Posted on 04/17/2008 3:00:40 PM PDT by neverdem
Imagine an election race of Pat Robertson versus James Dobson, each of them appearing at organic grocery stores and Starbucks throughout Massachusetts, with each candidate insisting that he alone deserves the vote of gay-marriage advocates...
--snip--
However, having the right to arms and the liberty to hunt is worthless if you can't buy a gun. In 1999, Mr. Obama urged enactment of a federal law prohibiting the operation of any gun store within five miles of a school or park. This would eliminate gun stores from almost the entire inhabited portion of the United States.
As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.
When the U.S. Supreme Court voted last year to hear a case on the constitutionality of the Washington, D.C., handgun ban, Mr. Obama's campaign told the Chicago Tribune: "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional" and that "local communities" should...
--snip--
In 2001, as a state senator, Mr. Obama voted against allowing the beneficiaries of domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for protection.
--snip--
Forty states currently allow most law-abiding adult citizens to carry concealed handguns for lawful protection, after a background check and (in almost all such states) a safety class. Of course those laws only apply to carrying within the relevant state. Mr. Obama told the Chicago Tribune in 2004 that he favored a national ban on concealed carry, to "prevent other states' laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." Mrs. Clinton campaigned against a licensed carry referendum in Missouri...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Obambi is a marxist. Of course he wants to disarm the American citizenry. He is so adamantly opposed to the 2nd Amendment as to be feverish in his hostility towards it. He is a confirmed marxist. An Obama presidency would be fatal to freedom.
The American Hunters and Shooters Association, a front for anti-gun activists (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=232&issue=011) is running ads that suggest Obama is a Second Amendment supporter. The truth is that Obama will probably get an F rating from the NRA only because no lower grade is available.
I also think Obama at the top of the ticket can do more for conservatives throughout the US than can clinton. Yes, his coattails are that short.
I have a sig p229 and a concealed weapons permit here in northern Florida.
I have it for my protection and my second amendment right, maybe Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton needs to look at the second amendment again that is if they have at all
Do you think that this will be a bigger topic than usual come this election?
There ... fixed the title.
While both are harmful to American and especially free speech I just think Obama would crucify this country from within and it speaks volumes when hamas leader endorsed obama infact every enemy of this country wants obama to win
The bastards on the left will do everything they can to prevent HONEST people from having guns, while leaving guns deliberately, and with full knowledge, in the hands of CRIMINALS.
They will find a way. They will sneak in a law, with the help of their compliant media, that will try to take away our right.
They gave us a dumb law that eliminates incandescent light bulbs without ever explicitely saying so, and with the media deliberately hiding that fact.
Any gun owner who votes for a democrat is too stupid to own a gun.
I’m with you. As bad as Shrillary is, Snob-ama is even worse. As for gun owners who would vote Dem, alot them really delude themselves into thinking that the Libs are only after “bad” guns like handguns and “assault” rifles. As I have said elsewhere: “Give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.” The ACLU is a perfect example of that.
An Obama administration that decided to ban guns would not be fatal to freedom unless we failed to stand up for our freedoms.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In the final analysis, both Obama and Clinton are cut from the same cloth. For all their ‘little guy’ rhetoric, they are only interested in CONTROL. They believe they know best what is good for us, and they don’t give a tinker’s damn about the cost.
These socialists want only to subjugate the rest of us to their view of the world. Personally...I don’t accept that.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING!!!!
It's about the right of the people “to alter or abolish” their government if it becomes hostile to their unalienable rights conferred by almighty God!
Why can't even a reasonably conservative paper like the WSJ get it right???
I have no idea why anyone with a gun votes for the dems
I have no idea why anyone who is a catholic and follows their religion(directed at the north east) vote for the dems
I have especially no idea why any jewish person would ever vote for the dems as surely they can see the republicans are for Israel and the dems are for Hamas, might not say it but their actions and the odd comments show they are
“Any gun owner who votes for a democrat is too stupid to own a gun”
Says it all
In the 1998 Illinois gubernatorial race, was the Democrat the pro-concealed carry candidate named Glenn Poshard (who had a "D" next to his name) or the anti-gun crook named George Ryan (who had an "R" next to his name)?
