What party is strongest gun rights advocate?
- Thread starter brett30030
- Start date
Limeyfellow
New member
+1
The Republicans were in power for many of these gun acts. We had the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 banning the sale of new machine guns, supressors and such.
We had the 1989 ban on foreign weapons with assault rifle like features.
The Mulford Act in 1967 which started the crackdown on firearms in California and stripped the rights to carry on person or a vehicle and many other places was started no less by a certain Gov. Ronald Reagon. These laws have been in place and the basis for all the restrictions in that state.
The laws in NYC that we so complain about are the works of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The former is now running for the republican candidate for president and has a really good chance of winning and introducing NYC laws to the whole of the US. Lets add to that, New York state Governer George Pataki allowed every NY firearm restriction law go through and he could easily have vetoed them.
Then theres been a whole bunch of laws Republican congressmen and senators have put through the past 30 years. At least a half dozen have happened since 2000 and most of them have passed. These include more background parts, ban of imports of barrels for surplus partkits, tougher punishment, banning private sales at gunshows attempt that was blocked by a tiebreaker, not to mention all the new laws Orrin Hatch, Trent Lott and company tried to pass through.
Then there was that whole rucus when the NRA went deathly silent when Bush said he supported extending the AWB. Well duh. It was in his campaign literature in 2000 for all to see. We have Dick Cheney as the number two man who wants to ban all firearms that haven't got a clear sporting reason to be owned.
We should never forget the following quote. "I support the Brady Bill, and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay." - Ronald Reagon, March 28th 1991. This guy has always been put up as a defender of gunrights and freedoms. Nixon was even worse.
It seems people have been really strangely to believe that Republicans are a progun rights party, while the Democrats want to ban all firearms and its complete nonsense and has more to do with groups wanting registration drives.
Osborn F. Enready
Moderator
I would say Libertarians, hands down, if liberty also means something to you.
Constitutionalists are much the same as Libertarians, except that Constitutionalists allow much more of ONE religion to influence their politics.
IMHO....
Constitutionalists are much the same as Libertarians, except that Constitutionalists allow much more of ONE religion to influence their politics.
IMHO....
Shane Tuttle
Staff
After browsing through most of the posts, I think you can unleash on me all you want after my statements and questions.
I can see all y'all's point of view favoring the LP. And you can point out some sporatic statements or occasional instances of the Republican party letting you down. However, I just see for every one negative statement, I seem to pick up ten to counter. Just pick up an American Rifleman magazine around voting time and read up on the summary of each upcoming candidates that they write about. The positive changes for society and accomplishments of preserving the Constitution far outweigh the negative actions. It just appears, IMHO, that most people accenuate the few negative actions and not pay much attention to the positive. The Dems have a strong growing number of secular-progressives in their party with HUGE financial backing. Enter George Soros. He is, by far and away, THE most dangerous one man wrecking crew hell bent on destroying America. Call it what you want, but I don't see anybody of his caliber the Republicans support. And remember, Republicans may be in power in some of the blows we took for gun rights, but it doesn't hold a candle to what happened when Clinton was in office. Yes, I know the Rep. controlled the Congress, but it didn't fall on the Rep. party for the most part.
I can see all y'all's point of view favoring the LP. And you can point out some sporatic statements or occasional instances of the Republican party letting you down. However, I just see for every one negative statement, I seem to pick up ten to counter. Just pick up an American Rifleman magazine around voting time and read up on the summary of each upcoming candidates that they write about. The positive changes for society and accomplishments of preserving the Constitution far outweigh the negative actions. It just appears, IMHO, that most people accenuate the few negative actions and not pay much attention to the positive. The Dems have a strong growing number of secular-progressives in their party with HUGE financial backing. Enter George Soros. He is, by far and away, THE most dangerous one man wrecking crew hell bent on destroying America. Call it what you want, but I don't see anybody of his caliber the Republicans support. And remember, Republicans may be in power in some of the blows we took for gun rights, but it doesn't hold a candle to what happened when Clinton was in office. Yes, I know the Rep. controlled the Congress, but it didn't fall on the Rep. party for the most part.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Respectfully...
