The Bush gun myth

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thumper has nailed this one. The loss of rights was a slow process.
Regaining them will take just as long or longer. Anyone expecting
some kind of fire-breathing, John Brown like, pro-RKBA avenger to
storm the White House and magically restore all our rights in the
teeth of half the electorate is living in a complete fantasy world.
Enjoy your self-righteous indignation and kiss ALL your guns, CCW,
whatever goodbye.
 
Anyone expecting some kind of fire-breathing, John Brown like, pro-RKBA avenger

Actually, all I expect is a president and congress that do not sign into law any new gun control legislation. I seriously doubt they will be removing any controls in the near future, but they don't need to make it worse.
 
Hey, Thumper admitted bush is anti-gun-- he supports NICS, National Registration for Gun Buyers.

As long as Bush can count on your support while still going along and trading gun rights with Democrats, he will continue to do so.

People say a libertarian can't win-- a self fulfilling prophecy. If everyone voted their principles, the libertarians would be the undisputed winningest party.

As long as you sell out your principles and vote for Bush, without regard to how much he violates your principles, you will get people like Bush.

Bush has violated the constitution in just about every way one CAN violate it. Not just on gun rights (with his new ban) not just free speech (With the RAVE act) not just the fourth ammendment (With the TSA), etc. etc. etc.

You guys are sending him the message loud and clear that he can get away with it because he can count on your vote.

His democratic opposition has you quaking in your boots, don't it?

Well, we'll see what happens with the AWB next year. I expect he'll sign it and you'll be telling us just how much worse it would have been if Gore had signed it.
 
The libertarian philosophy is a wonderful thing. It has a few problems, but overall it does address some large issues.

There is more to life than drugs and guns. 9/11 showed me that security is not a "free-market" thing that can be wished away. Borders can not be open, because the people on the other side of the border may not have libertarian ideals, nor will the persons wishing to crash planes into buildings question the act's constitutionality.

Yes, we need less government. Yes, we need to honor the constitution. Self-reliance needs to be the rule rather than the exception. It will come in time. Be vigilant.
 
I expect he'll sign it and you'll be telling us just how much worse it would have been if Gore had signed it.
I think to see our victories and losses in this "war of values" (which I believe is at the heart of this struggle) only in this context is to miss the larger point, one which has already been pointed out: who will be appointiing those three Supreme Court Judges?

Whether or not it could be Bush or Gore or Hillary who signs the AWB, years later it will be the work of those justices which will affect our gun rights (and our children's and grandchildren's rights) long after those folks are out of office. Looking only to that one issue and saying "told ya so!" if not satisfied with the outcome, and then voting Democrat or Libertarian (either will get us closer to a Demo in the White House), will assure us a Supreme Court that will provide a greater threat to our gun rights than Pakistani's in blue helmets.

I'm not willing to cut off my nose to spite my face, but that's what some of you are suggesting if Bush doesn't deliver for us. geegee
 
ok Auschip, one more time and I'll try to go slowly this time.

CCW does not-- except in a few states-- register guns. So you're right in that respect. But it does register gun owners. So do 4473s. So do any records kept by gun stores, gun smiths, etc.

Remember my little story about the Pakistani soldiers? Put yourself in the place of that squad leader. You've been ordered to find all the guns in town and some guy is trying to convince you that his wife just got her CCW because she might want to get a gun someday. Are you going to believe him? Would you bet your life he was telling the truth? Think about the problems our soldiers are having in Iraq right now. Do you think they believe every Iraqi that tells them they have no guns?

Someone has pointed out that it would more likely be the local sheriff who'd be confiscating the guns. Maybe, but in the long run, what difference does it make who does the field work? You'll still either be defenseless or dead and your family-- if they're still alive-- will be homeless.

Right off the bat, I know someone is saying something like 'he's just paranoid' or 'it won't happen here' or 'we won't let that happen.' Well, except for the difference in language the same things were said in Russia, Germany, Cambodia and a host of other countries. Look what happened to them-- even the ones who wrote to their legislators.
 
Oldfart,

While a CCW does not further the right to bear arms, neither does carrying illegally.

I agree with you that the scenario you describe one day may happen. But, when I am faced with the option of legally carrying a concealed gun by permit, or breaking the law and running the risk of going to jail, losing my right to own guns, and basically ruining my life with a criminal record, I am going to get the permit and stay legal.
 