Hmmmmmmmm.
I remember him.
Also the pro-life Glen Poshard (D) who ran against the pro-choice George Ryan (R)?
I was proud to vote for him and would do it again.
I admit I thought Ryan was an experienced big government crook anti-gun pro-abortion crook, wheras Poshard was a big government pro-gun, anti-abortion essentially experienced honest guy.
What do I know, I'd do it again.
Because it won't happen to them. I know a number of rabid gunowners, rural, veterans, who would never vote for a Republican (union, rich Republican thing) and will never be convinced over the gun issue. And their answer to the question I suspect you'll pose is from my cold dead hands. It's just not in their top 3 or 4 when it comes to voting issues.
Catholic and abortion, Jews and Israel. Same thing. These aren't the issues everyone votes on.
Better to explain that the dems suck on taxes, and fear confronting terrorists.
What if it’s a Zell Miller-type Democrat?
You don't have to tell me or the author, Dave Kopel, about that. He has an extensive history writing about the RKBA.
Root causes From NY to Obama, this is right on the money.
Like Lemmings to the Sea - Will President Bush join in the chorus of dead-end energy proposals?
You might be surprised to learn that there has never been a single scientific paper published which has ruled out natural climate variability for most of our current global-mean warmth. Not one.
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Thanks for the ping!
Barrack and Hillary both have cards that they are not aren't showing. One of those cards is about having the ability to appoint anti-gun Federal court judges who would interpret the law to suit themselves. Once the courts have their way, the only way to enforce gun control would be tyranny by the government.
Exactly. Obama knows he won’t be able to drag us into his Marxist utopia as long as we have firearms.
Dam scary words....and the Dems have two candinuts who want to take them.....
And McLame ain’t much better on it. He’s got round heels for the ‘rats.
Buy ammo!!!
The Gun is Civilization
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat—it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
If it allows the democrats to gain the majority, thereby setting the agenda, appointing committee chairmen, deciding which bills get advanced, etc, then Zell Miller needs to change parties in order to get my vote.
He could end it with the help of folks like these:
The resistance to any encroachment on their power by the capitalist elite has radicalised Venezuela’s poor, who have come to realise that it is impossible to achieve change simply by electing a government and getting it to enact reforms. The Venezuelan people have been forced to take the road of revolution and fight for popular power on the streets. In the process, many have drawn the conclusion that capitalism cannot be reformed.
With a guy like O'bammy at the top, our own domestic 'revolutionaries' would be encouraged to 'fight for popular power on the streets'.
Given the changes in demographics over the years, coupled with recent economic woes, we may be at a tipping point where the Second Ammendment may soon play it's most vital role in our history.
Hillary (tired,old,white-woman,socialist) doesn't have the appeal that a young, black, articulate, Marxist/socialist, hate-America church-goer offers to those seeking 'change'.
Lucky for us we have the pre-bate checks coming soon to buy things that make loud noises.
First time I’ve seen that (your post #29). A keeper, for sure. Thanks.
I have a few suggestions for it;
Mail it to every female legislator in your immediate area.
Post it at work on the bulletin board
Make a few copies and drop them off at your favorite gunsmiths shop.
Just get it out where others can read it.
Post it on the Internet when you can.
I don’t carry a gun…
… to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun
because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun
because there are real threats in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun
because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun
because I understand the limitations of government.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to
spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to
die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy. I carry a gun
because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun
because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun
because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.
I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun
because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
“Police Protection” is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate
the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
_____________________________________________
Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take an ass kickin’.
John Steinbeck issued a warning that all should remember:
"Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.
In reply to your tagline; Neither could we!
All three are socialists, all three lean so far left they could easily be taken as Communists, all three make me sick!
What struck me was the author's succinctness on the subject of being armed. Common sense on such a level doesn't prevail anywhere that I know of.
These days common sense doesn’t prevail anywhere that I know of.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.