I saw one of our U.S. Senators entering the gun show as I was leaving.


PDA






Duramaximum
April 11, 2006, 08:48 PM
I saw our U.S. Senator-Conrad Burns (R-Montana) enter the gun show as I was leaving with my new Super Redhawk .454 Casull. He's got my vote! Who ever said politics were difficult?

If you enjoyed reading about "I saw one of our U.S. Senators entering the gun show as I was leaving." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Clean97GTI
April 11, 2006, 09:12 PM
Do you have any third party candidates coming up?

A vote for a libertarian might be a better choice.

xd9fan
April 12, 2006, 02:13 AM
Please check his background on how he voted on past issues before voting for him because he was at a gun show. Senate Repubs are very very weak on having any balls on any issue. I second the motion to vote libertarian. I am.

Don't Tread On Me
April 12, 2006, 05:26 AM
XD9fan,

I too read and frequent lewrockwell.com and am a libertarian. That is my school of thought also. (hey, great minds think alike, I have an XD9 tactical, it is awesome)


However, I am a 1 issue voter - and voting libertarian is a vote for the Democrats. They are the anti-gunners. So are the Republicans, but not as bad.

I have seen and heard all arguments ad nauseam. Yes, both are sinking our 2A rights. So most people say "screw it" why vote for either?

Because voting Republican delays the loss of 2A rights, that's why...that's all we can do. We can delay until we can start delivering on cultural-change. IE, change the way people view guns in society. Oleg style approach. He is a visionary. Best thing you can go is delay the process, while taking a newbie to the range. Spread the word.

Political reform is impossible without the will of the people behind you. Most Americans are ignorant of gun laws and are satisfied with what's on the books, many want more - but almost no one wants less or repeals.

One person, a regular and long time THR member had written an amazing post on how third parties are a total joke. I wish I had his post! He had worked for a third party, organized, campaigned...tried to believe in the "good fight"...and his result is they are nothing more than an alternative point of view or dissent. NOT a viable political option. It is a waste.


I hate the Republican party. I think Bush and all the Repubs are idiots. I think they are vastly superior to the Democrats though, but still scum. I cannot save the 2A by voting for the GOP, I cannot do it voting for the DNC, nor can I do it voting for 3rd parties. What I can do out of all 3 options is slow down the process.

That I can do. Like George Washington did, run, retreat, wait...just wait for for the right conditions..wait till the political climate suits us better..when we've succeeded in changing enough minds.

Right now, 2A reform at the Federal level is IMPOSSIBLE. That is not pessimistic, but an accurate observation. We have the House, Senate and Executive, and we don't have a prayer at getting a repeal. Even our biggest lobby, the NRA, understands that - and is why they don't waste time or money on it. It isn't because they are anti-gun or compromisers, it is because it cannot be done. It can't be done because the idea of repealing the 89, 86 or w/e ban would be completely absurd to mainstream America...So, we have (practically speaking) all three branches of government and can't do squat. That means the answer does not lie with the Feds.

However, Bush and the GOP in the House/Senate has not been hostile to the RKBA. None of them have been crusaders for gun-control. Nothing negative has happened since the GOP took control. That's the best we could hope for. Remember Clinton? He was on with Katie Couric in 1999 advocating and pushing for more gun control. He even recommended a future renewal of the ban. That's the kind of extremists we used to have. I don't recall Bush going around the country, city by city, town by town like Clinton did giving speeches on why we "need" an AWB. Like Bush tried with social security reform going on a "tour" of America, Clinton did that not for social security, medicare, the economy, national security, immigration, or some important issue...oh no - his priority was grabbin' those guns!

I am glad those days are over.

At the State and Local level, supporting pro-RKBA Republicans has led to positive reforms. Sure, it isn't the ultra-idealistic return to totally unregulated 2A Rights, but it is better than the restrictions we've had for decades.

The system is such that a 3rd party will never rise. That's the main thing the D's and R's work together in a bi-partisan fashion on. Our Rights as a whole are slowing eroding. I say let's slow it down, buy more guns, and try and change hearts and minds. It's all we got.

Duramaximum
April 12, 2006, 10:36 AM
Sorry guys but, (I'll probably get kicked off the website for saying this) I just can't vote Libertarian. I agree with them on a lot of issues, but it just isn't realistic to privatize everything, especially law enforcement. I took that Libertarian test that was on High Road a few weeks back; I only scored a 51. I really am an informed voter and find that I am best represented by the Republican party. Senator Conrad Burns is a good ol' Montana boy, and supports our second amendment rights. It was more-or-less icing on the cake seeing him going into the gun show. Even our moron Democrat Governor Brian Schwietzer has an A rating from the NRA. I also know personal accounts of President Bush's character and believe that he is a good honest man although most people don't want you to believe that. He isn't perfect, but is anybody? He's even said he will never allow a bill to pass allowing our right to defend ourselfs through the second amendment to be revoked (That's paraphrased by the way.) I support President Bush as well as our troops and the reasons that we're in Iraq and Afaganistan.

geekWithA.45
April 12, 2006, 10:56 AM
Don'tTreadOnMe: +1

xd9fan
April 12, 2006, 11:24 AM
Donttreadonme, You do get what you vote for....at first. One issue voters ignoring the other 99% of the problems will not do you any favors in the long run. Sooner or later that one issue will get limited, restricted out of existence.

When they take all of the other Rights away, and then go after your one Right/issue, was it worth it being just a one Right/issue voter??
citizenship demands more. Or it should.

Couple things that no one will change my opinion on:
1. Both parties are pro-Govt parties. Look at the spending and the dependence.
2. Classical liberal thought is a workable solution. Not just an alternative point of view or dissent. The FF thought and fought for this as well. Any party no matter what shape they are in, that supports this classical thought will from now on get my vote. (why would I ever ask a pro-Govt party for protecting my Rights)
3. Voting for the GOP this Fall is a reward for their pro-Govt behavoir.
4.The 2 parties cant be changed from within. Rejection by voters walking away from them will maybe cause change. Think of it like the free market. If a company constantly produces crap...do you buy that same crap or do you look for a better competitor? Even if you are comparing a giant company ( the 2 big parties)to a small one. (like the LP or whoever).

Rights are slowing eroding because voters continue to believe and act the same way election after election. They continue to believe that the 2 pro-govt parties will finally listen to them. Are you really suprized when they dont?

"I say let's slow it down, buy more guns, and try and change hearts and minds. It's all we got." : This is not enough for me. Its just too much like the
"ohwell things will never change" attitude. (I'm sure you dont have that attitude..its just that I want more done in my lifetime)

In the end I know what you are saying but its not enough for me.
Respectfully, xd9fan

P.S. lew rockwell the man is great (the website is a little ranty) fee.org and mises.org : great meat and potatoe stuff. I'm sure you know this. anyway.

Don't Tread On Me
April 12, 2006, 12:44 PM
When they take all of the other Rights away, and then go after your one Right/issue, was it worth it being just a one Right/issue voter??
citizenship demands more. Or it should.

I agree with you deep down inside, but the truth is, all rights are being destroyed. So if I had the choice of which one to save as much as possible, as long as possible, it will be the one Right that has a small chance of saving us all - the RKBA. It is the defender of all the other Rights, without it, speech, religion, privacy...they are meaningless. Citizens with a voice are nothing. No bite behind the bark. Citizens with arms *can* change things. Many people in other countries have the same, if not more freedom of speech than we do, yet their voice accomplishes nothing. Force does. It is not a PC concept, but it is the reality. I just want to save the option of using force if we have to some day. Yes, that's a whole other debate whether or not armed resistance can work, but it is sure better than being rounded up in "free speech zones" to protest in an empty field with zero media coverage.

