Democrats and guns

[ArkansasHunter]

[SKS NOOB]

Just contact the NRA to oraganize a peaceful march on Washington. That would say more than any of the arguments/complaints I've been seeing on here.

[tlarkin]

Obama is a people pleaser, I don't think he would go for a full on gun grab. Probably just some restrictions with buying, and steeper penalties for illegal gun sales.

Hillary, err, well, I am not sure exactly what she would do. I am sure she would twist something into her agenda that would right out be anti-gun, but then again I think that won't be the first thing on her to do list if elected.

McCain, I don't think he would touch any gun laws, but to me, he is the most "flip-floppy" of the candidates. I think he is the hardest to predict on how he would actually do anything. The only thing I think he is solid on is the War in Iraq, everything else I get a lingering feeling that he is not 100% on what he says. That could be a good thing or a bad thing, but we won't know until it pans out.

[patrick70]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

Obama is a people pleaser, I don't think he would go for a full on gun grab. Probably just some restrictions with buying, and steeper penalties for illegal gun sales.

Hillary, err, well, I am not sure exactly what she would do. I am sure she would twist something into her agenda that would right out be anti-gun, but then again I think that won't be the first thing on her to do list if elected.

McCain, I don't think he would touch any gun laws, but to me, he is the most "flip-floppy" of the candidates. I think he is the hardest to predict on how he would actually do anything. The only thing I think he is solid on is the War in Iraq, everything else I get a lingering feeling that he is not 100% on what he says. That could be a good thing or a bad thing, but we won't know until it pans out.

I truly believe obama is the worst of the three,and he would hit guns real hard.I could see a confiscation with him in there.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by patrick70

I truly believe obama is the worst of the three,and he would hit guns real hard.I could see a confiscation with him in there.

Really, I see him more of a people pleaser and he would get such bad press from a gun grab that he wouldn't do it. Hillary, I think there would be definite restrictions but she is more hell bent over health care, poverty, and the war than guns, and I think most of them are.

McCain is the only one I can't predict, and I don't really think he would be after anyone's guns but at the same time I don't really see where the guy stands on anything besides the war.

A bit off topic, but today on NPR, I was hearing how Iraqi forces got owned by more Shiite militia yesterday. However, it seems the Shiites did get pushed back.

[patrick70]

[quote=tlarkin;513903]Really, I see him more of a people pleaser and he would get such bad press from a gun grab that he wouldn't do it.
The press would applaud him, because they are also anti-gun

[tlarkin]

[quote=patrick70;513918]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

Really, I see him more of a people pleaser and he would get such bad press from a gun grab that he wouldn't do it.
The press would applaud him, because they are also anti-gun

This country is pretty dynamic though. What people in southern MO believe in is hardly what people in KC, MO believe in. Same goes for the coasts. I don't think he would get 100% positive press for that.

[patrick70]

[quote=tlarkin;513924]

Originally Posted by patrick70

This country is pretty dynamic though. What people in southern MO believe in is hardly what people in KC, MO believe in. Same goes for the coasts. I don't think he would get 100% positive press for that.

I'm not so sure,but I hope your right.

[Coeloptera]

Originally Posted by samuel

Only in America!For awhile,until the leftist,progressive,marksist,comunists take complete control next election and do away with the constitution,or just rewrite it. Til then you still have a right to post your opinion either way and call each other names.There are a lot more things to lose than gunrites,such as the first amendment which the left radicals have already been working on.The reason it is first is it is most important.The reason for the second amendment is to guard against loss of the first amendment.Keep arguing,I love it as long as you have a constitution giving you that right. sam.

I usually stay out of this kinda stuff so overtly, but Bush and his hard "Conservative" bunch did more to hack at the Constitution lately than any Lefties for a good, long while.

So seriously, I want to hear this now. What sort of Conservative paradise would we be looking at if we got control of the Executive and Legislative branches by the Republicans? Oh yeah...we had that for a while. Worked out really well, didn't it? Only the last bastion of fanatics defend Bush anymore. He's viewed as an embarassment to real Conservatives.

Funny, tlarkin, I used that exact term for Obama too. This is why I view him as the "safest" vote, the one least likely to cause any lasting damage.

Frankly, I'm not thrilled with any of the three, but McCain would get my vote if he hadn't overtly stated some political views I'm just flatly not compatible with. Hillary...gut feeling a bit, but there's something worrisome about her. That and I find her to be disengenuous too much for my liking.

If Obama wants certain states in the general election, he's going to have to back off on some of his further Left tendencies. He seems the most likely of the three to be flexible with regards to what the populace wants. I know he won't get my state (NV) if he doesn't. In fact...we have Harry Reid here and he's not bad on guns at all: Harry Reid on the Issues

Interestingly, his voting record is surprisingly moderate all around. I don't like his voting record on immigration, but can't have everything.

I do like SKS NOOB's idea about a march though. Why don't they organize that kinda stuff more often? Like a "Million Muzzle March" or something.

