Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: T.O.M. on November 20, 2008, 10:30:06 AM
-
Let's look at what's on the table for Obama and the incoming administration. The economy is in chaos, so to speak, with the stock market tumbling down, major companies like GM, Ford, etc., begging for financial assistance from the Feds, health care a stated concern, terrorists at the gate, and everything else you see on the news every night, do we really think that gun control is a priority for this administration? Obama is all about public opinion, and what do you think would happen to that public opinion if he starts doing things like pushing gun control legislation through while GM, Chrysler, and Ford all go belly up?
The reason I ask is this...a good friend, and strong RKBA advocate, said that in the course of history, this is a great time to be a gun owner while having an anti-gun president in the White House. Last time anti's pushed a measure through, and the votes at the next election showed that the public didn't like what they did. Add all of the concerns going on right now, and the fear that gun control is the third rail of politics these days, and he believes that Obama will not touch gun control issues with a ten foot poll. You might see something like a return of an AWB, but not the sweeping bans on handguns, etc., some people fear.
Any thoughts?
-
Why would you think one of the True Believers obsessed with the issue due to their own mental instability would not attach it as a rider to any bill they could?
He doesn't have to do anything. All he has to do is sign it.
-
He doesn't have to do anything. All he has to do is sign it.
Exactly. It isn't really about him. It's about the whackos in Congress.
-
He doesn't have to do anything. All he has to do is sign it.
I think that's the most likely situation. I doubt he'll push for it, but if an AWB came to him he'd sign it. I doubt anything other than an AWB could make it through congress, and even that isn't guaranteed. I'm pretty optimistic though.
I wish there was a place we could bet on this, intrade doesn't seem to have it as an option yet.
-
Carolyn McCarthy, who is absolutely obsessed, could just tack the entire AWB onto a spending bill and Obama would sign it.
-
Reverse the logic a bit. Will people/legislators oppose gun control legislation at the expense of action to address the other pressing issues you articulated? Would a rider on a plausible relief or tax bill be stopped, if the repercussion is media and public opinion suggesting that opponents don't care about the economy?
-
It all depends on how well BHO fares in the next four years. We can expect several versions of the AWB to be dropped like dead birds at his feet, and we can expect him to sign one of them. We can also expect higher taxes on ammunition and "environmental" pressures to close gun ranges.
The real fun & games will come if there is a SECOND Obama term. That is when the true disarmament agenda will fully flower.
-
For Obama alone? No.
For the gang around him--most certainly!
-
I could EASILY see an AWB or worse early in the BHO administration.
The reason being, the economy, stock market, etc. are all HARD problems with no easy, pat solution.
An AWB is EASY. With the stroke of a pen, BHO has a "victory" and can show "results" as BATFE makes arrests and puts manufacturers out of work.
The worse the economy looks and the worse BHO performs, the greater the likelihood of some such bill to claim victory over and crow about.
-
I could EASILY see an AWB or worse early in the BHO administration.
The reason being, the economy, stock market, etc. are all HARD problems with no easy, pat solution.
An AWB is EASY. With the stroke of a pen, BHO has a "victory" and can show "results" as BATFE makes arrests and puts manufacturers out of work.
The worse the economy looks and the worse BHO performs, the greater the likelihood of some such bill to claim victory over and crow about.
It would also be a way to kiss up to the UN, remember.
-
The democrats in congress now are very different than the ones at the time of the first AWB.
Many of the seats that were picked up are more "center/right" democrats, i.e. blue dog.
The danger still is, how many of them will "go along to get along", and i see one of the biggest weaknesses in the democratic party as a plus here: They are NOT the same party, lock step behind the president, that the republicans are known to be.
If the NRA, GOA, JFPO, and most importantly, US, reach out to these democrats and let them know that "going along to get along" will be hazardous to their existing seat, they'll be more likely to break ranks than the Republicans would.
I'm not saying there's no danger here, I'm just saying I don't think it's as bleak as we think. I think he'd be a fool to start out his administration with a divisive issue. I don't think he's going to go after Abortion or Gay marriage either for the same reasons.
