Vote to protect the 2nd Amendment - Page 2

Vote to protect the 2nd Amendment

This is a discussion on Vote to protect the 2nd Amendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by SelfDefense And ultimately, we the people, are the government. We The People will never be the government if we accept that we ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 41
  1. #16
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    And ultimately, we the people, are the government.
    We The People will never be the government if we accept that we must "compromise" with who we "must" elect to office. We The People are not a two-party society; the two-party system we currently have is not what the country is intended for, and creates only a polarized belief system like that we see every day. Black, or white, with no allowance for shades of grey (they get in the way of the black or white). Proof? If someone's not registered Democrat or Republican, their votes are only seen as a means to the end of furthering either the Democrats or Republicans (which voter would help which party more). If this is what you honestly believe our country was set-up for, I would genuinely question materials of your political studies.

    The two-party system is the inevitable result of a civil apathy within a republic. Forcing citizens to choose something that might not be in their beliefs is called coercion and taking advantage of those whose beliefs do not fall squarely in the "blue" or "red" is called manipulation.


    -B


  2. #17
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    We The People will never be the government if we accept that we must "compromise" with who we "must" elect to office.
    The only way any one of us will not, as you put it, compromise, is if you yourself run for office. Good luck. And, yes, we are most definitiely the government. Who do you think the government is?

    We The People are not a two-party society; the two-party system we currently have is not what the country is intended for
    Actually, it is exactly what was intended. I suggest you read Federalist 51 (I think that is the one.) Madison clearly and eloquently described why they decided upon a electoral methodology that encourages a two party system.

    Proof? If someone's not registered Democrat or Republican, their votes are only seen as a means to the end of furthering either the Democrats or Republicans (which voter would help which party more).
    Thanks for [inadvertently] demonstrating my thesis. This exactly describes the multi-party system. Rather than focusing on issues, candidates are required to compromise not only their positions, but worse, their ethics, to garner the 'third'party votes. The fact is that independent voters are the most useless we have. They have no core values; no guiding principles.

    If this is what you honestly believe our country was set-up for, I would genuinely question materials of your political studies.
    Feel free to question. The Federalist Papers expound at great length the intent of the Founders. The Consititution and the results of that great document are not an accident. I think the Constitution and the Federalist Papers are maerials that need no further authority.

    The two-party system is the inevitable result of a civil apathy within a republic. Forcing citizens to choose something that might not be in their beliefs is called coercion and taking advantage of those whose beliefs do not fall squarely in the "blue" or "red" is called manipulation.
    Is this the response to the example I provided? You are voting for our leaders, not necessarily someone who believes exactly as you. You can always waste your vote as some suggest. You will certainly not be helping your cause.
    Last edited by SelfDefense; September 24th, 2007 at 10:02 PM. Reason: fix quote

  3. #18
    Member Array sailormnop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Tidewater, VA, USA
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I have read here and elsewhere many that are discontent with the two party system. The fact is that the two party system is what makes our nation great and above all others.

    The Founders knew very well about the two party system. Although political parties are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the unique balance of powers and the method with which we elect the President encourages a two party system. It is part and parcel of our democratic republic.

    It has been shown twice in the last two decades that a strong third party candidate will cause a more disliked candidate to win an election. This is expected. But the most important fact is that if there are more parties then more people ill dislike the winner. For example, if there were one hundred candidates, each with views that exactly match their constitutents, then 99% will dislike the winner. In a two party system, with the parties pretty much equally divided, about half the electorate does not like the winner. It encourages candidates to the middle, which necessarily causes changes to move slowly. That is a good thing for a stable society.

    But even this analysis is too simplistic. A multi-party system creates a more parlimentary type of government. In order to gain power coalitions must be formed. If you think there is corruption in government now, consider the problems that would be created with those of dissimilar beliefs vying for the votes of other elected representatives by courting the [multiple] opposing parties. Further, the minority parties, those not in the ruling coalition, will simply be crushed with no voice whatsoever.

    The two party system is an electoral methodology that ensures the minority will retain some power. And this nonsense of bi-partisanship is similarly misdirected. The party in power should implement their policies. A perfect example of bi-partisan failure is that 'comprehensive immigration' policy. It was created in a [smoke filled] backroom and the public was not included in the debate. The result was legislation that was despised by both parties. The liberals wanted complete open borders and the conservatives wanted border enforcement. Neither was accomplished and a grass roots effort by ALL Americans put a stop to the damaging policy.

