I Gotta Hand It To Him!
- Thread starter Bud Helms
- Start date
- Status
AllanHampton and NRALife,
Listen to me.
Allan first. I believe it is a premise false to the core to believe that the Republicans and Democrats are "the same" in every respect. The difference we need to note is probably Conservative vs Liberal Socialist, without regard to traditional party labels. But this is not a new lecture (and I hesitate to lecture my elders, since you brought up age ..
). Once we agree that the party label does not predict a position on the 2nd Amendment, then the next thing we probably agree on is that the candidates position on the 2nd is what does count, regardless of which party, even a third party. But not a third party to the exclusion of those Defenders of the Second that we know hang it out every day on the floor of their respective house (witness Hofstettler and Chenowith!) You would punish them because they have chosen to champion our cause within the system? Reconsider, I say!
NRALife. I can only say what you have heard before. A vote of the concscience is not a wasted vote. Ever. It doesn't have to agree with you. It belongs to the caster of the vote. Right or wrong.
For the life of me, I cannot understand either of your positions' exclusion of the other.
Cut it out or I'll spray your primers with WD-40!
Listen to me.
Allan first. I believe it is a premise false to the core to believe that the Republicans and Democrats are "the same" in every respect. The difference we need to note is probably Conservative vs Liberal Socialist, without regard to traditional party labels. But this is not a new lecture (and I hesitate to lecture my elders, since you brought up age ..
). Once we agree that the party label does not predict a position on the 2nd Amendment, then the next thing we probably agree on is that the candidates position on the 2nd is what does count, regardless of which party, even a third party. But not a third party to the exclusion of those Defenders of the Second that we know hang it out every day on the floor of their respective house (witness Hofstettler and Chenowith!) You would punish them because they have chosen to champion our cause within the system? Reconsider, I say!NRALife. I can only say what you have heard before. A vote of the concscience is not a wasted vote. Ever. It doesn't have to agree with you. It belongs to the caster of the vote. Right or wrong.
For the life of me, I cannot understand either of your positions' exclusion of the other.
Cut it out or I'll spray your primers with WD-40!
Sensop,
Fasten your seat belt. ... Ready? Okay, here goes.
We pretty much agree!
(Sorry!)
The Republicans and Democrats are not identical in every respect. But they both believe in gun control.
-------
Big Bear,
I understand you agree in principle and understand why you will vote
Republican. I respect both views. It sure is an exercise is frustration trying
to figure out why more of us don’t agree in principle and vote for freedom
instead of the Republican gun control program. Until that happens, I can’t
fault your logic.
Thanks for the respectful way you state your view and disagree with Allan
and me.
-----
Nralife,
I don’t doubt your motives for a moment and (hang on! ) I *do* respect
your opinion.
You and I have always agreed that Gore would be a disaster to our gun
Rights and that many Democrats will vote for gun control. We agree that almost *any* Republican would be less harmful (in the short term) to our RKBA than almost any Democrat.
However, Bush and most Republicans support gun control. It’s less severe
than the Democrats’ program - but less restrictive gun control is still gun
control.
Therefore, by supporting Republican gun control, *you* are closer to Gore
than Allan and I are. To accuse us of being allies or friends of Gore is faulty
logic at best. Such insults don’t help your Republican cause.
Because you support a gun control advocate (Bush), should I call you HCI’s
best friend and ally? I don’t think so (never have thought so).
It is heartbreaking to see people vote for gun control to avoid worse gun
control. I understand the Supreme Court argument. I understand the desire
to get a Republican president and Republican Congress. But the Republicans
will continue to give us gun control as they have in the past. You and I
disagree that rolling over again and again will gain us anything in the long
run.
I understand that Bush needs all the votes he can get, but a vote cast
elsewhere is not cast for Gore even though it makes it easier for Gore to
achieve a plurality. If your Republicans want our votes, let them support
our Constitution for a change.
------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
Fasten your seat belt. ... Ready? Okay, here goes.
We pretty much agree!
(Sorry!)The Republicans and Democrats are not identical in every respect. But they both believe in gun control.
-------
Big Bear,
I understand you agree in principle and understand why you will vote
Republican. I respect both views. It sure is an exercise is frustration trying
to figure out why more of us don’t agree in principle and vote for freedom
instead of the Republican gun control program. Until that happens, I can’t
fault your logic.
Thanks for the respectful way you state your view and disagree with Allan
and me.
-----
Nralife,
I don’t doubt your motives for a moment and (hang on!
