Are Conservative Pundits Traitors to the RKBA?

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
I hear that some like Rush or Hannity or Laura violent denounce McCain. So much that Rushbo and Ann would rather see Hillary in.

How many posted that voting for the best 2nd Amend. candidate is paramount. McCain is clearly less a 2nd Amend. risk than Hillary.

So by pushing for her and trying to destroy McCain - aren't these media nitwits traitors to our cause.

It is to their financial interest for a Hillary win to increase ratings with those prone to listen to their ranting and whining as divine.
 
No, they're not traitors. Though by using such disparaging insults towards them, I think it shows you've already made up your mind and are not really asking the questions as a real question.

McCain is almost as much of a liberal as either Clinton or Obama. So no matter which of the 3 get elected, conservatives, and yes 2A supporters, are going to get screwed.

By wanting the Dems to win, it will place the blame fully on their shoulders. It will show Americans who they really are and what they get for electing them. And it just may show GOP leaders what they get for trying to get elected as a liberal. It took a Carter to get a Regean. It may take a Clinton or Obama to get the next real conservative president.


Sidenote: I'm watching the CPAC speech by McCain right now, and he is talking a good conservative talk for the most part. But his voting record is still his voting record.
 
McCain is almost as much of a liberal as either Clinton or Obama. So no matter which of the 3 get elected, conservatives, and yes 2A supporters, are going to get screwed.
Click to expand...

No that is not true.

McCain's only anti-gun positions are that he wanted to close the gun show loophole, and I believe voted for mandatory trigger locks. He has never voted for an Assault Weapon Ban, and in fact voted to repeal it.

I would trust McCain a whole lot more on the gun issue than Romney, who thank God is now out of the race. Romney was somehow portraying himself as pro-gun, despite the fact that he signed the permanent AWB into law in Massachussetts.
 
It is an empirical question of whether you think McCain will proactively push for gun legislation of the extreme extent that Hillary or Obama would.

I don't. It may the case that they won't either given Democratic past experience with such. But do we risk it?

Now ranting that McCain is liberal on other things is irrelevant to whom would better support the RKBA. I thought the RKBA was the only issue rather than whether McCain is too liberal on other crap. So if H and O are greater risks to the RKBA, supporting their victory so you can have a radio tantrum for your ratings level really kind of stinks.

Of course, I made up my mind about those clowns and this issue. I listened to them and made a statement about my position. The use of the question form was a rhetorical conceit.

As an another remark on the glorious history of the GOP and gun bans, remember when Dole as presidential candidate killed the attempt to undo the AWB way back when?

Also, Bush and his cronies (like Alberto) constantly legitimized AWB support as a major GOP position. By saying he would sign it - it gave a legit 'conservative' cover for gun rights 'supporters' like Romney to say he supported it for awhile.
 
Amazing to read

It so amazing to read the pro RKBA post defending McCain for only being anti gun or one or two items. It is like believing a guy in the penitentiary is really a good citizen and has high moral value becasue he was only convicted of one felony murder.

You either have a 100% pro gun position or you do not. If you give McCain room to squirm you have to give the rest the same latitude.
 
I too find it ridiculous and disheartening that the major talk show hosts refuse to hammer on RKBA issues or when they do they put little or no effort into it. They should be the first people to do so because they always claim to be the spokesmen for the silent majority which unfortunately the gun owning crowd is...silent, yet the majority. A constant theme is wanting to overcome the tiny liberal special interests that screw everything up like peta, elf, greenpeace, anti war people, etc...so where are they when we need them on this??? They hate bureacracy and regulation too, right? Supposedly they support individualism too, right? Not caving to Europe and the disarmed leftist/socialist inclined world's opinions? Equality via one's own means rather than someone else? People taking responsibility for themselves? I can't think of a single issue that encapsulates all of that more vividly and clearly than concealed carry.

Yet I don't hear a single ******* word from any of them on that when it should be daily. Anyone can play the Fudd line and every time I hear it I want to throw a brick at its origin. I want to hear them acknowledge concealed carry as THE exercise of the 2nd Amendment. Not when it's convenient for them, out in the country, and completely hypothetical. I'm talking in the middle of everyone in every day life and them included. Not bodyguards, not cop down the street, not taser or pepper spray, etc... I know Glenn Beck is in NYC and that makes it impossible for him to do so--oh wait, THAT SHOULD MAKE HIM THE VERY PERSON TO PUT AN END TO BLOOMBERG'S CRAP. Rush is down in Florida, so that has him with no excuse. (Or is he keeping it a secret?)
 