Originally posted by Don Galt:
If everyone voted their principles, the libertarians would be the undisputed winningest party.

Libertarians love to throw out this claim, one that as far as I can determine is totally unsubstantiated. Do you have any polling data to back up this claim?

I would hazard to guess that 90% of the American people support at least one of the Libertarian positions, but that is a far cry from the majority, or even a plurality, of people supporting the entire Libertarian position in principle OR actuality.

I know alot of liberals, alot of conservatives and alot of moderates. But I know very few Libertarians. Sorry Don, but most people vote Democrat or Republican not because they are afraid to vote Libertarian, but because they support the positions of those parties.

It's simply arrogant and condecending to assume that ONLY Libertarians vote their principles.
 
Originally posted by oldfart:
CCW does not-- except in a few states-- register guns. So you're right in that respect. But it does register gun owners. So do 4473s. So do any records kept by gun stores, gun smiths, etc.

So does membership in the NRA, GOA, your local gun club, a subscription to Guns and Ammo, etc.
 
If everyone voted their principles, the libertarians would be the undisputed winningest party.

I'll second the request for someone to back that up with data.

I would say that a majority of Americans would support some libertarian ideas, but not all, and not enough to actually be willing to vote libertarian.

I support them on a lot of things, but the things I don't support them on are major disagreements that would prevent me from ever being able to vote for them.
 
some observations

1. What I see reflected in the posts so far suggests that the following groups of THR members have formed up

a. Absolutists about 2nd A issues, and will vote from a "purity" viewpoint. Example: vote Libertarian.

b. People who are weighing multiple issues--e.g., abortion rights, BOR issues like the Patriot Act, etc.

c. Party Loyalists, either Democrats or Republicans, who see the world through that particular perspective.

d. Political Pragmatists--e.g., the incrementialists who point out we lost our complete 2nd A rights a step at a time, and it will take similar steps to win them back.

My own position is that I distrust both Parties on this issue, and GWB is no lover of firearms rights. However, ANYONE who believes the Democrats are not going to pursue a national agenda of increased gun control, no matter how illogical, had better check what they've been smoking.

Howard Dean's statements on GC are absolutely consistent with 1) his past performance as a state Governor and say NOTHING what agenda he will pursue as a President. If he's going to be the titular leader of the Democrats, he's gotta spread himself over the Schumers, Boxers, et.al. as well.

Regardless of who you think "really" won the last election, it would appear that it is sinking in to the Democrat strategists that gun control is not the issue to win campaigns on--at least directly--because of how Gore apparently lost the election.

This election will probably be like the last, unless GWB shoots himself in the foot some more--like he has on Iraq/you pick a topic.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE FIGHT IS FOR THE UNDECIDED. If the Democrats can fool even 2% of the non-political gunnies into being comfortable with voting for Howard Dean, then they can win and GC will be a big payback to the gun-hater's fringe groups, for keeping their troops in line--particularly if they manage to win the Presidency.

This issue is almost a problem for me, for my third concern, after 2nd A and 1st A are the pro-choice issues. But, ever since sick Willy turned loose the GC nuts, I have resolved to be a one-issue voter.

ANYTHING BUT A VOTE FOR DUBYA CREATES UNDUE RISK FOR NEW INCREASED FEDERAL GC.

And let's start a lottery--barring another Columbine that might force the Congress to at least let GC bills come forward, my bet is that the AWB sunsets--and the Dems will try to make hay out of it--and there's that swing voter again, coming into play.

This election is too risky to vote for anyone but the one who will do the least damage--and it sure ain't Dean, or ANY Democrat, and voting your beliefs, while ethically desirable, may make your vote pointless in the GC debate. You'll feel good, though--and I hope that good feeling continues when you apply for your new permit for your new two-shot pump shotgun, and sell your existing semiautos at a reduced price. As for me, I'd rather keeping shooting my M1 Super 90.
 
If everyone voted their principles, the libertarians would be the undisputed winningest party.

If the Libertarian party ever becomes powerful, I'd like to know how it will keep from splintering over issues like legalization of drugs, open borders, free trade -- and especially abortion.

http://www.lp.org/quiz/

Many people have "principals" that include telling other people how they should live their lives.

