Or are most moderate enough to avoide the issue?
No rude answers, I was just wondering
2006-11-12 08:58:14 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If they try, Bush will veto.
2006-11-12 10:12:44 · answer #1 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 17⤊ 1⤋
No.
There were many Nationalist Democrats, or conservative Democrats voted in to office. If anything the Democratic party might, "and I mean might" just be headed in the right direction.
It's been a long time coming. I hope they come back home to "Hardworking Everyday Americans"
One last note: Howard Dean when he was the Governor of Vermont, was one of the few Democratic Governors given an A+
rating by the NRA.
They will lose again if they try to get rid of guns.
2006-11-12 17:14:41 · answer #2 · answered by drkstr1973 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not necessarily. Claire McCaskill, the newly elected Senator from Missouri, is friendly to gun ownership. Anyone who wants to be elected in MO pretty much has to be.
Much of the answer has to be based on what you mean by "tightening" gun laws. Mandatory licensing and training requirements are not viewed by most moderates (in either party) as being unreasonable. It's viewed in a similar light to licensing drivers and registering cars -- reasonable and necessary for the public good.
Anyone who thinks that unrestricted ownership of assault weapons by all citizens is an absolute right will be disappointed though even the previous Congress wasn't likely to go that far.
As a veteran of 21 years of military service, and an expert marksman with the ribbons to prove it, I have no problem with reasonable registration, training, and licensing requirements. Frankly, the military is obsessively anal about gun safety. A GI living in MO (a "Shall Issue" state) will have a much easier time living off-post and carrying concealed than he ever will on-post.
If you're not happy with the gun laws in your state and think they are too restrictive, consider moving to a "Shall Issue" state such as MO, or one where ownership is virtually unrestricted such as VT or AK. Conversely, if you prefer draconian regulation head for IL or NYC.
2006-11-12 17:12:11 · answer #3 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hopefully they will be moderate. After experiencing the last 6 years you have to be a real fool not to understand why the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was included to discourage totalitarianism.
HR 6166 EH should be their first action. It needs to be defused.
2006-11-12 17:01:47 · answer #4 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You should stock up on guns and ammo now just in case. For those people that think that guns should be banned, just remember that the second amendment was written just after we over thrown the government we had.
2006-11-12 17:10:23 · answer #5 · answered by Jack S. Buy more ammo! 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i dont think that it will happen unless democrats have an extremely large majority, right now they seem to be about 50 -50 with republicans, but its a start! Maybe if we elect a democrat for prez in '08
2006-11-12 17:14:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
As long as you have liberal judges and courts, the authorities do not want to put any effort in enforcing the gun laws now in place. Gun laws should be strictly enforced and penalties for crimes involving gun laws should be at the maximum sentences.
2006-11-12 17:02:33 · answer #7 · answered by me_worry? 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I doubt it. More gun toting Democrats got elected than hard left wingers this election.
2006-11-12 17:00:05 · answer #8 · answered by jerofjungle 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No! i don't think so i believe the gun laws will remain as ridiculous as they are. i live in Ill and they are already trying to guarantee that only Criminals will have fire arms.
2006-11-12 17:01:43 · answer #9 · answered by daydoom 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Let's hope so. The crime rates of guns definitely need to be lowered.
2006-11-12 17:00:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
GWB will veto anything too radical.
2006-11-12 17:09:00 · answer #11 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