MARK MY WORDS...
Romney will be the biggest disaster for gun owners and the 2nd Amendment since Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton combined. I say all this because it appears his juggernaunt is gaining the needed momentum to win the Repub nomination for President after winning Arizona and now Michigan.
In my view, Repubs have been gun owners and the 2nd Amendment's worst enemy because when they win the White House, they 'conveniently' forget us. In fact, I think the technical phrase is 'THEY SCREW US!'
If you question my logic, then consider this. The most devastating anti-gun legislation ever enacted into law was when Ronnie Reagan signed the "Firearms Owners Protection Act". What a joke that was.
First, it OUTLAWED the possession of newly manufactured machine guns and created a 'pool' of appoximately 200,000 legally owned guns. A sad aspect about gun owners is those who own these things were and are NOT complaining because that clear violation of our rights made them RICH. (Yeah, Dolf Goldsmith I'm talking about YOU! Because I've got a copy of the Congressional Record where you testified IN FAVOR of that travesty! You money grubbing scumbag!)
Secondly, in terms of the after-effects of the "Firearms Owners Protection Act" try and use that piece of worthless crap while flying through New York City with a handgun. Prepare for a welcome to the gray bar hotel.
If you examine the record, gun owners and the 2nd Amendment do best when at least one house of Congress is controlled by the Repubs and the rest belong to the Democrats, but when the White House has a Repub President, we get the shaft. The one big exception was the 1968 Gun Control Act from LBJ. Still it wasn't as bad as what Reagan did to us. He established the fact that the gov't CAN outlaw the mere possession of a class of firearms.
One thing about the current administration is they are incompentent and therefore I can't see them getting the steam up to force something through, especially if the Repubs maintain control of the House.
As for the Supremes, by what logic does anyone think that Mittens will do better than President Unicorn when it comes to appointing a Supreme that continues to protect our 2nd Amendment rights?
(AMENDED after 4 comments: Almost 70 years ago President Eisenhower put Earl Warren on the Supreme Court, a decision that even he said later "...was the biggest Damn Fool mistake I ever made..." because Warren was one of the most liberal jurists ever put on the court and it was done by a Republican who was trying to woo the Liberal wing of his own party. Mittens is an East Coast super-rich guy who has no connection whatsoever with the working class or those who pay the taxes that fund this insanity. I don't trust politicians in general, but I trust Rich Republican candidates even less.)
My greatest fear, if Mittens does get elected, is he will prove compentent and shove shit through that will be far worse than anything President Unicorn and his crew could even dream about, Holder and his FAST & FURIOUS scandal included...
All The Best,
Frank W. James
In my view, Repubs have been gun owners and the 2nd Amendment's worst enemy because when they win the White House, they 'conveniently' forget us. In fact, I think the technical phrase is 'THEY SCREW US!'
If you question my logic, then consider this. The most devastating anti-gun legislation ever enacted into law was when Ronnie Reagan signed the "Firearms Owners Protection Act". What a joke that was.
First, it OUTLAWED the possession of newly manufactured machine guns and created a 'pool' of appoximately 200,000 legally owned guns. A sad aspect about gun owners is those who own these things were and are NOT complaining because that clear violation of our rights made them RICH. (Yeah, Dolf Goldsmith I'm talking about YOU! Because I've got a copy of the Congressional Record where you testified IN FAVOR of that travesty! You money grubbing scumbag!)
Secondly, in terms of the after-effects of the "Firearms Owners Protection Act" try and use that piece of worthless crap while flying through New York City with a handgun. Prepare for a welcome to the gray bar hotel.
If you examine the record, gun owners and the 2nd Amendment do best when at least one house of Congress is controlled by the Repubs and the rest belong to the Democrats, but when the White House has a Repub President, we get the shaft. The one big exception was the 1968 Gun Control Act from LBJ. Still it wasn't as bad as what Reagan did to us. He established the fact that the gov't CAN outlaw the mere possession of a class of firearms.
One thing about the current administration is they are incompentent and therefore I can't see them getting the steam up to force something through, especially if the Repubs maintain control of the House.
As for the Supremes, by what logic does anyone think that Mittens will do better than President Unicorn when it comes to appointing a Supreme that continues to protect our 2nd Amendment rights?
