# Gun Owners of America's take on the past election



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Please excuse the cut and past and also the length, but it contains good information.



> THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE HILL
> 
> Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
> 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
> ...


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

the biggest threat to gun ownership is loss of access becuase that will cause the hunting population to decline ( its been on a downhill slide for some time) once hunters are a small number of the pop the antigun people in govt will not fear the voting block.

Then gun ownership rights will be attacked.

The right to own guns has nothing to do with hunting its supposed to allow the people to keep the government in line.

Our politicians have perverted that tenet to make people believe its to allow hunting. And our stupid pop doesnt know better.

One more way farmers are selling us out with the loss of access.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

All I have to say is.......United we stand........Divided we FALL :sniper: :sniper: :strapped:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I agree with both of you . I guess that would be evident through my signature line.

If we vote to stay in the government trough we will incrementally loose our second amendment rights. Also, if hunting becomes a sport of the rich expect the number of hunters to drop by 90 percent or more. Strength to stand against the anti-hunters, and anti-firearms people comes with numbers. Reduce the number, and you are easy prey. A liberal sportsman to me defies logic. 
The reality is it is all a matter of priorities. If you love welfare money more than your firearms vote liberal. If you think it is more important to have gay marriage than hunt, vote liberal, It is just another decision in life where you have to decide where your priorities lie. The voting records of these people have revealed to us what to expect. Actions speak louder than words, and anyone who thinks a little bit knows what to expect.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Gay marriage and hunting, never thought I would see those two in the same sentence. Nice line of BS, plainsman!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Rooster, it's very simple for anyone to check. Simply look at voting records. Break politicians into liberal and conservative, then look at who votes against firearms, and who votes pro gay, and even for gay marriage. No need to guess at this check out who votes for what. From that point it is an extremely simple exercise of logic. It is as plain as the nose on our faces Rooster. I would appear you want to hide the liberal agenda Rooster, I just can't figure out which part or why.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman, trying to reason with a gun owner who would actually consider voting for Hillary is like trying to sneeze with your eyes open!

I have a standing offer to anyone who even THINKS they MIGHT vote for her.....give me first chance to buy your rifles, 'cause you obviously don't care about 'em anymore.


----------



## NDJ (Jun 11, 2002)

From Human Events

Election Wasn't a Vote for Gun Control
by Lawrence G. Keane, Esq.
Posted Nov 27, 2006

As the final election tallies come in, with only a few House races still yet to be determined, and the 2008 presidential race begun, a few things are clear: The 2006 midterm elections were a referendum on Iraq and the Republican leadership of Congress. It was a "thumping," as the President acknowledged. But what they were not, as some on the far left would have you believe, was a mandate for more gun control.

With control of the Senate and House of Representatives shifting to Democrats, anti-gun zealots have claimed credit for the election results in an attempt to strengthen their political capital with new congressional leaders. Their goal is advancing the gun control agenda, including a return to a ban on some semi-automatic firearms based on cosmetic appearances (a ban which did nothing to prevent crime), an outright ban on civilian ownership of handguns, national registration and licensing. The list goes on.

Sportsmen, hunters and firearms owners may be left with a feeling of uneasiness if they read the anti-gun propaganda spewing forth from the likes of the Brady Campaign and the deceptively named American Hunters & Shooters Association. While sportsmen, hunters and gun owners must remain vigilant, the anti's rhetoric is, as always, overheated.

The past four federal election cycles have shown the awesome voting power of America's sportsmen, hunters and gun owners. Bill Clinton admitted in his memoirs that the gun issue cost Al Gore the White House in 2000 and Sen. John Kerry's pathetically staged "goose hunt" in Ohio just days before the 2004 presidential election cooked his. During the 2006 midterm elections, no candidates, save a few historically anti-gun politicians, ran on anti-gun platforms. The Democrats recruited candidates based, at least in part, on their pro-hunting, pro-2nd Amendment positions.

In the Senate, for example, control swung to the Democrats with the election of pro-gun Jim Webb in Virginia, John Tester in Montana and Bob Casey in Pennsylvania. Even Sen.-elect Claire McCaskill of Missouri claimed to be pro-gun on the campaign trial. On the other side of the aisle, several prominent anti-gun senators were sent home, including Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island and Mike DeWine of Ohio, both of whom voted against legislation last year to block frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. The bill passed with broad bi-partisan support, including Sen. Harry Reid, the incoming Senate majority leader.

