Defensive Carry banner

House of Representatives FLIPS. Bad News for Gunowners?

2K views 35 replies 24 participants last post by  .45acp 
#1 ·
It's become pretty apparent in the last few hours that the House of Representatives has gone back to the control of the Democratic Party for the first time 12 years. But is that a harbinger of DOOM for all gunowners? :scratchchin:

I don't think so. From the indications I've seen in the analysis during tonight's election coverage, the "new breed" of Democrat seems to be far more "conservative" than the people inhabiting DC already. :nono:

Example: The House seat that represents Asheville North Carolina (where I hope to make my retirement home someday) has flipped from Republican to Democrat. But the incoming Dem is an evangelical Born Again Christian, pro-life and Pro-GUN. :congrats:

That seems to be a common thread in these newbies. Not all of course, but in enough areas that I do believe that they'll be able to keep the Dems overarching objective of draconian gun controls from becoming a reality. :biggrin2:

I think the Republicans deserved to get "spanked." I hope it will bring them to their senses that in order to stay on top, they've got to adhere to the true conservative principles that have always driven the party until recently. I applaud the defeat of Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island. RINOs need to be expunged from the party. This guy, like his daddy before him never saw a gun grabbing scheme he didn't just love. :spankme:

I'm more than a little concerned about the prospective slate of GOP nominees for the White House in '08. I see lots of liberals and RINOs. :boese51: IOW....GUN GRABBERS. This election is now over. It's time to "ruck up" and start fighting for THE PRIZE in 2008!
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I would have to say it is bad news... depending who gets to chair the different commissions and if the new breed of democrat is really conservative or just facade to get them elected. If the new breed is indeed more conservative and the Liberal side gets all the chairs, there should be enough infight to make them inneficient and save us trouble.

As for Republicans, we have 2 years to clean house.
 
#3 ·
The reason that the Dems who are winning seem to be conservative is that they know they can't win if they are liberal. If they are truly conservative, I welcome them, but I fear that they run as coonservatives because they are afraid to say who they really are during the campaign. We'll see how they act now that they are eleceted.

In any event, trouble is likely on the horizon for gun owners, especially if the Dems win the Senate too.

We'll have john Conyers picking Judges, and nancy Palosie deciding which bills get brought up for a vote. Don't forget Sheila jackson Lee and Maxine Waters. In the Senate we have Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstein, and McCarthy as leaders of the majority. Oh yeah, we also have a President who hasn't vetoed a bill in 6yrs.

I don't see how anything positive can come from that. All of them owe Sarah Brady and george Soros big time.

IMO, buy some guns and ammo now, and hope they are grandfathered in so you can keep 'em.

Oh well, the sheeple get the government they deserve.
 
#4 ·
Don't forget to buy one of those "food" vacuum sealers too they are pretty useful if ya know what I mean. Keeps all that dirt off your food. Especially around junkyards and all.
 
#7 ·
Yup around junkyards or right next to railroad tracks and iron mines...we think alike....:hand10: :bier:
 
#5 ·
Well, it sure is not good news for gun owners.
Probably not too bad in the short term since any major anti~gun crappola would still need to make it through the Senate. Then there is Presidential veto.
I am not a happy camper right now though.
It's not really wise to give a hard slap on the wrist when you hurt your own hand doing it.
If you always wanted that super special Evil Black Rifle ~ I sure would think seriously about buying it within the next two years though.
 
#6 ·
Truthfully, I wouldn't worry about it. The "flip" is the result of much bigger issues than gun control. I tend to believe the Democrats will have more than enough to worry about (the war in Iraq, for instance) without bringing up new gun control legislation.

Likewise, there's still at least two years of Bush. It should be apparent that he won't sign gun control bills, because he'd be sure to alienate what little support he has left. Likewise, I don't think the Democrats are going to have sufficient majority to overturn the Presidential veto.

So, if anything, expect deadlock for the next two years, at least.
 
#8 ·
Veto? Unlikely!

