Gun rights and Democratic rule cannot coexsist

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich, who is rich? Not me! Maybe compared to the guys in the Third World but oil executives and Cheney are rich! Not moi.

Nuclear mass transit - is that the Atomic Train, like that crappy movie?
 
Glenn, do you own a house, cars, TVs, nonessential hobby items (like guns), stereo, CDs, DVDs, furniture, computers and books? Do you pay for nonessential services like cable and internet? Take any vacations? Got savings or a pension coming?


Congratulations! By the standards of 95% of the people on earth, you are stinking rich.



And no, I was speaking of nuclear and coal electrical power which could only be easily utilized by mass transit. Batteries weren't good enough 70 years ago to have fostered any sort of car industry without imported oil, so we still wouldn't have much of a road system today when electric cars might become practical.


America stopped being on our own about the time farming stopped being the primary industry of the land. You don't become a superpower by staying at home, and once the door is open it can't be shut. The world market, like the United Nations and World Trade Organization, exists because we helped make it for OUR benefit.

We aren't the victims of globalization - we're its biggest proponent. Frightened Arabs don't want to blow us up because we eat at McDonalds. They just want to stop us from building a McDonalds in Mecca.
 
Frightened Arabs don't want to blow us up because we eat at McDonalds. They just want to stop us from building a McDonalds in Mecca.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

They want to kill us simply because we do not submit to the rule of Islam - it says so in their "holy" book/terrorist guide.

Jeeez, this is a long way from my original post: "Democratic rule and the right to arms cannot coexsist..."
 
Steelheart, you've wrote so many gems in that first post, most of which you haven't explained yet, why not a little sideline?


Arabs wouldn't even know about whether you submit to Allah or not if the evidence of that fact wasn't being pumped into their countries' by every store, restaurant and media outlet. The inhabitants of Polynesia sure don't submit to Allah either, and would be much easier to gang up on - but they don't begin to make the terrorist hit list.

Completely ignoring things like the CIA overthrow of Iran in the 1950s, the US is a target because our culture is in everyone's face. We keep the exact opposite of a low profile, and when you need someone to blame, the US always provides plenty of reminders that we are out there.


This all ends up being in your thread because, a) everyone here already agrees that gun rights and democrats don't mix, so that part is pretty uninteresting and b) you brought up the Globalization bogeyman.



By the way, go reread your authortarian list and compare it to the type of legislation and public rhetoric drawn up by Republicans in the last 6 years. Doesn't a huge, new government agency named "Homeland" Security backed by the right destroying new powers of the "Patriot" Act give you that 1930s Germany warm fuzzy? Hey, they even have "camps" for people of new legal class. I won't vote Democrat, but I'll be damned if it is because they are supposed to be the potential tyrants. Gun grabbers are frankly small time compared to what's already happened in the US.



I'd like to close with a big hello to the computers at the NSA reading this post.:eek:
 
By the way, go reread your authortarian list and compare it to the type of legislation and public rhetoric drawn up by Republicans in the last 6 years.
Click to expand...
I never said the Republican party is without sin - there is plenty of blame to go around for politicians of every stripe - especially so at the national level.

As I said in post #17:
You are right, Redworm - neither (R) or (D) politicians are without sin.

IMO, all ten amendments of the Bill of Rights are equally important. I guess we have to draw the line somewhere.

I draw it at the Second Amendment - no way in hell am I going to vote for any politician who has a history of voting, acting and speaking to destroy my Second Amendment right to arms.

The NRA says the Second Amendment is the right that secures all others; I think there is a fair amount of truth to that. The right to arms is fundamental to a free people. IMO, it must be defended at all costs.
We know from history that The Founders of our nation put up with alot of crap from the Brits, but went to war when the Redcoats came to disarm them.
Click to expand...
And post #12:
And yes, George Herbert Walker Bush was an antigun bigot, regardless of the label he wore. He deserves no more of a free pass than do the socialist Democrats who want to destroy our right to arms.
Click to expand...
And post #9:
Do not misconstrue this as an endorsement of John McCain, who is a RINO and is about as much of an antigun bigot as his Democratic friends.
Click to expand...
 
I draw it at the Second Amendment - no way in hell am I going to vote for any politician who has a history of voting, acting and speaking to destroy my Second Amendment right to arms.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. But I wouldn't vote for anyone that has a history og going against the first and fourth amendments, either. Since "decency" standards and religion in schools tends to come from the conservative spectrum I see anyone voting for those equally as henious and anti-American as the gun grabbers.

I don't like the Democrats but the Republicans are equally as crappy, in my opinion.
 
Screwed, blued and tatooed

Like alot of people, I vote for the least objectionable choice that has a viable chance of winning. Neither of the major parties (R) and (D) are without sin as far as disregarding or trampling various parts of the Bill of Rights.

R's screw us missionary style, D's screw us doggie style. Whichever wins the election, We The People will be screwed. It is just a matter of which style and how hard.

It's a sorry-ass state of affairs, but it is what it is and I don't see much reason to hope it will change. "They" (D's and R's) won't let it.

The Founders must be rolling in their graves.
 