As far as the party with the most gun rights advocates, I have only dabbled into the LP's views/actions supporting our 2nd Amend. But, I think on some of their stance on issues will indirectly cause the demise of America.
Just my opinion.
As far as the party with the most gun rights advocates, I have only dabbled into the LP's views/actions supporting our 2nd Amend. But, I think on some of their stance on issues will indirectly cause the demise of America.
Just my opinion.God I hate to sound like a Libertarian blowhard but a lot of people seem to hate on the LP because of their stance on immigration. They DO NOT SUPPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION... THEY DO NOT SUPPORT OPEN BORDERS
Read. www.lp.org
Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Once effective immigration policies are in place, general amnesties will no longer be necessary.
Borders will be closed. If you don't meet requirements for entry you will not be allowed in. This is their official platform. I don't see how people figure this equates to a complete lack of border enforcement. Heck, it can't be worse than what we have now under the Republicans! At least they state outright that borders will secure. They certainly aren't secure now with our glorious leaders in place.
Read. www.lp.org
Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Once effective immigration policies are in place, general amnesties will no longer be necessary.
Borders will be closed. If you don't meet requirements for entry you will not be allowed in. This is their official platform. I don't see how people figure this equates to a complete lack of border enforcement. Heck, it can't be worse than what we have now under the Republicans! At least they state outright that borders will secure. They certainly aren't secure now with our glorious leaders in place.
Like it or not, this is a two-party country. No third party has had a real chance of winning the presidency in modern America. The last one to gain a signficant number of votes was when Perot ran, and handed the election to Bill Clinton. Sure, if more and more folks vote libertarian in each election, maybe by 2100 we'll see a libertarian president, but by then we will have no gun rights left, and like some countries, we'll probably have seen the concept of self defense eliminated as well. We really have no MEANINGFUL choice except to stay and work within the two party system. And of the two parties, it is not rocket science to see that the Republicans generally are our allies and the Democrats our enemies. The RINOs like Guliani, Pataki, Bloomberg (interesting how all three are from NY) do not control the Republican Party nationally, and are not representative of the party in general.
"Just pick up an American Rifleman magazine around voting time and read up on the summary of each upcoming candidates that they write about. "
The cheerleading arm of the Republican Party is hardly the best source for honest reporting on political candidates.
Remember, this is the same NRA that endorsed{by virtue of a higher rating} a Democrat candidate over Ron Paul.
The cheerleading arm of the Republican Party is hardly the best source for honest reporting on political candidates.
Remember, this is the same NRA that endorsed{by virtue of a higher rating} a Democrat candidate over Ron Paul.
Yeah, I am sorry but when the NRA endorsed a Democrat over Ron Paul, I lost my taste for the NRA. Ron Paul himself has a good point about the LP over the GOP. When he quit Congress and became a full time lp man, he soon realized that all the good intentions in the world don't matter if you can't enact them through the legislative process. Hence, he went back to the GOP and now runs as a Republican but votes pretty libertarian.
The Republicans ought to move that way since that is what they do when they lose power. Then- when they get reelected into power again, they will go back to being the same old crap they've been for six years now.
You vote your way, I'll vote mine. If you really want to make a difference become active in both parties and see if you can't get the Republicans to go more libertarian.
The Republicans ought to move that way since that is what they do when they lose power. Then- when they get reelected into power again, they will go back to being the same old crap they've been for six years now.
You vote your way, I'll vote mine. If you really want to make a difference become active in both parties and see if you can't get the Republicans to go more libertarian.
Libertarian Party of course!
The LP suffers from a familiar catch-22.....many people won't vote for them because the "don't have a chance of winning", however..they don't have a chance of winning because so many of you won't vote for them.
Every time you vote for a republican..or a democrat...you vote to support the status quo. If you want change then you need to vote for it.