In the House of Representatives, of the 30-plus seats the Democrats picked-up, more than half of those elected ran as pro-gun candidates. In Indiana, for example, three pro-gun Republicans (Chris Chocola, John Hostettler, Mike Sodrel) were replaced with three pro-gun democrats (Joseph Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth, Baron Hill). Undoubtedly, in the House several leading anti-gun legislators will assume the chairmanship of important committees. For example, Rep. John Conyers (D.-Mich.) will chair the Judiciary Committee and anti-gun zealot Nancy Pelosi will be the next speaker. But, in the House, pro-gun "Blue Dog" Democrats will be the key voting block in the 110th.

The recruiting of conservative, pro-gun candidates by the liberal Democrat campaign committee chairmen, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.) and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D.-Ill.), was a calculated political move to take guns off the table because the liberal leadership now recognizes it is a political loser for them since most Americans don't want more failed gun control that just harasses the law abiding and is ignored by criminals.

The Second Amendment and preserving and fostering America's hunting heritage is not, however, a "Republican vs. Democrat" issue. Chafee and Lincoln are not the only anti-gun Republicans. After all, 2008 presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani, while mayor of New York, sued members of the firearms industry in June of 2000, after dropping out of the Senate race against Hillary Clinton. It was one of the first official acts of the "kinder, gentler Rudy." His successor, Republican mayor Mike Bloomberg, also rumored to be considering tossing his hat in the ring for 2008, has continued the city's lawsuit against the industry.

In fact, Bloomberg has made exporting New York-style gun control to the rest of America the central focus of his second administration by forming the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition. Hypocritically, Bloomberg has refused calls to follow the lead of the firearms industry to denounce one of the coalition's founding members, Mayor Frank Melton of Jackson, Miss., after he was thrice convicted earlier this month of illegally possessing a firearm.

Like sportsmen, hunters and gun owners, the firearms industry will with great vigilance watch the votes of the newly elected "pro-gun" members of Congress to ensure they are true to their word. If not, sportsmen, hunters and gun owners have proven their ability to hold politicians accountable.

Mr. Keane is senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., the firearm industry's trade association. He oversees the industry government relations program and serves as the industry's chief spokesperson for legal and legislative issues.
__________________


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

That is a good post! All that BS about only the republicans believe in gun ownership gets old.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Rooster I agree that was a good post. I am what you would call guardedly optimistic. Democrats that are pro gun would be great. Here is where I see reality.
I hope when they run as pro gun that half of them were sincere. I am sure at least half lied for the vote.
When they get to Washington, I hope the other half will have the guts to vote their convictions. I would guess half will, half will be pushed into falling in with the radicals running the party. 
What happens in Washington anyway? Good people go there and it would appear that within a year they are often just another linguini spine politician. Democrat or republican I would like to see all the anti-firearm, anti-constitution bums run out of Washington.
So old Rudy is a skunk too? Another election looming on the horizon where our only choices are Larry, Mo, or Curly. Crap.


----------



## Remington 7400 (Dec 14, 2005)

MOLON LABE

:sniper:
:strapped: 
:sniper:


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

As a long time member, and also life member of NRA, I pose the question:

Why would any responsible gun owner and outdoor lover ever want to repeal the gun ban in National Parks, EXCEPT for special cases of helping reduce overpopulation of some animals? Even then, because of the antler obsession of 99% of today's hunters, they wouldn't be there to help (like reduce the cow elk population, etc) but only to shoot the "BIG BULL" trophy! So professional sharpshooters would have to be used for this anyway!
Or are you suggesting that every hiker in a National Park be carrying heat???


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

As a US citizen we should be held in no leagal burden to carry a firearm anytime anyware for any reason. I will never go hiking without a firearm, and should not be harassed for doing so, unless the state wishes to supply me with an armed guard!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Why would any responsible gun owner and outdoor lover ever want to repeal the gun ban in National Parks


That is a misconception, but I think we are looking at this from two different angles. Some may say no firearms allowed at the gate, but that violates the constitution. It is perfectly legal for them to require that you lock them in a case, and keep ammo separated from the firearm. 
Look at it this way, you are coming home from a hunt, and have never seen Yellowstone Park. It is 150 miles closer to go through the park, so you decide this is a good time. You lock your rifle in a hard case, put your ammo in another box and pull up to the park. They tell you that you can go through but your rifle can not. 
I traveled through Yellowstone ten years ago with my rifles. I told them where they were, where the ammo was, and they said enjoy the park. These little county parks with big signs that say no firearms allowed can kiss my behind. I am sure in court you could shove that down their throat. It might cost you for a good attorney, but it might be worth it in satisfaction.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Habitat Hugger said:


> As a long time member, and also life member of NRA, I pose the question:
> 
> Or are you suggesting that every hiker in a National Park be carrying heat???


