How shallow am I?


PDA






fedlaw
October 31, 2004, 07:46 PM
Of all the election issues that are important to me, namely, drinking, smoking, guns, motorcycles, fast cars and pretty women, only one is being addressed on both the local and national levels: Guns. Therefore, I am being forced to cast my vote on the basis of one issue. How shallow is that?
Kerry is probably against the others as well, i.e., by allowing insurance companies to discriminate against so-called ultra-dangerous activities, etc. As for women, he certainly isn't shy about what qualities he thinks are important in a mate. (Hint: Size matters, if its her bank account.)
Locally, Barak Obama, 50 points ahead in the senatorial race, is airing a radio commercial saying he is for "closing the gun show loop-hole and renewing the AWB."

George Bush may not be in favor of using a "litmus test," but I am and it starts with the 2nd Amendment.

If you enjoyed reading about "How shallow am I?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
The Grand Inquisitor
October 31, 2004, 08:05 PM
The second amendment is important, but for me, the first amendment trumps the second.

First Amendment

International humanitarian relief (i.e. going and actually helping people internationally, like protecting innocent people in Sudan- NOT going to Iraq and provoking war and invading a soverign nation).

Social Justice.

Second Amendment.,

lee n. field
October 31, 2004, 08:36 PM
Why guns?

http://www.lneilsmith.com/whyguns.html

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put. . . .

Standing Wolf
October 31, 2004, 08:54 PM
How shallow is that?

I don't think it is. As well as I've been able to discern over the decades, politicians who distrust commoners with firearms are highly likely to distrust us with the rest of our civil rights, whereas those who understand keeping and bearing arms is an intrinsic right are more likely to respect the rest of our rights.

Sad to say, very few of them are worthy of our trust.

Lone_Gunman
October 31, 2004, 10:02 PM
I think you are just very confused, but not necessarily shallow...

Locally, Barak Obama, 50 points ahead in the senatorial race, is airing a radio commercial saying he is for "closing the gun show loop-hole and renewing the AWB."

George Bush wants to renew the AWB, or at least, he says he wants to. Given his record of never vetoing any bill sent to him by Congress, I suspect he would be happy to close the gunshow loophole for you also.


If you are looking for a candidate who won't trample your rights, then you need to find yourself another election. Neither Bush or Kerry are going to be good for the Constitution. Both their records prove that.

Mulliga
October 31, 2004, 10:02 PM
I'm a one-issue voter, too. :what:

Given his record of never vetoing any bill sent to him by Congress, I suspect he would be happy to close the gunshow loophole for you also.

Don't forget his record of putting CCW on the books in Texas. Or sKerry's years and years and years of anti-gun votes. I voted against Kerry, BTW.

The second amendment is important, but for me, the first amendment trumps the second.

The Second Amendment protects all the others.

Lone_Gunman
October 31, 2004, 10:04 PM
The Second Amendment protects all the others.

That is true, but without a free press, it would be hard to tell when it was time to start protecting the others.

tyme
October 31, 2004, 10:09 PM
Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put. . .
This is true; a position on private gun carry and ownership certainly cuts through rhetoric and determines whether a candidate really believes in freedom where it counts most -- when your life is threatened.

However, in this race it is clear that neither candidate believes in freedom. Using the RKBA as a litmus test is tolerable if you can only ask a candidate one question. In this case, we know the positions of both Bush and Kerry on just about every major issue.

Using the RKBA as a litmus test in this race is foolish and blind. There is no need for shortcuts -- reducing everything to support of the RKBA -- when we know the candidates' other views.

Voting based on the RKBA alone will not prevent revolution; it will only ensure that ordinary citizens would be able to fight. If you want a revolution, keep voting based only on the RKBA. If you want to avoid revolution, you have to consider other issues.

Mulliga
October 31, 2004, 10:14 PM
That is true, but without a free press, it would be hard to tell when it was time to start protecting the others.

One of the most eloquent explanations of the importance of the Second Amendment:

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-9.html


The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees*. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

fedlaw
October 31, 2004, 11:25 PM
Standing Wolf: Amen.

Mulliga: Your citing of Judge Alex Kozinski's dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in Silveira v. Lockyer, highlights the irony that the very people who read the Constitution so broadly as to find a right to privacy in it and who argue for the broadest possible interpretation of the 1stA, 4thA, 5thA and 6thA insist on their acrobatically narrow interpretation of the 2ndA. (And let us not forget the 10thA, even though the G apparently has.)
The beauty of our system is that it has been able to withstand the less than ideal elected officials we have been blessed with over the course of our country's history. Be it ever so.

twoblink
November 1, 2004, 02:41 AM
They want to take away your 1st amendment rights.

The thing is, the 2nd protects the first, so they have to start with the bodyguard of the 1st, namely the 2nd.

When your guns are all gone, what can you do about them taking away your 1st?

NOTHING.

Ask Ann Frank...

4570Rick
November 1, 2004, 03:52 AM
The second amendment is important, but for me, the first amendment trumps the second. Without the Second Amendment, (the most important Amendment) there is no protection of our other rights. None!
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)
And last BUT NOT LEAST.
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])

If you enjoyed reading about "How shallow am I?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!