TexasCHLforum.com

Wow! Now we can detect the existence or absence of souls.

Sen. Reid is not "pro-gun." Nobody in Congress really is. They just want to earn the votes and fear the retribution of pro-RKBA voters.

- Jim

If you have a republican in the senate in the seat currently held by H. Reid,...

This would require the Republicans to have a majority. The majority party gets to name the committee chairmen. It's all or nothing.

In 1993, when there was a vacancy on the court, Pres. Clinton asked Sen. Orrin Hatch for a short list of names that the Republicans in the Senate would not contest. I thought, when I heard this account, that is exactly what "advice and consent" is supposed to mean. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated and confirmed.

Supreme Court nominees are not selected on the basis of their RKBA views. The conservative nominees by Republican presidents tend to go in that direction, but there are no guarantees. No president since Theodore Roosevelt has had more than a passing interest in shooting or the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

- Jim

They are urban intellectuals who are afraid of guns. They would not admit it, even to themselves, but they are afraid of rednecks and black men with guns.

Somebody needs to take them to the range and have them break clays or punch holes in targets.

I am probably the first person in my family to own a firearm, other than the ones who were cops. I have walked that road.

- Jim

I discussed this earlier: viewtopic.php?f=94&t=35889" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The word critical is overused, but the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court really is critical, in the sense that a vacancy in one position could make a huge difference in RKBA rulings, which are going to be coming fast and furious for the next several decades.

OTOH, I'm optimistic. Maybe they will take Justices Sotomayor and Kagan into the back room and talk some sense into them. These people are not stupid. They are ignorant.

- Jim

President Obama is not going to appoint conservative judges. The president's nominees eventually are approved, regardless of which party has a majority in the Senate. Only two have been turned down in my lifetime (Ginsberg and Bork). That's just the way it is.

- Jim

atticus wrote:Nevada has a chance to send a better, wiser constitutionalist to the Senate. That's better than keeping Harry Reid.

Do you understand that Sharron Angle would not be the senate majority leader?

This seems to be a common misunderstanding.

- Jim

Temporary or permanent restriction of firearms rights requires a judicial ruling (especially in light of Heller and McDonald). That could be a grand jury, judge sitting in court, or full-blown jury trial. These are public proceedings that have to conform to due process of law and can be appealed.

Under current law, no bureaucrat can restrict rights on his or her own authority. Efforts to use the "no fly" or "terrorist watch" list have failed.

Laws can be changed only by a majority vote of both houses of Congress.

Does anyone think that Senator Charles Schumer or Senator Richard Durbin is going to be a better choice in any respect?

Homeowners insurance has nothing to do with government. If private insurance companies will not issue policies or charge high premiums, that is their decision in the free market.

- Jim

Medicare has been in place for 45 years and has not been used to restrict firearms ownership. This kind of theory is out there with the black helicopters and blue helmets.

Sen. Reid's opponent in the Nevada Senate race is Sharron Angle.

However, people need to understand that this is not a race between Harry Reid and Sharron Angle for the Senate seat. Senate influence is all about seniority. Ms. Angle, if elected, would not be the Senate majority leader. She would be a junior senator with no seniority or influence.

It is a contest between Harry Reid and two senior senators with spectacularly hostile anti-RKBA records.

- Jim

- Jim

baldeagle wrote:That is precisely what the problem is. In general, most people will vote for a Republican or a Democrat because they don't think anyone else can win.

The situation is not that simple.

A saint could be elected to Congress. If he was not a member of the Democratic or Republican party, he would be shunted off to an obscure committee where he could never be either the chairman or ranking member.

I give you two examples: Rep. Ron Paul (my representative) who is a Libertarian with an R after his name, and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a for-real socialist.

State legislatures are full of other examples that you have most likely never heard of.

History shows that democratic republics go one of three ways:

• Two-party systems, with a vaguely left-right divide, like the U.S. and Canada
• Multi-party systems that are unstable, like Israel and Italy
• One-party systems that cease to be democracies

I don't make the rules. I don't like the rules. But those are the rules.

- Jim

baldeagle wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Perfect. Enemy. Good.

That's precisely the argument I hate most about politics. Let's settle for second best because there's no way we can ever get the best.

Well, when the Republicans held the U.S. House and Senate and the White House in 2001, they abolished all those unconstitutional "gun control" laws and the income tax, didn't they?

There is nowhere to turn. My political sympathies are more libertarian than any other category, but libertarian candidates rarely are elected because they insist on being ideologically pure.

Dogs. Fleas. Pigs. Mud. Adams and Jefferson rolled in it. That's all there is.

- Jim

Try this on for size, Dr. von Braun: Sen. Reid is replaced by a political novice who will be the junior member of the Senate. The Democrats retain a majority (which is a 50:50 bet). And one of the two worst anti-RKBA senior senators currently holding office becomes majority leader.

I'm not signing up for that scenario.

Perfect. Enemy. Good.

- Jim