Have a question for you gun folks

S

Sandy Price

Inactive
I am new to the forum. I am a great firm believer in the 2nd Amendment. My question for you is: Do you trust Dubya to allow us to keep and bear arms without registration? I don't trust him to do this. I also want out of the United Nations but that may be another subject.

Can you find me a positive statement that Dubya will never take a single action against the 2nd?

I'm from Arizona where guns are everywhere and I would hate to see any whimpy ATF agent even try to take the guns away from the citizens like they did to a gun shop in Mesa Arizona. If you don't know about this, it is all written up in SierraTimes.com

If you need an URL I will furnish one.
 
Plain, and simple. You do not know what a politician will do until they get into office! Words said during pre-election speaches are just that. Words, not promises.
 
Welcome to TFL.

As for Bush, there’s never a guarantee of GOOD behavior or honest representation
from ANY politician. However, Gore is SO much worse than Bush we have little
choice now that the primaries are history.

Bush, like Gore, has promised not to do anything to hurt us.

Bush has promised to enact stricter gun control by outlawing certain “high-capacity
clips” and making it illegal for anyone under 21 to own a gun (not ‘handgun’,
‘gun’).

Democrats wail that Bush is too weak on gun control.

Republicans push for more “common sense” (unconstitutional) gun control.

Bush supporters say Bush is only saying what he must say to become elected and
ignore or deny Bush’s gun control statements.

Bush detractors say Bush will pass gun control or he’s a liar for saying he would -
either way he’s a bum trip.

All in all, I believe our Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) situation is fluid.

(That means, “We’re up a creek”!)
 
Sandy:

He did push through concealed carry in TX and I can assure that if Gore overthrows our government, he will push for it.

You need to be aware of one fact, Bush has won the presidency without question. It remains to be seen if the Democrats will overthrow our government via judicial fiat.

If Gore is successful in his Coup de'tat, I will predict that he will make Clinton seem like an Altar Boy.
 
You guys are fast on the draw

I'm tired of compromising on early every issue coming out of Washington DC. I still believe that out there must be a strong man who could return our freedoms to us. It has been a long time since we have found one.

In my opinion, Clinton has done far more harm to America and even to the lack of trust that we feel towards each other. I don't trust anyone any more. I became so fearful in California that I fled to Arizona. I will not buckle under to several issues that I feel the GOP is trying to pull. I do not trust Dubya for 5 minutes to keep my freedoms intact.

What will you all do if we come under the command of the United Nations? Have you read the Charter for global governance?

I am upset with the whole Republican Party. I want Teddy Roosevelt back
 
Sandy, welcome to TFL ... I hope you enjoy your visits. This is a great group of people, and you'll find more logical and honest discourse here than you'll see on the anti-self defense web sites.

Regarding George W., yes, there is some concern about his views. However, that concern is generally mild, IMHO. Look at it this way ... he signed their CCW law in Texas, with improvements, and he has Dick Cheney and Condeleeza Rice on his staff (two very pro-RKBA / pro-self defense folks).

From my perspective, the question is not whether the man will ever take one action against the RKBA - it is whether, on balance, we will be better off re: the RKBA in 4 years versus the alternative.

Many people involved with this issue, on our side, yell that they will not compromise. I respect their views. However, I am willing to compromise, as long as I am advancing. That is, as long as I've regained some fundamental rights at the end of the day, I'll accept that compromise. And, tomorrow, I'll work to regain some more.

The anti-self defense gun bigots have incrementally destroyed the RKBA, stone by stone. We should be as smart. We need to rebuild it, stone by stone. Insisting upon having the entire RKBA wall at one time is not realistic, IMHO.

So, reasonable people may differ, but I'll take incremental improvements. Every day. Every week. Every month. Every year. The time will go by anyway. As long as we are regaining our rights, then the fight is successful.

One last point. Which of these two candidates do you think is more likely to produce fine Supreme Court Justices such as Clarence Thomas?

We may have a few years in which to get the pendulum moving back in the direction of individual freedom and personal responsibility. Bush helps us in that fight. There is a lot more to do. We're in a war for freedom, everyday ... make no mistake about it.

Again, welcome, and regards from AZ.
 
Check out Sandy's web page

Sandy welcome. You have a great web page. Bush is the lesser of two evils. I see as less destructive than Gore. There is no satisfactory choice for most pro-Liberty voters.

