All is Lost

[progunner1957]

Yeah, but...

Folks, the gov't can only take your guns away if you let them.

They can only take them if, when they drive down the road in the gun collection / amnesty truck, you carry out your collection and throw it in the back. Or, if they bust your door down armed for bear. Either way, you are going to have to decide whether or not you are going to comply with their law.

Grey 54956, you speak the truth. Here's the problem I have with your scenario:

I'd just as soon be left the "heck" alone to live out my days in peace - as we are entitiled to do, being American citizens - and not be murdered by socialist thugs fighting for what is mine, namely my rights as guaranteed by our Constitution.

The concept of the right to be left alone dates back to a 1928 Supreme Court wiretapping decision called Olmstead vs. the United States in which the Supreme Court Justice Brandeis said "the protection guaranteed by the amendments (of the Constitution) is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect . . . They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred as against the government the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

Source: http://www.smartcommunities.org/library_alone.htm

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I'm talking about the entire voting history of each individual member.

But I bet you can't provide any evidence of that anywhere near 100% of Democrats have ever voted for anything that is anti-2nd Amendment. Many have, I freely admit, and clearly more Dems are anti-2nd than Republican, but to exaggerate and claim that nearly 100 percent are anti-2nd Amendment is unfair and incorrect.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

Ahhh,another election year on The High Road....
Been hanging out here for a few years now and we have seen much in the comings and goings of American politics.Seen even more of these comings and goings in my 52 years on this planet.....
All won't be "lost" no matter who,or "what",gets elected next week.
If it goes bad for our side,as it has before,we shall get through the bad times and work to do better next election.
Adjust and adapt guys,we have been through this sort of thing before...

I shall now pause and await a wise and pithy comment from the esteemed Standing Wolf...

 

[DRZinn]

But I bet you can't provide any evidence of that anywhere near 100% of Democrats have ever voted for anything that is anti-2nd Amendment. Many have, I freely admit, and clearly more Dems are anti-2nd than Republican, but to exaggerate and claim that nearly 100 percent are anti-2nd Amendment is unfair and incorrect.

Maybe you should read the rest of my last post, wherein I said:

Notice how I said "probably." That and the glaring overgeneralizations were, I thought, ample evidence that it was a number I pulled out for rhetorical value, and not as a "made-up statistic." I don't know, any more than you do, what the actual percentage is. Luckily the NRA, GOA, et al do a pretty job of letting us know that. But using one one bill to demonstrate definitively that only those who voted in favor of that particular bill are anti-gun? I couldn't let that pass.

 

[TallPine]

If all is not lost, then where is it ...?

 

[liberalgunnut]

progunner...

progunner:

Vince Foster "comitted suicide" by shooting himself in the back of the head.

Nope. Nothing fishy about that. Happens all the time. Obviouusly not a murder...

Wrestling with clinical depression, Foster was prescribed Trazodone over the phone by his doctor, though he could have taken at most a few pills before he died. The next day, Foster was found dead in Fort Marcy Park, a federal park in Virginia. He was found with a gun in his hand and gunshot residue on that hand. An autopsy determined that he was shot in the mouth and no other wounds were found on his body. A suicide note of sorts (see text), actually a draft of a resignation letter, was found torn into 27 pieces in his briefcase, a list of complaints specifically mentioning the Wall Street Journal and complaining "I was not meant for the job or the spotlight of public life in Washington. Here ruining people is considered sport."

