Reid warns against rush on gun control

[lexington86]

Here's a very interesting story about what may be happening in congress in the near future in terms of gun control. Don't worry, surprisingly it's not all bad!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/4723942.html

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, one of Congress' most persistent advocates of gun rights, noted that the student who police say was the shooter at Virginia Tech had brought a weapon onto campus in violation of restrictions. He said he doubted a law could be passed that would protect "any of us when somebody who is mentally deranged decides to do this."

[TravisBickle]

He says that now, but wait until after the '08 elections when the Dems control EVERYTHING.

[jkp1187]

Originally Posted by MorganB

He says that now, but wait until after the '08 elections when the Dems control EVERYTHING.

If nothing else, though, consider how far we've come in the past 10 years. It wasn't that long ago that some (mainstream) Dems were shrilly screaming every other week for a complete ban on private ownership of firearms. I remember seeing the disgusting dog-and-pony show that Sarah Brady put on, using her poor disabled husband Jim like he was some sort of circuit prop for the audience's pity at PSU-Behrend back in '92. (I went there with a couple of acquaintances, and every one of us came away from that meeting convinced that the antis were on the wrong side of the issue.) Now Harry Reid himself is calling for "no rush to judgment" on the issue.

Don't forget -- the Dems owe their control of Congress to people elected in '06 who are, I think, more pro-rights than the party has traditionally been.

[Lougotzz]

The dem party can actually be a party that is better then the rep party. If they would get rid of their ultra left wing nuts. Unfortunately that is the majority of them today. if you look at the dem party of 30-40 years ago it was more centered for the common joe/jane american. Now we have the rep in bed with major corps and the dems in bed with the ultra left wing socialist nuts. If a true 3 rd party made its move and got a real american message out it could buck the system. I dont see it happening or catching on. maybe an election here and there but no real sustainable clout.

[awkx]

I dearly hope that Ron Paul is elected president. He would certainly veto any legislation that infringes the Second Amendment right to arms. Besides his 4 years in office, he would hopefully bring about a renewed nationwide respect for the Constitution that is notably lacking today.

[Turbinesaint]

Originally Posted by jkp1187

Now Harry Reid himself is calling for "no rush to judgment" on the issue.

As a current Nevada resident (for 2 more months), Harry Reid understands what state elected him and would be hard pressed to say anything anti (especially in ligt of his Iraq comments) now and into the future because he wants to stay in office.

[PA Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Lougotzz

...If they would get rid of their ultra left wing nuts. Unfortunately that is the majority of them today. ....

I'm with Lou on this one. The Democrats formerly represented the middle class America, the working class in particular. At some point their ranks swelled with left wing extremeists, environmentalists, socialists, para-socialists, bohemians, flakes and other ne'er-do-wells. In one aspect it's similar to Granola cereal -- take out the flakes and you're still left with the fruits and nuts. Since they've become too distracted with fringe elements and the smaller, noisier minorities, they're too distracted to represent the core of the working class -- you & I. Therefore I submit that we are no longer directly represented in the government, only indirectly through voting out whom we don't like.

Politicians, Democrats in particular, are well known to fake right and break left. They may be of the opinion that we're ready for really punishing gun control, and may institute it anyway after 2008. They know as long as the Republicans aren't hard core pro-gun, we don't have anywhere to turn in a bicameral (two party) system. Sure, we can clean 'em out in the next election cycle, but it'll be business as usual with the Republicans and we'll soon tire of that, assuming we've forgotten the Iraq debacle by then. Plus, the tendency for power to corrupt isn't limited to just the Republicans.

Putting blind faith in the heir-apparent Democratic party on the eve of a full government takeover would be misplaced faith, to say the least.

[God's Country]

Harry Reid wouldn't know reality if it slapped him in the face. Even a half wit democrat knows it would be political suicide for the democratic party to scream gun control . They're all being extremely cautious. They have a presidential election almost sewn up(in their minds), and are not going to derail that. Dems like Feinstein can shoot their holes off because it doesn't effect their core constituency. The democratic strong holds will begin to evaluate gun control just enough to shut up the voters. The rest, like Reid, will pretend it's a lost cause. They'll bank on sailing into the '08 presidency, and unleash their "sensible control methods." Like it or not both parties are controlled by they're "radical members".
Just keep that in mind before you vote a moderate democrat. When any democrat says:
"I want to tax the rich and non infringe on sportsmen’s rights."
You better hold onto your wallet and hide your guns.