TexasCHLforum.com

Slowplay wrote:

74novaman wrote:Many west virginians shouldn't have listened to their union bosses in the last election. I mean really, did they think this guy was a fan of coal??

They knew what Obama was about, that's why WV went for McCain in 2008.

I always think of this poster when it comes to unions and Obama.

74novaman wrote:I always think of this poster when it comes to unions and Obama.

I hope that guy was wearing wading boots - if you panned down a bit, I'll bet that pile he was standing in was getting really deep

74novaman wrote:

Maybe they should bring that back this year considering Romney's history on gun control and Bain Capital. I don't mind venture capitalism and cutting deadwood is healthy but the ad might play with the unions. Again.

Actually, if I thought Romney would cut the deadwood getting federal psychecks, or even half that deadwood, I would support him despite my concerns about guns.

On a related note, we were all told long before the last election that if Obama was elected he would reinstate gun control. Now it's time for the next election and I'm hearing the same stuff, but I'm still waiting for all the bad stuff to happen from 4 years ago. I hear arguments about wild eyed radical judges being elected and all, but really, nothing has come of it. The four oldest justices, the most likely to retire themselves, are roughly all the same age, and two were nominated by Republican presidents and two by Democratic presidents, so the odds are roughly equal that a Democrat would tire as a Republican. And then there are the little matters of (a) getting a liberal judicial nominee through the Senate, and (b) needing a case to bring to the court that they would hear, and I'm not aware of anything floating around in the lower courts that would be groundbreaking in nature. There are so many other things you can criticize the POTUS for that are legitimate and measurable. Why do folks seem to harp on this topic? There's a cry wolf issue here.

gdanaher wrote:... There are so many other things you can criticize the POTUS for that are legitimate and measurable. Why do folks seem to harp on this topic? There's a cry wolf issue here.

Do you really consider the appointments of Sotomayor and Kagan to be part of the "cry wolf" issue? Is there any reason to believe that if any of the (relatively) conservative Justices were to retire or otherwise vacate, that President Obama's appointment(s) would be any different than these two?

gdanaher wrote:On a related note, we were all told long before the last election that if Obama was elected he would reinstate gun control. Now it's time for the next election and I'm hearing the same stuff, but I'm still waiting for all the bad stuff to happen from 4 years ago. I hear arguments about wild eyed radical judges being elected and all, but really, nothing has come of it. The four oldest justices, the most likely to retire themselves, are roughly all the same age, and two were nominated by Republican presidents and two by Democratic presidents, so the odds are roughly equal that a Democrat would tire as a Republican. And then there are the little matters of (a) getting a liberal judicial nominee through the Senate, and (b) needing a case to bring to the court that they would hear, and I'm not aware of anything floating around in the lower courts that would be groundbreaking in nature. There are so many other things you can criticize the POTUS for that are legitimate and measurable. Why do folks seem to harp on this topic? There's a cry wolf issue here.

This has been discussed ad naseum in other threads... Obama and the dem supermajority prioritized their efforts to destroy the country with "historic" acts, like ramming through Obamacare, and didn't have time to follow up with other promised lib/progressive efforts, like reinstating the AWB. Coming into the mid-terms, the administration dropped such AWB talk - it's POLITICS!!

Also, don't ask me to prove the Obama admin was touting anti-2A actions early on and what his admin has done, as you should know. I'm not buying your spurious naivete trying to make us think Obama just isn't that bad. I guess Fast & Furious is no big deal to you either (or the ATF directive on multi-rifle sales reporting). Your admiration for Obama and what he stands for is one thing, but don't try to conjole others into thinking the way you do.

I'm not married to any politician. They are all alike. They will say or do whatever it takes to get elected and get rich. As for F&F, there is no reason to assume that the nexus for this came from the White House. If that was the case, it would likely have been a cleaner job. No, that one came from a low level idiot. It's almost always a low level idiot. What happens next determines how it will affect an administration. No, I am not at all naive. I'm just looking at this all from a different perspective and coming up with a different set of results. Sorry if we don't agree on everything, or much of anything.

gdanaher wrote:On a related note, we were all told long before the last election that if Obama was elected he would reinstate gun control. Now it's time for the next election and I'm hearing the same stuff, but I'm still waiting for all the bad stuff to happen from 4 years ago.

