So Sorry:HuffPo Doesn't Think Palin is "Mainstream" on Gun Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.

Duke Junior

member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
685
Location
Cherokee County,North Carolina
Is Sarah Palin "Mainstream" on Guns?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/is-sarah-palin-mainstream_b_124098.html

Posted September 4, 2008 | 09:56 PM (EST)

The recent choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as the vice presidential candidate on the Republican ticket came as a surprise to many and has created an uproar in the national media as reporters and bloggers scramble to learn more about this relatively unknown politician. While Palin's staunch anti-abortion stance has been well documented, less detail is known about her position on gun control.

The media's initial description of Palin as pro-gun stemmed primarily from comments she posted on her website when she ran for governor, including the following: "I am a lifetime member of the NRA, I support our Constitutional right to bear arms and am a proponent of gun safety programs for Alaska's youth." Indeed, the National Rifle Association granted Palin its "highest possible rating" during her gubernatorial campaign and recently stated that she "would be one of the most pro-gun vice-presidents in American history."

It was therefore curious to see UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh describe Palin's views on guns as "very mainstream" in Newsweek. NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre echoed this assessment, stating that Palin "understands the values of the American public on [Second Amendment] issues."

But does she? A closer examination of her background reveals that Palin has embraced views on gun ownership that are ideologically extreme even by the standards of gun rights advocates.

For starters, receiving the "highest possible rating" from the NRA is not an indicator of mainstream thinking. The NRA has consistently opposed the renewal of the federal Assault Weapons Ban. When the ban expired in September 2004, a national Harris poll revealed that 71% of Americans were in favor of renewing it. The NRA has also consistently opposed closing the gun show loophole (which allows individuals to purchase firearms at gun shows without undergoing a background check). A recent poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and The Tarrance Group indicated that 87% of Americans favor closing the loophole, including 85% of McCain supporters and 83% of gun owners. And so on and so on...

It is Palin's relationship with the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party (AIP), however, that is truly disturbing. In addition to advocating for Alaska's independence from the United States (party founder Joe Vogler once stated he had "no use for America or her damned institutions"), the AIP makes the NRA look positively moderate on the issue of firearm ownership. Specifically, the AIP opposes any and all limits on who can own a firearm and what types of firearm(s) can be owned. In practice, this could mean convicted felons, domestic abusers, drug addicts, and the mentally ill (among other purchasers currently prohibited under federal law) walking around with fully automatic machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and silencers. AIP's official position is that "gun control is hitting your target.

Equally troubling is AIP's embrace of insurrectionism--the belief that the Second Amendment grants individual citizens the right to confront their government with force of arms when they feel it has become "tyrannical" (the same view which Timothy McVeigh used to justify his attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City). AIP founder Vogler once stated, "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government." AIP Vice Chairman Dexter Clark recently hinted at the potential for a violent uprising at the Second Secessionist Convention in 2007, stating, "The longer this situation continues, the harder it's going to become for a peaceful solution."

Sarah Palin attended the AIP's annual convention in 2006 and addressed their 2008 convention through a videotaped speech while serving as governor, calling their gathering "inspirational" and telling the party's members to "keep up the good work." Her husband, Todd Palin, was a registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party for seven years between 1995 and 2002.

Palin has also endorsed an insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. In February of this year, she signed Alaska on to a multi-state amicus brief authored by the State of Texas in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief reads, in part: "The Framers were understandably wary of standing armies and the powers of a potentially oppressive government ... The introductory clause [of the Second Amendment], properly understood, confirms the primary benefit of the operational clause -- a citizenry capable of defending its rights by force, when all other means have failed, against any future oppression."

When Sarah Palin took the oath of office as governor in 2006, she swore to uphold the United States Constitution. Her association with the Alaska Independence Party, and embrace of insurrectionism, is an anathema to this oath. The claim that individuals have a right to take up arms against representative government was last tried out by the Confederate States of America and settled at the conclusion of the Civil War.

President Abraham Lincoln--whose name was invoked by Republicans on the very night that Palin was officially nominated as their vice-presidential candidate--made no bones about his views on the subject, stating, "It is safe to assert to no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination." When he asked Americans to go to war to protect the nation's sovereignty, he added, "And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States ... It presents the question, whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration...can always...break up their government and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth." Following the Civil War, the Supreme Court adopted Lincoln's view in the case of Texas v. White, making it clear that the Constitution did not countenance armed rebellion against the federal government.

Sarah Palin "mainstream" on guns? Not even in the well-documented mythology of her own political party.
 
