What may have cost GOP control of TWH, House and Senate.

GermanShepherd

They failed to push national concealed carry through when they had the chance. There's no excuse. It probably cost them just enough votes. I voted GOP in November 2020 but still. There were too many RINOs and Progs. The Trump bump stock ban was a real "smooth move, X-lax!!" sort of thing. A sort of George Bush "read my lips" sort of thing.

The strongest pro-gun party I know of is the Libertarians. But what is the chance the Libertarians will ever take control of Washington, DC over our lifetimes?

GermanShepherd

Oh, and Happy Cinco de Mayo!

mitdr774

What cost the GOP its seats and the White House was the man that was in the WH and his inability to keep his mouth shut and fingers off the keyboard when he should have.  The party has been broken and divided by infighting and forcing moderates to take a hard line stance or be threatened with being pushed out.  This will only further the drive away from the GOP by anyone that was leaning more toward the center of the political spectrum.

A third party doesnt have much chance since hardly anyone will support a third party candidate at the polls because "they dont stand a chance of being elected and we have to keep_____ from getting elected".  If everyone that truly felt the main candidates were crap compared to one of the third party candidates actually voted  how they felt we would probably see the two party system fall apart.  Im guessing we would end up with better candidates and in return better elected officials in the process.

GermanShepherd

The two-party system is a never-ending revolving door. The GOP needs a major overhaul. It needs to get back to its strong conservative core. It needs to stop pussyfooting around and pass national concealed carry once and for all should it be lucky enough to ever get control of DC again. My man in the 2016 primary was Ted Cruz, not Trump. I had to vote Trump twice in two Novembers to try to keep ______ out of TWH. Failure to pass national CC when they had the chance certainly did not help them in 2020. Good elected officials in Washington will aggressively enforce the Second Amendment and the rest of Our Constitution they swore to uphold when taking office.

The GOP, if it should get lucky enough to take back Washington not too many years from now, needs to push national concealed carry and other pro-gun legislation through even if it takes 100 diesel locomotives to do so. The GOP needs to do this as soon as it should get lucky enough to take over Washington, DC again and not repeat the same stupid not-so-gun-rights-friendly mistakes again. As General Patton once said, "I don't care if it takes a magic carpet. Just get it done!!"

The GOP had better also use the power of the filibuster to the max this election cycle to stop any new anti-gun legislation attempts. I don't care if it takes Superman to help them do that either. It's kind of like a football team that's trying to play catch up several touchdowns behind in the 4th quarter. They can only act defensively for now to try to hold the Demos until they get possession of the ball back.

It's a such a shame that the Bill of Rights has even become something of a political football.

When you consider the record numbers of guns and ammo sold in 2020, it's not hard to see where the American People really are on gun rights. The Media is way out of touch with the People.

earlyagain

Sparking the tinder of social division. Establishing a sudo-elite minority with blanket disparagement of select groups. 

Effective strategies for talk show pundants, reality tv personalities, and an occasional election. 

Unsustainable for long term success.

zorba

mitdr774 said:

The party has been broken and divided by infighting and forcing moderates to take a hard line stance or be threatened with being pushed out.  This will only further the drive away from the GOP by anyone that was leaning more toward the center of the political spectrum.

A third party doesnt have much chance since hardly anyone will support a third party candidate at the polls because "they dont stand a chance of being elected and we have to keep_____ from getting elected".  If everyone that truly felt the main candidates were crap compared to one of the third party candidates actually voted  how they felt we would probably see the two party system fall apart.  Im guessing we would end up with better candidates and in return better elected officials in the process.

This.

As I keep saying endlessly, BOTH parties promulgate their brand of Slavery, and push out centrists. I have no use for either, but people are too invested in their preferred form of slavery to ever vote Libertarian. "We'll give you *this*, and control *those* kind of people."

People aren't interested in true liberty - they only want fair masters (that think like they do).

zorba

As for Trump, he was a breathe of fresh air! Agree with him or not, you knew EXACTLY where he stood on everything - which is as it should be. He calls them like he sees them - as do I - and I respect that. I didn't agree with everything he said, but I agreed with far more than I ever did with any run of the mill politician. I'm utterly *SICK* of mealy-mouth pols who talk out of both sides of their mouths, and spew lies constantly. And I'm even more *DISGUSTED* with people who can't see the difference - who are more concerned about decorum than facts! His choice of Pence was unfortunate - and doubly so as it turned out.