- Coeloptera

- Coeloptera

[TXplt]

Coel, I value your viewpoint but disagree about o--I see him as being anything but safe for our country. How can someone who is a constitutional lawyer (and presumably has at least read the constitution) advocate a no-holes barred gun ban ? Apparently his oath of office means little ? And--THIS WON'T WORK--it'll just make the problem worse--so he also doesn't mind taking actions that exacerbate problems instead of fulfilling his charge as a public servant. Yes, he might not be the devil in panties, but he is a better "speech maker." I'm sorry--I see absolutely no substance there. No work experience, no experience in any "real world," and when he gets caught in a trip up, we get the same "political response" we'd get from anyone else--don't mind the man behind the curtain. His character is exactly the same, just a younger and somewhat more well-spoken package. I believe he's no less betrothen to special interests than anyone in our past; just a shinier penny.

In my opinion, his lack of depth is astounding--would you want a political leader advocating unilateral disarmament, and worse, total banishment of "fissile material" ?-- the one thing that could get us out of our energy situation. What's been his energy plan--words on paper ? Putting him at the helm would be like throwing a 10 hour pilot at the controls of a heavy jet (without an autopilot or the benefit of any sim training) and pointing the airplane at a severe thunderstorm--maybe you'll survive but probably not. Misdirection, indecisiveness, and lack of experience do not make a good combination. You know a guy after 20 years--why lie ? The Rev. didn't change. Just say you do or don't agree with him and move on. Sorry, if the wife speaks in public, she don't get a pass. I'd think more highly of him if he'd of said "I shoulda told her to shut up." -- although this might get me smacked. I don't see any good ideas, and his voting record at best has been indecisive and evasive, at worst just plain anti-constitution. I can say "bring the boys home" and "let's get national health care" too; that doesn't mean I can do it easily--at least I'm forthright about it. The quintessentially hypocritical Al Gore in any position of responsibility ?

I completely agree that warrantless searches, and the TSA hysteria we face simply gut our constitution and cost us money. This is wholly unacceptable. It's not OK to spy on your citizens. Terrorism can't be an excuse to infringe liberty--nor can anything else. If we let this happen, the terrorists are winning. You don't have the right to drug test my kid in school. We aren't and shouldn't be in a self-induced police state. Free people do not do lockdowns. The republicans are as much to blame as the dems in this respect, probably moreso.

Bottom line is a leopard doesn't change its spots, and, IMHO, o has never been one of character. With him at the helm, we'd be out of airspeed, ideas, and fuel as well as firearms. At least John (despite his environmental wackiness) isn't a gun banner and, I believe, has some personal integrety. Also, being in a former conflict and PW, I believe he knows very much what war means to those fighting it. People like this understand the gravity of war, and know it's not to be treated casually (or as a political football).

[patrick70]

^^^^^+1

If you want to see an extreme leftwing socialist win the white house, then by all means vote for obama.

[samuel]

Cleoptera:If you call Husein Obamas voting record "surprisingly moderate" you either havent taken any of your precious time to research his record,both in the Illinois office or the stinking 2yrs in the senate.He is rated as the furthest to the left in the senate.He is right in Soros, pocket.It is BS like yours,either because you are too lazy to research,or are so brainwashed you believe the lies they want you to,that is going to loose our guns and our freedoms.I dont think there is much hope of not being Europeanized,and posts like yours make me understand why I am afraid. sam.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by samuel

Cleoptera:If you call Husein Obamas voting record "surprisingly moderate" you either havent taken any of your precious time to research his record,both in the Illinois office or the stinking 2yrs in the senate.He is rated as the furthest to the left in the senate.He is right in Soros, pocket.It is BS like yours,either because you are too lazy to research,or are so brainwashed you believe the lies they want you to,that is going to loose our guns and our freedoms.I dont think there is much hope of not being Europeanized,and posts like yours make me understand why I am afraid. sam.

Sam, who rated him as the furthest to the left in the Senate for his entire time in office? According to the National Journal, he was 16th and 10th his first two years, and most liberal in 2007.

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Sam, who rated him as the furthest to the left in the Senate for his entire time in office? According to the National Journal, he was 16th and 10th his first two years, and most liberal in 2007.

You say that like it's a good thing. It's not. Furthermore, the man had to spend some time on the job before he could be rated. Apparent;ly he was shooting for the far left and he got it.

[Coeloptera]

Originally Posted by samuel

Cleoptera:If you call Husein Obamas voting record "surprisingly moderate" you either havent taken any of your precious time to research his record,both in the Illinois office or the stinking 2yrs in the senate.He is rated as the furthest to the left in the senate.He is right in Soros, pocket.It is BS like yours,either because you are too lazy to research,or are so brainwashed you believe the lies they want you to,that is going to loose our guns and our freedoms.I dont think there is much hope of not being Europeanized,and posts like yours make me understand why I am afraid. sam.

Umm...I said Harry Reid's was surprisingly moderate. And watch the tone, hm? Lil' less civil than I like to hear.

You fail at reading comprehension.

So, while we're on the subject, who does McCain belong to?