Conspiracy theory

[edit]Background
Some conspiracy theorists question the three independent reports of suicide. One such group is right wing Accuracy in Media (AIM), a group that has received over $2 million dollars from Richard Mellon Scaife[5]. AIM quotes Assistant U.S. Attorney Miguel Rodriguez, who resigned from the investigation, as saying "I knew what the result was going to be, because I was told what the result was going to be from the get-go." [6] Based on this assertion and other variables, some go so far as to propose that Foster was murdered to prevent him revealing information derogatory to Clinton, and others allege a romantic relationship between Foster and Hillary Clinton. [7]
The Washington Post noted David Brock was "summoned" to a meeting with Rex Armistead in Miami, Florida at an airport hotel. Armistead laid out an elaborate "Vince Foster murder scenario," Brock said – a scenario that he found implausible."[8] Both Brock and Armistead were reporters who were funded by Scaife to investigate issues ranging from drug smuggling to Foster to discredit Clinton with the Arkansas Project.[9]
Scaife funded Christopher Ruddy (later founder of NewsMax), who previously was a writer for the Scaife owned Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, to dig up dirt on Clinton for the Arkansas Project. Ruddy was backed by Joseph Farah (founder of WorldNetDaily) and Farah's organization the Western Journalism Center. This group supplied Ruddy with "additional expense money, funding for Freedom of Information Act requests, legal support and publicity during his book research of a conspiracy surrounding the suicide of Foster.[10] Ruddy eventually released The Strange Death of Vincent Foster, which was even characterized by Ann Coulter as "discredited."[11]
"Nonetheless in 1999, Farah's Western Journalism Center "placed some 50 ads reprinting Ruddy's Tribune-Review stories in the Washington Times, then repackaged the articles as a packet titled The Ruddy Investigation, which sold for $12." [12] Shortly thereafter, the Western Journalism Center "circulated a video featuring Ruddy's claims, 'Unanswered-The Death of Vincent Foster,' that was produced by ultra-conservative James Davidson, chairman of the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) and co-editor of the Strategic Investment newsletter."[12] (NTU's research arm receives funds from Scaife.) Eventually, Scaife became an investor and the third-largest stockholder of Ruddy's NewsMax[13] and both NewsMax and the WorldNetDaily continue to publish materials that show the Clintions in a negative light."[14]
Besides the official investigations, including Kenneth Starr's report that ruled Foster's death a suicide, Dan Moldea wrote a book with encouragement from Al Regnery of the conservative Regnery Publishing house wrote that Foster's death was a suicide and he found the conspiracy theories were started by Robert Hines who shared ideas with Reed Irvine at Accuracy in Media, and Christopher Ruddy, who was then at the New York Post[15] Hines had falsely told "them that there is no exit wound in Foster's head," but Moldea explained, "I don't think there was anything nefarious here," rather Hines "was being approached by reporters and he wanted something to say."[15]
The main conspiracy theorists were Christopher Ruddy of the New York Post and later with the Pittsburgh Tribune Review(owned by Richard Mellon Scaife and Joseph Farah of the Western Journalism Center (later WorldNetDaily), "which supposedly engages in nonprofit, pro-journalistic projects -- which of course just happen to be right-wing projects."[15]
In reference to what specifically started the conspiracy theories, "Foster had some blond hair and carpet fibers on his suit jacket, and he had semen in his underwear. So, the Jerry Falwells and the right-wing crowd get a hold of this information, and ... they start making movies alleging that the Clintons were involved in this murder."[15] Falwell produced the Clinton Chronicles, which Ruddy was involved with claiming the gun was placed in Fosters hand.[15] These videos and claims have been "widely discredited" the videos "sophisticated production" served as effective "propaganda" via adept film editing. [16]
Funding for the film was Citizens for Honest Government, which Jerry Falwell paid $200,000 to in 1994 and 1995.[16] In 1995 Citizens for Honest Government paid two Arkansa state troopers to make allegations supporting the conspiracy about Vincent Foster.[16] These two troopers were Roger Perry and Larry Patteson who also were paid for their testimony in the Paula Jones (See: Troopergate) claims.[16] Citizens for Honest Government also covertly paid individuals who provided information to media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the American Spectator magazine, which named them as sources."[16]
Patrick Matrisciana, president of Citizens for Honest Government, and producer of the Clinton Chronicles video appeared in its commercials as the "silhouetted individual whom he identifies only as an 'investigative reporter'."[16] When ask about the scene Matrisciana admitted he was not a reporter and replied "I doubt our lives were actually ever in any real danger. That was Jerry's idea to do that ... He thought that would be dramatic."[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Foster

see there are enough to go around to both parties...I rest my case.

 

[progunner1957]

An autopsy determined that he was shot in the mouth and no other wounds were found on his body.

That's not the way I heard it...

 

[seeker_two]

Actually, I see this election resulting in a three-way split in Washington....

Bush and his neo-cons will maintain the administration.
The liberal Dems will take control of the Senate (but not over 60 seats).
The Reagan/Goldwater conservative Republicans will hold on to the House.

Result: Bush and co. will have to do a lot of wheeling and dealing to keep up the WOT, the Iraq operations, and Homeland Security. We may even see some executive orders used for the first time. The Senate will hold up a lot of the remaining appointments (including any new vacancies). The House will use the power of the purse-strings to push Bush into addressing more fiscally responsible, more conservative issues (tax reform, border security, etc.).

Most importantly, it will motiviate the Republicans to finally address the Reagan-cons vs. neo-cons power struggle in the party. If the Reagan-cons win, expect a strong conservative to run for the White House. If the neo-cons win, expect eight years of Hillary...

The next two years will be rough, regardless.....

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Vince Foster "comitted suicide" by shooting himself in the back of the head.

If you go to the BBC website you can find an interview with the guy who broke the Vince Foster story for (I think) the American Spectator. He's up front and honest about it, and says he made it up. No equivocation - it's crap.

Time to let that one die.

 

[Bruce H]

I figure that the phrase "When in the course of human events" will take on new meaning.

 

[scurtis_34471]

I think some of you are over-estimating the extent to which Democrats are anti-gun. Obviously, the real left-wingers tend to be strongly anti. The problem is that looking at the most extreme people is a poor way to measure any group as a whole. Its also more complex than simply Pro or Anti. I know a lot of people who are pro-CCW, but think machine guns should remain illegal. Are they anti-gun? I personally don't think so. Most people fall somewhere on a continuum. The data I've read suggests that only about 1/3 of the Dems are hard-core anti-gun.

Being a Republican is no guarantee of being pro-gun either. Need I remind you that Brady is a Republican?

 

[XDKingslayer]

My congressional district was recently changed, and we are in a situation where parts of 2 districts were combined to create a new district.

This is why elections today are simply pointless. Politicians have learned that if they can't get voted in by their regular people, they will simply redistrict an area until they do.

Honestly, people really need to pull their heads out of their butts and start paying attention to this redistricting, because that is what is going to help them start chipping away at your freedoms.

 

[cbsbyte]

Actually, some of the most anti-gun people I know are conservative Republicans. On the flip side many Dems, including some liberals, I know are very pro gun. In Mass most of the pro gun legislators are, Democrats. In reality I would wager that a good % of Democrats in the nation are pro gun.

 

[hps1]

Which party controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency during Katrina and yet failed to immediately intervene with force are restore the civil rights that Nagin had violated in New Orleans??? Yes, Bush could have immediately put an end to gun confiscations in the same way that Eisenhower sent military personnel to ensure integration in Arkansas.

Don't forget Posse Comitatis which " generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress." Also, do not forget the governor of LA. had refused to allow federal troops to enter the state.

Yes, congress was Republican controlled, but with some blaming the president for hurricane Katrina itself, can you imagine the uproar from the left had he or congress sent federal troops in over the objection of the governor?
But enough about Katrina, only used the most blatant infringement on our 2nd amendment to point out the propensity of the left to ignore our 2A rights.

but the Democratic party is slowly changing to a less anti-gun stance.

I certainly hope so, but don't think that Pelosi as speaker of the house would be a good thing from our perspective and that is what you are guaranteed if the Dems take the house.