    The two party system is brilliant and effective. I don't care whether it is Federalists and Democrat-Republicans, Whigs and Democrats, Repubicans and Democrats, or the current Liberals and Republicans. The two party system forces the electorate to choose, not their own beliefs (like the Paul supporters espouse,) but those candidates that most agree with their views.

    And ultimately, we the people, are the government.
    With instant runoff voting, the winner is the candidate who most closely matches the requirements of the most voters. IRV is being used in some local and state elections and is spreading. The key is when all is said and done, everyone knows how many people wanted each candidate (all of them) because everyone can mark their first choice first without effectively casting their vote for the enemy, but rather for their second or third choice.

    Also, why do want one party to have a clear majority in Congress? So they can pass more laws? Don't we have enough? What, you want more 'programs'? Give me a break! That's what we've been getting with both parties for the last 100 years. More laws, more programs, more entitlements, more spending, more taxing.

    Our form of government was designed to provide checks and balances to stop runaway legislation, spending, etc. What better checks and balances than 435 congressmen who can't agree on anything?! Maybe if they couldn't get anything done, they would all just go home! Wouldn't that be nice?

    The two party system reduces the choices of the voters and therefore necessarily reduces the say of the people in the governing of the nation. You end up with, as we have now, a governing elite who are groomed for the job. Having to choose the lesser of two evils is not government for the and by the people. It separates the rulers (no longer servants) from the people and makes it impossible to enforce the Constitution. Today in America, the government is NOT the people. I don't know a single person who approves of a quarter of what they do in Washington. That is government in spite of the people!

    Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Mencken, Rand, Reagan, and many others have said it - government is evil, and though necessary, should be limited to the bare minimum. Government is not the solution, it is the problem. And the two-party system only makes it worse.
    Check out the Free State Project

    How does the economy really work? Mises Institute

    Laissez Faire Books offers an extensive collection of books on liberty, free markets, philosophy, economics, politics and history.

  4. #19
    Member Array sailormnop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Tidewater, VA, USA
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Actually, it is exactly what was intended. I suggest you read Federalist 51 (I think that is the one.) Madison clearly and eloquently described why they decided upon a electoral methodology that encourages a two party system.
    Don't forget the Anti-Federalist Papers, written by Thomas Jefferson, who was the real Federalist. Hamilton and Madison were proponents of a strong, centralized government - a republican form of government. Jefferson attended the Constitutional convention as an actual representative of the people and supported a confederation of sovereign states - a federal government (what all the people and the state governments thought they were getting). Hamilton cleverly came out with his intentionally misnamed publication first to steal Jefferson's thunder. In those days, of course, people (land owners/voters) actually knew what words meant, so it really did matter.

    The truth is, I haven't completely studied either the Federalist or Anti-Federalist Papers, so I can't go any further than what is above.

    Thanks for [inadvertently] demonstrating my thesis. This exactly describes the multi-party system. Rather than focusing on issues, candidates are required to compromise not only their positions, but worse, their ethics, to garner the 'third'party votes. The fact is that independent voters are the most useless we have. They have no core values; no guiding principles.
    No core values!? No principles!? Someone who resignedly accepts the compromise of voting for the lesser of two evils is the one lacking principles! Continue to vote for the lesser of two evils and watch the country go down the toilet (gradually) all the while talking about how great the two-party system is? Did I hear a definition of insanity there?

    Feel free to question. The Federalist Papers expound at great length the intent of the Founders. The Consititution and the results of that great document are not an accident. I think the Constitution and the Federalist Papers are maerials that need no further authority.
    As long as you balance the Federalist Papers with the Anti-Federalist Papers.

    Is this the response to the example I provided? You are voting for our leaders, not necessarily someone who believes exactly as you. You can always waste your vote as some suggest. You will certainly not be helping your cause.
    We are voting for representatives! Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Atilla the Hun were all leaders, and good ones too. Leaders tell you what to do, where to go, how to live. Leaders are not servants. We don't need leaders. Our representatives are supposed to be servants. We are supposed to be able to tell them what to do. The only candidate who represents (most of) my views is Ron Paul, and we need a voting system that will allow every voter to speak their mind honestly and without compromise. Instant Runoff Voting.
    Check out the Free State Project

    How does the economy really work? Mises Institute

    Laissez Faire Books offers an extensive collection of books on liberty, free markets, philosophy, economics, politics and history.

