Why Does Anyone Think The GOP Supports The 2nd Amendment? - Page 2 - The Firearms Forum

alvagoldbook · 07-23-2008, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

Guys, I'm pretty sure this isn't a troll thing. He's explained elsewhere that he is both extremely liberal and in support of the Second Amendment. He's been straightforward. He's been involved in gun conversations. And I don't really think it's a stretch to say that the GOP isn't exactly perfect on gun issues. (Though I would use *facts* to back up that assertation.)

thanks josh. This is a real concern for me. Whoever was to blame for the gun confiscation in New Orleans, I think it's scary. I don't know if Blanko, Bush, or Black Water are to blame. My understanding is that Bush had something to do with it. It wouldn't be the first time that the current administration had stepped on the Bill of Rights.

Being a very lefty person, most of my life I've been very iffy on the 2nd amendment until recently. I think the impression that a lot of liberals have is that there's a lot of yahoos out there out in fly-over country with guns. A lot of them have the impression that they don't know what they're doing and basically get drunk every night to shoot at beer cans. Of course, I know that's not the case.

I suppose the other thing is that liberals tend to be more centered in the urban areas, and guns in urban areas is a real issue when it comes to crime. Of course this logic falls apart quickly. The idea is that the crime will go away (or the severity of the crime) if you get rid of the guns. This is silly, since I think it's probably safe to say that per capita gun ownership is higher in rural areas and there isn't the same crime issues.

Really, the problem is that both liberals and conservatives have failed to solve the root cause of urban crime. Liberals say gun control and conservatives say the death penalty. Neither is working.

Prizefighter · 07-24-2008, 01:22 AM

Well, the death penalty issue is a separate debate altogether, and I'll refrain from commenting on it here.

I agree that weapon confiscation is frightening, as well as a slippery slope. But I'm starting to lose the concept of just what is being argued here anymore. Sure, there's people left, right, up and down of the congressional aisle that have bad ideas about gun control. And even if Bush - whose status as a "conservative" is debatable from my point of view - was solely responsible for the Katrina gun grabbing, his time in office is ended. And even still, if he wasn't leaving office, he's been so derided and his position debased that most in Washington wanting to continue their career won't touch him with a 10 foot pole.

As far as the "answer" to crime goes, here's what I think is the best question of all. Can crime be totally eliminated without also eliminating freedom?

satellite66 · 07-24-2008, 04:57 AM

I would like to remind all that it is an election year and that during them the left always tries to paint itself as pro gun. They are not above sending operatives out to push this on forums and in other forms of media.
If someone wants to see who is really for or against gun ownership they could check out GOA, Keep and bear arms or the NRA sites.

artabr · 07-24-2008, 08:25 AM

Here is the cause of the Katrina gun grab.

http://wonkette.com/356255/ray-narin...us-new-orleans

Their names are Warren Riley & Ray Nagin.

Please make sure that you all read the 2nd to last paragraph of the story in the link below.

http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/w....4aac3cf1.html

If that is not good enough for you then I suggest you grab a copy of "The Great New Orleans Gun Grab, Descent into Anarchy" by Gordon Hutchinson and Todd Masson, ISBN # 09709813-3-3

http://www.neworleansgungrab.com

Art

graehaven · 07-24-2008, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alvagoldbook

thanks josh. This is a real concern for me. Whoever was to blame for the gun confiscation in New Orleans, I think it's scary. I don't know if Blanko, Bush, or Black Water are to blame. My understanding is that Bush had something to do with it. It wouldn't be the first time that the current administration had stepped on the Bill of Rights.

Being a very lefty person, most of my life I've been very iffy on the 2nd amendment until recently. I think the impression that a lot of liberals have is that there's a lot of yahoos out there out in fly-over country with guns. A lot of them have the impression that they don't know what they're doing and basically get drunk every night to shoot at beer cans. Of course, I know that's not the case.

I suppose the other thing is that liberals tend to be more centered in the urban areas, and guns in urban areas is a real issue when it comes to crime. Of course this logic falls apart quickly. The idea is that the crime will go away (or the severity of the crime) if you get rid of the guns. This is silly, since I think it's probably safe to say that per capita gun ownership is higher in rural areas and there isn't the same crime issues.

Really, the problem is that both liberals and conservatives have failed to solve the root cause of urban crime. Liberals say gun control and conservatives say the death penalty. Neither is working.

I'd rather live in a neighborhood with a bunch of gun toting yahoos, than surrounded by left wing commie pinko losers that seem to abound, or at least, apathetic, welfare-loving morons that actually do abound.

