The Supreme Court...?

[wireless]

Romney has my vote. It scares me to think what obama could do with the supreme court. It's really, really scary actually.

I don't worry so much about winning my 2A rights as much as losing my 4A rights. 2A rights will come, so it seems, but removing my 4A rights just gives them more power to take away my other rights.

I know that might sound a bit contradicting, but I see us winning some 2A rights in the next 1-3 years the way things have been going. But what's really scary, is 15 years down the road when some 2A cases get taken to SCOTUS and Obama's appointees are in office.


Reminds me of this country in Europe in 1931 that everyone disliked...hmmm

[Mofo-Kang]

If Obama wins, kiss the nation as we knew it goodbye. The court will likely be stacked for several decades by communists that abhor the Constitution and our founding fathers. Say goodbye to your firearms. It's that simple.

Do you guys really think this kind of rhetoric is helpful in persuading people to support the GOP and/or gun rights? I'm honestly curious about this.

[wireless]

Exactly^.


I honestly don't think romey is much different than obama. They both want to give a certain group of people one set of rights so they can trick them into taking away more rights.

Obama- gay marriage take away everything else
Romney- gun rights take away everything else


The end results the same thing. That's why I'm voting for Gary Johnson the libertarian candidate. I also realize I am 21 so I might see some gun rights in my life time that many of you in your late 40's, early 50's won't see.

[Mofo-Kang]

For as brilliant as they were, I dont think they could invision the amount of uneducated populous as we have today.

The population was far less educated back then than it is today.

By doing this it seems to me, our country would be more in tune with the MASS of the country, not the populous. And from my understanding of how the Constitution was written, they wanted the mass of the country to have the say, not the populous. It would be a truer form of Republic.

They saw both sides of the argument, which is why we have a House of Representatives made up of members who are locally elected and serve short terms (so they're on a short leash with their constituents), and this House is balanced by the Senate, which was originally made of members elected by each state legislature, serving for long terms so that they're not as influenced by ever-changing popular opinions. The House is also made up of numerous members from small localities--big states have a lot of Representatives, and could run roughshod over the smaller states because of it. To balance that, again, the Senate is there with 2 members from each state, regardless of the state's size.

The whole thing is a balancing act. No, the people in New York shouldn't be able to tell the people in Massachusetts how to do things. But on the other hand, there's way more people in New York than Massachusetts, and we tend to believe in majority rule, at least within some limits and in some areas of life. So we balance those two viewpoints by having a generally majority-rules House with a everyone-gets-an-equal-say Senate.

[loose_electron]

Calling loose electron, come in loose electron...we have a situation here...

Hm?

You expect Romney to stand up for the 2A?
Romney stands up for what gets him the most votes.
The man says whatever it takes to get votes.

I have said it many times - We got state level 2A issues
a lot more than we got federal 2A issues.

If you want to make this whole issue a total non-issue,
then you got to win the culture war, not the election of
the Etch-A-Sketch man.

Winning the culture war?

Help make as many people as possible comfortable around guns.
Take multiple friends to the range, teach them about shooting,
firearms safety, shooting sports, and a well trained acceptance
of personal protection.

Leave the politics, red-blue arguments, and the "us against them"
childishness at home.

Teach people that guns are not what they see in Hollywood and
TV cop shows.

Be friendly and positive about the topic. Don't alienate them with
"the world is against us" junk, and political rants.

You make the majority of the population comfortable with the topic
and the politics and protecting the 2A with lawyers totally becomes a
non-issue.

In the last year I have taken 8 (maybe 11) people who have
never touched a gun shooting and gotten them comfortable with
the whole thing.

You want to make friends, not try to control enemies.

Think about that.

[stix213]

Hm?

You expect Romney to stand up for the 2A?
Romney stands up for what gets him the most votes.
The man says whatever it takes to get votes.

I have said it many times - We got state level 2A issues
a lot more than we got federal 2A issues.

If you want to make this whole issue a total non-issue,
then you got to win the culture war, not the election of
the Etch-A-Sketch man.

Winning the culture war?

Help make as many people as possible comfortable around guns.
Take multiple friends to the range, teach them about shooting,
firearms safety, shooting sports, and a well trained acceptance
of personal protection.

Leave the politics, red-blue arguments, and the "us against them"
childishness at home.

Teach people that guns are not what they see in Hollywood and
TV cop shows.

Be friendly and positive about the topic. Don't alienate them with
"the world is against us" junk, and political rants.

You make the majority of the population comfortable with the topic
and the politics and protecting the 2A with lawyers totally becomes a
non-issue.

In the last year I have taken 8 (maybe 11) people who have
never touched a gun shooting and gotten them comfortable with
the whole thing.

You want to make friends, not try to control enemies.

Think about that.

Romney doesn't need to stand up for the 2A. The congress is unlikely to send him any anti-gun laws for him to decide on. All that matters is SCOTUS appointments, which are not possible to be worse than Obama's.

[bandook]

Lets not forget that California turned 'D' only with Clinton's election. Prior to that, going back to 1952, the Republicans lost California only once.

I don't think Romney can win California especially with our 'I'll write in my vote for Donald Duck' crowd, but IMO he can make it interesting.

[k1dude]

Do you guys really think this kind of rhetoric is helpful in persuading people to support the GOP and/or gun rights? I'm honestly curious about this.

Yes.

[dantodd]

You expect Romney to stand up for the 2A?
Romney stands up for what gets him the most votes.
The man says whatever it takes to get votes.