Valid point. There has been no big push from Obama regarding gun control. No big policy statements, no asking congress to pass this or that. He has even signed a pro gun bill or two (ex: National Park carry, albeit tied to a credit card bill he wanted passed). Why is this? Part of the reason is they've had their hands full shoving health care reform down our throats, and he's been busy...that game of golf doesn't play itself, ya know. Another big part is there is no big groundswell of popular support for gun control, so it hasn't been an issue. For now, it is a sword the democrats are not willing to die on. (after they did so in such a dramatic fashion in '94)

I hear arguments about wild eyed radical judges being elected and all, but really, nothing has come of it. The four oldest justices, the most likely to retire themselves, are roughly all the same age, and two were nominated by Republican presidents and two by Democratic presidents, so the odds are roughly equal that a Democrat would tire as a Republican.

Nothing has come of it because the composition of the court has not changed. The Heller decision was 5-4. All he needs to do is replace one conservative justice, and that sort of case could go very differently next time. Do you trust that no conservative justice will die or retire in the next 4 years? I don't like playing the odds with my gun rights, so I'd prefer not to assume such a thing.

And then there are the little matters of (a) getting a liberal judicial nominee through the Senate, and (b) needing a case to bring to the court that they would hear, and I'm not aware of anything floating around in the lower courts that would be groundbreaking in nature. There are so many other things you can criticize the POTUS for that are legitimate and measurable.

The democrats still control the senate and if Obama manages to get a 2nd term I wouldn't be surprised if they continued their hold on the senate. The healthcare debate proved there are at least a few Rs in that chamber willing to vote with the Ds for various reasons, even on big issues like sweeping healthcare laws or perhaps even judicial appointments. So I would say its within the realm of possibility for a liberal nominee to make it through the senate.

With regards to bringing a case to court, as long as Roberts is Chief Justice I think we're good there. So far he's shown a remarkable ability to make sure the right kind of cases are brought up before the court. Hopefully that continues.

The court isn't the only issue here. Presidents can pass executive orders, and direct their various departments and agencies to do things that would make our lives as gun owners a lot harder. We've allowed the fed govt to grow unrestrained for so long, it is a serious issue. Lots can be done to harm our rights without the court being involved at all.

Why do folks seem to harp on this topic? There's a cry wolf issue here.

Sarcastic response first: Gee, I dunno...because this is a gun forum so its an issue we're concerned about??

Now in all seriousness...one of the ways to judge a man is the company he keeps. Almost without exceptions, Obama's appointments to his cabinet/czar positions have been public and vocal in their support of gun control. That's a warning sign. He's from Chicago, one of the most notoriously anti gun areas in the nation. Clue number 2. Sarah Brady reported that Obama told her they were working on gun control "under the radar". Clue number 3. I could go on for a while, but its really not that hard to look into this sort of thing if you know how to do research.

This is really one of those "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" situations. I don't need him to come out publicly and state that he'd like to get rid of guns. His appointments, his associates, his background and his attitude do the talking for him.

All good stuff, but it's still politics, and the polls say that MOST people like the idea of gun ownership. Nobody, even if they are from Chicago, is going to buck that wave. Not even a lame duck, because stuff like that rolls down hill.

I'm glad I can carry in National Parks now. That's something Bush and his daddy didn't do.

tacticool wrote:I'm glad I can carry in National Parks now. That's something Bush and his daddy didn't do.

Where's the dead horse smilie when you need it...

Google "National Parks Carry Credit Card Bill"

Democratic primary update...

Nobody is running against the Obamanation an nobody is doing surprisingly well!

74novaman wrote:

Slowplay wrote:Wow, that's really embarrassing!! Obama better do something "historic" to distract from this primary debacle - maybe come out for gay marriage.

It's more of a protest vote than I ever expected - many West Virginians apparently sense Obama will kill off the coal industry (and take away their guns) by any means necessary in a second term.

Many west virginians shouldn't have listened to their union bosses in the last election. I mean really, did they think this guy was a fan of coal??

I don't think they THOUGHT at all...or not too much.

C-dub wrote:Democratic primary update...

Nobody is running against the Obamanation an nobody is doing surprisingly well!

It looks like three people in Texas.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

74novaman wrote:

Slowplay wrote:Wow, that's really embarrassing!! Obama better do something "historic" to distract from this primary debacle - maybe come out for gay marriage.

It's more of a protest vote than I ever expected - many West Virginians apparently sense Obama will kill off the coal industry (and take away their guns) by any means necessary in a second term.

Many west virginians shouldn't have listened to their union bosses in the last election. I mean really, did they think this guy was a fan of coal??

I don't think they THOUGHT at all...or not too much.

I don't get what you're saying...? West Virginia handed Obama a greater percentage defeat than Texas in 2008.

Obama lost by 13% in WV, while losing by 11% in Texas. In the other two states with embarrasing recent primary results for Obama (Kentucky and Arkansas), the 2008 margins of defeat in those states were even worse for Obama, losing by 17% in KY and 20% in AR.

My concern is the migration of blue state voters into Texas that will put Texas in play in the future.