To say that the death penalty isn't working is a foolish assertion. The problem is that the Justice system is corrupt. The laws are fine. We as a society have lost the resolve to enforce the laws. Give me the power to enforce the laws concerning criminals, and I could cause the criminal activity to almost fall to zero overnight. There WOULD be a lot of dead people though - but they deserve to die anyway. They are the scum of the earth and need to go. The PROBLEM is that it's become a Republican vs. Democrat thing - IT'S NOT! It's a Right vs. Wrong thing. We continue to call wrong, right, and since we do, we have rampant crime. Stop making it a political thing when it's not. It's a right vs. wrong thing.

You could easily eliminate the crime problem in urban areas as well. You exterminate the problem. I know I could clean up my city in a year.

And by the way, if Barrack gets in, you've got a LOT more to worry about than any republican has to offer. And lest you think I like McCain, he's an idiot too. Worry if he gets in as well.

The real problem is Congress. We need 435 NEW thinking people, or we're in the last swirl around the bowl.

45nut · 07-24-2008, 09:47 AM

Thomas Jefferson had some interesting quotes about government:

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.

Every generation needs a new revolution.

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.

History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.

If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct.

da3394@yadtel.net · 07-24-2008, 10:47 AM

Thank God, I was not there. However, everything that I have read or seen or heard indicates thatthe gun grab came from the New Orleans Police not the National Guard. The New Orleans Police seem or seemed to be a "good ole boy" establishment. New Orleans was under a Democrat mayer, who showed his lack of intelligence andf commonsense by leaving all of the school busses to be flooded and useless to evacuation. They were under a Democrat Governor. I am satisfied that President George W. Bush did not have a hand in the gun grab. it was the LIBERALS!

alvagoldbook · 07-24-2008, 08:53 PM

Prize, you're right that the death penalty/crime thing is a separate issue. I don't think crime can easily be addressed without hurting freedom. In my view the best way to address crime is with affordable health care for mental illness and more importantly doing whatever necessary to eliminate poverty as much as we possibly can. Legalizing drugs would be a good first step too.

Satelitte, if I'm a Dem operative, then I'm the worst paid operative in US history. Would a Dem operative call Obama a corporate crony?

Art, thanks for the info!

Grae, I respect and want to protect all of the Bill of Rights. The 2nd amendment is included in that. I also believe in the 8th amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

It is a FACT that the United States has 1) the largest prison population in the entire world and 2) the largest per capita prison population in the world. Even more than CHINA. Yet, we also have the highest homicide rate in the entire industrialized world.

If you look at it from a state to state basis Texas is a good example.

http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/texas/texas.html

From the site:

"Despite the simplistic connection drawn by some that harsher crime policies lead to safer communities, there is little evidence that Texas' severe correctional system is responsible for the drop in crime. In 1980, when Texas had a prison population of 30,000, the state's crime rate was 10% above the national average. Eighteen-years, and 130,000 prisoners later, the Lone Star State's crime rate was 11% above the national average. So, after 18 years, and a monumental growth in imprisonment, Texas' crime rate is not just higher, but increasingly higher, than the national average."

In any case, we're getting wildly off topic, so I'll leave it at that.

ponycar17 · 07-24-2008, 09:27 PM

I think it pretty much follows that all the anti-gun legislation originates from the Democrats. Those in the know (not that we're smarter in any way, but just more interested) understand that the new gun regulations are coming from Democrats. The NRA publishes a report card of the candidates for every election season. Democrats typically fall last for anti-gun efforts they supported in their last term. It also follows that the northern states typically have more gun regulations, and a corresponding higher number of Democrat politicians than the southern states. Tom Coburn, of OK, is currently sponsoring a bill to allow licensed concealed carry in National Parks. G. W. Bush allowed the Sunset Clause of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Our local Republican politicians in SC routinely support pro-gun legislation. Dianne McCarthy on the other hand, along with Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, support some of the strictest gun legislation. It's not so much that Republicans chase pro-gun legislation, but that they vote against anti-gun legislation.

alvagoldbook · 07-25-2008, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponycar17

I think it pretty much follows that all the anti-gun legislation originates from the Democrats. Those in the know (not that we're smarter in any way, but just more interested) understand that the new gun regulations are coming from Democrats. The NRA publishes a report card of the candidates for every election season. Democrats typically fall last for anti-gun efforts they supported in their last term. It also follows that the northern states typically have more gun regulations, and a corresponding higher number of Democrat politicians than the southern states. Tom Coburn, of OK, is currently sponsoring a bill to allow licensed concealed carry in National Parks. G. W. Bush allowed the Sunset Clause of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Our local Republican politicians in SC routinely support pro-gun legislation. Dianne McCarthy on the other hand, along with Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, support some of the strictest gun legislation. It's not so much that Republicans chase pro-gun legislation, but that they vote against anti-gun legislation.

Pony, fair enough. Although, just for the record I would argue that all the Democratic politicians you mentioned are to my way of thinking moderates at best and Republican lite at worse.