The grass is always greener in Utopia (n :an IMAGINARY PLACE considered to be perfect or ideal.).
 
speaking for myself

I do care about handgun age restrictions. I spent three summers working at a boy's camp in NW Wisconsin as the Director of the Marksmanship program and running the rifle range.

I addition to the NRA 50' program, I instituted firearms familiarization events, ranging from 'different kinds of (rifle) actions' through to 'handgun' familiarization. (It was a good excuse to expand the rimfire collections.)

The camp (historically) was a Jewish boy's camp, and its base rested in the MW, Eastern MW and East Coast Jewish Communities, with a strong culture of Liberalism / nominal Socialism. The current camp owners were MW educator / SW types who, despite their own liberal orientation, were committed to education and generally backed me on this.

You can only imagine what these kids knew about guns, period, not to mention handguns.
 
Look at the "Worlds Smallest Political Quiz" thread. Go take the quiz. See if the quiz says your a libertarian, or a republican or a Democrat.

The funny thing is, most of the people in this forum came out libertarian. Including the republicans.

But if you go do the same thing with Democrats, it will turn out the same-- most of them are libertarians.

The reality is MOST AMERICANS SUPPORT LIBERTY. They support economic liberty and they support social liberty.

Most americans oppose Authoritarianism.

The Democrats oppose economic liberty. The republicans oppose social liberty. In this, they split the vote.

As long as people think they have to choose from those two parties, their vote is split. But if they all voted their principles, the libertarians would win every time.

The demographics of this country are that %70 of the populace is anti-authoritarian. If you take the religious wackos (christian, muslim and jew), the hard core communists (CP members) and the outright fascists-- they all make up about %30 of the populace when combined.

As to someone saying Libertarianism is a fantasy, you're mistaken. Its not an unreal thing that never existed--- its the society that this country was originally meant to be, and was to a greater or lesser extent until the civil war. Libertarian principles are not pie in the sky dreaming-- they are the philosophy that fits with the pragmatic reality of how economics works.

You subsidize corruption or poverty and you will get them. If you understand economics and you're not a fascist, you have to recognize that capitalism works. Capitalism works everywhere, and consistently. Capitalism is not a fantasy that people think they can just claim will work--- you can look at the countries in the world and line them up by their degree of adopting capitalist ideals and you'll see their standard of living is consistent with how well they adopted capitalist ideals.

Capitalism is not a fantasy. Libertarianism, is really another way of saying capitalism. Capitalism lets people decie where they want to do business and what they want to buy.

The opposition to capitalism is socialism-- which wants to control what people buy and who they associate with. Both the republicans and the Democrats are fundamentally socialist parties.

The reason they are socialist parties is it gives them more control over the populace. They are able to criminalize drug ownership, gun ownership. They are able to criminalize even the act of your doctor proscribing a ligitimate medicine to you that is FDA approved for other uses.

But they have americans caught up in this false perception of a two party system to the point that they will sell out their principles REALLY CHEAP in order to avoid the possibility that they might loose the particular right that the party they are afraid of (in this forums case, Democrats) will take away.

You know, if you really believe in gun rights, you recognize them as god given, and you recognize that the Democrats (nor the republicans who also want to take them away) can ever take them away.

They can only convince you that you don't have them. But in reality they are inalienable.

There are pro-life libertarians. There are pro-choice libertarians. (I'm bringing this up not to start an abortion debate, but because someone asked why the libertarian parrty would not be destryoed by this issue, and this is the most divisive issue in the libertarian party.) With Drugs, Taxes, guns, free association, capitalism, and all that--- you can't really be a libertarian and fundamentally disagree with liberty on these points. On abortion, however, libertarian principles do not make the answer a cut and dried one. (Well, they do for me, but not for all libertarians.) But this problem, which has existed in the party since the 70s, is not realy a problem. They argue, and really don't agree on whether abortion is moral or not. But they recognize that the federal government doesn't have the right to criminalize it. In a libertarian society, there would be a state where abortion is illegal and one where it is legal. (EG: each state would pick its own outcome there, as it should be, as our founderrs intended!)

But, I was talking about the 70/30 split before. If you look at national polling, the percentage of americans who oppose federal laws banning abortions is %70. Right along with the libertarian / authoritarian split.

