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

Skip to comments.

We Must Become Second Amendment Zealots If We Are To Survive.
Sierra Times ^ | 27 April 2003 | Michael Gaddy

Posted on 04/29/2003 12:52:17 PM PDT by 45Auto

If you wonder at my use of the word "zealot" in the title, I would explain that by saying I feel that the majority of the so-called "defenders and supporters" of the second amendment have long since sold their souls to the powers of government, and those of us who believe it holds the key to freedom, must from this point on be zealots in its defense.

We must face the fact that no one connected to government will be able to prevent the usurpation of our right to own arms sufficient to protect our homes and families. Wake up folks! Government has been involved in a well-planned, incremental approach to the disarming of the citizens of this country for decades.

Billions of dollars and man-hours have been spent through groups such as the National Rifle Association over the past 80 years, lobbying those in government to protect our rights as granted by our creator and enumerated in the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend. And what has it bought us?

1934-National Firearms Act

1938-Federal Firearms Act

1968- 68' Gun Control Act

1972-BATF expanded to deal with firearms

1986-Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act

1990-Crime Control Act

1994-Brady Bill

1994-Assault Weapons Ban

1998-National Instant Check System

No matter how sweet the prose of the names of these pieces of legislation or how they inflame the passions of the ignorant socialist masses, the fact remains; they are all unconstitutional - and deadly to our freedom.

One of the real problems we face as Second Amendment "zealots," is the fact that the largest of our right to keep and bear arms "defenders", the NRA, has supported a great majority of the above listed government infringements on our firearms rights. Almost two years ago I wrote of this betrayal. NRA: Pro Second or Government Lapdogs?

We must face the fact that we are wasting resources and time lobbying those in government. They will never turn on the god they worship. Government is the source of their power and wealth. Government, as it becomes more and more corrupt, requires the people not have the means to resist that corruption. Thus, the gradual encroachment on our ability to possess the type weapons necessary to remain free.

We see our military issuing - what one could only assume to be fully automatic AK-47's - to people they do not even know in Iraq, but we here in the US of A are forbidden to own similar rifles. We may have "semi-automatics", but not if they have a bayonet lug or high capacity magazine. This fact speaks volumes. Does an unknown Iraqi policeman have more rights to freedom than we?

If we are so naïve as to place our hopes for adherence to constitutional principles in the republican or democratic party, we should just turn in our firearms now and submit to the tyranny that follows without wasting any more time or resources. How long will it take before we all realize they are players for the government, not the people, and are only distinguishable when they switch their "home and away" uniforms?

Can the facts be painted any more vividly than the White House's support for the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994? Just take a look at those who are singing the praises of the Bush Administration. When those who call themselves "conservative" are lauded by the likes of Feinstein and Schumer, its time to seek high ground. Both of these fine representatives of Marxism have said legislation will be introduced to make the AWB permanent and to close the loophole on importation of high capacity magazines. And Bush is now on record in support of this legislation.

Of course, Feinstein must be on the administrations short list of favorites, what with the 600 million dollar government contract to her hubby's business.

In the 2004 Presidential Election, we as Second Amendment zealots are going to be faced with two candidates who support our disarmament. This is the goal of government. Vote for whomever you choose. You still get that which they want you to have.

Republican faithful will preach of how much worse off we will be with the democrat who would disarm us, and besides, there are so many other things that need to be accomplished that only a republican administration can handle. We have found that to include the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II and a run amuck Department of Homeland Security. How much more of this style government can we tolerate and still call ourselves a free people?

Democrats will continue with their Marxist agenda. And, God forbid, should there be another act of terrorism in this country, the cowards will gladly surrender the wisp of freedom we have left if mother government will only let them hide behind her apron.

Trying to secure our second amendment rights through the Congress will be a further effort in futility. We are all familiar with their machinations, and besides, haven't they brought us to the place we are now?

Conclusion

Statistics tell us there are approximately 88 million of us gun owners in this country. Unfortunately, only half of that number might qualify as gun zealots. There are those who place politics above the guarantees of Creator and Constitution. There are those who believe as long as they can participate in their little competitions, whether it be shooting make believe outlaws, clay pigeons or metal gongs, that no one needs an assault rifle. There are those who have been perverted totally out of phase to the original intent of the second amendment and its guarantee against tyranny.

History has been replaced with Social Studies in our public school gulags. A look at a public school textbook for middle school reveals no mention of firearms in the discussion of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment is only discussed in the realm of militias and how they were used in the revolution. It further states that because we have organizations like the National Guard there is no need for private possession of firearms!

It is my belief it is now time to either fish or cut bait. The lines have been drawn. We must present a united front. 40+ million Second Amendment zealots could present quite a problem to anyone seeking the presidency, or any other political office. But that will not be accomplished if we continue on the path we have been on for the past 50+ years. Political parties, the NRA and compromise on our God given imperatives are not working. Over 2,000 gun control laws on the books should tell us something. People who write and support gun laws either don't understand the Constitution, hate our guts, or both. You will not secure freedom by trying to appease them.

We have been blessed with one man in this nation who understands the concepts of liberty and freedom and fights for them daily. We Second Amendment zealots must unite behind this man of whom it has been said: "He personifies the Founding Fathers' conception of the citizen-statesman. He made it clear from the start that his principles would never be compromised, and they never were." Another added: "There are few people in public life who through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. He is one of those few."

I speak of none other than Congressman Ron Paul, 14th District of Texas. Former Treasury Secretary William Simon, put it best when he said: "Dr. Paul is the one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.

The ball is now in our court. We can continue on the path we have been on, supporting political parties, sending our hard earned dollars to organizations that compromise on every gun control issue, and supporting those in office who promise anything to obtain that office and then sell our Constitution and their principles to the highest bidder, or we can give our solid support to a man who knows no compromise when it comes to the oath he took to "uphold and defend."

40+ million Second Amendment zealots with Dr. Ron Paul as our standard bearer could make a difference. What say ye?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: banglist; rkba
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-139 next last
The poster does not necessarily endorse nor oppose the views expressed in this article. I will continue to support the NRA and its state affiliates until I see that it is no longer relevant. I do consider myself to be a rabid RKBA advocate, however.
1 posted on 04/29/2003 12:52:18 PM PDT by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
MOLON LABE!
2 posted on 04/29/2003 12:53:54 PM PDT by asformeandformyhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
I ask all, Where do your loyalties lie?
The second admendment wasn't about hunting! It was about the overthrow of a tyranical government, as such as today. The politicians know it and want you to give up your guns so they will not have anything stopping them!

The other reason to keep arms, most terrorists will tell you, America is tough to terrorize because the population owns guns. Unlike most european and eastern countries.
3 posted on 04/29/2003 12:58:16 PM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (If I keep my eyes on Jesus, I could walk on water - Audio Adrenaline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Bump
4 posted on 04/29/2003 12:59:24 PM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
The poster does not necessarily endorse nor oppose the views expressed in this article. I will continue to support the NRA and its state affiliates until I see that it is no longer relevant. I do consider myself to be a rabid RKBA advocate, however.

Agreed and agreed again. Any abrogation of the Second Amendment signals wholesale erosion of ALL rights.

-Jay

5 posted on 04/29/2003 12:59:52 PM PDT by Jay D. Dyson (Terrorists of the world, RISE UP! [So I may more easily gun you down.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
I ask all, Where do your loyalties lie?

Not with 1 issue malcontents, that's for sure.

6 posted on 04/29/2003 1:01:13 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
The other reason to keep arms, most terrorists will tell you, America is tough to terrorize because the population owns guns. Unlike most european and eastern countries.

And isn't it iiiiinteresting that the U.N. is just itching to disarm us?

Like you said, terrorists are no different than any other punk criminal: they prefer their victims to be unarmed.

-Jay

7 posted on 04/29/2003 1:01:47 PM PDT by Jay D. Dyson (Terrorists of the world, RISE UP! [So I may more easily gun you down.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Much as I hated Bill Clinton in the White House I have to say this, it sure seemed Republican Congressmen were more vocal in defending our 2nd Amendment rights when he was there than they are doing while a Republican sits there now. I have been getting almost weekly reminders from the Republican Party asking where my contributions have gone. I guess I will have to start diverting the money I used to donate to the NRA and Republicans to buying copies of Unintended Consequences to leave lying about.

