What party is strongest gun rights advocate?

"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."

I am a life member of the NRA.But they have a horrible record of endorsing anti gun candidates because of party affiliation.


http://www.nrawol.com/ratings.htm

They also endorsed a Democrat over Ron Paul in the last two elections.
Yes, the Ron Paul who introduces bills to repeal inane gun laws{1934 NFA for instance}

I never said they were liars, just that the cheerleading section of the GOP might not be the best source for real information.
 
Danzig,
I used the term "lesser of two evils" for a lack of better term. I don't believe that the Rep. party is evil. Both parties are corrupt, yes.
 
Hoji,
Thanks for the link. When I get the chance, I'll read up. I thought when you stated the mag was "hardly the best source for honest reporting", mistook it as you think they lied. Sorry about that.
 
Delta58,
+1 on your comments. It sickens me to tell the truth. You think he'll support our laws based on Judeo-Christian philosophy? I think not. It's just the beginning.
 
I keep getting kicked off showing I'm logged out, then when I type up my dissertation, I have to start over!:mad: :mad: :mad: . I guess if it helps anyone interested to understand where I come from, I'll tell you where I stand generally.
To me, priority one is pro-life. Second is the preservation of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution. You guessed it. I'm a conservative, not a Republican. I have my viewpoints, and whatever candidate supports those, he/she has my vote. It just seems most Republicans fall in that category. I obviously weigh the secondary issues i.e. social security, economy etc. But, if the foundation is useless, so is the building set on top of it.
 
Thanks for the clarification Tuttle.

I respectfully disagree. I think that the Republicans are evil..and only a breath away from fascism. I also believe that the Democrats are only a breath way from socialism. Neither party truly supports freedom. Neither, when they have been in power, have done anything significant to reverse the avalanche of statism that overwhelmed our once free country.

I say that they have had their chance..and failed miserably. What is the definition of stupid? Doing the same thing over and over..and actually expecting a different outcome. Well...that is how I feel about voting democrat or republican. We will never get a different, better, outcome than the one we've been subject to so far.

And by way of clarification..I believe that government, by definition, is evil. A necessary evil perhaps, but evil nonetheless. Whenever you have a group of people who want to be place over others..that is evil. The object is to minimize that evil. The Dems and Republicans have not done that. So, they are evil in my eyes.
 
Danzig,
Do you think government, since it's inception in this country, or the past couple of decades evil?
I think, to a certain degree, government is good if it is used properly. We need key people to meet that represents our voice and take effective action on it. I believe they have gotten separated from that key reason. On the same token, I think a much smaller government is needed.
Broken? Yes. Corrupt? Yes. Fixable? We'll see. Abrupt changes have to take place. I don't believe Anarchy(people without government) is a choice at all.
 
Danzig,
Do you think government, since it's inception in this country, or the past couple of decades evil?
I think, to a certain degree, government is good if it is used properly. We need key people to meet that represents our voice and take effective action on it. I believe they have gotten separated from that key reason. On the same token, I think a much smaller government is needed.
Broken? Yes. Corrupt? Yes. Fixable? We'll see. Abrupt changes have to take place. I don't believe Anarchy(people without government) is a choice at all.

Tuttle,

I think that government has always been evil. I believe that the founders of this country started with the best of intentions..but you know what they say about good intentions..the road to hell is paved with them. It has been bad since we became a nation of our own.

Early on, when our nation was first founded we have the examples of Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, both the result of unjust or unfair taxation. But it has gotten much, much worse in the past century. In prior centuries, at least to some extent, the government could still be put in it's place. But who now honestly believes that is possible? Hardly anyone..and that's because it's not. The monster will never again allow it's chains to be replaced.

I believe government to be necessary, though a necessary evil. However the fact that government is inherently evil means that it MUST be kept to the barest minimum. It must not be allowed any power beyond that which the Constitution has granted it. It must not be allowed loopholes with which it can grant itself more power.
 