Likewise, there's still at least two years of Bush. It should be apparent that he won't sign gun control bills, because he'd be sure to alienate what little support he has left.
The problem is, this President has only signed ONE veto in his entire two terms thus far! His daddy signed a LOT of anti-gun legislation and signed a LOT more EO's that negatively affected us: Like forbidding importation of foreign ammo for cheap prices and outlawing importation of the Norinco knockoff semi-autos and importation of any of the new examples of the H&K rifles, notably the uber accurate (and uber expensive $$$) PSG-1 "Sniper Rifle."

Don't forget, too that this President is a "LAME DUCK" and now, today, has ZERO reason to care about alienating anybody. If he really cared about that, he'd have sealed our borders instead of inking a deal to ERASE them by 2010 and integrating both our neighbors to the north and south into one huge EU style "security zone." Bush #41 coined the term New World Order. Bush #43 is following the CFR gameplan.:tumbleweed:

But, you're correct that the Dems will have other things to push besides gun control for at least two years. I don't know yet if we've managed to hang onto the Senate. If (please Lord!) we did, they won't be able to pass anything until Jan 09.
 
#9 ·
Good point, Ex, but let's be cognizant of a few other things:

1) Yes, he's only signed one veto, but that's been during a period where his own party controlled (or ran interference in) Congress.

2) Let's not forget that there must be a Republican party after Bush. If anything, this election is going to spur the Republicans (Bush included) to maintain the support they have. Otherwise, the Republicans will lose even more in 2008.

Bush is, hopefully (for his party's sake), smart enough to realize that the Republican party's position is precarious at best. Further losses in 2008 (which would come from further alienating Republicans) may very well result in a Democrat president and Democrat-controlled House and Senate. I venture to say that if this weren't a midterm election, that's exactly what we'd have now.

Remember, alienation doesn't have to mean that the supporters turn Democrat. They just have to be fed up enough to say "screw it" and not vote at all.

It should probably be mentioned as well, that the moderate Republicans haven't been any more "gun-friendly" than moderate Democrats have been. The GOP's official stance has been for the purpose of appealing to (what they believe is) the majority of their Republican constituents, whom are also moderate.

If there is one thing I draw from this election, it's that the public didn't so much vote Democrat, as vote "anti- Bush & Co.". After experiencing the inevitable gridlock that will come for the next two years, I genuinely believe that there will be probably the greatest opportunity of the last 100 years for third parties. The line of logic goes like this: "We do NOT want the Republicans back, and the Democrats have been worthless the last couple of years.", with a few strong third-party candidates then coming in and campaigning to the tune of "We're not Republicans or Democrats. 'Nuff said.".

Then again, this could just be my optimism speaking.
 
#12 ·
I'm getting pig's blood is my comment on the election.
 
#13 ·
Just remember that Bush said that he would, in fact, sign the renewing of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban if it was brought up before him in 04...sure it was a political move because he knew that he could say that with the republicans in control and still make it seem like he was for "reasonable gun control"...but I don't like what that would mean in the event that both the house and the senate were lost to the democrats...they would surely bring it up...
...so let's see here...time to come up with a checklist

Evil black rifles - check
Full capacity magaines...lots of them - check
100 round beta c-mags just to get under the skin of the gun grabbers - check
lots of ammo - check but still not enough

time to order a few receivers and parts kits if the senate is lost (still up for grabs according to the last article I read)...if not then still place the orders and keep stockpiling for a potential 08 nightmare...oh...and along with the food storage, don't forget PVC pipes...you never know when you might need to replace a piece of drain pipe in your house...it's very usefull stuff :biggrin2: ...and cosmoline is also pretty good as a face cream I've heard HAAAAA
 
#15 ·
We really need to be more vigilant about contacting our reps regarding gun issues. We need to stop the stupid "arsenal licenses" and such. Bills start in the House and need to be confirmed by the Senate, so putting pressure on both the reps and senators is needed. Pay attention to the legislation.
 
#16 ·
soapbox on
1. Dems now want to "cooperate" with a "bipartisan" house and maybe Senate. What happened to them dragging their feet. The problem is republicans also have some turn coats. That is bad for us.