Just sign me "bitterly disappointed"

(am I the only one who remembers when the Rep.s in Congress PROMISED us that if we gave them the Congress in '94 this Bill would be undone?)
8 posted on 04/29/2003 1:03:18 PM PDT by wastoute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
I ask all, Where do your loyalties lie?

Not with 1 issue malcontents, that's for sure.

LOL. If standing up for our constitutional rights -- especially those rights that are demonized in the name of "safety" -- makes me a "1 issue malcontent," then I happily accept the label.

-Jay

9 posted on 04/29/2003 1:05:39 PM PDT by Jay D. Dyson (Terrorists of the world, RISE UP! [So I may more easily gun you down.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wastoute
Much as I hated Bill Clinton in the White House I have to say this, it sure seemed Republican Congressmen were more vocal in defending our 2nd Amendment rights when he was there than they are doing while a Republican sits there now.

Wow! I guess the bill that recently passed the House that would get rid of frivolous lawsuits against firearm manufacturer's was off your RADAR screen.

Whoops, I forgot you probably get daily e-mails from the GOA, nevermind, go on with your rant.

10 posted on 04/29/2003 1:07:50 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dane
***gasp***

Heresy!

You need to repeat the following mantras to put yourself in the mindset of the single issue gun fanatic:

They'll take my Stinger when they can pry out of my cold dead hands in the short term lot at the airport

They'll take my M1A1 Abrams when they can pry my smoking, charred corpes out of its blackened turret outside the police station

They'll take my CAR-15 when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands in the bank lobby

They'll take my grenade launcher when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands at my workplace.

11 posted on 04/29/2003 1:07:51 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine (unlike a paleocon, a tick doesn't pretend it is doing anything for its host)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jay D. Dyson
And isn't it iiiiinteresting that the U.N. is just itching to disarm us?

Yes as well as something that needs to be addressed. I do know there isn't a gun owner willilng to give up thier weapon. If the UN invaded and declared that all weapons be confiscated, I am afraid the UN would be confiscated. The UN knows this, that's why it isn't moving so fast to get it done. After this war in Iraq is over, I believe you will see the the UN dissolve!

12 posted on 04/29/2003 1:08:56 PM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (If I keep my eyes on Jesus, I could walk on water - Audio Adrenaline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wastoute
I'm very tempted to write two checks... one to the NRA, for 1 penny, the other for Rep Ron Paul, for $20. Make photocopies of each, and include it with the real check to the respective parties.
13 posted on 04/29/2003 1:09:18 PM PDT by Frohickey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
Bang
14 posted on 04/29/2003 1:10:17 PM PDT by DaveCooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
They'll take my Stinger when they can pry out of my cold dead hands in the short term lot at the airport

They'll take my M1A1 Abrams when they can pry my smoking, charred corpes out of its blackened turret outside the police station

They'll take my CAR-15 when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands in the bank lobby

They'll take my grenade launcher when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands at my workplace.

There are laws against murder, property damage, interference against transportation and mayhem.

There are laws against slander, and libel, I guess we should chop off your hands, and cut out your vocal cords then.

15 posted on 04/29/2003 1:12:17 PM PDT by Frohickey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jay D. Dyson
LOL. If standing up for our constitutional rights -- especially those rights that are demonized in the name of "safety" -- makes me a "1 issue malcontent," then I happily accept the label

Yep, you got that lable. No doubt about that. I guess you are of the contingent that by withholding our vote or voting for some no-name candidate, thus helping the election a Hillary Presidency, will all of the sudden bring up an AK-47 sugar plum popular revolution and a Libertarian Monarchy will be established, and all will be well with the world.

JMO, but it is time to quit smoking "corn silk".

