So if ANYONE still thinks the Repub party is a friend or even an ally, wrong!

[GunGoBoom]

Dr. Tom Coburn was on Meet the Press this morning - he is one of the most conservative members of the Repub party in the U.S. Senate. Asked directly whether he agreed with Judge Alito that the Congress lacks the power under the commerce clause (and the 10th amendment) to regulate machine guns, he said unequivocally, no, he disagrees; Congress does have that power, and furthermore, it amounts to *JUDICIAL ACTIVISM* on the part of Alito for a justice to say that Congress does NOT have the power to regulate firearms (the general police power), through the commerce clause. These are our supposed friends? And he's not even a RINO. He's going to get a letter, and no repub will be getting my vote ever again unless they have a PROVEN history of supporting state's rights and the second amendment.

 

[boofus]

Congress does have the power to regulate MGs if they pass from 1 state to another. They DO NOT have the power to outright ban every single MG for whatever reason. Likewise I don't see how they can require a federal tax paid for MGs and then refuse to accept the tax. Unconstitutional liberal BS.

That's ok wait til we tell the religious right that it's perfectly "constitutional" to require an Abortion Tax. And then they can pass a law saying no abortion taxes will be accepted.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So GOAs number one priority for the Senate in 2004 isn't pro-gun enough for you?

 

[MechAg94]

The Repubs are not an RKBA party. Did you really think they were?

That said, I seem to see more pro-gun people in that party than in the Dem party. It did not used to be that way I am sure, but is appears to be now. That is why you should always look at the individuals rather than at the party. That goes for a lot of issues, not just this one.

 

[saltydog]

Its been 5 years now since the Republicans have had some power and I am still waiting for something related to guns that affects me, Mr. average Joe Blow,to be "reversed". I won't hold my breath. Please don't use the so called Assault weapon ban sunset as an excuse as the "sunset clause" was inserted in that Bill under Bill Clinton and his Regime. Bush had nothing to do with that.

 

[boofus]

What about forcing the ATF to destroy records of NICS approvals instead of keeping them indefinitely like Klinton ordered them to do? In essence it was a federal gun registry that the government was barred from creating by the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. Not to mention keeping the records violated the Brady Bill itself which mandated that the approved sales records not be kept. Billy 'The Cigar and Intern' Klinton blatantly violated both.

 

[hillbilly]

Saltydog, if you can't see how the recent signing of the lawsuit pre-emption act affects you, Joe-Blow Gunowner, then I can't help it that you're blind.

hillbilly

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Hillbilly I agree the lawsuit pre-emption bill helps us gun owners, but unfortunately it violates the 7th Amendment.

No one ever remembers the 7th, but it says:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no
fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the
United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

As soon as someone takes this to the Supreme Court, it will be struck down.

It doesn't do us any good for Republicans to pass obviously unconstitional laws.

 

[shermacman]

Swell, the Republicans aren't perfect.
Here is a interesting fact: the world is not perfect.

If we sit around and whimper about individual details then we will be rewarded with an election driven by the DU, the Deaniacs, Hillary, Jean Fraud Kerry, etc etc. They will be more than happy to vote for us.

 

[antsi]

Please don't use the so called Assault weapon ban sunset as an excuse as the "sunset clause" was inserted in that Bill under Bill Clinton and his Regime. Bush had nothing to do with that.

So, you're telling me that with a Democrat controlled congress and Kerry or Gore in the White House, the AWB would have been allowed to sunset? Yeah, right

I don't seem to remember Bill Clinton clamoring for the sunset provision. If Clinton and Fienstein and their ilk had their way, there never would have been a sunset provision in the law in the first place.

Kerry took a day off from his presidential campaign and flew all the way across the country to vote in favor of an AWB extension. The Republicans killed their own gun liability bill, to make sure that the Democrats wouldn't be able to extend the AWB.

Democrat leaders like Kennedy, Schumer, and Fienstein were proposing AWB extension bills that would have massively expanded the definition of an "assault weapon," thus including many more kinds of firearms in the ban.