Dianne Feinstein voted to prevent Gitmo detainees from having the right to a fair trail (as dictated by the Bill of Rights)

Chuck Schumer was the guy who floated the name of Michael Mukasey to be the new US Attorney General, despite the fact that Mukasey was the judge who heard the trial of Jose Padilla, a guy who was tortured so severely that he couldn't even assist in his own defense at his trial.

Ted Kennedy was the go-to guy for George Bush to get the Dems to sign onto the No Child Left Behind reforms.

Barack Obama is the corporate crony who voted for telecom immunity for spying on Americans in clear violation of the 4th amendment and US law, even when he had previously promised not to do so.

Hillary Clinton has supported the Iraq War until she was blue in the face, or until she got boo'ed whenever she made a speech about it.

And Nancy Pelosi is the traitor who refuses to allow impeachment proceedings to go against George Bush, not because she is a coward, but because she is complicit in some of those very high crimes.

Prizefighter · 07-25-2008, 02:20 AM

Holy crap, you aren't kidding. Nancy Pelosi, moderate? You really are way left.

The contrast with others on this board - like myself - is so extreme it's almost funny.

Those Gitmo detainees who are not citizens go together with the Bill of Rights like radical muslims and the Christian Ten Commandments. The two don't have a whole lot to do with one another. Whatever they get, they get at America's mercy.
I feel comfortable stating the above because I believe Gitmo is like the Sheraton compared to the facilities and practices of the enemy.

Torture isn't the most effective means of getting information, and one always hopes that his people can avoid barbarism as a means of getting a job done. But if a radical islamist terrorist gets tortured, forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over it.

No Child Left Behind is stupid and ineffective. I also think it isn't a conservative Republican policy as I define the words. For Ted Kennedy to sign his name to it seems like par for the course to me.

Some corporations have been getting away with a lot of foolishness - and not just telecom companies. 4th Ammendment violations are wrong, and should stop. But I think to call the violation "conservative" in its essence is insulting. It's not conservative, it's just wrong.
Consider what you were trying to convince us of, that 2nd Ammendment violations are not inherently a democrat's game. Similarly, when a bad idea is sumbitted by a Republican, it doesn't make it a Republican idea. That Republican is a bad one, and will hopefully be voted out of office.

I suppose supporting the Iraq War is a conservative thing.
I want them to bring the troops home at this point. Not because I believe the war is unjust, but because we evidently won't let our soldiers do their job. They don't have the best equipment that they could and they're always under the watchful eye of some entrenched reporter trying to advance his career with a "scoop." A few have even been brought up on trumped up murder charges for doing what a soldier is trained to do. If we won't untie their hands, we may as well bring them home.

If Nancy Pelosi is shielding Bush to protect her own skin, that doesn't make her conservative. That just makes her a typical beaurocrat from any side of the aisle.

As I've said before, as far as I'm concerned Bush isn't a conservative president. There are a few politicians that call themselves Republican, but I don't think their actions bear that out at all. Anyone can call himself whatever he wants, but his actions and choices are whatever they are. And his poor choices shouldn't be taken as party policy.

It occurs to me that my definition of conservatism or Republicanism may not match up with the popular definitions. Maybe "Republican" doesn't mean what it used to, or what I wish it did, and that's fair. Heck, maybe I'm registered in the wrong party. Looks like the political landscape seems pretty bleak no matter what your point of view. Nobody seems to like it, but I suppose nobody can agree on just what's wrong with it.

alvagoldbook · 07-25-2008, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prizefighter

Holy crap, you aren't kidding. Nancy Pelosi, moderate? You really are way left.

The contrast with others on this board - like myself - is so extreme it's almost funny.

Those Gitmo detainees who are not citizens go together with the Bill of Rights like radical muslims and the Christian Ten Commandments. The two don't have a whole lot to do with one another. Whatever they get, they get at America's mercy.
I feel comfortable stating the above because I believe Gitmo is like the Sheraton compared to the facilities and practices of the enemy.

Torture isn't the most effective means of getting information, and one always hopes that his people can avoid barbarism as a means of getting a job done. But if a radical islamist terrorist gets tortured, forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over it.

No Child Left Behind is stupid and ineffective. I also think it isn't a conservative Republican policy as I define the words. For Ted Kennedy to sign his name to it seems like par for the course to me.

Some corporations have been getting away with a lot of foolishness - and not just telecom companies. 4th Ammendment violations are wrong, and should stop. But I think to call the violation "conservative" in its essence is insulting. It's not conservative, it's just wrong.
Consider what you were trying to convince us of, that 2nd Ammendment violations are not inherently a democrat's game. Similarly, when a bad idea is sumbitted by a Republican, it doesn't make it a Republican idea. That Republican is a bad one, and will hopefully be voted out of office.

