Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: freeeee
I doubt you voted for Bush in the first place.
71 posted on 02/09/2004 12:41:37 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: justshutupandtakeit
I'll give you one guess why I didn't. The topic of this thread is a big hint.
74 posted on 02/09/2004 12:43:43 PM PST by freeeee ("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: justshutupandtakeit
I have supported the President and I still do even though he has really made some mistakes; nobody is perfect. I am willing to give him some slack on campaign finance reform, education reform (courtesy of Fat Teddy The Drunk), even the massive expansion of Medicare and to some extent (but this is also critical in my judgment) on the Mexican workers/Illegal aliens problem.

The Gun Issue is central to my thinking about politics and has been for a long time. Why? Because I figure the way a political figure thinks about that is the way he generally thinks about the Constitution as a whole. After all, our elected officials are NOT masters of the people, they are SERVANTS of the people, and part of their serving has to do with upholding the Constitution. Sure, its very idealistic; and sure, most of them fall quite short.

We have already seen a steady erosion of some of our basic Constitutional rights over the last 50 years; although the advance of "Shall Issue" CCW states has been very impressive, at its heart is the fact that the RIGHT to keep and bear arms has been changed at every level to the PERMISSION to keep and bear arms. If we (rabid firearms enthusiasts) cannot at least get a symbolic rollback of unconstitutional and virtually worthless gun laws (in terms of crime) when OUR boys are in control, then we will slowly come to a point where we have NO rights at all.

On the other hand, a lot of people like to "talk tough" about removing a tyrannical government under force of arms; the only people who actually take them seriously are politicians like Feinswine. Other than paying off her campaign donors, I see the real reason she (and others) push this kind of legislation: to finally remove the threat posed by a well-armed citizenry to a kind of "soft tyranny", a "kinder, gentler" communism if you will.

The RATs far-reaching agenda calls for a tax rate of 90% or greater; the total abolition of private property, and the complete control of the entire nation's GDP ("for the good of the people"). While there may never be a full-scale uprising, even after the institution of such a plan, there will ALWAYS be the unpredictable. A population of 3 or 4 hundred million people, maybe half of whom are armed somewhat, and a hard-core cadre of 1 - 5 million heavily armed and really pissed off formerly free men could do a lot of damage to the plan for total control. I see the gun issue in a very long range way - the next 50 to 100 hundred years. And so does that tyrant-in-waiting DiFi Swine-stein. An armed citizenry is a major barrier to totalitarianism. Paranoid? History does not think so.

93 posted on 02/09/2004 1:17:57 PM PST by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson