If Liberals win White House...

[boomerang]

I won't decide until I know who is on the ballot. Depending on the running mates, I might vote for a Vice President and pray for them to get a medical promotion between 11/4/2008 and 1/20/2009.

You quoted me out of context.

The full quote was, "Vote for a Democrat and watch your 2A rights wither and die.........."

So I guess you're OK with that.

I'm confused. I thought you would be happy I wasn't "wasting my vote" on a pro-gun candidate.

I won't decide until I know who is on the ballot but right now voting for a Democrat is my #1 choice.

[KBCraig]

So where do you think we would be with the Heller case if for those 40 years we had Democrats appointing a bunch of Steven Breyers to the SCOTUS and to the lower courts instead of people like Reagan, Bush 41, and W?

You mean Republican appointees like Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor... ?

[frankie_the_yankee]

So where do you think we would be with the Heller case if for those 40 years we had Democrats appointing a bunch of Steven Breyers to the SCOTUS and to the lower courts instead of people like Reagan, Bush 41, and W?

You mean Republican appointees like Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor... ?

Trust me when I tell you that if you want to compare the voting records of federal judges appointed by Republicans vs. those of Democrats, well, you just don't want to go there. I did a quick and dirty analysis of this in a past thread and found that Republican appointees wrote opinions favoring 2A rights around 80-90% of the time, while Democrat appointees wrote opinions opposing 2A rights 100% of the time.

And that goes double for those appointed by Reagan and those following him. (The battle over Bork was the Great Awakening.) I have stated before that conservatives in general were slower to realize what The Left was doing with politicizing the courts. So to bring up Stevens, in particular, (appointed by Ford in 1975) is a red herring. And Souter is widely regarded by almost every Republican (including McCain in his recent interview with Sean Hannity) as being a mistake. Another red herring. And I'll predict that Kennedy will end up voting WITH us on Heller.

How about showing us some FACTS that contradict that, rather than simply speculating? In other words, do some research like I did and prove me wrong.

All you have to do is listen to Breyer in the oral arguments in Heller to know that the constitution means nothing to him, while he twists himself into a pretzel pretending that it does.

So if you want to kid yourself into thinking that some Democrat president will appoint Originalist judges to the federal bench, there's nothing I can do about it. Just don't complain to me when your gun rights have been flushed down the drain.

Ask yourself this question. Which presidential candidate do you think the Bradys, the VPC, and other gun ban groups are going to support? The Republican, or the Democrat? So go ahead and vote Democrat if you don't mind standing with groups like that.

[one eyed fatman]

If Hillary or Obama wins the White House - I have heard many of my friends will buy up multiple black guns.....

I have heard that many are not waiting around - that they are already snatching them up. What's your opinion? How many of you have black guns? What accessories do you have?

How many plan to get one?

Way to funny. Me, I'm gonna wait for the video to come out showing people like you hiding in your stocked up caves, running around scared and eating beef jerkey you bought from the Wallmart super market.

[longhorn_92]

"I'm gonna wait for the video to come out showing people like you hiding in your stocked up caves, running around scared and eating beef jerkey you bought from the Wallmart super market."

One-Eye, I am far from that image.....but, I DID GET A LAUGH FROM YOUR RESPONSE - you made me laugh.....

I wanted to give you what you asked for - check out the attached video-

[nuparadigm]

I think we're a lot better off when we save the dreams for the dreamworld, and stick with reality when we are awake.

I agree ... reality is an excellent clarifier of the thought process. The reality for me - despite the coming and goings of Democrats and Republicans - is that, as far as firearms go, I am less free than I was in 1967.

That Democrats and Republicans differ in their percentage of support of firearms freedom is avoiding the hard fact that, for the last 40 years, our firearms rights have diminished on the whole. It is a fallacy of logic called Ignoring The Common Cause. An everyday example would be:
One day Bill wakes up with a fever. A few hours later he finds red spots on his skin. he concludes that the fever must have caused the red spots. His wife insists that the spots and the fever are caused by some microbe. Bill laughs at this and insists that if he spends the day in a tub of cold water his spots will go away.

I believe that the problem is neither Democrat nor Republican, but a dramatic shift in societal ethos which militate against 2A rights. Do I have hard and statistical evidence for this? No. All I have are my own observations of what I was free to do in 1967 versus what I am free to do in 2008.

[aardwolf]

Way to funny. Me, I'm gonna wait for the video to come out showing people like you hiding in your stocked up caves, running around scared and eating beef jerkey you bought from the Wallmart super market.

Why would anybody live in a cave when they can buy some walls at wall mart? And beef jerky at gun shows.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I think we're a lot better off when we save the dreams for the dreamworld, and stick with reality when we are awake.