16 posted on 04/29/2003 1:14:15 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Oh, and I forgot - you're supposed to grind your teeth, let your face turn purple and sweat, with veins popping out on your forehead, all while getting really mad and ranting wildly about Waco/Ruby Ridge/BATF/FBI/IRS. Something about your "right" to have long term, armed standoffs with law enforcement about refusing to actually go to court to assert your rights, yet hypocritically caterwauling about the inevitable final assaults which occur to bring in the resistors being done "without due process".

That last part would normally be funny, except that these so-called "men" who put up this resistance wind up getting a lot of innocent human shields killed.

17 posted on 04/29/2003 1:15:00 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine (unlike a paleocon, a tick doesn't pretend it is doing anything for its host)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Frohickey
Don't be cheap - give Ron Paul even more. See how wisely he uses it, and just how much traction you get with a heavy donation to the idiot.

ROFLMAO

18 posted on 04/29/2003 1:16:40 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine (unlike a paleocon, a tick doesn't pretend it is doing anything for its host)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
40+ million Second Amendment zealots with Dr. Ron Paul as our standard bearer could make a difference. What say ye?

I have long subscribed to the proposition that we must all vote the Second Amendment as a litmus test.

It is, in reality, the seminal issue. More important than tax cuts, abortion reform, or any of the other issues which so-called conservatives use to judge the worth of the candidates.

The way to quickly and positively influence the future of the Republic is to vote the Second Amendment at every level, from dog catcher to President.

And if that means voting for Ron Paul as opposed to George Bush, that's the way it should go.

Mr. bush has certainly demonstrated that he is no friend to the protection of liberty.

19 posted on 04/29/2003 1:17:01 PM PDT by Beenliedto (Class of '98)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Michael(and all gunowners), what are you going to do about it.

As for Ron Paul, he voted against the ban on firearm lawsuits. He ain't perfect.

Are you involved in the county political party? Are you working in the primaries to get good people elected. Are you elected good state reps, senators, and county officials that are tomorrows congressman. That's where it starts. In my county, you don't win the primary if you are a gun grabber.

We need to fight hard, and just as importantly, fight smart and quit bitching about the NRA 24/7 and do it better.

Member
Michigan Gun Owners, NRA, Second Amendment Foundation(The best of the bunch), GOP

20 posted on 04/29/2003 1:21:46 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beenliedto
And if that means voting for Ron Paul as opposed to George Bush, that's the way it should go

With Ron Paul as President. sadddam and uday would still be sipping Margarita's along the Tigris.

I know, I know, Ron Paul is against the UN, and yet he sided with pro-UN and anti-Bush democrats in the US Congress about Iraq.

Whew talk about playing both sides of the fence.

21 posted on 04/29/2003 1:21:49 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
A well-regulated (governed or directed according to rule)

militia (a body of citizens organized for military service)

being necessary (logically unavoidable)

to the security (freedom from danger)

of a free State, (State in this incidence means the States that make up the U.S.)

The right (the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled)

of the people (the citizens of the United States)

to keep (to retain in one's possession or power)

and bear (to move while holding up and supporting)

arms (a means, as in a weapon, of offense or defense)

shall not (total prohibition against)

be infringed (encroach upon in any way that violates the law or the rights of another).

Sounds pretty unambiguous to me.

22 posted on 04/29/2003 1:21:58 PM PDT by The_Pickle ("We have no Permanent Allies, We have no Permanent Enemies, Only Permanent Interests")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frohickey
Ron Paul voted against a ban on frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Any donation I would make for Paul will be going to someone with a better voting record.

23 posted on 04/29/2003 1:23:06 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
"Statistics tell us there are approximately 88 million of us gun owners in this country. Unfortunately, only half of that number might qualify as gun zealots. "

This sentence from the Conclusion of this piece is way wrong. Half? Not nearly. Maybe 2%. Certainly less than 5%. There's the rub, for sure.

It's a mark of zealotry that one believes that they are in some sort of majority position. Nothing could be further from the truth.

One-issue RKBA voters, like the Libertarians, do not make up a large enough group to have any real influence. Sorry to say this, but you can see it clearly in Bush's restatement of his support for the continuation of the AW ban.