2. Dems will take this "landslide" as a mandate for everything they ever wanted. Also very bad for us.

3. If congress follows suit then a UN treaty is very likely. If there is going to be a revolution "political or other wise" look at how many people are competent to actually realize this. (call me paranoid)

-Remember we are a small but outspoken segment of the general public. Expect to see the argument that we are just too selfish to give up are rights for the well being of the "rest" population.

-I think some organizations have been over optimistic about all our recent gains. These could be rolled back faster then any of us want to admit.

-Unfortunately these cycles seems to be historic. Every country eventually tears itself apart because of complacency. We have the best system that has ever been but what will it take to protect it?

Soapbox off
 
#20 ·
Regarding the pro-gun Dems who just got elected to the house. Keep in mind the arm-twisting the anti-gun Democratic leadership will apply to these freshmen Congressmen. Unless these guys are totally committed to the 2nd Amendment, I have no confidence in their support. If they have to swap road projects for another AWB, guess which wins.

Allan
 
#21 ·
P.S. don't forget to add a few MRE's to the list of "groceries".
 
#22 · (Edited)
Look for Conyers screaming for impeachment. They are still sore that Gore didn't win in 00 and still sore that teh GOP impeached Billy BJ Clinton. They want payback.

Look for cut and run tactics plans for Iraq.

Look for the UN to start messing with the US again.

Look for taxes to go up.

Look for the business tax cuts, you know the ones that fueled the boost in economy and lowered unemployment, to not be renewed.

Look for another gun control agenda worse than before.

Look for blockages of the free market economy.

What will be interesting is that the old crop of far left leaders having to deal with the incoming conservative Dems. This might be a little better for us. I'll grab the popcorn.
We need to hope we can stop bills in the senate and Bush has his veto pen ready and filled with ink.
 
#23 ·
Look for Conyers screaming for impeachment. They are still sore that Gore didn't win in 00 and still sore that teh GOP impeached Billy BJ Clinton. They want payback.
So, you mean to say that there can not possibly be any compelling reason whatsoever for impeaching Bush?

Look for cut and run tactics plans for Iraq.
Please define "cut and run". Does your definition allow for leaving Iraq at all?

Look for the UN to start messing with the US again.
Like they did back in... when?

Look for taxes to go up.
As if the Republicans haven't raised taxes?

Look for the business tax cuts, you know the ones that fueled the boost in economy and lowered unemployment, to not be renewed.
You mean like the 180 tax exemptions the Republican-controlled Congress failed to renew, prior to ending the Congressional session to begin campaigning?

Look for another gun control agenda worse than before.
You mean worse than the AWB that the Republican president wanted to renew?

Look for blockages of the free market economy.
Define "free market economy", please.

What will be interesting is that the old crop of far left leaders having to deal with the incoming conservative Dems. This might be a little better for us. I'll grab the popcorn.
We need to hope we can stop bills in the senate and Bush has his veto pen ready and filled with ink.
Define "conservative Democrats", please. I don't think they're conservative at all. I think they're moderate-liberal, and that they compare enough to moderate Republicans that they appear to be "more conservative".
 
#24 ·
Hey, hey, hey!!!

Hold up folks - we are now getting into deeper matters - and while important, CC is not the place for in depth debate on such - Bumper's rules!

Too much of that and the thread will go bye-bye.
 
#25 ·
Good point, P95.

It should be said, though, that the belief that "the sky is falling" because the Democrats won overall, is more based upon the belief that the Republicans are "totally opposite", where in reality not much has changed.

Politicians are the same, whether they wear a red tie or a blue tie, which was the point of my post.
 
#26 ·
I agree completely. It's the flip side of the same crappy coin. It really remains to be seen whether or not things will change. Although obviously with Pelosi in control of what bills get put up there's a bigger chance for it. I don't think either party in general gives a crap about the 2A unless it matters for votes.
 
