Gun rights and Democratic rule cannot coexsist

[wayneinFL]

"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."

We had Bob Graham and Bill Nelson. Not representing a liberal state either, both democrats.Graham is gone,and we have a Republican in place. So when I look at the map with the voting records on GOA's site, we're gray now instead of red.

If you named all the liberal democrats who don't support gun rights in every post, you'd have a whole lot of really long posts.

BTW, Bill Nelson is in favor of gun rights. He tells me so every time he replies to me with that stupid form letter. Of course, by supporting rights he means we should allow only hunting rifles and shotguns, with a waiting period and careful background check. 'Cause he's a hunter like John Kerry.

 

[Shakazulu]

The day they try and confiscate guns, take our rights away to defend ourselves, turn us from citizens to subjects. Thats the day the revolution begins.

 

[steelheart]

You said that the Dems want to end representative government with autocracy, and I asked you how you know that.

It's really not that hard to grasp. When the people are stripped of their arms - which is the ultimate goal of the socialist power brokers who run the Democratic party, according to their own words - and only the police have arms, what you have is a police state.

That is the classic definition of a police state: The people have no arms, the police are armed to the teeth and enforce submission to the will of those in positions of political power.

 

[Eghad]

Fleischer (May 8, 2003): Well, the President thought, and said so at the time in 2000, that the assault weapon ban was a reasonable step. The assault weapon ban was crafted with the thought that it would deter crime. There are still studies underway of its crime deterring abilities, but the President thought that was reasonable, and that's why he supported it. And that's why he supports the reauthorization of the current ban. .

LOL......

his flexibile spine caved........

politicians bend with the winds...

Now if this had been one of the hot issues for 2004 election and his reelection required that he support the ban he would have whipped congress into a frenzy to pass it.

 

[Redworm]

It's really not that hard to grasp. When the people are stripped of their arms - which is the ultimate goal of the socialist power brokers who run the Democratic party, according to their own words - and only the police have arms, what you have is a police state.

That is the classic definition of a police state: The prople have no guns, the police are armed to the teeth and enforce submission to the will of those in positions of political power.

But that is not mutually exclusive to a representative democracy. You can have a police state and still allow people to vote. This in no way provides credence to your claim that the Democrats want some kind of autocracy...at least no more than the other party.

 

[steelheart]

Bottom line: We have no assault weapon ban. GWB's actions speak louder than Fleischer's words.

You can have a police state and still allow people to vote.

Jesus, that's the most asinine statement so far!! In a police state, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE PEOPLE CAN VOTE!! In a police state, voting is nothing more than window dressing.

The Soviet Union was a police state and people voted - did they ever get the chance to vote themselves into office? NO. Only the elite of the Communist party were ever voted into office.

Did the citizens of the Soviet Union ever get to vote to open their borders so they could come and go as they please? NO.

Did the citizens of the Soviet Union ever get vote to allow themselves to possess firearms? NO.

Did the citizens of the Soviet Union ever get to vote to disband the secret police, close down the gulags and release the political prisoners? NO. NO. And NO.

Communist China - a currently operating police state - same questions: The answers would be NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, and NO.

IN A POLICE STATE, THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE MEANS NOTHING.

 

[Shakazulu]

Your right Redworm, I doubt you would have a police state. No, how about a criminal state like in England? Criminal gangs with weapons and citizens with nothing to defend themselves. We all know cops are nothing but after the fact.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Unfortunatey, except for some mild support for the RKBA, social conservatives are just as controlling of own's personal freedoms as any.

They will violate other aspects of the BOR with glee under the rubric of law and order. They have an inordinate interest in consenting adults' sex life and no respect for the separation of church and state. Oh, wait, that isn't what the BOR meant so lets put our religion in all the schools!

Get real, both parties are removed from the mass of Americans. They serve crackpots of the left and right who give them contributions and then both serve big business.

