Jeff Johnson Posted January 30, 2009 at 10:43 PM Posted January 30, 2009 at 10:43 PM Steele is selected as Chairman of the National Republican Committee. My big concern is that he was the "most moderate" of the candidates. another RINO? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/republicans WASHINGTON – Michael Steele was elected Republican National Committee chairman on Friday, defeating the incumbent party chief and three other challengers over six rounds of voting to become the first black to lead the GOP. The former Maryland lieutenant governor takes over a beleaguered GOP as Republicans seek to rebound from back-to-back defeats in national elections that gave Democrats control of Congress and the White House. "As a little boy growing up in this town, this is awesome," said Steele, the most moderate candidate in the field and considered an outsider because he's not a committee member. In a brief acceptance speech, the new GOP chairman struck a tone of inclusiveness. "We're going to say to friend and foe alike: We want you to be a part of us, we want you to with be with us, and for those who wish to obstruct, get ready to get knocked over," Steele said. He won 91 votes out of a possible 168 in the sixth round. A simple majority of 85 was needed, but it took six rounds for Steele to win.
Jeff Johnson Posted January 30, 2009 at 11:09 PM Author Posted January 30, 2009 at 11:09 PM unable to verify but I understand he is as anti second amendment as they come.am looking for sources but hear he has been quoted as saying "nobody needs an assault weapon to go hunting" and was proud that he owned "zero" guns. krap
MARKHOLSTRUM Posted January 30, 2009 at 11:30 PM Posted January 30, 2009 at 11:30 PM :sick: :sick: :sick: Steele....I saw him on the debates for chairman and he acted like the GOP has always and should continue to embrace Ron Paul style republicans. I would like to know where he was and what he was smoking during the primary because Ron Paul & supporters were treated like 3rd class garbage by the party and the party should really be ashamed of themselves for throwing the constitution aside so quickly. :angry: :angry:
45superman Posted January 31, 2009 at 02:09 AM Posted January 31, 2009 at 02:09 AM unable to verify but I understand he is as anti second amendment as they come.am looking for sources but hear he has been quoted as saying "nobody needs an assault weapon to go hunting" and was proud that he owned "zero" guns. krap You have him pegged. Society should draw lines. What do you need an assault weapon for, if you're going hunting? That's overkill. But I don't think that means you go to a total ban for those who want to use gun for skeet shooting or hunting or things like that But what's the point of passing gun laws if we're not going to enforce them? If you want to talk about gun control, that's where you need to start. We've got 300 gun laws on the books right now. At the end of the day, it's about how we enforce the law. [More] The GOP has apparently decided that the way to get back in power is to be as much like liberal Democrats as possible.
RichardM Posted January 31, 2009 at 02:48 AM Posted January 31, 2009 at 02:48 AM Time to make a new party or have our voices heard if they are going liberal light....didn't they learn from the last election?
predator1972baz Posted January 31, 2009 at 03:53 AM Posted January 31, 2009 at 03:53 AM unable to verify but I understand he is as anti second amendment as they come.am looking for sources but hear he has been quoted as saying "nobody needs an assault weapon to go hunting" and was proud that he owned "zero" guns. krap You have him pegged. Society should draw lines. What do you need an assault weapon for, if you're going hunting? That's overkill. But I don't think that means you go to a total ban for those who want to use gun for skeet shooting or hunting or things like that But what's the point of passing gun laws if we're not going to enforce them? If you want to talk about gun control, that's where you need to start. We've got 300 gun laws on the books right now. At the end of the day, it's about how we enforce the law. [More] The GOP has apparently decided that the way to get back in power is to be as much like liberal Democrats as possible. Steele is a great choice, but right now the republicans are fighting among the conservative branch and the moderates. The verdict hasn't been said yet. Like many of you I disagree with is view on assault weapons. But what I am seeing with moderates and democrats is this mindset that guns are for hunting only. With such a mindset it's very easy to target assault weapons as WMD or weapons that have no use in society. To me that is the mindset that needs to be changed. Ask yourselfs, why is this mindset growing instead of shrinking ? That is an issue that does bother me. Why are people like myself (The target shooter who uses assault weapons) isn't represented ? Many in the National Guard have personal assault weapons. So I know I'm not alone here. Why is it that politicians feel they must use the assault weapon argument ? We all know the facts but I ask the question of WHY ? Steele is a good choice and IMO will help to fix the problem of diverse expansion within the GOP. The GOP has had the problem since the 1960's of "being the white person party". Steele will help in bringing a more diverse audience. Steele may change his attitude if given proper instruction on the issue. But what I see more important than Steele is this mindset that is growing of hunting being the only reason to have a gun and more importantly the lack of understanding of the positive use of assault weapons in American society. The republicans do have a common thread among the moderates and conservatives that cold help unite them. That being "fiscal spending", and "family value principles". That area could unite the republicans. It's the one area that Bush faltered on that could bring about the uniting of the republicans. Do that and bring upon a party that seems more open to diverse crowds and you will have a formidable republican party. Don't do this and the GOP will forever be incapable of getting votes like the Illinois GOP.