Couple things that no one will change my opinion on:
1. Both parties are pro-Govt parties. Look at the spending and the dependence.

This is fact. I agree. It won't change. I believe this so well, I believe it is completely hopeless to resist it. I don't favor more, but I don't believe it can be stopped. I even believe it is beyond party control. Government education has programmed most of society to demand services. That was their greatest trick. They got it, system is rolling. Only way to stop it is total collapse or massive revolution (not necessarily violent).

2. Classical liberal thought is a workable solution. Not just an alternative point of view or dissent. The FF thought and fought for this as well. Any party no matter what shape they are in, that supports this classical thought will from now on get my vote. (why would I ever ask a pro-Govt party for protecting my Rights)

I never said their solutions are not workable. I believe that privitizing roads would work. Most people don't because they haven't heard the complete argument in favor of it, or understand what a truly free market system would look like. It would shape a society much different from what we have today.

What I was saying is that the 3rd party movement, in particular the libertarian political movement is not workable as a vehicle for reforming government or establishing representation.

Only revolution can break the 2 party system because the 2 parties have written so many laws and made so many regulations for elections the emergence of a 3rd party is nearly impossible.

So that's a no-go.

3. Voting for the GOP this Fall is a reward for their pro-Govt behavoir.

Yes, as well as a reward for the Patriot Act and many other extreme evils, including the support of secret prisons, torture, corporate corruption, and on and on..

But as a 1 issue voter, they've served my purpose well enough. As Bush says "mission accomplished"...no major anti-gun legislation in years. Sounds good to me.


4.The 2 parties cant be changed from within.

This is largely true and I agree. Nationally, they will not be changed from within, but at the State level, you'd be surprised what you can accomplish locally with a few Republicans who are true-conservatives.

Rejection by voters walking away from them will maybe cause change. Think of it like the free market. If a company constantly produces crap...do you buy that same crap or do you look for a better competitor? Even if you are comparing a giant company ( the 2 big parties)to a small one. (like the LP or whoever).

This is a huge theory we've been wondering and debating about. Will our mass exodus from the GOP in 2006 cause them to reconsider and get back to their "roots"? I seriously doubt it. There's 2 problems with that. 1] They already think they are doing well for us. They believe they are serving us like we expect, so they'd take it as a slap in the face 2] It would give control to the other side which will 100% seek nasty gun control bills, and 1000% will block any semi-pro-gun bills we support.

In short, the idea would be to burn our side to try and teach them a lesson and hope they regroup later on with a platform that better suits us. What we risk is bad gun control bills and no guarantee they'll ever really change at all...

As for people shopping around for another party...well 1] most people don't have the time or patience to learn about current politics, let alone research and educate themselves on a party like the libertarians which requires a LOT of reading and learning about economics, sociology, philosophy and history - all from a non-government approved perspective 2] most people are happy as is 3] most people believe our founders specifically designed our system to be a 2-party system (it is taught that way in school), and that it works well because it is 2-party.

Rights are slowing eroding because voters continue to believe and act the same way election after election. They continue to believe that the 2 pro-govt parties will finally listen to them. Are you really suprized when they dont?

They don't listen I agree. But it isn't 100% black and white. It is an ugly game. It's a game where we sacrifice and work hard, and receive little gains. There is some good there. Without the support of some R's and the NRA, believe me, we'd be facing a total ban of firearms today. No pistols, no nothing. Remember, before they came for assault weapons, they were after handguns.

In true libertarian fashion, I do not see government as the vehicle of our success. Our hopes rest in spreading the sport, making people aware. Making gun ownership (even evil looking guns) mainstream. We need to work the culture, only then will political change come.

Politically, there is Federal, then State/Local. On the Federal level, the name of the game is dodging heinous gun-control, aka AWB's and other garbage. Also, it is to fight court battles and avoid bad rulings. To do this, we need the GOP to run the show. On the State/Local level, that varies of course from state to state, but the concealed carry movement is going well, only a couple of states left, and a group of which for shall issue. There's positive reform with "stand you ground laws" as well as laws that shield us from lawsuits.