Last edited:
Equally troubling is AIP's embrace of insurrectionism--the belief that the Second Amendment grants individual citizens the right to confront their government with force of arms when they feel it has become "tyrannical" (the same view which Timothy McVeigh used to justify his attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City).
uuuhhh...... wait a moment. Who is this guy? He thinks the 2nd Admendment doesn't give us the right to keep weapons should it become necessary to overthrow our own government? That's the whole fracking point of the thing! It's about being able to effectivley repel an attack by troops whether they are wearing Blue coats or ACUs.
As for McVeigh, he fell for the loonie Xian conspiracy thing. He hung around with other nuts, spent his time reading militia cult propaganda and listening to programs on shortwave radio. Programs telling him that the government was about to start rounding folks up and putting them in detention camps with the help of UN blue helmeted troops. Radio shows which said that the black helicopters he saw were being flown by Chinese pilots and the military equiptment he saw on rail cars were being prepositioned to herd citizens to gas chambers. He read magazines and newsletters with articles about soviet built tanker trucks rusting in a scrap yard being stored to spray chemical agents throughout cities to kill off a large percentage of the population in accordance with some obscure biblical phrophcy. He honestly believed that a significant majority of the American public was clued into this. How could he not? Everyone he knew well had closets full of camo, AKs and MREs. He thought that by blasting a building he would be firing "the shot heard around the world" in what would be the second American Revolution. He drank the coolaid of the militia cult and committed a horrible act. He failed to exercise critical thinking. He didn't ask obvious questions. The stuff coming out at that time was bizarre. Still he fell for it. His BS detector was seriously malfunctioning. He served his country in Desert Storm only to come home, get swept up in insane thinking and ended up with a needle in his arm.
How do I know so much about the militia cults? I hung around with a few of them in the early 90's. It wasn't long before I wasn't welcome because I kept questioning their information. I used reason to see through the paranoia being spewed at us. I tossed reality at these warrior wannabees and they didn't appreciate their views of the world being called into question.
The Second Admendment was written to recognise our right not only to defend ourselves and our nation but also to overthrow tyrants should it be necessary. McVeigh was wrong but insurrection may one day be necessary. When that day comes we will need the proper gear. Let's make sure we have it.
 
Last edited:
Palin's hubby wants to secede from the USA. When's this POLITICAL palaver going to get locked down?
 
Not that the truth every stopped the huffintonblowhard.liar

Just for the record, not that the huffingtonblowhard cares, Palin was never a member of the AIP. Here is a link http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/05/top-7-myths-lies-and-untruths-about-sarah-palin/

And for the record, the picture of Palin holding the gun in the link, as anyone can tell is a BB gun. But I suppose a scoped BB gun is to some a radical and extremely dangerous Assault Weapon, after all its black and holds like a thousand rounds... literally they are round :p Don't get me started how it can also shoot pointed soft lead pellets... whoa, might put your eye with one of those :what:

Anyhow it's bedtime for bonzo and me too :scrutiny:
 
The Republic of Zimbabwe is a good example of 'gun control', i.e. a state of affairs where firearms are a legal monopoly of the government forces. One side has good intentions and the other side has loaded rifles.

In Zimbabwe, as in so many other places, many people seem to have thought that reason and the good intentions of the majority were more important than firepower - they appear to be mistaken.

The Second Amendment is a warning not to stand against men with rifles when you are unarmed. Get the firepower, one way or another, and learn how to use it, then you may have a chance at liberty - you can not have it, or keep it, without firepower. And that remains true even if you win some soldiers over to your side with appeals to their reason.
 
For starters, receiving the "highest possible rating" from the NRA is not an indicator of mainstream thinking. The NRA has consistently opposed the renewal of the federal Assault Weapons Ban. When the ban expired in September 2004, a national Harris poll revealed that 71% of Americans were in favor of renewing it. The NRA has also consistently opposed closing the gun show loophole (which allows individuals to purchase firearms at gun shows without undergoing a background check).

Goebbels would be so proud!
 
Hey, JohnNRATalley!

If you read the article in question you'll find that the photo of Palin with an air gun is photoshopped - her head on someone else.

Anyway, who cares what some Hungarian heiress and her entourage of toadies happens to think about one of America's governors?
 
1) the Huffington Post's idea of a "mainstream" is what many of us would refer to as "bleep creek."

2) The picture of the chick with the BB gun is a photochop. Original's available over on one of the icanhascheezburger sites...

http://punditkitchen.com/2008/09/03...ah-palin-photoshopped-bikini-photo/#more-4004

3) Don't discount that McVeigh may have been aimed in that direction by an outside terrorist organization - the FBI desperately wants domestic terrorists, in order to justify their existence.
 
Her association with the Alaska Independence Party, and embrace of insurrectionism, is an anathema to this oath.