Oh G-d I HOPE I'M RIGHT. I'M clinging to that belief like I cling to my guns and religion.
-
(reasonable analysis)
While I agree with everything you say, I would like to point out:
Nitrogen
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 666
The guys wearing tinfoil are never going to believe you now.
-
Didn't his transition coordinator say in a recent interview that gun control was a priority for him? That he'd push for it soon after being his "rule"?
-
. You might see something like a return of an AWB
Yes, this so minor and unimportant.
-
There is ONE thing that worries me about our Pres Elect: he's a product of the Daley Machine. Wasn't all THAT long ago that the IL legislature needed to figure out a budget of some kind before the state started shutting down. And what'd they do? They started a push on more gun control!
http://thearmedschoolteacher.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-needs-to-pay-bills-illinois-has.html
And this is the system that spawned Obama...
-
You might see something like a return of an AWB, but not the sweeping bans on handguns, etc., some people fear.
Any thoughts?
A return of an AWB is pretty darned sweeping. It may not seem important to you, but to the rest of us it's a Really Big Deal.
-
An assault weapons ban signed by Obama isn't going to be the same kid glove Clinton version we got the first time, it'll be something like HR1022 banning whole groups of firearms by name alone.
We must stand resolutely at the watch post of liberty, because it's going to be a long four years.
-
Anyone who thinks this ends with an AWB is smoking funny cigarettes. You cannot have a truly docile population until you criminalize the possession of firearms. Get with the program.
-
Well another thing to look at is who he is targeting to put in his cabinet. Pull some of the gun grabbers out of the House and Senate and then new blood that are more 2A friendly get put there either through special elections or appointments and we could come out ahead.
-
Well another thing to look at is who he is targeting to put in his cabinet. Pull some of the gun grabbers out of the House and Senate and then new blood that are more 2A friendly get put there either through special elections or appointments and we could come out ahead.
Do you think the governors of Illinois and New York are going to install freedom loving patriots?
-
A return of an AWB is pretty darned sweeping. It may not seem important to you, but to the rest of us it's a Really Big Deal.
Indeed. And while a national ban on CCW would be very difficult, going after mandatory registration, micro-stamping, mandatory internal locks, or banning "cop killer" ie rifle ammo is not. Not to mention those eeevvvviiiiillllll sniper rifles; you know, the ones that can have a scope attached?
One bad incident of gun violence and it's ban time in the ensuing hysteria.
-
Rahm Emmanuel is an ardent anti-gun democrat. As The O's Chief of Staff he has a disproportionately large impact on the agenda.
-
its an easy one for him. he can't turn the economy on a dime but he can offer up gun laws as a "look at what i've done" photo op
-
its an easy one for him. he can't turn the economy on a dime but he can offer up gun laws as a "look at what i've done" photo op
yup!
scary!
-
Anyone who thinks this ends with an AWB is smoking funny cigarettes. You cannot have a truly docile population until you criminalize the possession of firearms. Get with the program.
Spot on.
A. Criminalize and confiscate
B. Register and confiscate
An armed populace is the last barrier to dictatorship.
-
Do I think they're the top priority?
No.
Do I think that they are a priority that can be easily shoehorned in amongst all of the other things on his plate?
Yes.
Who says that one or two really big problems puts a set of absolute blinders on a president, administration, congress, etc?
He's issued the call to disarms in the past. You don't think there aren't a bunch of Democrats and Republican traitor toddies who are more than willing, and exceptionally happy, to craft a little rider package and affix it to the first piece of "Screw You Mr. and Mrs. America" legislation that presents itself as a sure bet to pass?
-
Well another thing to look at is who he is targeting to put in his cabinet. Pull some of the gun grabbers out of the House and Senate and then new blood that are more 2A friendly get put there either through special elections or appointments and we could come out ahead.
Damn! Stop it, you're killing me!
What do you think the chances are that any of the loyal, long-term Dems that Obama would pull from either body just might come from a state where anti-gun legislation is legion, and where an anti-gun governor, generally the individual who has most, if not all, say over appointing an interim congressman to fill an unexpired term, would magically appoint a strong Second Amendment supporter?