Most americans, if they understood the issues, and voted purely on their principles, would vote libertarian. Most americans, after all, think the consittution is a document to be upheld.

But since we the republcians and Democrats (Which are really two wings of a SINGLE SOCIALIST party, the Boot On Your Neck party) do not allow fair elections in this countr,y the populace thinks they have to choose from only the two wings of the BOYN party.

Furthermore, the BOYN party regularly lies about the posititions they take. Bush claims he passed a taxcut! An absurd lie to anyone who understands economics because he has turned up the printing machines from %7 per year inflation to %10 per year inflation. This devalues the dollars in everyone's pocket and is an effective TAX HIKE much bigger than the clinton ever passed.

This level of deception keeps mainstream republicans confused about the reality of their party-- they think they are for liberty and small government and lower taxes, when in reality, they want the opposite-- socialism. Its just that the republicans are claiming to be the opposite of what they are, and keeping you fooled. While the Democrats porclaim all the benefits of socialism and keep their constitutents fooled. Both parties are socialist. Go read Marx. Look at the planks required for a socialist party, and then look at the platforms of the two wings of BOYN. Both of them have most of the socialist ideals as goals, and the others are just too early to advocate.

But I don't think this post will cause people to go read Marx. And frankly, the vast majority of americans are eithe too stupid or too uneducated to see the blatent and absurd lies and logical fallacies broadcast every night for what they are. And I'm not talking about just the news-- with FOX and CNN duking it out for who can cram the most logical fallacies in a single hour. I'm talking about the government propaganda shows like The West Wing, ER, Law and Order, and all that. People know these shows aren't real, but they still think they are realistic. And they condition people --- the cops on Law and Order naturally assume that every gun has been registered, and that ballistic fingreprinting actually works, etc. etc.

Americans don't know Law and Order is a disgusting avocation of socialism. They haven't been educated enough or given the tools to know.

And so, despite having a majority, despite having historical proof that capitalism is superior to socialism, and despite a rapidly increasing general awareness of the libertarian party and libertarian principles (thanks to the internet) the libertarian party is not going to be able to save your bacon. Too many in this country are too ignorant of economics, history. Too many have not been equipped with good reasoning skills-- something you can learn yourself, but can be helped by decent education-- something the socialist governmetn schools know all too well.

And so, in my opinion, things are going to get worse at an increasingly fast rate. The federal government is already falling apart-- they can't even protect us, one of the few really legitimate arguments for having a federal government, and in response to their failure they've embarked on an warmongering adventurism that is only going to give millions more people a *legitimate* reason to hate the US. (Or do you not hate people who come to your country and kill thousands of innocent civilians? 9/11 was designed to do that, our wars, though we only target military, still do it anyway due to errrors, arelessness, and the nature of warfare. A father doesn't care that his daughter worked in the pentagon and that the people who killed her consider it a "legitimate military target". Neither does a father who's daughter was in an apartment near where we "suspected Saddam Hussien was.") And the really sad thing is, if we'd just gone after the terrorists, instead of this bull???? we're doing now in the name of going after them, we would have likely gotten them.

But I digress. Unless americans wake up to socialism's impact and hold on this country very quickly, the feds are going to start falling apart even more dramatically than they have recently. They are going to get very desperate, and start doing things like banning the exchange of money from one currency to another (to fight terrorism, of course!) Which, despite its goal will not shore up the US dollar. WE already went off of the gold standard, so they can't try that trick again.

And to anyone who's read this far, you have my respect. You probably continued even though I challenged your core beliefs. Even this long posting is far too short to provide quality defenses of all of my positions. But if you just give the idea a chance an do your own investigation and still disagree, I'd VERY much like to hear why. I could be wrong, after all. (www.mises.org is a good place to start, with lots of free books by Murry Rothbard, one of the founders of libertarianism in its modern form.)
 
With a test developed by Libertarians they can't even come up with a majority. A test that short can be made to come up with pretty much anything the sponsor desires. Political beliefs rarely fall into such neat little generalized catagories.

Don, is everyone who goes to church a "religious wacko"?
 
Great way to knock down a strawman. In fact, if you'd bothered to read what I actually wrote, the poll shouldn't have come out %70 libertarian.

