Plea To Voters:

[Matt King]

Do yourself and your family a big favor and protect the one right - the ONLY right - that can guarantee you, your family's and fellow man's freedom!

I don't understand how The RKBA is the only way that we can protect freedom. It would be the only way that we could protect ourselves, in the most extreme instance, but are you going to start a revolution, everytime the Goverment Institutes something like The Patriot Act?

Gun Owners often say that it is the Second Amendment that protects all of the rest, but how far do you think your Second Amendment rights would have come, without the right to free speech, or the right to peaceably assemble? Both of those rights are laid out in the First Amendment, so I look at it as all of the Amendments look out for all the others.

 

[Thin Black Line]

What I do not understand is why the national debt and the huge deficits the present administration has been pilling up is not a national issue.

Easy --because the US consumers (I'm not saying "citizen" on purpose, read
some of my other posts) are in debt over their heads themselves. We're
talking about a population that thinks they own real proprerty, when in
fact the banks own their houses and cars and each consumer has an average
of $9K on credit cards. For most of them to bring up gov't debt would be
the proverbial pot calling the kettle.....

 

[Derek Zeanah]

But if you want to compare doing so at all with the Nazi Holocaust, or our resistance to a group that has killed and wants to kill American civilians in large numbers with trumped-up racial hatred, I'm afraid that undermines whatever else you write. It's a fatally flawed and uninformed basis for any further argument.

I think you're too close to this. I said nothing about the holocaust, and wasn't making an argument that depends on the deaths of tens of millions.

Take a few deep breaths and reread what's been posted by me in this thread. I think you'll find I've argued the following:

• "Freedom" means more than "let me own the guns I want."
• There are some freedoms (notably privacy) that are as essential to the 2nd Amendment working as it should, as the 2nd Amendment is to "guranteeing" the rest. You'll find there are a few posters here who don't like to hear this, or who continue to believe they could somehow build a group of armed followers large enough to willingly and successfully march on Washington and physically "throw the bastards out" using nothing more than guns and pre-telephone era communication technologies.
• I further stated that the Bush administration is more successful at pushing these "empower the state while stripping power from the people" measures than the democratic administrations before him were, using the PATRIOTACT as an example of something congressional republicans wouldn't touch under Clinton, but were happy to sign without reading it under Bush -- the same frigging laws.
• Then I went on to say, and here's where you've gotten off track, that this is being done by claiming before God and everyone that these tools will never be used against us -- it'll only be used against them, who in this case are pretty well demonized. There's no real complaint from the right when "evil terrorists" are jailed without end, tortured, or convicted under a military court without being able to face their accusers or see the evidence against them. I made the comment that I never understood how a segment of the population could be marginalized to the degree they were under Hitler, but that I got it now.
• I went on to state that stripping the rights of "terrorists," or "enemy combatants," or "aliens" is foolish because those are all legal terms that can be redefined at any point in the future -- it's possible you could wake up one day a decade from now to find that you've been declared an "enemy combatant" by the local DA who was authorized to do so in a mass-ceremony-via-teleconference by the SecDef, and be stripped of your citizenship by decree from the executive branch, and suddenly all those things that you supported when they were done to "them" are now being done to you. All it takes is a simple redefining of legal terms, and anyone is a target.

Now, ignore for a moment that I mentioned a prominent Nazi again, look over my summary here, look over my posts in this thread, and tell me what I did to cloud the issue so much that you couldn't see my arguments? If I took out the aside that I now understand how your average German could be convinced over time to stand aside while his countrymen (and possibly friends) were hauled off to unnamed horrors, then just go on with life again, would you disagree this thoroughly with the rest of it? Or has one of my posts simply flipped a "Godwin's Law" switch in your brain and now everything I've written here is equally tainted to you?

Hell, I figured you'd probably agree with me, though you might still advocate voting a straight R ticket anyway as you don't see much choice.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Derek, great post with wonderful bullet points that would look good in a ppt
presentation in DC.

using the PATRIOTACT as an example of something congressional republicans wouldn't touch under Clinton, but were happy to sign without reading it under Bush -- the same frigging laws.