Get a right wing tyranny but you get to own a gun. Get a left wing tryanny but you don't have a gun but you can the right to choose.

Neither party is worth crap. If you just focus on one issue like guns or choice, goody for you.

 

[Eghad]

Mitt Romney (Republican) the Mass Gov

Wonder if he is going to make a run for President in 08 ?

"The candidate reiterated his support for an assault weapons ban contained in Congress' crime bill, and the Brady law which imposes a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases. `I don't think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect,' Romney said."

another Republican who supports your 2nd Amendment gun rights

 

[steelheart]

Ask yourself this question

When politicians advocate disarming We The People, ask yourself this question:
What do they have planned for us after we are disarmed and unable to resist?

My guess is this: Whatever it is, we won't like it, regardless of who we vote for.

Do you really want to go to that place? I don't.

 

[model 25]

Even though I am conservative I am not going to vote Republican, I am going to stay home during the election. First I know the elections are not real as our votes mean nothing. Elections are rigged like in Washington state where the govenors race was settled even though they had votes from people that didn't exist.

Oregon has computor voting and the ability for fraud is obvious. I travel and talk to people all the time and the way the votes end up isn't the way people say they voted. When a bill they want is going down in defeat they all of a sudden find 100,000 votes to pass it. I have never met a person who voted for seatbelts in our state yet the law passed. Corruption in this country is bigger than anyone realizes.

Republican power is getting out of hand and they need to be slaped around a bit. They export our jobs just because they can't find an illegal to fill them here. Their not stopping the illegals from comming here is costing the country billions and if a study is done you will find illegals have killed more Americans than 911. 30% of our federal prisoners are illegals.

It doesn't matter if you can own a gun if they sell out your country and that is happening every day.

25

 

[Eghad]

"Bottom line: We have no assault weapon ban. GWB's actions speak louder than Fleischer's words."

Ari Fliescher was Dubyah's Press Secretary at the White House

what actions? He did nothing other than to say that if Congress passed an extension he would sign it. He didnt even have the cajones to say he would oppose a ban if Congress passed it.

 

[steelheart]

As I said earlier -

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.

 

[Eghad]

I would submit that the people and organizations like the NRA, RKBA, GAO and other 2A organizations have more to do with what 2A rights we have in this country than politicians. As long as that stands strong our 2A rights will stay strong. Politicians like cattle can be driven in any direction. The minute "We the People" lose interest in the 2nd Amendment you can bet the politicians will also.

 

[Oldphart]

"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. "

I'm not entirely sure you're looking at the situation in the right light. Perhaps a better statement would be: 'We're not as far down the primrose path as we could be.'
Make no mistake: Neither party cares a whit about our rights, especially our gun rights. They will both pander to gun owners if it suits them and then sell them down the river when the election is over. They do the same with gays, muslims, blacks, even Christians on occasion. Nearly every law passed benefits either government or big business and the only time they really take notice of us is when we threaten the status quo by giving money to someone who might push them out of power.
Even if a group were to undertake to forcibly change the government, they would find themselves branded 'terrorists' or 'child molestors' or 'white supremacists' or any of a dozen other nasty names. They would have no support from anyone. Don't believe me? How many members of this or any other board grabbed their rifles and rushed to outflank the FBI at Waco?

Discussions like this are really pretty fruitless. We all know Big Brother is watching what we write here and hope he somehow takes notice of our anger without paying us a visit in person. I have an idea that he really laughs his butt off at our maunderings. I hope he falls off his chair.

 

[Handy]

So most western countries and Japan are therefore autocracies, and have no representative government? I'm surprised we haven't declared war on them.


GWB has DONE nothing for gun rights. He has an executive order or two that he can abolish in 10 minutes if he wanted to DO something. Still waiting...

 

[Redworm]

IN A POLICE STATE, THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE MEANS NOTHING.