I'd say the overall chances of getting a win on something like that are about 0.
-
What I think we'll see is something more like...
"Hey, we can do this! Let's do it quick! Show those rednecks a thing or two!"
I think we should cut off food to the cities.
-
Add all of the concerns going on right now, and the fear that gun control is the third rail of politics these days, and he believes that Obama will not touch gun control issues with a ten foot poll.
Gun control is no longer the third rail of politics. Too much time has passed since the last AWB, and your typical gun-grabber does not have that long a memory.
its an easy one for him. he can't turn the economy on a dime but he can offer up gun laws as a "look at what i've done" photo op
c&sd hit the nail square on the head. Obama is going to need a lot of photo ops after Jan. 20 once reality sets in.
-
O'Bama wish list will be heavily modified by economic reality. So I suspect he will want to do something to pander to some elements of his base; something that costs little but shows his bona fides. Gun control would fit the bill. That said, a frontal assault on gun ownership will stir up a hornets nest and create problems he may well want to avoid. I still thinkin' international agreements and treaties may well be the means of imposing stricter controls without leaving fingerprints. "Hey, we gotta do it 'cause this here free trade agreement says we gotta".
-
Sorry I didn't participate in the discussion. I guess what I didn't consider in my original post was the illogical aspect of the AMerican media and many in the voting public that put this upcoming administration in place. I was thinking logically...the biggest problem for America should get the most attention. What I wasn't considering was that the media who fell in love with Obama will triumph gun control as a huge victory, he will stand with Schumer and Feinstein holding up an AK and shouting about how the children are safer...while ignoring the growing unemployment numbers, the market's slide, etc.
As for gun control no longer being the third rail, I hope you're wrong RocketMan, but at the same time, I think we need to be ready to remind those who have forgotten the lessons of the past.
-
I don't see how this is even a logical or smart debate. The man has it on his change.gov website what they want to do. If it was no where to be found on an "Upcoming Agenda" document, then there may be some guessing, but there is NO guessing about this one. It's like arguing that dog doo smells bad..
-
What he wants to do is clear enough. He will push, by steps, toward a "European model." And he will see what he can get away with.
Those of us who care will have to care enough to stop the neutering of the Second Amendment.
My own belief is that large chunks of what is now still America will end up gunless. What happens to the rest of America is still open for discussion...
-
My own belief is that large chunks of what is now still America will end up gunless.
No. The criminals in those areas will have plenty of them.
-
Well, if he does - he's going to have to pull the troops out of Iraq and send them to Montana :O
Don't think I am joking. My wife told me that there was a major "not taking my guns" rant among women in the stores in Billings a couple days ago. =|
-
No. The criminals in those areas will have plenty of them.
Touche'.
I meant law-abiding Americans. Of course you are right.
-
They won't have to ban guns or enact draconian registration laws. They will go after the ammo.
http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/hsus_calls_for_nationwide_ban_on_lead_shot_111008.html (http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/hsus_calls_for_nationwide_ban_on_lead_shot_111008.html)
Or even more evil -
http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm (http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm)
-
They won't have to ban guns or enact draconian registration laws. They will go after the ammo.
http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/hsus_calls_for_nationwide_ban_on_lead_shot_111008.html
“Extremist hunters have long contaminated watersheds and habitat, dooming animals to slow and painful deaths.
!?
The North Dakota Department of Health is now recommending that pregnant women and children younger than 6 avoid eating any venison killed with lead bullets.
Fear mongering to scare people into hating hunters.
North Dakotans who ate wildlife killed with lead bullets had higher levels of lead in their blood than people who ate little or no meat from wild animals.
This is something that I have noticed a lot of anti-anything people do, they interpret the findings for you without actually showing the info.
The Humane Society of the United States is the nation's largest animal protection organization... Celebrating animals and confronting cruelty
What, are they Pagans?
Or even more evil -
http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm
From the Ammunition Accountability Act;
An ACT relating to firearms and ammunition; requiring [AGENCY] to establish a statewide
database to track coded ammunition manufactured and sold for handguns and assault rifles.
So basically EVERY kind of ammunition.
