New House Majority Leader - NRA F Rated

[azshooter]

In addition to the new Speaker of the House being an NRA F - we now have the house majority leader who is also an NRA F rated candidate.

Score another victory for the scholars who say there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans

<driping sarcasm>Good job teaching Bush a Lesson!</driping sarcasm>

[jpsmith1]

...and when the Democrat revolution continues in '08 with Hillary's election, we will have 2 choices. 1> Lock and Load and fight back when the grabbers come for our guns or 2> Surrender meekly.

Which will you do?

It was a truly predictable election.  I expected the Republicans to get beat.  Gun control is probably not going to happen quite yet with a pro-gun president, but when Bush is gone, LOOK OUT!  They've had over 10 years to lick their wounds and scheme and plan.  Truly, our only hope is a strong Republican candidate in '08, but I just can't think of one that can beat Hillary.

[Questor]

azshooter:

There is a technicality to be considered regarding the F rating. She only got the F rating because NRA doesn't yet have anything worse than F as a rating.

[Almtnman]

What impact, if any, will the transformational 2006 Congressional Election have on Second Amendment rights?

While election 2006 may have been a referendum on many things (the President, war in Iraq, Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley for example), it does not translate into greater support for gun control at the grass roots level.

If anything, gun control was notable as a non-issue in this election. In compiling the GOA rating, researchers could hardly find a congressional candidate with any stated position on gun control on campaign websites.

That's not to say many of the newly elected will not support the anti-gun agenda; just that they recognize open support for gun control will cost them at the polls.

Unlike the newly elected members, however, the Democrat Congressional leadership is completely beholden to the far left anti-gun extreme of its party.

House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (F-rated by GOA) is a charter member of the most extreme wing of the party she now leads. As the person who controls what bills come to the floor, Pelosi will be unable to say "No" to the appeals for more gun control by the likes of Sarah Brady and her congressional allies.

The Speaker's strongest House ally in the push for more gun control is long-time Democrat anti-gun activist John Conyers, the likely Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Almost all bills related to the Second Amendment will pass through Conyers' committee. The new Chairman, an extremist who advocates a total handgun ban, will control the schedule of the committee as well as which bills come up for committee vote.

The situation in the Senate may be worse (pending the outcome of the Virginia senate race). Should Democrat Jim Webb hang on to win, the expected new Senate Majority will be F-rated Harry Reid (NV) and the probable incoming Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee would be GOA F-rated Pat Leahy of Vermont

From there it really goes downhill.

The rest of the Democrats currently on the committee make up the Who's Who of the anti-gun movement:

    * Ted Kennedy (MA), the mouthpiece for Sarah Brady in the Senate;

    * Joe Biden (DE), who chaired the Judiciary Committee when the Brady bill passed in 1993, and who said at that time, famously, "The public and the Congress have spoken unequivocally, and I don't care what a minority wants;"

    * Herb Kohl (WI), author of the "Gun Free Zones Ban;"

    * Dianne Feinstein (CA), author of the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban;

    * Russ Feingold (WI), democrat lead sponsor of so-called campaign finance reform;

    * Charlie Schumer (NY), lead sponsor of the 1993 Brady law; and,

    * Dick Durbin (IL), one of the most outspoken gun control zealots in the Senate.

Gun owners should look twice at the above list. Most or all of these members will remain on the Judiciary Committee when the new Congress convenes in January, and will help shape American gun laws for at least the next two years.

[30-30man]

This might be a statement some may not want to hear but Hillary Clinton has no chance in 2008.  She will never carry the South(Texas, Florida) and California is a probable NO as well. People will just never vote for a woman no matter how much people think things have changed.  A minority male has a better chance than any female of any color.  I  will never vote for her.  She's just as much as a crook as her husband.  They used campaign donations from families that  Bill pardoned to buy furniture for their new home in Massachusetts.  They spent over $300,000 on the dining room alone.  Who do you think picked out the furniture.  There should have been a federal investigation but Bush Jr.  wanted the transfer of power to be as quiet as possible.  This was in response to the voting viasco in Florida.  This was money paid by families to buy pardons.  She's just another career politician who lies and steals like the rest.  My .002

[Questor]

I'd vote for a woman. Just not that woman. She has too much baggage, and she's too far to the left.