At the very best Federally, we can only hope to clean up the language of existing gun control bills. Like the 89, 86, 68, 34 bans. Fix language that alters it to block BATFE abuses of power. That's about it. We can do that. And it does help.

Don't get me wrong. Whenever I leave the voting booth after having voted for the GOP, I feel dirty and defiled. I feel like I just dealt with the devil. It doesn't feel good to vote. That's why a lot of people go with 3rd parties. They vote what feels best. They vote their conscience no matter how futile it is. They vote for what is right, knowing that it won't make a bit of difference. That to me is the ultimate form of hopelessness. Or perhaps an "in your face, you'll never take me" sort of thing.

I can't do that when there is a more positive option. I'm a realist. I want to buy some time for many, many reasons. Time is what we need.

Lennyjoe
April 12, 2006, 01:07 PM
I've seen (R) Senator Kyle at the last 2 gunshows down here. :)

xd9fan
April 12, 2006, 01:10 PM
We are on the same page in many many respects. I have always been an idealist. I'm always looking "up". What is the truth and what should we be fighting towards. You state your a realist. Both have problems, both have positives.

Not wanting to feel dirty and truly voting based on my classical liberal philosophy is best for me. I will never think that this (voting a 3rd party) is "the ultimate form of hopelessness." I see it the other way around. I see continuing to vote for the GOP because you feel you have no other choice is the "ultimate form of hopelessness."


I will say one thing about the conceal carry movement.........we are still asking Govt for our 2A expression. Asking the Govt for a piece of paper before expressing this Right shows me how americans feel about thier "Rights" Do I need a piece of paper from the Govt to express my 1A "Rights"??.......damn bad example sadly we do (a permit to march) anyway AK and VT are the standard.


America is about choice. Its just too bad others feel they have none when voting for parties. D and R........not much choice. I know you know that. Sounds like you are well read and have thought this out big time. Wish more people (the non-thr types) would as well.

LAR-15
April 12, 2006, 02:23 PM
So did you go up to him and ask him to help repeal the machinegun ban?

Thanks

Burns is one of the good guys in Washington

cavman
April 12, 2006, 02:35 PM
For what its worth GOA gave Burns (Mont.) = B


and Kyl (Ariz.) = C

http://www.gunowners.org/109srat.htm

At least it looks like they weren't merely trying to "show" for votes. They have to some extent according to the GOA some track record that is positve.

have a great day
cavman

Clean97GTI
April 12, 2006, 03:14 PM
Don't get me wrong. Whenever I leave the voting booth after having voted for the GOP, I feel dirty and defiled. I feel like I just dealt with the devil. It doesn't feel good to vote. That's why a lot of people go with 3rd parties. They vote what feels best. They vote their conscience no matter how futile it is. They vote for what is right, knowing that it won't make a bit of difference. That to me is the ultimate form of hopelessness. Or perhaps an "in your face, you'll never take me" sort of thing.

I can't do that when there is a more positive option. I'm a realist. I want to buy some time for many, many reasons. Time is what we need.

The reason voting for a 3rd party seems so futile is because others believe exactly what you do. They believe there is no chance for a viable 3rd party, so they vote for either democrat or republican simply to keep the other out of office. What you are doing is not buying time for yourself. You are buying time for the same power base to push its agenda further. They don't care about gun control right now because its a hot button issue. What they do want is more power...just general control over more things.

Don't claim to back Bush because he supports the right to keep and bear arms. He stated that he would have reauthorized the AWB if it got to his desk. This is also after passing the PATRIOT act which gives the government powers that it never had before. Your views on the Republican party are skewed. They don't support a damn thing you think they do. Sure, there are a few who do, but as the entire fedgov pretty much steers clear of gun control right now, your one issue is ignored.