Hugger, I think by now it's safe to say 48 states have shown it's not CARRYING a firearm that is a problem. It's illegally USING it that needs to be addressed.

So with that in mind, please explain, from one life member to another, why you would have a problem with the hypothetical situation you've described above.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Plainsman, yes I've returned back home from successful Wyoming hunts through Yellowstone several times with Antlers in full view. They gave us a permit showing that we had the antlers when we arrived at the park entrance so we wouldn't be taken for poachers, and congratulated us on our successful hunts. A gun ban in the parks has nothing to do with travelling through the park or possessing a gun in a case out of sight in a park. (I usually have one in my camper!) 
CSquared - I'm not sure of your question? What hypothetical situation?? Carrying guns in a National Park? Or using hunters to carry out selected herd reductions within a National Park?


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Sorry for being vague, and I'm not trying to take you to task, but it just struck me as odd that a life member of the NRA would make the statement "are you suggesting that every hiker in a national park be carying heat?", like that would be a BAD thing.

I just wanted you to explain to me why you would have a problem with that.

I personally believe that guns in national parks should be treated the same as guns on an airplane........they should be handed out at the gate if you forgot your's!

I guess I would rather have tax money spent to have one park employee pick up and bury an aggressive bear with a back hoe in a national park than by having several park employees help to rescue a mauled hiker while several more hunt for the bear later....but that's just my opinion.

I guess that sort of answers your question as to how an otherwise responsible gun owner and lover of the outdoors could possibly want to repeal the gun ban in national parks.

I think the safety of society as a whole increases as more people carry more guns to more places, including national parks.

But hey, I could be wrong!


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I see what you mean now, CSquared. Unfortunately all gun owners are not responsible people like you or I might be. If eveyone wandering through the park were allowed to carry a gun there would probably be a lot of bear kills---eeeerrrr---bear woundings by people who haven't a clue about grizzlies, etc. or when to shoot, how to shoot accurately, and when to back off, or most importantly when to use Bear Spray. 
Letting some people that I know personally carry guns in the park would be like the old joke about the guy who takes Karate, Judo, etc. then deliberately walks down back alleys hoping for an attack. Wouldn't work. For you, or I and a lot of others it would, but unfortunately like it or not, some gun owners are NOT responsible people! Although I feel strongly about the right to keep and bear arms, I wish there was some way to ensure that everyone would keep and bear arms RESPONSIBLY! 
Even Teddy Rooseveldt, the "father' of our national park system would roll over in his grave if he could see some of our fellow gun owners carry guns in parks. I've read every book and pretty well every treatise he has written and although not applicable maybe for 2007 I sure get the impression that he would be against that.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I think I come down on the side of Habitat Hugger on this one........ sort of. I don't buy into the idea that just because you are a American citizen you should have the right to have a gun. Everyone is born with that right but a lot of citizens lose that right along the way for various reasons. The dilemma is how to make a law that only affects those that shouldn't have a gun and not affect those that are responsible and should have one. I know of no way to do this. I will and do have a gun on or near me when in National parks. I know I am breaking the law but I consider myself responsible enough to carry one and for my own safety against two legged predators as well as those with four legs, I will continue to do so. However I know some people that shouldn't be allowed to carry a can opener, let alone a gun and it is these people that force you and I to be law breakers.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

One who justifies breaking the law because he deems himself responsible enough to do so&#8230;..hhhhmmmmm&#8230;.is that an oxymoron or just a plain old moron?? I opt for the later. No one is above the law, although some may think they are. Nice move blatantly stating you do and will continue to break the law. I'm sure your parents are proud of you.

An unarmed citizen scares me more than an armed one. IMO Those that believe that guns kill people scare me even more than that.

Ignorance does not justify complacency!! If we get complacent, the ignorant ones will win. No matter who is in control of the government (repubs or dems.)