) I *do* respectyour opinion.
You and I have always agreed that Gore would be a disaster to our gun
Rights and that many Democrats will vote for gun control. We agree that almost *any* Republican would be less harmful (in the short term) to our RKBA than almost any Democrat.
However, Bush and most Republicans support gun control. It’s less severe
than the Democrats’ program - but less restrictive gun control is still gun
control.
Therefore, by supporting Republican gun control, *you* are closer to Gore
than Allan and I are. To accuse us of being allies or friends of Gore is faulty
logic at best. Such insults don’t help your Republican cause.
Because you support a gun control advocate (Bush), should I call you HCI’s
best friend and ally? I don’t think so (never have thought so).
It is heartbreaking to see people vote for gun control to avoid worse gun
control. I understand the Supreme Court argument. I understand the desire
to get a Republican president and Republican Congress. But the Republicans
will continue to give us gun control as they have in the past. You and I
disagree that rolling over again and again will gain us anything in the long
run.
I understand that Bush needs all the votes he can get, but a vote cast
elsewhere is not cast for Gore even though it makes it easier for Gore to
achieve a plurality. If your Republicans want our votes, let them support
our Constitution for a change.
------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
Alan:
Don't mean to be nit picky, but the Federalist Papers can not be relied on to give us the meaning of the 2nd amendment. They were written to explain the Constitution and were published several years prior to the adoption of the bill of rights. They can and do give us an idea of the meaning and purpose of Article 1 Section 8 and how these delegated powers over the militia can never be a threat to our liberties. The arguments as to why a bill of rights was not necessary is not enough to explain what was finally adopted as the 2nd.
However, I believe that the most authoritative writings to help us determine the meaning of the 2nd were published while the amendments were being ratified. Of these the article written by Tench Coxe that appeared in the June 18th 1789 Federal Gazette is the most authoritative and useful. Would not the writings that the people read in the papers of their time be what they understood as what they were supporting?
Please don't take this as a flame, but as it was intended, as a clarification.
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
Don't mean to be nit picky, but the Federalist Papers can not be relied on to give us the meaning of the 2nd amendment. They were written to explain the Constitution and were published several years prior to the adoption of the bill of rights. They can and do give us an idea of the meaning and purpose of Article 1 Section 8 and how these delegated powers over the militia can never be a threat to our liberties. The arguments as to why a bill of rights was not necessary is not enough to explain what was finally adopted as the 2nd.
However, I believe that the most authoritative writings to help us determine the meaning of the 2nd were published while the amendments were being ratified. Of these the article written by Tench Coxe that appeared in the June 18th 1789 Federal Gazette is the most authoritative and useful. Would not the writings that the people read in the papers of their time be what they understood as what they were supporting?
Please don't take this as a flame, but as it was intended, as a clarification.
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
Dennis,
You have been around longer than me and you have seen a lot more elections come and go than I. I respect your opinion and believe it or not, for the most part I even agree with exactly what you are saying. I want to vote Libertarian this year, but I just can't. The stakes are just too high.
Dennis, I think that if you will really look at our situation this year and compare it to years past, you will see that this is not any "normal" election where people often say that we need to vote Republican "just this one more time." The Second Amendment is under attack like NEVER before. The Supreme Court will need as many as four new judges, Al Gore wants to register firearm's owners and handguns, and every firearm manufacturer in this country is under direct attack by our own commander in chief. Can't you honestly see that this year is different from most?
During any war there is a time to advance and certain times where a strategic retreat is necessary. I really would like to advance with a third party candidate for president this year, but right now it is time for a strategic retreat. We need to fall back and regroup the Supreme Court and we need to bring up some supplies from the rear and take care of these damn frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearms manufacturers. We have got to keep Al Gore from being elected at all costs! Voting third party this year is just plain not smart.
When the weather clears, after we have regrouped, and after we have been resupplied, I will be proud to follow you into battle by backing whatever third party candidate you choose, but until then we have to back Bush. It is the only logical thing to do.
Sincerely
Joe
------------------
Need help writing a letter to Congress or whomever?
Do you have a great letter or post that you would like to share with us?
Then stop by the NEW 2nd Amendment Activist's 'Copy & Paste' Forum!!!
You have been around longer than me and you have seen a lot more elections come and go than I. I respect your opinion and believe it or not, for the most part I even agree with exactly what you are saying. I want to vote Libertarian this year, but I just can't. The stakes are just too high.
