Should gun owners compromise?

R

Redworm

Moderator
Don't worry, it's not what you think. I see little room for compromise in gun laws themselves. Like the rest of you I believe they do not serve in reducing crime and only harm those of us that do not intend to harm anyone in the first place. That being said my question refers to compromise in other beliefs.

Numerous times on this forum I have seen the ultra-conservatives bash those of us with liberal or libertarian beliefs. They have claimed that since gun rights are more important than anything else we should be willing to compromise our beliefs. We should be willing to vote for Republicans that want to ban abortion and gay marriage, teach the bible in science class, censor naughty words on TV and radio, keep drugs illegal and close our borders. They holler at the top of their lungs that those of us with dissenting views on those and other issues should put our beliefs aside because the guns guns guns are more important!

Shouldn't they do the same?

Ron Paul is likely to run for the GOP nomination. I doubt you'd find a better pro-gun Presidental hopeful out there. If eighty million of us truly cared about our guns we could put him in the White House. But those same ultra-conservatives are unlikely to vote for a man that doesn't feel the government has authority in regulating marriage and abortion, has no interest in bringing god onto public property and realizes that the drug war is the worst assault on our civil liberties in the history of this nation. But you'd have a President that actually fights for your right to keep and bear arms, not one that pretends to just to snag some extra votes like our current one.

Bottom line: if you want me to compromise then you should be willing to do the same. Much like Rep. Paul will only approve frivolous government spending when other Congress critters are willing to cough up a benjamin from their own wallets, the far right wingers should be willing to put their money where their mouths are. If they care about their guns they can put aside their other beliefs like they demand of the rest of us.
 
If the choices were, Ron Paul, or the Hildabeast and/or Osama, I could compromise. Regards 18DAI.
Click to expand...
Yeah but first Mr Paul needs to get the GOP nomination. :o I know many conservatives cringe at the thought of having a "moderate" (what an evil term! :rolleyes: ) leading the party but if those conservatives really put their guns above all else they oughta take a hard look at who they're voting for.

Also, must we reside to plays on names? Seriously, has Obama ever done anything remotely resembling the atrocities of bin Laden? Is there any justification or is it simply an inability to find something else wrong with the man that the only recourse is third-grade level puns? At least "Hildabeast" is remotely amusing but that's pretty low-brow in its own right. Don't take that personally or anything, I see it all over the place.
 
oh! mea culpa :o I've made that same typo

anyways, thank you for the response and I'm sorry if I bit your head off there
 
Ron Paul is likely to run for the GOP nomination. I doubt you'd find a better pro-gun Presidental hopeful out there. If eighty million of us truly cared about our guns we could put him in the White House. But those same ultra-conservatives are unlikely to vote for a man that doesn't feel the government has authority in regulating marriage and abortion, has no interest in bringing god onto public property and realizes that the drug war is the worst assault on our civil liberties in the history of this nation. But you'd have a President that actually fights for your right to keep and bear arms, not one that pretends to just to snag some extra votes like our current one.
Click to expand...

A true conservative realizes the basic principle that he, and the Founding Fathers, understood: That solutions to the problems we face are not found in a federal law, indeed this usually leads to more tyranny. Many "conservative" minded people today have lost sight of this. I am against abortion and homo marriages, but I don't want the Federal government declaring what marriage is and what it isn't. I am all for having Roy Moore or any judge have the Ten Commandments, which make up the funamental law of Western civ, displayed publicly. But I don't want the Federal government passing a law saying what can and can't be displayed. If we give them that kind of power, then they can just as easily turn it against us down the road (and that's always what happens). I am against all these drugs that are now illegal (crack, cocaine, pot, etc) BUT the War on Drugs hurts society in the same way that Prohibition caused an increase in crime and illegal racketeering.

Ron Paul gets my vote.
 
People have the right to consume alcohol. But, that gets abused constantly when they get behind the wheel. That encroaches on general public safety. Can't imagine what would happen if drugs become legal. Don't see people being responsible with a chemical that can alter your judgment if consumed too much that is legal now be as or more responsible with chemicals that immediately alter your judgment.
Our justice system doesn't keep criminals behind bars now. So, if drugs become legal unless you step out of your home, I don't see a change there either.(Was that content correct?:( )
 
To answer your original question if gun owners compromise, I would say about %99 of the items they propose is NO.
As far as "ultra-conservatives and Republicans" go, maybe they have similar thoughts as most views of the general pop: Traditional Judeo-Christian philosophy and values. Most americans don't want to see big change. It's already happening in almost every level: social, religious, political, etc.
I'm not saying Rep. and conservatives are perfect. Heck, I've been disappointed in the last 8 years on their stance on some issues. I know they're typical politicians. But, they still stand on some of my core issues compared to the Dems. Unless some other party is developed that believes and acts on those...
 
What is his stance on the war on drugs and more to the point marijauna ??
Click to expand...
michibilly,

I think he is for legalizing drugs, including marijauna, but it is not because he wants to be a pot smoking hippie or any promote any kind of screwy proposal for the use of drugs. He is against what drugs do to people and the crime drugs bring. BUT the solution is to legalizing them, that alone eliminates the cartels and organized crime market. Then, social organizations, the church and other private institutions deal with the harm drugs do to people just like smoking and alchoholic beverages.
Whenever a substance that is per se harmless is illegalized, people tend to do it all the more often out of rebellion (especially young people) as was the case during Prohibition.