Handgun ammunition accounts for 80% of all ammunition sold in the United States.
I wonder if .22LR are considered a handgun ammo... And what does it have to do with anything to begin with?
Establishing and maintaining the ACD shall be funded by an end-user fee not to
exceed [COST NUMBER, ESTIMATED AT $0.005 PER BULLET OR ROUND
OF AMMUNITION].
Great, so they are going to charge us to keep us "safe".
-
Just as we must all "eat healthy," so must our firearms.
Just as we must all avoid anti-social behavior for the general good, so must our firearms.
They will take away the ammunition, the gun stores, the gun ranges, and the ease of us (smart tech). Oh, we will still have our guns but they will be useless museum pieces.
-
I still believe, that with the incoming Congress and President, that any sort of serious gun control legislation will be a third-rail issue. I think they have more pressing issues to address. Time will tell.
-
History is the best predictor of the future. And history predicts we are screwed. Just look what Obama did in the Joyce foundation. Given that the majority of the public still supports an EBR ban, I have doubts that an EBR ban will receive a ton of public resistance.
-
I still believe, that with the incoming Congress and President, that any sort of serious gun control legislation will be a third-rail issue. I think they have more pressing issues to address. Time will tell.
And it it's included as a rider on a spending bill? It's already written, all one of the zealots like McCarthy has to do is tack it on as it goes to the vote, and that's it.
-
Being from a rural area the whole "third rail" thing doesn't click with me so I had to look it up.
I still don't understand the concept that is something doesn't matter is isn't important it is called a third rail.
Isn't the third rail where the power comes from?
Out of sight out of mind?
-
Being from a rural area the whole "third rail" thing doesn't click with me so I had to look it up.
I still don't understand the concept that is something doesn't matter is isn't important it is called a third rail.
Isn't the third rail where the power comes from?
Out of sight out of mind?
It means you don't touch it. You can walk around on a subway track, but if you touch the third rail, you are grounding power and will be electrocuted.
-
What is the latest polling for public support of an AWB? I don't think I've seen any.
-
poll question Do you think that criminals should be able to buy machine guns?
answer "no" and you got both gunshow loophole and anti AW poll numbers
-
Here's a thought, and I'm drafting my letter now, just in case. Say Obama and Co. take office in January, and in the middle of this economic crisis, start proposing and drafting gun control measures. My response is a letter to my reps in DC and a letter to the editor taking the administration to task for ignoring the real problems for look-good legislation, and also for actually compounding the problem by making business harder for gun companies, resulting in more lost jobs. Ring this bell loud enough, and someone is going to hear it. And, by taking this angle, you might get less of the stereotypical "just another gun nut upset that he can't buy an EBR."
-
I really don't think they'll need to draft anything. They already have one written up that they can just attach as a rider to anything.
-
At least it looks as if he is already going to have to back off of one of his campaign promises. It is being reported that he may not be able to reverse the Bush tax cuts because of the economy and they will probably have to stay in place until they expire in 2010.
-
The people Obama nominates to run the Attorney General's Office, BATFE, FBI, and EPA will have plenty of time to push the anti-gun agenda while everyone else "fixes the economy"...
...unless the GOP senators grow a pair and block nominations like the Democrats did....
-
At least it looks as if he is already going to have to back off of one of his campaign promises. It is being reported that he may not be able to reverse the Bush tax cuts because of the economy and they will probably have to stay in place until they expire in 2010.
But but but I thought he wanted to cut taxes for 90% of America? How can this be?
The people Obama nominates to run the Attorney General's Office, BATFE, FBI, and EPA will have plenty of time to push the anti-gun agenda while everyone else "fixes the economy"...
...unless the GOP senators grow a pair and block nominations like the Democrats did....
I highly doubt they will, sadly.
-
But but but I thought he wanted to cut taxes for 90% of America? How can this be?
I highly doubt they will, sadly.
Not with current leadership, they will not.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.edweek.org%2Fedweek%2Fthisweekineducation%2Fupload%2F2007%2F10%2Fnclb_talks_in_peril_say_house%2FBoehner.jpg&hash=a6bad6643487fec566ff4bac662fab686182dd58)
"Wut? We lost the election and lots of seats because Frank blamed the housing crisis they caused on us and we didn't say a thing? Well, I should keep on leading then."