We aren't the victims of globalization - we're its biggest proponent. Frightened Arabs don't want to blow us up because we eat at McDonalds. They just want to stop us from building a McDonalds in Mecca.
Click to expand...
There you have it!;)
Once the lid was off the "global box" it shall remain off.
Our economy is dependent on the labor, natural resources and markets of others now. Sorry but it won't go back in the box ever again!
Could be will have us, the investor class living here and them the capitaless laboring there! ..and it may not have anything to do with nationality......Watch!

Rimrock
 
So the greedy in the business world and their cohorts in "The Government" have brought this down upon us.

They profit in money and power and We The People bear the consequences.

Once again, the average working man/woman is the punching bag.:barf: :barf:
 
Handy,

We are a target of fundaments Islamists because we beleive in the rights of the "individual". There is no "individuality" in Islam. Islam even dictates the hygiene practices of each individual, clothing, ect..... Over here we have birthday parties for individuals, In Islam the birthday celebration is not recommended if you do it it is done for glory Allah not you. Islam even dictates business practices. We have laws that protect individual's religious prefrences, Islam says there is no other religion. Religious conversion from Islam is punishable by death. America is a nation where individual rights are higly prized. For fundamentalist Islamists there is only one outcome..the destruction and subjugation of western civilzation to Islam. The establishment of a Islamic Superstate with the Caliph is the goal.

Look up the word dhimmi........

we have treaties with these Arab nations. Mohammed the Prophet also had treaties with those who opposed him. Under Islam it would be permissible following the example of the prophet to make a treaty with a stronger nation to protect Islam, Then break it when they are stronger. These Arab nations are our friends for now. They could ultimately be more dangerous that the fundamentalists once we are no longer needed.
 
Eghad,

I agree that our foreign policy on human rights is part of the reason some Muslims hate us. That we apply that policy in such a haphazard manner is the reason I dislike our foreign policy.


Either way, we bring ourselves to their attention, not the other way around. Should we be concerned about the human rights of those in Arab states? Sure, when we're done worrying about the much more disasterous state of humanity in other places. Not being able to vote kind of pales when compared to not being able to live. Most Muslim countries are stable and aren't starving. That puts them pretty low in my priority book.
 
Question?

I have an article that I would like to submit on here about what the Bible has to say on self defense...before I posted it on here, I was wondering if someone might be able to use it on their web site or something...If they are Christian...I do not take the credit for it, I give it all to God...These left wing liberals need to hear Truth and maybe, just maybe, some of them will wake up out of their stuper...Please let me know if it can be used...waiting for an answer...It is to long to post on here, so if anyone, like I said, that is Christian, could post it on their site, that would be awesome...

P.S. Yes, it is PRO GUN...


Thanx..

1 Kings 20:11..."One who puts on his armor does not boast like one who takes it off". 1 Kings 20:11-The Bible
 
wow

Boy, this is a loong one. Lots said. Lots of dead horse beatings. We went a long way, and strayed into several related areas. I noticed that much was said argueing shades of definition, with very little argument on basic ideas.

There seem to be some areas of common agreement, mostly;
If you believe that you have the right to own a gun, any gun, free from government restriction, registration,and permission then;

1) Democrats are bad
2) Republicans are bad (they're just not trying as hard as Dems right now)
3) Libertarians are good, but they don't/can't make any difference

who is left?


Don't want to live in Japan (democratic or not). Don't want to live in Europe
(same). Don't want the US to be like Japan or Europe. I don't want to be a "global citizen".

Can Democracy and the RKBA coexist? yes, certainly. But ONLY if the majority of the voting public want it that way. Seems like we did ok for about 150 years. In fact as time went on it got better for some. Then it started geting worse for all of us.(NFA 1934) Then they hit us again in 68. Since then the hits just keep on comming, closer together, faster and faster.
Hey fellow frog, is the water getting warmer? or is it just me?
 
America IS NOT a Democracy

Can Democracy and the RKBA coexist? yes, certainly. But ONLY if the majority of the voting public want it that way.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's get this right: My original post was titled, "Democratic rule (that would mean rule by the Democratic party politicians, not Democracy - there is a difference) and the right to arms cannot coexsist."

Democracy is a form of government in which a people vote for what they want.

Newsflash: America is not a Democracy. Our Form of government is a Constitutional Republic. There is a world of difference.

Article IV, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution declares: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government..."

In a Constitutional Republic, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land - what the people - or a group of politicians - wants at the moment is not.

We have a Bill of Rights that guarantees our right to arms. Whether or not a certain group or groups wants that to be so is irrelevant. Whether or not 50.00000001% of the voters want that to be so is irrelevant. What a clique of 200 or so socialist/Democrat politicians want to impose on the 280 million of We The People is irrelevant.

In a Democracy, the will of the majority is forced on the minority. In a Republic, the rights of the minority carry just as much weight as the rights of the majority. As I said before, there's a world of difference.

Nazi Germany was a Democracy. The will of the majority (Germans) was forced on the minority (Jews, gypsies, etc.). In a Republic, the minority has the same rights and protections as the majority. The majority does not get to vote away the rights of the minority. Not so in a Democracy.