I agree ... reality is an excellent clarifier of the thought process. The reality for me - despite the coming and goings of Democrats and Republicans - is that, as far as firearms go, I am less free than I was in 1967.

I don't know where you lived in 1967, but if it was in TX you are far MORE free today than you were then. You have "shall issue" CHLs and a "Castle Doctrine" law removing the duty to retreat and providing for civil immunity.

And it's not just in TX, but across a pretty broad swath of the country.

Sure, there were no 4473's in 1967, but what good are guns if you can't legally carry them? (Oh, "travelling"? Yeah, right. And what about the other 49 states?)

Now look at which party has voted for and pushed for most those expansions of gun rights. Republicans for the most part. The occassional Democrat is just the exception that proves the rule.

And today, we stand on the threshhold of a SCOTUS finding that the 2A guarantees an individual RKBA. In 1967, it was the official position of the US DOJ that the 2A referred to a so-called "collective right". Then, in 2001 or 2002, REPUBLICAN AG John Ashcroft directed the DOJ to reverse that longstanding position and followed it up with a lengthy and detailed analysis that clearly stated that the 2A was an individual right.

Another Republican, hey? What a coincidence, considering that according to some, there is really no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

And the justices who are most likely to support an individual rights intgerpretation of the 2A? Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy. Do they have anything in commom? Oh wait! Another huge coincidence. They were all appointed by Republicans.

And who appointed the justices of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, that overturned the DC gun ban? Wow! This is getting monotonous. They were appointed by Republicans too! And the incoherent dissenting opinion from that court? Gee, that came from a justice appointed by Democrats.

So someone please explain why all these expansions of gun rights were pushed and passed by Republicans, and none, zero, zip, nada were pushed or passed by Democrats.

Even the FOPA of 1986 mixed some good with a little bad.

And who is pushing the latest attempt to rein in the BATFE? (See American Rifleman / America's 1st Freedom current issues.) Hmmmmm. Let me take a wild guess. Oh! Big surprise! It the Republicans!

Whoooooda thunk it?

That Democrats and Republicans differ in their percentage of support of firearms freedom is avoiding the hard fact that, for the last 40 years, our firearms rights have diminished on the whole.

Not from where I sit.

And to characterize Republicans and Democrats as merely differring "in their percentage of support for firearms freedom" is like characterizing Hurricane Katrina as "a rainstorm."

I have said it before and I will say it again. In the major appellate cases concerning gun rights in the last 30 years (Lockyear, Emerson, and Heller), justices appointed by Democrats have voted or written opinions supporting the collective rights view 100% of the time. 100%. And justices appointed by Republicans have voted or written opinions supporting the individual rights view around 80-90% of the time.

So if one wants an idea of the "difference in percentage" of 2A support between the two parties, I would say that is a good starting point.

I believe that the problem is neither Democrat nor Republican, but a dramatic shift in societal ethos which militate against 2A rights. Do I have hard and statistical evidence for this? No. All I have are my own observations of what I was free to do in 1967 versus what I am free to do in 2008.

Can you please list some of them? Other than to buy a gun from a dealer (or sell one acting as a dealer) without a 4473, and/or to buy/register/tax a new machinegun, I see a huge EXPANSION of gun rights - at least for non-felons and non-DV people.

[KBCraig]

I don't know where you lived in 1967, but if it was in TX you are far MORE free today than you were then. You have "shall issue" CHLs and a "Castle Doctrine" law removing the duty to retreat and providing for civil immunity.

The law as written, versus the reality of how it was applied 40 years ago, means that most people were more free back then.

Yes, the law was applied with a heavy dose of discrimination, but the vast majority could carry a gun in the car with no problem whatsoever, and ladies were practically expected to have a revolver in their purses.

Castle, schmassle. "He needed' shootin'" was a valid defense back then.

[nuparadigm]

I don't know where you lived in 1967, but if it was in TX you are far MORE free today than you were then. You have "shall issue" CHLs and a "Castle Doctrine" law removing the duty to retreat and providing for civil immunity.

And it's not just in TX, but across a pretty broad swath of the country.

Sure, there were no 4473's in 1967, but what good are guns if you can't legally carry them? (Oh, "travelling"? Yeah, right. And what about the other 49 states?)

Frankie, I believe that we have a fundamental difference in our starting points for our thought processes. My starting point leads me to conclude that the CHL is not indicative of a "Right"; it's simply another step down the pernicious road to oblivion of Rights. A Constitutional Right does not need a nanny-State license to make that Right valid.