Join the NRA gents if you already haven't!!! Put your money where your mouth is or&#8230;eeerrrr&#8230;.fingers are in this case.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Already a member Jiff! Probably was a life member when you were only a gleam in your father's eye! Ha!
Like Gohon, I believe most of us are responsible gun owners and probably wouldn't need ANY laws to tell us what we can or cannot do with our guns, and you sure should have the right to keep and bear arms unless you do something to lose that right. But anyone would have to admit that there are a few bad eggs out there that through their actions unfortunately make somewhat constraining laws passed for all of us. Could I responsibly own and use a fully automatic .50BMG? Probably - could Gohon, probably, could jiffy, yep-probably even Jiffy! (kidding with you Jiffy) , but most of my neighbors living 4 miles down the road (State Prison) could not! 
I have no idea how to decide who is or is not responsible in advance, at least until they do something bad. But the fact that there are signs shot up, game poached, and other irresponsible acts like robberies, murders, etc. committed with guns leads me to believe that everyone out there that owns one shouldn't necessarily have one. But most of us need no constraints. 
Nice to dream up a way of telling with 100% accuracy in advance, who would be responsible and who wouldn't be! We could abort 'em or drown 'em at birth! Ha!


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

I agree HH....100%!! :beer:

However, how many of those people who commit crimes with firearms obtain and posses them illegally? If I was a betting man I would say a rather large percentage of them. The "bad guys" will always have guns. The law abiding citizens on the other hand are the ones that will get screwed in the long run.

If the day ever comes where they come a knocking to take my guns from me........that will be the day I become a so called criminal. Thats a promise!!! :******:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

If calling me a moron makes you feel better Jiffy then what can I say. I guess Plainsman is there also after saying "These little county parks with big signs that say no firearms allowed can kiss my behind". And yes my parents are proud of me. Considering you still haven't grown up enough to have a civil conversation on here without personal insults, well I'll just let it go at that. When some crazed drunk comes charging into your camp, intent on hurting you or your family, just show him the sign that says no firearms allowed so you haven't any defense......... I'm sure he will just go away. :eyeroll:

For those interested there is a bill in the senate to do away with the ban on firearms in national parks. With the Democrats in control now I suspect it will just die in committee.



> If the day ever comes where they come a knocking to take my guns from me........that will be the day I become a so called criminal. Thats a promise!!!


Oh............. so you have also decided which laws you will obey and which ones to break. Kind of stepping in your own crap aren't you..... uke:


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

> When some crazed drunk comes charging into your camp, intent on hurting you or your family, just show him the sign that says no firearms allowed so you haven't any defense......... I'm sure he will just go away.


I hate it when that happens to me.....2 or 3 times a year I bet. :lol:



> Oh............. so you have also decided which laws you will obey and which ones to break. Kind of stepping in your own crap aren't you.....


I'm thinking by the time the government comes to get my guns, breaking this law will be the least of our worries. Just a guess.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

And yes, I would gladly "step in my crap" if somebody tryed to take my guns away. With a smile I may add.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Jiffy, Gohan I am the guy that thinks he is above the law!!! I do chose what laws to obey and what ones not to obey. I know right from wrong and don't need anyone to tell me the differeance but hey thats just me.

With that being said,You two both talk the talk but don't walk the walk, you are outlaws just like me, you can't obey the law just a little bit as you see fit ,you are outside the law or in with it. Thats ok with me , problem is, seems folks like you are quick to point the finger at a fella like me!! 8)


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Bore.224, an outlaw is someone constantly outside the law for their own personal benefit at the expense of others. I don't think I've seen anyone on this forum that fits that description. If you want to label yourself that then so be it but you would have to be hiding an awful lot from everyone. It is very unfortunate but these days our national parks have become a haven for thieves and drug addicts. That was not the case just 30 years ago but today if you venture off the beaten path or away from the cozy little village camp sights in the parks you had better be prepared. Jiffy is simply doing what he does best, trying to start trouble in a thread. His post had nothing to do with the subject except to attempt to pull me into one of his childish bickering rants.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

> An unarmed citizen scares me more than an armed one. IMO Those that believe that guns kill people scare me even more than that.
> 
> Ignorance does not justify complacency!! If we get complacent, the ignorant ones will win. No matter who is in control of the government (repubs or dems.)
> 
> Join the NRA gents if you already haven't!!! Put your money where your mouth is or&#8230;eeerrrr&#8230;.fingers are in this case


