beerslurpy
member
It stands up to political reality if people beleive it and vote it. And I think increasingly large numbers are doing just that.
Guns as a litmus test
- Thread starter beerslurpy
- Start date
- Status
ksnecktieman
Member
It is a terrible thing that we have to worry about rights guaranteed to us by the constitution.
Permit to carry, firearm owners permit, nics check, all are "reasonable restrictions" by them selves, but any compromise just leads us to more "reasonable compromise".
I am not a single issue voter,,, but if he does not back the second amendment (by his record, and his deeds, not his campaign promises) I will vote against him,,, other issues are secondary to it.
Permit to carry, firearm owners permit, nics check, all are "reasonable restrictions" by them selves, but any compromise just leads us to more "reasonable compromise".
I am not a single issue voter,,, but if he does not back the second amendment (by his record, and his deeds, not his campaign promises) I will vote against him,,, other issues are secondary to it.
beerslurpy
member
I honestly dont think that any harm will result from entirely rolling back gun control to 1790s levels. Even military hardware isnt the source of the problem, despite the NFA era rhetoric.
Even back in the 20s, 99 percent of the "gun problems" were really prohibition problems, just like most of the "urban gun violence problems" today are really drug war problems. Taking awaythe guns wont fix them and adding more guns wont make the problem any worse than it already is. I mean, it isnt like the gang bangers are having any trouble finding guns already.
Even back in the 20s, 99 percent of the "gun problems" were really prohibition problems, just like most of the "urban gun violence problems" today are really drug war problems. Taking awaythe guns wont fix them and adding more guns wont make the problem any worse than it already is. I mean, it isnt like the gang bangers are having any trouble finding guns already.
Jim March
Member
I used to think the RKBA is a perfect litmus test for politicians.
I now think it's a GOOD one but not perfect.
The reason it's not perfect is that there are two "flavors" of the RKBA. There's personal defense against crooks (CCW being the poster child) and then there's defense against an out-of-control government...which was mostly blasted apart by the NFA in 1934 and has never recovered.
(The last vestige is our right to own long-range bolt-action scoped guns...lose THAT and we're toast. They're closing in on that, California took the first step by banning single-shot 50BMGs.)
It's possible for a really ghastly politician to support the right to fight off street thugs but realize that the REAL original 2nd Amendment is dead and be glad of it...and therefore perform outright totalitarian actions on that basis.
The guy doing exactly that right now is named "Blackwell" in Ohio
...a supporter of CCW but a guy eager to rig elections.
I now think it's a GOOD one but not perfect.
The reason it's not perfect is that there are two "flavors" of the RKBA. There's personal defense against crooks (CCW being the poster child) and then there's defense against an out-of-control government...which was mostly blasted apart by the NFA in 1934 and has never recovered.
(The last vestige is our right to own long-range bolt-action scoped guns...lose THAT and we're toast. They're closing in on that, California took the first step by banning single-shot 50BMGs.)
It's possible for a really ghastly politician to support the right to fight off street thugs but realize that the REAL original 2nd Amendment is dead and be glad of it...and therefore perform outright totalitarian actions on that basis.
The guy doing exactly that right now is named "Blackwell" in Ohio
...a supporter of CCW but a guy eager to rig elections.Eleven Mike
Member
No they don't. "Neo-con" is a pejorative that few, if any, would actually claim. I challenge you to find one politican who would so describe himself.
That's an absurd interpretation of Ezekiel's words, sir, and I suggest you learn to read. Guns are not the only measure of freedom. You may think they are the most important item in politics, but that is only your opinion and, may I suggest, an incorrect one.progunner said:
cracked butt
Member
I agree.
I think taxes and government spending is far more important. Currently, a person has to spend more time working for the government in the form of taxes than ever before. Having no gun control at all would do no good if you were taxed at 80% of your income and had to work 80 hrs per week just to take care of your minimum needs.
Guns are a dealbreaker for me. If a candidate cannot trust me with guns, then they cannot be trusted with my vote.
No_Brakes23
Member
Maybe, beerslurpy, what they mean, is that people like David Duke won't get their vote, just for paying lip service to RKBA. I won't vote for a candidate who talks a good game about the 2nd, but strips away the 4th or the 1st. Freedom haters are freedom haters, and if they are using one amendment for bird cage liner, I bet it won't be too long before they show their true colors and disregard the 2nd as well.
Or do you really think that people should vote for a someone they honestly believe will ruin the country just because that politician SAYS they are pro-RKBA?