I suppose supporting the Iraq War is a conservative thing.
I want them to bring the troops home at this point. Not because I believe the war is unjust, but because we evidently won't let our soldiers do their job. They don't have the best equipment that they could and they're always under the watchful eye of some entrenched reporter trying to advance his career with a "scoop." A few have even been brought up on trumped up murder charges for doing what a soldier is trained to do. If we won't untie their hands, we may as well bring them home.

If Nancy Pelosi is shielding Bush to protect her own skin, that doesn't make her conservative. That just makes her a typical beaurocrat from any side of the aisle.

As I've said before, as far as I'm concerned Bush isn't a conservative president. There are a few politicians that call themselves Republican, but I don't think their actions bear that out at all. Anyone can call himself whatever he wants, but his actions and choices are whatever they are. And his poor choices shouldn't be taken as party policy.

It occurs to me that my definition of conservatism or Republicanism may not match up with the popular definitions. Maybe "Republican" doesn't mean what it used to, or what I wish it did, and that's fair. Heck, maybe I'm registered in the wrong party. Looks like the political landscape seems pretty bleak no matter what your point of view. Nobody seems to like it, but I suppose nobody can agree on just what's wrong with it.

Yeh, Prize I am. I consider Karl Marx "center-left".

I would imagine that just about everyone here would consider gun control a slippery slope. I would agree. Would you not agree that holding prisoners in Gitmo just to deny them protections of the Bill of Rights is equally a slippery slope? How long would it be before American citizens who tried by military tribunal? Or tortured?

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution does not give anyone rights. It acts as a restraint on government to take your rights away. Rights are universal. Holding a special class of people in Gitmo ONLY to avoid the guarantees of the Constitution permits a way to make each and everyone here in this country a "special class" of person.

I would concur that if a Republican does something wrong, that it doesn't necessarily make it a conservative thing. I suppose the inverse could also be true.

I would agree too that Bush isn't a conservative, especially in the classical sense. Nixon, Eisenhower, Ford, these guys were conservatives. If I had to classify Bush as anything it would be a "corporatist" or a "fascist". People throw the F-bomb around a lot lately, but using the clinical definition of the word, I think it bests describes him.

SolidVFR · 07-25-2008, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graehaven

The real problem is Congress. We need 435 NEW thinking people, or we're in the last swirl around the bowl.

I couldn't agree more. We need people like you. Not joking at all.

Prizefighter · 07-25-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alvagoldbook

I would imagine that just about everyone here would consider gun control a slippery slope. I would agree. Would you not agree that holding prisoners in Gitmo just to deny them protections of the Bill of Rights is equally a slippery slope? How long would it be before American citizens who tried by military tribunal? Or tortured?

I ultimately feel that you're right on this. Just like gun control, once the government has been given the power to do something, taking that power away again is difficult to say the least. It's the same sort of reasoning that keeps me from feeling good about the government handling mandatory training or compulsive service (such as everyone spending time in the military once they turn 18.)

It isn't that I approve of the situation. Those that are truly innocent shouldn't be mistreated. I'm just not prepared to crucify anyone over it, since noone can expect our people to do what we've been asking of them without getting their hands dirty.

That said, I don't believe that the American civilian justice system is currently equipped to properly handle prisoners taken in conjunction with the war on islamic terrorism. What's the best answer? I'm not sure.

satellite66 · 07-25-2008, 06:36 PM

The civilian justice system was not intended to nor is it equipped to prosecute prisoners of war. The problem is that the left wants to pretend that these guys are no different from a shoplifter. These guys should not even get Geneva conventions let alone civil rights. They are enemies of this country captured on the battlefield.
This is not a police investigation but a war.
The innocent people in this country should not be put in jeopardy because some namby pamby liberal pukes who hate Bush and want us to lose whine about some terrorists rights.

CampingJosh · 07-25-2008, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alvagoldbook

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution does not give anyone rights. It acts as a restraint on government to take your rights away. Rights are universal. Holding a special class of people in Gitmo ONLY to avoid the guarantees of the Constitution permits a way to make each and everyone here in this country a "special class" of person.

Alva, I'm not really sure you're as liberal as you claim--or if you are liberal, then you are liberal in the classical sense. You seem very much in favor of personal liberty. I think everyone here is in favor of personal liberty.

Are you liberal on social issues? Economic issues? I guess I'm just not really understanding your positions.

alvagoldbook · 07-26-2008, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satellite66

The civilian justice system was not intended to nor is it equipped to prosecute prisoners of war. The problem is that the left wants to pretend that these guys are no different from a shoplifter. These guys should not even get Geneva conventions let alone civil rights. They are enemies of this country captured on the battlefield.
This is not a police investigation but a war.
The innocent people in this country should not be put in jeopardy because some namby pamby liberal pukes who hate Bush and want us to lose whine about some terrorists rights.

