2d Amendment - Do you believe?

D

Dennis

Staff Emeritus
A valid question has been asked: “When is the last time that a
Republican congress has PROPOSED a tough gun law?”

1) Good question! One could make the question even more favorable to
Republicans by asking, “What was the last Republican gun control
proposal that became law without being modified by Democratic
pressure?” This might permit Republican supporters to say that the
Republicans NEVER made a gun control proposal which became law.
(BTW, that may or may not be true - I’m only addressing the matter of
creating a leading question.)

2) For recent *Republican gun control initiatives* you can start with:
Bush backing gun control measures http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=23829

3) But Republican PROPOSALS are not the issue. The operator of the
guillotine did not invent the machine, PROPOSE the concept of the death
sentence, or sentence the condemned. The executioner does however,
play an undeniable role in the execution. And so it is with the
Republicans and gun control.

4) The Republicans play “Good Cop” to the Democrats’ position of “Bad
Cop”. I defy anyone to find ANY gun control proposal which became law
without some Republican approval. Therefore, at least THOSE
Republicans are accessories to the creation of unconstitutional law.

4a) Many Republicans call gun control measures “crime control” and
thusly deny allegations of gun control measures. They are liars.

4b) Many Republicans continue to help create and implement laws which
clearly are unconstitutional. They “compromise” and, with their votes,
help these unconstitutional gun control proposals become law. I consider such Republicans unindicted co-conspirators to felonies and treason.

5) Those who vote for such unindicted traitors to the Constitution are, at
best, unintentional co-conspirators rationalizing away our Second
Amendment.
----------------------

Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don’t.

All else is bovine exhaust.

Stick it to ‘em! RKBA
 
Touche'!

True, true. Unfortunately true. However, we must remember that there is not a single Pro-gun bill pending in either houses that has a Democrat as a proponent.

Am I (as most true IInd Amendment believers) bitterly disappointed in the Repubs and their inability to stick to their guns? Yes. Am I angry that we keep a defensive posture even when we have the majority? Sure. Do I drop my jaw in disbelief when Republicans compromise on, or otherwise concede to the opposite side a chunk of our Rights like our former president did? Of course.

Neverhteless, it is also true that in the Republican party there are a lot of pro-gun Congressmen, Senators and Governors; and that banning or restricting guns is not among the declared top-10 to-do list of the party. (Yes, I know, "declared".... what about "latent"?...). Can we say that of the Democrats?

Look, all I am doing here is trying to differentiate the 2 parties and their basic philosophy. It is undeniable that, at least philosophically, the Right is pro and the left is anti. The fact that the current leadership of the right is somewhat inept and unusually ready to pander to the champagne socialists on the left is unfortunate, but it does not change that. That's why we talk of "betrayal". They betray their (and our, the electorate's) philosophy. But the left is philosophically anti-gun. When Rangel helped defeat the proposed gun restrictions earlier in the Summer, he too "betrayed" the philosophy of his party.

Look at the pending house bills (go to www.ccrkba.org and click on "house bills). All the pro bills are R and all (but one) the anti bills are D. Can you still say that the 2 parties are the same?

The fact, as I see it, is that the LEADERSHIP OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY has, in the last 10 years, weakened its stance on the 2nd, and for many reasons, has all too readily compromised with the left. But the CORE of the rank-and-file Republican is still with the RKBA. So, the problem is with the leadership,and when you talk about leadership, unfortunately, party philosophy gets distorted and watered down by politics.

What I would like to see is one of the following scenarios:
1) The Republicans clean up their act and start showing some... ehem, gonats. They move to the right as a party, in the face of the leftist media and their beloved one in the White House. The Republican leadership gets closer to the basic philosophy of the party (less gov't, more individual rights, sanctity of the Constitution, etc) and rogue "moderates" get isolated within the party.
1b) We start seeing single-issue pro-2nd candidates getting elected (sort of like a pro-gun mirror image of McCarthy of NY) and start making as much noise as their anti-counterpart and we put the Dems on the defensive.

2) AFTER WE DEFEAT THE DEMS IN THE NEXT ELECTION (which is a make-it or break-it for the RKBA), there is a mass exodus of true Constitutionalists (there would be a good name for a party!) to a 3rd party, which could be Libertarian, or a likely-minded one. Then, once that happens, to hell with the Republicans and their wimpy, declawed politics.

3) AFTER WE DEFEAT THE DEMS IN THE NEXT ELECTION, we bring our cause once and for all to the Supreme Court, and we establish, as it should be, that the 2ns Amendment is an Individual Right, that it has little or nothing to do with duck hunting, and that it cannot be legislated away, neither by chunks, in toto, or in the courts. This, to me would be the best scenario for us, because it would, once and for all, remove our Rights from the peril of being debated on after every incident receiving National attention.

So, my point is this. The Republicans are still considerably different from the Democrats. Although their leadership has been week and overly-compromising, their basis comprises a heckuva lot of pro-gunners. Not so the dems. All the rabid anti-gunners are Democrats. Feinstein, Lautenberg, Schumer, McCarthy, Daschle, Kennedy, De Lauro, Waters, Moynihan, Hillary, Bill, Algore, Bradley and gawd nows how many more. And this is not counting their allies in the media, the press, Hollywood: Rosie, Oprah, Streisand, Spielberg, Larry King, Connie Chan, Chris Matthews, gosh, there are so many I cannot even mention..... ARE ANY OF THEM REPUBLICANS?

We must do whatever it takes to defeat these people in the next election. If this doesn't happen, Lord help us! When you are wounded, as is our 2nd Amendment, fist you STOP THE BLEEDING (=defeating the proclaimed anti-gunners) and only then you regroup, diagnose, make changes and fire who needs to be fired.

So, as nauseating as it may be, I will vote for the most likely candidate that can defeat the Democtats. I will pick the most electable, whoever it is.
I will position myself more as an "anti-democrat" than as a "Republican" which, even now, I am only by default.
 
Couple of notes here:

Only a few members of Congress truly believe in the Constitution, let alone the 2nd. You can probably count them on one hand. (Helen Chenowith, Ron Paul, Uhhhhhhhhh)

Al Gore is our next president. He has the support of the AFL-CIO and with Buchanan bailing out of the Repub party, we're going to get a split conservative vote AGAIN. The Labor Unions are the only faction of the Left that might vote for Buchanan, and they're already supporting Gore. See this:

http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/10/13/buchanan/

You can't expect politicians, even Repubs, to stand on principle anymore. They are elected through a process that is dominated by big money interests and relatively small factions of special interest groups. Its our own fault; if we all got out and voted our conscience and principles rather than listening to our union or voting for the candidate that will protect our little personal agenda, we'd have a better govt. Instead, we elect the people that protect the interests of a few at the expense of the many. We get the govt we deserve.

[This message has been edited by Jack 99 (edited October 14, 1999).]
 
Rigby: You can believe if you want that a man like Trent Lott, who's managed to achieve the second or third most powerful elected position in the country, is a blithering idiot who didn't have a clue what he was doing when he scheduled the debate on the Juvenile crime bill. I'll go with Ocam's razor, and assume that he meant to pass a gun control bill.

I've never claimed that most Republican office holders are gun grabbers. Weak, unprincipled, wavering, yes. But if they were actually devoted to the cause, we'd have lost completely by now. The problem IS with the leadership, and they've gone out of their way to do too many things to help gun control bills pass, to pass it off as cowardice or stupidity.

Basically what's happened to the GOP is that they've got a leadership which doesn't believe in Republican principles, just mouths them to get elected, and then arranges for the GOP to get trounced when ever an issue comes up where they privately agree with the Democrats.

And, are any of the rabid anti-gunners Republicans? Sure! How about Dole? (Both of them.) The elder Bush, who gave us that memorable phrase, "Not suitable for sporting purposes." John Chaffe, who regularly introduces a bill repealing the Second amendment. John Engler here in Michigan, who killed a CCW bill which had passed both houses with bipartisan support, to further his national ambitions?



------------------
Sic semper tyranus!
 
I see your point, Brett, and I didn't know about the CCW defeat in Michigan. (Although I disagree with your equating George Bush with any of the gun-grabbers I mentioned, like Schumer or Feinstein).