Influence _can_ be had, but it will come at the expense of a single-issue litmus test position. Those who have RKBA as their only issue, like the Libertarians, are doomed to be marginalized in election after election.

Another approach is needed.
24 posted on 04/29/2003 1:23:07 PM PDT by MineralMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Yesterday, the opponents of the Minnesota CCW law blamed the NRA, Concealed Carry Reform Now and the Republican Party for their loss.

This weekend the NRA stated the Assault Weapons Law will be sunsetted. LaPierre didn't say "maybe". Why are they confident? Because the fight against the Assault Weapons Ban started at the last election and we did very good.

We are on the offense. We are getting the votes. Every time the dem party votes for more gun control or tries to stop pro-gun Bills, they lose more politicians. The forty years of the dem party and gun control is coming to an end.
25 posted on 04/29/2003 1:24:17 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
he sided with pro-UN and anti-Bush democrats in the US Congress about Iraq.

He sided with the Founders in voting against foreign entanglements.

But that's not the point.

The point is that if we intend to preserve any of what's left of the Republic, we have to send a message. And the best way to do that, IMHO, is to make the Second Amendment THE issue. 40,000,000 of us have the ability to do that.

If that muscle were ever flexed, we would not need NRA or GOA to be lobbying for us.

As a matter of fact, if we ever did that, we would strike fear into the hearts of politicians, and perhaps reduce some of the arrogance and corruption which exist at all levels of government.

26 posted on 04/29/2003 1:26:47 PM PDT by Beenliedto (Class of '98)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
"Are you involved in the county political party? Are you working in the primaries to get good people elected. Are you elected good state reps, senators, and county officials that are tomorrows congressman. That's where it starts. In my county, you don't win the primary if you are a gun grabber."

Yep. And you can bet that the "zealots" aren't doing any of those things. You've laid out how this must be done. Watch for the arguments against this sensible way of approaching the problem.
27 posted on 04/29/2003 1:27:24 PM PDT by MineralMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
As for Ron Paul, he voted against the ban on firearm lawsuits. He ain't perfect.

Seek the underlying reason for that vote, my friend.

28 posted on 04/29/2003 1:27:36 PM PDT by Beenliedto (Class of '98)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: asformeandformyhouse
Well spoken!

(This compliment coming from a person who owns and occasionally flys a relica 1835 Gonzalez, Texas, "Come and Take It" flag.)

29 posted on 04/29/2003 1:30:34 PM PDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Beenliedto
I saw his reason. The difference between myself and Paul is that I don't chose my support on how things OUGHT to be in a perfect world. I look at how things are, and how to ACHIEVE them.

I fight to win, and if that means cut a few corners to get to get the pro-rights results needed, so be it. The trial lawyers want to litigate gun manufacturers out of business. That needs to be stopped by any means necessary.

30 posted on 04/29/2003 1:31:45 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto; Con X-Poser
40+ million Second Amendment zealots with Dr. Ron Paul as our standard bearer could make a difference. What say ye?

I'm in.

31 posted on 04/29/2003 1:32:25 PM PDT by Jael (The WE? It's "WE the people". You know, of "In order to form a more perfect union" fame)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
``Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.''
-- Barry M. Goldwater
32 posted on 04/29/2003 1:32:56 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
You area liar. This slander I cannot let stand.

This is what Dr. Paul really said on the issue of Iraq.

You are beneath contempt.

33 posted on 04/29/2003 1:33:58 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Beenliedto
He(Ron Paul) sided with the Founders(and anti-Iraq incursion democrats in modern America) in voting against foreign entanglements.

But that's not the point.

Uh yes that is the point, I will wait patiently(probably a period of years) for your diatribe against a "founder", Thomas Jefferson, for attacking the Barbary Pirates.

34 posted on 04/29/2003 1:35:12 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
I voted for Bush because he had not (yet) tainted himself by attacking the Bill of Rights and limited government.

I approve of the President's military conduct with respect to the War on Terror and Iraq.

However, there are SEVERAL issues by which the President has demonstrated his enmity, or at least ignorance, towards Constitutional rights and minimal government.

Among them:

1) The ludicrous Campaign Finance Reform law which he signed.

