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

Skip to comments.

Will House take up renewal of gun ban?
World Net Daily ^ | May 19, 2003 | Jon Dougherty

Posted on 05/19/2003 7:12:28 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last
To: Ancesthntr
It is sad my friend but you are part and parcel of the problem. You will continue to vote demonican the rest of your life because they make you believe that you will get democrat policies if you don't but why can't you see the writing on the wall you are getting democrat policies anyway and the republicrats and demonicans, same party really, are laughing all the way to power because they have you and a majority of the voters buffaloed. Vote your beliefs not your fears!

Ravenstar
61 posted on 05/21/2003 6:07:13 AM PDT by Ravenstar (Reinstitute the Constitution as the Ultimate Law of the Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
You said "Ditto. I merely laid out what I think is happening. Knowing the past, we may well get screwed AGAIN. My only realistic hope is that Bush and the Republican Party know how many votes they will lose, both in 2004 and permanently, if that happens. That, and the fact that many rural Dems don't want to touch gun control with a 5-mile length of pipe."

No they won't by your own admission to me in post 59 you will continue to vote your fears instead of your convictions.

Ravenstar
62 posted on 05/21/2003 6:11:05 AM PDT by Ravenstar (Reinstitute the Constitution as the Ultimate Law of the Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Ravenstar
Well said.
63 posted on 05/21/2003 7:02:03 AM PDT by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
Regarding your post #46 -- well said. I concur with your description of our current state of affairs, as well as your analysis of the politicking going on currently. It sucks, it's reality, and it's up to us to deal with it effectively. When has this ever been not so?


64 posted on 05/21/2003 7:13:43 AM PDT by Joe Brower (http://www.joebrower.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ravenstar
I said: "Ditto. I merely laid out what I think is happening. Knowing the past, we may well get screwed AGAIN. My only realistic hope is that Bush and the Republican Party know how many votes they will lose, both in 2004 and permanently, if that happens. That, and the fact that many rural Dems don't want to touch gun control with a 5-mile length of pipe."

You said: "No they won't by your own admission to me in post 59 you will continue to vote your fears instead of your convictions."

Take a look at the end of my post #57 - in this case, I will NOT be voting Republican if the AWB is renewed in any form for any time. Letting a pol know that he/she will lose your vote is a good way to get their attention, and if enough people do it, pols change their votes - look at all of the Southern Dems that won't touch gun control now. When I responded to you, I did so in general philosophical terms. Please look at my last post to you again, and tell me if I'm really wrong - and by that I mean, when has a strategy like yours EVER gotten a true pro-gun candidate elected? Here's the most important part of what I wrote:

If you mean third party folk, I think that you are wrong. My credo is to vote as you want to in the primaries, and to vote for the lesser of two evils in the general. Enough hammering in the primaries and the lukewarm RKBA folk in the Republican Party will either lose or get religion. Same for rural Dems. Voting third party in the general election does as much good as pi$$ing into the wind.

Get it? Once the primaries are over, the die is cast for one or the other party, period (a couple of insignificant races here and there excepted). Ross Perot, with literally billions of dollars at his disposal and an angry electorate, got only a few percent of the nationwide vote (and NO, I'm not holding him up as a pro-gunner - he's the opposite - but as the only 3rd party candidate in recent times to have had even a slight chance to do anything). He won not a single state, and didn't get any more than 20% in any state. He did, however, get Bill Clinton elected by siphoning off Bush I votes. Bush I was no pro-gunner, but I doubt that the AWB would be law now if he had been elected - Clinton had to push, HARD, to win by only 2 votes in the House.

Again, my belief is that you do what you can within a major party in the primaries and at the grass roots. Over time you, and people of like mind on ANY particular issue (guns, abortion, etc.) WILL have an effect. But voting 3rd party in November does NOTHING. You might as well stay home. I used to believe as you do, but I figured out that it never helps. In fact, I'm one of the idiots who helped get Clinton elected (it didn't actually matter in my state, but I am speaking of the attitude).

There's a time to fight like Hell - when you have some chance of success. Charging a machine gun nest is a recipe for getting killed - ask the French of WW1. When you can't possibly get exactly what you want, you stick your finger in the dike and try to slow down the oncoming tide, knowing that someday in the not-too-distant future you will have a shot at getting exactly what you want, or at least closer to it. We get that chance every 2 years, and in between we have to try to hold back the tide. In an ideal world, at least one of the major parties would actually stand for something - but, in case you hadn't noticed, we don't live in that world.