Too bad, most people reading that will have an instant disconnect due to
long term programming in their soft gray matter that reads:

10 PRINT "My party good, their party bad"
20 GOTO 10

Sadly, the majority of your post will still be mis-read and mis-interpreted
due to no fault of your own. You have to keep in mind that 1/3 of the population
do not have their frontal lobes completely connected. These are people who
even score "well" on most IQ tests, hold down jobs, and are able to state
a pre-packaged mass political opinion.

 

[BIGJACK]

How can we afford to "stay the course" when we don't even know what the course is? This Republican administration has been leading this country down the wrong road. They proclaim the "demies" as the "big Government" group when they have, since 2000 run up the biggest deficits in history and created the fattest entitlements programs since the '30s. We have borrowed so much money, from communist China, to cover these deficets that I fear that the security of the United States is compromised.

Its almost commical to watch them rave about the corrupt radical left wing democrates such as Kerry, Clinton, and Kennedy and at the same time lock their lips and hold their noses to avoid the stink from the likes of DeLay, Cunningham, Foley and Ney.:banghead:

They strut around with their chest out about the "booming" economy. The economy is not booming, its simply getting back to where it was in 2000. According to the Department of Labor, the umemployment rate at the beginning of 2000 was around 4%, at the end of '01 it was at about 5.7%and went to about 6.3% in '03. After the invasion of Iraq it started to slowly fall and has reached approximately 4.5% today. Even as these jobless rates fall it appears, based on the sinking housing market and the auto industry, they might go back up. The DOW is basically the same, it has been down for so long thatl the rise back to the range of where it was in 2000 seems wonderful.

The big winners with this administration has been the President and his VP's buddies in the oil industry. Even as prices drop to about double what they were at the beginning of 2000 the Oil companies still reported "record" PROFITS for the 3rd quarter of this year.

THis is an important election so GO TO THE POLES AND VOTE: But vote for the PERSON who you feel will be best for the COUNTRY, they will also be best for your rights as a citizen including your 2nd amendment rights. Keep in mind that the Republicans have controlled the congress for 12 years, not just the past 6.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

 

[ArmedBear]

who in this case are pretty well demonized. There's no real complaint from the right when "evil terrorists" are jailed without end, tortured, or convicted under a military court without being able to face their accusers or see the evidence against them. I made the comment that I never understood how a segment of the population could be marginalized to the degree they were under Hitler, but that I got it now.

Most of what you say, I agree with, Derek.

"Marginalized" is, however, a term used more appropriately to refer to nerds in the corner of the Junior High cafeteria, not to organized international paramilitary groups whose objective is to blow up innocent civilians at random.

I still take issue with your labelling these people as a "segment of the population", simliar to an ethnic group of people who minded their own business. That's not an emotional reaction from me, it's a distinct difference I see, when I think rationally about it.

Or has one of my posts simply flipped a "Godwin's Law" switch in your brain and now everything I've written here is equally tainted to you?

Well, there is one way to avoid invoking Godwin's Law, and that's to avoid making references to Hitler unless there is a really good reason. You and I will have to agree to disagree that there is not a good reason here, I suppose.

If I took out the aside that I now understand how your average German could be convinced over time to stand aside while his countrymen (and possibly friends) were hauled off to unnamed horror

This is why I asked what you really knew about what happened. Clearly, you don't know what it was like. That's why I mentioned my more intimate knowledge. Nazi Germany was ruled by ruthless thugs; your average German was convinced of little or nothing other than that resistance meant torture and death for him and his whole family. Hitler just got a critical mass of ruthless, sociopathic thugs and convinced them; no one else needed persuasion. The threat is real in human society, but it is an entirely different threat from what you believe it to be. Such gross misunderstanding of the threat is what could allow it to manifest itself. That's my objection to the misuse of the metaphor, not Godwin's Law. Godwin's Law can be invoked for a good laugh now and again, and I laugh, too.

I went on to state that stripping the rights of "terrorists," or "enemy combatants," or "aliens" is foolish because those are all legal terms that can be redefined at any point in the future

I agree with you there. However, we are at the mercy of our unaccountable court system -- a system that has decided that banning military small arms is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment, that a private parking lot for a private company is "public use" under the 4th, that the 1st Amendment doesn't protect speech that the community doesn't like ("standards of decency").