Bitter Posted January 31, 2009 at 04:02 AM Posted January 31, 2009 at 04:02 AM I am quite sure that those against "assault weapons" do fully understand that they are not actually the bane of human existence. They know virtually no crimes are committed with these weapons. The reason for the argument is that it sounds good and helps them keep power, respect, and money. Semi-auto rifles look big, scary, and dangerous - the position against them is based on that.
45superman Posted January 31, 2009 at 04:35 AM Posted January 31, 2009 at 04:35 AM As far as I'm concerned, support for baning so-called "assault weapons" is pro-tyranny extremism, and anyone who swears to uphold the Constitution, and then supports such tyranny, is guilty of treason. My understanding is that the penalty for treason can be kinda harsh.
moparcardave Posted January 31, 2009 at 05:00 PM Posted January 31, 2009 at 05:00 PM As far as I'm concerned, support for baning so-called "assault weapons" is pro-tyranny extremism, and anyone who swears to uphold the Constitution, and then supports such tyranny, is guilty of treason. My understanding is that the penalty for treason can be kinda harsh.It's rather ridiculous that they say assult weapons, when depending what time period this country was in, it could be anything. Nazi Germany used the K98 Mauser which in the 50's and 60'sthat was the most popular rifle to build on. Why, the ones building them were vets of WWII. Today is the AR15, why well it's what I used 38 years ago in the army and still used today. The assult weapon ban is totally whatever the anti's want it to be.It's the same as banding large capacity mags... duh.. just buy more of the lower ones, are they this foolish? With Obamas "stimulas" plan in the works now the future outcome is enabling more to grab more entitlements and will increase crime. Why work when you can just take from someone that has. Makes you wonder when we are citizens stay above the law and Obama want GITMO detainees given their rights. He did the same thing in Illinois, by passing a law that made it so (underpriviliged 17 year olds) couldn't be prosecuted as an adult. If I remember they had to have three class 3 felonies to reach that point. where is the common sense?
Buzzard Posted January 31, 2009 at 05:43 PM Posted January 31, 2009 at 05:43 PM Steele is a great choice, but right now the republicans are fighting among the conservative branch and the moderates. The verdict hasn't been said yet. Like many of you I disagree with is view on assault weapons. But what I am seeing with moderates and democrats is this mindset that guns are for hunting only. With such a mindset it's very easy to target assault weapons as WMD or weapons that have no use in society. To me that is the mindset that needs to be changed. Ask yourselfs, why is this mindset growing instead of shrinking? That is an issue that does bother me. Why are people like myself (The target shooter who uses assault weapons) isn't represented ? Many in the National Guard have personal assault weapons. So I know I'm not alone here. Why is it that politicians feel they must use the assault weapon argument ? We all know the facts but I ask the question of WHY ? Steele is a good choice and IMO will help to fix the problem of diverse expansion within the GOP. The GOP has had the problem since the 1960's of "being the white person party". Steele will help in bringing a more diverse audience. Steele may change his attitude if given proper instruction on the issue. But what I see more important than Steele is this mindset that is growing of hunting being the only reason to have a gun and more importantly the lack of understanding of the positive use of assault weapons in American society. The republicans do have a common thread among the moderates and conservatives that cold help unite them. That being "fiscal spending", and "family value principles". That area could unite the republicans. It's the one area that Bush faltered on that could bring about the uniting of the republicans. Do that and bring upon a party that seems more open to diverse crowds and you will have a formidable republican party. Don't do this and the GOP will forever be incapable of getting votes like the Illinois GOP. "Why is this mindset growing instead of shrinking?" One reason is that some within our own ranks insist on calling them "assault weapons", when in reality, they are properly identified by the shooting industry as SPORTER RIFLES. We wreck damage unto ourselves each time we repeat those words that were created by the left to polarize and demonize a legitimate sporting class of rifles! I'm sorry Predator, but MY GOD man, we've got to stop aiding the enemy!
Chiburbian Posted January 31, 2009 at 09:52 PM Posted January 31, 2009 at 09:52 PM I have to train myself to use the term "Sporting Rifle." Although, I also like the term "Sport Utility Rifle" but that sound alot like SUV, which are currently out of favor.
45superman Posted January 31, 2009 at 10:23 PM Posted January 31, 2009 at 10:23 PM Although, I also like the term "Sport Utility Rifle" but that sound alot like SUV, which are currently out of favor. Yeah--I figure it's only a matter of time before they start blaming guns for global warming .
abolt243 Posted January 31, 2009 at 10:36 PM Posted January 31, 2009 at 10:36 PM Dangit .45, you went and changed your avatar!!! Now I gotta retrain myself to watch for the new one!!! Not easy at my age!!
GWBH Posted February 2, 2009 at 12:32 AM Posted February 2, 2009 at 12:32 AM Dangit .45, you went and changed your avatar!!! Now I gotta retrain myself to watch for the new one!!! Not easy at my age!! I was thinking the same thing...I was saying to myself - who's the new guy???
Jeff Johnson Posted February 2, 2009 at 03:51 PM Author Posted February 2, 2009 at 03:51 PM As I recall, somehwere in the bible an assault weapon was "the jawbone of an a**".
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.