The Geneva Conventions as well as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights were both written with the idea of finding a humane way of dealing with prisoners of war. It was the United States that actually pushed that treaty on everyone else after WW2. Islamic terrorists are no different from any other prisoner of war.

Everyone has HUMAN rights. Those rights are called "inalienable" for a good reason. Once government finds a way to limit inalienable rights to one person, they can find a way to limit the rights of everyone, including you. I have little consideration for terrorists. But eliminating their rights is a direct threat to your liberty.

alvagoldbook · 07-26-2008, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

Alva, I'm not really sure you're as liberal as you claim--or if you are liberal, then you are liberal in the classical sense. You seem very much in favor of personal liberty. I think everyone here is in favor of personal liberty.

Are you liberal on social issues? Economic issues? I guess I'm just not really understanding your positions.

CampingJosh, I'm what you call too left to be liberal. I'm part socialist, communist, anti-capitalist, anarchist, libertarian-socialist, left-populist, and so on. On social issues I think people should be able to do whatever they want so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. This includes sexual practices and using drugs. Economically, I'm in favor of abolishing capitalism entirely. Yeh...I'm waaaay out there, I know. I think we should replace capitalism with a kind of centrally-planned economy (like the Soviets had) except instead of having government bureaucrats making the decisions we should have the American People voting on those decisions. I'm also in favor of eliminating representative government entirely and moving to a direct democracy where every American is a legislator.

The problem with direct democracies is that it's (as Ben Franklin supposedly said) two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for lunch. But suppose you could find a way to have a direct democracy without the problems of mob rule? Suppose you could have the People get exactly what they want, without having to spend all their time running their own government on a constant daily basis? What if you could reduce every politician to an office clerk who just does what you tell them to do?

I thought a lot of years about that and actually wrote a proposal for an amendment to the Constitution that I think would accomplish that.

In any case, if that interests you check it out. If not, thanks for letting me run my mouth a bit.

http://articleeight.blogspot.com

CampingJosh · 07-26-2008, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alvagoldbook

CampingJosh, I'm what you call too left to be liberal. I'm part socialist, communist, anti-capitalist, anarchist, libertarian-socialist, left-populist, and so on. On social issues I think people should be able to do whatever they want so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. This includes sexual practices and using drugs.

First, I like that you don't fit any of the categories. It means you think for yourself. No matter what conclusions you come to, I must respect them, because they are genuine.
Second, I agree with you on social issues, I think. Counting sexual acts involving minors as a violation of the parents' rights, then I am OK with allowing all sexual practices that do not violate the rights of others. I am a Christian minister, and I wholeheartedly disagree with homosexual marriage and homosexuality in general, but that doesn't mean I believe the state should ban it. Just because a state accepts two people as married does not mean that a church must, and any church can accept two people as married that the state does not. That is true separation of church and state.
(Now, as an off-topic thought, I see the equal-protection argument for homosexual marriage as greatly lacking. I, as an heterosexual unmarried adult male in the State of Indiana may consent to marry any consenting, unmarried adult female. I may not marry another male, whether I want to or not. Yet some judges have deemed this failing to meet equal protection. However, the law is applied consistently--protects equally--to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It's just that some homosexuals desire the law to be different. That is the only change.
But following that line of thought, the laws against murder are only applied to those who want to commit murder. But since I desire to do that, the law does not protect my desire the same way it protects the desire of one who does not want to commit murder... or does it? It's a slippery slope.)(I think that's my first ever multi-paragraph parenthetical.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by alvagoldbook

Economically, I'm in favor of abolishing capitalism entirely. Yeh...I'm waaaay out there, I know. I think we should replace capitalism with a kind of centrally-planned economy (like the Soviets had) except instead of having government bureaucrats making the decisions we should have the American People voting on those decisions.

This is wholly contradictory to the inalienable right to liberty, which you acknowledge was never created by the US government documents but was simply affirmed. Since is was not created by government, it cannot be taken away, either. I have no problem with consenting people participating in a centrally-planned economy so long as liberty remains for those who choose it. In fact, it is directly against liberty to say that people cannot give up their liberty as they choose. This is part of why liberty is such a hard thing to hold as a value.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alvagoldbook

I'm also in favor of eliminating representative government entirely and moving to a direct democracy where every American is a legislator.

The problem with direct democracies is that it's (as Ben Franklin supposedly said) two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for lunch. But suppose you could find a way to have a direct democracy without the problems of mob rule? Suppose you could have the People get exactly what they want, without having to spend all their time running their own government on a constant daily basis? What if you could reduce every politician to an office clerk who just does what you tell them to do?

I would be OK with this, too, so long as the Constitution were strictly enforced. I would also probably like to see the process of amending the Constitution become even more difficult (maybe 3/4 majority requirement plus a certain amount of time) so that the mob rule is avoided.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alvagoldbook

I thought a lot of years about that and actually wrote a proposal for an amendment to the Constitution that I think would accomplish that.