Under a Democrat controlled congress and Kerry or Gore in the White House, the AWB would have been not just re-enacted, but re-enacted in a much more virulent form.

So don't go telling me that the AWB sunset outcome would have been exactly the same with Democrats in charge. That's just patently untrue.

 

[Zundfolge]

You have 3 choices.

Vote Democrat

Vote Republican

Vote from the rooftops.


I don't care what the propaganda from the LP, Reform Party, Constitution Party, Green Party et al says, there is no viable 3rd party ... so lets just tear down the GOP and hand the effing country to the Socialists (ie Democrats).
:banghead:


If half of the GOP bashers in this forum would just quit their bitchin' and actually join the RLC and get involved in the struggle going on inside the GOP we might actually have a chance of winning this country back without bloodshed.


The LP types and other "ideologically pure" 3rd party folk out there don't seem to realize that they are pawns of the DNC ... divide an conquer ... its working ... the BS in these forums pretty much proves it.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Congress does have the power to regulate MGs if they pass from 1 state to another.

If and only if we grand Congress power to regulate anything and everything that passes from one state to another. That may be Congress' view of reality, but it surely isn't mine.

 

[antsi]

Dr. Tom Coburn was on Meet the Press this morning - he is one of the most conservative members of the Repub party in the U.S. Senate. Asked directly whether he agreed with Judge Alito that the Congress lacks the power under the commerce clause (and the 10th amendment) to regulate machine guns, he said unequivocally, no, he disagrees; Congress does have that power....[snip]... These are our supposed friends?

Okay, so we have:

Republican: thinks congress has the right to regulate machine guns

Democrat: thinks congress should ban all rifle calibers capable of penetrating soft body armor, including .30-30, .30-06, and .223 Rem (Ted Kennedy)

Democrat: thinks congress should ban all magazines over 10 rounds capacity, and thinks that allowing current owners to keep their mags is a "loophole" that needs to be closed (Schumer)

Democrat: thinks congress should ban all guns outright (Feinstein)

I know this is difficult, GunGoBoom, but I think if you read really slowly and carefully and reflect on the above policy proposals of Democrats, you might just possibly be able to detect some subtle differences between them and the Republicans here.

 

[Chris Rhines]

There are still people out there who think we have a two-party system. Amazing.

- Chris

 

[el44vaquero]

GOP is still the one for me.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Wow GoGoBoom, you took the singular statement of one person from the Republican party and from that then drew an all inclusive decision that the whole makeup of the Republican party isn't a friend or ally.

So if you won't be giving your vote to Republicans without a PROVEN history of supporting state's rights and the second amendment, then who will you be voting for? I am guessing that you will not be voting for too many local Republican office holders as many of their jobs have virtually nothing to do with states' rights or the Second Amendment.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

No one ever remembers the 7th, but it says:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

As soon as someone takes this to the Supreme Court, it will be struck down.

I think you are reading the provision incorrectly. I believe what it says is that in the event of a civil lawsuit for more than $20 the defendent may insist on a trial by jury rather than a trial by magistrate. I don't believe that provision addresses in any way the power of Congress to spell ot what areas may be off-limits to any suit.

 

[boofus]

no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States

Actually if you read the last part of the amendment it makes S.397 completely Constitutional. Remember Dix vs Beretta in California and finally the 9th Circus court? Beretta USA suffered TRIPLE jeopardy, those activist judges dredged up that same exact case 2 more times after the initial case was dismissed.

 

[Zundfolge]

There are still people out there who think we have a two-party system. Amazing.

Snarky sarcasm is cute for the coffeeshop crowd, but it doesn't make for a very substantive argument.

Even if I bought the argument that there is no difference between the GOP and DNC (which I don't), they are still two distinct organizations that are in competition with each other and those elected to high office in this country are going to be one or the other.

The GOP is a part of the existing power structure in this country ... so if you want a more pro-gun, more pro-liberty, more pro-small government, more pro-states rights government you're going to have to get there either via the GOP or the DNC.