Imagaine if you, and other really hardcore people who vote like you, actually got involved with one particular party (or one candidate of either party - some actually stand up to their own party on occasion) - we, all gun owners, would have that much greater influence, and might actually get stuff done. There are about 80 million gun owners. Half probably don't vote, and most of those don't vote their guns (just think about the jerks with the over-unders who don't care if you or I lose our "evil" semi-autos). I will repeat: the number of people who cast votes solely on the basis of the gun issue is 5% at maximum. If they all vote in concert for a candidate that has a chance to win, they'll get something done - otherwise they won't. Splitting that 5%, staying home, voting for 3rd party candidates in the general election - all of these diminish or eliminate the voice of the entire 5%, and thereby damage the cause of gun rights. Your present voting methods may give you great personal satisfaction, but they don't do anything but help to elect the more evil party, the one that explicitly wants to ban guns. Again, you might as well not vote.

65 posted on 05/21/2003 8:31:53 AM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
I understand you didn't mean me specifically because you stated such in your post but my contention still stands.

"My credo is to vote as you want to in the primaries, and to vote for the lesser of two evils in the general"

The Republican insiders control who has the party money to run primary campaigns. They make sure it is someone like Bush who give lipservice to the Constitution but then go along to get along, the only thing important is having the power, not getting anything done.

If you are going to effect change you must vote your convictions not your fears.

I am not a one issue voter but I am committed to my tagline.

You seem to understand that the Constitution is being violated left and right but you wont stand up for your convictions. If you continue in this manner you will be among the first to hand over your weapons when the UN comes to take them away from you, because the Republicrats and Demonicans tell you it is the lesser of two evils.

Ravenstar
66 posted on 05/21/2003 8:42:15 AM PDT by Ravenstar (Reinstitute the Constitution as the Ultimate Law of the Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Is he only bound by his word to pass EXACTLY only an extensino of the current AWB?

If a version is passed with more restrictions, such as a total ban on hicap mags etc, do you think he will use that as a reason to not sign it?

I've been pondering that question, too. Given Bush's track record, I think he'll sign an expanded ban that hammers high-capacity magazine imports. I don't think he'll sign a broad expansion such as that proposed by Feinstein and McCarthy. Just a hunch, mind you.

Also, did you see the wording that DeLay used? Looky here:

"It is very simple. The votes to expand it aren't in the House," DeLay said during his weekly briefing Tuesday, in response to a question about the ban's renewal.

In this newer statement by DeLay, he appears to have taken a half-step back, leaving room for a compromise.

We need to stress in our letters and phone calls that any compromise which leaves only the existing ban in place (as opposed to further expansion) is NOT acceptable.

67 posted on 05/21/2003 8:51:22 AM PDT by Charles Martel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel
Good points!
68 posted on 05/21/2003 9:46:22 AM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Ravenstar
We clearly agree about the ultimate goal - unfettered access to firearms. I, for one, would like to be able to walk into a store and be able buy a machinegun without any background check, waiting period, permission slip from my chief employee at the local PD, or payment of $200 for a tax stamp - my grandfathers were able to do this, and there's no reason that I shouldn't be able to, as well. However, it is equally as clear that we disagree regarding the best method of getting to such a situation. Let's just leave it at that.

There is, however, one point that I must respond to in your last post: I will NOT be handing over weapons to anyone. FYI, I am Jewish and lost lots of relatives in the Shoah ("Holocaust" is an improper term that dishonors the victims, but that is a very long story that I won't inflict on you). I am very well aware of what happens to disarmed Jews, and the example of Israel shows what happens when Jews have arms (they survive). I would strongly recommend against anyone, wearing whatever uniform, coming to take my weapons.

69 posted on 05/21/2003 10:04:29 AM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
You will give them the power to do so over your objections by your vote. You have been convinced by the demonicans that voting for the lesser of two evils is the best you can do and besides at least it isn't harmful.

This is the false premise you proceed from. It is every bit as harmful as if you had signed the order to confiscate the guns because that is where your vote, slowly albeit but inexorably and likely within your lifetime, is allowing them to go.

Ravenstar
70 posted on 05/21/2003 2:35:00 PM PDT by Ravenstar (Reinstitute the Constitution as the Ultimate Law of the Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 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