Regards,

Ledbetter
 
No, I don't trust him a bit. Do trust Gore to try to destroy our rights.

The election is so close -- how much of that is fraud will remain an academic point -- that Bush should be open to influence when he gains office. Those who value rights will need to work hard to keep pressure on him. We must let him know that even if we only represent a few percent of the vote, we can cost him his next election!

We need to write, call and demonstrate our commitment to hold him accountable for any further infringement on our rights. We can and should demand repeal of current infringements. We may not win any repeals but if we can get them on the agenda it will be a big step toward restoration of freedom.

Please learn to mistrust a "strong man". Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Noriega were all "strong men". Consider, do you really want a righteous despot or would you settle for reduction of the power of government to impose tyranny?

Bentley

“One has to be more and more committed to unconsciousness as a political philosophy to retain the belief that government can lead us to the promised land.”
-- Nathaniel Branden, “The Foundations of a Free Society"
 
Well Sandy, your fears are well-founded given the example of George Pataki, Republicrat Govenor of New York State. He ran on an upstate-favorable platform then turned his back on us. The problem is that once in office the politician is IN AN OFFICE, ALL DAY LONG! He becomes a sitting duck target for all the whining pressure groups and nattering nabobs of negativity of the media. Unless he truely has the courage of his beliefs and a real backbone his policy will gradually turn like a ship in the wind to the constant huffing of the editorial page.

Maybe Dubya can be trusted, but we shure as Heck know that the other guy is gonna trample our ideals underfoot as he rushes to impose European style socialism on the nation.
 
Greetings Sandy.

I'm afraid that if you are waiting for "a strong man who will restore our freedoms to us," you will wait a very long time. Our freedoms are something we must take for ourselves. I think the gun rights movement makes a grave error whenever it looks to a political "leader" who promises to save us.

Our friend Jeff Thomas writes that he's willing to compromise on gun rights "as long as I am advancing. That is, as long as I've regained some fundamental rights at the end of the day, I'll accept that compromise."

This sounds reasonable until you look at reality and see that every compromise we've made on gun rights has failed to regain some fundamental right. Instead what happens is the compromise gives us a less heinous violation of rights than the enemy had been proposing. This is not advancement; it is slow-motion suicide.

Some would object that CCW or CHL laws are an advancement of RKBA, but this is an illusion. A right cannot be licensed; otherwise what we're dealing with is a privelege. What these NRA-backed "reforms" do is establish self-defense in public as a privelege, not a right, and also create legal databases of gun owners which can be used for confiscation later.

Our real battleground is not in the Congress or the state legislatures. It is the arena of public opinion. We must take our case directly to them, by-passing the politicians, by-passing the NRA/ILA lobbyists, and by-passing the courtesan press. We must explain why private gun ownership is the surest way for each of us to defend ourselves and our loved ones; and we must explain why private gun ownership is a fundamental guarantor of all our rights.

We can do this individually, learning and making these cases to our friends, family, and neighbors. We can do it collectively by supporting outfits such as Citizens of America (www.citizensofamerica.org) which purchase radio and newspaper ads stating our case, or Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (www.jpfo.org) which offers matching funds to put up pro-gun billboards.

Oh, and by the way, Teddy Roosevelt was responsible for nationalizing vast tracts of land in the Western U.S., and helped create the laws Clinton is using now to close more and more of these lands to shooters and the public in general.
 
The Beez is right ... 'compromises' to date have often been partial surrenders. It is up to all of us to change that tide, and many of us are dedicating many hours and many dollars to make that happen.

Regards from AZ
 
I have been compromising for years

this has been a long battle for me. I have always voted for the lesser of two evils and my freedoms just fade away. This time I and 1996 I voted for Harry Browne.

I am serious about wanting my government reduced in all ways. I want to be able to live my life as I did during my youth. Not one member of my family was influenced by any actions in Washington DC until FDR was elected. We survived him but it has gone down hill steadily ever since. Barry Goldwater was the last real fiscal conservative that I felt could take that step into freedom and liberty.

I don't want my government issuing any social opinions. These issues that Bauer and Keyes have discussed are fine and dandy but they do not belong in Washington DC. I basically raised my kids in Christian Schools and Sunday Schools and the whole nine yards. This was my choice. The minute we give any social issue to Washington DC it will be corrupted beyond description.