Neither the republicans or democrats will ever reverse the tide of statism that has overtaken this country. Only a a third party can possibly bring about the changes that are needed to restore this country to the free place that it once was.
Are you going to continue to be part of the problem...or are you going to be part of the solution?
The LP suffers from a familiar catch-22.....many people won't vote for them because the "don't have a chance of winning", however..they don't have a chance of winning because so many of you won't vote for them.
Every time you vote for a republican..or a democrat...you vote to support the status quo. If you want change then you need to vote for it.
Neither the republicans or democrats will ever reverse the tide of statism that has overtaken this country. Only a a third party can possibly bring about the changes that are needed to restore this country to the free place that it once was.
Are you going to continue to be part of the problem...or are you going to be part of the solution?
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Redworm,
I do believe you request a clarification, for my statement does imply your conclusion.
However, what I mean is when Republicans were in control of Congress in the Clinton era, I believe he vetoed or threatened to water down almost every single bill that actually got to his desk. That's one of the many obsticals they encountered and an example of my point. Like I said before, the Rep. aren't perfect, but they have a MUCH better track record to help preserve our Bill of Rights and the Constitution than the Dems. Clinton's administration passed the assault weapons ban, the Dems. Pretty hard fact, there. The Rep. shot down FAR more gun bills than we can shake a stick at. I kinda see a pattern, here. Where people may say the Rep. are no better, I think we're biting the hand that feeds us. Like most posters here have said, there's only 2 major parties here. Of the two, which lesser of 2 evils do you really think is going to help the Preservation. I know the LP may be the best to do that, but right now, how the general public is following, there will be only 2 parties for quite some time. Not my choice, just facing the facts.
Gun control? Last time I checked, the assault weapons ban has lifted and the Rep. controlled Congress did NOTHING to reintroduce it. Bush may have said that he would sign it back in, but the fact remains. It hasn't reached his desk because it is a dead issue and he knows it.
A failed pretend war? Well, I have more than a five paragraph essay for a rebuttal but I will not dignify a response for this reason.
This topic, IMO, is off base from this thread. Start another thread regarding this and I'm sure you'll receive plenty of opinions.
KJM,
You do bring up points that should be considered. Thanks for your input.
Hoji,
I would like to see proof where the American Rifleman Magazine has lied about reports on political candidates. I believe that they have a respectable staff and may have faults just like the rest of us, but not an organization that would print lies. It's confusing to me that you slam a mag that devotes itself for the very reason most claim the LP supports: the 2nd Amend. Clarification is requested.
Vito,
+1. Although, I do believe if enough people vote LP, then they just might hear the voice of the people. I'm not saying it will happen, but I will NOT happen if nobody votes for a third party.
I do believe you request a clarification, for my statement does imply your conclusion.
However, what I mean is when Republicans were in control of Congress in the Clinton era, I believe he vetoed or threatened to water down almost every single bill that actually got to his desk. That's one of the many obsticals they encountered and an example of my point. Like I said before, the Rep. aren't perfect, but they have a MUCH better track record to help preserve our Bill of Rights and the Constitution than the Dems. Clinton's administration passed the assault weapons ban, the Dems. Pretty hard fact, there. The Rep. shot down FAR more gun bills than we can shake a stick at. I kinda see a pattern, here. Where people may say the Rep. are no better, I think we're biting the hand that feeds us. Like most posters here have said, there's only 2 major parties here. Of the two, which lesser of 2 evils do you really think is going to help the Preservation. I know the LP may be the best to do that, but right now, how the general public is following, there will be only 2 parties for quite some time. Not my choice, just facing the facts.
Gun control? Last time I checked, the assault weapons ban has lifted and the Rep. controlled Congress did NOTHING to reintroduce it. Bush may have said that he would sign it back in, but the fact remains. It hasn't reached his desk because it is a dead issue and he knows it.
A failed pretend war? Well, I have more than a five paragraph essay for a rebuttal but I will not dignify a response for this reason.
This topic, IMO, is off base from this thread. Start another thread regarding this and I'm sure you'll receive plenty of opinions.
