PDA

View Full Version : Hold Your Liberal Nose and Vote, or Turn in Your Guns…It’s That Simple



megimoo
09-12-2008, 12:47 PM
Hold Your Nose and Vote, or Turn in Your Guns…It’s That Simple

Okay, I agree, it’s an odious choice, and thanks to the media and our two-party system, we have to make a difficult decision. But your freedom and your right to bear arms are in the balance. If you stay home, or vote the way your union tells you to, or vote for “change,” you will get screwed in a place you will find very uncomfortable. Let me explain why.

The two contenders are Barack Obama and John McCain. McCain has not always, admittedly, been the best friend of American gun owners.

Obama, on the other hand, has a long, documented, and consistent record of being the legitimate gun owner’s worst enemy.

Let’s look at his record: Obama wants to bring back the failed Clinton Gun Ban; Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership; Obama supports local gun bans, such as the one recently vacated by the Supreme Court; Obama supports owner licensing and gun registration, and opposes Right to Carry laws; Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within five miles of a school or park, and wants to ban the manufacture and sale of inexpensive handguns; Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping, mandatory waiting periods, and one-gun-a month sales restrictions. And that’s just a sample. When Obama was campaigning in the “fly-over states,” he posed as a friend of hunters, although he would not go so far as to put on hunting garb, a la Kerry. Then in front of wealthy California urbanites, he spoke of those same middle-American folk as “clinging to guns and religion” because they were embittered by the economy. Now, Obama’s supporters would probably say that he was simply tailoring his message to the specific audience. From a more jaundiced perspective, he’s a phony, elitist a$$hole.

McCain troubles me, but not as much as Obama does. John McCain has pushed through legislation that would make it illegal for an organization such as the NRA to air advertising critical of a candidate prior to an election. He has argued for legislation to “close-the-gun-show loophole,” whatever that is. On the positive side, McCain has supported gun owners on Emergency Powers (as in the New Orleans gun-seizure outrage) and on the firearms industry lawsuit preemption. He was against Ted Kennedy’s proposed ammunition ban, against the initial Clinton Gun Ban and subsequent attempts at its renewal, against government-funded “gun buybacks,” against the hi-cap magazine import ban, and against mandated waiting periods. McCain opposed the Brady Bill, and has spoken out in favor of hunting in the Mohave National Monument. McCain might not be your first choice as President of the NRA, but as President of the United States, he would be a far more acceptable choice for gun owners than Obama. How about a third-party candidate? Don’t even go there. Remember Ross Perot and Ralph Nader? They pulled enough votes to spoil the chances of Republican and Democrat candidates respectively.

One might well argue that a President does not have unlimited powers; that the House and the Senate and the Supreme Court will serve to protect us from a presidential gun grab. The House and Senate right now have a Democrat majority, with every indication that it will stay that way or even get more slanted toward the Democrats in the coming election. And with just a few exceptions, Democrat politicians are not friendly to gun owners.

How about the Supreme Court? On June 25, 2008, the Supreme Court, by a one-vote, five-four margin, allowed for a very limited interpretation of the Second Amendment as an individual right. If, God forbid, Barack Obama were President, and a vacancy came up on the Court, whom do you think he’d appoint? Hillary Clinton? Charles Schumer? Odds are, his appointee would make Ruth Bader Ginsburg look like a conservative! I don’t know about you, but I’d feel much more confident if it were John McCain making the choice. John McCain has made it quite clear that his choices for the Supreme Court would be strict constitutionalists.

GrumpyOldLady
09-12-2008, 01:43 PM
This typical white person clings to her guns and her religion.

I vote to keep my guns and the second amendment.

linda22003
09-12-2008, 01:47 PM
I don't think the liberal side is going to end gun ownership any more than I think the conservative side is going to overturn Roe. :rolleyes:

patriot45
09-12-2008, 01:58 PM
Insight into the Messiahs view on the Supremes!


"I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas," said the presumptive Democratic nominee. "I don't think that he..." the crowd interrupted with applause. "I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution. I would not have nominated Justice Scalia though I don't think there is any doubt about his intellectual brilliance. Because he and I just disagree.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-12-2008, 02:13 PM
I don't think the liberal side is going to end gun ownership any more than I think the conservative side is going to overturn Roe. :rolleyes:


The conservatives WILL overturn Roe AND the liberals will take away guns.

linda22003
09-12-2008, 02:16 PM
Then the best bet is to keep the executive and legislative branches with different parties so they'll stymie each other.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-12-2008, 08:39 PM
Then the best bet is to keep the executive and legislative branches with different parties so they'll stymie each other.

I would think this argues for Republicans all the way around - and in complete are effective control of the legislature as well as the executive.
:D

linda22003
09-12-2008, 08:49 PM
Best to have both parties so they moderate each other.

megimoo
09-12-2008, 11:29 PM
Best to have both parties so they moderate each other.Best to throw the liberall critters all out !

Will Dill
10-16-2008, 07:19 PM
Give us a standing army!

--George Mason at the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788

FeebMaster
10-16-2008, 07:59 PM
It's about the only reason I can think of to want McCain to win.

It'll be hilarious when he signs some gun control.

asdf2231
10-16-2008, 08:30 PM
I don't think the liberal side is going to end gun ownership any more than I think the conservative side is going to overturn Roe. :rolleyes:


Clinton made a good run at it over 8 years.

He sicced the ATF on FFL holders and drove about 2/3rds of them out of business through jacked up fees and administrative harrassment.

The "Assault Weapons" ban was the biggest attack on my 2nd ammendment rights in my lifetime. Among other jackaasery it listed single shot Civil War era black powder MUSKETS as "Assault Weapons".

Those of us that own guns and shoot as a sport know.

FeebMaster
10-16-2008, 08:57 PM
He sicced the ATF on FFL holders and drove about 2/3rds of them out of business through jacked up fees and administrative harrassment.

Good thing the Republicans put a stop to that first thing once they ended up in charge.


The "Assault Weapons" ban was the biggest attack on my 2nd ammendment rights in my lifetime.

You must be really young.

Of course, the AWB is gone, but we still have the FOPA and Bush the Elder's import ban. Is Bush the Younger's Norinco ban still in effect? I've lost track. Let's not forget Brady, even though Republicans loves them some background checks.


Among other jackaasery it listed single shot Civil War era black powder MUSKETS as "Assault Weapons".

No.


Those of us that own guns and shoot as a sport know.

A few do.

Will Dill
10-16-2008, 09:05 PM
John McCain has made it quite clear that his choices for the Supreme Court would be strict constitutionalists.[/SIZE]
Why is it that those who use the term "strict constructionist" run and hid when I ask them what it means?

Constitutionally Speaking
10-17-2008, 06:19 PM
Why is it that those who use the term "strict constructionist" run and hid when I ask them what it means?

I'll not run and hide. It means that the federal government is LIMITED to the EXPRESSED powers granted to it by the Constitution. That means we put the 10th amendment back to the forefront, instead of simply ignoring it.

Will Dill
10-18-2008, 09:07 AM
It means that the federal government is LIMITED to the EXPRESSED powers granted to it by the Constitution. Is that the only rule of construction that guides a strict constructionist?



*********************************

If the lawmakers had wanted the people to have a clear unambiguous right to keep and bear arms, why did make an Amendment with two parts that didn't coincide, knowing full well that there was a well established common law rule of construction, which dictated, that in such a case, the means should be sacrificed to the end.