-
How long before the GOP asks for a bail-out?
Are we not to reward losers?
-
How long before the GOP asks for a bail-out?
Are we not to reward losers?
Wasn't that McCain's platform? ???
-
Don't just worry about Obama and the Democrats; I thought I remember reading that Republicans introduced an AWB earlier this year.
Assault Weapons Ban 2008 bill
H.R. 6257 was introduced by Mark Kirk [R IL-10] on June 12, 2008 and seeks to re-instate the Assault Weapons Ban indefinitely as well as to expand the list of banned weapons. The bill was also referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on 7/28/08. It has four co-sponsors (as of November 5, 2008) supporting it:
Rep Castle, Michael N. - [R DE-1] - 6/12/2008
Rep Ferguson, Mike - [R NJ-7] - 6/12/2008
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana - [R FL-18] - 6/18/2008
Rep Shays, Christopher - [R CT-4] - 6/12/2008
Geez...I actually thought Republicans would NEVER do anything like that. I actually didn't see that one coming until I read about it.
Ok. Now start start freaking out about gun control. I didn't really know that members of both parties are going to take away firearms.
-
Gun control rationally would not be a large concern. We have plenty of issues, including the ones you meantioned. Problem is, those issues are difficult. Really, the President cannot fix the economy. The best he can accomplish is not make it worse. At which point, he might look for an 'easy' legislative win. Something to test the waters and rack up some points with his alleged base. It could be any one of a number of pet issues. Environment, gun control, preventing drilling, whatever. We can only hope his trial run is not our pet issue. It's highly unlikely he'd try going too far his first attempt. He might attempt an AWB, high cap ban or ammo tax, but not a complete and comprehensive ban. If the trial run was successful, he'd try to violate Heller, just to see if he could.
As Chris pointed out, if your rep or Senator is somewhat anti, ask why the heck he/she is supporting a dog'n'pony show instead of fixing the economy. If your Congresscritter is somewhat pro, meantion potential lost revenue from sales, FAET (the excise tax on guns and ammo), highly paid machinists going out of work and the impact on small businesses.
Best we can hope is that with his extremely long laundry list of Wants, it keeps him busy enough to ignore us. I'll bet $1 to the first taker that Obama's first testing of the water is not an AWB, but rather the Employee Free Choice Act. It's a rigged bet of course, Obama co-sponsored the bill and quietly has been pressing for it. If he gets the bill passed, the unions will support him regardless of any future actions for several years. Short version, EFCA rigs unionization of a workforce heavily in favor of the unions. It would replace the current secret ballot election (basically the same system as voting) with card check. Allows the union to know specifically how you're voting, and would allow for targetted intimidation amoung other things.
If the EFCA fails, Obama will be more cautious and businesses won't be crippled. Hopefully it gets the federal dems squabbling as well. If EFCA passes, within six months, expect unions to explosively grow. Most likely at dear cost to industry.
-
I'd totally be in favor of the EFCA if unions weren't as corrupt as some of the businesses they profess to protect their workers from. Damn.
-
I still don't understand the concept that is something doesn't matter is isn't important it is called a third rail.
Isn't the third rail where the power comes from?
Out of sight out of mind?
More like: so bad you don't even let yourself think about it.
Yes, the third rail is where the train's power comes from.
You touch it, you die. Simple.
You don't go near it, you don't play games with it, you don't toss rocks at it, you don't even THINK about going within several feet of it.
You drive it out of your mind with such extreme prejudice that you never think about it, and anything that makes you think about it is responded to violently & emotionally.
You ostracize, shun, belittle, insult, berate, and despise anyone who says "hey, how about you touch that third rail? let's talk about it, no really I want to have a conversation about the merits of touching it, it's really not that bad, ya know some good could even come of it..."
You touch it, you die. End of story. No further discussion allowed.
-
As others noted, and worth repeating:
- The bills are already written. It's not a question of what they'll come up with, it's what they've already come up with and have ready to go.