Here in San Diego County we are dealing with a Sheriff who claimed he would be pro-CCW, but in practice, only issues to cronies and the like. (Maybe he just got "forgetful" about his promise.) Anyone who voted for him just on the basis of his apparent RKBA stance got a raw deal.
Perhaps more than a candidate's supposed position on one issue should be taken into account when juding his character.
I still half-agree with you though. Being anti-RKBA should definitely be a deal breaker.
beerslurpy
member
Obviously I'm assuming that voters will be smart enough to realize when they have been lied to and stop voting for the same bastards again and again.
As for taxes, a government that beleives it can do everything without limitation is going to have a much stronger inclination to tax the subjects than one that beleives that citizens are fundamentally capable of solving their own problems. Again, guns arent the answer themselves, but the people we want to elect can all be found on one side of the gun issue.
As for taxes, a government that beleives it can do everything without limitation is going to have a much stronger inclination to tax the subjects than one that beleives that citizens are fundamentally capable of solving their own problems. Again, guns arent the answer themselves, but the people we want to elect can all be found on one side of the gun issue.
Ezekiel,
That's not as obvious as you suggest; virtually every time you decide how to vote, it will be one "single issue" that tips the balance. If you vote against a 2A candidate because of, say, his position on press censorship, aren't you being a "single issue" voter in that instance?
Unless, maybe, you're into some sort of Constitutional Calculus: one 2A < (1A+4A), but > 5A, unless Budget Deficit > (7%GNP/#Innocence Project released prisoners.)
That's not as obvious as you suggest; virtually every time you decide how to vote, it will be one "single issue" that tips the balance. If you vote against a 2A candidate because of, say, his position on press censorship, aren't you being a "single issue" voter in that instance?
Unless, maybe, you're into some sort of Constitutional Calculus: one 2A < (1A+4A), but > 5A, unless Budget Deficit > (7%GNP/#Innocence Project released prisoners.)
You shouldn't vote for any candidate that doesn't support the 2nd Amendment...and you shouldn't vote for just any 'ol candidate because they do.
Vote for the good, (well maybe not "good" in an absolute sense...they are politicians), ones out of the support the 2nd Amendment crop.
Vote for the good, (well maybe not "good" in an absolute sense...they are politicians), ones out of the support the 2nd Amendment crop.
Deathrider1579
Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Messages
- 198
AJ-Dual,
The two things that keep me from being a full fledged Libertarian are:
Open borders thing, I think that the government's single responsibility is the defense of the borders of the country (this includes any aggressor anywhere in the world) but to allow open borders increases the chance of an aggressor infiltrating operatives into our country, but it also degrades our society. I guess the later is my biggest problem. I see many of these people who come from where ever not becoming Americans, adopting English as their language and the US as their home. But rather they try to make the US turn into wherever they came from in language, culture and their behavior.
Abortion, I know its "reproductive freedom" and all that I just think they are ignoring the freedoms inherent to the infant citizen.
But considering we have in effect if not law both of these right now I would love to live in a Libertarian America.
I would never vote for an anti-gunner, I would like to see a NFA abolitionist get into some real power.
-DR
The two things that keep me from being a full fledged Libertarian are:
Open borders thing, I think that the government's single responsibility is the defense of the borders of the country (this includes any aggressor anywhere in the world) but to allow open borders increases the chance of an aggressor infiltrating operatives into our country, but it also degrades our society. I guess the later is my biggest problem. I see many of these people who come from where ever not becoming Americans, adopting English as their language and the US as their home. But rather they try to make the US turn into wherever they came from in language, culture and their behavior.
Abortion, I know its "reproductive freedom" and all that I just think they are ignoring the freedoms inherent to the infant citizen.
But considering we have in effect if not law both of these right now I would love to live in a Libertarian America.
I would never vote for an anti-gunner, I would like to see a NFA abolitionist get into some real power.
-DR
xd9fan
Member
+1
But I think they (the Govt) already knows this. The Govt wants control. Guns are a roadblock.
Last edited:
DRZinn
Member
That's my biggest beef with many Libertarians today. They have no sense of priorities. I would agree with open borders, after the welfare state is nothing but a bad memory, and non-interventionism has been policy for at least a decade.
DRZinn
Member
And back on topic:
A perfect analogy for compromise:
Imagine a man arrives at your door, tells you that your landlord (or the mortgage company) sent him, and orders you to give him all your dishes. You, of course, refuse. After much bluster, finally arriving at threats, he says he's willing to compromise. Just give him the plastic dishes, and you can keep the fine china. You comply, just to get him off your back. After all, you'll still have dishes, right?
What will you do the next week when he demands the large serving platters, but lets you keep the dinner plates?
