Gun rights and Democratic rule cannot coexsist

[Handy]

Carbiner,

I mentioned Rush to humorously remind Steelheart that there is difference between a "fact" and an opinion. "News" only begins to resemble fact when a verifiable source is available to demonstrate the assertion, or it is corroborated by the parties involved.

Steelheart does not likely have the counsel of the Democratic Party's leadership, and as they don't much advertise themselves as "Autocrats", I'd like to know how he came by what he is calling this "fact".


All big media news sources suck, but that's hardly my point. Dan Rather's foolishness doesn't elevate the hucksters at Fox to new heights of professionalism. But that's really not the topic here. Rich made it clear what kind of posts he wants to see on the L&P forum, and a string of jingoist opinions being marketed as "truth" probably doesn't meet that standard.

 

[model 25]

The actions of the Democrats speak for themselves. How can you look at what they have done in the past and not reach the same conclusion that they are socialist now? Of course they didn't use to be and alot of conservatives used to be democrats. Where did they all go?

25

 

[steelheart]

Actions speak louder than words

I would like you to post a factual source for at least the above statement via statements or documents from policy making Democrat officials. No, what Rush said on AM radio today is not a source.

I said the people who hold the power in the Democrat party are socialists - I didn't say they were fools. Of course, they are not going to produce and circulate about documents advocating socialist rule by name.

Actions speak louder than words. Look at the actions of leading national level Democrat/socialists:

Hillary Clinton - every facet of health care controlled by the government - which would be controlled by her, if she has her way. That along with child care, how and where your children are schooled as well as how they will be parented and raised. Obsessed with being elected to the highest office in the nation, she has stooped to attempting to legitimize and harness the votes of illegal aleins - a blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional act of desperation.

Dianne Feinstein -

"If I could have gotten 51 votes for it in the Senate, 'Mr. and Mrs. America, TURN THEM ALL IN,' I would have done it."

It is obvious that Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and many others in the Democrat party want a government monopoly on arms, giving the government - which they would control, given their way, the final say in everything, even whether or not elections would be held.

The fact remains that a disarmed people are a powerless people. Chairman Mao recognized that the possession of arms is the possession of political power when he said, "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun."
This is a fact not lost on the Democrats who would disarm We The People.
A disarmed people have no other option than to submit, conform, obey. They have no protection against the suspension of elections or of onerously high and arbitrary taxes.

While all indicators - the words, acts and voting records - of the national level politicians in the Democratic party all point to their loyalty to the tenets of socialism, they adamantly refuse to be called by their proper name - socialists. Just as you demand "written proof" of their socialist political adherence, they attempt to cover their tracks by generating no such evidence.

Therefore, we have to look elsewhere - such as their voting record in office, their actions and their words. The proof of their devotion to socialism can be found in these criteria - in spades.

Oh, and by the way - I have listened to Rush exactly once for a period of fifteen minutes in 1994. It was while drinking a beer with a friend in a small pub. Thanks to the entertainment, we drank our beers and left.

People in general see the dem/socialist party is hungry for their money and guns.

EXACTLY.

In case you have not yet figured it out, no one in the media tells me what to think - unlike the majority of The American Sheeple.

 

[MeekAndMild]

Steelheart what you say isn't entirely true about Southern Democrats. In the deep south there remains a tradition of conservatism in a lot of areas and a mistrust of socialism. Democrat conservatism seems persistant most of the rural areas I've visited. I will admit that urban centers and other areas where labor union control is stronger do seem more like your stereotype however. (Don't get me started about labor union kneebreakers! )

Unfortunately, in my experiance, Southern Democrats don't seem to support RKBA for 'people of color' and people who are not of the 'right' family and class. This is not a product of any socialism, but of the racist roots of gun control which have been well documented on the internet. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

I've got to admit that I like the yankee style Southern Republican conservativism much better, with its acceptance of equal RKBA for all.

 

[Handy]

And that somehow proves this statement:

the Democrat party wants absolute power with no accountability to We The People.

Look, both parties are "socialist" in the strict sense. Retirees vote Republican because they feel it will best protect their social security and Medicaid. Neither party has even suggested or attempted a true distribution of wealth, or a tax system that even approaches that of socialized Europe.


Compared to the rest of the world, Democrats or Republicans are more alike than different. I'm certainly not suggesting one is as good as another, or your vote isn't important, but I am saying that this kind of scare tactic (which is utterly lost on a gun board, anyway) involves taking the scantest differences and making them into huge divides.


The Democrats may get complete control of Congress in the next few terms, and some laws we don't like will get passed. But let's stop pretending that it is going to be just like living under Mousilini. It is frankly juvenille and brings the quality of the argument down to a third grade level. Especially when we let statements about a total end to democracy go sailing past like they represent strict fact and not exaggerated opinion.