- The minor bills (ex.: .50BMG ban) will be attached to a must-pass bill. Nobody in this Congress is going to stop passage of a must-pass bill due to some gun-control rider.
- The major bills (ex.: AWB II) will be passed as a knee-jerk response to a statistically predictable incident. If When another VT happens, expect O to call for a semi-auto ban outright. The bill is ready, the votes are lined up, they're just waiting for the blood.
- The bills will be passed early. They won't "test the water", they already did that. They won't "ease them in over time", they want to be bold. They'll use the new administration's honeymoon period to ram it all thru. By getting it done early, they distance the event from the subsequent elections and get most voters distracted by the next vote.
- The bills will be flawed. They just can't think the way they need to achieve real lasting success ... but they can get a big enough comprehensive enough convoluted enough monstrosity in place that pro-gun types will tie themselves in knots for decades trying to figure out what to do with it.
They're ready for the final play, and we're trying to guess when the quarter starts.
-
I think "Be afwaid, be vwery afwaid" just about sums it up.
-
I'd totally be in favor of the EFCA if unions weren't as corrupt as some of the businesses they profess to protect their workers from. Damn.
Why? Whats wrong with a secret ballot? I don't see any good coming from having to publicly announce your union position.
Remember folks the gummint is not a one track machine, it is a many tentacled leviathan capable of doing and seeing many things at once. The likelihood of some onerous provision being snuck through on some important bill is quite high.
-
Why? Whats wrong with a secret ballot? I don't see any good coming from having to publicly announce your union position.
Mostly it has to do with minimizing management intimidation. Unless you've ever tried to unionize, you have NO IDEA the amount of stuff management is allowed to do to stop a unionization attempt.
The current process is really not a secret ballot like any of us would recognise it, anyway.
Besides, if you publicly announce your union position, then management has a harder time firing you for it.
-
Considering the other things that Obama has said he wants to do, I think he is going to have to effect gun confiscation first ... :O
-
Besides, if you publicly announce your union position, then management has a harder time firing you for it.
So you get the choice of being intimidated by management goons or union goons. That's just peachy.
-
Mostly it has to do with minimizing management intimidation. Unless you've ever tried to unionize, you have NO IDEA the amount of stuff management is allowed to do to stop a unionization attempt.
The current process is really not a secret ballot like any of us would recognise it, anyway.
Besides, if you publicly announce your union position, then management has a harder time firing you for it.
And if you publicly announce you don't want to join the union, you'll likely be intimidated, have your vehicle damaged, or even be roughed up, especially if the Teamsters are involved.
-
And if you publicly announce you don't want to join the union, you'll likely be intimidated, have your vehicle damaged, or even be roughed up, especially if the Teamsters are involved.
That's why I said I'd be for it if unions weren't as bad as the businesses they shoud be protecting their workers from...
-
Unless you've ever tried to unionize, you have NO IDEA the amount of stuff management is not allowed to do to stop a unionization attempt.
FIFY.
You really have no idea how much stuff management is just plain not allowed to do, under threat of legal sanction, to stop a shop from being unionized.
EFCA will pass and be signed into law, and it will destroy what little is left of American manufacturing.
Sorry for the thread hijack...
-
Mostly it has to do with minimizing management intimidation. Unless you've ever tried to unionize, you have NO IDEA the amount of stuff management is allowed to do to stop a unionization attempt.
as a former shop steward and organize who went over to the other side i can assure you the unuions are much more ruthless. and care less about the membership
-
Continuing the thread drift into unionization, my limited experience was a briefing as a manager for what to watch for from employees as clues they may be unionizing. They were very specific as to what I could and could not say or ask. I was the IT manager so I just couldn't make myself care about it, all of my staff were technically in supervisory positions to get them into the higher pay grades. I'm sure if the alarm were raised the more senior management would move in with all the dirty tricks. The call center never had a serious union threat though once some reps showed up, the pay and benefits were too good and the union did not have anything to offer the staff besides extra bureaucracy and slower raises due to the negotiations.
