Bradley's Gun Statement On MTP

M

Milehi

New member
I just heard it on Meet The Press. Russert gave Bradley and Gore 45 seconds for a closing statement. In Bradley's statement he said " I will propose the toughest gun control legislation.......ever".
I know Bradley and Gore are both anti-gun, but for Bradley to make an anti-gun statement in his 45 seconds really tells me he is passionate about taking my guns.


[This message has been edited by Milehi (edited December 19, 1999).]
 
No real surprise there. At least he's honest about his intentions, and very stupid if he thinks that will win him any votes except with the type with whom he usually associates. I hope he continues this type of candor; it can only hurt him in the end.

If he wants to enact tougher "gun-control legislation," isn't it only fair that we enact tougher politician-control legislation? I know, I know, that's what the Constitution is for, but pols have been using it as toilet paper for over a century, and it's only bound to get worse.
DAL

------------------
Reading "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," by Ayn Rand, should be required of every politician and in every high school.

[This message has been edited by DAL (edited December 19, 1999).]
 
I saw the interveiw and came to a conclusion based on what Bradley said about his stand on gun confiscation.

The most logical thing we should do is to vote for Al Gore. You ask WHY?

1. I think we can conclude that he is the lesser of the two evils. Bradley sounds like he will enact executive powers to disarm us all while the judicial and legislative branches enforce them; all the way from those cops to congressmen who abuse power/authority. I do not believe that Gore will go for total disarmament. He will only give us gun registration, gun owner registration, and outlaw "assult" weapons, while making most law abiding Amerikans get govt permission to carry the means to defend themselves. I think that gun owners will live with this until we can elect a good conservative like Mr. Bush, who is for..............................

2. Gore seems to be the most electable since he is both a democrat and is VP. If even half of the 80 million gun owners in US of A get behind him, we can keep Bradley from winning and doing something evil, like getting permission in order to buy what the elite govt can use against us after looking over the list, checking it twice, gonna find out whos got what at what price....Mr. gunowners going down town....La-la-la-la.

Why throw your vote away on a truly pro-gun candidate like Ambassador Alan Keyes or Pat Buchanan? A vote for them is a vote for Bradley. They just aren't "viable".

We all know that Gore is for gun control, albeit less than Bradley. Until we come up with a better option that is truely progun and will work, I think we should just hold our noses this time, rally around Gore and support him. If he sees where his bread and butter is comming from, (ie. gun owners), he's bound to sit up straight and listen when hes elected.

Robert ;)

------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
 
Oppps it was dripping with so much sarcasm that it driped onto my mouse and he double clicked......

I can always blame it on the MOUSE. Bad gas? Just blame your mouse. "Honey, the mouse did it! Honest......Then it must have been the dog. By the way, would you mind wiping up all that sarcasm that driped onto my keyboard?"

[This message has been edited by EQUALIZER (edited December 20, 1999).]
 
Robert, I admit I leaned into the old monitor a sec, but I can tell that you are stirring the pot a bit. My armchair analysis is that Gore is in trouble from the git go. Bradley wasted him in the MTP version (Russert is such a wimp) of the "Battle of the Ideological Mirrors". All Al wanted in his famous "handshake posturing" was to agree to a 24 hour debate (kind of like CNN) of stuff we agree on, but try to sound otherwise, and the all important, let's do agree to share our advertising resources so neither of us is in debt after the election. Bill: Screw you Al, I'm smarter. I invented the Bird, (while playing footsy under the table).
 
To anyone who doesn't know me well enough to see where I was coming from with my first comments...I was using the same arguement for voting for Gore as some use for voting for Bush; rather than a truely pro RKBA candidate, (ie. Alan Keyes/Pat Buchanan). If we take the logic of voting for a lesser "gun confiscation/denial" candidate over a greater "gun confiscation/denial" candidate, we end up with the same results regardless as to whether Republican or Democrat. Sure, we'll lose the free exercise of our God given liberties at a faster pace with one than the other, but the consequences will eventually be the same as the the rest of the world.

May I suggest that since the tactics that we have been useing thus far for many generations has not worked to regain/restore the exercise of said rights, that we change our tactics as lovers of liberty?.... Rather than voting for the lesser of two deprivers of liberty, because they seem to be the only "viable" candidates, why can't we be united in using a lithmus test for those we vote for. I suggest that the lithmus test be the following:

a) If we, (metephorically speaking), dip the Bill of Rights and it comes out blue, (due to the globalistic "blue blood" candidate that exhaults himself above the rights of those who are voting Americans. He should be rejected as an option for any public office.

b) If we dip the Bill of Rights and it comes out red, representing a candidate that values the American blood that was shed by our American forefathers and all who have died for the defense of the liberty represented by this document....We should unify to vote for this candidate.

I've noticed that on the local level, there are very few red-blooded spokesmen who will go out on a limb to run for office. Why? I think that they hesitate to spend their resorces when those who agree with the principles that they reflect won't even vote for them. If we WILL change our tactics and support purely RKBA candidates, instead of watered down communism, and gun confiscators, we will get true RKBA leaders in public office.

This time around, we have two strong leaders who are true constitutional "red-blooded" RKBA spokesmen: Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan. How often do we get a presidential candidate that represents our views so well, go so far? If they do not receive our votes in the primaries, do not expect to get the same kind of options in the following term. Only expect to get what gun rights and constitutional Americans vote for....Gore, Bradley, Bush, or ________....

"Together we stand. Divided we fall...."

------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)



[This message has been edited by EQUALIZER (edited January 03, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top