Single Issue Voter - Page 2

Single Issue Voter

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 ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33

Thread: Single Issue Voter

  1. #16
    Member Array joffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    165
    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.


  2. #17
    Senior Member Array raysheen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    793
    Quote Originally Posted by havegunjoe View Post
    If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, 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.
    excellent quote right there...I like it

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,004
    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?

  4. #19
    Member Array riverkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Washington's Olympic Penninsula
    Posts
    283
    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
    http://www.gutterfighting.org/files/...ng_to_live.pdf
    Newer testament... Kill or Get Killed 1976/1987
    http://www.gutterfighting.org/files/...Get_Killed.pdf

  5. #20
    Senior Member Array tanksoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,133
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    So, if I am reading this right the author has no problem with convicted violent criminals, children, and the mentally incompetent being able to walk into a hardware store and walk out with automatic weapons, and we should oppose any politician that disagrees with him.
    Does no one else have a problem with that?
    I don't see where he says anything like that. Why shouldn't _I_ be allowed to own such weapons? Why shouldn't _I_, were I able to afford it, be able to own my own Abrams tank complete with functional MGs and main gun?

    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    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?
    As long as others are allowed to be equally armed, why not? Charlie wouldn't last very long in a town where EVERYBODY carried an MP5, would he?

    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.

  6. #21
    Member Array seedoubleyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    135
    I think that the 2A attitude is a big part of who the elected official is.

    CW

  7. #22
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,004
    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.

  8. #23
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    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.
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array BigEFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    2,045
    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

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,315
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    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?
    Packinnova's Short answer: YES! All these issues would be resolved rather quickly and effectively if the government would keep their grubby hands off. This includes the "just out of prison" issues. If a person is out of prison has his debt not been paid? If not, why is he out? If he never belonged getting out EVER, why was he put in in the first place rather than allowing what should have happened to happen (ie terminal corporal punishment)

    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.
    Packinnova's Second sorta short answer: Ask yourself why those prices are so darn high! The price issue is a basic economics lesson learned in any American High School History or Economics class. It's call supply and demand. Supply goes down...cost goes up. Supply is down due to the unconstitutionally and immorally restrictive laws. Also, why is it that you should have to pay the extra $200? Same goes for alcohol. Why is it illegal to make your own alcohol without a license and payment to the BATFE? For that one, start looking into the history of the ATF. All issues are resolved when you take away the aggressor/transgressor.
    Dangit...I was trying really hard not to jump in this thread and just be a good boy...Ain't gonna happen!
    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.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  11. #26
    Member Array gopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    124
    Good but if ya gotta swear try " Eliphalet Remington "
    OK OK just kiding
    Good post
    When outnumbered 2 to 1.
    Shoot twice!
    Gopher

  12. #27
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,004
    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?

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,315
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    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?
    Everything but the six year old. It's pretty clear we limit rights to priviledges already in just about all aspects of "underage" life anyway at this point(my big question though is at what point do we decide a person is an adult). In most legal aspects we(through our "elected" government) decide that the age is either 18 or 21, even though it really may be quite younger in reality for some folks or MUCH older than 21 for others.

    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.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  14. #29
    Distinguished Member Array sniper58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,631
    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....
    Tim
    BE PREPARED - Noah didn't build the Ark when it was raining!
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    ________
    NRA Life Member

  15. #30
    Member Array Puppy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by havegunjoe View Post
    I am sorry but I don't think he was including criminals or the insane when he refereed to a politicians "average constituent".
    Sorry, I could not disagree more. He said "without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper". So how the heck can you "assume" he meant only the good guys. How on earth would you know a good guy from a bad guy if Anyone can buy a gun with no ID?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Voter Intimidation
    By ErnieNWillis in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: July 18th, 2010, 04:44 AM
  2. Voter Intimidation Scenario
    By Pinger in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: August 2nd, 2009, 03:33 PM
  3. Obama Voter at gun range...Long Story
    By rcsnpr in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: March 27th, 2009, 01:11 PM

Search tags for this page

single issue thinker

Click on a term to search for related topics.