In any case, if that interests you check it out. If not, thanks for letting me run my mouth a bit.

http://articleeight.blogspot.com

It's late, and I have to be up early, so I won't be able to read it tonight. However, I will certainly do so in the near future. I've enjoyed our conversation so far, and I'm looking forward to your continued participation here on TFF.

satellite66 · 07-26-2008, 03:45 AM

Goldbook you don't seem to grasp the concept that the Geneva conventions as originally written did not give them to those who did not fight for a nations army. As I see it my life is threatened by terrorists and my liberty is being threatened by liberals.
Read my signature.

LizardKing · 07-26-2008, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alvagoldbook

Economically, I'm in favor of abolishing capitalism entirely. Yeh...I'm waaaay out there, I know. I think we should replace capitalism with a kind of centrally-planned economy (like the Soviets had) except instead of having government bureaucrats making the decisions we should have the American People voting on those decisions.

Yup, that is WAY out there all right.
Study up on your history, you need it.
Every single time a planned economy has be forced upon people it has caused untold suffering to people and been an abject failure.
I suggest you start studying the first two colonies in the US and pay special attention to WHY they started out as socialist why they were forced to change.

regards,
TheLiz

ponycar17 · 07-26-2008, 01:17 PM

It's disturbing at best that you call the likes of Feinstien and Schumer moderates. Given that, why do pretty much all the House and Senate Democrats support the gun measures proposed by this motley crew of morons? Unless of course, all of the Democrats agree with them...

ponycar17 · 07-26-2008, 01:21 PM

And to the financial and economic concerns, it's never clicked with me why Democrats only believe supply and demand theory works when it's in their favor. After all, just in the past week after Bush lifted the ban on offshore drilling, the price of oil dropped by over 10%. This follows economic theory perfectly, as an increase in supply means a decrease in scarcity of goods... With that said, why does (seemingly, at least) the entire Democrat party assert that there is no short-term fix for oil prices?... Does economics not work on their home planet?

jinn · 07-26-2008, 04:57 PM

To believe that any political party of significant influence truly bases it's imperatives upon Constitutional adherence is foolishly naive.

More simply, politics is the successful manipulation of the masses to secure the will of the leadership.

berto64 · 07-26-2008, 06:54 PM

It is my opinion that 80% of statistics can be made up, 50% of the time.

07-24-2008, 01:22 AM	#27
Prizefighter V.I.P. Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: North Carolina Contributor Posts: 412	Re: Why Does Anyone Think The GOP Supports The 2nd Amendment? Well, the death penalty issue is a separate debate altogether, and I'll refrain from commenting on it here. I agree that weapon confiscation is frightening, as well as a slippery slope. But I'm starting to lose the concept of just what is being argued here anymore. Sure, there's people left, right, up and down of the congressional aisle that have bad ideas about gun control. And even if Bush - whose status as a "conservative" is debatable from my point of view - was solely responsible for the Katrina gun grabbing, his time in office is ended. And even still, if he wasn't leaving office, he's been so derided and his position debased that most in Washington wanting to continue their career won't touch him with a 10 foot pole. As far as the "answer" to crime goes, here's what I think is the best question of all. Can crime be totally eliminated without also eliminating freedom? Last edited by Prizefighter; 07-24-2008 at 01:23 AM..

07-24-2008, 04:57 AM	#28
satellite66 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Central NJ Posts: 2,068	Re: Why Does Anyone Think The GOP Supports The 2nd Amendment? I would like to remind all that it is an election year and that during them the left always tries to paint itself as pro gun. They are not above sending operatives out to push this on forums and in other forms of media. If someone wants to see who is really for or against gun ownership they could check out GOA, Keep and bear arms or the NRA sites. __________________ “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not” — Thomas Jefferson. "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948 Last edited by satellite66; 07-24-2008 at 05:00 AM..

07-24-2008, 08:25 AM	#29
artabr Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Iberia, Louisiana Contributor Posts: 7,859	Re: Why Does Anyone Think The GOP Supports The 2nd Amendment? Here is the cause of the Katrina gun grab. http://wonkette.com/356255/ray-narin...us-new-orleans Their names are Warren Riley & Ray Nagin. Please make sure that you all read the 2nd to last paragraph of the story in the link below. http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/w....4aac3cf1.html If that is not good enough for you then I suggest you grab a copy of "The Great New Orleans Gun Grab, Descent into Anarchy" by Gordon Hutchinson and Todd Masson, ISBN # 09709813-3-3 http://www.neworleansgungrab.com Art __________________ God and the soldier we like adore, In times of trouble, not before. When troubles ended and all things righted, God is forgotten and the soldier is slighted. Francis Quarles 1592 - 1644 __________________ When asked for my race, I answer CauCajun. Hope is not a plan, and not all change is good. The resistance is here; the resistance is now. RESIST! These hands are neither cold nor are they dead!!