Frankly it's views like yours that make me go vote for people like this, sometimes. Unwavering, almost paranoid. Clinton didn't take our guns. Carter didn't take 'em. Clinton floated some stuff and it got cut away soon enough.

I'll take shoddy attempts like that to what Bush and co. have done to our civil liberties and gotten away with. I think the Right needs a time out for a while until they figure out what they should be doing for this country.

I also trust someone who'll talk to our enemies, even while we recognize their threat, than "Hundred Years" McCain and his pie-in-the-sky 2013 speech. Reagan talked to Russia all through the Cold War. McCain says actually letting the POTUS talk to an enemy gives them legitimacy. Guess he's not as big a student of the Gipper as he might make out, hm?

- Coeloptera

[tlarkin]

McCain doesn't know the differences between a Shiite or a Suni either, and that could possibly be a problem for foreign affairs.

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by Coeloptera

Umm...I said Harry Reid's was surprisingly moderate. And watch the tone, hm? Lil' less civil than I like to hear.

You fail at reading comprehension.

So, while we're on the subject, who does McCain belong to?

Frankly it's views like yours that make me go vote for people like this, sometimes. Unwavering, almost paranoid. Clinton didn't take our guns. Carter didn't take 'em. Clinton floated some stuff and it got cut away soon enough.

I'll take shoddy attempts like that to what Bush and co. have done to our civil liberties and gotten away with. I think the Right needs a time out for a while until they figure out what they should be doing for this country.

I also trust someone who'll talk to our enemies, even while we recognize their threat, than "Hundred Years" McCain and his pie-in-the-sky 2013 speech. Reagan talked to Russia all through the Cold War. McCain says actually letting the POTUS talk to an enemy gives them legitimacy. Guess he's not as big a student of the Gipper as he might make out, hm?

- Coeloptera

Care to list, with cites, any civil liberties "gotten away with?"

Be careful. You will be tested.

[TXplt]

I think it's wise to talk with one's enemies; I think it very unwise to do so unarmed. Both Mao and Ronald Reagan recognized this; "trust but verify" and foreign policy through strength from the latter resulted in the successful conclusion of the Cold War (at least the first chapter--we're all still here). One would argue that RR had help from the Socialistic Soviet economy collapsing under it's own weight due to inefficiency and overregulation (Glad Barry wouldn't try to take us there ). I remember Jimmy Carter, and I remember serving under RR. Give me RR anyday. Although McCain ain't him he's closer than anyone else running. I very much don't believe that McCain wouldn't speak with our enemies; I very much do believe he'd deny them the naive legitimacy and hide from the tiger in the corner trust that barry would encorage (and this is where gun control is very telling about barry). RR did the same thing with the soviets--he negotiated with them, but from a position of strength and advantage. There's a distinct difference there--barry would negotiate from a position of hopeful blind trust. This doesn't work.

Clinton was at least partially successful at chipping away at our RKBA. I remember shortly after DS 1 we'd usually have our pistols on base. Even in 1987, at Williams, we were OK with guns in the cars--the SP's actually put out a flyer with AZ law on it letting you know the low down on open carry, cars and guns, no carry areas, etc. (it was policy guns not in the BOQ's--that is policy not law). That ended under klinton--and in most federal places too (even with ccw). Bush has continued this as well, and it's still not right. Klinton would have banned if he could; barry would do the same. I think McCain wouldn't pursue the continued erosion.

Like I said, I'm not real stoked about him, but I really think he's the lesser of the evils we have this time around (again)

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by TXplt

I think it's wise to talk with one's enemies; I think it very unwise to do so unarmed. Both Mao and Ronald Reagan recognized this; "trust but verify" and foreign policy through strength from the latter resulted in the successful conclusion of the Cold War (at least the first chapter--we're all still here). One would argue that RR had help from the Socialistic Soviet economy collapsing under it's own weight due to inefficiency and overregulation (Glad Barry wouldn't try to take us there ). I remember Jimmy Carter, and I remember serving under RR. Give me RR anyday. Although McCain ain't him he's closer than anyone else running. I very much don't believe that McCain wouldn't speak with our enemies; I very much do believe he'd deny them the naive legitimacy and hide from the tiger in the corner trust that barry would encorage (and this is where gun control is very telling about barry). RR did the same thing with the soviets--he negotiated with them, but from a position of strength and advantage. There's a distinct difference there--barry would negotiate from a position of hopeful blind trust. This doesn't work.

Yup there is nothing about war that isn't political, pretty much everything involving war is political, and those in politics need to be involved. Otherwise nothing gets resolved.

[TXplt]

I remember from the movie about Citizen Kane (RKO something or other--not a blockbuster, but I enjoyed it) a line that said "pretty speeches change the world, Jack"

There's some truth in this--devils and saints throughout history have been pretty speakers. Hitler was a good speaker. I'm NOT comparing Hitler with anyone running with office, so don't get the wrong meaning. I am saying that those who speak well (no matter who) can be very dangerous for a nation if they're not a "saint" and should not be underestimated.