2) The Orwellian-titled abomination known as the "P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act"

3) The administration's PLEDGE to renew the semi-auto ban.

4) Socialist education spending increases. There should be no Department of Education.

So much for "one-issue malcontents", ad so much for the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments, among others...

What I have a problem with is people who continually fall into the Hegelian dialectic trap, wherein more and more rights are compromised due to false alternatives, thereby continuously driving America to the left, with more socialism as the inevitable result. And always with the help of voters and politicians in BOTH major parties.

This process continues through administration after administration, whether "conservative" or "liberal"...

Well, I gave Bush a chance, and I'm very unhappy about what I see domestically so far (see above.) He's blown it with paleo-cons and libertarians, I fear. Tax cuts are nice, but I won't ignore the Constitution in '04, where Bush will apparently be "damaged goods."

And this is coming from a libertarian who switched his vote to Bush, in Florida, in 2000.

So, the semi-auto ban, far from being the only issue, will probably be the "straw which broke the camel's back" for many conservatives.

If Bush renews this, he deserves to lose in '04, and he will.

If he's courageous and takes the political heat for not renewing (hopefully Congress will help), then he will be re-elected.
35 posted on 04/29/2003 1:37:18 PM PDT by sargon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Do the ends justify the means? Did you throw the baby out with the bath water? Want some more aphorisms?
36 posted on 04/29/2003 1:37:50 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
We don't have a tyrannical government today. That's just hyperbole on your part. Our Federal, State, and local governments, however, have too much power and too much access into our private lives.

But your point that the Second Amendment was designed to secure the individual right to bear arms, and if necessary, take on an oppresive government, is right on the money. I have been flamed more than one time when I have stated that as a law-abiding U.S. citizen, I should have the opportunity to be armed with firearms similar to the military.

"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them." (Too long for a tagline!)

37 posted on 04/29/2003 1:37:55 PM PDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
... with Dr. Ron Paul as our standard bearer ...

Here's why I simply don't trust Ron Paul as a "standard bearer."

38 posted on 04/29/2003 1:37:56 PM PDT by k2blader (Reason is our soul's left hand, Faith her right. - John Donne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: capitan_refugio
relica 1835 Gonzalez, Texas, "Come and Take It" flag.

I know I'm not supposed to covet, and I hope i don't sound like a spoiled child but; "I WANT ONE!".

39 posted on 04/29/2003 1:38:53 PM PDT by asformeandformyhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Do you really want me to dig up his set of talking points that sounded like they came straight from a committee meeting between Jacques Chirac, Baghdad Bob and Hussein?

Hell, Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman have a greater understanding of foreign policy than Ron Paul, and now you're flacking for his stupid mouth?

40 posted on 04/29/2003 1:40:02 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine (Jesus loves guns this I know, Vernon Howell tells me so.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dane
the barbary pirates attacked us first. When did Iraq attack us?
41 posted on 04/29/2003 1:41:02 PM PDT by Continental Op
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sargon
Bye.
42 posted on 04/29/2003 1:41:07 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine (Jesus loves guns this I know, Vernon Howell tells me so.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Continental Op
The first time they started writing checks to suicide bombers in order to inflame the Arab world against the West, which culminated in the 9/11 attack.

Or was it when they made training camps available to Al Quaeda? Or was it the safe haven they provided?

And if that wasn't enough, maybe it was when they made it a point to violate the peace treaty they signed in 1991 to terminate the First Gulf War and to remain in power - a treaty which they signed because of the efforts of this nation in dissuading them from acquiring neighboring possessions in an effort to make an Arab superstate.

43 posted on 04/29/2003 1:47:04 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: The_Pickle
And the good thing is, you only used one comma.
44 posted on 04/29/2003 1:47:33 PM PDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: asformeandformyhouse

45 posted on 04/29/2003 1:47:56 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: capitan_refugio
"We don't have a tyrannical government today. That's just hyperbole on your part."

You're right, we don't. But... here's the thing. The concept that armed civilians have the ability to overthrow such a government is a shibboleth.