But its much easier to drive by with a snide remark.
 
To quote a truth from the opening post...

"Is he the best we have that has a chance of winning?"
************************************************************

Yes, Bush is.:D

Would Gore have been worse?:eek:

Yep.

While speculation is great fun, and flights of Libertarian fantasy invigorate,
the reality is that Bush is the candidate who is most likely to help us with Second Amendment causes.;)

And, no, "Dubya" isn't another "TR".:mad:
 
What "straw man" Don? You used the phrase "religious wackos" in your post. I'm curious as to what constitutes a "religious wacko" in your views. Is that such a difficult question to answer? Why should you avoid clarifying your own claims?

You seem to be under the belief that anyone who is not a "religious wacko", a "hard core communist" or an "outright fascist", is an anti-authoritarian and therefore a Libertarian. Yet the very test you cite, a test devised by Libertarians to elicit a result favorable to them, can only come up with approximately 35% of people being Libertarians.

Some of your claims are absurd. You claim that President Bush has raised the inflation rate from 7% to 10%. Where in the world did you get that figure? The current inflation rate is only around 2%. He has raised the amount of government spending by approximately 10% which is unrelated to the rate of inflation. That spending rate is also unrelated to any tax cuts (yes they are real). Apparently it is YOU that does not understand economics!

You state that that 70% of Americans oppose federal laws banning abortion. All of the polls I have seen, not commissioned by NARL, show that Americans are split evenly on this issue. And polls on partial birth abortion show that over 80% of Americans feel that it should be outlawed. So, are 80% of Americans now "authoritarian"?

The most valid poll of the number of Libertarians in America is the poll taken every four years. This poll contantly shows that around 0.5% of Americans support the Libertarian ideals. And don't blame it on "unfair elections" (that sounds like Al Gore). The Libertarian Party is on every ballot and has the same oportunity to purchase campaign ads on the radio and TV as every other party does in order to get their message across. The problem is that the vast majority of Americans reject that message and therefore give no money for the Libertarians to purchase those ads.

This constant Libertarian whining of "Americans don't understand us or they would elect us" is getting tiring. Basically, that is insinuating that Americans are just too dumb to appreciate how the Libertarian Party just wants to set them free. How condesending! Maybe Libertarians should consider that Americans DO understand the message and simply choose to reject it!
 
Polls are different every place you go. 0.5% is still alot of people.

Its not about ads on tv its about how much the news reports on you. Look at Dean he use to be in the news more than anyone and now he is the leader in the polls.
 
I voted for bush because I thought that he would protect my second amendment rights, His statestment about willing to sign a bill that he new would not reach his desk is pure political... playing both sides of the street. My concern is that he has acted to destroy to many other areas of the bill of rights. I,E, the patroit act and homeland security.
 
Originally posted by mattd:
Polls are different every place you go. 0.5% is still alot of people.

Fine, show me just one non-partisan poll that shows 35% of the people consider themselves Libertarians as their little political quiz claims. Just one!

In 1996, the Libertarian candidate got a total of 485,798 votes out of a total of 96,277,223 votes cast. That is less than Richard Nixon's victory margin in the closely contested race of 1968, or roughly equal to the entire population of Wyoming. Alot of people? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by mattd:
Its not about ads on tv its about how much the news reports on you. Look at Dean he use to be in the news more than anyone and now he is the leader in the polls.

And guess what? The news is not going to report on anyone that is not raising money or that hasn't a groundswell of people talking about them. Who is even running for the Libertarian party nomination? Where are the large rallies of people supporting him, her or them? Who exactly is the media supposed to report on? You don't get media attention by sitting home and writing articles on Libertarian websites. You get media attention by going out and ATTRACTING it!

For all of this Libertarian talk about independance, not needing anyones help and self-initiative, they sure whine alot about nobody helping them.:confused:
 
What "straw man" Don? You used the phrase "religious wackos" in your post. I'm curious as to what constitutes a "religious wacko" in your views. Is that such a difficult question to answer? Why should you avoid clarifying your own claims?
I'm not Don, but how about this for an answer: A religious wacko is anyone who would violate the principle of non-agression in the name of a deity or deities. In other words, someone who would happily push you around because God told them it's ok.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top