Meanwhile, your other rights are getting stepped on and your liberties stolen in the name of security and safety. Look at the weapons confiscations that happened in New Orleans. Was the man who ordered or authorized held accountable for flagrant disregard of law or the rights of citizens?
Nope.

Your habit of voting for those who don't represent you is going to cost you everything and you're intentionaly blinding yourself to it. That is a classic example of blissninny behavior.

Don't Tread On Me
April 12, 2006, 04:01 PM
The reason voting for a 3rd party seems so futile is because others believe exactly what you do. They believe there is no chance for a viable 3rd party, so they vote for either democrat or republican simply to keep the other out of office. What you are doing is not buying time for yourself. You are buying time for the same power base to push its agenda further. They don't care about gun control right now because its a hot button issue. What they do want is more power...just general control over more things.

No, it isn't that 3rd parties do not grow because of people who think like me. They don't grow because the 2 parties currently in control will never allow it to happen. Please, take it from someone who's researched it. This is an establishment that secures a 2 party system with ZERO chance for any serious 3rd party to ever emerge. It has been this way since the fall of America in 1865. It isn't a matter of the will of the people, this was ENFORCED by gunpoint during recontruction.

Don't claim to back Bush because he supports the right to keep and bear arms.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said he supports our RKBA, I said that he's never been hostile to it.

He stated that he would have reauthorized the AWB if it got to his desk.

This is called playing politics. He could say this openly because he knew that Tom Delay absolutely refused to bring it to a floor vote. The GOP was put in power by us after the 1994 AWB. Shame that we discovered our "power" after the fact. If it could have been done in 1994, why not in an earlier midterm election?

That is proof that you can use the GOP for some good. You cannot get repeals, but you can prevent further gun control.


This is also after passing the PATRIOT act which gives the government powers that it never had before. Your views on the Republican party are skewed.

Maybe you should read the thread before you make comments like these. My view is not skewed at all. I clearly said that I am a 1-issue voter, despite taking a beating from the GOP on matters like the Patriot Act. I belive tyranny in those forms will come regardless.

Saving the guns is more important than saving your speech. Words won't help against jack-booted-thugs. 300gr of lead will.

They don't support a damn thing you think they do. Sure, there are a few who do, but as the entire fedgov pretty much steers clear of gun control right now, your one issue is ignored.

Yes, they steer clear of it. WHY?

Because Democrats are not in power. That's why. Republicans do not introduce gun control bills on their own the same was Democrats do not introduce welfare cuts on their own - it is an attack on a part of their base.

By the way, I'd prefer to be ignored, than targeted for gun control. As I've said in the thread - I've given up any fantasy ideas about repeals. So our goal, Federally, is to stay under the radar.


Your habit of voting for those who don't represent you is going to cost you everything and you're intentionaly blinding yourself to it. That is a classic example of blissninny behavior.

They do not represent me. You act as though this is a mystery to me. Neither party truly represents me, and since I believe in what the founding fathers did, I, like you, XD9fan and about 400 others on THR - are politically HOMELESS. We do not live in the America that our founding fathers built. That America died a slow death from 1865 till the 17th Amendment was enacted. That was the final nail in the coffin. We live in the "commerce clause" interpretation America where anything goes (for the Government).

So, these parties that rule are in a sense, autonomous, except that they've fooled a nation to support them via media and educational propaganda over the past 130 years.

xd9fan
April 12, 2006, 04:06 PM
"since the fall of America in 1865"
so true.

"I, like you, XD9fan and about 400 others on THR - are politically HOMELESS. We do not live in the America that our founding fathers built. That America died a slow death from 1865 till the 17th Amendment was enacted. That was the final nail in the coffin. We live in the "commerce clause" interpretation America where anything goes (for the Government)."

Half right, Dont tread on me. I think difference is, is that I have stopped believing that the 2 party system works. I'm not HOMELESS anymore. But like an abused spouse, there are some that just keep coming back no matter what level of abuse is given to them. Thats the mentallity and my frustration.

