Well, I’d like to see an amendment that supercedes it - spelling out that semi-automatics are OK, but not fully automatics, or that fragmenting ammuniation may be considered explosives and are not protected under ‘firearms.’ Whatever the conclusion is - but spell it out. I don’t see myself as fringe-left either - socially liberal (but within a standard deviation of ‘middle America’), but economically conservative.
Ya know, I just came back here to admit that I overstated my position and to amend it before I got hammered on it. Too late I guess 
But let me try anyway. RTF claimed that centrist Democrats have all along stood up for a “reasonably expansive” interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Rather than saying that “Lotsa centrist Democrats would like to see the 2nd amendment disappear,” a more accurate claim would have been, “Many centrist Democrats have argued not for a more expansive, but rather a more restrictive interpretation of the 2nd amendment.” That would be a more accurate claim than what I said previously.
So perhaps I can try to answer that question instead, spoke-. Would that be okay? To do so, however, I need to know first which Democrats you, or whoever else wants to chime in here, consider to be centrist. I’m not gonna throw up a list of Democrats that I think are centrist who’ve argued for more gun restrictions just to have them dismissed by others as non-centrists. I’d much prefer to begin with a list of congresscritters acceptable to you. Fair enough?
Then it seems like the best thing you could do, as someone who agrees politically with most of those people but recognizes that their views of the 2000 election may be based on misinformation, would be to get the facts straight and let those people know about it. As I found out during the Terri Schiavo fracas, some people (though, unfortunately, not all of them) are willing to change their minds if they know that their assumptions are wrong.
Though I shouldn’t be, I’m astonished that the “Sore-Loserman” meme has survived for this long. Do people honestly think that GWB would have gracefully conceded if the margin had been 600 votes in Gore’s favor, instead of asking for the recounts and the remedies for irregularities that the law provided for?
True, but I think gun control is so far down the list that I don’t think gun owners have anything to worry about for the foreseeable future. A lot of Democrats would be happy to see gun control left alone completely (or even relaxed) for the next several years if it meant getting some adults in charge overall.
Perhaps, but there are at least 52 (one for each state + D.C + the United Nations small arms conference coming up on July 4 of all days) more facets to gun control than the ones seen at the national level. And the anti-gun crowd, I’m sure, is slavering at the prospect of a chance to push their agenda on a national stage since it’s been effectively thwarted (and maybe even worse for them, ignored for so long. So, I’m not quite so sanguine, myself, that the Democrats could ignore that constituency.
:rolleyes:
I don’t recall that. Details?
As I remember it, Gore didn’t want Clinton’s endorsement because of that whole silly impeachment taint. I seem to recall that the Gore committee went as far as even asking Clinton to not speak on Gore’s behalf.
I recall quite the same as UB. I think the Clintons were mad because Al didn’t want them working for his campaign and the Gore people thought that Clinton’s impeachment made their job harder. I never saw anything official on that, just scuttlebutt.
Run Al run! For the sake of us Republicans, RUN!