As for the election, it was stolen.

GermanShepherd

zorba said:

As for Trump, he was a breathe of fresh air! Agree with him or not, you knew EXACTLY where he stood on everything - which is as it should be. He calls them like he sees them - as do I - and I respect that. I didn't agree with everything he said, but I agreed with far more than I ever did with any run of the mill politician. I'm utterly *SICK* of mealy-mouth pols who talk out of both sides of their mouths, and spew lies constantly. And I'm even more *DISGUSTED* with people who can't see the difference! His choice of Pence was unfortunate - and doubly so as it turned out.

As for the election, it was stolen.

Trump did put in that Bump Stock ban, after all. I did not like "take the guns now, due process later" remark also. I did NOT expect that from him. I know exactly what his campaign promise was on the 2nd A in 2016. Still, that said, Trump was a lesser competing harm than his Demo competition. I believe that Cruz would have been much stronger on the gun rights side. I understand Cruz did not like the heavy-handed gun control that's practiced on military installations.

Trump surprised me on gun rights: I really wonder where he stood on that. He seemed wishy-washy on the 2nd A.

zorba

GermanShepherd said:

zorba said:

As for Trump, he was a breathe of fresh air! Agree with him or not, you knew EXACTLY where he stood on everything - which is as it should be. He calls them like he sees them - as do I - and I respect that. I didn't agree with everything he said, but I agreed with far more than I ever did with any run of the mill politician. I'm utterly *SICK* of mealy-mouth pols who talk out of both sides of their mouths, and spew lies constantly. And I'm even more *DISGUSTED* with people who can't see the difference! His choice of Pence was unfortunate - and doubly so as it turned out.

As for the election, it was stolen.

Trump did put in that Bump Stock ban, after all. I did not like "take the guns now, due process later" remark also. I did NOT expect that from him. I know exactly what his campaign promise was on the 2nd A in 2016. Still, that said, Trump was a lesser competing harm than his Demo competition. I believe that Cruz would have been much stronger on the gun rights side. I understand Cruz did not like the heavy-handed gun control that's practiced on military installations.

I would only vote for Cruz if I had no other choice. He's a great example of the major problem of the GOP, although I will say at least he's no RINO.

GermanShepherd

I see no problem with Cruz: perhaps I'm missing something. Is he too far right?

zorba

GermanShepherd said:

I see no problem with Cruz: perhaps I'm missing something. Is he too far right?

Beats the Bible at every opportunity. As a religious/spiritual, but non Christian/monotheist; I find this "disturbing". He's a Dominionist/Christianist and panders to that demographic. I don't want Sharia law, nor do I want "Charia" (Christian Sharia) law either. As a now deceased, but highly respected member of this very forum once said, "Its the party of Jesus vs the party of Marx. No thank you to both." BTW, that gentleman was a credit to his particular religion (Christian) and was no Christianist. Would be that there were more like him!

GermanShepherd

Cruz did get beat up by the press for flying to Cancun during the Texas Big Freeze crisis. Cruz is reported to be very anti-Muslim and that's fine with me. I don't think Cruz condones "Sharia" anything.

zorba

GermanShepherd said:

Cruz did get beat up by the press for flying to Cancun during the Texas Big Freeze crisis. Cruz is reported to be very anti-Muslim and that's fine with me. I don't think Cruz condones "Sharia" anything.

Go re-read my post. I agree he doesn't condone Sharia - but he *does* condone, and promote, "Charia". Both are evil from my perspective, and two sides of the same coin.