-
I'm not really disagreeing with you folks, I'm just explaining the rationale. Unions in this country are very broken and need to be rebooted, formatted, and reinstalled.
I got to watch a unionization attempt from the sidelines about 5 years ago. It was ugly. On BOTH sides.
-
We're really going to need to take things to the Supreme COurt over and over again.
While SCOTUS has said that there are some "reasonable restrictions" that can be pursued, like preventing felons and dangerous individuals from RKBA, this is done through due process of law (except for that who Lautenburg thing...). In any case, we need to argue that outside of this, any infringement, regardless of how small, is still infringment, and is barred by the Constitution.
If BHO, the Dems, and some Repubs want to amend the Constitution to remove the 2A, they should pursue that, instead. Then we'll at least know where they truly stand.
-
And do we think that in a public vote, they could get this to pass. Sorry I cannot recall off the top of my head, but don't they need the amendment to be ratified by 2/3 of the states? NOt a 2/3 popular vote, but actually pass in 33 states? Can you imagine the fights, the ad campaigns, the sleeze that would generate?
-
And do we think that in a public vote, they could get this to pass. Sorry I cannot recall off the top of my head, but don't they need the amendment to be ratified by 2/3 of the states? NOt a 2/3 popular vote, but actually pass in 33 states? Can you imagine the fights, the ad campaigns, the sleeze that would generate?
No, it's 3/4 of the states (which means 38 states would have to vote in favor to ratify the amendment), and considering the fact that 39 states have shall-issue concealed carry, my guess is that the likelihood of them getting an anti-2nd amendment through is about nil.
-
would magically appoint a strong Second Amendment supporter?
I'd say the overall chances of getting a win on something like that are about 0.
A win, no. A chance at them ruing the possibility of voter backlash?...not too shabby. I'd say that's the ONLY thing that separates us from the reality of MOLON LABE in the next 4 years.
-
No, it's 3/4 of the states (which means 38 states would have to vote in favor to ratify the amendment), and considering the fact that 39 states have shall-issue concealed carry, my guess is that the likelihood of them getting an anti-2nd amendment through is about nil.
Ur Math are Rong.
57 states * 3/4 = 43 states....... =D
-
"Unions in this country are very broken and need to be rebooted, formatted, and reinstalled."
Uhm...
No.
-
"Unions in this country are very broken and need to be rebooted, formatted, and reinstalled."
Uhm...
No.
As a union member and a shop steward I don't think he is that far from the truth.
I'm also firmly against the EFCA.
There is lots of good and plenty of bad in the union concept. One big good is -Same job title same pay with no gender or race gap possible. One big bad is - Same job title same pay whether everyone pulls there weight or not. It is almost impossible to terminate a worthless slacker with any seniority no matter how worhtless they are.
P.S. I now understand the "third rail" analogy - You touch it, you die.
-
"Unions in this country are very broken and need to be rebooted, formatted, and reinstalled."
Uhm...
No.
They aren't?
UAW? Teamsters?
Those aren't broken and hopelessly corrupt?
-
The theory is you fight corruption with corruption. Some people--mostly in Chicago--refer to this as the dialectical process. :)
-
They aren't?
UAW? Teamsters?
Those aren't broken and hopelessly corrupt?
You're focusing on the wrong part of the sentence.
-
"Unions in this country are very broken and need to be rebooted, formatted, and reinstalled."
Uhm...
No.
My dad is a union employee been a member of the IBEW since 1971. Him and I talked about unions over the holidays and his view is that only a skilled trade workers should be unionized. He said the UAW screwed the pooch by unionizing every hourly employee in the auto industry, basically he said if you can learn how to do your job in less that half a day, then you are not skilled labor. He said skilled labor skills take years to learn and you progress through the ranks until you have mastered the skill. He said unskilled labor should only be paid what the market demands. If a person wants to succeed then go learn to be skills through an apprentice programs as opportunities present themselves.
-
A win, no. A chance at them ruing the possibility of voter backlash?...not too shabby.
Considering a whole bunch of the seats now occupied by Democrats are traditionally Republican, this is the only thing I can think of that will prevent an AWB.