I always love to see Feinstein, Kennedy, Schummer, etc. name in lights. If someone wants to summerize the evil of the Dems, they somehow can't name more than a handful of people representing the liberalest states. But there are well over 100 democrats in Congress, and none of them are wearing mind control helmets wired to the Clinton residence. It would be easier to take this kind of thing seriously if you could happen to find new bogeymen sometimes. If those characters who have been in congress for so long are actually in control, why aren't they viable presidential candidates?

 

[Wildcard]

If those characters who have been in congress for so long are actually in control, why aren't they viable presidential candidates?

Why would they want to be President when they can sit in congress for 50 years.

 

[steelheart]

The words from their own mouths

there are well over 100 democrats in Congress, and none of them are wearing mind control helmets wired to the Clinton residence.

Look at their voting records when it comes to our gun rights. I don't have the numbers here in front of me, but I'll wager those 100+ Democrats vote against our Second Amendment rights 90% or more of the time.

It is frankly juvenille and brings the quality of the argument down to a third grade level.

Resorting to denegration. Both asinine and unproductive.

The Democrats may get complete control of Congress in the next few terms, and some laws we don't like will get passed.

Apparently you do not have a problem with that, as long as the Democrats are in control. I do, as do tens of millions of other gun owners in this nation.

But let's stop pretending that it is going to be just like living under Mousilini.

If you think that a national gun registry - which is but one of the things the antigun bigots who are at the top of the heap in the Democrat party want - is not a problem, you are extremely mistaken.

History has proven that the only purpose of gun registration is to effect a future confiscation. This is history and it cannot be denied.

Ask any Jewish man or woman who survived the holocaust about the puropse of gun registration. And ask them if it was not "just like living under Mousilini" - or worse.

We are dealing with people whose philosophy on the citizen's right to arms is, "Turn them all in." This is straight from the mouth of one of the most powerful Democrats in the nation. This is fact and it cannot be denied.

We are dealing with people who have said:
1: "Turn them all in."
2: "Is it proper to shoot Republicans?"

These are the words from their (Democrat's) own mouths. Excuse me if that makes me a little bit jumpy.

 

[model 25]

Can anyone name a democrat of power that isn't for gun controls (confiscation)?

25

 

[Fal 4 Me]

And President Bush has said,

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in......to kind of catapult the propaganda."


and also

"There ought to be limits to freedom"

and

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..."

So Bush, by his own admission, spreads propaganda, wants to limit freedom and be a dictator. I realize Bush as probably joking about the dictator, but I don't think a president should joke in that manner. Similarly, when he joked to a room of millionaires that they were Bush's base, that is inappropriate for a president. To me it says he just doesn't care about anyone without any money, or who disagrees with him.

So steelheart, what you are saying about democrats, can be said about republicans as well, and even the presidents own words back up the assertions. Of course that doesn't mean Bush is going to become a dictator (at least I pray he won't), but the arguement could still be made. In fact, I think simply uttering the phrase "There ought to be limits to freedom" should've scared most Americans and caused people to shy away from him. If we as the citizens of the country don't pay attention and demand more accountability from government officials in all branches and levels, either party could lead us to the nightmare you think only the dems will bring.

 

[pipoman]

We will protect American Second Amendment right to own firearms and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.

2004 Democrat Platform

I think it is interesting that they chose this verbiage, "Second Amendment right to own firearms", instead of "right to keep and bear arms".

Big difference. It is legal in many gun free societies around the world to "own firearms" as long as you pay $$$ for the permits and keep them in the state owned armory.

 

[pipoman]

Republicans and President Bush strongly support an individual right to own guns,
which is explicitly protected by the Constitution’s Second Amendment. Our Party honors
the great American tradition of hunting and we applaud efforts by the Bush
Administration to make more public lands available to hunters, to increase access to
hunting clinics and safety programs for children and adults, and to improve opportunities
for hunting for Americans with disabilities.
We believe the Second Amendment and all of the rights guaranteed by it should
enable law-abiding citizens throughout the country to own firearms in their homes for
self-defense. To protect the rights and safety of law-abiding citizens, the Congress passed
and President Bush signed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which allows active
and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed guns in public while off-duty. We
support efforts by the Administration and Congress to enhance the instant background
check system for gun purchases and to ensure that records of lawful transactions are
destroyed in a timely manner. We applaud Congressional Republicans for seeking to stop
frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, which is a transparent attempt to deprive citizens of their Second Amendment rights. We oppose federal licensing of lawabiding
gun owners and national gun registration as a violation of the Second
Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens.
We agree that the best way to deter crime is to enforce existing laws and hand down tough penalties against anyone who commits a crime with a gun. This approach is working. Since Project Safe Neighborhoods was instituted in 2001, hundreds of new federal, state, and local prosecutors have been hired to target criminals who use guns. Prosecutions are up 68 percent, and the violent crime victimization rate is down 21 percent. The Republican Party and President Bush support a federal Constitutional amendment for victims of violent crime that would provide specific rights for victims protected under the U.S. Constitution. We support courts having the option to impose the death penalty in capital murder cases. We praise President Bush and Republicans in Congress for the measures they have taken to protect pregnant women from violent crime by passing Laci and Conner’s law, which recognizes the common-sense proposition that when a crime of violence against a pregnant woman kills or injures her unborn child, there are two victims and two offenses that should be punished.

