Vote for guns.

[Scott-300ex]

Well I'm in this little restrant gettin food right, I run into some buddies from high school, get to talkin with them, and this one guy hands me a slip, RON PAUL REPUBLICAN 2008, I'm like wtf, am I supposed to vote for this guy or somethin.

I was told the GOA is supporting him and only him.

Now I could almost care less about who wins any elections, but I hear Democrats try to outlaw guns and don't want any semi-autos or anything, wut a joke. So if this 2 1'st name guy wants us to have guns then thats good right?

So is this BS he's feedin me or wut?

[Outlaw 50]

Ron Paul is a libertarian not a republican and is somewhat wacky.

A vote for him is a vote for the democrats because he has NO chance of winning.

Kind of like Ross Perot which gave us Bill Clinton by siphoning votes away from the Republican party.

[ATV Chic]

Democrats are not against guns. They are for protecting our constitutional right(s) to bear arms, just at republicans are.

[Rastus]

Originally posted by sexyatvchic
Democrats are not against guns. They are for protecting our constitutional right(s) to bear arms, just at republicans are.


Hahahaha. Sadly, I don't know of many Dems that are pro-2nd. They like to pretend they are and pander for votes by using "for sporting purposes" and "pro-2nd, but would ban "assault weapons" along with semi-autos." Neither one of those thoughts is pro-2nd and completely misses the point of WHY the 2nd Amendment is there.



Ron Paul has already outed himself as a nut-job, although I do like some of his ideas.

I'm really holding out on Fred Thompson running, because all the other candidates are gun grabbers to some degree.

[Bill Fuller]

Originally posted by Rastus


I'm really holding out on Fred Thompson running, because all the other candidates are gun grabbers to some degree. ;)

Originally posted by Rastus
Hahahaha. Sadly, I don't know of many Dems that are pro-2nd. They like to pretend they are and pander for votes by using "for sporting purposes" and "pro-2nd, but would ban "assault weapons" along with semi-autos." Neither one of those thoughts is pro-2nd and completely misses the point of WHY the 2nd Amendment is there.



Ron Paul has already outed himself as a nut-job, although I do like some of his ideas.

I'm really holding out on Fred Thompson running, because all the other candidates are gun grabbers to some degree.

why is the 2nd there again...because if i'm remembering correctly it was written some time ago...and i believe the times have changed slightly...also i'm not thinking our forefathers were thinking about gloc's and 9mm's that could shoot 18 rounds as fast as you could pull the trigger....i'm all about our constitution, but lets be realistic some of it was written with our young country's suppression by england in mind...that obviousley is no longer a problem....

[Bill Fuller]

Our 2nd ammendment right is to protect us from a tyranical government. Time will tell, we are being tested now.

[Rastus]

Dlerch, just FYI, the 2nd was included so we as "The People" would be able to resist or overthrow a government that had overstepped its boundaries. Self protection and protection of our land if someone/some group invades is also part of it.Here you go (http://robodoon.com/VIDEO/Gun%20Control%20Witness.wmv)

The guns that they had at that time would be comparable to our m16s and AKs of today. Assault is a behavior, not a device. It is also a verb, not an adjective. Around one percent of gun crimes are committed with an "assault weapon" and NO crime or incident has ever happened with a Barret 50Cal, but that doesn't stop people from trying to ban them. It's feel-good legislation pandering to people who don't understand, I know that and you know that. Have you ever actually shot an AK/AR/Galil/Glock/.308/.45 ?



Accoriding to your reasoning lerch, since the forefathers didn't envision electricity and the internet, the first and fourth amendment wouldn't apply to things on our computers and how we voice ourselves on the 'net. :rolleyes:


"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." ~ John F. Kennedy.


You're for the constitution all right, but only the points you like. Please place equal emphasis on the entire thing, not just the ones YOU deem necessary.

[Rastus]

During the 20th century, over 100 million civilians were killed by their own governments, more than in all 20th century wars combined. In each case, extermination followed gun confiscation.

1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, 40-60 million “class enemies,” unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
1935: China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million Chinese “class enemies,” unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Catholics, Gypsies and others, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated in Nazi controlled Europe.
1956: Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million “class enemies,” unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
1966-1976: China still had gun control. Millions of more “class enemies,” still unable to defend themselves, were exterminated in Mao's "Cultural Revolution".
1990s: Rwanda established gun control. In 100 days in 1994, over 800,000 Tutsis, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated by machete-wielding Hutus backed by armed government militias



"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

[Bill Fuller]

Preach on brotha!!

[Scott-300ex]

So pretty much Democrats don't follow the Constitution.


Originally posted by dlerch
also i'm not thinking our forefathers were thinking about gloc's and 9mm's that could shoot 18 rounds as fast as you could pull the trigger

And dude, when they wrote the Constitution, glocks weren't out, they just had revolvers and muzzleloaders and shotguns. You go up to one of them and say AK or AR, the Constitution was printed in 1787, The M-16 wasn't out, nor the M-60, .50 call, fully auto's, semi autos all that was unknown to them, the M-1 which was before the M-16, used in The WWI and WWII and Korea wasn't even out yet. They had no clue any of this was coming, semi auto pistols that anyone could hide in thier belt, semi to fully auto rifles, they had no clue about that when they wrote the Constitution.

I think we have good gun control in the US except for the idiots that want to kill themselves and take 30 people down with them, and people on the streets who pack. But to get a firearm you need a FOID card and there are waiting periods and they will check your FOID card before you purchase. Pretty dang safe just to buy a gun.