I have managed to live within the constitution without paying much attention to the Supreme Court. If you are waiting for Dubya to change the issues within this court you are just fooling yourself. He will not nor should he. Take your own values and live by them, the day you legislate a single social issue the government will collapse in fraud.

We don't need a new Supreme Court, we don't need any Constitutional Amendment written just to arrest and send women to prison. This is not the American freedom that we need. We need everyone to taste the freedom and liberty. If you don't like the abortion problem lets get together and fix the problem and it will dissolve.

We need to stop the war on drugs, we need to positively keep the 2nd and 10th amendments out of the reach of any Liberal Thinking. We need to prioritize our issues and learn how to fight politically.

My friend Lew Goldberg described the Amendment as follows: The Constitution was written to set us free from government and the 2nd Amendment was written to protect all the Amendments.
 
Compromise

Sandy, Bush is a finger in the dike. I loathed voting for him but would hate to see him lose now! I respect your support of Browne. The Keyes candicacy was not based solely on "social issues", a term I find confusing.
A review of some of his platform:
1.No IRS. Can you think of a better method of curbing our rulers? No WOD either, although defacto and not overtly stated.
2.The 2nd is real. It rhymes with appeal as in the majority of current federal gun laws.
3.All candidates are "compromise" entities. Mr. Keyes is adamant on abortion. I agree that this horror can be solved without the federal governments involvement. However, I fear a person who requests less power in the office he seeks equally less.
4.Is there any social, economic or moral problem that big government cannot solve? Yes, all of them.

If there is a lesson to be learned this month about States Rights and the inherent importance of the separation and limited role of the feds - those that can get it will.
 
Strong man (Teddy Roosevelt)

Beez, you pretty much hit the points I wanted to make. A strong man is the greatest danger imaginable to individual rights. Our role after this emergency must be to support and strengthen the checks and balances that protect us from "strong men." One of the most important, and the one now under blatant attack, is the people's power of election. Especially if the Gore coup succeeds, there is every liklihood that this right will be further subverted, probably under color of "reform," to assure that the Democrats will not again face such a risk of loss of power.

Let fighting electoral corruption be our crusade. Demand open, fraud-resistant procedures everywhere! If we lose this fight, we will, alas, need a strong man to regain our freedom. And guns.
 
D.Q.:

You are right. We must fight election fraud at every opportunity. We must also resist, with every fiber of our beings, the newly hinted-at "reform" of instituting Federally mandated election procedures. Elections must remain State controlled.
 
Trust a Politician?

I don't trust any career politician. Never have, never will.

Of course, I also don't trust the paper boy, but my therapist says I'm much better now.....
 
Hi Sandy,

Went to your web site - Kate's a cutie. :)

I too voted Libertarian this election. After '96 I vowed to never again vote anything but my conscience.

The only way a free society can survive is to take it upon themselves to remain free. We can never place our trust in any other individual to keep our rights secure. Thus the 2nd Ammendment.

Having said that, we do live in a constitutional republic. The only way to reconcile the problem is for everyone to stay active politically and throw the bums out when they breach their contract (i.e. to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States.)

I understand your longing for the political simplicity of your youth. I long for that simplicity myself. But the hard fact to face is that those days are gone and we will likely never see them again. Today we must be on guard at all times because there are those out there who have a "vision" for the future that does not include the RKBA, and their population is growing.

The bottom line is that there is no political solution. We need to educate ourselves and those around us to the values set forth in the Constitution and why they are there. History speaks to much of it, but in contemporary society we have no use for history. All is well with the world. It is extremely difficult to be dilligent in times of relative peace and prosperity. This causes people to drop their guard and creates the opening for tyrants to attain positions of power and subvert our rights. Education is the key.

It is incumbent on us to be watchful of our rights because no one else will, at least not with the same vigor that we would bring to the fight.

Ken
 
I think we cannot trust Bush nor any politician. We can trust Gore a lot less though.

From the example of JFK, I think Bush knows he's not invincible, and being a hunter, I'm sure he's aware of what guns can do. I think he knows quite well that if he takes too much of our freedom, too fast, he stands a pretty big chance of getting shot. Presidents have to keep the attitude of the people in mind when they make decisions.

Mortality is a great motivator. I voted for Bush. I even want Bush as president, but I'm not gonna put up with him if he institutes a complete gun ban, nor if he refuses to veto one passed through the legislature.

I will draw the line, even with my own candidate....

That said, I think it is unlikely Bush will be hard on gun owners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top