Gun Owners of America has some things you should read concerning the debate over ending the filibuster in the Senate.
I bring all this up because I called Hugh Hewitt's show today & afterwards did some checking up on the subject. I had just glanced at GOA's position on the filibusters but didn't have a chance to examine it in depth. I assumed their position was worth contemplating but I simply lacked the time to give it more than a casual read. I did entertain the thought that their view was based on information that was not accurate or no longer accurate but as it turns out I was mistaken. They oppose the filibuster being ended because it could do serious harm to efforts for fighting gun control legislation. Hugh doesn't see (or agree perhaps) how ending the filibuster could be harmful to gun owners. GOA does & now I do as well.
The first two alerts from GOA are summations of the situation & their views.
The last is a very detailed look at what ending the filibuster would entail.
If nothing else I suggest reading the last one.
I called Hugh Hewitt today (I'll try to post a transcript when I find an archived show) to answer a question of his & (not surprisingly) got into an argument. Hugh mentioned a pro-gun group that opposed the "nuclear option" of ending the filibuster. So I called & mentioned that it was Gun Owners of America. I told him I wasn't sure if it was based on outdated info or they saw something that I was unaware of, but the main concern (from what I could recall) was that ending the filibuster of judicial nominees in the Senate would pave the way for an end to all filibusters in the Senate. Then it got a little off track as Hugh argued that the judiciary was the best avenue for defense of the second amendment whilst I argued that there were a lot of gun control bills that were filibustered whereas the judiciary is not on our side. Not surprisingly Hugh then asked if I'd rather have a Bush appointed justice or a democrat appointed justice - in other words who would be better. During the course of this he did accuse me of not thinking rationally (which in all fairness I was a bit distracted & he was correct - I should have drifted the conversation back to the methods being considered rather than the short term outcome). After that I was disconnected (I assume it was a loss of signal on my part).
The trouble with Hugh's position is that he is far too trusting of the Senate. I agree that if we could get a straight up or down vote in the Senate it'd be a good thing, but I don't trust the Senate. I don't trust that ending the filibuster of judicial nominees wouldn't be used as a lever or a path to ending all filibusters. It's possible that it could be limited solely to judicial confirmations but I am not willing to take that risk. The short term goals (have Bush nominees appointed0 don't come close to negating the long term concerns (having no effective filibusters of gun control bills).
It's been pointed out in the GOA links above that having a Conservative appoint a judge does not mean they'll rule pro-gun where they should. & we're not talking about a conservative - we're talking a Republican. Bush is far from being a good friend of gun owners or Conservatives or libertarian leaning Republicans. Even if he were though, several appointees by presidents inarguably more conservative than him have misapplied U.S. v. Miller to the detriment of the 2nd amendment.
But for a moment let's reverse things. Let's assume that Bush's judges would be pro-gun (or more accurately pro-constitution). What happens in '08 if a Democrat sits in the oval office & Democrats control the Senate? A filibuster of "living document" nominees could be the only thing to prevent sending the judiciary into a more leftist spiral than they're currently in.
Still I don't have much faith in the courts no matter who appoints the judges. I don't have much faith in the legislature either, but it's much easier to filibuster (& therefore keep from becoming law) a gun control bill than it is to overturn it once it's law.
To sum up I'd like to see up & down votes of judicial nominees but not at the risk of losing the filibuster. All options on the table seem to risk just that so I'd back GOA's position on it: don't end the filibusters through the options being discussed.