The Supreme Court...?

[loose_electron]

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.

I think republican nomination is more accurate.

The general populace usually does not care about the 2A issue, so its generally not a front and center issue in the general election.

[loose_electron]

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.

Yup, totally agree!

[dantodd]

I think republican nomination is more accurate.

The general populace usually does not care about the 2A issue, so its generally not a front and center issue in the general election.

And getting general election R turn out? What about in 4 years if he wins? I doubt guns (or much of anything else) are an important issue to Romney. He will do what it takes to stay in power and be "relatively" powerful. For any Republican this means not pissing off the NRA. The presidency isn't like the mayor of NYC where Bloomberg could run as a republican but govern as a democrat and not have legislative or electoral repercussions.

[k1dude]

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.

Then how do you explain Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan? They are as far left as possible. There is no moderation in their thinking or history. They openly express their disdain for the Constitution which they were sworn to uphold and protect.

The problem is conservatives have rarely stood in the way of liberal's nominees despite their extremist histories. The reverse is not true. Liberals have almost ALWAYS vigorously opposed conservative's nominees. And the conservative nominees are usually considered far more moderate than anyone the left puts up for the court.

[loose_electron]

As far left as possible?

Hardly the case, Extremists and fanatics would not make it though the process.

If you think they are the fringe left then you haven't dealt with the extremes.
But then some people here like to call everyone here that doesn't agree with their perspective a communist.

(shrugs...)

[hoffmang]

The party in power holds great sway over the "president's" Supreme Court nominations. See the failure of Harriet Meirs' nomination. I think everyone who cares about firearms civil rights can agree that the person nominated after hers was withdrawn was a plus for this cause.

-Gene

[Gray Peterson]

The party in power holds great sway over the "president's" Supreme Court nominations. See the failure of Harriet Meirs' nomination. I think everyone who cares about firearms civil rights can agree that the person nominated after hers was withdrawn was a plus for this cause.

-Gene

For the folks who weren't paying attention in class, that would be Samuel Alito, aka "Machine Gun Sammy".

[vincewarde]

A little lesson in reality

1) The next presidents last name will be Obama or Romney. No one else has a chance.

2) Romney may appoint anti - 2nd Amendment judges - but it is unlikely, Obama WILL APPOINT such judges. One conservative resignation, or death will spell the end and force us to try to amend the Constitution to get our rights back.

Therefore:

3) A vote for anyone but Romney is a vote against the 2nd Amendment

BTW, if Pres. Obama's implosion (there was serious talk last week about California being in play - not at a likely, but possible if the economy tanks) continues much longer, don't be surprised if one or more SCOTUS justices resign so he can ram their replacements through the Senate before the end of the year.

[dantodd]

BTW, if Pres. Obama's implosion (there was serious talk last week about California being in play - not at a likely, but possible if the economy tanks) continues much longer, don't be surprised if one or more SCOTUS justices resign so he can ram their replacements through the Senate before the end of the year.

It may be hard to get cloture on one nominee that goes up after September 1. I can't imagine that 2 would get acted upon in that timeframe.

[Meplat]

Dont worry, it concerns me too!

What frightens me is why anyone would be thinking about Ruth Ginsburg in the shower.

[Mofo-Kang]

Yes.

Really? Blatant, transparent lies and crude insults that a high school kid that passed his civic class can see right through are going to support the cause, here? That's the plan?

[kcbrown]

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.

No, claiming to be pro-2A is a prerequisite for republican electability.

Actually being pro-2A isn't.

That said, if he wants two terms, he'll be pro-2A during the first term, and that may be the term that matters the most here.

He will certainly not do harm to the 2A as this administration has, particularly administratively through the ATF.

One would hope. However, do we have any evidence that ATF was considerably more "pro gun" during Bush's tenure (aside from Fast and Furious, at least)? I expect we do, but I don't know how anti-gun ATF was during Bush's tenure. As far as I know, ATF has always been anti-gun from the start.

Furthermore, Morrison England, the judge who handed us a district loss in Richards v Prieto, was nominated by GWB.

No, the primary reason for voting for Romney is that Obama is a known bad quantity, while Romney is not quite as well-known (there seem to be multiple interpretations of his past voting record).

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.

That's going to be much harder for us than it was for the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement got the national media, which was probably neutral on the subject previously, on its side (most certainly once it saw there was a major story to be told -- showing the controversy made for good press, and the press was much less sensational and more concerned about real journalism at the time). We have the national media against us. Furthermore, the injustice the civil rights movement was fighting against was comparatively easy to show, because the injustices were direct and visible ("whites only" areas clearly marked, blacks being beaten, etc.). The injustice we fight against is hard to show: how do you show the injustice of not being allowed to carry firearms?

No, what the civil rights movement was able to accomplish by gaining the sympathy of the press, we're going to have to accomplish directly through word of mouth and other "underground" forms of communication. Not only will the mainstream media not help us, they will continue to oppose us, because they are controlled by people who fear firearms in the hands of the general population.

[jaymz]

Don't vote for the lesser of two evils candidate. Vote for who you really want to do the job.

If everyone did this instead of sheepishly playing along with what the media/political assclowns want you to do, we wouldn't get ourselves into this predicament.

People just don't understand how to vote. The purpose of voting is to cast a vote for the person you want to take the job, not "the person that can win" or "the person from the other party of the guy you don't want to win."

Again, if everyone voted for the person they actually wanted, instead of the one that gets the most national news time, the country would be in much better shape.

Normally I would agree with you, but at this point in time, there"s too much to lose by risking Obama being re-elected. Everyone needs to vote Romney.

[kcbrown]

And getting general election R turn out? What about in 4 years if he wins? I doubt guns (or much of anything else) are an important issue to Romney. He will do what it takes to stay in power and be "relatively" powerful. For any Republican this means not pissing off the NRA. The presidency isn't like the mayor of NYC where Bloomberg could run as a republican but govern as a democrat and not have legislative or electoral repercussions.

Why not? Obama was able to run as a democrat but govern as a republican (at least with respect to the 4th Amendment and the various policies Bush put into place and which Obama has further expanded upon).

Getting into office merely means saying the right things. What is done afterwards is almost entirely irrelevant. Were that not the case, Obama would have no chance at all of being reelected. Instead, his chances are substantial.

[dantodd]

One would hope. However, do we have any evidence that ATF was considerably more "pro gun" during Bush's tenure (aside from Fast and Furious, at least)? I expect we do, but I don't know how anti-gun ATF was during Bush's tenure. As far as I know, ATF has always been anti-gun from the start.

Trying to redefine certain shotguns out of "sporting use" class.
Attempting to stop used military brass to be reloaded on the secondary market
Requiring the reporting of multi-gun purchases to the ATF.
Denying the repatriation of WWII Korean weapons etc. etc. etc.

There are many examples of the administration being actively anti-gun above and beyond Obama's voting record and his statements.

The lack of such a tivities alone suggests that W's administration was, at the very least, not threatening to our 2A rights.


It is an excellent analog to Jerry Brown's AG tenure. Not actively moving against us is far superior to being actively antagonistic.