Democrats Shunning Gun Control

Washington Times ^ | James G. Lakely

[Eaker]

To which I'll add: Turn ammo into skill.

Needs repeating!!

Teach'em young too!!

Eaker

[Mr. Mojo]

I'm watching gun-grabbin' guru Chuckie Schumer being interviewed on FOX News Sunday right now, and he just uttered the most unbelievable sentence: "I hold the Constitution as a sacred document."

[templar]

.... he just uttered the most unbelievable sentence: "I hold the Constitution as a sacred document."

One must hol something as sacred in order to parctice sacrilege against it.

[templar]

"There isn't a shred of evidence that says gun control is a political loser," Mr. Rummel said. "It hasn't cost a candidate a political race anywhere."

There are a few single issues that cause some voters to vote for against a candidate (gun control, abortion, a few other moral issues). But single issue voters are few and far between no matter what people like to think. It's ususally a balance sheet type of thing of positions that a voter finds favorable or objectionable (most people don't realize thei is how thay are thinking, it's not usually a conscious thing). There are very few people that add gun control to the positive side of the balance sheet (even if they are pro- gun control), but there are a large number that add it to the negative side. (I'm talking about average voters, not party hardliners). While gun control may not be fully rsponsible for a candidates defeat, it does add a negative component to a large number of voters balance sheets and a positive component to only a few (again, even most pro-control people don't really care that much about it). It's the total negative components of the balance sheet that end up determining who is elected or defeated.

[Travis McGee]

"Whoever is advising them on gun control should be shot."

Asinine liberal quote of the year.

[Travis McGee]

The "manufactured event" is going to be a lot tougher to pull off without suspicion after my book is out and read.

[WFTR]

And in the 2002 midterm elections, 230 of 246 House candidates endorsed by the NRA emerged victorious.

This number is a little bogus. The NRA will endorse any sure winner just to pad this statistic. In some cases, they've endorsed blatant anti-gun rights candidates because they were "sure he could win." I don't think that the NRA is any more a shill for the Republican Party than the GOA is for the Libertarian Party, but neither organization makes me particularly proud.

Otherwise, it's good to hear that the anti-gun rights movement is having trouble getting traction.

Saving a few more jobs
Bill

[Squantos]

Hunting Big Foot in East Texas woods again Tom ? Give it up bro those are Louisana coonasses making those noises and tracks.

Stay Safe !

[Eaker]

Hunting Big Foot in East Texas woods again Tom ?

Calen,

Huntin'em hell!!!

I brought one back!!!!

;>)

Stay safe, stay armed and never forget,

Eaker

PS: She took to that shootin' iron like a baby duck takes to water!! She now understands and hates the AWB too!

[Squantos]

Sad she has to learn about cosmetics this way first......:o)

Stay Safe !

[Eaker]

;>)

[Shooter 2.5]

A saying comes to mind when the failures of an organization are never forgotten.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Personally, I don't care which organization a gunowner belongs to as long as they get off their lazy butt and get activated.

[WFTR]

There's a difference between never forgetting a long ago failure and pointing out a recurring misdeed. I'm not advocating that anyone leave the NRA or the GOA. I'm simply saying that the claimed success rate of the NRA is meaningless. Their trumpeting this meaningless number damages their credibility which in turn damages their true ability to protect our rights.

I don't currently belong to either organization, but I try to be involved in nearly every campaign that is waged in my district. I've had to move a great deal, and moving has made it more difficult to be involved. However, I'm certainly not passive about the issue, and I agree that every gun owner should be an active advocate for our rights.

Saving a few more jobs
Bill

[Jay D. Dyson]

After the press briefing, however, Mrs. Pelosi said the Democrats might revisit guns "when the issue is ripe."

Meaning, "We'll wait until just after some psycho (who would have been denied a gun under current laws anyway) shoots up a schoolyard. Then this issue will be ripe!"

The Democrats then went on to say, "While we're at it, President Bush is a bad man for politically exploiting 9/11 for the purpose of passing new laws!!! ...but we're pure as virgins in driven snow whenever we do that same thing with gun control."

As always, hypocrisy never had it so good...

-Jay

[Djarum]

Mr. Rummel said. "[Gun control] hasn't cost a candidate a political race anywhere."

Is that a crack pipe behind your ear, Mr. Rummel?

[Conservative til I die]

Gun control is a losing issue. Has no traction. I really can't remember gun control being any kind of an issue since about 1997.

[Jay D. Dyson]

This needs to be made into a poster. It's about time the world saw -- in no uncertain terms -- the tyrannical and hypocritical designs of the Left.

-Jay

[PhilDragoo]

When guns are outlawed. . . .



. . .only fascholes will have guns.

[demosthenes the elder]

Ohhhh, I wouldn't say they have decided to call it quits.
They have simply decided to take it underground.
These statist bastards will never give up the fight to disarm the masses.
Until they are forced, by those same masses, to do so.