Ralph Nader / Green Party's position on the Second Amendment

F

Futo Inu

New member
This guy is always interesting, and I for one like many of his ideas (I know libertarians probably don't) - anyway, the litmus test for pols in my view is always the second, 'cause I figure with the right to stay free, the pendulum of bad ideas is always ABLE to swing back to good, given time and free speech. So what is Nader's view of the RKBA? Thank you.
 
I have not been able to find any reference by Nader to guns or the Second Amendment. He is mainly social-economic oriented.
The Green Party platform states: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>. We believe in a citizen's right to self defense and to bear arms as constitutionally protected - we also believe it is inappropriate for criminals to have access to "killing machines", that is, assault rifles, automatic weapons, armor-piercing and "anti-personnel" ammunition. Therefore, we support the "Brady Bill" and thoughtful, carefully considered GUN CONTROL.[/quote]

The full platform can be found at: http://www.gp.org/platform_index.htm

Dave


[This message has been edited by DHH (edited May 27, 2000).]
 
Thanks. Ambiguous, and obviously trying to walk the exact middle-of-the-road for this issue (and I'm sure all other issues which are not the party's meat-n-potatoes issues). Almost sounds good - the problem is, what is meant by "carefully considered gun control"? - probably means the same idiocy we see offered by the Dems and Repubs, I'm sure, since it didn't say "crime" control. The only good "gun control" in my view is enhanced sentencing, the instant check, and perhaps a couple other PROVEN, non-infringing measures like increased civil liability for gross negligence. I'd have to say I wouldn't vote for this platform, though it sounds about the same as most Republicans on this issue. "Anti-personnel" ammunition??? What the hell is that? ALL ammunition is, or at least can be, anti-personnel! It's TOOL, get it? Can be used for good or evil. Subtly, this platform is actually quite anti-gun, isn't it, except for the belief in the right being constitutionally protected. What throws you off track is the vague language of "inappropriate for CRIMINALS [emphasis mine] to have access to....." First of all, DUH!, if you mean convicted felons and not "potential criminals". Second, reading between the lines, "access to..." is being viewed as a problem by this party, eh? Well, we all know most politicians' fantastic plan on how to solve this problem by "reducing access" by criminals - by you guessed it, disarming all us LAW-ABIDING of those items, to get them "off the streets". Same crap, slightly better disguise.

I'm thinking my personal favorites, in order are (1) Constitution Party, (2) Reform Party -but only if Jesse's or Pat's the candidate, (3) Libertarian, (4) Green, (5) Republican, and last AND DEFINITELY LEAST, (6) Dumbocraps. Did I leave out any parties?

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited May 27, 2000).]
 
My impression of Nader from the git-go is that he and the Greens deserve each other.

Headline chasing, glory seeking, litiginous lawyers, if no agenda available make one up. Believers in " Less personal responsibility, more government ".

Besides, I think Corvairs rock.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
My impression is of a party of consolidation. They are trying to tie together as many splinter groups as possible.

The potential candidate list (Nader has not been chosen yet) ranges from Keyes to Bradley to Dennis Miller to Hillary Clinton to Jerry Brown to Jimmy Carter to Barney Frank to Woody Harrelson to Ted Turner and on and on ...

What probably bothers me most is the association they have formed with the European Greens. It sounds so reasonable, but to accomplish their goals a global government would probably be needed.

Dave
 
And, environmentalists seem to have a low regard for honest, scientifically accurate facts .... not to mention private property rights. I say that as a former environmental activist.

Since the anti-self defense crowd has the same tendencies, I wouldn't be too optimistic about people who want 'carefully considered gun control' to regulate 'killing machines'.

Regards from AZ
 
I had two Corvairs and they were two of the best cars I ever owned. With his book, "Unsafe at Any Speed," Nader probably was one of the first litigious termites of the nest that is now infesting our legal system, attacking cars, tobacco, guns, motorcycles,
bottle caps, and anything else that you can stick in your ear or down your throat. I'm just thankful that he wasn't around in the late 1800's or early 1900's; otherwise, motorcyles probably would have been banned.