I believe the DNC is a lost cause ... they've gone way too far in the Socialist/Statist direction to be redeemed.

However the GOP has many many "small l libertarians" still in it who can rise to power within the party and change its direction if only the libertarian minded at the grass roots level don't "take their ball and go home".



Those who truly believe that the GOP and DNC are two halves of the same party and that there is one party rule in this country, and/or that the GOP is completely unredeemable ... well then you're only left with one option; start killing people.

 

[3rdpig]

The day someone shows me a third party candidate who is pro gun and has valid poll numbers to suggest that they stand a chance of beating the Democrats, that will be the day I'll consider voting for them. Until then I'll keep voting for Republicans and trying to change the party to a more pro gun, small government, stance.

 

[joab]

So, you're telling me that with a Democrat controlled congress and Kerry or Gore in the White House, the AWB would have been allowed to sunset? Yeah, right

Even the Bradys admitted that the ban had little if no effect on crime

So yes I believe that a Kerry/ Gore with a Democrat dominated congress backing them up would have let the ban sunset.

About ten minutes after they passed the new and improved version that included armor piecing 30-30s

 

[GunGoBoom]

Zund and DNS, you miss the point entirely. The point is, THIRD PARTY OR BUST!!! I'd rather bust than vote for one or the other wings of the Republicrat Uni-Party. Of course there's no viable third party. But there WILL BE if people like you, Zund, get on the bandwagon with me and the others and support 3rd P candidates. There won't be if YOU don't. That's the point. We get nothing good from Repubs. Particularly from Shrub, who said he WOULD SIGN the Homeland Defense Rifle Ban and Standard Capacity Magazine Ban if they came to his desk. Meh, we're just in fundamental disagreement.

 

[Zundfolge]

Zund and DNS, you miss the point entirely. The point is, THIRD PARTY OR BUST!!! I'd rather bust than vote for one or the other wings of the Republicrat Uni-Party.

Then be intelliectually honest and take up arms ... cause you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell if you expect to get your way by voting.

Of course there's no viable third party. But there WILL BE if people like you, Zund, get on the bandwagon with me and the others and support 3rd P candidates. There won't be if YOU don't. That's the point. We get nothing good from Repubs. Particularly from Shrub, who said he WOULD SIGN the Homeland Defense Rifle Ban and Standard Capacity Magazine Ban if they came to his desk. Meh...

I think you miss my point ... there will NEVER be a viable 3rd party because both of the major parties have the game rigged ... I fully agree on that point. The thing is to use that to our advantage. Instead of building a new party from scratch, we need to hijack an existing one. The "Republican Revolution" of '94 was an example of the non-statists Republicans taking charge (the mistake was not acting like winners and still thinking we could get along with Democrats).

All you and the other 3rd party folk do is divide your base thus allowing your opponents to win.

And "Shrub" isn't the be-all-end-all Republican ... there are a metric ton of Republicans who don't like him (I'm part of that group) but "taking your ball and going home" will only strengthen the Democrats.


And thats the real point, it doesn't matter whether you're a Libertarian, a Reform Party member, a Constitution Party member or a Republican the enemy is the Democrats. All this infighting among libertarian/conservative minded folk does is hand power over to those who WILL have us in cattle cars before its all done.


The Libertarian Party is the closest thing this country has to a viable 3rd party ... and their ship sailed long ago ... they've been around for over 3 decades and made it pretty much nowhere. If we wait for them to get their stuff together and actually start winning elections we'll be sitting in deathcamps waiting for nobody to save us.



Hell, I don't know why I keep allowing myself to get sucked into these arguments ... lets face it, we're going to lose to the leftist/statist/Socialists because we're just too damn factionalized and too many of us live by "All or nothing". I guess what they say is true; Organizing libertarian minded individualists is like herding cats.