07-24-2008, 09:47 AM	#31
45nut Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 3,433	Re: Why Does Anyone Think The GOP Supports The 2nd Amendment? Thomas Jefferson had some interesting quotes about government: Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state. Every generation needs a new revolution. For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is. I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour? My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence. Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty. When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct. __________________ A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that. Shane Nemo me impune lacesset We recall the case of the Shoshone war band which showed up complete with one 30-30 rifle per man the week after Pearl Harbor, and simply wanted to have the enemy pointed out to them. "We hear there's a war going on and we want to go fight it." Jeff Cooper *KCCO* Last edited by 45nut; 07-24-2008 at 09:50 AM..

07-24-2008, 10:47 AM	#32
da3394@yadtel.net Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Piedmont area of NC Posts: 12	Re: Why Does Anyone Think The GOP Supports The 2nd Amendment? Thank God, I was not there. However, everything that I have read or seen or heard indicates thatthe gun grab came from the New Orleans Police not the National Guard. The New Orleans Police seem or seemed to be a "good ole boy" establishment. New Orleans was under a Democrat mayer, who showed his lack of intelligence andf commonsense by leaving all of the school busses to be flooded and useless to evacuation. They were under a Democrat Governor. I am satisfied that President George W. Bush did not have a hand in the gun grab. it was the LIBERALS!

07-24-2008, 08:53 PM	#33
alvagoldbook Former Guest Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 133	Re: Why Does Anyone Think The GOP Supports The 2nd Amendment? Prize, you're right that the death penalty/crime thing is a separate issue. I don't think crime can easily be addressed without hurting freedom. In my view the best way to address crime is with affordable health care for mental illness and more importantly doing whatever necessary to eliminate poverty as much as we possibly can. Legalizing drugs would be a good first step too. Satelitte, if I'm a Dem operative, then I'm the worst paid operative in US history. Would a Dem operative call Obama a corporate crony? Art, thanks for the info! Grae, I respect and want to protect all of the Bill of Rights. The 2nd amendment is included in that. I also believe in the 8th amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. It is a FACT that the United States has 1) the largest prison population in the entire world and 2) the largest per capita prison population in the world. Even more than CHINA. Yet, we also have the highest homicide rate in the entire industrialized world. If you look at it from a state to state basis Texas is a good example. http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/texas/texas.html From the site: "Despite the simplistic connection drawn by some that harsher crime policies lead to safer communities, there is little evidence that Texas' severe correctional system is responsible for the drop in crime. In 1980, when Texas had a prison population of 30,000, the state's crime rate was 10% above the national average. Eighteen-years, and 130,000 prisoners later, the Lone Star State's crime rate was 11% above the national average. So, after 18 years, and a monumental growth in imprisonment, Texas' crime rate is not just higher, but increasingly higher, than the national average." In any case, we're getting wildly off topic, so I'll leave it at that.

07-24-2008, 09:27 PM	#34
ponycar17 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: South Carolina Contributor Posts: 4,884	Re: Why Does Anyone Think The GOP Supports The 2nd Amendment? I think it pretty much follows that all the anti-gun legislation originates from the Democrats. Those in the know (not that we're smarter in any way, but just more interested) understand that the new gun regulations are coming from Democrats. The NRA publishes a report card of the candidates for every election season. Democrats typically fall last for anti-gun efforts they supported in their last term. It also follows that the northern states typically have more gun regulations, and a corresponding higher number of Democrat politicians than the southern states. Tom Coburn, of OK, is currently sponsoring a bill to allow licensed concealed carry in National Parks. G. W. Bush allowed the Sunset Clause of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Our local Republican politicians in SC routinely support pro-gun legislation. Dianne McCarthy on the other hand, along with Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, support some of the strictest gun legislation. It's not so much that Republicans chase pro-gun legislation, but that they vote against anti-gun legislation. Last edited by ponycar17; 07-24-2008 at 09:29 PM..

