What about the next presidental election

Status
Not open for further replies.
Win62a, I tend to think of it as the other way around, if only because if push comes to shove, I don't have a lot of faith that a bunch of guys with shotguns will be able to do a whole lot against the forces of the Federal government should they decide to take "unconstitutional" action against them.

I think that some people regard the 2nd Amendment as a talisman of sorts, an ace up the sleeve that they feel they can pull out whenever they feel their rights are threatened. The point is to protect your rights and effect political action well before it ever gets to the point that you have to resort to using the 2nd Amendment. Maybe we should call it the "nuclear option" ... :D
 
Did you ever think that maybe the rest of your rights could be weakened while leaving the 2nd alone..but that in the end the 2nd would then be eventually irrelevant?
 
actually wahaibbism aside...Islam historically has been shown to be much more tolerant of other faiths and or practices as oppossed to Christianity.

Sayyyy what?:D Could you give an example of this?

25
 
Wahhabisim is what is practiced in modern day Saudi Arabia. Its a radical form of garbage fundementalism which I believe started in and around the 1890s. Other more mainstream Islamic beliefs are especially tolerant of other faiths. You can trace this back to crusades. Look at what rampaging christians did on their way and on arrival to the holy lands, compare this with what the muslims did. Granted its not all cut and dry, but one should not look at Islamic beliefs out of context. The Koran is a fairly tolerant book and teaches many worthwhile things. Unfortunately most peoples dealings with Islam is the modern day garbage coming out of Saudi, Wahhabisim, which like all flawed fundementalist beliefs believes in the literal word of the translation. Compare this to fundementalist Christians and thier deluded views on creationism, intelligent design or other literal transalations of the Bible.

I can give several examples if your really interested as its an old religion.

No I am not a muslim.
 
Wow... just, wow...

>I happen to think that the AWB expiration, the manufacturer protection, and the work the state level republicans have done, is progress. If you don't, well, we'll have to agree to disagree then.<

The subject of the thread precludes discussion of what happens at the state level. We're discussing what has been done at the FEDERAL level. Which, to date, hasn't really amounted to a heck of a lot:

-Sunset of the AWB: great, we can have bayonette lugs again. However, all this really required was a majority in the House and Senate doing nothing. You consider it progress when people can just coast? Mind hiring me at your place of business? I'll show LOTS of "progress"...

-Manufacturer Protection: saves the gun industry from being driven to bankruptcy. Pay VERY close attention there: saves a business type from bankruptcy. The ONLY way this benefits Joe Sixpack is that there won't be anymore junk lawsuits against manufacturers, so we'll still be able to get new guns. Nice, but not a big improvement in the landscape...

Have the Republicans (heck, ANY politician) done anything to actually BENEFIT Joe Gunowner? Even TRIED to do anything? Repeal one of the nasties (NFA34, GCA68, the 86 MG ban)? Heck... how about just trying to reign in the ATF?

Supposedly, we're gonna "get ours" when a good 2A case comes before the SCOTUS. I'll believe that when I see it, and not before. Especially after seeing Kelo and Raich...

>And it includes a LOT of things that are. A lot more than you realize, evidently. Without it, there would be no democracy, no concepts of right and wrong, of our individuality and human rights.<

Hmmm... "democracy" was thought up by the Pagan Greeks. And you're saying that, before the advent of Judaism (and later, Christianity), there was no concept of right and wrong, or individuality, or human rights? WOW... that just blows my mind...

>What violence? You're mistaking it for islam, perhaps?<

Nope. Those that have made threats against me have been, to a man, Christian. They've also, to a man, been outgunned, and informed of such.

I'll bet that, if you check into the assualts based on "bigotry" (I hate to say it, but "hate crimes"), you'll find that almost every assailant is Christian. I'm refering to racially based (filthy n*****!), sexually based ("gay bashing"), and (in my case), outright religious intolerance (the exact threat being burning at the stake).