I guess this has nothing to do with the subject. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I see some people are chastising others for saying essentially the same thing. I pretty much like everyone on here, so don't get real personal and put me in the position of picking on any person in particular. Try remember as responsible gun owners were all on the same side (I think). I understand where each of you are coming from. 
As far as National Parks I have talked with people who work there and they say the crime rate is high, and not just back in the boonies, right in large campgrounds. They say they are required to act more like police every day. The problem is it is very difficult to solve any crime because the criminals may be in the park for only a day and from any corner of the nation. I think your castle is your home and as the constitution is currently interpreted that means your motel room or your camper. Where you currently live is your home, even if temporary. 
I would guess criminals also feel safe in National Parks, just like they did in Oakgrove, Illinois when they banned handguns. Which camper do you think they would break into, one that over the door says "I support gun bans in National Parks", or one that says "abandon all hope ye who enter here"? 
I think the constitution is on my side when I have a 45 in my camper in a county park and that's why they can kiss my behind. I don't think I am breaking the law. As a matter of fact, I know I am not. It stays in my camper, stored, where it is legal. 
You fellows are all right about a few people shouldn't have them. Of interest and along these lines do any of you remember which segment of society had the lowest firearms crime rates? I do. They run statistics on many groups of people and the lowest crime rate by far was those who posses a CCW permit. Is anyone surprised? Perhaps people who carry a CCW permit should be given more latitude.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

I'd like a nationwide CWP. I am reqired to be in 3-5 major urban cities each year. Everytime I get there I feel seriously undergunned with nothing more than a pocket-knife, that's assuming I am there long enough to have checked luggage and therefore bring the knife with.

3 times I've been uncomfortable. In New Orleans walking from Burban street back to my hotel. In Dallas at a bar with some folks who seemed to be looking for trouble, and in San Diego when I exited off the 405 and into the wrong neighborhood. Nothing became of any of these incidents, still would have been much more comfortable with the option of CW.

I'd have no problem with mandatory re-testing both a written and a practical test to prove I understand the laws regarding deadly force, and to prove I'm capable in a practical environment.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Well I can honestly say this is probably the best group of good people I've ever had the pleasure of disagreeing with. I understand all your points, and actually agree with most of them, but I refuse to accept that society as a whole is better off being refused unfettered access to firearms due solely to the fears of how a few might abuse that access.

I drive to work every day to a town of about 150,000 people, all the while during that 20 mile trip being reminded that competence obviously is NOT a prerequisite for governments' eagerness to afford others the chance to control (or TRY to) a potentially deadly weapon. And yet most of us somehow survive the drive anyway.

If my logic prevailed, there would certainly be more idiots with guns. But "good" idiots. Because you gotta remember that the "bad" idiots are already carrying them now. So I submit we are still better off with more idiots carrying guns, since the trade off is fewer criminals facing unarmed citizens. And with that being the case, simply through attrition we are ALL better off!

The one common denominator in all posts contrary to mine is the acknowledgement that it IS prudent to carry, even though the "law" demands otherwise.

At least on that we can agree!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Horsager, believe it or not 48 states presently allow ccw permits. But only about 20 or so have a shall-issue law and even in those there are restrictions that even with a reciprocal law causes confusion. The other 30 or so states are so restrictive, if you aren't a politician or a close friend of the local sheriff then you won't get a permit. California is a good example. 
I agree with you a national cwp is the way to go as it would clear up any confusion between states when crossing a boarder. I was surprised several years ago to discover that Colorado allowed a traveler from out of state to have a concealed gun in their vehicle for protection when passing through the state but did not allow a Colorado citizen to have one. I think that has since changed but confusing nevertheless. When I said I have a gun on or near me when in national parks, I meant just that, ON or NEAR me. I'm not packing ccw when in the park camp grounds, stores, or crowded areas but I have a weapon locked in my vehicle or camper. However there are times I venture far out into the boonies and when sleeping in a tent or in a sleeping bag on the ground, I do have a weapon on my person. I spent to many nights awake at a campfire with the wife and kids sleeping next to me while wondering what that was thrashing around in the bushes in the dark and no way to protect them. I think it is unfortunate and dangerous that anyone has to be put in that position.

It is not about choosing which laws to obey and which to not obey. Up until yesterday I never heard anyone claim to do that. But.......... it is very much about being forced to break a law because of bad law and personal safety.


----------