Dennis, I think that if you will really look at our situation this year and compare it to years past, you will see that this is not any "normal" election where people often say that we need to vote Republican "just this one more time." The Second Amendment is under attack like NEVER before. The Supreme Court will need as many as four new judges, Al Gore wants to register firearm's owners and handguns, and every firearm manufacturer in this country is under direct attack by our own commander in chief. Can't you honestly see that this year is different from most?
During any war there is a time to advance and certain times where a strategic retreat is necessary. I really would like to advance with a third party candidate for president this year, but right now it is time for a strategic retreat. We need to fall back and regroup the Supreme Court and we need to bring up some supplies from the rear and take care of these damn frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearms manufacturers. We have got to keep Al Gore from being elected at all costs! Voting third party this year is just plain not smart.
When the weather clears, after we have regrouped, and after we have been resupplied, I will be proud to follow you into battle by backing whatever third party candidate you choose, but until then we have to back Bush. It is the only logical thing to do.
Sincerely
Joe
------------------
Need help writing a letter to Congress or whomever?
Do you have a great letter or post that you would like to share with us?
Then stop by the NEW 2nd Amendment Activist's 'Copy & Paste' Forum!!!
One point we all should remember is that no
matter the spokesperson we have they will be
ridiculed by the press. Each time they speak
of the person there will be a slight smile
or a joke about the persons appearence after
the clip. Noticed they have fixed on Bush's
smile.It's called proaganda. It has been feed
to the television babies for thirty years and
it works.Yes, we are at a disadvantage and
that is why it takes so much money to fight
back.You can argue all day as to who is what
(Dem.vs. Rep.)right now we must go with the
party that will do the (less) damage to our
freedom.
------------------
matter the spokesperson we have they will be
ridiculed by the press. Each time they speak
of the person there will be a slight smile
or a joke about the persons appearence after
the clip. Noticed they have fixed on Bush's
smile.It's called proaganda. It has been feed
to the television babies for thirty years and
it works.Yes, we are at a disadvantage and
that is why it takes so much money to fight
back.You can argue all day as to who is what
(Dem.vs. Rep.)right now we must go with the
party that will do the (less) damage to our
freedom.
------------------
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
I would have loved to see his entire speech and not just the sound/video clips on TV. I wonder if Susan saw or heard the *entire* speech or just the network clips. That may explain her criticism.
I would love to see Mr. Heston speak in person. From what I've heard it is a chance for gun-owners to feel some real and deep emotion about their rights. Gun owners don't get the chance to be "emotional" about their passion for guns often enough I think. If we did, maybe we'd fight as hard as some of the "emotionally charged" antis.
P.S. Third Party vs. The World belongs in a different thread, thank you.
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
I would love to see Mr. Heston speak in person. From what I've heard it is a chance for gun-owners to feel some real and deep emotion about their rights. Gun owners don't get the chance to be "emotional" about their passion for guns often enough I think. If we did, maybe we'd fight as hard as some of the "emotionally charged" antis.
P.S. Third Party vs. The World belongs in a different thread, thank you.
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
sensop,
Sorry, I didn't see your post to me yesterday. I just scanned it because at first glance it looked like it was for Alan only. I agree with what you say. I don't think that the Republicans are necessarily for gun control like Dennis says they are.
While it is obvious that the Democrats are most certainly antigun, I don't think that you can say that the Republicans in any large part are gun rights haters. I think the Republicans are for the most part driven by the polls and they are just looking out for their best interest. While this isn't necessarily a good thing, one can hardly blame them. They do need to get reelected and as long as the liberal biased news media is filling the airwaves with all sorts of antigun propaganda they have to try to appeal to the undecided middle like the soccer moms, after all, they are the ones who decide elections!
The real people that you should be upset with is the press corps in this country. They are the real enemies of freedom, not the Republicans. The Republicans try to lower taxes and the press says they are cutting taxes for the rich, or if the Republicans try to enforce our borders, the press screams that they are racist. You get the idea.
Every time the Republicans try to do something good, like with the Contract With America, the national news media crucifies them. What do you want the Republicans to do, fall on their swords for the sake of ideological purity? What good would that do, but to get them thrown out of office?
Now if one particular person on this forum, who's first name starts with an "A," will quit bringing up third parties as the answer to everthing under the sun including primers damaged by Wd-40, we could let this argument rst for a bit.
Joe
Sorry, I didn't see your post to me yesterday. I just scanned it because at first glance it looked like it was for Alan only. I agree with what you say. I don't think that the Republicans are necessarily for gun control like Dennis says they are.