You either have a 100% pro gun position or you do not. If you give McCain room to squirm you have to give the rest the same latitude.
Click to expand...

You have to be kidding.

Are you saying that if McCain is pro-gun 90% of the time, and Hillary is pro-gun 0% of the time, that they are the same on the gun issue?

Please, explain your logic... I am sure it will be good for at least a laugh.
 
I recall reading ine one of Rush Limbaugh's books where he said he was awarded a black powder rifle, referred to all the bureaucratic harrassment he
encountered trying to bring it into NYC legally.
I listen to Rush very rarely-reception is poor where I work and usually too
busy as well-and I note that his program-and all the others-tries to reach
a national audience, hence they rarely talk about the politics and policies of the various states, though they do hold examples of PCness up to scorn and ridicule.
I think the battle for the RKBA has shifted to the states-it is state legislature who are passing
"shall issue" CCW laws, castle doctrine laws, "stand your ground" laws. Conversely Connecticut passed a law allowing the police to seize firearms on flimsy pretexts, in some states the police can seize firearms in domestic disputes-try getting them back-and in Washington State legislation was recently introduced that would strip people facing committment for "mental" problems of their right
to trial by jury. Last time the federal Government tried to restrict the RKBA was in the notorious
Lautenberg Amendment of 1996 which denied firearms and ammunition possesion of anyone convicted
of domestic violence under state law-even if it was only a misdemeanor. That law resulted in many cases of LEOs being dismissed or reduced to civilian status because they had such convictions on their records, IIRC some of the libs tried to get an LEO exemption passed, they were opposed by some of the stauncher RKBA advocates.
 
While not mainstream, Michael Savage has been talking about the gun issue as one of three or four big differences between McCain and the commies for a couple weeks now. Not his usual screaming either....interesting.
 
One thing you need to take into consideration....

The "sound byte" names that bills get often have little to do with their actual effect, and I do believe that some lawmakers vote on or take stands on some bills based soley on what their name sounds like, or what their advocates claim they would do.

Who could be against "closing the gun show loophole" if all you knew about the "gun show loophole" was that it was how felons got their guns? If that was all it was, I would be in favor of closing it, and so would you.

I am not defending McCain, personally, I'm not too thrilled that he appears to be the next Rep going for Pres, but don't think he is all bad news just because of one or two things, that he may not have known all the details on.

It shouldn't be that way, but sometimes the way it works is that some of our duly elected lawmakers do not read or understand the entire bills they vote on. Sometimes some of them rely on summaries prepared by their staffs (or even other lawmakers staffs), and base their votes on these other people opinions.

There are bills submitted every day that are hundreds (sometimes thousands) of pages long, and lawmakers only have a relatively small amount of time to read them before they vote. In many cases it is not humanly possible for the lawmaker to actually read and comprehend every part of what he is voting on in the time allowed. It shouldn't be that way, but sometimes, it is.
 
Ann Coulter, this morning, was ranting on Today how she will vote for Hill.

1. By saying that, she gets face time and increases her sales
2. She like Hill because if she gets in, that will let the Republicans win later.
2. Hill hasn't come out against water boarding.

So no mention of the RKBA. I heard Savage also tell someone who said the vote for Hill stupidity that he was a moron because of the gun issue.

This is clear, the big name 'pundits' have no real use for the gun issue. They played it to hoodwink the social conservative gun group but they don't really care. When push comes to shove, they want a 'businessman' to increase their stock portfolio. McCain wasn't controllable on that dimension.
 
The conservative talk show folks don't address the gun issue often. Rush, Hannity, Boortz, and Savage all support 2A rights. None are traitors to the gun cause, but they are not single issue people or voters. I usually don't listen to other ones and listen to Neal Boortz the most. The topic is not paramount in their list of priorities. The gun issue is only addressed when it is current news for the most part as they talk about the news and not topics for the most part.

Of these hosts, Neal Boortz probably is the biggest supporter. He began talking about this topic after Katrina. I suggest you all listen to Boortz via the internet and his web site. He talks about sensible things in government and he is primarily Libertarian in his politics. But he does not support Ron Paul. Listen to find out why.

Someone labeled McCain as a liberal. He is not a liberal but he may be characterized as a Moderate or slightly Liberal Moderate. He would probably characterize himself as a unifier which is likely what is needed in the Executive Branch these days.
 