Dick
 
A major issue for most of the Greens is use of public lands. Basically it would be subject to much the same rules as are National Parks. No ranching, no farming, no or little timber harvest--and no hunting. I'm referring to US Forest Service and BLM lands.

They tend to be anti-hunting, in general, and anti-trapping in particular.

They would probably extend the powers of the Endangered Species Act.

Ralphie has been on a couple of radio talk shows--Chuck Harder's "For The People" comes to mind--whereon he stated that the New World Order people wish to destroy the U.S. economy. My question is, since we're the world's largest market, and the folks who want a One World Government tend to be in the business of selling stuff, why would they want to dramatically reduce their incomes? Anyway, that sort of non-think on Ralphie's part pretty much drops him off my radar screen of viabile "Leaders".

But I doubt the Greens would object to gun registration and ammo taxes--gotta support environmental protections, and groups like Greenpeace.

Jeff Thomas: Be a bit more careful as to how you use the word "environmentalist", please. I'm an environmentalist; I consider myself a true environmentalist in the dictionary meaning of the word. I think you're referring to what are commonly called "tree huggers", which are an entirely different breed of cat...

Regards, Art

"Ever notice how spotted owls taste just like whooping cranes?"

[This message has been edited by Art Eatman (edited May 28, 2000).]
 
Its off-topic, but I would also like people to be careful how they use the word "liberal". Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. I consider myself a liberal. Those who you snear at while calling them "liberals" are not liberals, they are socialists. There's a big difference but you blur the lines and insult true liberals when you misuse the term. Think "libertarian" when you say "liberal" and you'll be much closer to the truth. It's possible to be a Liberal Democrat, as I am, and not support the Clintonistas one iota.


[This message has been edited by proximo (edited May 28, 2000).]
 
proximo,

When people on this forum use the term "liberal", they are using it in the modern context. One of the modern definitions of a liberal is one who believes in a larger government controlling the everyday lives of its citizens and a more centralized role for the federal government in dictating policies to the States.

It is true that Jefferson was a liberal in his day, but by modern definition he would more correctly be described as a conservative or libertarian. He believed in a smaller and weaker federal government with the States taking on the main role in governing peoples lives. The modern liberals are more along the line of the Federalists and Alexander Hamiltons desire for a strong federal government, combined with some socialist elements.

I do not understand how you can describe yourself as a traditional liberal yet still be a Democrat, considering where the party is today. This is not intended as a flame to you but as confusion on my part. I would think that you would be a Libertarian or Republican as today these parties more closely reflect the traditional liberal values you have.

Why do you continue to associate yourself with a party that by its current positions and beliefs is counter to your values? I vote mainly Republican because I wish to defeat the people who are working against my values and my best interests. If the parties were to reverse their current positions, I would then support the Democrats. I would not continue to support the Republicans simply because of what they used to stand for!

If we were living 150 years ago I could understand your party affiliation. I too would consider myself a Democrat then, as the Republican party at that time believed in a more centralized federal government. This was true into the early 20th century. Teddy Roosevelt, whom I admire greatly, was not a small government Republican. It was not until Woodrow Wilson that the Democrats became the modern liberal party that they are today. Calvin Cooledge would probably be considered the first modern Republican, considering his actions towards a smaller and less intrusive federal government.

As an aside, I find it facinating that the union bosses, when announcing their displeasure over Gore's support for normalized trade relationships with China, announced that they may give their support to Nader and the Greens. Most union members that I am aquainted with are generally conservative in their personal lives and values. Why would the leaders announce possible support for a largely socialist party instead of Pat Buchannon and the Reform party? Buchannon is much more in line with the average union worker values than Nader will ever be. Could it be that the union bosses are out of touch with the general rank and file?
 
Art, I apologize if I offended you, but I'm using 'environmentalist' as most people would see the term these days .... for example, to describe the Sierra Club, etc. I used to be an ally with the Sierra Club on some Arizona issues, but parted company with them when it was clear they had a very low regard for private property rights. And, too often, many of these groups do use misinformation and lies to sway public opinion.