My point is that "compromise," far from being the panacea the left makes it sound like, only works when it is a proposition somewhere between two reasonable positions. When one position is the complete abrogation of your right to self defense, any compromise is a failure. Then, when that becomes normal, you'll have to "compromise" more.
You could also say it's like that old saw about traveling half the distance from you to to another person. No matter how many times you do so, you'll never get all the way there. But how long will it take to be so close they can reach out and strangle you?
A perfect analogy for compromise:
Imagine a man arrives at your door, tells you that your landlord (or the mortgage company) sent him, and orders you to give him all your dishes. You, of course, refuse. After much bluster, finally arriving at threats, he says he's willing to compromise. Just give him the plastic dishes, and you can keep the fine china. You comply, just to get him off your back. After all, you'll still have dishes, right?
What will you do the next week when he demands the large serving platters, but lets you keep the dinner plates?
My point is that "compromise," far from being the panacea the left makes it sound like, only works when it is a proposition somewhere between two reasonable positions. When one position is the complete abrogation of your right to self defense, any compromise is a failure. Then, when that becomes normal, you'll have to "compromise" more.
You could also say it's like that old saw about traveling half the distance from you to to another person. No matter how many times you do so, you'll never get all the way there. But how long will it take to be so close they can reach out and strangle you?
I have only voted against one strong 2A candidate. I hated to do it, his opposition was not terrible but not great, but he was a complete whack job on almost all other issues. Mr 2A was for 100% percent ban of all abortions, INCLUDING rape victims and incest and abuse victims, as well as seeing that most birth control pills were active at post conception, he wanted them banned too. He was for a complete dismantling of all social welfare programs calling them socialism (including social security and SSSI,) He was for the Isolationalist view that American should divorce it self from all other conctacts with the rest of the world....and more that made it impossible for me to justify voting for him.
progunner1957
member
I wasn't even talking to you!
Eleven Mike, I merely asked a question. I asked it of Ezekiel, not of you.
Exactly what do you think justifies you jumping in with your snide commentary when you weren't even the person I directed my question to in the first place?
Eleven Mike, I merely asked a question. I asked it of Ezekiel, not of you.
Exactly what do you think justifies you jumping in with your snide commentary when you weren't even the person I directed my question to in the first place?
Oh, but I can read - I thought that fact would be obvious to even the most casual observer, given the fact that I can also write.
And that is your opinion - which has absolutely no more value, relevance, validity or correctness than my opinion or anyone else's here - "sir."
progunner1957
member
Compromise is easy to justify - in the mind of those who compromise
By your logic - which makes sense - we are all single issue voters.
It seems like that's okay though, as long as the single issue is not our right to arms. God forbid we gun owners should take a stand.
+1, Glummer.
By your logic - which makes sense - we are all single issue voters.
It seems like that's okay though, as long as the single issue is not our right to arms. God forbid we gun owners should take a stand.
Eleven Mike
Member
progunner, Ezekiel was responding to beerslurpy, so I guess you'd better justify your own "jumping in." For heaven's sake, this is an internet discussion forum. Anything you say will be picked apart and used against you in a court of dialogue, by people you've never heard of. Deal with it.
If you know how to read, why do Ezekiel's words bear so little relationship to your response? In what way did he propose that we give up any rights or compromise our beliefs? Ezekiel advised that we not let gun issues blind us to the compromises we might unwittingly make in other areas. I.e., Candidate Smith is progun, so I won't even look at his votes on other civil liberties issues. And until you start making more sense, my opinion will have quite a bit more value, relevance, validity and correctness than yours.
Thank you and good night.
If you know how to read, why do Ezekiel's words bear so little relationship to your response? In what way did he propose that we give up any rights or compromise our beliefs? Ezekiel advised that we not let gun issues blind us to the compromises we might unwittingly make in other areas. I.e., Candidate Smith is progun, so I won't even look at his votes on other civil liberties issues. And until you start making more sense, my opinion will have quite a bit more value, relevance, validity and correctness than yours.
Thank you and good night.
Eleven Mike
Member
Dismantling them at the national level? Why on earth not? Keeping some sort of welfare system at a local or state level? Maybe.
Regarding abortion and birth control, he simply has a consistent position. If one believes that abortion is murder, then the circumstances of the conception do not justify such a murder. If one believes that human beings are deserving of legal protection from the moment of conception, then one must oppose abortifacients, many of which are sold as birth control. Of course, that would still leave room for other methods of contraception. Those ideas are not extremism, just obvious implications of that point of view.
No_Brakes23
Member
Well, beerslurpy, you and I are definitely in agreement on that one.
- Status