The GOP

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
I regret the state of the RKBA in NY, my old
home state.

However, my point is that the GOP in this state is no better than the Dems.

A blurb from the NY Times


New York Joins the Gun Suits
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's lawsuit against gun makers
lends a powerful political voice to the gun control
debate, since he is the first Republican mayor to join
more than 30 communities taking the manufacturers to
court.

Now you might think that this means that the cause should move in more to the right and support fringe candidates.

I would argue that unless the cause figures out a way to make it attractive to the middle of the political spectrum, eventually GOP support will erode.

We cannot just base the RKBA fight on a shrinking conservative base (which is unattractive to me anyway.

Perhaps, money should be spent in a long term effort to cultivate reasonable moderate and liberal RKBA supporters, minorities and the like rather than just stewing and watching the tide wash away everyones' line in the sand.
 
And fellows like Alabama's governor, a dem, who pushed through anti-firarms lawsuit legislation.

Though as a concept, I whole heartedly agree that supporters of the RKBA should concentrate their efforts on the middle of the pack, where most voters are to be found.
 
The silver lining to this cloud is that Giuliani is no longer the Republican candidate for Senate.

On the bright side, Denise McNamara, the new Republican National Committeewoman from Texas, told delegates to the Texas GOP convention that "To me, gun control means using both hands when I shoot."
 
Trying to appeal to the middle of the political spectrum is to give up the game. It's like playing football where they keep moving the goalposts and every down is fourth and ninety-nine. Why play in a game you can't win?

In political terms the left keeps moving further and further left, taking the center with it too. To be a political moderate these days is to be a statist.

I have had the same politics for ten years now. In 1990 I was a normal wish-Reagan-were-still-around Republican, and I still am.

Now I am considered a right wing extremist because of my views on the philosophy of the Declaration, the relationship of the Declaration to the Constitution, and the concept of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

I haven't changed, but the liberal-socialist axis has made massive gains, controlling the White House, the dominant news media, academia, and all popular culture. People who try to fit in to that cess pool will get sick sooner, rather than later. By way of example, I give you George Bush, Jr.
Instead of trying to play a PR campaign we can't win by trying to be friends with everyone, we need to respect ourselves more and be more didactic, discerning, and critical. Trying to have a winning TV personality and being fun at parties is part of the problem. There are people I do not wish to associate with. I reserve the right to choose my friends and dislike whoever I please.

We need to turn the conceptual tables around.
Instead of being likable to them, they need to understand that they must earn our respect and trust, or endure our disdain.

Anything else is doomed to fail.




[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited July 02, 2000).]
 
I believe much of the apparent disdain for firearms stems from the fact that we have been transitioning from an agrairian society to an urban society.

I had a 20 gauge shotgun in my hand at the age of seven growing up around farming and the timber industry. I saw at an early age what guns will do and I witnessed more than one cow dying while giving birth. I have seen a .22 rifle eliminate the threat of a rattlesnake on a logging site. How many people in NYC or CHI experience this before the age of ten or ever?

Another factor involved is our lust for material wealth. Most don't care if we give up a little freedom just keep Wall Street ticking and the DOW in positive territory. Many people long to hear a politician say that everything will be okay and they are willing to barter their rights away for this peace of mind. Most of us do not know what it is like to be without freedom in the first place.

We have a tendency to blame others for our failures. The lawsuits are proof-positive that this is truth.

I did'nt like Giuliani then and I don't like him now. The people of New York State are marvelous while the views of the majority in the City leave something to be desired. It's funny how when I am in NYC, my Texas drawl immediately initiates the topic of guns and the death penalty. Most I talk with will admit after of a little discourse that a gun properly stored in the home is the most effective method of defending one's domicile and family.



------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
There are some very anti republicans like Pataki, Guliano, Lazio, but there are also some pro RKBA Dems like Dingell in Michigan and the Gov. of Alabama.

GWB didn't cave to media pressure with the execution of Graham. I heard him say something to the effect of "if it cost me politically, it cost me politically". There may be more substance here than he's been given credit for.
 
Phil said: "There are some very anti republicans like Pataki, Guliano, Lazio, but there are also some pro RKBA Dems like Dingell in Michigan and the Gov. of Alabama."

John Dingell? You mean the creep whose vote put the "assault weapons" ban over the top, a few hours after denouncing it as an assault on the Constitution?


------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Don't forget the value of even commie republicans from NY.

Now look - if an amendment to a bill or a full bill reading "stop guns from killing babies" act appears, what sort of heartless dem or republican would not sign it.

But a Republican majority, even propped up by anti-gun republicans, will have committee leaders who can keep junk like that from being voted on.


Battler.
 
Battler: "Can" is the operative word; "Will" is far more questionable.

It all comes down to the difference in how the majority and minority parties in Congress chose their leaders.

Both parties put up leadership slates, and then the ENTIRE House, and the entire Senate, votes which slate wins.

The Democrats, knowing that they're in the minority, don't have to worry about winning that vote of the entire body. So they pick a leadership slate which represents the caucus as a whole, and which consequently is very anti-gun. John Dingell has no leverage in THAT choice!

The Republicans, on the other hand, must pick a leadership slate which is acceptable to the left-most fringe of their caucus, because they can't afford to lose more than one or two votes. Were they to pick solid, pro-gun conservatives, the anti-gun Republicans you're counting on to "prop up" their majority would vote for the Democratic slate, and the Democrats would control Congress!

So, thanks to the anti-gun Republicans "propping up" the majority, we get people like Trent Lott and Dennis Hastert doing everything in their power to enact gun control laws, scheduling votes on bills right at the peak of media hysteria, letting the Demcrats introduce anti-gun amendments at will, stuffing conference committees full of anti-gunners to get things like the Lautenberg amendment snuck into bills.

Bottom line, Battler, is that sticking a knife in our backs is the price those anti-gun Republicans of yours charge for doing that propping up. We'd actually be better off without them!

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
BB
I didn't realize Dingell was voting anti. I've heard some of his rhetoric and it was pro. Rats.
 
It must be remembered that the constituency in the NYC area by in large is against the ownership of firearms. We can argue back and forth all day long about the dems and repubs and the liberal repubs but the fact remains that they have grassroot support from their voters or they would'nt be taking anti-gun positions in the first place.

Believe me, Giuliani would not be going after the Gun Manufacturers if he did'nt think it would further his polictical ambitions.

Most folks in the Metro areas of the Northeast don't believe that we should have the right to own a handgun or an assault-style weapon for that matter.

Politicians are about maintaining power. Inciting a witch hunt against any targeted group is always in their favor not to mentions finding new things to tax.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
Phil: Don't know that Dingell is "voting" anti, present tense. But he can't be trusted not to vote anti; as he DID vote for the "assault weapons" ban, putting it over the top. Did it in response to unspecified "pressure" from the Democratic leadership.

He promised at one time that he'd explain to everyone exactly what threat prompted him to vote for a bill he'd denounced as an assault on the Constitution, but so far as I know, he's never bothered to explain. Frankly, unless his children were kidnapped by the DNC, which threatended to mail them back one piece at a time until he voted their way, I don't want to hear it anyway; The way I figure it, after swearing that oath to uphold the Constitution, he didn't have the right to vote for a bill "assaulting" it even if somebody held a gun to his temple; Our rights weren't his to give away!

Dingell, by the way, was the first instance I noticed of the NRA fudging a candidate's rating; Instead of giving him a rating in the '94 election guide, they gave a phone number you could dial to hear excuses!

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top