Replies

...the strategy of the liberals has been a death by a thousand cuts. Putting another liberal in charge of appointing judges and the heads of executive agencies will give them more razors and more time to keep cutting.

It doesn't matter if the cuts are administered by a Republican liberal or a D@mocrat liberal: the results will be precisely the same.

The gun banners have been succesful because they have been patient, jumping at each opportunity either big or small. The longer we remain fixated on big, one shot snake oil cures instead of a progressive reclamation of our God given rights the longer it will take us to get them back.

Actually, the longer republicans vote for RINOs, "the longer it will take us to get them back."

I don't disagree with you in principle - RKBA means what it plainly reads in the 2nd amendment. THe problem is the reality within which we must work.

For example, Bush signs AWB. Enough "gun rights" folks are pissed they write in the dali lama. Dean is elected. He places liberals in the courts and RKBA build precidents as a "collective right.

Review the current membership of the high court, and tell us how many of the 'justices' were appointed by Republican presidents...

Flip side, Bush veto's AWB, enough one issue wonders on the other side get a lib elected. AWB's gone right? No, it's a law that that can be passed again by congress.

Again, I deal in facts. Are you honestly suggesting that vetoing the AWB would "get a lib elected?" Upon what basis do you jump to that ridiculous conclusion? Even many D@mocrats are jumping off the 'gun control' band wagon. Why? Because it is a losing issue.

That's two terms - 8 years.

Another assumption on your part. Care to tell us how many D@mocrats since FDR have been reelected to the presidency?

What did the Revolution of '94 get us concerning RKBA? Notice AWB is up for renewal, and the "revolution" of 94 had it fully within their powers the entire time to pass legislation to get rid of it - but didn't.

Are you suggesting that a Republican President signing, rather than vetoing, an AWB extension is some how more desireable than a Republican Congress unable to override a D@mocrat veto on an AWB repeal? Feel free to explain your point in detail.

If you want to bet the farm on a long shot that is your choice, I'm just dissapointed that it could effect my rights in the long term.

And if you want to live in a fantasy land, where a Republican signing gun control legislation is somehow better than a D@mocrat signing IDENTICAL gun control legislation, then "that is your choice, I'm just dissapointed that it could effect my rights in the long term."

;>)

It doesn't matter if the cuts are administered by a Republican liberal or a D@mocrat liberal: the results will be precisely the same. Only if you can turely believe the cuts will be as numerous or as deep. If you believe the libs will do less, vote for them.

Actually, the longer republicans vote for RINOs, "the longer it will take us to get them back."

Check where the RINO's are TURBO. Congress is your problem, not the President. Did you hear the President call for renewal of the AWB? No. When COngress brought it up he said if they pass it he'll sign sign it. TIme for Congress to do their freaking job for once.

"Reality?" I deal in facts: in 1994, 1 out of every 5 voters was a gun owner voting Republican. If the frigging Republican Party refuses to recognize that almost 20% of the actual get-out-of-the-house-and-drive-to-the-polling-place-to-wait-in-line vote are gun owners, then the Party truly is the 'Stupid Party.' Which party held the Presidency - according to you it's the most important part of the Government. That one in 4 sure helped there didn't it?

Review the current membership of the high court, and tell us how many of the 'justices' were appointed by Republican presidents...

So you would rather just hand the nominations over to libs?

No, I don't, necesarily. But if every one issue voter gets their way then the chances go up. Actually, both examples were given as just that. THis is law - the problem is how that law is being interpreted as constitutional in the courts.

The point I was trying (in vain I guess) to make was that AWB is not the end all be all of issues, just a symptom of the larger problem you would rather ignore.

Another assumption on your part. Care to tell us how many D@mocrats since FDR have been reelected to the presidency? Clinton was enough for me. If another 8 years of Clinton is what you want, just say so.

Why didn't the glorious revolution at least make a symbolic attempt to restore our God given rights? Huh? Why not at least make a point out of it, why not at a minimum get it on the news, why not motivate us gun owners to beat Clinton in 1998. Because Congress failed us and you put too much stock in a revolution that never figured out what really needed to be done to win.

If you think you'll get a better deal out the RATS, go ahead, you'll be wrong, but go ahead. I'd much rather try to fix the problems within the party of greatest opportunity than fight from the outside against a party in power that wants to crush my rights.

The winner of this election will be a reblican or a democrat. If you don't vote for a republican - your giving the democrat a free vote.

Congratufreakinglations on your choice.

I'm sure RKBA will be much better off under a party with banning as part of it's freaking platform.