So someone please explain why all these expansions of gun rights were pushed and passed by Republicans, and none, zero, zip, nada were pushed or passed by Democrats.

I believe that Shelby Steele wrote a book on this very subject: White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era (2006).

[frankie_the_yankee]

Frankie, I believe that we have a fundamental difference in our starting points for our thought processes. My starting point leads me to conclude that the CHL is not indicative of a "Right"; it's simply another step down the pernicious road to oblivion of Rights. A Constitutional Right does not need a nanny-State license to make that Right valid.

So in 1967 you had a "right" to do a bunch of things that were flat out illegal by statute, and that if you were caught you could be sent to jail for, except that if you were a good ol' boy (or a "little lady") and the deputy was a good ol' boy you didn't have to worry about it.

And today you have statute law that says you are fully entitled to do certain things, whether you're a good ol' boy or not, and no matter what the deputy's private opinion might be.

And you're telling me that in 1967, under the old "system" (wink, wink) you were more free?

OK. If you say so. But it doesn't make any sense to me.

So someone please explain why all these expansions of gun rights were pushed and passed by Republicans, and none, zero, zip, nada were pushed or passed by Democrats.

I believe that Shelby Steele wrote a book on this very subject: White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era (2006).

Sorry. I don't have the time to read a whole book. Can you briefly recap the part or parts of it you are referring to?

And even if/when you do, some very important facts will remain.

1) The leadership of the Democrat Party is 100% anti 2A rights.

2) Even electing an occassional pro-gun Southern type Democrat to Congress does nothing to change this.

3) The leadership in Congress sets the agenda, meaning they determine which bills are heard, voted on, etc.

4) An anti-gun Democrat leadership will bring anti-gun bills up for votes, like the AWB, registration, microstamping, etc. while a Republican leadership will let the anti-gun bills languish and instead bring pro-gun bills to a vote.

5) Judges appointed by Democrats vote against 2A rights 100% of the time. Not 98%. Not 95%. Not 90%. 100%. Judges appointed by Republicans vote IN FAVOR of 2A rights approx. 80-90% of the time.

Those facts are worth more to me, and to those favoring real world gun rights, than all the philosophy there is.

[nuparadigm]

...

Sorry. I don't have the time to read a whole book. Can you briefly recap the part or parts of it you are referring to?
...

Sorry here as well. I don't have the time to do homework for others.

As I said, it appears as if we start our reasoning processes from two different points of view about the nature of Rights. Those differing starting points ensure that the more we explain our positions the wider the divergence becomes. Therefore, I can't see any worth to the enterprise of continuing this particular path of discussion. Your position (as well as your thought processes) are as clear to me as I hope that mine are to you.

During my workday, I drive a lot and listen to the radio. There was someone on a particular show who said something that I believe is valuable here: "I prefer clarity to consensus".

[frankie_the_yankee]

Your position (as well as your thought processes) are as clear to me as I hope that mine are to you.

With due respect, yours are not clear to me at all.

I'm listing numerous concrete statutory improvements that have been made since 1967. Unlike then, you can carry guns today LEGALLY. Since 1967, the laws (again, the black and white wording of the statutes themselves) pertaining to the use of force and deadly force in self defense have been greatly improved.

And remember that as far as the law is concerned, the constitution may define, affirm, or guarantee certain rights. But what you can actually DO out in the real world is constrained by statute. You or I might have an opinion that some statutes are unconstitutional, but as long as they are on the books and are being enforced, if we violate them we're gonna get in trouble.

Shall issue CHL has spread to 40 states during that time by statute. And on and on as detailed in previous messages in this thread.

If you have the statute on your side, you're usually good to go.

It does me no good to hold, and act on, the opinion that NYC's strict LTC laws are unconstitutional, that they violate my rights, and that they are, hence, void. If I get caught violating that law, I'm in trouble.

But if NYC changes that law, for instance, or if a court overturns it, it's a whole different story.

And I'm also pointing out the FACT that practically all of these improvements have come as a result of the efforts of Republicans. And note also, the worst "setback" in that period was the GCA of 1968, which was the work of the Democrats.

And here we are with 5 Republican-appointed justices on the SCOTUS, and hundreds of others at the federal district and circuit court level, that are about to issue what will probably be the best affirmation of the 2A as an individual right in over 100 years.

What I absolutely cannot understand is how anyone could, for even a second, think that it makes little or no difference whether Republicans or Democrats are in control.

The fact is, as to recent times, it makes all the difference.

[boomerang]

I won't decide until I know who is on the ballot. Depending on the running mates, I might vote for a Vice President and pray for them to get a medical promotion between 11/4/2008 and 1/20/2009.

I'm voting for Palin!