Therefore, my issue with your argument is a subtle one, but one that I think is significant.

SCOTUS can apparently decide that black is white, if it is so inclined, and that becomes the law of the land.

"Enemy combatant" is a term that has been in use for a long time, with legal definitions surrounding it.

SCOTUS is supposed to interpret this law in the light of the Constitution as well as legal precedent. Therefore, it's SCOTUS I'm concerned about, not these laws.

In general, I do agree with you, Derek. However, I think that the real threat to us from the laws concerning terrorists is seriously overblown, while there is a serious threat that's going unnoticed at the moment. This strikes me as odd, really, since last year, SCOTUS was on the RADAR after Kelo, but so it is.

I guess what I think is that there are SERIOUS threats to our liberty, but that this particular threat may be a bogeyman that is diverting our attention from something that's been happening for 70 years. We're getting complacent about the real threats, IMO.

TBL wrote:

Sadly, the majority of your post will still be mis-read and mis-interpreted
due to no fault of your own. You have to keep in mind that 1/3 of the population
do not have their frontal lobes completely connected. These are people who
even score "well" on most IQ tests, hold down jobs, and are able to state
a pre-packaged mass political opinion.

TBL, your BASIC skills notwithstanding, has it ever occurred to you that you, too, have simply chosen from among a number of pre-packaged opinions, and that you apparently use that as a basis for self-aggrandizement?

Every opinion has been held before. That doesn't make it wrong, or right.

 

[progunner1957]

Please, folks - vote for those who will defend our right to arms - even if they are Republicans! The Democrat "leaders" (Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Clinton, Kerry, Schumer, Kennedy and others) have made plain their intentions regarding our right to arms.

Please - Do NOT give them the power to destroy our right to arms!!

Beating on the Republicans will not mean much to you when you are faced with the choice of gun confiscation or burying your guns and hoping to God that "The Government" won't be able to find them and trace them back to you, ensuring that you will go to federal prison and have evrything you own seized through "asset forefiture." Do you want to live with that?

Think about it.

www.nrapvf.org

 

[Derek Zeanah]

ArmedBear:

At least we understand where the other is coming from now. We should probably leave it at that, as this is all thread drift anyway.

 

[Thin Black Line]

TBL, your BASIC skills notwithstanding, has it ever occurred to you that you, too, have simply chosen from among a number of pre-packaged opinions, and that you apparently use that as a basis for self-aggrandizement?

It's not self-aggrandizement when you're self-actualized.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It Ain't Over 'Till Tuesday.

Woody, this is my point. You say "the reason we should vote for republicans" and go on to write 11 paragraphs about "the reason we shouldn't vote for Democrats".

I don't want to hear why we shouldn't vote Democrat. I already know that. What I want to hear is why "we should vote republican". Can anyone answer that question?! I've been asking it for a while now, and no one has really tried to answer, except to say "because the Democrats..."

I won't spew a line out of a bovine sphincter in an attempt to give you all sorts of reasons to simply vote Republican. I don't know of ANY politicians - 'sept Ron Paul - who would actively remove unconstitutional law. What I'm trying to convince you is we need to make a tactical vote to prevent any more damage to our RKBA, and to secure some possible chances to get some conservative originalist/strict constructionist justices on the Court. It all hinges upon who is in power. The party in power controls the agenda. Figure it out for yourself. Unless you want Pelosi running the house, vote Republican.

As someone who deployed to Iraq under the false pretenses made by a small
group of elite families, came back to a country where the border was left
wide open for any number of illegals and potential terrorists to wander in
unhindered, watched power concentrate in the executive branch as massive
illegal wiretaps were conducted, and saw jobs leave the midwest by the
10s of 1000s as our nation ran up an unprecendented trade imbalance while
heaping a mountain range of public and private debt, I can confidently and
without reservation state the following:

The truth of the matter rests in the fact that with the Republican Party being
co-opted by neo-cons, the Republican Party cannot be trusted with our rights,
security, economy, and freedom.

