This is a discussion on Single Issue Voter within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Weapons ownership is the basic definition of self ownership. If you can own a gun, and you have the right to protect yourself, you are ...
Weapons ownership is the basic definition of self ownership.
If you can own a gun, and you have the right to protect yourself, you are the owner of yourself. You are not a slave.
If you are forced by law to disarm yourself or be registered in a government program/registry in order to defend yourself, you are not a free man.
And his point about anyone going into a store and buying a gun no matter what type, fine. Gun ownership is good. But gun ownership is only half of the cake. What is really the nail in the coffin is the right to self-defense. If you can own a weapon, yet your right to carry this gun within 1000 yards of a school, within your vehicle, under your jacket, whatever, is infringed, it does not matter if you can buy a bazooka at wal-mart. If you are slaughtered in court and your family is bankrupted and has to visit daddy or mommy in jail because you defended yourself and your family it does not matter if you have an auto sear in your AR-15 or not.
The most important bit is the legal climate, that the law sides with the legal gun owner as long as he is in the right.
We can own guns over here. But the right to self-defense doesn't exist. The right, or even the privilege to carry does not exist. Our lives are continued or ended at the whim of the state and whether or not The Man is there at the right time. (and he's not armed either so it won't help much) We are not free. We are serfs.
So Raysheen do I understand correctly that you would have no problem with Charles Manson getting paroled tomorrow and walking into a Hardware store and buying an Uzi or MP-5 and walking the streets of your hometown?
No Anti will ever get my vote ... but the world is too complex to only vote for really hardcore Pro's.
Sometimes the other issues line up but sometimes they do not
Old testament....Shooting to Live 1942
Newer testament... Kill or Get Killed 1976/1987
What others may or may not do with such hardware has nothing to do with my status as a law abiding citizen, so why am I penalized for the POSSIBLE actions of others?
However, everybody is NOT allowed to purchase an MP5. It's technically possible, but for practical purposes the average consumer is not. This isn't about Charlie Manson buying a gun, it's about ME not being allowed to buy a gun... because somebody is afraid of Charlie... which has nothing to do with ME.
Why are my rights restricted? I'm not Charlie Manson.
"I am a Soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.
I think that the 2A attitude is a big part of who the elected official is.
Tanksoldier, it seems we understand the following passage a little differently. I will put in bold the parts that jump out at me.
"If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, anyman, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything-- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you. "
So we are supposed to oppose any politician that would deny the Charlie Mansons, the other Cho's out there and my six year old son (he is a very responsible six year old) instant and untraceable access to what ever kind of weapon they choose. Should I be able to get off the prison bus and walk into home Depot and walk out with an AT-4 and sit in front of the bank and wait for the truck to pull up?
As far as you or me getting fully automatic weapons, it really is not that hard. I have several friends that own them. The problem with getting them (at least for me) is not the paperwork and the $200 to the feds, it's the purchase price of the weapon itself. I am still kicking myself for not buying twenty years ago. I could have had an Uzi and an MP-5 for $2500! Now that prices are ten times that, I don't see myself getting one anytime soon.
The references to the abortion issue that was brought up has now been removed. It's never has been a topic for this forum and never will be. Abortion issue discussions, along with other off topic social issues, will be removed. Please keep it on topic to keep this thread from being closed.
Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.
First, PLEASE HEED BUMPER'S CAUTIONARY DIRECTION. This thread seems to be very thought provoking, there is no sense in ruining it.
I do not consider my self a single issue voter, in fact, I categorize my issues. I have a Holy Grail of issues that contain guns and some of the issues we don't discuss here. I have important issues, that I consider pretty steadfast but not necessarily deal breakers like the Holy Grail. Then I have personal preferences, those issues that I have an opinion but aren't so important that I would spend anytime fighting for them.
With that said I do consider myself a Constitutionalist (Pro Freedom, Pro Bill of Rights) and if a candidate or officer holder does not have the self-restraint to avoid alienating my constitutional rights, then I will have no restraint in my legal efforts to see him removed from office.
I agree wholeheartedly that if a politician doesn't trust the people, why should he be trusted.
Lex et Libertas — Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis!
"Not only do the people who put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us deserve better, we all deserve better than to have our own security undermined by those who undermine law enforcement." -Thomas Sowell
I have to be a single issue voter. Without the big one...the rest cease to exist as you cannot adequately guarantee the others. This has been a thought provoking thread.
Mods: If you feel my post is off topic, please feel free to remove my post and NOT the entire thread. I think it's on, but it's not up to me is it? It's a good thread with some good responses and should remain.
Last edited by packinnova; September 13th, 2007 at 04:39 PM. Reason: Single issue.
Please take a moment to help a Veteran and one of our own: gofundme.com/5d9dfa2s
Good but if ya gotta swear try " Eliphalet Remington "
OK OK just kiding
When outnumbered 2 to 1.
Packinnova, do I understand correctly that you would have no problem with my six year old, or my mentally handicapped twelve year old walking into a store and walking out with shiny new pistol? Or that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold should have been able to walk into the local ACE Hardware and walk out with automatic weapons?
Most wouldn't even think of handing a gun to a six year old on their own to begin with because at that age they may not well be able to fully comprehend the complexity and reality of the issues and they are not fully thinking on their own, but I can think of a handful of 15 and 16 year olds that I would have trusted with my life(because they were taught and raised to adhere to personal responsibility and they subsequently lead their lives in such fashion). As for the Harris and Klebold situation...that would be resolved via natural selection/citizen intervention. Problem is we've "delegated" too much of our lives to the government for our "protection". I'm a firm believer in both Personal Responsibility and M.A.D. (not to be mistaken for M.A.D.D.). Without the hampering of us delegating the control and responsibility of our lives to the government, folks would be forced to take it upon themselves, which is the way it should be. In that circumstance, it's highly probable that the harris/klebold incident would have either A) never taken place, or B) been stopped before they were fully engaged. Trying to prevent a Harris or Klebold from access to a firearm isn't going to stop them if they're determined to complete their master plan and willing to suffer the consequences.
I suspect I'll have to agree to disagree before I get the thread shutdown.
Please take a moment to help a Veteran and one of our own: gofundme.com/5d9dfa2s
Here's an idea - write the author and ask him to qualify his statement. I read the passage, then re-read it. I didn't come out thinking that any person can walk in and buy a gun. The piece was well-written, but it will not pass for an "A" on an undergraduate or graduate English paper. Seek clarification before taking each word for its literal meaning.
That said, I agree with the author's underlying point. If a politician thinks your ability to defend yourself should be limited to primative weapons (fists, rocks, etc.) or given to the Government, he or she isn't worth holding the office.
Then again....ever wonder who is surveyed for the answers to the questions on "Family Feud?" My Mother (a very liberal 75 year old) watches that show waaaaaaay too much. The answer is: they are "average" Americans! Go figure....
BE PREPARED - Noah didn't build the Ark when it was raining!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
NRA Life Member