While it is obvious that the Democrats are most certainly antigun, I don't think that you can say that the Republicans in any large part are gun rights haters. I think the Republicans are for the most part driven by the polls and they are just looking out for their best interest. While this isn't necessarily a good thing, one can hardly blame them. They do need to get reelected and as long as the liberal biased news media is filling the airwaves with all sorts of antigun propaganda they have to try to appeal to the undecided middle like the soccer moms, after all, they are the ones who decide elections!
The real people that you should be upset with is the press corps in this country. They are the real enemies of freedom, not the Republicans. The Republicans try to lower taxes and the press says they are cutting taxes for the rich, or if the Republicans try to enforce our borders, the press screams that they are racist. You get the idea.
Every time the Republicans try to do something good, like with the Contract With America, the national news media crucifies them. What do you want the Republicans to do, fall on their swords for the sake of ideological purity? What good would that do, but to get them thrown out of office?
Now if one particular person on this forum, who's first name starts with an "A," will quit bringing up third parties as the answer to everthing under the sun including primers damaged by Wd-40, we could let this argument rst for a bit.
Joe
AllanHampton
New member
After re-reading this string I wish to say thank you one and all. And by no means is my blunt use of language meant in any fashion to flame anyone. I do not question any citizen's Right to vote, I do question the rationale, thinking, used in the purpose of the vote. I am not against all democrats nor republicans, just those who do not honor their oath of office. Nor do I use the hot topic or political issue of the moment to make my decisions in voting, but by the whole record of those not honoring the oath.
My one issue to vote for was the same yesteryear as it will be tomorrow, the Constitution and the oath of office. Fear of what may happen is not of my concern in deciding whether a candidate will honor their oath of office. If I have any hint, or clue, what-so-ever that a candidate has not honored the oath or associates with those who disregard the oath then no political talk will persuade me to support or vote for that candidate.
In being hung up on unconstitutional gun activity haven't we forgot in past years of our government sending our sons and daughters to die in foreign countries in unconstitutional undeclared wars? Ruby Ridge, Waco and Miami too? I fail to understand why so many citizens latch on to the hot issue of the moment to make up their mind in voting. Are we lead around every election year by one topic issues? My experience indicates politicians do most of their dirty work in their first year or so in office and then dangle carrots for us in election years.
My one issue to vote for was the same yesteryear as it will be tomorrow, the Constitution and the oath of office. Fear of what may happen is not of my concern in deciding whether a candidate will honor their oath of office. If I have any hint, or clue, what-so-ever that a candidate has not honored the oath or associates with those who disregard the oath then no political talk will persuade me to support or vote for that candidate.
In being hung up on unconstitutional gun activity haven't we forgot in past years of our government sending our sons and daughters to die in foreign countries in unconstitutional undeclared wars? Ruby Ridge, Waco and Miami too? I fail to understand why so many citizens latch on to the hot issue of the moment to make up their mind in voting. Are we lead around every election year by one topic issues? My experience indicates politicians do most of their dirty work in their first year or so in office and then dangle carrots for us in election years.
Alan,
"hot issue of the moment"
I would hardly consider those of us who are defending the 2nd Amendment as fighting for the hot issue of the moment. There are many people on this forum who have devoted many years if not decades to saving the Second Amendment. If you can't see that, maybe you are on the wrong forums, after all this forum is about the RKBA. If you want to talk about saving the whales, take it somewhere else.
Joe
"hot issue of the moment"
I would hardly consider those of us who are defending the 2nd Amendment as fighting for the hot issue of the moment. There are many people on this forum who have devoted many years if not decades to saving the Second Amendment. If you can't see that, maybe you are on the wrong forums, after all this forum is about the RKBA. If you want to talk about saving the whales, take it somewhere else.
Joe
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nralife:
...this forum is about the RKBA.[/quote]
Correct you are, sir.
And this thread is about Charlton Heston. But you wouldn't know it from the direction it's taken...
...this forum is about the RKBA.[/quote]
Correct you are, sir.
And this thread is about Charlton Heston. But you wouldn't know it from the direction it's taken...
Slowpoke_Rodrigo
New member
For discussion -
Is Heston the Reagan of RKBA?
Is Heston the Reagan of RKBA?
Susan,
Pretty strong words..... I'm sorry that you feel that way. I was actually so touched by Mr. Heston's words, passion and leadership that I upgraded my NRA membership to Lifetime.