Further votes for one or the other just makes them think they are doing it right. hence my reward comment. whether it be the Dems or the GOP the Govt wins and individual liberty looses. For me my plate is full of this crap and I'm walking away from the table with a clear mind.

Voting based on fear was never my game. Its not inspiring, and again I'm an idealist. If anything, playing within the 2 party system slows down the next revolution. The whole frog in hot water thing.

I sometimes wonder if those that limit themselves to the 2 pro-govt parties and defend them are similiar to those that thought breaking from England would never work so why try.

Clean97GTI
April 12, 2006, 04:21 PM
I understand where you are coming from.

I simply don't see the point in admitting defeat now and grabbing your guns once the confiscations start. By the time the confiscations start, it will be too late. You will be outnumbered and unable to fight back. The media will label you a terrorist and criminal and they will be right because you lack enough popular support.

Slowing things down means you have already accepted what you see as an inevitable defeat. Flying under the radar isn't going to do you any good without support.

Others however, see this as a chance to get somebody new in power and actually effect preemptive changes. Why wait for a repeat of Tiananmen in Anytown, USA?

I guess the major difference in our views is that you've already accepted that the government will turn your right into a privilege and you will just wait and hope no one notices you breaking the law later on.
I, on the other hand wish to fight for the right while it is still a right and implement changes to prevent said right from being stepped on again.

You start out from a compromised position and you will always have your results compromised. You start out by fighting for what you want and you actually have a chance at getting it.

xd9fan
April 12, 2006, 04:33 PM
Clean, Jeff snyder points out this very problem and the solution in his essay "The line in the Sand". Some of his essays are here http://shiningwire.bebto.com/

"You start out from a compromised position and you will always have your results compromised. You start out by fighting for what you want and you actually have a chance at getting it."

You are so right, this explains the GOP in the last 40 years, nothing but compromise. My issue is that the Bill of Rights are not the Bills of suggestions. (ok not my line but it works)


love the shining wire title. Its a very relative term from the movie/book "The Watership Down" anyway........

Don't Tread On Me
April 12, 2006, 05:38 PM
I simply don't see the point in admitting defeat now and grabbing your guns once the confiscations start. By the time the confiscations start, it will be too late. You will be outnumbered and unable to fight back. The media will label you a terrorist and criminal and they will be right because you lack enough popular support.

It didn't occur to you that I don't want to live in a nation like that. Since there is no where else to run in the world, then I'd rather not live at all.

I don't care if I am outnumbered or cannot fight back. Conditions like those tell me that I am incompatible with the soceity I live in, and someone's got to go.


Slowing things down means you have already accepted what you see as an inevitable defeat.

No, not necessarily. It just suggests that there might be a hope at a later time. Who knows. Maybe the internet will have an effect in 30 years we cannot see right now. Maybe there will be a revival of libertarian thinking in America. It is possible that people might reject the current status quo after possibly failed wars in the future, severe depressions, or after too many draconian laws are passed. Maybe the government run education system that's been designed from the beginning to create subordinate, pacified civilians will end up working so well that it creates a future generation that is so dumb, so illiterate that they won't even be susceptible to lies of each party or the government. Maybe people will fear for their safety from so much from crime, the incompetence of the government, their tyranny, terrorism, natural disasters that they open their mind to unregulated firearm ownership?

Perhaps a combination of all of these things might occur?

I don't know. Whatever happens to help save our rights and our country, it won't be from some 3rd party. It will be from some form of revolution, whether violent or peaceful.

The other option is that we as the gun community succeed in winning over the hearts and minds. I'm trying, but I'm not so confident in that. There are over 60 million gun owners, and only 4 million NRA members. That pretty much describes the the typical American. Not caring about a damn thing.

Others however, see this as a chance to get somebody new in power and actually effect preemptive changes. Why wait for a repeat of Tiananmen in Anytown, USA?