Here's the hint. He failed civics. Constitution does not equal government as he implies. Furthermore
The claim that individuals have a right to take up arms against representative government was last tried out by the Confederate States of America and settled at the conclusion of the Civil War.
shows that right exercised, but its failure does not indicate that it should not be a right.
 
Palin has also endorsed an insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. In February of this year, she signed Alaska on to a multi-state amicus brief authored by the State of Texas in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief reads, in part: "The Framers were understandably wary of standing armies and the powers of a potentially oppressive government ... The introductory clause [of the Second Amendment], properly understood, confirms the primary benefit of the operational clause -- a citizenry capable of defending its rights by force, when all other means have failed, against any future oppression."

When Sarah Palin took the oath of office as governor in 2006, she swore to uphold the United States Constitution. Her association with the Alaska Independence Party, and embrace of insurrectionism, is an anathema to this oath. The claim that individuals have a right to take up arms against representative government was last tried out by the Confederate States of America and settled at the conclusion of the Civil War.
This is truly SAD.

Sad that they appear to really REALLY not understand that insurrection is an integral part of the Constitution, and that by recognizing that right she is in NO way violating her oath to support the Constitution. Rather, any politician who votes for any gun control measure that infringes the 2A is in violation of the oath.

The Civil War argument is just plain sorry. First, the Confederacy did not engage in an armed insurrection. They attempted a peaceful secession, and were attacked militarily by the North. So that part of the argument is fallacious. Secondly, if there were to be an armed insurrection and it failed, the fact it might fail is in no way proof that the act isn't allowed under the Constitution. It would only prove the point that the Founders didn't intend for standing armies to have enough might to overcome the People.
 
3) Don't discount that McVeigh may have been aimed in that direction by an outside terrorist organization - the FBI desperately wants domestic terrorists, in order to justify their existence.
Huh?

Domestic terrorists are taking direction from foreign terrorists to justify their existence? What are you talking about?

Surely you aren't saying the FBI needs domestic terrorists to justify its existence. If so, you need to learn your U.S. history and the history of its institutions. One hundred years ago they recognized a need for federal law enforcement... that need still exists.
 
I am so sick of hearing about this "gun show loophole." There is no loophole. If you buy from an FFL you have to get a background check. If you buy from an individual, it is a private sale and is not required. The same as if you put an ad in the classifieds!

I can't stand it when people don't even understand the issues.
 
Huffington is Communist.

If you consider her position on candidates and issues from the reality that she is a Communist then her mindless blathering makes perfect sense.
 
I agree, Crazy Fingers. The Harris poll might say that 87% of Americans favor closing the gun show loophole, but I bet if they polled Americans on their knowledge of exactly what the 'gun show loophole' is, more than 87% would have no clue.
 
I wonder where those stats on how all of those people supported reinstatement of the AWB four years ago came from. When you look at the fact that there was a huge ousting of democratic reps and senators over that issue, it makes it hard to believe. If it is a true figure, then I wonder how many would support it now...

I also find it funny how alot of people say that we cannot revolt against the American government, despite the fact that such actions are the reason why there even is an American government. It's like people forgot about everything that happened before 1945 or something...
 
The claim that individuals have a right to take up arms against representative government was last tried out by the Confederate States of America and settled at the conclusion of the Civil War.

The Confederate States of America was not "taking up arms against an oppressive government," they were trying to secede from the United States of America.
Yale said:
He thinks the 2nd Admendment doesn't give us the right to keep weapons should it become necessary to overthrow our own government? That's the whole fracking point of the thing! It's about being able to effectivley repel an attack by troops whether they are wearing Blue coats or ACUs.


+1 Amen.


The idea is often expressed by the leftists that there is no right to reject an authoritarian government if it is a "represenntative government." They forget some of these "representative" governments were horribly repressive. Adolf Hitler won an election, and the old Soviet Union -- who's masters slaughtered millions as well -- held elections. You could either vote for the Communist party ..... --or not -- .......
They also never seem to quite "get" the concept of "oppression" -- especially if it's other leftists doing the oppression.
 
the belief that the Second Amendment grants individual citizens the right to confront their government with force of arms when they feel it has become "tyrannical

If they bothered to read the Constitution, they would see that IS IN THERE.

These types have no idea that they are fueling the downfall of the public. They are telling the sheeple all these lies, and everyone believes it, because as we all know the news is NEVER wrong. It's just sad that people are going to see this and buy it hook, line and sinker, without ever realizing the amount of stinking stuff they are being shoveled.

Everyone's so eager for change, they don't realize that change could be their downfall. They accept it without ever realizing it, and that's how most societies ended up with communism and socialism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top