GermanShepherd

I don't know anything about Charia except a Google search says it's a village in Greece. But no, I don't want America to be governed by strict Christian bible law or an official canon of any faith. Dominionism. That would violate the 1st A, separation of church and state. The "Christian" personnel running a rescue mission in Boise, ID once said to me the Constitution is "wrong" when I remarked about the church-and-state clause in the 1st and that attitude is dangerous to American Liberty. This rescue mission also banned firearms on its premises in a very pro-gun state.

zorba

GermanShepherd said:

I don't know anything about Charia except a Google search says it's a village in Greece. But no, I don't want America to be governed by strict Christian bible law or an official canon of any faith. Dominionism. That would violate the 1st A, separation of church and state. The "Christian" personnel running a rescue mission in Boise, ID once said to me the Constitution is "wrong" when I remarked about the church-and-state clause in the 1st and that attitude is dangerous to American Liberty. This rescue mission also banned firearms on its premises in a very pro-gun state.

Exactly. Separation of church and state is just as important as 2A.

GermanShepherd

And it's probably not a good idea to compromise one Amendment for another (the First for the Second). Theoretically, Cruz, if President, being that he's purportedly so pro-gun, might shred the Brady Bill, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934. I do recall he was also in favor of arming soldiers on military installations at all times for their own personal security. He might also pass national CC  and disband the ATF. Being a Dominionist, he might also give an executive order to stone all prostitutes, shellfish-eating people and LBGTQ people in this country in public squares.

GunNut

GermanShepherd said:

And it's probably not a good idea to compromise one Amendment for another (the First for the Second). Theoretically, Cruz, if President, being that he's purportedly so pro-gun, might shred the Brady Bill, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934. I do recall he was also in favor of arming soldiers on military installations at all times for their own personal security. He might also pass national CC  and disband the ATF. Being a Dominionist, he might also give an executive order to stone all prostitutes, selfish-eating people and LBGTQ people in this country in public squares.

That’s just silly.  The fact that a person is grounded in their belief system and uses it as his personal moral compass does not automatically mean he will force his beliefs on others.  And exaggerations like the above statement only serve to disparage good people for no good reason at all.

GermanShepherd

GunNut said:

GermanShepherd said:

And it's probably not a good idea to compromise one Amendment for another (the First for the Second). Theoretically, Cruz, if President, being that he's purportedly so pro-gun, might shred the Brady Bill, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934. I do recall he was also in favor of arming soldiers on military installations at all times for their own personal security. He might also pass national CC  and disband the ATF. Being a Dominionist, he might also give an executive order to stone all prostitutes, selfish-eating people and LBGTQ people in this country in public squares.

That’s just silly.  The fact that a person is grounded in their belief system and uses it as his personal moral compass does not automatically mean he will force his beliefs on others.  And exaggerations like the above statement only serve to disparage good people for no good reason at all.

Then why does zorba fear Cruz so much?  If not stoning people what bad thing MIGHT Cruz as President do based upon his religious faith?

earlyagain

I think it was party infighting over Trump support/non-support that lead to the unpopularizing of Cruz. The electorate won't care about that plane trip if enough time goes by. What ever his spots are. He can change them as needed later like everyone else running for office. It'll come down to alternatives at the time.

GermanShepherd

I believe I would still vote for Cruz over any Demo in 2024 if it should ever come to that.

GunNut

GermanShepherd said:

GunNut said:

GermanShepherd said:

And it's probably not a good idea to compromise one Amendment for another (the First for the Second). Theoretically, Cruz, if President, being that he's purportedly so pro-gun, might shred the Brady Bill, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934. I do recall he was also in favor of arming soldiers on military installations at all times for their own personal security. He might also pass national CC  and disband the ATF. Being a Dominionist, he might also give an executive order to stone all prostitutes, selfish-eating people and LBGTQ people in this country in public squares.

That’s just silly.  The fact that a person is grounded in their belief system and uses it as his personal moral compass does not automatically mean he will force his beliefs on others.  And exaggerations like the above statement only serve to disparage good people for no good reason at all.

Then why does zorba fear Cruz so much?  If not stoning people what bad thing MIGHT Cruz as President do based upon his religious faith?