KJM,
You do bring up points that should be considered. Thanks for your input.
Hoji,
I would like to see proof where the American Rifleman Magazine has lied about reports on political candidates. I believe that they have a respectable staff and may have faults just like the rest of us, but not an organization that would print lies. It's confusing to me that you slam a mag that devotes itself for the very reason most claim the LP supports: the 2nd Amend. Clarification is requested.
Vito,
+1. Although, I do believe if enough people vote LP, then they just might hear the voice of the people. I'm not saying it will happen, but I will NOT happen if nobody votes for a third party.
If your choice was a vote between Hitler or Stalin...would you vote for one just because you believe him to the the lesser evil? I seriously doubt it. So why on earth you would vote for either a republican or a democrat just because you view one or the other to be "the lesser of two evils"?
Evil is still evil. And if you vote for that evil then you share in it. You can't say that you don't know. If nothing else..the last 80 or so years have shown that neither the republicans or the democrats will restore our rights. On the contrary, they have both proven themselves quite adept at increasing the power and size of government at the expense of the citizenry.
vote the way you've always voted..and you will get what we've always gotten.
Evil is still evil. And if you vote for that evil then you share in it. You can't say that you don't know. If nothing else..the last 80 or so years have shown that neither the republicans or the democrats will restore our rights. On the contrary, they have both proven themselves quite adept at increasing the power and size of government at the expense of the citizenry.
vote the way you've always voted..and you will get what we've always gotten.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know this may be a little off the track here but I would think this would provide enough incentive to vote for a change. This guy has not sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, his loyalty will lie with Islam. If things continue along these lines we will not have to worry about being able to vote.
The last time I voted third party was for Perot, and I will probably do so this up coming election. I think both partys are so far out of touch with the common man that there's not a dime's worth of difference in them. IMHO.
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Keith Ellison
When the first Muslim congressman in U.S. history, Keith Ellison (Hakim-Mohammed) of Minnesota, won the 2006 election and was making the regular thank-you-to-my-supporters speech, he allowed his fans to shout, "Allahu Akbar!," the same phrase allegedly used by the 9/11 suicide pilots.
Since November he's addressed various different Islamic groups and organizations, and he's used the Quran to be sworn into office. He's also been linked to Islamic organizations with questionable agendas
I know this may be a little off the track here but I would think this would provide enough incentive to vote for a change. This guy has not sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, his loyalty will lie with Islam. If things continue along these lines we will not have to worry about being able to vote.
The last time I voted third party was for Perot, and I will probably do so this up coming election. I think both partys are so far out of touch with the common man that there's not a dime's worth of difference in them. IMHO.
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Keith Ellison
When the first Muslim congressman in U.S. history, Keith Ellison (Hakim-Mohammed) of Minnesota, won the 2006 election and was making the regular thank-you-to-my-supporters speech, he allowed his fans to shout, "Allahu Akbar!," the same phrase allegedly used by the 9/11 suicide pilots.
Since November he's addressed various different Islamic groups and organizations, and he's used the Quran to be sworn into office. He's also been linked to Islamic organizations with questionable agendas
Those are really good points and you certainly clarified what I misunderstood. In addition to the AWB Clinton's signing of the DMCA really showed me how much that party cares about freedom.
However, I can't ignore the fact that no party that wants larger government would truly care about our ability to fight back if said government gets too big. I also can't wholly support a party that wants to limit free speech on the basis of decency and patriotism, wants to take control of the internet away from the people and put it squarely in the hands of the big telecoms and wants to tell me what I can or cannot do in my own home. I won't deny that Democrats are a lot worse for our gun rights than the Republicans but I see no point in that right if it's only used to push a different set of controlling beliefs.
By swearing an oath on the Quran, he uses it as his standard to which he bases his value system, which is Islam, which is not compatible with Western Judeo-Christian values which is what our laws are derived from. Bottom line: If it comes to representing the Constituion or Islam, he will choose Islam.