Peroutka on the 2nd

Status
Not open for further replies.

Devilen

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
17
Location
Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 11, 2004

Dear Friends of our Constitutional Republic

I believe that the Second Amendment means what it says. If elected President, I will do everything within my power to ensure that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is no coincidence that those jurisdictions which have implemented significant gun control have become cesspools of crime -- cesspools which now, sadly, try to blame their problems on freer low-crime pro-gun jurisdictions.

Tragically, George Bush, with his call for a renewal of the unconstitutional semi-automatic ban -- and his willingness to sign a variety of anti-gun measures like the plastic gun extension -- has become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

I support the:

-Repeal of the unconstitutional semi-automatic ban -- a ban which has compromised our security, while having no impact on crime;

-Repeal of the unconstitutional Instantcheck system,requiring law-abiding Americans to get the government's permission to exercise their constitutional rights (and which does nothing to lower crime);

-Repeal of laws which deny constitutional rights to persons who have committed no crime -- or who have committed a "crime" as minor as a parent spanking a child for misbehavior;

-Repeal of the "safety-free" zones surrounding America's public schools, where only criminals are allowed to have guns;

-Repeal of the draconian gun bans implemented by the District of Columbia, over which Congress is given exclusive legislative authority under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution;

-Repeal of the ban on full automatics -- ownership of which requires some of the most draconian screening procedures on the federal books;

-Repeal of legislation which somehow treats ammunition as the hazard, rather than the criminal himself -- and which has repeatedly been used as a stepping stone in efforts to ban all ammunition;

-Repeal of regulations which restrict importation of constitutionally protected firearms -- and which treat sportsmen like criminals by restricting the use of "federal" (i.e., taxpayer-owned) lands; and

-Repeal of statutes and regulations which unconstitutionally forbid Second Amendment groups from telling voters about the anti-gun records of officeholders.


For God, Family and the Republic,


Michael A. Peroutka

.......................................................................................................................

Dev...
 
Sounds good. Now go get yourself elected governor of a populous state or to the US Senate first or at least local city counsel, then we'll talk about the White House. It take more than holding the correct views to be President. Otherwise, I may as well just vote for a person who always agrees with me 100% of the time -- me.
 
They're good in respect to guns, but...

Ah, the Theocra... er, Constitution Party, where they support the whole of the Constitution, except when they don't.

No thanks.
 
Yeah!

Yeah you tell em Treylis!

I might want to exercise my constitutional right to hit the crack pipe while driving my woman to the abortion doctor.

I forget which amendments cover that....but I am sure it's in there somewhere.

Right?

(Just messin with ya, dont get your panties in a wad ;) )

Student
 
OK, you've covered one amendment. What about the First? Third? Fourth? Fifth? Eighth? Tenth? To name a few issues...


National Defense?

Budget?

Taxes?

Social Services?



Socio-Demographic changes in America and their effect on the above?


And then lets talk about how often third-party candidates have actually had any small chance at the Oval Office. I can think of two, ironically, one of them from prison. Theodore Roosevelt, as the Bull Moose party candidate, and Eugene V. Debs, as a Social Democrat. (Easily confused with, but not the same as the Democratic party. The Social Dems were actually more to the center.) Nader has been inconsequential in all but the last election, where he inadvertantly helped Bush. And the man hasn't learned, he plans to run again this time.
 
entropy

The CP website addresses some of these points at least tangentially but more importantly the Dems and Republicans have been around for decades and we have no conclusive proof what exactly is their position on any of your points really is.

......or worse still what it will mutate to once in office.

Henry,
We can look at the current and past crop of elected pols and find any level of past history of experience in office you can imagine. Given that, why is or gov such a CF? Or is it that you don't feel comfortable voting for a candidate that has not obtained some stamp of approval by the voters?
Using that logic would you vote for Clinton again? No offense to anyone, but having been elected to office in Cali, NJ or NY etc means nothing to me. Bush and Kerry held/are holding office. Based on their record while in office I couldn't vote for either.

Question to the Forum:

Since it appears some here want to rename the CP as the Theocracy Party is it ok if we agree to accept the follow substitiutions for the others?

Republican Party=The Let's Run This Like a Business Party
Democratic Party=The Let's Try Communism or Socialism or Both Party
Lib Party= The Let's Try Anarchy Party

(putting on the asbestos......)

In closing, like it or not, third parties will have an effect on this and future elections.

S-
 
If you support the Constitution Party and wish to see its goal advanced here is what you need to do (based on 2000 elections):

To equal the influence of the Libertarian party, every CP voter must convince 4 different people to change their vote.

To equal the influence of the imploding Reform party, every CP voter must convince 5 different people to change their vote.

To equal the influence of the Green party and be powerful enough to actually affect the outcome of the election (while still not being strong enough to get federal funds or come close to winning), each CP voter must convince 29 different people to change their vote.

To reach the lever where the CP will receive matching federal funds (5% of the vote), each CP voter will need to convince 53 different people to change their vote.

To equal the influence of either of the major parties (49%), each CP voter must get 515 different people to change their vote.
 
Excellent way to present the difficulty of 3rd party runs Mr. Roberts.
My hats off to you:)

Based on my discussions with people I talk politics with I can count 8 people that will vote CP this time that supported W last time he ran. They were all Bush supporters since the last election but have changed their minds over the last 6 months or so. Can't say my position(s) on the upcoming election caused them to think that way but I admit to being clear about my reasons to vote CP.
Contrary to what some here might think as far as I know only 2 of that number ever attend church.

S-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top