I freely admit, and clearly more Dems are anti-2nd than Republican, but to exaggerate and claim that nearly 100 percent are anti-2nd Amendment is unfair and incorrect.

It is true that not all Dems are anti gun; my (D) congressman, after a bit of persuasion , has a pretty fair firearms record; in fact is endorsed by the NRA in this election. It is also true that there is not enough difference between the two parties, at least to satisfy me.

Be careful what you wish for; it may come true. Remember, the speaker of the house is a very powerful person and can pretty well control what bills are considered and what is tabled. The fact that congress was under Rep. control is precisely the reason that:

The House changes hands every two years. There have been very few gun bills for them to have voted on,

Regards,
hps

 

[LAR-15]

Most Dems I know hate guns or at the very least hate handguns and 'assault weapons'

Massachusetts is also one of the few places with a semi automatic statewide gun ban.

Yeah there's a lot of pro gunners up there.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Vito, we're talking about the "secret hold" tactic that apparently any single Senator can use to block a bill. Yes, single Senator.

just to clairfy, there is no "secret hold" that allows a Senator to block a bill entirely. An anonymous hold can only happen when another Senator is trying to fast track a bill. In the interests of time and efficiency, the Senate will pass uncontroversial legislation by unanimous consent without going through the usual procedure.

However, it only takes one Senator to object and then the bill must go through the usual routine of being placed on the calendar, go through committee, etc. In the case of the Coburn bill, he was trying to fast track the bill through before August recess because he knew that nothing would get done until next session otherwise (everybody out campaigning for re-election until November and then only a few days until end of session in early December).

All the hold does is force a bill to follow the normal procedure for voting instead of allowing it to be fast-tracked. Should the bill be brought up towards the end of the session, this can also kill the bill until the next session of Congress.

 

[Ieyasu]

In reality I would wager that a good % of Democrats in the nation are pro gun

Then, I'd wager you're not a gun rights activist.

Unless you want to weasel out of your claim by saying that "a good %" is 30%

See Table 1 of this poll for example: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=471

Further, when the question is changed to registration or handgun bans, the variance is similar.

 

[RealGun]

In reality I would wager that a good % of Democrats in the nation are pro gun

Then, I'd wager you're not a gun rights activist.

Yes, I believe that's called disinformation. Say it often enough.....

We have gotten a lot of that lately.

 

[Zundfolge]

In reality I would wager that a good % of Democrats in the nation are pro gun

I don't care how many pro gun Democrats you know, I don't care how many pro gun Democrat politicians you can dig up; THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE PARTY AND THE PARTY'S LEADERSHIP IS STAUNCHLY ANTI GUN.

Even the flaccid pro gun position of the GOP leadership is better for gun rights overall than the staunch and vehement anti gun DNC leadership.

If you vote for "pro gun" Democrats, you empower the biggest and baddest gun grabbers in the US. Period.

 

[hps1]

If you vote for "pro gun" Democrats, you empower the biggest and baddest gun grabbers in the US. Period.
__________________

AMEN!

Regards,
hps

 

[outofbattery]

Most Dems I know hate guns or at the very least hate handguns and 'assault weapons'

Massachusetts is also one of the few places with a semi automatic statewide gun ban.

Yeah there's a lot of pro gunners up there.

No,not a lot of pro-gunners but I did get a letter from my Democrat representative congratulating 2 wins at a pistol shoot last month.


MA has kept the AWB as it stood under Fed law but there isn't any statewide ban on semi-autos.My CLEO would sign off for a machinegun permit but since I can't afford one,that's a moot point.It's a possibility with our new governor that there might be new anti legislation but actually,gun laws have been improved ( there is now an appeal process if denied an LTC for example) and more gun legislation has been headed off more recently than anything worse has been foisted on us.Everyone admits that the guns used in crimes in Boston _are not_ coming from inside MA and that tightening our laws will have no effect on such but the constant pressure to do something for the children is always there,and since there is no effective way to stop straw buyers and crooked dealers,we bear the brunt of it.We'll see,I'm budgeting on picking up 1 or possibly 2 Bushmaster carbines but want to hold off in order to not be a part of the artificial demand that increases prices for no reason.