I won't speak for Zorba but I don't believe fear is the right word.  My view is that Zorba's perception seems to be that anyone that publicly embraces and speaks of their beliefs is pushing them on others, therefore Cruz must be selling bibles to the masses.  My observation is that Zorba is a man of very strong convictions, many of the outside of the mainstream but that's what America is all about.  But on this one, Zorba is not alone in that perception but I'd rather he address that himself.  from MY side of the lens I think his view is a growing trend in this country and that is sad to me.  Everyone should be free to express anything they want to express, those that do not want to listen can certainly change the channel.  No one forces anyone to vote for Cruz.

I think there is a sad, and outright dangerous, trend in this country where Christians are being painted with a broad brush of intolerance where nothing could be further from the truth.   True Christian beliefs understands that the ultimate judgement comes not from us but at the hands of our Lord AFTER you pass.  

While on this Earth our job is to conduct our OWN personal life in accordance to our belief system and love everyone else equally without judging their actions even when you disagree with the way they conduct their lives.  Most Christian I know are incredibly accepting and tolerant people, I personally have plenty of folks in my circle of friends and relatives that live alternative lifestyles that do not conform to my beliefs.  I love them regardless of this and will NEVER make them feel like they need to conform to my rules for me to accept them and love them.  

Are there some folks out there calling themselves Christians and that are out of the norm and are judgmental of others, sometimes LOUDLY!  Sure, but in quite a lesser level that many other religions.  The Catholic Church (Primary Christian institution and still the most powerful one) learned it's lessons from the Crusades and the Inquisition and since then we have not put a single body into an Iron Maiden (that I know of).  Though at times it seems appropriate even today... 

zorba

I could write a lot, and bore everybody - including myself. I'll "try" to sum it up succinctly. I have no problem whatsoever with anybody's religious choices - including Christians of which there are many excellent examples thereof on this very forum! {BOW HERE} But when I hear "Christian Nation" out of a politician's mouth, then I start getting VERY cautious - because to my interpretation at least, our Founders did their very best to NOT create a "Christian Nation", and not favor any one religion over another. They didn't completely succeed - its impossible - but they did their best. I certainly do not want to live in a "Christian Nation" any more than I'd want to live in an "Islamic Republic" or even a Pagan Nation.

Chistianists have been attempting to overthrow church/state separation ever since. Note I said "Christianists", NOT "Christians". The adoption of - to use a Liberal phrase - a "non inclusive and divisive" motto "In God We Trust" as opposed to the original, TRUE motto "E Pluribus Unum" is one such. The two pretty much stand in opposition to each other. Adding "Under God" to the pledge, the ever ongoing abortion debate, etc, etc. The list goes on and becomes boring - and its the exact same technique used by the anti-gunners: Incrementalism and revisionism.

I've said it before: I actually agree with Christians regarding many things, and disagree on others. But neither their, nor my, beliefs should be codified into law. The ongoing Ten Commandments stupidity is a great example. Less than half of them have to do with what I'd call "universal ethics" (for lack of a better term), the rest have to do with Abrahamic Monotheism, and Abrahamic Monotheism ONLY. If you're not an Abrahamic Monotheist, it starts looking like a Christian form of Sharia - what I term "Charia" - that I don't want any part of!

At this point in time, I'd hold my nose and vote for Cruz over the Marxist insanity of the Left. "Choose the form of your Slavery, America." I've been watching this mess since I was old enough to understand it (around age 14), and the rhetoric has been getting worse. And I *ALWAYS* take political rhetoric seriously. History, as well as what's unfolding right now with the Left, shows the necessity of believing whatever garbage comes out of a politician's mouth, regardless of how insane. That applies to Marxists *and* Christianists equally.

GermanShepherd

Thanks, zorba. We both agree we'd give Cruz the vote over anybody on the Left. Are Marxists, Communists and Socialists all the same sort of Left?  I consider gun-grabbers on the side of the Left. There even have been some liberals buying guns lately. Back in the 1990's, Rush Limbaugh always gave me the impression that Liberals and Leftists were one in the same but in latter years it seems that might not be technically so.

https://theliberalgunclub.com/

zorba

There certainly *are* some Liberals who are "waking up" so to speak. GunNut has seen more than a few, and I've encountered a couple myself.

There's nothing worse than a True Believer (tm) of any kind. There are plenty of them out there, on both the Left and the Right. Trump, to my mind, is *NOT* a True Believer - which is why I like him. He goes with what works the best - as much as anybody can, of course. Obama on the other hand, is a True Believer of the worst sort!

