Senate Is at stake in Georgia runoff

[Brit]

We have only been residents of Florida for 16 years, 17 in Jan. Citizens now. As a retired Firearms Instructor, I know lots of Law Enforcement Officers!
To a man (or woman) they are not going to knock on doors to seize legally purchased firearms, no way.
Think about it? You, a Cop! Knock on a door in uniform. Who is on the other side of the door? A person who has been drinking maybe? With a loaded 30 round capacity rifle. Or at an upper window, possibly!
I am not calling Cops cowards, but they are not stupid either.

[jmr40]

In 1994 "assault weapons" were a very, very, very small percentage of all gun sales which made it easy to ban them. The 1994 AWB tried to define an Assault Weapon, but did so in such a way that it actually banned nothing. All manufacturers had to do was make minor cosmetic changes and continue selling the same guns.

Sales of AR-15's skyrocketed during the ban, or rather because of it. Of course they couldn't sell one with a flash hider or bayonet lug. Other than those minor changes nothing happened until the ban expired in 2004.

The AR rifle in 2020 is the most common rifle in America. Since 1994 about twice as many AR's have been sold in this country than 30-30's since 1894. No one is going to try to ban something that common. Even Joe Biden recognizes the situation.

I do expect to see a push for more regulations on WHO can legally own weapons.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I see what many are saying here that with a 50-50 split the Senate won't do anything radical. I would have agreed in 2013 but not now. The Dems want power and they are voting more like a bloc than before. I hope you are right but I fear it if the Dems get control of the Senate.

[Brit]

In 1994 "assault weapons" were a very, very, very small percentage of all gun sales which made it easy to ban them. The 1994 AWB tried to define an Assault Weapon but did so in such a way that it actually banned nothing. All manufacturers had to do was make minor cosmetic changes and continue selling the same guns.
Sales of AR-15's skyrocketed during the ban, or rather because of it. Of course, they couldn't sell one with a flash hider or bayonet lug. Other than those minor changes nothing happened until the ban expired in 2004.

The AR rifle in 2020 is the most common rifle in America. Since 1994 about twice as many AR's have been sold in this country than '30-'30s since 1894. No one is going to try to ban something that common. Even Joe Biden recognizes the situation.

I do expect to see a push for more regulations on WHO can legally own weapons.
__________________
"If you're still doing things the same way you were doing them 10 years ago, you're doing it wrong"

Winston Churchill


The easest thing to ban, I think, will be magazines. 10 round maximum will be the first step. But the ban (That is not a ban?) you can not find ammunition, right now!

[TomNJVA]

Misses are very common in a home defense situation, especially when fired by a scared homeowner in the dark against a moving target. Even NY police officers miss three out of four shots on average in a fire fight. So if it could take four shots per hit, and two hits to stop the threat, that's possibly eight shots for each invader. Since home invasions often involve multiple bad guys, limiting magazine capacities to 10 rounds would seriously inhibits our ability to protect our homes and families in a worse case scenario. Do you think this would get past SCOTUS?

[shurshot]

"To a man (or woman) they are not going to knock on doors to seize legally purchased firearms, no way.
Think about it? You, a Cop! Knock on a door in uniform. Who is on the other side of the door? A person who has been drinking maybe? With a loaded 30 round capacity rifle. Or at an upper window, possibly! 
I am not calling Cops cowards, but they are not stupid either."(Brit).

You are correct Sir, Cops are not stupid. They won't knock on doors when widespread confiscation begins, not regular officers anyhow. They will set up 1-800 anonymous tip lines, possibly with a cash reward. Then a specially trained SWAT type unit, dressed in all black, will show up with overwhelming force in the wee hours with a search warrant. It will happen very fast and unexpectedly. It will be terrifying and dangerous to say the least.

It is what Dictatorships do. It is already occurring in certain large Democratic governed city's. If you refuse to turn in your registered firearms (or guns they find out about via 3rd party ), within a certain time frame, they WILL come and take them by force. That's how it works. In DC, unmarked cars carrying undercover police, quickly stop, jump out and frisk anyone suspected of carrying a gun. A cell phone in your pocket can result in being aggressively patted down & searched... just for walking down the street. So much for Constitutional rights!!! https://www.npr.org/2018/10/24/65998...eling-targeted

It's all part of the liberal / globalist agenda. Same as 1930's Hitler's Germany, they will claim registration and the subsequent confiscation of sporting arms are in the interest of "Public Safety". Imagine if the Federal government decided to start passing more restrictions / registration / confiscations, bans, etc. and implemented similar jack booted policies in all 50 states! Not pretty. It CAN happen... many coming into power want to make it happen.
This is why this Georgia race is SO important. With Biden/Harris and possibly Beto in some appointed position, we need Senators who believe in the Constitution, not Socialists who scream and vow that they are going to take our guns away.