Thanks for your service. Now, don't blame all you see on Republicans. To begin with, you need to get real about a few things. It sounds to me like you've got a chip on your shoulder with the comment about being sent there by a small group of elite families. You would better serve yourself if you realize the United States didn't start this. We have neither a desire to convert the world to some radicalized version of a faith, nor a desire to conquer the world. We don't need to. Our system of government with with the protections against it allows us the freedom to be as prosperous and happy as we want to be right here.

Again, as I said to expvideo, I won't spew you a line out of a bovine sphincter in an attempt to give you all sorts of reasons to simply vote Republican. If you want to take this country back from the "neocons" and "liberals", put your vote where your mouth is and do the tactical thing in the right direction. Don't cut off your face to spite your nose in a foolish attempt "to make a point". That puts you in the same category as those who will vote for those who would - and have a proven track record - of decimating our rights for their own dubious ambitions. This is way beyond party affiliation. This is an effort to make room for some true constitutional conservatives in our government. It won't happen until the party with the most dangerous scoundrels in it is on the rocks.

I don't understand how The RKBA is the only way that we can protect freedom. It would be the only way that we could protect ourselves, in the most extreme instance, but are you going to start a revolution, every time the Government Institutes something like The Patriot Act?

Tex, you've taken me out of context. I said GUARANTEE, not just protect. We have a lot of protections when properly exercised by the electorate and the elected, but only one guarantee. It's the same universal, absolute, and inalienable right to arms that set us on our path to freedom from tyranny in 1776.

THis is an important election so GO TO THE POLES AND VOTE: But vote for the PERSON who you feel will be best for the COUNTRY, they will also be best for your rights as a citizen including your 2nd amendment rights. Keep in mind that the Republicans have controlled the congress for 12 years, not just the past 6.

Quite correct. This is an important election. But don't forget that even with sending the best and brightest to Washington, DC, doesn't amount to a hill of beans if their party is not in control of the agenda. The party in majority controls the agenda. And, please note that the Democrats controlled Congress for the previous 40 years. I'm a patriot. I'm not a straight party voter. I am a tactical voter. I'm going to vote to keep this country on the path back to unfettered rights, smaller government, secure borders, and the rest of the world be damned. I want people in power who will tell our enemies that if they touch us in the wrong way, we will defend ourselves with extreme prejudice. Carrying that big stick don't mean diddly if you haven't the will to use it.

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union; founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood

 

[BIGJACK]

,

I'm going to vote to keep this country on the path back to unfettered rights, smaller government, secure borders

Obviously you will not be voting Republican

 

[SoCalShooter]

voting libertarian!

 

[expvideo]

^ that's exactly my point. I have figured out at this point that I shouldn't vote Democrat. Everyone is telling me to vote republican, but rather than giving me a reason to do so, all I've gotten is reasons not to vote Democrat. There are more than 2 parties.

If none of you can give me one reason to vote republican, aside from not voting Democrat, I swear to god I'll vote for the green party! I mean it! Somebody give me ONE reason to vote republican, or I'm throwing away my vote. I want to vote republican, but not if I can't hear one single reason to do so, so please, humor me... Why should I vote republican? NOT why shouldn't I vote Democrat!

 

[progunner1957]

The voters get to "choose"

The truth of the matter rests in the fact that with the Republican Party being co-opted by neo-cons, the Republican Party cannot be trusted with our rights, security, economy, and freedom.

Thin Black Line is right about that - but the Neo-con movement is only a part of the problem.

The other big problem is that the "Democrat" party has been co-opted by hard core socialism.

So here's your "choice"

1: Neoconservatism.
2: Hard core socialism.
3: Independent candidates who don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being elected into Congress in enough numbers to have any effect.

Given those "choices" - or any other choice - I'll vote to defend our right to arms every time.

We have sacrificed too many rights already - DON'T sacrifice our right to arms too!

 

[expvideo]

I'd really like to convince some other people to vote republican too, since I live in one of those socialist states. None of you are helping. None of my non-gun friends are going to care about the 2nd amendment in this debate, so I'd like some actual ammo here to try to promote less leftist thought. Yet, again, none of you have bothered to help me.