[Pappy]

Originally posted by dlerch
why is the 2nd there again...because if i'm remembering correctly it was written some time ago...and i believe the times have changed slightly...also i'm not thinking our forefathers were thinking about gloc's and 9mm's that could shoot 18 rounds as fast as you could pull the trigger....

Surely the men that founded our country and wrote the Constitution had preconcieved notions that arms would become more advanced as time wore on. The best thing about the Constitution is that it was written at a time when personal responsibilty reigned and duty to ones self and country were paramount.

If they did not give forthought to weaponolgy and its future growth, these highly educated men would have clearly spelled out what type of weapons should be owned by its citizens. They did not, and thus one can logically assume that they envisioned for all time that this country would have a fully armed populus. They made liable and slander exempt from the 1st amendment, so using this amendment as a precursor to all others, they had forthought and vision on how each amendment should be structured for the future and placed the limits they felt were paramount in them.

"There are those that wish to remain free at the hands of others, I prefer to have a say in my freedom first by peace and second by force"

[GPracer2500]

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for
one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men
because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy
for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are
laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor
determined to commit crime."

--Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson

like i said, i am a believer in the constitution....but can someone explain to me why countries like japan, or england, or holland etc...don't have the "gun" problems(for lack of better terminology) that we do? it just seems that guns that were at one time bought for totally legal reasons have one way or another made their way to the "otherside"....my point being that maybe if we slow the process of getting them in to the legal side it will also slow the tide of illegal guns...and i, admittingly have not looked into this persay...it is just something i have personally thought about...so i am not trying to state "facts" or anyone else's thoughts...also i would never want guns to to be taken away from law abiding citizens...

[GPracer2500]

I have researched this. While it has been 12 or more months since I've gathered data....

Last I checked England and Australia have terrible records for violent crime. And they have near bans on firearms.

Washington DC has a record of the some of the worst crime found anywhere in the country. Since 1976, DC also has had the strictest gun control laws. Since 76' crime only got worse--peaking in the mid-90's--before finally beginning to drop to levels equal to what it was when the gun bans went into affect. Making it hard for poeple to own firearms did nothing for safety (and actually seemed to make it worse).

And the drop in DC crime in the last 10 years is hard to correlate with anything to do specifically with DC. But it does fall in step with the overall drop in crime experienced throughout the country as a whole during that period.

Another thing to think about is that while crime rates around the country have been falling, the lawful right to carry a concealed weapon has expanded in many many states around the Union. 20 years ago there were very few states that allowed private citizens to be licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Now MOST states have some form of CCW allowance. Last I checked there were only two states that had zero provisions for private citizens to lawfuly carry a weapon.



It's easy connect a line between "safe society" and restrictive firearm legislation/policy. But it's a specious idea.

[DF400ex]

Originally posted by sexyatvchic
Democrats are not against guns. They are for protecting our constitutional right(s) to bear arms, just at republicans are.

Thumbs down to the Democrats. They ran a huge campaign saying they were going to promise that they would get our troops back home ASAP in the last congressional elections (a view that I strongly disagree with btw). Then they do next to nothing since but talk big and push bills they know will get vetoed. IMO all they are going to do is sit back and let the media report nothing but the worst of the worst from the war and turn the country's opinions away from the president and therefor the republicans. Then run a big I told you so campaign for the presidential elections. This is all in hopes that they will get more votes in 08.

[DF400ex]

Not that I'm totally against the Democrats. I do not agree 100% with the Republicans wither. Lately I have found myself between Rep and Dem as far as my political beliefs go. Therefor I'm switching to Independent for the time being. I do however lean heavily more towards the Republicans.

[JOEX]

Originally posted by dlerch
...also i would never want guns to to be taken away from law abiding citizens...
Any kind of ban or restriction will only affect 'law abiding' citizens.

Do you think those who aren't law abiding citizens are going to willfully give up their firearms?

Originally posted by DF400ex
Not that I'm totally against the Democrats. I do not agree 100% with the Republicans wither. Lately I have found myself between Rep and Dem as far as my political beliefs go. Therefor I'm switching to Independent for the time being. I do however lean heavily more towards the Republicans.

yeah i teeter totter between the two also....it's especially annoying these days with both sides taking the "you're either for us or against us" stance...

Originally posted by JOEX
Any kind of ban or restriction will only affect 'law abiding' citizens.

Do you think those who aren't law abiding citizens are going to willfully give up their firearms?

honestly i've been "thinking" to much lately....and i'm starting to "think" i need to be sitting on a beach with a cold beer in my hand....that's what i "think"....;)

...and to answer your question.....no i don't....

[Rastus]

I can't see where a criminal would be against gun control. If they want a gun, I'm sure they'll smuggle it through the border or get it somewhere. (And there is NO gun show loophole, before someone jumps on that bandwagon.) Then, when he/she has their illegal weapon, they have no worries about homeowners trying to defend themselves with a broom.


They're criminals, they're not going to magically say to themselves "Oh, I'd better do this the legal way." If someone is going to kill another person, it doesn't matter if they've got a gun or not. Our everyday life is filled with objects that could be used as a weapon to kill somebody. Should we regulate our kids' baseball bats to help 'stop crime' and 'clean up our streets'? :confused:

[Outlaw 50]

Here's a way to measure all politicians in all parties!!!

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?


Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician-or political philosophy-is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians-even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership-hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician-or political philosophy-can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash-for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything-without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude-toward your ownership and use of weapons-conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend-the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights-do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil-like "Constitutionalist"-when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician-or political philosophy-is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun-but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school-or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway-Prussian, maybe-and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man-and you're not-what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand-or the other party-should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue-health care, international trade-all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter

But it isn't true, is it?

by L. Neil Smith lneil@lneilsmith.org