 

[K-Romulus]

Ashcroft did us no favors

What about forcing the ATF to destroy records of NICS approvals instead of keeping them indefinitely like Klinton ordered them to do? In essence it was a federal gun registry that the government was barred from creating by the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. Not to mention keeping the records violated the Brady Bill itself which mandated that the approved sales records not be kept. Billy 'The Cigar and Intern' Klinton blatantly violated both.

Giveth with one hand, and taketh with the other:

(also discussed here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=164492)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html

The FBI's Secret Scrutiny
In Hunt for Terrorists, Bureau Examines Records of Ordinary Americans

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 6, 2005; Page A01

(really L-O-O-N-G article)

****

One thing (former FBI lawyer) Woods did not anticipate was then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's revision of Justice Department guidelines. On May 30, 2002, and Oct. 31, 2003, Ashcroft rewrote the playbooks for investigations of terrorist crimes and national security threats. He gave overriding priority to preventing attacks by any means available.

Ashcroft remained bound by Executive Order 12333, which requires the use of the "least intrusive means" in domestic intelligence investigations. But his new interpretation came close to upending the mandate. Three times in the new guidelines, Ashcroft wrote that the FBI "should consider . . . less intrusive means" but "should not hesitate to use any lawful techniques . . . even if intrusive" when investigators believe them to be more timely. "This point," he added, "is to be particularly observed in investigations relating to terrorist activities."

***

Ready access to national security letters allows investigators to employ them routinely for "contact chaining."

"Starting with your bad guy and his telephone number and looking at who he's calling, and [then] who they're calling," the number of people surveilled "goes up exponentially," acknowledged Caproni, the FBI's general counsel.

But Caproni said it would not be rational for the bureau to follow the chain too far. "Everybody's connected" if investigators keep tracing calls "far enough away from your targeted bad guy," she said. "What's the point of that?"

One point is to fill government data banks for another investigative technique. That one is called "link analysis," a practice Caproni would neither confirm nor deny.

Two years ago, Ashcroft rescinded a 1995 guideline directing that information obtained through a national security letter about a U.S. citizen or resident "shall be destroyed by the FBI and not further disseminated" if it proves "not relevant to the purposes for which it was collected." Ashcroft's new order was that "the FBI shall retain" all records it collects and "may disseminate" them freely among federal agencies.

Destroy NCIS records? Sure, no problem.

NSL to the relevant FFL, anyone?

The article says that around 30,000 of these NSL's go out each year . . .

 

[HKGuns]

Snarky sarcasm is cute for the coffeeshop crowd, but it doesn't make for a very substantive argument.

Ha! When I read that post I pictured some pretentious snob dribbling his starbucks late' all over the keyboard. Great quote Zundfolge!

I hope all you libertarians vote libertarian in the next election so we can hear every last one of you whine about the new assault weapons ban in her first 90 days in office. Better still, just don't vote because that darned "electoral college" system ensures you aren't represented anyway!!

When will you learn that politics is a system of compromises?

NOTHING is black and white in politics. It never has been and never shall be. So this forces you to pick the people that most closely represent your beleifs. I find it difficult to believe anyone posting on this board couldn't find it FAR less difficult to vote for a Republican over ANY Democrat they're likely to parade forward. ESPECIALLY if it is Hillary as every seems to be predicting.

Hell, I don't know why I keep allowing myself to get sucked into these arguments ... lets face it, we're going to lose to the leftist/statist/Socialists because we're just too damn factionalized and too many of us live by "All or nothing". I guess what they say is true; Organizing libertarian minded individualists is like herding cats.

Truer words never spoken more plainly. Until this "gun crowd" wakes up to the reality the perfect party or even candidate doesn't exist we'll be in the hands of the social architects. Its pretty amazing how many gun owners see things as being all or nothing.

Either that or we have the truly paranoid posters like the one above who worries about NCIS records and actually reads through the laws to verify his suspicions are correct.

I don't give a flying rip how long they keep the records or if they post them on a website for all to see. Do you really believe if "someone" wanted to do something with those records they'd be able to find them? That is making the huge assumption the person even knows they exist.

I bet you think your mobile phone calls aren't being monitored! They are....and so what?