Rush is down in Florida, so that has him with no excuse. (Or is he keeping it a secret?)
Click to expand...

Rush is keeping no secrets. It is a violation of federal law for a person who is a drug abuser to own firearms. Says so right on the form 4473 when you fill it out.

And as for Ann Coulter, I suspect that she is jumping on the "Women for Hillary" bandwagon and excusing herself by claiming that there is no genuinely conservative Republican candidate so why not vote Hillary? :barf:
 
I believe anyone who says, "Vote for Hillary" so the Rebublicans can win next time is extremely closed minded.

With Hillary we may get another AWB without a sunset provision.
Will probably see the miitary emasculated again.
Will likely see a very liberal position to SCOTUS that will affect the law of the land long after whoever is elected is dead and buried.

Vote for Hillary so the Repubs can win next time? Yeah, right.

Denny
 
Denny Hansen said:
I believe anyone who says, "Vote for Hillary" so the Rebublicans can win next time is extremely closed minded.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to vote for Hillary, but it's not as bad of an idea as you might think.

I say this for two reasons. One, I was in finance. Two, I'm retired.

Now that might sound odd, but it figures into the two biggest problems facing the USA. That being Iraq and the economy.

Here's the dirty little secret, no President of any stripe is going to be able to fix both issues in four years--or possibly eight.

First, unless you decide to tuck your tail, we're staying in Iraq. That means more war, and wars cost money. The economy is already flagging, probably closer to depression than recession. Taking more money out of the system for taxes to finance the war is a losing idea.

So on Iraq, the next President will be a coward or the guy that drives up into a full blown depression. Not a great career move either way.

Now, what's this business about me being retired? Well, it gives me a certain insulation from daily events. Follow me.

Number one, no need to go to Canada, I'm too old to be drafted.

Taxes? I pay less now than ever before so the war is a moot point. They could double our efforts in Iraq and shoot Tiffany silver bullets and I doubt my tax load will do anything. However, I vote and I am more than likely to vote for any plan that saves an American boy.

The economy? Again, I'm insulated. I get a SS check every month and I have a nice little side business. I have quite a nice berth for making additional cash before it's deducted (and I've never hit it). Even if I was close I'd just take some days off and ride my bike. Why take a tax hit for a few bucks?

And finally, I am not alone--there are 78 million other 'boomers just like me.

From the chatter I get at the gym, most of us 'boomers are doing the same thing. Teachers are retiring and subbing a few days per week for spending money. Retired lawyers who like to garden are opening up little landscaping businesses. My wife is slowly starting a Pampered Chef business so it's ready to go full tilt in 18 months when she's fully retired.

Fewer working hours, more sleep, increased time for hobbies and two checks.

Heck, Hillary can start having an affair with Monica Lewinsky for all I care. Why do you think I call myself "The Tourist"? Why, I'm just passing through here, son.

So, the next Prez is going to fail--big time. Unpopular war, indifferent voter base, lousy economy and tax payers exiting their wage earning roles by the millions.

It will be like a train wreck--tragic, but you can't turn your head.

Hillary, Obama, McCain? Who cares. Just a caretaker for the worst stretch of Presidency since Lyndon Johnson. And for the exact same reasons.
 
These hosts are traitors to the 2nd amendment because they rarely if ever talk about it and gun ownership. They purposefully avoid it, probably because it's "too male," and they want to market to the females in their audiences.
Click to expand...
Wow, you seem to have a real problem with women and the feeling that people these days are too "feminized." It seems to be a theme in your posts. :confused:
 
I referred to boys specifically, and it's not a "feeling" it's a fact, and it's nearly universally accepted on this board as being the truth. Sorry if unpleasant truths bother you.
Click to expand...
Wow, impose your own weird opinion as public truth much?

Just what is it you feel is so "feminine" about modern men and what about it has you so frightened? :confused:
 
Since I never said I was "frightened" of anything, we have more evidence of your desire to twist the daylights out of what people say. Thus you are a waste of time. Good night.
Click to expand...
Wow, that frightened huh. They were your words dude. In two seperate threads you complained about modern males being too "feminine" and blamed the ills of the world on it. You also blamed the lack of RKBA support by conservatives on "trying to market to women" and say gun issues are "too male." Sorry to call you on your own words and ask you to explain your issue. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top