[DaleA]

Well, after “gun control” was “shelved” during the election, you know, so as not to energize the “deplorables”, now that the election is over and things are what they are, guess what's back in the news? Former President Barrack Obama bringing up Sandy Hook and the governments “failure to do anything”.

I put “failure to do anything” in quotes because OF COURSE preserving our rights is seen as NOTHING to the anti-gun folk.

What’s that you say? Maybe the U.S. Senate elections coming up in Georgia on January 5, 2021 might be important? Gosh, maybe.

The November 13, 2020 article I was talking about.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...?ocid=msedgdhp

[makarov]

Biden and Harris are both very conservative Democrats. I'm not worried about my gun rights under them. In my opinion the last 4 years have been terrible for our country. For me 2A rights are just one issue. I also want healthcare, decent economy for working class people and an environment that my grandkids will get to enjoy (hopefully). There is more at stake right now than just gun rights.

[2ndtimer]

Originally Posted by makarov

Biden and Harris are both very conservative Democrats. I'm not worried about my gun rights under them. In my opinion the last 4 years have been terrible for our country. For me 2A rights are just one issue. I also want healthcare, decent economy for working class people and an environment that my grandkids will get to enjoy (hopefully). There is more at stake right now than just gun rights.

I will agree with you, if and only if the runoffs in Georgia lead to Republican controlled Senate. Here is hoping you don’t have to start worrying about your gun rights, because if the senate is an equal split and Kamala gets to vote the tie breaker, it will be up to the Supreme Court to preserve your 2nd amendment rights. And if the second amendment falls, the rest of the Bill of Rights will all be at risk, not to mention the possible packing of the Supreme Court so that only bullets can stop a tyranny of the left.

[shurshot]

"Biden and Harris are both very conservative Democrats. I'm not worried about my gun rights under them". (Makarov)

Perhaps you SHOULD be worried given their history, past statements and their Globalist Agenda.

[DukeConnor]

Harris is considered one of the most liberal senators.

Bidens website has a entire list of gun control measures. On HIS OWN website he will make 30 rd mags a NFA item. He also will ban on line ammo and gun sales.

These two are bad for the USA and constitution.

[HiBC]

I started this thread,as the Mod said,on thin ice.

Its going off track.

The 2A and gun laws are a concern to most all of us.

In our current political environment,majority control of the Senate may therefore be a concern for many of us.

I presented the issue as a "heads up". Simply to spread awareness.

I'm sure big money will be involved,and grass roots financial support is one way to participate in politics.

Now here is a very key point I hope you all will pay attention to,and adhere to.

I did not even mention the names of the candidates. I'm not campaigning for either side here.

The TFL member who posted the contact info to contribute posted contact info for both parties. It was natman,post #8. Thank you and good job,natman!! Thats the way to do it.

We can share true information in a non-partisan way.

By now,I think undecided fence sitters are a rare commodity. Most everyone has made up their mind what their position is and who they will support.

Most likely,rather passionately. No one is going to change their mind about who or what to support by way of any argument in this thread.

While I'm sure you have your position,whatever it may be,Great! Good for you! This is not a campaign rally or a protest/counter protest. You won't convince anyone,there is no purpose in virtue signallng,regardless of your position.

The point is to be aware there is runoff election for control of the Senate early January. If you want to have some influence on that outcome,unless you are a Georgia registered voter,the most powerful thing you can do is send financial support to whichever party you support in this issue.

Or just cry later.

If there is another venue where you can drum up support,That might help.

Please,no matter which side you support ,this is not the place to present your gun control stance or regard for a particular political figure.You have yours,I have mine,thats just fine.

It might be a place to offer awareness of the issue,and more important,avenues to contribute support.

[Mike38]

makarov wrote:

Biden and Harris are both very conservative Democrats. I'm not worried about my gun rights under them.

Wasn't Harris labeled one of the "Most Progressive Liberal Senator" out of all 100 of them?

A quick Google search shows hundreds upon hundreds of sites that say Harris is anti gun. Many of them creditable sites.

Without the Second Amendment, the others are not enforceable.