[nabob]

She's just another career politician who lies and steals like the rest.

True enough, but for some reason, we'll excuse the ones who are conservative and condemn the ones we consider "liberal". No politician is clean. Yet Hillary seems to generate the same white-hot hatred that her husband did.

I think that it is because 1) she manages to get away with it, infuriating conservatives and 2) she is a woman, as one poster has already stated is enough to keep him from voting for her. The first reason is sour grapes, the second is sexist.

Good reasons for opposing someone, aren't they?

[30-30man]

Call it what you want but it's reality.   Everyone is a little sexist, it is our nature.  If most of us are honest with ourselves, we'd admit it.  The country expects a man to be the head of his family and one of them the head of this country.   I'd vote for a woman and I  have on occasions, to take public office.  The president is an entirely different thing though.   It's not sexist, it is just the way things were designed by our Creator. It is just a natural choice for people to make.  When I use the word principal of a school, most people automatically think of a man.  It is just natural to expect men to take the lead.  I don't doubt her ability.  Heck, she could do a lot better than Bush has.  Most of us were better off financially when Clinton was in office anyway.  I just don't think it will happen for the lady.  If you call me a sexist, well I guess I am.  I'm just an honest person stating the obvious.

[nabob]

It's not sexist, it is just the way things were designed by our Creator.

I don't think God had much to do with creating the requirements for elected office.

I think that Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Theodora, Elizabeth I, Mary Queen of Scots, etc., should have shown that women can lead as effectively as men. When you say "it to expect men to take the lead", that attitude is grounded in what has happened in the past, not in assessment of ability. I agree, it is probably reality, but that reality is sexist. I don't condemn you for it, I just want to ensure that the attitude is recognized for what it is.

[jpsmith1]

I'm not afraid of having a woman run our country.  I believe that a woman could probably do a better job in a lot of respects.  I just don't want THAT woman running our country.  It has nothing to do with the fact that she's female, it's all about the politics.  She's all for strong government, both for our country and for the world.  It might be about the economy, but the folks in Italy used to think the same way about Mussolini.

How about this?  Hillary vs Condi Rice?

[Brett]

I'm with you JP.  I have no problem with a woman in the White House as long as she is the right woman.  Not sure if Condi Rice is the Right woman or not but I would definitely vote for Condi over Billery. 

[30-30man]

I guess this is where I refuse to follow popular opinion. I'm a Christian man and my beliefs and opinions are not very popular in the world's view.  I guess God's plan is just not popular with the wordly view of how things should work.  I don't mean to ruffle any feathers but we don't live in an equal world and we never have. Contrary to what a lot of people think, every family needs a father who should be the leader.  For the last 20 or more years women have tried to do it themselves.  It just doesn't work as well as if you have a team of two parents with one taking the lead.  I'm not saying we should rule over our women like masters to a slave.  It should be a team but the man must take the lead.  It is just natural.  Ask anyone that works in a school and they will tell you the biggest downfall of schools are the result of no active fathers in the home.  I'm not saying that it can't work, it just not favorable.  Men are designed by nature to lead and a US president that is female is unnatural.  It was Adam then Eve not Eve and Sarah.  That is what is wrong with our families,churches, and our government.  There are few real men left with enough morals and commitment to take on the tasks that were given to him since creation. I could quote enough scripture to fill five pages that supports men being the leaders.  I 'll get off the soap box now.  Sombody else help me out here......

[Almtnman]

30-30man, I think you did a good job of telling it like it is. 

[nabob]

I guess God's plan is just not popular with the wordly view of how things should work.

I'm as Christian as you are and I don't agree with your assessment of the will of God. In politics, it is ability that counts, not sex. I can't imagine what the need for a two-parent family has to do with running the country.

[fe352v8]

I have a hard time seeing how having genitalia that readily lends itself to writing ones name in the snow, is a test of leadership ability.

