ForksLaPush
New member
I wonder how many dufuses in Russia are sitting around wishing they had voted for the less perfect candidate rather than "sending a message" and letting Putin get elected.
Thats the point. Because someone falls short (and all of them do, even Dr Paul) of your standard, doesn't mean they are the same as the people you are fighting against.
If the Dems get in office and with the age of our Surpreme Court, we could end up with a left-wing liberal court that could affect us all long after this election is ancient history.
This means that he's anti-Second Amendment, period.STAGE 2 said:For example lets be original here and pick gun rights with Romney for $200. I don't think anyone here thinks that Romney is an ardent defender of the 2nd amendment as it was intended. He's openly said he would re-up the AWB and supports bans on "really lethal" weapons. However he has also said that he supports the 2nd as an individual right to bear arms where handguns and rifles are concerned.
A candidate who supports another AWB is every bit as unacceptable to me as someone who wants ALL guns banned.On the other hand you have the democrats who each want to ban guns period. Now I ask you, is there a difference between someone who thinks handguns and rifles are fine and someone who wants to see all guns banned? I think you know the answer.
"would thompsonites support Ron Paul?"
Brett Belmore said:At some point, it stops being making the best of a bad situation, and becomes your being complicit. I think we're at or beyond that point now.
A candidate who supports another AWB is every bit as unacceptable to me as someone who wants ALL guns banned.
If we continue to compromise our rights away by voting for the lesser of two evils, then we will eventually have no rights left! Why don't people see that?! Eventually we have to say, "enough is enough."
To be perfectly honest, I'm not afraid of a universal gun ban. The reason is simple, and I've said it before: if Americans cooperate with such a ban, then they've proven themselves unworthy of gun rights or freedom anyway.
We could argue about the meaning or origin of "rights" until the cows come home, but one thing is clear: in a purely practical sense, you have no rights that you're not willing to fight, kill, and die for personally. Everything else is a privilege granted by those who rule over you, who see themselves as your betters, and who view you and your family as their property.
I'm sure there were many who felt like you do in the Revolutionary War Stage2.
Luckey for us some had the fortitude to fore go all else and fight for liberty.
“I know not what others may choose but, as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”- Patrick Henry
So far at the present time things have not progressed to a point where bloodshed is warranted.
How bad would things have to get Stage2?
Would not having to give up your arms and your means to protect yourself, your family and resist tyranny be a crucial turning point?
Its always the ones who have bever been shot at that are so quick to get things started.
I'm not trying to get anything started, anything violent at least.
I'm not comparing myself to our founders.
I simply asked you if there was no point where you would consider armed resistance an option.
Lets just drop the subject its way off the thread topic and not appropriate to this fourm.
Someone might get the wrong impression of the members
I simply asked you if there was no point where you would consider armed resistance an option.
I think if you admit that, you are in violation of the law.
You are getting on dangerous ground, though, and I would be very careful in this day and age of terrorism to claim you would violently overthrow the government.