Because actually getting someone new in power will not happen. It's a myth, it is a lie. Assuming you're speaking of a 3rd party. Besides, "someone" isn't going to cut it, you'd need a majority in the congress, or to win a presidency. Forget the courts, you need executive victories and 50 years of control to fill those seats. With modern medicine, perhaps longer.

Truthfully, most 3rd parties, including the libertarians, are also corrupt and simply seek $$$. They aren't doing it for the 'good fight' either. They know they are powerless and they appeal to those folks who fit in neither R or D categories and are disgusted and digruntled with the whole system. Like the free market dictates, where there is a demand, someone will provide supply. They provide the supply of sweet talking alternative choice, but with zero power. It's a "feel good" thing.

If enough Americans actually switch their thinking around to join a 3rd party, they won't because before that can take place, these same people will have the power to reform the current 2 parties.

I guess the major difference in our views is that you've already accepted that the government will turn your right into a privilege and you will just wait and hope no one notices you breaking the law later on.

When did I say this? I LOATHE the idea that Rights are priviledges. I doubt that most shall-issue reform will eventually become Vermont style, but a few might. That is better than nothing. That's right, better than nothing. Because short of a bloody revolution, there is no alternative.

You can't go from total ban to unlicensed, unregulated open carry in 1 step. Society doesn't work that way. You have government and a brainwashed public to deal with.


Concealed carry licensing in the better states isn't so much of a permission system. That is "may issue". Shall-issue removes the permission part per se, and transforms the right to keep and bear concealed arms into a tax. Want to carry a gun? Pay the man. Also, most Americans don't want felons being licensed. I know that's stupid, as felons will do it regardless. But that is the thinking of 95% of a population that votes. So, deal with that when trying to build a 3rd party.


You start out from a compromised position and you will always have your results compromised. You start out by fighting for what you want and you actually have a chance at getting it.

Amen, that is the truth. I agree with that, and that is one of my beliefs. But that only works when you are a party to issue. IE government and civilians are equal parties. We are not. Civilians are subordinate to the government. As a result, there is no "making demands" of them. They will reject you. They rule.

The best you can do is prey on their lust for power and greed. Prey on their in-fighting. Each party wants in because there are benefits to being in control. If they want our votes, they have to not be hostile of the RKBA. This comes into play in close elections.

Like you said, you only get what you fight for. The GOP that we put in power, all we demand is that they not be hostile. We never put them in on contingency that they repeal old bans....

Clean97GTI
April 12, 2006, 06:05 PM
http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/pat.gif

I give up.

Duramaximum
April 12, 2006, 07:57 PM
Do you guys need to step outside?;)

Don't Tread On Me
April 13, 2006, 04:10 AM
Just friendly discussion. It is over though. We agree to disagree.


I hold a pessimistic view based on my perception that the current frame work is unworkable for our main goals regardless of the vehicle (party). They hold an optimistic view that reform is possible within the current frame work by using a different vehicle - if people stop thinking it can't be done (like me) and instead, jump on the wagon.


That's the gist.

iapetus
April 13, 2006, 07:09 AM
Saving the guns is more important than saving your speech. Words won't help against jack-booted-thugs. 300gr of lead will.


But speech, protest etc may prevent things getting to the point where that is necessary. (Or ensure that if things do go that far, it would be a major uprising with extensive popular support, rather than you and a handful of others against the world).


I once read a quote supposedly from Stalin that suggested he feared free flow of ideas as much as civilian arms. "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let people have guns ...why should we let them have ideas?"

Don't Tread On Me
April 13, 2006, 07:16 AM
The USSR technically had a right to free speech.


From the 1936 Soviet Constitution:

Article 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:
freedom of speech;
freedom of the press;
freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
freedom of street processions and demonstrations.

Clean97GTI
April 13, 2006, 11:48 AM
and you'll find that the Soviet people gained these freedoms without open, armed conflict.

If you enjoyed reading about "I saw one of our U.S. Senators entering the gun show as I was leaving." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!