Danzig,

For me, I don't see myself as voting "for" anyone. I look at all the parties running, and decide who is the worst, and then I vote to defeat them. In my eyes, the Democrats are the worst party with a chance in America. So if I have to vote Republican to defeat the Democrats, I will.

I'm not voting for the Republicans, I'm voting AGAINST the democrats.
 
tuttle8 said:
Broken? Yes. Corrupt? Yes. Fixable? We'll see. Abrupt changes have to take place. I don't believe Anarchy(people without government) is a choice at all.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's a good characterization of anarchy at all.

To me, anarchy is about optional government, perhaps better characterized as geography-independent government. You and your neighbor could have separate crime-insurance policies. There would be police, but they wouldn't hassle random people over random things. They'd go after people who violated the rights of their clients, as specified in the company's contract. If those rights are deemed too bothersome by others, those police might find their lifespans shortened significantly... and no one would in turn defend their rights.

Let's take an example.
To me, priority one is pro-life.
Click to expand...
So, you'd subscribe to a crime-insurance carrier that prohibits abortion among its own subscribers. Just as we have no right to set abortion policy for the residents of Tazmania, you would have no right to set abortion policy for someone who subscribes to a different crime-insurance carrier.

Furthermore, since my crime-insurance carrier wouldn't be burning money by breaking into crackhouses or chasing after "murderous" women and doctors with a Jesus stick, my rates would be lower.


There are obviously some problems to overcome, such as how a geographical entity with multiple, geo-independent governments can defend against a unified attack from, say, China. But in that kind of anarchist future, I would think most large state-level governments would have collapsed.
 
I've always voted Republican. However, after though, I have not seen the past Republican controlled congress pass any bills to help with gun rights. I only saw the gun ban expire, and protection (limited at this time) from suits.
My point...they could have done more. They should have done more. And now i'm worried that there is no protection for us in the future. They squandered their time in office.
 
"I don't think that's a good charactarization of anarchy at all".
Anarchy, as defined on dictionary.com, also just about word for word in Webster's:
1. State or society without government or law.
2. Political or social disorder due to absence of govervmental control.
3. Confusion; chaos; disorder.
I don't see "options" for a government in anarchy.
 
Tyme,
From that point, all other "contracts" or "crime-insurance" carriers would be null and void.
Besides, "contracts" always have loopholes thanks to attorneys. How do you deal with it then?
To be as blunt as I can without disrespect and without(hopefully) getting banned from this forum:
I don't give a rat's behind about my "rates". IMO no one on this earth has a "right" to, yes, murder a baby. That's God's right, no one else. Plain and simple rule set. Extremely hard to obey that on extreme measures, but nonetheless...
 
Delta58,

According to our own laws set forth by our founding fathers, no religious test shall be given to hold an office; hence the separation between church and state. As an American, Ellison's alliance is with the USA, otherwise he will commit treason. I find your statements to be bigotry at its finest.

Also, our laws are in no way derived from the Bible. If so, then why does our society reflect only two of the commandments and not all of them? Why has every other civilized society had laws against murder and thievery on the books before the Bible was written? I'll answer for you; because it's a social construct to prevent the decay of an ordered society. Legally, we are not a Judeo-Christian nation, only culturally which in turn allows faith to flourish versus a state sponsored organization.
 
Neither the republicans nor the democrats are staunch supporters of the 2nd amendment by any means.

That said, I am not now, nor have I ever been a 1 issue voter.
 
STAGE 2,

I can understand your defensiveness to being labeled a "single issued voter," much like I have in the past for passing over otherwise decent candidates who support gun control.

I have a test that I run each candidate through and if they fail any one of these issues, then they don't receive my vote. Such issues are: Freedom of speech, Separation between Church and State, RKBA, Right to privacy, the right to an attorney, the right to no unwarranted searches and seizures, etc.. Actually, mostly the BoR as it was written is my test. Sadly, many candidates fail this test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top