb 2 out of a hiildabeast or schumer admin w/ a dhimnwit controlled congress, though.

r

 

[RealGun]

Dingell (D-MI)

NRA-PVF A+

GOA C-

There are a number of these A vs. C disparities. I believe part of the difference is a GOA penalty for voting to waive the rule and allow gun restrictions to be included in omnibus spending bills, which normally do not allow legislation to be included. This is the kind of stuff that passes under the radar, pork the most infamous among them.

Another one is allowing important amendments to be stricken in conference.

Lastly, NRA backs measures that GOA does not, for example trigger locks.