What are we to do?

B

Bob R

Inactive
I am new to posting on this site but I have been involved and concerned over losing our 2nd Amendment Rights for the past 25 yrs. First let me say that I live in that wonderful liberal republic of NY. I have written letters and Emailed my congressmen to no avail, no doubt because of my liberal location. Because of this I am the loudest pessimist you're ever going to meet on regaining our firearm Rights, I just don't see it ever happening, and I feel the same way about our other Rights also. I don't care who we get for the next president, I like Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer and they don't have a chance in the world of winning, we are going to lose our Rights starting with the 2nd Amendment. All you have to do is look at our republican controlled congress, even with this, we are still losing our Rights.
When I have a difficult time figuring something out it's generally because I can't see the whole picture. I believe this is the same when it comes to politics, we are not receiving the whole picture from these jokers, we are always being told one thing while they turn around and do the opposite. I don't trust 99.9 percent of our politicians anymore. With only 1 yr left to his presidency Clinton is going to plow our Rights under, what little we have left of them, as fast as he can. We have lost all control over these people(politicians).
I hope someone has some answers because I've just about ran out of them. Please forgive me for this attitude.
 
To me, the big picture is whether the Supreme Shirks will ever quit abdicating their duty and grant cert in a 2nd Am case, in order to further explain Miller and set the stage to either (1) wipe out about half the crap already in place; or (2) deny our rights and let us get on with the revolution for God's sake. Usually the Court will grant cert in controversial subjects, but for some reason not 2nd Am. What we need is a "circuit split" to encourage them to take it up. The seventh and ninth have said "not fundamental" or "not individual", IINM, which is of course BS. So if Mr. Emerson in his case can get the 5th Circuit in New Orleans to disagree and uphold RKBA, then hopefully the Supremes will take up Emerson or some other hot potato in the near future. I'm waiting patiently, since one court case trump 1000 costly legislative battles. Emerson is for various reasons actually a pretty good test case. If the Fifth doesn't see the light - I dunno - keep fighting the good fight legislatively and in the media/propoganda, and if enough dissent stirs up, start a revolution/seccesion movement - it'll be horrificly bloody, but for the best in the long run.
 
I agree that the future looks bleak, but you must keep hope alive, or THEY will have won. Once you have accepted the validity of their argument (there isn't any), then it's only a matter of time before the final blow, confiscation, is dealt. Even if every person who doesn't own a gun is against us, that doesn't make their position right. The majority can never legitimately suppress the rights of any person or group.

You are right not to trust politicians, no matter what party they belong to. I wonder about people who seek power, especially for its own sake, which is what I believe 99% of today's pols do. What are they trying to make up for? Is Clinton such a paragon of virtue in all areas of his life that he believes he is the best person for his job, or is it that his life is as empty as his soul and he's trying to fill it with power?

Many people, myself included, expected big changes when the so-called Republican revolution happened. Well, what's become of that? The Republicans still legislate to the Democrats' tune; the Republicans seem to be content to following the Dems' lead in everything from social to fiscal issues. Instead of saying it is wrong to treat an individual as a means to an end, as a vehicle to someone else's vision of utopia, that it's immoral to live off the confiscated income of another, we have the Republicans going along with the sh***y system the Democrats have built. Sure, they may quibble over minor details, such as how much should be spent on this or that, but they never seem to question why the money should be spent at all.

Until the philosophy of the electorate changes to one where the individual is everything, expect more of the same crap we have now. BTW, some people lament the low turnout of voters on election days, but not me. The more people who stay home, the more weight my vote carries.
DAL

------------------
Reading "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," by Ayn Rand, should be required of every politician and in every high school.



[This message has been edited by DAL (edited December 28, 1999).]
 
Futo: Yeah, that basically sums it up: We're waiting for the Supreme court to get off the pot, or for something to happen so outrageous that the whole thing reaches critical mass, and a civil war erupts. (Which doesn't have to be all THAT bloody, in my opinion; If our side captures some nukes early on, it will be all over but the negotiations over territorial limits.)In the mean time, all we can do is fight the good fight, on the political, legal, and propaganda fronts. Though I DO think the NRA ought to sponsor a massive march on Washington, just to give those idiots up there a vicerial feel for how many armed people they're pissing off.

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!
 
Given the weight of the answer, neither we nor the gun prohibitionists are willing to take a case before the Supreme Court. Don't you think that the NRA or Handgun Control Inc. would have forced a case by now if either side was sure of a favorable ruling?
 
The statists on either ends of the political spectrum don't want a high court ruling. They only respect rulings in their favor. If the court were to take a heroic turn and aknowledge the truth and affirm our rights, then those that aim to enslave us would have to show true colors. Sometimes I wonder if a ruling either way may still provoke a revolutionary necessity.
 
I think that a Supreme Court Ruling in favor of the Second Amendment would do nothing to set off any trouble, on the other hand; an unfavorable ruling would incentize the Anti's to leap forward with such ferocity , that we would be forced to war or servitude as our choice would dictate!

------------------
What part of "INFRINGED" don't they understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top