So what if they come get our guns.

[buzz_knox]

His record in Texas and the White House proves its not a fantasy. But hey, don't let the facts intrude on the discussion.

I think the real reason some people almost seem to relish a Kerry victory by going 3rd party is that they want a revolution, and to get it to happen, they need to see rights rapidly taken away.

 

[buzz_knox]

Personally, I always make an association of infringement of any right with a potential threat to gun rights, even to the point of being considered tedious on occasion. It's the mindset precedent that really concerns me. Lawmakers either comply with their oath to "uphold and defend" or they don't. Being soft on one Constitutional point indicates to me that there is a potential softness on anything else.

Absolutely agree. The problem is that we don't protect the Constitution by replacing someone who's soft in areas of it with someone who has a fundamentally opposition to its basic principle (that we are endowed with rights, not that it provides rights to us), who believes that people receive rights from the gov't, who is ardently opposed to American sovereignty (a key requirement for maintaining the Constitution as the central element of the American political culture) and wants to strip us of our ability to "protest" in the ways of our forefathers. We win nothing and lose everything by allowing (even assisting) an enemy who has completely discounted us to gain power at the expense of a limp friend who actually does tend to listen.

The key to retaking what we have lost is not to step outside the current system (which will not change absent an extreme event, which would be more likely to bring increased gov't control rather than less). Instead, we must do what the liberals did to the Democratic party: infiltrate it and shape it to what they desire it to be. The most liberal elements now have a real opportunity to have someone dedicated to their views to an extent greater than even Clinton in the White House. We can do the same, having a real freedom loving candidate, if we are willing to fight long battles necessary to change the party and hold the line.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Buzz, what you say about changing the Republican Party from within is true, but the sad fact is, no one is even trying to change the Republican Party right now.

Bush was re-nominated for President without contest from other Republicans. If someone in the Republican Party would stand up for the conservative wing, and had at least made a token run to win the nomination in 2004, then Bush might have at least been forced to move toward the right a little bit. Instead, every one in the party is following Bush as he makes one left turn after another.

Conservatism is dead in the Republican party, at least for the time being.

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

It's amazing but of the posts I've read, it almost of sounds like a page taken out of the Turner Diaries -- what are you prepared to do for your guns?

 

[buzz_knox]

Buzz, what you say about changing the Republican Party from within is true, but the sad fact is, no one is even trying to change the Republican Party right now

Gee, I guess I fall in the category of "no one." But hey, if you've given up on them, go ahead. I haven't.

As for Bush being renominated without contest, of course. Did you really expect the Republicans to try and change horses given all the existing circumstances? Once again for all who haven't been listening, the way you win this battle (as evidenced by the success of the liberals and gun control movement) is to maintain a hold on the areas you've got, and advance the line in the direction you want. You do not do that by abandoning the ground you've gained. If the Republicans had tossed Bush (which would have caused a major split in the party at the front), they would have also been tossing an incumbent, losing credibility with the American public, and guaranteeing a Democratic victory.

As for making left turns, those left turns are being made because only the left side of the party is being heard from. Too many of the right side have said screw the Republicans. Well, if people are declaring they won't vote for them no matter what, why should Republicans listen to them?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Buzz, I guess you missed my point... I know they Repubs aren't going to ditch an incumbent... I will quote what I said:

If someone in the Republican Party would stand up for the conservative wing, and had at least made a token run to win the nomination in 2004, then Bush might have at least been forced to move toward the right a little bit.

If a conservative had run, or at least threatened to run, for the nomination, I suspect Bush would have made more of an effort to appease the right wing. That would have been the perfect example of what you mean when you talk about changing the party from within. The bottom line is the Republican Party will not risk loss of its power by allowing a challenger to make waves by expressing an opposing ideology.

I have been a Republican all my life, but I think Bush has changed that. I supported him in 2000 with money, my vote, and even a little campaign work. But since he took office I have seen more liberal agenda get passed in his four years than Bill Clinton got passed in eight. Obviously Kerry is not the answer to my problem, but I am really so disappointed with Bush that I don't think I can vote for him.

 

[ProGlock]

One thing I think needs to be stressed into everyone's heads though is that if there ever comes a time of open revolt by the people against its government, certain conditions MUST be adhered to.

First, who is your target? You cannot just openly shoot anything that works for "the man". For example, local police belong to the city/county law enforcement. Are you rebelling against them? No. You will likely be rebelling against the federal government. You must make your intentions clear that your enemy is who you pick and stick to it, unless attacked without provocation from another party. If you start shooting everyone in sight, you will be labeled a terrorist.

Second, you must communicate with the people all the time and make sure they understand exactly why you are rebelling and whom you are rebelling against. Explain to them that your militia or group will not in way, shape or form attack the innocent or those who want nothing to do with the rebellion, and stand by your word. You can, of course, express that donations of food, water, shelter, clothing, etc. will always be gratefully accepted.

Third, ensure your militia or group is properly labeled as a group rebelling against the government and not as terrorists. At every point that people attempt to label you a terrorist, always counter them stating they are wrong. The best way to go about this is by passively asserting yourselves by wearing uniforms and having a flag. Ensure your uniforms are easily recognizable and that your flag could not be mistaken for anything else.