A real man should not feel that threatened, by a strong woman.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[30-30man]

That's just it..The world just doesn't get what God planned and commanded. I'm not trying to convince anyone of my opinion.  I'm just stating what God said.  "AS for me and my house I will follow the Lord" If your a Christian, you can't deny what He has instructed. Men should lead families, church,  and government.  To say anything otherwise is against what God said.  Women should not lead but support.  When most of us were young, we ran to our mothers for comfort/support and  ran to our fathers for permission/guidance/leadership.  It was natural and in God's plan.  A female in leadership and men in a supporting role is what the world wants you to think will work. Margaret Thatcher did lead as did the others you mentioned but think.  Have you visited those countries lately?  In Great Britain, about the only guns you will find are in a museum.  There is a reason America has been blessed in the past.  It is because most of us followed God's plan.  Men led this country,our churches and our families.  The world's way just doesn't work and I just hate to see things change.  The path of sin(going against God's Will) leads to destruction.  God said that, I didn't.

[nabob]

It is your interpretation that your position is the will of God. It is not my interpretation. We follow the Lord in my house as well.

Guns in Great Britain were not jeopardized by Margaret Thatcher, for goodness sakes. Britain had fearsome gun control long before she came on the scene and has ever since she left. BTW, men preceded her and succeeded her, so that argument won't work.

The path of sin leads to destruction but figuring out just what is sin and what is not is the problem here.

Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Gold Meir - these are women in modern times, leading nations. Where's their destruction? Theodora, Elizabeth I, Mary Queen of Scots - where was their destruction?

Your argument doesn't seem to hold true.

[30-30man]

I see now that I can't sway anybody hear so I'll quit with my rants.  The worldly view of how they view religion is to only include the parts they want to hear.  They ignore the parts they don't want to follow. 1 Timothy 2:11-14: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner,”  I think this plainly states what God wants in our nation.  It's not an interpretation.  It's what God said and it's no interpretation. Without getting into Hebrew,  it's in the KJ, NIV, The Living Bible, and every Bible I've read.    Margaret Thatcher did not start gun control...I know that but she was a result of a worldly view of the family. Name one country that is as blessed as ours that had a female as a leader.   All I'm saying is that men need to step up at home, in the churches, and in government.  Most women if they're honest will tell you the same thing.  They want a strong man, good leader, and to be taken care of.  Hillary Clinton is a result of a man who didn't handle things at home, in his church, and in his leadership.  She had to take charge and lead.  I never said she couldn't, it's just not ideal and what God wants.  Genitalia has nothing to do with it either.  Have you ever wondered why most men are less emotional than women?  God made us that way.  To be a good leader, you have to take emotions out of decisions.  I'll say no more...

[nabob]

1 Timothy is speaking about spiritual matters, not political matters. The context of that passage is in regard to women teaching in church. It says nothing about running a country. For a more thorough refutation, read the book of Judges chapter 4 and the story of Deborah. Here is explicitly a woman who is leading the Israelites and God blesses them with victory over Sisera. I think that may YOU are the one not wanting to consider parts of the Bible you find objectionable. If God blessed Deborah's leadership with victory over Sisera, who are you to say that God's will is to avoid female leadership?

Second, Adam is formed first but Eve is formed from Adam, which in my faith indicates that they are of the same material and hence, equal. To us, that is the meaning of the creation of Eve - she is equal to Adam because she was formed from the essence of Adam himself.

Name one country that has had the OPPORTUNITY to be led by a woman that is as blessed as ours. Women haven't even had the opportunity to vote for a whole lotta years, so claiming that our blessed state as a nation is a product of avoiding women as leaders is begging the question - women haven't been given the opportunity to lead in our nation so we haven't had any sort of a fair comparison.

[30-30man]

I agree with you to disagree.  In the time the New Testemenet was written, the church was the center of all spiritual and government affairs.  It was the center of everything.  I think I Timothy speaks for itself.  Anything else is interpretation.  God used Deborah because He was working in her life.  Sometimes he puts us in difficult situations that are not ideal to draw us closer to HIm.  God can use anyone, that is not what I stated.   Show me a verse that says men and women are equal.  Show me a verse that says women should rule over men.