I think the NRA is and has been a very strong wall of defense for us gunowners. All you need to see is how the antis hate them.
------------------
Private gun ownership is the capital sin in the left's godless religion. Crime is merely a venial mistake.
Check out these gals: www.sas-aim.org
Pretty strong words..... I'm sorry that you feel that way. I was actually so touched by Mr. Heston's words, passion and leadership that I upgraded my NRA membership to Lifetime.
I think the NRA is and has been a very strong wall of defense for us gunowners. All you need to see is how the antis hate them.
------------------
Private gun ownership is the capital sin in the left's godless religion. Crime is merely a venial mistake.
Check out these gals: www.sas-aim.org
AllanHampton
New member
bookkie, I didn't take your post as nip pinky but simply not wholly correct. The authors of the Federalist Papers are the same people who wrote, or helped write, the Constitution. And those Papers were written to explain the meaning of the Constitution. I checked the Federalist Papers and found the word "militia" 64 times in many different Papers. Below are a few excerpts from different Papers. I my opinion there is no better work defining the Constitution that the Federalist Papers.
It can apply the resources and power of the whole to the defence of any particular part, and that more easily and expeditiously than State governments or separate confederacies can possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system. It can place the militia under one plan of discipline, and, by putting their officers in a proper line of subordination to the Chief Magistrate, will, as it were, consolidate them into one corps, and thereby render them more efficient than if divided into thirteen or into three or four distinct independent companies.
What would the militia of Britain be if the English militia obeyed the government of England, if the Scotch militia obeyed the government of Scotland, and if the Welsh militia obeyed the government of Wales? Suppose an invasion; would those three governments (if they agreed at all) be able, with all their respective forces, to operate against the enemy so effectually as the single government of Great Britain would?
our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed,
A sufficient force to make head against a sudden descent, till the militia could have time to rally and embody, is all that has been deemed requisite. No motive of national policy has demanded, nor would public opinion have tolerated, a larger number of troops upon its domestic establishment.
Here I expect we shall be told that the militia of the country is its natural bulwark, and would be at all times equal to the national defence. This doctrine, in substance, had like to have lost us our independence.
It is not easy to conceive a possibility that dangers so formidable can assail the whole Union, as to demand a force considerable enough to place our liberties in the least jeopardy, especially if we take into our view the aid to be derived from the militia, which ought always to be counted upon as a valuable and powerful auxiliary.
nralife,
"If you want to talk about saving the whales, take it somewhere else."
Where did you hear me mention anything about whales? I'll say again I support the Constitution, the entire Constitution and do not believe any part, or piece of it more important than another part. If we want to keep this Republic then surely we must consider all of the Constitution and not vote just on the parts we like.
[This message has been edited by AllanHampton (edited May 23, 2000).]
It can apply the resources and power of the whole to the defence of any particular part, and that more easily and expeditiously than State governments or separate confederacies can possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system. It can place the militia under one plan of discipline, and, by putting their officers in a proper line of subordination to the Chief Magistrate, will, as it were, consolidate them into one corps, and thereby render them more efficient than if divided into thirteen or into three or four distinct independent companies.
What would the militia of Britain be if the English militia obeyed the government of England, if the Scotch militia obeyed the government of Scotland, and if the Welsh militia obeyed the government of Wales? Suppose an invasion; would those three governments (if they agreed at all) be able, with all their respective forces, to operate against the enemy so effectually as the single government of Great Britain would?
our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed,
A sufficient force to make head against a sudden descent, till the militia could have time to rally and embody, is all that has been deemed requisite. No motive of national policy has demanded, nor would public opinion have tolerated, a larger number of troops upon its domestic establishment.
Here I expect we shall be told that the militia of the country is its natural bulwark, and would be at all times equal to the national defence. This doctrine, in substance, had like to have lost us our independence.
It is not easy to conceive a possibility that dangers so formidable can assail the whole Union, as to demand a force considerable enough to place our liberties in the least jeopardy, especially if we take into our view the aid to be derived from the militia, which ought always to be counted upon as a valuable and powerful auxiliary.
nralife,
"If you want to talk about saving the whales, take it somewhere else."
Where did you hear me mention anything about whales? I'll say again I support the Constitution, the entire Constitution and do not believe any part, or piece of it more important than another part. If we want to keep this Republic then surely we must consider all of the Constitution and not vote just on the parts we like.
[This message has been edited by AllanHampton (edited May 23, 2000).]
- Status