While that may hold true in the example you brought up, the simple fact is that a police state, by definition, does not preclude democratic rule nor does it automatically require an autocracy. It often leads to it but the two situation are not mutually inclusive. Also, the disarmament of the people does not inherently lead to a police state.

Japan is a perfect example. Its' people are virtually disarmed and is considered by US standards to be a police state. Yet they still have a fully elected representative government.

You can complain all you want about the Democrats wanting to take guns away but you're making an unfounded, unproven, and illogical jump to simply assume that the Democratic Party wants an authoritarian regime in place of our current government.

Your right Redworm, I doubt you would have a police state. No, how about a criminal state like in England? Criminal gangs with weapons and citizens with nothing to defend themselves. We all know cops are nothing but after the fact.

Oh please. The UK is not a criminal state by any standards, especially not compared to the US. Their gun control works better for them because it's part of their culture, just like Japan. Sure I believe they'd be a safer society with less gun control but implying that it's a chaotic mess of a country with criminals preying on the weak in a vastly disproportionate level to the US is ridiculous.

 

[steelheart]

While that may hold true in the example you brought up, the simple fact is that a police state, by definition, does not preclude democratic rule nor does it automatically require an autocracy. It often leads to it but the two situation are not mutually inclusive. Also, the disarmament of the people does not inherently lead to a police state.

Intellectual masturbation of the most fruitless kind.

You can complain all you want about the Democrats wanting to take guns away but you're making an unfounded, unproven, and illogical jump to simply assume that the Democratic Party wants an authoritarian regime in place of our current government.

Then please explain the leftist/Democratic/socialist obsession with disarming We The People. Why are they so fixated with this goal? What do they want to do after we are disarmed and powerless to resist? Why do they not trust the people with the rights they are guaranteed?

When you have a disarmed populace with a government whose agents of enforcement are armed to the teeth - you have a police state, whether you want to call it by its proper name or not.

 

[Redworm]

Intellectual masturbation of the most fruitless kind.

But I'm still right.

Then please explain the leftist/Democratic/socialist obsession with disarming We The People. Why are they so fixated with this goal? What do they want to do after we are disarmed and powerless to resist? Why do they not trust the people with the rights they are guaranteed?

When you have a disarmed populace with a government whose agents of enforcement are armed to the teeth - you have a police state, whether you want to call it by its proper name or not.

I don't need to explain it. It seems they believe that's what will make the nation safer. They may be wrong but that doesn't mean they're evil. The same way that the right/republican/conservative obsession with "faith-based" initiatives are equally as dangerous to freedom and safety as the gun grabbers yet they still push it. But I'm not claiming that they'r trying to start a theocracy, merely that they feel it's what is in the best interest of the nation. Again, them being wrong does not mean that they're evil or trying to take over the world.

Like I said before, Japan is considered a police state. Yet despite this they still have an elected, democratic government. They also have extremely low crime rates. It goes with their culture to live in a police state; doesn't work for us but they fracking love it. That doesn't make it "wrong".

 

[Eghad]

I think that the deciding factor in calling something a police state would be the law. If the law is weighed more in favor of the state than the individual. That the reason for laws is protection of the state vs. protection of the people/individual. The state knows best how to take care of the people, i.e. people do not need to have individual rights.

In our current system of law things are balanced between the rights of the individual and the protection of society as a whole. The recent events of terrorism have slid the argument in this administration from the individual rights end of the spectrum towards the protection of society as a whole end.

I would say that if you are worried about a police state that this administration has taken more of a step in that direction, look at the Patriot Act, wiretapping, ability to hold some people in jail and suspend thier right to a trail. While Democrats seem to have been on the opposite side of the fence, some from a moral view and some to make political hay.

To say that the Democratic Party is more capable of making a police state when you look at this defies logic. I would say that any political party is capable of moving towards a police state when events let them pass laws that preempt individual rights and some people allow it because they want to be protected.

The best advice I got was a sitting member of Congress. He told me I shouldn't trust politicians.