Screw it. I don't care anymore. I don't need to debate your side if you're all going to be anti-leftists that only care about your gun rights. If you can't give me one reason to vote republican, you don't deserve a republican congress.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

expvideo

It's a TACTICAL vote. I repeat: It's a TACTICAL vote.

But, go ahead and vote for the Green Party if you wish. It would be a half-baked neutral vote, but not a destructive one. A vote for Democrats to national office would be destructive to your(and my) RKBA and other freedoms. A vote for Republicans to national office would be a constructive one toward securing our RKBA and other freedoms.

When there IS a good reason to vote for someone other than the least of two evils, you won't have to ask.

There is no magic pill to give you. No promise of a Porsche in every garage, no promise of a 5,000 square foot house for every newlywed couple, no promise of fifty-cents-a-gallon gasoline, and no promise that the likes of Ted Kennedy will ever fess up to murdering Mary Jo, or that a new DNA test will exonerate Bill Clinton, or that bin Laden will be captured Nov. 8th. There is just you and your vote. Make the best of it.

Woody

To be liberal is to live in a cloud of delusion fraught with fantasy, and a disregard for the law and fair play. Alas; clear fact, unambiguous consensus, scrutiny, and researched reason does prevail and keeps me in touch with who is who, what is what, and why I am conservative. B.E.Wood

 

[expvideo]

Not asking for promises, woody. I'm asking for a reason to vote republican. Not a reason not to vote Democrat. Any positives would be a step in the right direction, but I'm sick of campaigns based not on the candidate's values and opinions, but on "well, my opponent..."

Not asking for promises or pills, and I'd appriciate you treat my serious question as just that, and not try to discredit it with statements like your last paragraph.

 

[Matt King]

So here's your "choice"

1: Neoconservatism.
2: Hard core socialism.
3: Independent candidates who don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being elected into Congress in enough numbers to have any effect.

I am getting the idea that a lot of you want to vote Third Party, but are afraid that your vote will be wasted. The Problem is,that if eveyone thinks like this, Third Party Candidates are never going to be a major contender. If everone that agrees with Third Party Candidates, actually votes for them, they will actually be a strong Third Party Option, Something which we don't have yet.

I strongly encourage everbody to vote for whoever best represents your Political views, regardless of Party affiliation.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

expvideo

Not asking for promises, woody. I'm asking for a reason to vote republican. Not a reason not to vote Democrat. Any positives would be a step in the right direction, but I'm sick of campaigns based not on the candidate's values and opinions, but on "well, my opponent..."

Not asking for promises or pills, and I'd appriciate you treat my serious question as just that, and not try to discredit it with statements like your last paragraph.

Ironically enough your last paragraph describes a communist America. Food for thought

Sorry, guy, but I was answering you in the context of how I began this thread. I'm glad you found your answer in the thread you started.

As for my last paragraph, I was exercising some reductio ad absurdum, but it wasn't meant to belittle you or your quest. I apologize for offending you with it.

There is no one candidate or group of candidates that will do the whole right thing, only those who offer the closest to what we need. That is the only point I was trying to get across - to choose the least of the evils - which is, in another light, choosing those who have the better offer, though it might fall far short of THE BEST.

Woody

"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood

 

[expvideo]

fair enough, and I guess I jumped the gun a little taking that paragraph so personally, since it wasn't meant that way (which is kind of obvious in hindsight... my bad).

 

[progunner1957]

I strongly encourage everbody to vote for whoever best represents your Political views, regardless of Party affiliation.

I did that in 1992 - I voted for Perot. What did it get me? Eight years of Clinton's socialist rule and the Clinton Gun Ban.

I rest my case.

My point is this:
If we vote third party in the hope that "some day" independents will be strong enough to actually make a difference, guess what: Brady II will be law, your guns and your right to arms will all be gone long before "some day" ever comes.

(BTW, Texas - no offense intended. I see where you are coming from but based on my experience, it just doesn't work. God knows the Republic cannot withstand a rerun of the years 1992-2000).

 

[Molon Labe]

Hey, don't fret! The Republicans gave us the Contract with America. So put your minds at ease!