2004 Repulican Platform

 

[steelheart]

If we as the citizens of the country don't pay attention and demand more accountability from government officials in all branches and levels, either party could lead us to the nightmare you think only the dems will bring.

True. Any political party, given unlimited power and no accountability to We The People, can become dictatorial in nature. It is for this reason - and others - that The Founders of our nation codified and guaranteed out right to arms in the Bill of Rights.

We have to view all politicians, their actions and motives with suspicion. The Democrat party and the socialist powermongers at the top of the Democratic party have made it plain that they are ready, willing and able to destroy our right to arms - much more so than their opposition, the Republican party.

During the Bush presidency, we have seen five enormous blows stricken in the battle for our right to arms -

1: Attorney General Ashcroft declares in writing that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual citizen the right to arms - this is now the official policy of the U.S. government.

2: The abomination known as the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban expired, restoring a large chunk of our 2A rights.

3: Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice declares to the world that the 2A a vital right of all American citizens (or words to that effect - I don't have the quote in front of me).

4: 32 of 50 states now issue CCW licenses to lawful citizens.

5: John Boulton was appointed U.S. ambassador to the UN. Bolton plays hardball, and will not tolerate the UN's global gun banning schemes, or their desire to strip the American people of our 2A rights.

Compare those events to the black days of GWB's predecessor, "I did not inhale/I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton.

Clearly, our right to arms has fared much better under a Republican President with a Republican controlled House and Senate. We are light years ahead of where we were under the Clinton regieme - that cannot be denied.

 

[Wildcard]

Clearly, our right to arms has fared much better under a Republican President with a Republican controlled House and Senate. We are light years ahead of where we were under the Clinton regieme - that cannot be denied.

Right on. We are not where we need to be with regards to the 2A, but we are better off now than we were under Clinton.

 

[Fal 4 Me]

Clearly, our right to arms has fared much better under a Republican President with a Republican controlled House and Senate. We are light years ahead of where we were under the Clinton regieme - that cannot be denied.

You are right, and I wouldn't deny that our gun rights are much safer now. Now if only they could extend that to knives, another form of bearing arms. I think in my state anything over a 3 inch blade is a concealed weapon. Next step should be getting rid of that damn 922r and the parts count rule.

You know it's kinda funny. I have some liberal/democratic friends and I tell them all the time if the democrats would simply drop their gun control position they would get a lot more votes. They all look at me like I'm crazy when I say this, but many posts on this forum and others reaffirms this is my mind.

 

[Wildcard]

I have some liberal/democratic friends and I tell them all the time if the democrats would simply drop their gun control position they would get a lot more votes.

Nope, just dropping the anti 2A diatribe will not do it. Pro gun legislation would.

 

[steelheart]

I have some liberal/democratic friends and I tell them all the time if the democrats would simply drop their gun control position they would get a lot more votes. They all look at me like I'm crazy when I say this

That's because -

The actions of the Democrats speak for themselves. How can you look at what they have done in the past and not reach the same conclusion that they are socialist now?

My point all along.

Nope, just dropping the anti 2A diatribe will not do it. Pro gun legislation would.

+1, Wildcard - but don't hold your breath; IMO, it will never happen. That would be like asking the Wicked Witch of the West to drink water ("I'M MEEEEEEEEEL-TIIIIING!!")

 

[Oldphart]