GermanShepherd

I don't care for hypocrites however. Trump had fudged on at least one campaign promise: the bump stock ban. I also didn't like that remark he made: take away the guns now, due process later. Obama was really bad: pushing for hard-core gun control like another "assault weapons" ban. I would like True Believers in Our Constitution at the helm of The Union. Yes, I had to vote for Trump last November "with a clamp on my nose".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe6bhbbwjzU

GermanShepherd

We don't need to grab more guns: boys need more human fathers in the home. These tech gadgets don't parent.

GunNut

He said no firearm bans.  That was NOT a lie.  Those stupid bump stocks are NOT firearms and their days were numbered the day someone thought it was a good loophole to Federal Law...  basically it was a meaningless bone thrown to the other side to quiet the yippy ankle bitter dogs.

GermanShepherd

I still say bump stock bans violate the 2nd A.  They are still parts of guns. You could argue that high-capacity magazines and flash hiders aren't "firearms" also. Do you want them banned? I would not have cowered to even yippy ankle bitter dogs. It's about principle.

GunNut

GermanShepherd said:

I still say bump stock bans violate the 2nd A.  They are still parts of guns. You could argue that high-capacity magazines and flash hiders aren't "firearms" also. Do you want them banned? I would not have cowered to even yippy ankle bitter dogs. It's about principle.

It’s about compromise.  We all lock into our perspective and forget WE don’t rule the country.  A good President needs to make 330,000,000 Americans happy, or at least a majority of them.  And the vast majority of Americans, including most gun owners (like me) could not give 3 craps about bump stocks.  

And there is no need for arguing a silly point.  Muzzle devices, high capacity magazines and bump stocks are NOT firearms and will NEVER be firearms.  And they should not get banned for entirely different reasons that are easily arguable in court.  There have been several successful challenges to those bans like the ones in California, but these things are NOT protected by the 2A because they are not “Arms”.

GermanShepherd

I'm a Life Member of Gun Owners of America and they would disagree with you, Gun Nut. GOA has been No Compromise Since 1975.  I love GOA because they are No Compromise. They never cave as the NRA has done in the past. Bump stocks are still PARTS of ARMS. So are triggers, barrels, locks and stocks. They way I see it, if the gubmint bans any one part of a gun they have effectively banned the whole gun and therefore have infringed upon "the right to keep and bear arms".  It's not up to the gubmint to decide as to whether a citizen needs a bump stock, a flash hider or a high-cap mag.

WE THE PEOPLE do rule the country. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Each and every good President defends and upholds the Constitution as sworn to do when taking office. Please read the preamble. Banning one thing like a bump stock is just another step toward banning other things related to guns. When  it comes to gun control, if you give the gubmint an inch, they take a country mile.

Furthermore, according to GOA, there is no evidence that possession and use of bump stocks by citizens make us more unsafe.

If I were to be lawfully sworn into  TWH, I would summarily seek to disband the ATF and shred the following:

-The Brady Bill

-The FBI NICS

-The Gun Control Act of 1968

-The National Firearms Act of 1934

I would also seek federal legislation to overturn most if not all gun control in the several states and their respective local jurisdictions. All soldiers would be allowed to carry concealed on military installations at all times under my watch even it took an executive order to make that happen.

https://www.gunowners.org/alert3719/

https://www.gunowners.org/victory-court-rules-a-bump-stock-is-not-a-machine-gun/

mitdr774

I dont see a ban on a part that is integral to the proper function of a firearm surviving a court challenge.  A bump stock is not a part of the proper function of a firearm.  It is a stupid gimmick designed to skirt the existing laws and regulations.  The same can be said about the pistol braces that are designed to essentially be a butt stock.  I will not be surprised if a whole bunch of "pistols" are reclassified as SBRs.  The firearms industry and owners are their own worst enemy when it comes to a lot of things.  Intentionally skirting laws and regulations, especially for stupid gimmicky crap like bump stocks, is a sure fire way to invite more laws and regulations that further restrict lawful ownership.