 

[txgho1911]

So when will the republicans ever learn any respect for the COTUS and BOR? I am afraid they have removed themeselves from history so far they may not even know what it says anymore.
I would guess some of the current congress has problems with the terms of service is the location. DC should be closed for buisness and preserved as a historical park.
Then move all the elected reps and offices to the west end of the OK pan handle. This would be far from all the distractions now present in DC. Leave all the current staff behind also as those contraversies will not require settlment if they never occure. Maybe move the whole legislative branch of gov to a new forgotten corner of the country every 10 years. Always replacing the GS staffs and the dreggs they bring to gov.
Then maybe they would not have the time to hose the country up any more than they have.
This could be the justification needed for that big bridge in Alaska!

I will not be voting for any dems any time soon. I do wish tho there was a simple way to bring conservatism back to thos republicans in office.

 

[beerslurpy]

Every race where there is a pro-gun Democrat there is also a pro-gun republican running. The real question is who do you want for committee chairs? To quote David Kopel from National Review:

Although the floor of the U.S. House will still have a pro-gun majority, a Speaker Pelosi, with her perfect anti-gun voting record, would almost certainly bring forward anti-gun bills when she decided the time was ripe. John Conyers, as chair of the Judiciary Committee, and Louise Slaughter, as chair of the Rules Committee, would ensure that no pro-Second Amendment legislation was ever brought to the floor, except in the very unlikely event that a majority of the entire House signed a discharge petition.

If you vote for some A rated freshman Democrat over an A rated republican, it is going to make you worse off because youre going to be putting a bunch of F rated Democrats in charge of the legislature.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

I am lighting a cigarette as I post this thinking about what ThinBlackLine and Derek Zeanah have said. I'm also thinking about the history of my ancestors, and the direction this country is going. The problem is the fact that the Neo-Cons have hijacked the Republican Party. While some people on the far left may do bad things once they get control, I don't see those things as being nearly as bad as what the Bush Administration has done in the past 6 years.

Let us review:

#1. The Patriot Acts: These allowed for spying on American citizens, and created a new Federal Agency, with a massive budget, who's mission is patently unclear, and who's orders are undefined to say the least.

#2. We have the Military Commissions Act: It authorizes a suspension of habeas corpus, and implies through allowing "coercive techniques" that torture is now a reality possible for American citizens. It also allows the government to not show a defendant all of the charges, and suppposed evidence against him. This can be done by declaring the person an "enemy combatant."

With the passage of these laws, the 4th and 5th Amendments are dead. I repeat dead! The Constitution and bill of rights as we know them are dead. Our Republic just flat lined, and I don't see a crash cart coming people.

If you think I'm lying or blowing smoke in your tuckus, I'm not. That is simply the content of the laws which have been passed. I've said before the Patriot Act is named for the people it will eventually target, and I wasn't lying or overstating my case.

If you believe that because they are only (supposedly) doing this to Muslims right now, that means they can't do it to you, you have another thing coming. As Derek said, this is about all of our rights. Look, a man that comes to freeze your bank accounts, listen to your phone calls, and deny you right to legal council. Do you think he cares about your right to keep and bear arms? Things are coming to a head in this country. At this point you can't trust either party, and you have to vote 3rd Party. Preferably Libertarian or Constitution. They are the only ones committed to taking us from the brink.

As stated before, the Dems have wanted this stuff for a while, and once they have these weapons, they won't listen to the calls form their own party to restore the 4th and 5th Amendments. They in fact say they want to implement all aspects of the 9/11 Commission. It is doubtfull in my mind they will even pull out of Iraq.

You shouldn't vote for either party. Neither party is safe. Nancy Pelosi, and George Bush might as well be the same person as far as any of our civil rights go.

Oh, and one final thought.

Those of you talking about how you are going to vote Republican to keep your guns because the 2nd Amendment defends all your other rights. A warning to you. You might get a first hand oportunity to exercise those rights in a way not done since Lexington and Concord with any success.

Vote third party, and send a message. If you don't after they get done with the Arabs, it'll be the tax protestors, then the pro-lifers. Then us. No one will be left to defend us. They are torturing people. Americans are being waterboarded. Think about that. Because once they begin waterboarding us, we'll have to use those guns. And then you'll wish you'd done things peacefully. You wish you'd sent that message even if it means a Democratic House or Senate for a while.