Replies

C'mon, you gonna quit the team just because one idiot fumbled? Did the rest of the team 'compromise' when one player fumbled? Yank that idiot player, not the whole team. And if coach(the voters of ME, OH, OR, etc.) won't yank him, you just gonna quit and let the other team win?

If the AWB is put into law, it will no longer be that either team is fighting for my side.

Let's say I am a Buffalo Bill QB. Suddenly, I see my team leave, sign with another team, and get new jerseys and helmets on. Then they let the opposing team cream me every play, because after all, it's not THEIR team's QB any more.

Yeah, after a few plays, I'd quit the field.

I'm not from Missouri, but you can freakin SHOW ME some good faith, Republicans....or fuggeddabouddit.

If the AWB is put into law, it will no longer be that either team is fighting for my side.

One of the more interesting discussions I recall, of late, is the difference between looking at issues, and life, as a matter of group identity, vs. individual identity.

I prefer the notion of individual identity, and think thet the limited government envisioned by the founding fathers meant to preserve individual freedom according to the measure of individual responsibility.

This "my team," "their team" dialogue is entertaining, yes. But in the end, who cares what team one is on? Period! Why care about team identity, when issues can be discussed in terms of trade-offs between individual liberty and group benefit.

I enjoy your posts and spirit. Thanks.

"If the AWB is put into law, it will no longer be that either team is fighting for my side."

Bingo. How can I be on their side if they are not on my side?

The, no, capital THE, reason the Republicans hold majorities in the House and Senate is the AWB. The anger over this action did something the Republicans couldn't do on their own in 40 years of trying.

AWB is not just *a* gun ban, it's the focal point of the entire gun debate. The reason is simple: AWB was not based on any reason however spurious (such as regulations on fully-automatic firearms) but prohibits guns based solely on their appearance. More to the point, the evidence is now in hand showing no crime effect whatsoever from the AWB; so anyone voting for it now knows dam well it isn't for reasons of the citizens' safety.

If a completely arbitrary standard exists for which guns are permitted and which are not, then no gun owner can say that his gun is safe from a ban because it's for sport, or for hunting. Their particular firearm may not yet be banned but if their choice is regulated at the whim of Congress then it is not a right, but a permission.

For 10 years the story has been that the Democrats did this, and it would go away if we elected Republicans. Now I know there are RINOs in the Senate (big surprise) and so there's no cause to panic UNTIL the whole party fails us by failing to remove the AWB in conference &/or by failing to veto a bill that arrives at W's desk with an AWB extension attached.

Should AWB be renewed the same force that put Republicans in office and maintained them in office will stop doing so. I've spent some time talking to people for whom illegal immigration is their go/nogo issue, advising them not to panic until something actually happens. Well, the 2nd is my go/nogo issue, and something's happening.

I hope that Chris (section9) is correct in his estimation. I know that Karl Rove is not a stupid person and I believe he has not underestimated the political will of 2nd Amendment supporters. So I'll see what happens, and vote accordingly.