Votes Are Shaping Up?

NRA seems pretty confident they can stop the worst of what’s coming at us, or at least David Keene is. I would not let this lull us into any complacency. We still have a fight ahead of us, and numbers like what we’re seeing out of some recent polls are concerning. If Obama piles on, these numbers are bound to shift more. Complacency is our worst enemy. Like many of us gun bloggers have been saying, if every person panic buying guns and ammo also wrote their reps, we’d have nothing to worry about. But they won’t, so those of us willing to do something have to make up for those who won’t. They can’t be given any victory, because any victory given will be used to build upon the next victory when they get their next pretext. The snowball will begin to roll. A lot of people will ask why we just won’t be reasonable, well, because in politics, being reasonable is what gets you squashed.

21 Responses to “Votes Are Shaping Up?”

  1. Papa says:

    “A lot of people will ask why we just won’t be reasonable…”

    Maybe because we’ve been “reasonable” for 80 years and it’s only gotten us 20,000 laws that do absolutely nothing to stop crime. Actually, any thinking person would realize that laws don’t stop crime…

    2013 is a line-in-the-sand for me.

    • Harold says:

      Say a century/100 years; the Sullivan Act was passed in 1911—certainly a red letter year for guns (JMB PBUH).

    • aerodawg says:

      You can’t be reasonable with people who are fundamentally untrustworthy, who negotiate in bad faith and who have no idea what the real definition of compromise is.

      Take compromise. Their idea of compromise is they get everything they want and we get nothing. Personally I might discuss enhanced background checks if they were willing to say, repeal the Hughes amendment to FOPA ’86.

      Basically, when their idea of compromise is punching a man in the jaw and telling him it’s a compromise cuz he didn’t get kicked in the junk too. I’m not going along with that any more.

      Additionally, whatever they say, their end goal is complete and utter prohibition. They lie about this at every turn. When they negotiate, they take positions which they’ll never be satisfied with and giving them anything just emboldens them to come back demanding more later.

      There is absolutely no benefit to negotiating with people on that side of the argument.

      • Pyrotek85 says:

        “When they negotiate, they take positions which they’ll never be satisfied with and giving them anything just emboldens them to come back demanding more later.

        Kinda like negotiating with terrorists huh? Some might think that’s a bit of a leap, but they are holding our rights hostage.

        • Rob Crawford says:

          Kinda? Ask yourself — if their intentions were good and peaceful, would they want innocent, law-abiding citizens disarmed?

          • Bill says:

            That’s it in a nutshell. Why is every proposal a kick in the pants to the law abiding?

            I do not trust a government that does not trust me with guns.

      • Alpheus says:

        “They lie about this [confiscation] at every turn.”

        No they do not lie about this at every turn. Every so often, someone will demand confiscation, and then they have the gall to say that we’re being paranoid, because “no one wants to take away our guns”!

        And then they wonder why we don’t trust them!

  2. Packman says:

    While things may be safe at the federal level, we are apparently screwed here in New York.

    • Harold says:

      Defeat begins in the mind. If your representatives are even vaguely not entirely anti-gun contact them. I’d also let the Republican leadership, or at least some influential upstate Republicans, know this will hurt them.

      Often stories like these are lies designed to create their own reality by discouraging people. We might not have had the mess from Gore contesting Florida if it wasn’t for the networks calling Florida before the polls closed for the more conservative panhandle in the Central Time Zone. Or at least if those voters would have realized the MSM had become an adjunct of the Democratic Party.

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      You’re not screwed…….


      This one cannot pass the legislature without more support from the anti-gun reps. Keep an eye out on NY SCOPE website and do what you need. Apparently the NRA is involved in this as well. You guys need to show up personally and talk to your congress folks if need be. If this happened in PA I know plenty would be lined up immediately.

  3. HappyWarrior6 says:

    Nothing really all that different from before. Scroll down to “Bottom Line” in the Gallup poll referenced in the article.

    “Stricter laws” apparently doesn’t translate to “banning things”. There are obvious ways laws could always be stricter, but the enforcement is usually to blame. I suspect if anything changes based on these numbers policy-wise it’s going to be increased scrutiny of purchases, not type of guns. Like any good pollster could do, Gallup, CNN, CBS, USA Today,or even the NRA can use a push poll to demonstrate support from the margins that wasn’t there before.

  4. wrt81 says:

    This is good news but it looks they are really going to use the Executive Order option. They are readying 19 EOs according to this:

  5. jbiros says:

    Can Senators be recalled?
    If your Sen ran on pro 2nd Amendment ideas and is now for AWB, what is the process to remove them.
    Just wondering if this is a viable option.

  6. jkp says:

    That may be true for the federal government — but if New York or California slips further down the drain, it’s still a loss.

  7. Andy says:

    Huh. And how many EO did Bloomberg give to Obama in his blueprint?

  8. Heather from AK says:

    We’re trying to put the pressure on our senators – they are none too strong right now, which is a huge disappointment to me. Then again, maybe they just need to be reminded that the Dem is up for reelection in two years and the RINO nearly lost her last election to a third-tier challenger. Keep the letters coming!

  9. Trevor Shepherd says:

    Can Obamarama do anything with exec order that affects magazines? I’m trying to think here how he could so that? Also, I see 150 million people having legal standing to sue if he does actually do something, and given the real possibility of of succeeding on the merits of the case, I can see 150 million individual injunctions that ban the ban, pending the outcome of the trials. That would at least delay the exec orders from taking affect, probably longer than Obamarama will be living in D.C. Seriously, if you simply got 5 cases per state to go to Federal court and seek injunctions, you could literally shut down the office of the U.S. Solicitor General.

    • wrt81 says:

      I’ve read the executive orders can cover importation of guns, magazines, and parts. If that is true, he could theoretically ban importation of magazines (Sig (Mec-gar), HK, Glock, etc) and maybe even ban importation of all semi-autos (handguns & rifles). I have no idea if this is possible or not, but it has my attention for sure.

      • Rob Crawford says:

        Dunno. There are trade agreements involved — and as much as the international bureaucrats hate small arms in private hands, they love money more. Also, there’s no end of cities and towns in the US that would love to have a little sheet-metal plant turning out magazines to give the locals some jobs. Popular with the voters, too, away from the worst of the Blue Hells.