A Republican form of government is a representative form - we elect representatives to (allegedly:rolleyes: ) carry out the will of the people.

If the people want changes made to the Constitution, there is a prescribed way of making those changes. A 2/3 majority of the states must call for a Constitutional convention in which the representatives meet and discuss the proposed changes. Changes to the Constitution are not lawfully made by fiat, the demands of the majority, or the whim of officials - elected or non-elected.

My original assertion that "Democratic rule and the right to arms cannot coexsist" was made after observing the long history of Democratic politician's blatant attempts to disarm We The Pepole - attempts that are unconstitutional and unlawful under our form of government, a Constitutional Republic.

Democrat politicians at the national level are pathalogically obsessed with disarming We The People.
-If not, then why have they attempted to do so by trickery and stealth??
-If not, then why have their last two failed Presidential bids had as candidates two blatantly antigun bigots?
-If not, why does one of their luminaries openly wish for "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them (guns) all in" while the rest of the Democratic luminaries work unceasingly for that corrupt and unlawful goal?

It is obvious from listening to their words and looking at their deeds as well as looking at their voting histories that if given the power to do as they please - control of the House, the Senate and the White House - Democratic politicians will destroy our right to arms, even though doing so is unconstitutional and unlawful. They want what they want and they don't care about the rights of We The People.

That's why I made my original statement that "Democratic rule (meaning rule by Democratic politicians) and the right to arms cannot coexsist."

History proves this. And history cannot be denied.
 
Last edited:
yeah, I just find that a little extreme

Just because the politicians of today cannot see past their own wallets doesn't mean that the Democratic Party of the 2010s won't be altered greatly in support of gun rights. Y'know it could just as easily be claimed that Republican rule and freedom of religion cannot coexist. While we can all find plenty of evidence to point to that I think it's just as much an extreme point of view as the whole democrats + guns = |0|
 
steelheart, it's hard to tell - despite the volumes of posts contained herein - what exactly you want; you pretty much criticize every significant political party/player across the board.

Let's say, for instance, that the assertions contained within your original post are true. For example, you claimed:

The Democrat party wants socialist rule by autocratic means - in other words, the Democrat party wants absolute power with no accountability to We The People. This cannot be achieved with an armed citizenry who can resist arbitrary rule.
Click to expand...

If indeed that is the case, which I doubt, what exactly are your intentions should the Democratic Party reclaim the presidency, which inevitably will happen at some point in the (quite possibly not too distant) future? Since you obviously believe wholeheartedly that the Democrats will implement what you perceive as socialist reforms and begin to disarm the American public immediately upon regaining the White House, then jump quickly to statements concerning "armed citizenry" and resistance, what will be the nature of your response? Are you implying that the ostensibly socialist Democrats should be resisted through the use of arms if they win any presidential election, since you believe that Democratic rule and RKBA cannot coexist in any manner due to the nature of their true agenda?

Just curious ...
 
I don't ask for much - just obey the Constitution

steelheart, it's hard to tell - despite the volumes of posts contained herein - what exactly you want;
Click to expand...

What I want is very basic, very simple:

1: I want politicians of every stripe to know their place in the scheme of things and stay in it.

2: I want them to leave our Second Amendment Rights the hell alone, as well as our Rights under Amendments 1 and 3 through 10.

3: I want the Democrat politicians to once again bear allegiance to the Constitution rather than socialist political goals.

4: I want the Democrat politicians to stop playing God with our Second Amendment rights.

The labels of "Democrat" and "Republican" are irrelevant to me. I look at what they say, what they do, and how they vote.

When I see a politician, political party or movement working like fiends to destroy our Second Amendment rights, I am not going to sit idly by and keep my mouth shut - which is what they want. Those who would destroy our rights want us to be passive, gutless sheep.

If the Democrat party ever truly abandons its pathalogical obsession with socialism and disarming We The People and actually takes action to overturn the unlawful and unconstitutional anti-gun laws already in place, they will get my vote. But not until then.

They had a chance to do that in 2004 when the "Assault Weapon" ban was set to expire, and they did what they always do - they moved heaven and earth to try to get it reauthorized.

The Democrat/socialist party just doesn't get it yet, and from the looks of their antigun bigotry history and their present actions, they never will.
 
Thanks for the clarification, steelheart. However, you didn't address the questions raised by the latter part of my post.

If, as you believe, the Democratic Party is not going to "get it" with regard to your particular issues of contention, and if they return to power at some point in the future (which is likely unless the Democratic Party either ceases to exist or ceases to win elections, neither of which is probable), what are you going to do? What is your plan of action? You obviously don't believe that you yourself are a "passive, gutless sheep", but rather a self-styled "wolf." So what does the wolf do?
 
Handy,

you are still not getting it. We could abandon Israel tommorow, quit exporting democracy to other nations, and cut off all ties with Muslim nations. It would be the equal of Neville Chamberlin's signing of the Munich Agreement. It would mean nothing to fundamentalist Muslims. In the Fundametalist mind there is no place in existence for a nation of laws such as the United States. Thier philosophy is that we must be wiped off the face of the earth. There is no middle ground for them.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jihadintro5.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top