I'm not saying Rep. and conservatives are perfect. Heck, I've been disappointed in the last 8 years on their stance on some issues. I know they're typical politicians. But, they still stand on some of my core issues compared to the Dems. Unless some other party is developed that believes and acts on those...
Click to expand...

tuttle8,
Has it ever occured to you that other people might very well feel as you do (there is a reason the Republicans lost the house & senate). I know I do. I used to say the same thing "they are better than the Dems." But the lesser of two evils is still an evil. It's settling for driving headlong into the wall at 60mph instead of 90mph. It takes longer for one to happen as opposed to the other, but the same result.

So many people used to be afraid of third parties because the usual outcry was "But you will take away from the Republicans and the Democrats will take over."
It has to start somewhere. I say, go for priniciples and if the worse of two evils wins temporarily, fine. It will frustrate that many more people who will vote for principles next time instead of compromising for a neo-con Republican

BTW, you don't have to agree with everything a principled candidate believes. I don't agree with 100% of what Pat Buchanan says and probably if I looked around I could say the same thing about Ron Paul....BUT I would vote for either one of them because they stick to their guns (pun intended). They hold to their principles (unlike most "conservative" Republicans)
 
To tell the truth, I think my civil rights will get trampled on if drugs become legal.

I know I keep posting loaded opinions at you, Redworm, but I keep getting kicked off line. So, I have to post a little at a time. Looking forward to your responses.
Respectfully,
Tuttle8.
 
To tell the truth, I think my civil rights will get trampled on if drugs become legal.
Click to expand...

I think I need you to explain that a little bit it makes no sense to me. I dont think your rights could get trampled on anymore than the war on drugs allready has.
 
Take smoking for lack of better example. It's legal in most states to smoke in public. However, I have to deal with the smoke everywhere I go. The only way I can stay away from it is stay at home or choose to go to one of very few places that don't allow smoking inside, but still hold my breath to pass the cloud of smoke at the entrance. It's very oppressing. I'm not bashing against smokers nor do I intend to disrespect, just the best analagy I can think of. Now, if drugs become legal, I might be put in the same position because if you give one pro group,any pro group an inch, they'll want a mile. Sure don't want to live like a hermit trying to avoid the inhalation of chemicals are in drug smoke at a restaurant. Then, get drug tested the next day at work and of course be fired. This sounds way out there, but it's a prediction that I have that could happen and is, again, an example off the top of my head.
Plus, someone getting high has, without a doubt, impaired judgment. They get behind the wheel and you know where I will do with that...
 
The "war on drugs" isn't fought the way I believe should be fought. I don't have any problems at all with my rights being violated now. I just stay away from anything like that and cops don't have probable cause breaking down my door. I truly don't see very many cases that happens unless it might be warranted to some degree or someone lives in an extremely corrupt city/town.
 
Do you not see a connection between prohibition and all the hits the 2nd has taken ? Your ok with those rights being violated? 2 other things I dont think you are thinking of. 1 If drugs were legal the drug test policy would probibly have to change a little bit, and 2 even if drugs were legal I doubt youd just be able to light up a joint or some crack any old place.


Oh one last thing. You hold your breath when you walk through a group of smokers.... What do you do when your stuck in a traffic jam put on a hasmat suit ? Sorry for the derail the war on drugs gets me a little bit excited. I think the war on drugs and the war on guns are one and the same.
 
Let's not let this thread drift into closure... The subject at hand is Ron Paul, not the War on Drugs.
Click to expand...

Gee, and I was really ready to rant on that. More to the point though, I recall seeing a lot of discussion on this and other boards regarding choosing the lesser of two evils vs. throwing away your vote on a third party prior to the last election. I think it is time to show the "powers that be" that we are willing to put our support elsewhere, even if it doesn't have a chance to produce a winner at this time. I just hope that such options begin to present themselves over the next couple of years.
 
Knothead,

I totally agree with you. I too believe that showing the dems and reps that if they don't straighten up their acts, we are fully capable of getting another party into office to stop clowning around.

As for the original post, the problem is we have far too many people who walk into a both and pull the lever of either Dem or rep soley because they affiliate themselves with those beliefs, even if the person they just voted for is far off from what the party's general beliefs are.
 
Redworm, can you please explain this to me. It makes no sense.

"He believes that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to ban or regulate drugs in general."

Source is Wikipedia. I like most of his views, but sort of find this one confusing. It was following a section about allowing farmers to grow hemp, but regulating it.
 
Troponin,

Nowhere in the constitution is the government given the power to wage a war on drugs. The government generally uses the "commerce clause" to wage it's wars on "things" (drugs, guns, etc) The "commerce clause" gives the government the power to "REGULATE" interstate commerce. The original meaning of "regulate" simply meant to "make regular". Basically, to ensure that interstate commerce laws were the same, or similar, between all of the states.

The government has twisted the definition of "regulate" to mean "control" They have used the "commerce clause" to control interstate trade..and EVERYTHING that can possibly be involved in interstate commerce. So..if you grow pot in your backyard...the Feds have decided that they can control (in this case ban and seize) the marijuana (or anything else) because it COULD be shipped, sold, traded, etc, between the states.


So, constitutionally speaking...the government has no right to disallow drugs. The use, sale, trade, growing, manufacture, etc., falls under the ninth and tenth amendments to the US Constitution. The Ninth allows for rights (such as the right to self medicate) which are not listed in the Bill of Rights. And the Tenth states that any powers not given to the federal government belong to the States or to the People. And the federal government was not given the power to wage war against drugs or drug users.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top