[nabob]

Yep, and sometimes, as the story of Deborah shows, God uses women. Seems as if your idea that God wants men only in places of leadership is not that Biblical after all. 1 Timothy speaks for itself but only in terms of women leading the church. It says nothing about politics.

Unlike you, I consider the message of the entire Bible, not just a verse here and there.

[30-30man]

I knew this would offend some when I made these statements but please don't take this personally, as I am beginning to think you are.  This is a great board that allows good conversation to happen between sportsmen and women. Let's don't spoil it with personal attacks.   I read and believe in the entire book of the Bible and take it as a literal instruction from God.  I again ask anyone to show me a verse that says Women are to lead in family, church, or government. I gave you an example of God's instruction for men to lead.  Now give me one that says men and women are to be equals in family, church and government.  If you can't, I consider this conversation over. 

[nabob]

I'm not at all offended. I just doubt your command of Scripture. Point out ONE personal attack I've made against you, my friend.

You gave a verse that says women are not to lead in church. You haven't given a single one that says women are not to lead in politics. Can you produce one? If not, then the conversation IS over.

The story of Deborah shows that God sometimes uses women to lead men. Yet you seem to think that is "unnatural". Well, unless you consider God's own choices "unnatural", I don't think your Biblical knowledge is standing up to scrutiny.

[30-30man]

Proverbs 2:21
IITimothy 2:2
Ephesians 5:22-26
ICorinthians 14:34-35
I Corinthians 11:7
Genesis 3:16

Good bye and God bless!

[nabob]

Proverbs 2:21

"For they that are upright, shall dwell in the earth; and the simple shall continue in it."

Nothing about women in politics there.

2 Timothy 2:2

"And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well."

Nothing about women in politics there.

Ephesians 5:22-26

"5:22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife,
and Christ also is the head of the assembly,
being himself the savior of the body.
5:24 But as the assembly is subject to Christ,
so let the wives also be to their own husbands in everything.
5:25 Husbands, love your wives,

even as Christ also loved the assembly, and gave himself up for it;
5:26 that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word"

Nothing about women in politics there.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

"14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Nothing about women in politics there.

1 Corinthians 11:7

"The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. "

Nothing about women in politics there.

Genesis 3:16

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

Nothing about women in politics there.



Your quotations are all about familial relationships and relationships in the church. You seem to have missed the challenge by a bit, friend. I asked for quotations about women in politics. Nothing you have posted covers that.

Are you sure you are using the same Bible I am?

[powderman]

3030MAN. I pretty well agree with everything you have said. God has not changed, man has. Pay no attention to nabob, he just likes to pick and argue. Our nation has been headed downhill over 40 years now.
In 1963 God was basicaly thrown out of America. The ten commandments were removed from our schools, court rooms, and other public places. For over 40 years now we've had children raised in Godless schools, tried in Godless courts, raised in Godless homes, and had laws made by  A Godless judicial system. The result of all of this is what we now see leading our nation to ruin. We now have homosexuality thrown in our faces daily, we have a major political party that believes killing unwanted babies is simply birth control. When we allowed these things to happen it didn't seem all that big a deal, but it was. We used to be ONE NATION UNDER GOD, I pray we can be so again. Keep on writing, maybe someone will wake up. POWDERMAN.

[gypsyman]

The Republicans lost this election, I don't believe that the Democrats won it. At least not in the sense that they did something right! We have 2 years to let our Reps. know how we feel. If we get off our butts, and send a few letters, we can let them know that we can throw out as many Democrats in 2008, as we put in.(somebody did anyhow, I didn't vote for any)
And I believe that the anti-gun representitive's, might have a new perspective on how powerful pro gun voters are, after Gore lost in 2000, and Kerry in 2004.
What the Republican need to start thinking about, is a good candidate for '08. I personally don't see much out there at this time.(unless Jeb Bush decide's to run, as he is about the strongest pro gun guy out there)
I don't see much cance of Hillary getting in, as even most of the moderate Democrats don't think much of her. What we need here, is a little divine guidance. my .02-gypsyman

[nabob]

powderman, I only pick and argue with people who 1) use Christianity as a cover for their own prejudices or 2) let others such as Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken do their thinking for them.