(AMENDED after 4 comments: Almost 70 years ago President Eisenhower put Earl Warren on the Supreme Court, a decision that even he said later "...was the biggest Damn Fool mistake I ever made..." because Warren was one of the most liberal jurists ever put on the court and it was done by a Republican who was trying to woo the Liberal wing of his own party. Mittens is an East Coast super-rich guy who has no connection whatsoever with the working class or those who pay the taxes that fund this insanity. I don't trust politicians in general, but I trust Rich Republican candidates even less.)
My greatest fear, if Mittens does get elected, is he will prove compentent and shove shit through that will be far worse than anything President Unicorn and his crew could even dream about, Holder and his FAST & FURIOUS scandal included...
All The Best,
Frank W. James
Labels: Damn Lies and Propaganda, Dangerous Stuff, Politics
7 Comments:
Can't say I fully agree with you, Frank, especially regarding the Supreme Court. Reagan appointed Scalia to the Court, and the two Bushes appointed the other four who made up the majority in the Heller and McDonald decisions, which for the first time since the National Firearms Act of 1934 recognized the 2nd Amendment as an individual, rather than collective, right. That can't be overlooked, and no Democrat would have made those appointments. As for who Romney might appoint, bear in mind the Harriet Miers fiasco: if he nominates someone totally unsuitable, the Senate, especially if it's in Republican hands, will refuse to confirm him/her.
Amen
Bob: What we are arguing about is; Which is better a judicial 'reaffirmation' of the 2nd Amendment (that has had little practical impact outside the DC area up to now) or the fact it was established and proven that Congress CAN OUTLAW the possession of a specific class of firearms?
If the Repubs are so "GUN" Ho, why haven't they rescinded the prohibition on new machine guns, or at the very least MADE an attempt, even half-hearted to do so?
That would speak far greater volume than some lip-service to the 'validity' of the 2nd Amendment.
I stand by what I wrote...
All The Best,
Frank W. James
Is this where I point out that a blue state like Michigan, has had shall issue for years on packers permits, castle doctrine (both of those given to us by Jenny Granholm, not just a democrat, but a Canadian born democrat), and now we can even own suppressors?
Gun control has been a democratic standby on the national stage for years, but they also "forget about it" when it comes time to actually screw us over. In some cases they even listen to public demand (Guns on Amtrack, Guns in national parks) because they know they need the moderate vote to win.
Gun packing liberal... Sorry :-)
Well, some Good News. Yes, Mittens won Michigan. But he didn't SWEEP the State, and it was an "Open Primary", where Dems could Register and Rig, er... Vote, and he still only got about 41% of the Votes, and the Delegates are doled out Proportionately. I think we'll have a much clearer picture come next "Super Tuesday."
But last Spring at the NRA Con, I asked Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation why Barry didn't go for Gun Control when they had Control of Congress. What most people forget is that Barry during the 2008 Election actually published on his "Change.Gov" Website his "Agenda." Many, many pages laying out his Master Plan to "Fundamentally Transform" the Republic, and Gun Control was in his "Urban Problems" section. Alan said that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi had so mismanaged "ObamaCare" that any such Legislation was to be pushed to the Back Burner. Then they lost the House 2 years later. But Alan warned that IF Obama gets Re-elected AND gains control of Congress, then Gun Control will be a High Priority of his Second Term. He also mentioned that one shouldn't count on McDonald and Heller, because Barry has already shown that he doesn't care if something is Constitutional or Not.
Now, I will grant you that the RINO Leadership of the Republican Party HATES the 2A, unless they come after their Sporting Clays guns. But the Ordinary Peon having the RKBA? Forget it. But I think that if the Republicans win the Presidency AND keep the House, they'll be Neutral on the RKBA, and let Gun Control play out in the Courts.
Bottom Line: I don't expect any Rollback or Repeal of any of the Major Anti-Gun Laws no matter who gets the White House, but I do expect Gun-Control from Barry if he wins, and gets back the House.
So I'd buy all the Ammo, Magazines, Loading Supplies, Firearms, etc one can afford TODAY. Don't place the safety of the RKBA in the hands of ANY
Politician.
Can't argue with the logic, and I see your point. Honestly, I'd MUCH rather see Gingrich, at least he is not anti-gun...
Ike also appointed Brennan (I guess he couldn't make any good picks). Nixon appointed Blackmun (who authored Roe v. Wade), and Bush Sr appointed Souter (Kelo).
As to Bob's comment, let me just say that I lived in Massachusetts when Mittens was Governor there. I saw him in action. Mittens is no Reagan. He's not even Bush, Jr.
Bush, Sr. - that's pretty close.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home