On a Federal level,Pelosi has made a concerted effort to not look scary and push hot-buttons on anything,gun control included.It's very calculated that this election is being run as anti-Bush rather than " look what we have to offer".Bush said that he would have renewed the AWB and all the Democrats would have to do to get more of the country to swallow it would be to trot it out under the guise of " stopping terrorists from getting deadly semi-automatic sniper weapons and their new favored target, the airliner killer .50cal rifle".Those that think the next AWB is going to be a continuation of the first are going to be sadly mistaken as they're going to want more than flashhiders and bayonet lugs this time.

 

[Ieyasu]

If you vote for "pro gun" Democrats, you empower the biggest and baddest gun grabbers in the US. Period.

Posters, such as Bartholomew Roberts, have posted on more than one thread the pro-gun bills passed by a Republican congress. I don't recall whether one of the items on those lists was the de-funding of anti-gun research grants from the CDC. Expect to see more "quality" research from Kellermann protoges after the Dems take the House.

 

[Koobuh]

I simply would like to say that I strongly resent all of the Republican party hard-liners that are doing their very darnedest to bully the conservative base back into line.
It wouldn't be necessary to use scare tactics, threatening us with visions of Billary and Pelosi, and the 'end of the 2nd amendment', if the Republican party had actually acted in a conservative manner.

But no.

They spent recklessly, passed onerous laws, smeared themselves in the rich honey of corruption, and did all those other things which a party in a firm majority will do if it lacks focus and conviction.

If this election swings the Democrats into power, it will be a sad thing. But not as sad as if the same Republicans were once again given a 'second chance' to 'do it right'. They ALL need to go, every last one of them.

Signed: a disgusted Conservative, once dedicated Republican, now homeless; left behind by his own party.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Koobuh, well said.

Frankly I am tired of the lap dogs of the Republican Party attempting to scare me or bully me into voting for their pseudo-conservative candidates.

I vote for Bush twice because of that, and admit that was a mistake.

If there is no candidate I can vote for, then I just won't vote this time.

 

[Thin Black Line]

just to clairfy, there is no "secret hold" that allows a Senator to block a bill entirely.

Suggest a search here on THR since this matter has been discussed extensively.
You were a part of that, but I know memory can be short. The fact remains
that the Republicans do whatever is politically expedient just like their so-called
nemesis, the Dems. Dole could have brought the 94 ban to a screeching halt
prior to the thanksgiving break, Bush 1 didn't have to do an '89 import ban,
Reagan didn't have to sign an '86 law, etc, etc. Not one of these bills
became law by sheer donkey-kicking willpower.

This whole "the repubs let the 94/04 re-auth die" was based on smart politics,
not any love for the Constitution. It came right before another election. No
one in their right mind was going to vote a bill that re-newed something like
that less than 2 months before ppl went to the polls. Some of us are old enough
to remember the Hill got a rather good flush after the 94 ban as a result of
who voted for it. That was certainly the main factor in 2004. With a lot of
close races in 06, gun-bans are currently a no-go.

Current neo-con apologetics aside, when they're sure it's politically safe to
ban more guns, the two-headed partiya will do it again. I have yet to see an
internal GOP catharsis where our wayward politicians plead for mercy and
forgiveness for their continued transgressions against this country and our
Consititution. As a result, they get the flush. Nothing like a few years of
donkey constipation and it's associated pain to get the elephant herd to
follow a proper alpha male.

If that doesn't work, it's third party time and I'll be more than happy to part
ways with neo-cons and their NWO RINO traitors who have proven they are
just as destructive to the longterm well-being of America as the Euro-socialist
Dems. Yes, strong words, but on target and well-deserved.