07-25-2008, 02:20 AM	#36
Prizefighter V.I.P. Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: North Carolina Contributor Posts: 412	Re: Why Does Anyone Think The GOP Supports The 2nd Amendment? Holy crap, you aren't kidding. Nancy Pelosi, moderate? You really are way left. The contrast with others on this board - like myself - is so extreme it's almost funny. Those Gitmo detainees who are not citizens go together with the Bill of Rights like radical muslims and the Christian Ten Commandments. The two don't have a whole lot to do with one another. Whatever they get, they get at America's mercy. I feel comfortable stating the above because I believe Gitmo is like the Sheraton compared to the facilities and practices of the enemy. Torture isn't the most effective means of getting information, and one always hopes that his people can avoid barbarism as a means of getting a job done. But if a radical islamist terrorist gets tortured, forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over it. No Child Left Behind is stupid and ineffective. I also think it isn't a conservative Republican policy as I define the words. For Ted Kennedy to sign his name to it seems like par for the course to me. Some corporations have been getting away with a lot of foolishness - and not just telecom companies. 4th Ammendment violations are wrong, and should stop. But I think to call the violation "conservative" in its essence is insulting. It's not conservative, it's just wrong. Consider what you were trying to convince us of, that 2nd Ammendment violations are not inherently a democrat's game. Similarly, when a bad idea is sumbitted by a Republican, it doesn't make it a Republican idea. That Republican is a bad one, and will hopefully be voted out of office. I suppose supporting the Iraq War is a conservative thing. I want them to bring the troops home at this point. Not because I believe the war is unjust, but because we evidently won't let our soldiers do their job. They don't have the best equipment that they could and they're always under the watchful eye of some entrenched reporter trying to advance his career with a "scoop." A few have even been brought up on trumped up murder charges for doing what a soldier is trained to do. If we won't untie their hands, we may as well bring them home. If Nancy Pelosi is shielding Bush to protect her own skin, that doesn't make her conservative. That just makes her a typical beaurocrat from any side of the aisle. As I've said before, as far as I'm concerned Bush isn't a conservative president. There are a few politicians that call themselves Republican, but I don't think their actions bear that out at all. Anyone can call himself whatever he wants, but his actions and choices are whatever they are. And his poor choices shouldn't be taken as party policy. It occurs to me that my definition of conservatism or Republicanism may not match up with the popular definitions. Maybe "Republican" doesn't mean what it used to, or what I wish it did, and that's fair. Heck, maybe I'm registered in the wrong party. Looks like the political landscape seems pretty bleak no matter what your point of view. Nobody seems to like it, but I suppose nobody can agree on just what's wrong with it. Last edited by Prizefighter; 07-25-2008 at 02:30 AM..

07-25-2008, 06:36 PM	#40
satellite66 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Central NJ Posts: 2,068	Re: Why Does Anyone Think The GOP Supports The 2nd Amendment? The civilian justice system was not intended to nor is it equipped to prosecute prisoners of war. The problem is that the left wants to pretend that these guys are no different from a shoplifter. These guys should not even get Geneva conventions let alone civil rights. They are enemies of this country captured on the battlefield. This is not a police investigation but a war. The innocent people in this country should not be put in jeopardy because some namby pamby liberal pukes who hate Bush and want us to lose whine about some terrorists rights. __________________ “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not” — Thomas Jefferson. "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948 Last edited by satellite66; 07-25-2008 at 06:39 PM..

07-26-2008, 03:45 AM	#45
satellite66 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Central NJ Posts: 2,068	Re: Why Does Anyone Think The GOP Supports The 2nd Amendment? Goldbook you don't seem to grasp the concept that the Geneva conventions as originally written did not give them to those who did not fight for a nations army. As I see it my life is threatened by terrorists and my liberty is being threatened by liberals. Read my signature. __________________ “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not” — Thomas Jefferson. "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

07-26-2008, 01:17 PM	#47
ponycar17 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: South Carolina Contributor Posts: 4,884	Re: Why Does Anyone Think The GOP Supports The 2nd Amendment? It's disturbing at best that you call the likes of Feinstien and Schumer moderates. Given that, why do pretty much all the House and Senate Democrats support the gun measures proposed by this motley crew of morons? Unless of course, all of the Democrats agree with them...

07-26-2008, 01:21 PM	#48
ponycar17 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: South Carolina Contributor Posts: 4,884	Re: Why Does Anyone Think The GOP Supports The 2nd Amendment? And to the financial and economic concerns, it's never clicked with me why Democrats only believe supply and demand theory works when it's in their favor. After all, just in the past week after Bush lifted the ban on offshore drilling, the price of oil dropped by over 10%. This follows economic theory perfectly, as an increase in supply means a decrease in scarcity of goods... With that said, why does (seemingly, at least) the entire Democrat party assert that there is no short-term fix for oil prices?... Does economics not work on their home planet?

07-26-2008, 04:57 PM	#49
jinn V.I.P. Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 87	Re: Why Does Anyone Think The GOP Supports The 2nd Amendment? To believe that any political party of significant influence truly bases it's imperatives upon Constitutional adherence is foolishly naive. More simply, politics is the successful manipulation of the masses to secure the will of the leadership.

07-26-2008, 06:54 PM	#50
berto64 VMBB Admin Staff Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Owyhee County, Idaho Contributor Posts: 7,394	Re: Why Does Anyone Think The GOP Supports The 2nd Amendment? It is my opinion that 80% of statistics can be made up, 50% of the time. __________________ Be who you are & say what you will, Those that matter won't mind and those that mind don't matter. I'm a bitter clinger, One Nation Under God.