Now, I wouldn't say that all Christians are that way: that would make ME a bigot, now wouldn't it? I fully realize that those who engage in such behaviors are using their religion in the same way radical Muslims are using theirs. Unfortunately, the one's I usually hear touting "our Christian culture" are the types that want to use me as kindling (or be shot trying to, anyway). So that tends to colour one's attitudes...

And that's the last I plan on mentioning the whole religion thing, since it REALLY doesn't belong here. The thread is about the next PRESIDENTIAL election, not faith bashing or states rights...
 
And that's the last I plan on mentioning the whole religion thing, since it REALLY doesn't belong here. The thread is about the next PRESIDENTIAL election, not faith bashing or states rights...

May I be so bold to point out that the terror problem we have today is totaly religion based and something the next president must deal with. It is the biggest issue we face today as the people that hate us for religous reason are trying in every mannor to kill us.

I'll bet that, if you check into the assualts based on "bigotry" (I hate to say it, but "hate crimes"), you'll find that almost every assailant is Christian. I'm refering to racially based (filthy n*****!), sexually based ("gay bashing"), and (in my case), outright religious intolerance (the exact threat being burning at the stake).

Now, I wouldn't say that all Christians are that way: that would make ME a bigot, now wouldn't it? I fully realize that those who engage in such behaviors are using their religion in the same way radical Muslims are using theirs. Unfortunately, the one's I usually hear touting "our Christian culture" are the types that want to use me as kindling (or be shot trying to, anyway). So that tends to colour one's attitudes...

Your point here makes no sense to me, none of the actions taken against others is something a "true Christian" would do. It is often something people who are not Christian want to blame on Christians to belittle the faith but that pointing a finger at others never hides our own shame but does color our attitudes. Again the next president is going to have to deal with this religion based problem.

25
 
Other more mainstream Islamic beliefs are especially tolerant of other faiths. You can trace this back to crusades. Look at what rampaging christians did on their way and on arrival to the holy lands, compare this with what the muslims did. Granted its not all cut and dry, but one should not look at Islamic beliefs out of context.

I not going to get deep into this because it is obviouse that the direction of your studies leads you to believe what you say is true. If I challenge you then it becomes personal and that isn't my way of discussion. So I will just ask a few questions and if you choose to answer them then maybe we will both learn something.

Was the Muslim religion spread more with the Koran or the sword?

Have the Muslims ever had their crusades against Christians?

Who are Infidels and how does the Koran tell the true faithful to deal with them.

The world is getting smaller by the minute and WMDs will be in the hands of Iran soon. Will Hillary handle the Iatola so we don't get into another war? How did Bill handle the Muslims?

25
 
Supposedly, we're gonna "get ours" when a good 2A case comes before the SCOTUS. I'll believe that when I see it, and not before.
Click to expand...
If it wasn't for Bush and the republicans, I assure you, you never would have seen it, on the contrary. Gore or Kerry would have filled those seats with ultra-leftists, and then when a case came before them, we'd be in real trouble.
Hmmm... "democracy" was thought up by the Pagan Greeks.
Click to expand...
And it almost perished in the dark ages. It was kept alive, with so many other classical greek and roman texts and ideas - by the church. Western civilization is interwoven with the judeo/christian tradition, so much so that the very fabric would be destroyed by trying to pull it out. And who's trying to pull it out? The left and islam, sworn enemys of democracy.
Those that have made threats against me have been, to a man, Christian.
Click to expand...
Christian people can act in unchristian ways. Would Jesus have burned someone at the stake, or any of that? No. Mohammad would, not Jesus.

And anyone thinking that Islam is a religion of peace, really should read :
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam .
 
Amazing that we're discussing the relative merits of Christianity and Islam instead of the first amendment. Also amazing that the Dems are derided for their attacks on the 2nd while the Repubs are given a free ride on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th.
This community, like any other, supports the amendments it likes when it's convenient and ignores those it doesn't like. Don't you get it? This isn't about left vs. right, it's about the people vs. the government. It's about liberty vs. authority.
The Republicans used to be the party of personal freedom and responsibility, but no more. Now it's ruled by a small group that believes in big government and enforced morality. There is still a fundamental core of true conservatives in the party but they can't regain control without help from the base (that's you folks).
As for me? I say that the 2nd is my guarantor for all of the other rights, *BUT* there's no point in having it if I'm going to just let them take the rest away. I'm going to vote for whoever is less of a threat to my freedom regardless of which party they happen to belong to.
 