[TXAZ]

Is the control of the Senate worth $7 Billion?
Absolutely, that’s a small price to pay for Legislative / Executive branch trifecta considering Trillions are at stake.

Kelly Lofler has been called an “id***” by other republicans (their words Mods not mine) and running against an articulate democrat, so write that race off as she didn’t get 1/3 of the vote where collectively the democrats received just over 50%.
So the focus is on the most capable Senator Perdue.
With 7.23M voters in Georgia, I expect the Purdue race will top vote buying (yes *buying*) at more than $1,000 per winning vote.

But there is some sunshine: Democratic trifectas in the past were not able to pass ubernasty gun measures, and with several centric democrat legislators in conservative states, drastic isn’t going to happen.

1 more datapoint: typically 1 legislator per year is replaced by their governor when no longer able to serve, so don’t discount health, ethics or indictments as a rebalancing measure.

[44 AMP]

The ice was thin to begin with and the last page of posts is cracking it badly. The OP is to be commended for trying and some posters are playing under the rules, but the rest of you are going to get this shut down in short order if it continues.

Let's be clear, the acceptable topic is the GA runoff election. PERIOD.

Discussion of NATIONAL party politics and the people involved in them is OFF TOPIC.

If we can stick to the topic we can go on. If not, we're done here.
Last chance, folks...

[LeverGunFan]

Originally Posted by TXAZ

...Kelly Lofler... ...didn’t get 1/3 of the vote where collectively the democrats received just over 50%...

Not quite true. Both Loeffler and Collins are Republicans and received 25.9% and 19.9% respectively of the vote in Georgia. The top two Democrats were Warnock and Jackson with 32.9% and 6.6% respectively. There were 20 candidates in the runoff, the Republican candidates received 49.2% of the votes and the Democrat candidates received 48.4%.

(edited to correct "Cunningham" to "Collins"; see post 43)

[DaleA]

Let's be clear, the acceptable topic is the GA runoff election. PERIOD.

I hope by now people realize polling data isn't necessarily accurate and just disregard it and act and vote and support the folk their conscience tells them to.

My personal opinion is there is so much telephone scamming going on that people don't respond to polls or even mess with the pollsters for sport. (I've several friends who do this.)

Short and sweet, do what you think is right.

[Tom Servo]

Both Loeffler and Cunningham are Republicans and received 25.9% and 19.9% respectively of the vote in Georgia.

Thanks for clarifying. I was about to jump in and do the same. However, I think you meant "Collins," not "Cunningham."

Either way, the very presence of Loeffler is problematic, and it has been for some time. Collins was pretty much everyone's choice to replace Senator Chambliss. For some inexplicable reason, Governor Kemp found Loeffler at a bridge club or something and appointed her instead. Apparently, this was to appease conservative women in the suburban districts. She's done nothing of substance and appears to be in office to mouth hard-right conservative slogans.

Problem is, Georgia doesn't really work that way. She's divisive at best. If Collins wasn't forced to run against her and Warnock, he probably could have sailed past 50% easily. If Collins' voters back Loeffler, she'll win. If not, she won't. That's a big question.

As for Perdue, he was beating Ossoff by a healthy margin. He just failed to hit 50% (it was actually something like 49.8%). If voters turn out, his race should be easily won. Despite ~$150 million spent on him by his party in 2018, he still lost to a reprehensible candidate. I'm sure they'll pour even more in this time, but anyone who might vote for him already did, and the numbers tell the rest.

Turnout in special elections and runoffs in Georgia has historically favored incumbents and Republicans. If that trend holds, that leaves us with some checks and balances.

That said, if you want to see some old-school dirty politics, spend some time here. It's an understatement to say the radio and television ads get downright ugly. Since so much is at stake and so much money is being spent, I am not looking forward to the next few weeks.

[TXAZ]

Mia Culpa LeverGunFan
I mis calculated.
You are correct.

[natman]

Originally Posted by makarov

Biden and Harris are both very conservative Democrats. I'm not worried about my gun rights under them.

Compared to your definition of liberal Democrat perhaps, but I've read Biden-Harris' gun agenda and it's even worse than Hillary's. Harris in particular was California Attorney General before she became a Senator and she's as hard core anti-gun rights as they come

[44 AMP]

Warning given....

Let's be clear, the acceptable topic is the GA runoff election. PERIOD.

and, ignored....

Compared to your definition of liberal Democrat perhaps, but I've read Biden-Harris' gun agenda and it's even worse than Hillary's.

we're done here, now...thanks for playing, everyone..

CLOSED