PDA

View Full Version : Q: Net Gain or Loss of pro-RKBA legislators in US Senate? House?


Paladin
11-17-2012, 9:29 PM
Usually, after an election, I hear about the gains or losses made by pro-gunnies in the US Senate and House, but haven't heard about that this year.

Closely related Q: The NRA or MSM usually says how many antis the NRA was targeting were taken down and how many pros were elected. Again, haven't heard this years results.

Anyone know?

fizux
11-17-2012, 10:25 PM
Perhaps the NRA's silence speaks for itself?

Librarian
11-17-2012, 10:53 PM
See Dave Kopel's article at Volokh - http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/07/second-amendment-results/

nicki
11-18-2012, 1:13 AM
We lost ground, but we still control the house and we may not be too horrible in the Senate even though the Dems control it.

Romney had a tough campaign, the polling is showing that the Republican party lost big time with women and minorities.

The viability of our gun rights will depend on who the Republicans nominate for Congress and Senate seats in 2014.

Talk show host Neal Bortz blames the authoritarian social conservatives for Romney's loss because they alienated so many people against the Republican party.

Romney's Pro-Life abortion position wasn't the problem.

It was those stupid comments about legitimate rape and God's will that cost Romney a huge number of women voters.

Immigration is a big issue among Latinos and they are the largest growing demographic in this country.

Socially, many Latinos are Conservative, very family orientated. The Republicans need to come up with workable immigration proposals because what we currently are doing is not working.

Whites in general don't engage in "Identity politics", the problem is many other groups do and because they did, Obama was able to put together enough to win the election.

In upcoming elections we need to be smart and raise our standards.

It is not enough for a candidate to be pro-gun, we need to also look and see if a candidate is not so far out of touch with the electorate that their candidacy causes more harm than good.

Perhaps in 2016, we will see the following Republican ticket.

Gov Bobby Jindal for President
Gov Susan Martinez for Vice President.

That would break the stereotype that the Republican party is only full of old white guys.

Nicki

Dreaded Claymore
11-18-2012, 1:36 AM
Perhaps in 2016, we will see the following Republican ticket.

Gov Bobby Jindal for President
Gov Susan Martinez for Vice President.

That would break the stereotype that the Republican party is only full of old white guys.

Marco Rubio seems kind of cool too.

OleCuss
11-18-2012, 3:31 AM
Overall, a net loss IMHO. Re-election of Obama is going to cause a lot of problems for us in the judiciary.

Even if we retain the Heller 5, I think it likely that Ginsburg will retire and would then be replaced by another radical anti-liberty activist. That could easily mean at least one more foe of liberty for another 20 or more years? This is bad.

But even if there were no change at all in the make-up of SCOTUS for the next 4 years, you still have an awful lot of federal judicial appointments which will be made over the next 4 years, and that will tend to shape much of what happens with RKBA-related cases. Even if the SCOTUS should turn out to be solidly pro-RKBA for the next 4 years, this will be a problem.

Freedom lost.

As to why freedom lost? I think a huge factor was fraud.

And I said from the first that Romney should have picked Rubio for his running mate. I may like Ryan, but he just wasn't going to bring a whole lot to the ticket.

Romney may have been a decent candidate, but he was only decent.

Paladin
11-19-2012, 9:11 AM
Thanks, all. That's about what I figured.

For those who's faith is in judicial precedents (stare decisis), I once read that amount of weight SCOTUS gives to its own precidents is in part determined by the number of votes on each side.

In both Heller and MacDonald, we won by the slimmest of margins, only 1 vote: 5 to 4.

SCOTUS overturned the 5 to 4 decision of Bowers v. Hardwick (upholding anti-sodomy laws), less than 20 years later in Lawrence v. Texas.

Nothing is chiseled in stone that cannot be replaced by other words chiseled in new stones....

People (usually lawyers), make SCOTUS decisions, and those people are nominated and confirmed by politicians. Seems like some folks around here tend to forget that....