Romney is no friend of the 2A. BUT, as you said, he will do what it takes to get elected and being pro-2A is a prerequisite for republican electability. He will certainly not do harm to the 2A as this administration has, particularly administratively through the ATF.

I have said it many times - We got state level 2A issues a lot more than we got federal 2A issues.

Yes, a keeping it that way via elections is much easier than waiting u til it requires even more lawsuits.

Help make as many people as possible comfortable around guns.
Take multiple friends to the range, teach them about shooting,
firearms safety, shooting sports, and a well trained acceptance
of personal protection.

Leave the politics, red-blue arguments, and the "us against them"
childishness at home.

Teach people that guns are not what they see in Hollywood and
TV cop shows.

Be friendly and positive about the topic. Don't alienate them with
"the world is against us" junk, and political rants.

You make the majority of the population comfortable with the topic
and the politics and protecting the 2A with lawyers totally becomes a
non-issue.

While those are good and important ideas your conclusion doesn't follow your premises. There is a reason we still have civil rights attorneys in spite of most people being on board with racial equality and free speech....

You want to make friends, not try to control enemies.

We need to do both. As much as making guns and the gun culture "normal" we must also create an environment where anti-gunners are viewed with the same disdain as racists and bigots.

[ubet]

Mofa king, you really think we are more educated today? Have you talked to any of the "youts" out there?

People are more worried about American idol and the Kardashians than what's going on politically. Go ask someone to name all 9 SCOTUS judges and where they fall on political issues. Or ask them about the crisis of the euro and the effect it will have on us.

People in 17xx might have not gone to much school, but were a hell of a lot more articulate and in tune with what was going on. People used to read a lot more and craved information.

People know a days are generally blooming idiots. I would HATE to see what these morons (even the most educated) would come up with for a constitution today. :shutter:

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

[Demonicspire]

Well I'd hate for this to devolve into the inevitable binaries (one side good, one side evil) remember that the two parties are essentially the same. Yes, dems are less friendly to gun control than repubs, which is the issue here. Will a dem justice necessarily be against gun control? No. Will a repub justice be necessarily for gun control? Also no. Also remember the justices have to be confirmed, and the republicans have the majority in both houses now.

Also we are a TON safer now that they've incorporated the 2nd amendment. Just keep strong and keep speaking out. Honestly I want Scalia gone. Have you ever read his stuff? This guy HATES the 4th ammendment.

[SilverTauron]

Mofa king, you really think we are more educated today? Have you talked to any of the "youts" out there?

People are more worried about American idol and the Kardashians than what's going on politically. Go ask someone to name all 9 SCOTUS judges and where they fall on political issues. Or ask them about the crisis of the euro and the effect it will have on us.

People know a days are generally blooming idiots. I would HATE to see what these morons (even the most educated) would come up with for a constitution today. :shutter:

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Based on my contact with the current college students in America,the U.S. Constitution's days are numbered. Not just the 2nd Amendment, but all of them.

Brass tacks, the next generation of brain-dead voters grew up during 9/11 and its fallout.My peers are so pro-conformity its scary;the idea of terrorist watch lists, exceptions to Habeus Corpus , suspension of the right to a speedy trial, and so on aren't considered violations of law so much as "doing what's gotta be done". Should the disarmament lobby shift gears and sell the image of the American gun owner as a terrorist -something the media has been doing for ages in one form or another-the politicians will have a free hand to turn America into the UK.

In our politically correct society if people were offered a direct choice between freedom and security ,most will choose the latter.The concept of a nation whose government is subservient to its citizens is a historical abberation;perhaps human nature as a whole is contrary to the practice of individual liberty, but its a topic for another time.

[Demonicspire]

Based on my contact with the current college students in America,the U.S. Constitution's days are numbered. Not just the 2nd Amendment, but all of them.

Brass tacks, the next generation of brain-dead voters grew up during 9/11 and its fallout.My peers are so pro-conformity its scary;the idea of terrorist watch lists, exceptions to Habeus Corpus , suspension of the right to a speedy trial, and so on aren't considered violations of law so much as "doing what's gotta be done". Should the disarmament lobby shift gears and sell the image of the American gun owner as a terrorist -something the media has been doing for ages in one form or another-the politicians will have a free hand to turn America into the UK.

In our politically correct society if people were offered a direct choice between freedom and security ,most will choose the latter.The concept of a nation whose government is subservient to its citizens is a historical abberation;perhaps human nature as a whole is contrary to the practice of individual liberty, but its a topic for another time.

Where do you live? I can't go ten feet around here without seeing something pissy about government "9/11 was a conspiracy" "ron paul 2012" etc etc etc.

[loose_electron]

Also remember the justices have to be confirmed, and the republicans have the majority in both houses now.

SCOTUS appointments are made by POTUS and confirmed by the US Senate.

GOP controls the House right now, Dems control the Senate and executive branches. The House has nothing (directly) to do with SCOTUS appointments.

A Senate filibuster can be used to block a SCOTUS appointment unless there is a supermajority (60) on one side of the issue.

So, the minority party can block SCOTUS appointments. That has happened a number of times in the history of the process.

[Demonicspire]

SCOTUS appointments are made by POTUS and confirmed by the US Senate.

GOP controls the House right now, Dems control the Senate and executive branches. The House has nothing (directly) to do with SCOTUS appointments.

A Senate filibuster can be used to block a SCOTUS appointment unless there is a supermajority (60) on one side of the issue.

So, the minority party can block SCOTUS appointments. That has happened a number of times in the history of the process.

yeah you have the right of it, I wasn't putting much thought into my answer, but my point still stands that a confirmation hearing can make appointing someone who leans too strongly one way difficult.