#27 ·
A Wake Up Call for the GOP

The Republicans lost NOT because of the people identifying with the Democrats but because the GOP failed to represent the people who put them into office.

When the Republicans gained control of both houses it was because the voters were let down by the Democrats. The change was to let the Dems know they failed.

Did the Democrats win this election because the people have faith in them? Absolutely not! They won because the GOP failed.

I think that most of the supporters of the GOP generally approved of the war, they just felt it could have been handled better. The GOP supporters want closed borders. The GOP ignored that. etc. etc.

Look at George Allen. He is supposed to be very pro gun. He has dragged his feet on the National Park carry issue for over a year but shortly before the election he said that he will propose legislation to allow carry in the parks AFTER THE ELECTION. How convenient!

In two years the Republican leadership will either wake up or lose the White House.

God...I hate politics.
 
#29 · (Edited)
The Republicans lost NOT because of the people identifying with the Democrats but because the GOP failed to represent the people who put them into office.

God...I hate politics.
PualG is right. It is not so much that the Dems won as it is the the GOP lost. When your representative no longer represents you, your duty is to not elect them. The problem is that with a 2 party system the replacement might not represent you either. I hate politics too, but there is no other country I would rather live in no matter whose in charge.
 
#28 ·
In before thread lock.

So, you mean to say that there can not possibly be any compelling reason whatsoever for impeaching Bush?



Please define "cut and run". Does your definition allow for leaving Iraq at all?



Like they did back in... when?



As if the Republicans haven't raised taxes?



You mean like the 180 tax exemptions the Republican-controlled Congress failed to renew, prior to ending the Congressional session to begin campaigning?



You mean worse than the AWB that the Republican president wanted to renew?



Define "free market economy", please.



Define "conservative Democrats", please. I don't think they're conservative at all. I think they're moderate-liberal, and that they compare enough to moderate Republicans that they appear to be "more conservative".

1. I think we have a lot better things to worry about than impeaching a president.

2. Cut and run. Tuck tail and run away like pansies. What we need to do is take the fricking cameras and media out of Iraq and let the military do what it does best.

3. Like they have been doing for the last 10 years, trying to for a one government world, eliminating individualism, and disarming citizens.

4. Rs aren't perfect. Bush cut business and income taxes. The Dems will eliminate this and increase taxes to fuel their socialist agenda.

5. Like I said, Rs aren't perfect. They just had priorities.

6. Yes, worse than that. Take a look at the Democrat's 5 year plan. Scary indeed. If I own 5 guns I need a $200 "arsenal license" and the ATF can barge in and inspect at any time?

5. Free market economy is one with few government controls. Minimum wages, multiple taxes, government mandated regulations and such, like the Democrats have mostly introduced, are not productive to fueling the economy. Free markets economies thrive. Socialist economies don't work. Look at most of Europe and Asia as a way not to do things.

6. Conservative Democrats are those Ds who are pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc. Democrats with conservative values, like Reagan Dems.

I don't think the Dems or Repubs have the answers, which is why I voted Libertarian. If I had a choice between Ds or Rs, I'd choose Rs as the lesser of the two evils.
 
#31 ·
Before anyone get's carried away (too late) take a look at David Kopel's post over on the Volokh Conspiracy: In Anti-Republican Deluge, Second Amendment Gets A Little Damp. He's also got a similar article in the National Review Online. His conclusion is that the net losses for gun rights are only -1 in the Senate (versus -5 or 6 for the Republican party), -14 in the House (versus -32 for the Repubs) and -1.5 in governerships. A lot of the newly elected dems are pro-gun. Kopel contrasts this to the 1994 election where Democratic party losses were pretty much synonomous with anti-gun losses.

Now, most of the higher-ups in the Democratic party are antis (the leadership, committee chairs, etc.) so they can controll what bills get brought to the floor. However, I think they'll have a hard time getting anti-gun legislation through. The party has a lot of arm-twisting power, but I'm sure the new electees from red-leaning states are cognizant that any anti-gun votes will come back to haunt them next election.
 
#34 ·
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top