Consider this: How many times has someone, or a group, armed with whatever weapons, successfully held off even a police SWAT team and gotten away? The answer is Zero.

I remember another poster, a long time ago, talking about this well-armed militia camp, as if it were impregnable. That was the final stand, in his mind. One A-10, with a couple of Hellfire missiles would put an end to that fantasy.

We saw what happened in Iraq, with our fine military just walking over an entire Iraqi army. Do the RKBA folks _really_ believe they could do better? If so, they are deceived.

We are long past the point where an armed populace is going to overthrow any government in the USA. It ain't gonna happen. Not now. Not ever.

But...we have a cool political system. The zealots can convince the population that their cause is just and elect people, from the school board level to the national level, who agree with them. We have elections every two years, for pete's sake. That's where our power is, not behind a toy "assault rifle." Sorry about the "toy" designation, but that's just what it is.

This battle is being fought in the wrong place. All these folks who think their little semi-autos are going to hold off even the local cops are just kidding themselves.

Get political! Militias and the like are a joke when it comes to access to power in the USA. The best civilian firearms are laughable, even compared to the firepower a small town SWAT team can bring to the battle. Never mind the military, which has another way to SWAT folks who want to fight.

It's all nonsense. The only route is through our fine, flexible system. Go convince people. Don't threaten them. "From my cold, dead hands," is a challenge, not an argument. If you want to die, then be my guest. Try to beat the local SWAT team. If you want to make a change, you'll do a lot better alive.
46 posted on 04/29/2003 1:48:12 PM PDT by MineralMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Got it. Thanks.
47 posted on 04/29/2003 1:49:02 PM PDT by asformeandformyhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: sargon
Bush is a moderate. If he was a conservative, he wouldn't have been elected. If we're lucky and we stop the Assault Weapons Ban in Congress, after his terms we can demand a conservative. If we abandon Bush now, we'll get another liberal.

The trick is to make sure the Republican Party know that we need the Assault Weapons ban killed off in Congress before it reaches his desk.
48 posted on 04/29/2003 1:50:33 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dane
I don't know about a Libertarian Monarchy or smoking corn silk, but I do know that two schmucks with a beat up car and an average "assault rifle" pretty much paralyzed law enforcement not so long ago. I'm sure that lesson wasn't lost on foreign terrorists. I'm also sure that lesson was totally lost on those that continue to demonize law abiding gun owners. Their intent is to create millions of felons by legislative fiat.

You have no "one issue" upon which you take a princpled stand?

49 posted on 04/29/2003 1:51:20 PM PDT by IGOTMINE (He needed killin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
You area liar. This slander I cannot let stand

Really? Huh here is a google search that shows Ron Paul playing both sides of the fence with Hillary House democrat representative, Pete Defazio.

DeFAZIO, PAUL INTRODUCE BILL TO REPEAL BUSH’S BLANK CHECK FOR WAR

February 05, 2003

Press Release | Contact: Kristie Greco (202) 225-6416

WASHINGTON, DC— Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Ron Paul (R-TX) today introduced legislation to repeal the Iraq Use of Force Resolution passed by Congress and signed into law by the President last fall. Following is DeFazio’s statement: “I heard no new evidence today from Secretary Powell’s address to the United Nations, that would convince me that military action in Iraq is necessary to improve security of Americans.

“Americans want the President to lay a clear case for immediate military action in Iraq, but the Administration’s message keeps changing- six months ago, their case hinged on regime change, three months ago it was Saddam thwarting inspections, three weeks ago it was possible possession of chemical weapons, today its tenuous terrorist links. If the case was clear, it would have been clear from day one.

“Our nation’s immediate threat is still Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda terrorist network. We have full knowledge of North Korea’s equally rapidly developing nuclear weapons program under the control of an equally diabolical leader. There’s well-published accounts of several Mid-east governments aiding and funding known terrorists. Of America’s imminent threats, Saddam Hussein is much lower on the list.

“Saddam Hussein is a brutal untrustworthy tyrant, but he is being contained, and we should allow weapons inspectors to continue their work.....

LINK

50 posted on 04/29/2003 1:52:15 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-139 next last

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.

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