Finally, instill in your men that you fight on the side of righteousness and for the greater good, even when many others will denounce you at every opportunity. Always display confidence in achieving your goals and make sure the people see you for who you really are...respectful, kind, and well-mannered toward the public and that same public knows who the opponent is. People will decide for themselves which side they choose to support, and with any luck, you will have a majority of them with you.

 

[buzz_knox]

But since he took office I have seen more liberal agenda get passed in his four years than Bill Clinton got passed in eight.

You mean like the ban on partial birth abortions, the death of the AWB, national concealed carry for LEs, and taking the war on terrorists to the terrorists themselves? Those liberal agendas?

 

[Zrex]

Maybe talking about the greatest social welfare program since the "Great Society" of LBJ.

Maybe talking about "No child left behind".

 

[TallPine]

Third, ensure your militia or group is properly labeled as a group rebelling against the government and not as terrorists.

Doesn't seem to make any difference in Iraq ....

 

[buzz_knox]

So the solution to Bush's liberal bent is to give power to Kerry, who makes Bush look like a conservative?

Like I've said before, I think some people want to make things so bad that the revolution happens in their lifetime.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

You mean like the ban on partial birth abortions, the death of the AWB, national concealed carry for LEs, and taking the war on terrorists to the terrorists themselves? Those liberal agendas?

No I mean McCain-Feingold, Medicare Reform, the Patriot Act, and Kennedy's No Child Left Behind.


To take your points one at a time:

Bush's stand on the partial birth abortion ban, while I agree with him philosophically, became irrelevant when the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.

The AWB died on its own thanks to Congress, not Bush, who said he would sign it if Congress passed it.

National concealed carry for LE's creates a special class of citizens with special priveledges.

I will give Bush credit with taking the War on Terror to the terrorists. Thats a good idea, but very little else good has come out of his term.

We won't have a revolution if Kerry is elected, and I think we all know that. I don't support Kerry's ideology at all, but considering what a bad job the Repubs have been doing, having the Democrats in charge of the White House might give us a little bit of much needed political gridlock.

 

[Zrex]

Most of us are fully aware of what kind of person John F'ing Kerry is. What you don't seem to understand is that we see George Bush as not a whole lot better. Maybe if there were any real substantial difference between the 2 candidates, things might be different. I know you believe there are major differences, and I respect your opinions. I happen to opine otherwise.

It is just a terribly sad state of affairs where you vote for someone because you assume he is lying, rather than the other person because you assume he is telling the truth.

Welcome to the Republocratic party.

How much money has George Bush cost you? Were you effected by his steel tariffs? I was. I thought republicans were free trade?

 

[MP5]

Instead, we must do what the liberals did to the Democratic party: infiltrate it and shape it to what they desire it to be.

What leverage would you use? If Bush and his ilk are the ones that are elected and thereby grant the GOP power, what incentive is there for them to take a conservative wing and their relatively extreme views (like the RKBA) to heart? Why would the GOP abandon a winning formula for those of us who would like to see more classical conservatism?

 

[Zrex]

What leverage would you use? If Bush and his ilk are the ones that are elected and thereby grant the GOP power, what incentive is there for them to take a conservative wing and their relatively extreme views (like the RKBA) to heart? Why would the GOP abandon a winning formula for those of us who would like to see more classical conservatism?

The Republican Liberty Caucus is the best and only hope, IMHO, sad and small as it may seem...

 

[buzz_knox]

How much money has George Bush cost you? Were you effected by his steel tariffs? I was. I thought republicans were free trade?

Are you affected by the subsidies foreign gov'ts give their companies? Do you believe that free trade is effective when there isn't a level playing field?

As for the revolution, I don't believe it will occur during Kerry's reign. I do believe that some are hoping that things will get worse much faster with Kerry and his successor, so that the time of the glorious revolution which is the basis for this thread will be sped up.

But here's the logical fallacy in your argument, Lone_Gunman. You want a Republican Congress and a Democratic White House. I presume that means you are voting for Republican congresspersons, right? Yet, those are the same people who drafted and voted on the legislation you oppose? In fact, you're probably going to be voting for (or relying on others to vote for) the very same people who made the crap you're opposed to in the first place.

 

[buzz_knox]

If Bush and his ilk are the ones that are elected and thereby grant the GOP power, what incentive is there for them to take a conservative wing and their relatively extreme views (like the RKBA) to heart? Why would the GOP abandon a winning formula for those of us who would like to see more classical conservatism?

The same way the liberals did it to the Democratic party. By making their voices heard powerfully within the party, not from without. They elected representatives and senators who thought the way they did, while maintaing their traditional power bases.

 

[Waitone]

Buzz, what you say about changing the Republican Party from within is true, but the sad fact is, no one is even trying to change the Republican Party right now.

From what I'm hearing on the grapevine the appearance of inaction is an illusion. Assuming Bush is reelected and spinelessrepublicans maintain a majority in the House and an increasing margin in the senate, a number of long-suffering groups are poised to push their agendas. The fear of splitting the party is so strong than no one is willing to speak out.

Specifically, cultural warriors want war declared on an activist judiciary. That means the senate will act like the majority and change senate rules to knock down Daschle's 2/3 rule in reporting nominees to the senate. It also means the beginning of implementation of Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the constitution which permits the legislature to remove appelate jurisdiction from the supreme court.

Fiscal fighters are demanding that insane spending stop and stop suddenly.

Anti-criminal immigration advocates have just about had it with Bush's immigration policiy and his advocation of an amnesty program.

So-called "free trade" is now on the block for change. Enough of those standing election and re-election have faced defining moments with their electorate.

Back when Democrats were flying high, spinelessrepublicans made fun of how fractured the Democrat party was. We will now see how fractured spinelessrepublicans become when their control of congress is a little more certain.

 

[Zrex]

Are you affected by the subsidies foreign gov'ts give their companies? Do you believe that free trade is effective when there isn't a level playing field?

The steel tariffs had nothing to do with a level playing field, it had to do with keeping a campaign promise to the steel workers union. Am I affected by the subsidies foreign gov'ts give their companies? Beats me.

I own a manufacturing company. I bought about half a million dollars worth of steel from march of 2002 to December 2003. I do not manufacture for export. I do not compete against imported products. I believe that if GWB wants to help domestic steel, he should not do it at the expense of those who rely on steel as their life blood -- domestic manufacturers. Rationalize Georgies actions all you want. He sucked up to a big union at the expense of small manufacturers. If it is cheaper for me to buy steel from the other side of the Ural Mountains in Russia than it is from the US, maybe the US steel industry should modernize and streamline and become more efficient instead of letting GWB reward their inefficiencies.

 

[MP5]

By making their voices heard powerfully within the party, not from without.

At the risk of sounding defeatist (which isn't normally palatable to me), what is my voice versus the spoils of office they've garnered through Bush? If I had connections in the upper echelons of government or industry or had millions of bucks at my disposal, it would be one thing. But that's not the case.

 

[Freedomv]

After reading most of the posted rplies I have to put my $.02 worth.

It is too late when they come to pick up your guns. The time to act is now, by educating as many people as one can to the facts and the B.S. and of our constitution and Bill of Rights.

Getting people to think and not let the Government think for you, and then voting.

I personally hate the way our system has degraded to voting the lesser of two evils, political correctness etc etc.

We must educate the up and comming generations. they are sheep that Michael Moore wants to get out to vote for his candidate.

Vern

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

I can understand why some people are unhappy with Bush over the last four years. But if you value your guns, you'll give him your vote regardless of whatever your opinions are of him. Kerry WILL: tax guns, tax ammo, he WILL ban "assault"weapons, he'll make every effort to remove you from your guns. That's not a threat, it's a promise. You can also expect the U.S. to join the United Nations and become a close friend of France. As someone once said, "With France as your friend, you're better off going alone."

Do you really hate Bush more than you love your gun rights? Then give Kerry your vote and the whole country will look like Massachusetts in no time. Better yet, don't vote and allow Michael Moore and his friends to vote for you. While we're at it -- why not kill a baby in the womb or kill them before they have a chance. After all, what you can't see doesn't matter anyway. Kind of like Kerry's views on God.....

 

[Zrex]

While we're at it -- why not kill a baby in the womb or kill them before they have a chance.

This is what you rabidly pro-bush people dont seem to get. Bush and Kerry have the same positions, it is just a matter of degrees.

Bush opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life.

So, lets boil it down. Bush thinks it is OK to kill babies under certain circumstances. So does Kerry. Sure, Bush thinks far fewer babies should be "murdered in their mothers wombs", but killing babies is still killing babies. And who among you would blame the baby for the circumstances of its conception?

The argument then becomes a discussion NOT over whether or not to kill the babies, but how many and which ones. Do you like that? Do you support murdering Babies, Mastrogiacomo? Your candidate of choice does. Murder is still murder, or are you going to rationalize that a little murder is ok?

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

I vote for Bush. I personally hate Kerry but not for this reason. He's managed to screw over the Commonwealth in other ways that doesn't seem to make the press. Bottom line, I know Bush's stance on protecting life is stronger than Kerry, who also prefers to fight the war on terrorism with spit balls....

 

[Zrex]

This is why the republican party is doomed. No one will take a stand. They are too busy running around making decisions based on fear instead of being based on principles.

Its time people just stood up and said NO. If you dont have the courage to do it now, then go to the polls, pull the lever for BUSH, then start screaming NO MORE at the top of your lungs. That gives you 4 years to try to see if the party will change. If it doesnt, then they must be punished. I have given them ... lemme count.... 16 years to change, and they have not done a damn thing except wander around like a ship without a rudder. I will vote for bush when you pry the ballot from my cold dead hands.

People need to stop compromising themselves, and wake up and realize that the republicans and Democrats are two wings on the same bird, and its flying in the wrong direction. (I stole that from someplace but cant remember where).