Now it's ruled by a small group that believes in big government and enforced morality.
Click to expand...
Big government? Yes, that is unfortunately true. Enforced morality? I don't see it. I also don't see them attacking the 1st amendment, I do see the liberal/left destroying it though.
 
Sorry boys, my money is on those right of center to best look after my civil and Constitutional rights. While both major political parties continue to drift leftwards with the DNC far in the lead, I still have to support those who lean to the right. The American Left has consistently demonstrated an outright hostility to the US Constitution. "It's a living document" and all that other jazz. Phooey!

Unfortunately the latest incarnation of the GOP has done damage to our civil liberties (best exemplified by the Patriot Act) but it has done so with the approval of the Dems. (Patriot Act passed the Senate on a 98-1 vote)

Nowhere on the Right do I see an assault on our BOR that comes anywhere near the vehemence of the Left's attacks on our 2A rights. Indeed many on the Left just seem to hate the concept of an armed citizenry.

I've read too much Rand and Orwell to support Modern Liberalism. Marx got it all wrong. I don't care how much DU honors him, socialism is a loser from the word "go."
 
Wow, this one's gonna get closed if it doesn't get back on track ... and quick!

Rebar, maybe I missed it, but did you answer the question that started this thread? How would you vote given the parameters specified within the original post? Just curious.
 
Last edited:
Win62a, I tend to think of it as the other way around, if only because if push comes to shove, I don't have a lot of faith that a bunch of guys with shotguns will be able to do a whole lot against the forces of the Federal government should they decide to take "unconstitutional" action against them.

I think that some people regard the 2nd Amendment as a talisman of sorts, an ace up the sleeve that they feel they can pull out whenever they feel their rights are threatened. The point is to protect your rights and effect political action well before it ever gets to the point that you have to resort to using the 2nd Amendment. Maybe we should call it the "nuclear option" ...
Click to expand...

I guess that's what separates Conservatives from Liberals. Conservatives have more faith in their fellow man.

Anyway, history demonstrates that an armed citizenry is difficult to subdue. Our own American revolution is a pretty good example of what armed resistance of the citizenry can accomplish. Sure we had help from the French, but an armed citizenry certainly played a key role.

Then in more modern times, the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan sure dealt the powerful Soviet military fits, didn't they? And again, they received help from the US but they did the bleeding and the dying.

And if "push came to shove", I don't believe the entire military establishment would fall in line with an illegal and unconstitution action by the US government. US troops firing on their fellow citizens? Some would, but certainly not all.

Again, due to the track history of the American Left, I cannot trust them to guarantee my Constitutional rights. I will work to try to ensure the Right gets back on track but the Left? They're a lost cause.

As the old Basque proverb says, "Better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees."

And to answer the original question, if I could not vote for a pro-gun candidate, I would not vote.
 
Win62a, I'm not doubting that armed insurrection, resistance, etc. does not occur, and does not occur effectively on occasion, though usually only when supplemented with massive outside assistance (for example, the failures of both uprisings in Warsaw against the Germans during the Second World War). Nor am I stating that it is not justifiable on occasion either.

The crux of my statement rather was that some people are far too quick to point to the Second Amendment as a safegaurd against what they percieve as governmental infringements of other rights and liberties, hence the "nuclear option" analogy. I think it would be wise to exhaust one's other legal and Constitutional remedies before playing the trump card of what essentially is implied violence against the Federal government or people who advocate different political ideologies.

My contention was that if "push came to shove" within this nation, then matters are so far gone that most of this debate is frivolous at best. The point is to prevent matters from reaching that state, and a continued emphasis on the Second Amendment as a "magic shield" that somehow permits resistence is antithetical to that objective. It breeds far more distrust than confidence.

I guess that's what separates Conservatives from Liberals. Conservatives have more faith in their fellow man.
Click to expand...

This is debatable at best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top