About two years ago, back when we were debating which candidate would do the best job defending gun rights, there was a constant undercurrent which went something like this: "A vote for Kerry:barf: is a vote for gun control, a vote for Bush is a vote for gun rights and a vote for (whoever the Libertairian candidate was) is as good as a vote for Kerry:barf: ."
During all this a few pointed out that the candidates of both major parties would eventually lead us down the primrose path to Socialism but Bush might make the trip a bit longer.
So where are we now? Sure, forty some-odd states have CCW but all of those who availed themselves of those laws are thoroughly registered as gun owners. McCain-Feingold has all but ensured the re-election of incumbent politicians. Invigorated by the resounding successes of the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, this administration that WE elected has embarked on a War on Terror. (Never mind that we now have even more poverty, more drugs and can expect more terror.) Whenever El Predidente chooses to speak to us from a site other than the media room at the White House, any who might want to demonstrate an opposing viewpoint are shuttled off to some out-of-the-way location where network cameras can't see them. Several people have commented on how quickly the Patriot Act was passed into law. A few have wondered how the thousands of pages which comprise the act could have been written so quickly after 9/11.
Well folks, especially those who touted Bush so strenuously over Kerry:barf: , you've been had! Sure, Kerry:barf: isn't in the White House but 'Kerry-lite':barf: is. Now all those votes we didn't want to "waste" on a Libertarian candidate are really making a difference, aren't they?
The point I'm trying to make without going too far afield is that the Republicrats are no better or worse than the Democans when it comes to gun rights. Both parties want power and both parties, whether or not they will admit it, realize power comes from the barrel of a gun. Anybody remember who made that statement? It wasn't Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson either, it was that stalwart defender of personal liberty Mao Tse Tung! To show just how much he believed it, he forced the people of his country to give up their power (their guns) to the government!
Both major political parties are basically Socialistic. Regardless of which one has a poster-boy in the White House, the main thrust of all legislation is to ensure the survival of The Party. Either party, given the opportunity, will send their modern Redcoats through the countryside to collect our guns if such an act will preserve the status quo long enough for them to get away.
So any discussion about whether or not the Democratic Party is Socialist is pointless since the Republicans are no better.

 

[Handy]

Steelheart,

Those weren't the statements I asked you to back up. You said that the Dems want to end representative government with autocracy, and I asked you how you know that. You instead changed the question.

There is no argument that many Democrats (but not all) favor some gun control. But there can be no argument that some Republicans (like George Bush) ALSO favor some gun control. They differ only in degree.


I would also like to know how it is you think that I am "okay" with Democratic control of congress. The fact that you can get that out of what I wrote speaks to the rest of your conclusions and opinions presented as facts.


Your alarmist post is nothing more than a string of hot topic words thrown together without logic or reason. "Gun control! Socialist! Power hungry! Autocrat! Holy Grail!" Hey, if you're here to fill us in on which party is more against gun rights, you're a couple years late: I think we've got that topic covered. The rest of the gobbledeegook is rabble rousing that you refuse to back up with any source.

 

[pipoman]

Handy's Sig..

feminist chicks dig me.

LMAO...I didn't know you were female Handy.

 

[kennybs plbg]

Wisconsin CCW voting last month, its hard to argue with facts:

A YES - 64, N NAYS - 34, *every republican voted yes, all but 3 democrats voted no.

A N NV NAME
Y AINSWORTH R
Y ALBERS R
Y BALLWEG R
N BENEDICT D
N BERCEAU D
Y BIES R
N BLACK D
N BOYLE D
N COLON D
N CULLEN D
Y DAVIS R
N FIELDS D
Y FITZGERALD R
Y FREESE R
Y FRISKE R
Y GIELOW R
Y GOTTLIEB R
N GRIGSBY D
Y GRONEMUS D
Y GUNDERSON R
Y GUNDRUM R
Y HAHN R
N HEBL D
Y HINES R
Y HONADEL R
Y HUBLER D
Y HUEBSCH R
Y HUNDERTMARK R
Y JENSEN R
Y JESKEWITZ R
Y KAUFERT R
Y KERKMAN R
N KESSLER D
A N NV NAME
Y KESTELL R
Y KLEEFISCH R
Y KRAWCZYK R
Y KREIBICH R
N KREUSER D
N KRUSICK D
Y LAMB R
Y LASEE R
N LEHMAN D
Y LEMAHIEU R
Y LOEFFELHOLZ R
Y LOTHIAN R
Y MCCORMICK R
Y MEYER R
N MOLEPSKE D
Y MONTGOMERY R
Y MOULTON R
Y MURSAU R
Y MUSSER R
Y NASS R
N NELSON D
Y NERISON R
Y NEWCOMER R
Y NISCHKE R
Y OTT R
Y OWENS R
x PARISI D
Y PETROWSKI R
Y PETTIS R
N POCAN D
N POPE-ROBERTS D
Y PRIDEMORE R
Y RHOADES R
A N NV NAME
N RICHARDS D
Y SCHNEIDER D
N SEIDEL D
N SHERIDAN D
N SHERMAN D
N SHILLING D
N SINICKI D
N STASKUNAS D
N STEINBRINK D
Y STONE R
Y STRACHOTA R
Y SUDER R
N TOLES D
Y TOWNS R
Y TOWNSEND R
N TRAVIS D
N TURNER D
Y UNDERHEIM R
N VAN AKKEREN D
Y VAN ROY R
Y VOS R
Y VRUWINK D
Y VUKMIR R
Y WARD R
N WASSERMAN D
Y WIECKERT R
N WILLIAMS, A. D
Y WILLIAMS, M. R
Y WOOD R
N YOUNG D
N ZEPNICK D
N ZIEGELBAUER D
Y SPEAKER R

kenny b