I respect those who respect the land, and are responsible for our beautiful wild lands. I once was proud to call myself an environmentalist, but the term has been co-opted by people that I consider socialistic, at best.

And, as far as 'liberals' go, I believe that proximo is referring to what I hear termed as 'classical liberals'.

Unfortunately, terms sometimes take on new, less attractive meanings over time. 'Environmentalist' and 'liberal' seem to be two that have suffered accordingly.

Regards from AZ

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited May 28, 2000).]
 
I think Nader's entry will take more from Gore, which is a good idea, but I'm still P$%^#d at him for what he did to the Corvair!! I intend to drive Corvairs the rest of my life, and it is one of my ambitions to drive one of them to his funeral and " water the flowers" on his grave! I have a 64 Monza and a 61 Rampside pickup.
crankshaft
 
Juan: Note that Nader's book was about the swing-axle Corvair, which was already replaced by the full-independent rear suspension by the time his book came out. He never had the itegrity to point out the difference...

One day in late 1962 during lunch break at Chevrolet Test Lab, a guy who had been running an 80hp Corvair motor on the dyno for Test 1 condition measurements said he'd finally hit 50hp. One of the technicians on a 427 project said, "#$#%$! I pull more'n that in friction!"

:), Art
 
Art, I know that all the HP figures for the US cars of the day were badly inflated, and the 80 horse mill ( particularly with 2-speed auto tranny ) was really gutless.My '64 4spd, however has entirely adequate power for all normal ( & some abnormal) driving. As I said, I'll stick with them. The 64 also has a modification to the rear suspension (transverse spring) which greatly helps the "problem". I have no qualms about my 85 yr.old mom driving her '61 monza, either. She likes it!
crankshaft
 
As I grew up I was taught that a "liberal" was open-minded, tolerant, socially progressive and charitable. No kidding!

I have come to know that that is a "classic" liberal. Usually outside the status quo, too. An interesting point heard on a nationally syndicated radio talk show is that Conservatives today are the liberals of yesterday. In some important ways, that's true. They certainly seem to be the challengers. On the outside of the establishment.

The present day "modern" liberal is the keeper of the status quo. Certainly not open-minded or tolerant (see politically correct). Charitable? To a fault, if you want to call socialism charity. I don't. I call it slavery. Socially progressive? Do I want to even go there?

I've learned that the differences between modern liberalism, European-style socialism and communism are ticks real close together on the society-gov't scale. Look at the differences between the US and Europe today. We are screaming to the left, trying to be more like them. Yuck! When was the last time we heard crime statistics from Britain, Canada or Germany misused in an attempt to make us look like savages?

Methinks Mr. Nader is as misguided as he ever was. But, I've always gotten the impression he believes what he says, wrong-headed though it may be.



[This message has been edited by sensop (edited May 29, 2000).]
 
Cactus and sensop: my definition is in fact that of a classic liberal. I grew up in the '50s and '60s in the South where almost everyone was a Democrat (many of whom became "Reagan Democrats" in 1980 or jumped to the Republican party after his election) and the only political labels that were meaningful were "Liberal" and "Conservative".

From the start, I labeled myself a Liberal. For one, I felt people shouldn't be treated less than human because their skin was a different color. I also felt people shouldn't be sentenced to 20 years in jail for possession of a planted joint because some good 'ole boy cop thought his hair was longer than it should be.

People who worked hard, took care of their families and hurt no one else should not be persecuted because they may be different. If they were persecuted, the government had a responsibility, and should have the might, to step in and protect their civil rights. Otherwise, the government had a responsibility to stay the hell out of the way. If you want to say that leans toward Libertarian, so be it. The Liberal Democrats when I was coming of age are today's Libertarians.

Cactus: it would be boneheaded for me to think that all Republicans think alike and agree on all issues... just like it's boneheaded for you to assume that since I consider myself a Liberal Democrat, I agree with the direction the Democratic party has taken over the last 20-30 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top