So, with the next election coming, what is your solution? Voting with "your conscience" and ignoring how likely "your conscience" is to give us a winning ticket?

And, should the worst happen, will the fact that "you voted with your conscience" make you feel better when your guns get registered, taxed out of existence and/or confiscated?

Believe me, I have NO inherent allegiance to the Republican party. If I had the Magic Lamp, I would have Massad Ayoob for President, a clone of Ben Franklin for speaker of the house and the discussions in the senate would sound like this forum!

But AS THINGS ARE NOW, what alternative do we have than to vote for the party that is most likely to get elected while being least likely to propose tough anti-gun measures. And for the party that is least likely to further other, non-gun-related poor principles in this Country, making vermin like Larry Flint seem more virtuous than our Military men and women, our legitimate Religious leaders and honest folks in general.
 
Gun laws may or may not be high on the Republican slate...but DO NOT FORGET gun laws are currency, currency that is played, traded and negotiated with for favors and cooperation on other issues.

The fact remains that the vast majority of both parties are not Constitutionalists and in fact resent that "petty little document" getting in their way. The Reps will toss the Constitution out the window in the drug war, trade and commerce. The Dems will toss it for education, welfare, taxes and "civil" over individual rights and political correctness.


------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
1) As a youngster I had a paper route - rode a bicycle - all that.
- At one house was a dog who ALWAYS tried to bite me.
- At another house was a dog who SOMETIMES tried to bite me.
- Both dogs would bite.

2) That the Republicans “bite” less than the Democrats makes little
difference. It is a meaningless attempt to differentiate between dogs
which bite. Both major parties have defied the Constitution. I’ll no longer
trust or support those who are obvious traitors both to the Constitution
and to their vow to support it.

3) Show me one anti-gun law which has been repealed in the last five
years.

4) Show me how I am as free to keep and bear arms as I was in 1950.

5) Show me one gun control law that did not have the support of a
Republican.

6) Explain to me how voting for a Republican “just one more time” will
bring about change in the Republican Party.

7) Explain to me what difference it will make if my guns are confiscated
by a Democrat rather than a Republican.

8) Those who vote for these unindicted traitors to the Constitution are,
at best, unintentional co-conspirators rationalizing away our Second
Amendment.
----------------------

Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don’t.
I believe the Second Amendment means exactly what it says.
All else is bovine exhaust.
Stick it to ‘em! RKBA
 
416Rigby-

I think those "voting your conscience" remarks were aimed at me, so I'll respond.

How many of those AFL-CIO members (middle and working class folks, for the most part) are going to vote for Gore because he'll protect their union's interests? Now how many of them do you think have guns and hunt? How many of them think Gore is nearly as sleazy as Clinton? Yet Al Gore will get their votes and those union members will hold their noses and be happy to have a good paying, well protected job and a president that supports the labor movement. If they put aside their own self-interests and voted for someone with true character and leadership who's concern was for the country first and special interests second, "voted their conscience" in other words, we could very well have an Alan Keyes or Bob Smith type candidate come through. Instead, we have George Bush, who won't commit to any position and has the backbone of your typical squid, versus Al Gore, a man who thinks his father was a hog farmer, not a Senator, and would like to take credit for the Internet. He's also a determined Socialist who thinks your SUV uses too much gas. He'd like to make a law to make you drive a Fiesta.

The elderly in this country are even worse. The AARP has told them Clinton saved Medicare and Social Security. The old people that live around me are not stupid, but they unanimously support Dems because they come tell them the Repubs want to starve them and take their SS check. The media supports the nonsense and the single biggest voting block in this country votes for Dems overwhelmingly.

No Moral Courage in politics these days outside of a few longshots, and that's the problem. What makes it worse is we did it to ourselves.
 
.....SO, once again, what are we to do?

1) Vote Democrat? In the hope that they will kill our right quickly, painlessly and humanely, so that we can all go and find ourselves another hobby like trainspotting and bell-ringing, like happened to the British in '97?

2) Not vote? Take the high moral ground, defining ourselves and our epicurean disgust for the current state of affairs (however justified), and watch with a detached nonchalance as our rights are fed to the dogs?

3) Vote for a third party? If so which one? Ventura's? Perot's? How do THEY stand on gun-control? At least, I know that Bush has a) vanquished a vintage post-civil-war statute banning the right of Texans to carry a handgun and b) he has dismissed the right of the state or the cities to sue gun mfg. For the Libertarians? If they had a chance in Heaven, yes, I would give them my vote in a heartbeat. But realistically? I JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE THE DEMS WIN, NO MATTER WHAT OR WHO IT TAKES TO DEFEAT THEM.

Seriously, what do we do with voting, i.e. the only real power we have in this "democracy"?

As a kid I too had a paper route. I too had to choose between road A, where I would encounter a dog that was sure to bite, and road B, where there was a dog that sometimes bit, sometimes not. I chose road B, and came home with A LOT fewer scars than my brother, who did not care which road he chose based on the fact that "both dogs would bite".

Can anyone show me road C? Can anyone show me how I can avoid both "dogs" and still get my paper delivered (i.e. reaching my goal of limiting, if not defeating gun-control)?

By the way, I love the discussion. I wish that 10% of the voters would be as informed as this lot!

RKBA: sacred and non-negotiable!
 
All politics is local.. All of the people sent to DC from my state are a)republican, and b) voted against the last attempt at gun control and have been very consistent in support of RKBA during their tenure. Are they often maddeningly inconsistent when it comes to the rest of the Constitution? Yep, and I let them know often. Alternatives? The democrats - no thanks. All of the names currently being kicked around in the Libertarian party are, from what I know of them, pretty intelligent and principled folks. Unfortunately, the LP is such that it could not get any of these people elected to my local school board. Reform party? If Pat goes here I will be amazed if even he can enlist the conservative power base. No telling how much help GW will give him there though. He doesn't want my guns it seems, so I will keep an eye on him in a pinch. His protectionist economic theory is dangerous. I'm still a republican who has not co-conspired in the least in the erosion of anyones rights and will support Alan Keyes until he decides to leave the race - something I encourage him not to do.
 
How about we get off our bike, beat the crap out of dog A, get back on our bike, pedal over and beat the crap out of dog B, and live without fear and in peace as we go about our business in a law-abiding manner?

------------------
"Put a rifle in the hands of a Subject, and he immediately becomes a Citizen." -- Jeff Cooper
 
Gotta stick one thing in here, while perhaps not contributing much. Please, everybody, regardless of the outcome of these oft repeated arguments about Dem/Rep/Lib, whatever you do do NOT accept 416Rigby's option #2, not voting.

You do not prove how far above the fray you are by not voting, you show yourself to be APATHETIC, uncaring, ready to be led like a sheep to the slaughter. Advancing such a misguided conception could end up costing your life.

Look, vote for Ted Kennedy. Vote for Ross Perot. Vote for Mikhail Gorbachev, I don't give a diddley. But make sure you are recorded as having gone to the polls. That allows all the nincompoops what are in power over us to realize that MANY votes are out there, interested enough to go even without a candidate. Perhaps someone will eventually investigate how to obtain those votes for themselves!
 
There's a solution our Founding Fathers would have been proud of, Jack 99!!!

And that's why they gave us the 2nd Amendment.

Tell me when you are getting off your bike, I'll get off mine and no one will get bitten anymore!

By the way, my "conscience vote" questions were not aimed at you at all, much less "aimed" at anybody. I would love to vote MY conscience, but there is no one out there who reflects it in the least!
 
And therein lies the problem. Nobody wants to be the first to get off the bike and get bit.

But those dogs are supposed to be afraid of us, not the other way around. The fact that we fear them and choose a compromise that minimizes our losses is the problem. Getting off that bike is a big step these days and not many of us are willing to even consider it.

The dogs out there will always exist. Our wise founding fathers tried to muzzle them with a Constitution that limited their scope, effectively a short chain, but they got off that chain and now we're stuck with Rottweilers that are going to be hard to put back on the leash.

HOW'S THAT FOR A METAPHOR!

All rhetoric aside, I feel like I've thrown away every vote I've ever cast except for back when I lived in Idaho and voted for Helen Chenoweth. Nobody in the current Presidential race is worth spit, IMHO. Bush can't quite pull himself together to take a stand on anything and he may or may not have been a hellraiser and done a little coke. BFD. I'd rather he said "yes, I did. So What?!" or said "I fully support the RKBA, including Assualt Rifles." I think the rest of America would appreciate it too. Witness Jesse Ventura.
 
Jack99,

There are those who got off the bike, but found themselves alone...

Ruby Ridge

Waco

Montana Freemen

And I am sure there are others that we have not heard about (not "news worthy", you know).

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
 
I must put in my two cents worth in this great debate.

First and foremost we are seeing in our own government, what our founding fathers feared the most. A tyrannical, large, and out of control government that has lost sight of its purpose.

Second, the Constitution (which I have read and studied) is today little more than an ancient document that looks good in a museum. People (ie: WE THE PEOPLE) in general do not care for or even know what the Constitution is or what it stands for.

Third, the Constitution is a LIMITING document. The limit is put on the GOVERNMENT the LIMIT is NOT put on the PEOPLE. READ IT.

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED....NOT INFRINGE ON THE PEOPLE TO PEACEALBY ASSEMBLE.... FREEDOM OF THE PRESS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...


Dear Lord, has ever one in this country not seen the writing on the walls. The politicians do NOT hold the Constitution to heart. Nor do they like the document because it LIMITS what they can do to the PEOPLE. When a government is for the people, then the government has no need to fear its citizens. When a government is for more government, then the politicians will fear the law abiding citizen.

There was a reason the founding fathers wrote the Constitution and that was because they feared the King and his absolute POWER. Look at the system that the very intelligent men and women have developed in Washington. They have made public service their own little Kingdom, and have taken the position that it is their RIGHT to serve as many terms as possible and become the King of all that they suvey.

The only proble with the constitution was that it did not LIMIT the terms that the members of both houses could serve. I believe that this oversight was because at the time politicians were businessmen that dabbled in politics but had a career outside of politics. Also, the men were much more upstanding and moral than we are producing today.

Today, the men and women of Congress are their because it is their job. Most have no business outside of Washington. That is we have professional politicians the live off the back of us citizens.

When you have professional politicians, you get polster politics, and media manipulation. The whim of the people is easily manipulated because the people fell safe, because the professional politician tells them they are safe.

Do you think that the people in Washington will vote themselves out of a job???? the answer is NO. They do not want to limit their power and give up their control.

Power is an stimulant. It was okay to limit the presidents term, because most house members knew they would never be president. And they could have a life long term in Congress.

I am so disappointed in todays professional politicians. They are no more the common man representing the will of the people, than pigs can fly.

Until WE THE PEOPLE and wake up and realize that our government has become what our founding fathers most feared, we will be doomed to a life of survitude, bowing in the direction of Washington, and sending all our hard earned money to the Professional Politician in the way of more taxes.

I will end with this..... The reason the government fears the law abiding citizen with a gun, is not to protect our children. But it is to destroy our individual rights. Guns are easy to take with the proper spin on the media and the fear mongers. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and all freedoms are easily taken when the government has the guns and the citizens do not. The only reason that OUR GOVERNMENT has for disarming its citizens is to PROTECT ITSELF.... period.
 
Friends, We all share the same frustration. OK, lets' continue to stretch the canine metaphor to the limit. We need to find a way to stop paying for the care and feeding of our problems. The dogs assume their masters are who fills the bowl. The people who do this are some of our newspaper customers who read on the fifth grade level in general. And nope I'm not referring to the voting public, but those with wealth or power that care for their "political dogs". What the "owner" has that the dog relishes and defends is territory and purpose. His purpose is to defend that political territory. Nope, it is not rational behavior necessarily (or Constitutional), its just his job(he's just a dumb animal). You can jump off the bike and duke it out with dog and owner (very bad odds), or cut off the food supply to both. Since you pay for the feeding of both by having a job, the possibility exists to put them out of business nonviolently still.
 
So, I should quit my job? :)

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
 
Keep working John. (and paying taxes). Just don't torture any metaphors (like myself) beyond recognition. Thanks for not calling the SPCA on me. Think I'll wander off now with my tail between my legs. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top