  5. #20
    Member Array LastManOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Emmaus, PA
    Posts
    420
    The "Two Party System" might work IF and only IF one can differentiate between the two on actions, not on campaign promises. I see NO substantial difference between the Jackasses and the Elephants. Back in the '60's, when I began following politics to any degree, the Dems were more conservative than the Repubs are today. Then along came LBJ and we became a quasi-socialist nation and the "Two-Parties" have been massaging that model ever since. R.R.'s administration was the closest we've had to a rollback to a Constitutional Republic since then.

    P.S. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY! Educate yourself. Read the U.S. Constitution and memorize the Bill of Rights. Caution, you may be shocked at how unconstitutional our laws and restrictions have become.

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array PaulG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    1,126
    Quote Originally Posted by LastManOut View Post
    I hear folks say they are "voting for the lesser of two evils." WHY vote for EVIL at all.
    A write in vote or a vote for your conscience is better than casting a vote for someone you only think is better than X candidate.
    If this cycle a third party candidate gets 20% of the vote and the next cycle the 3rd party gets 30% the Republicrats will have to take notice and possibly reconsider their failed positions.
    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
    www.ConstitutionParty.Com
    And by that 3rd cycle, all firearms will be banned by the "greater of two evils" who gets elected because we are voting our conscience.

    Call me selfish but I want to preserve MY rights during MY lifetime.
    fortiter in re, suaviter in modo (resolutely in action, gently in manner).

  7. #22
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,187
    If your dissatisfied with the two party system... you might just look to Britian for an example of how well a multiple party system would work... or not! Sometimes we forget the grass is not always greener...

    As far as the original thread purpose, equally important to it all is the Bill of Rights. Where the root of the 2nd amendment took place. That establishes the rights of the people for which we then had to tell our federal government exactly what they could not do based upon it. And certainly the inclusion of the 2nd so early on "the list" signifies its importance in maintaining all the other ones. Clearly the intent was that it was an important imaginary line that the Federal Government was precluded from stepping across so that the other amendments could be protected from it. The right to assemble and speak to defend the 2nd, and the 2nd to defend the first. They go hand in hand. Then all lesser amendments can follow and be enforced. Its clearly as it should be and was intended. However bolstered by the Bill or Rights which then extends to what the individual states may not take away. They both are important enforcement tools to the individuals against their governments.

  8. #23
    Member Array LastManOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Emmaus, PA
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulG View Post
    And by that 3rd cycle, all firearms will be banned by the "greater of two evils" who gets elected because we are voting our conscience.

    Call me selfish but I want to preserve MY rights during MY lifetime.
    Maybe, probably not. Good thing Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, et al weren't "selfish".

  9. #24
    Member Array LastManOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Emmaus, PA
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by cphilip View Post
    As far as the original thread purpose, equally important to it all is the Bill of Rights. Where the root of the 2nd amendment took place. That establishes the rights of the people for which we then had to tell our federal government exactly what they could not do based upon it. And certainly the inclusion of the 2nd so early on "the list" signifies its importance in maintaining all the other ones. Clearly the intent was that it was an important imaginary line that the Federal Government was precluded from stepping across so that the other amendments could be protected from it. The right to assemble and speak to defend the 2nd, and the 2nd to defend the first. They go hand in hand. Then all lesser amendments can follow and be enforced. Its clearly as it should be and was intended. However bolstered by the Bill or Rights which then extends to what the individual states may not take away. They both are important enforcement tools to the individuals against their governments.
    Wrong, wrong, wrong!

    These rights are unalienable established by natural law, by our Creator. The Bill of Rights is merely a reminder to the government that they can not change something they didn't give us.

    Anyone ever heard of Abraham Lincoln? A third party candidate, before the Internet, or mass media.

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,187
    Ok well it was WRITTEN as a US document is what I mean by established (as pertains to how our government was set up). Obviously it was taken from previous forms of governments as well. Including English law. However it was the first time our forming government had written it, debated and voted on it, becoming our law. And they felt so strongly it exists in most state constitutions and even previously, in some forms, in colonial government.

    Our creator aside, I am talking about the intent of OUR governments use and establishment of them as OUR laws for our new country. They could have simply left them out if they were not of that mind. But they codified them and placed them in a prominent position in our constitution. Making them preeminent and primary foundations of our country's laws.

    I know the point your trying to make is valid. I was speaking directly to the intent of our governments of the time to establish them (or re-establish them if you prefer) as OUR laws.

  11. #26
    Lead Moderator
    Array rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    16,025
    Keep to the topic on hand please. If you wish to discuss the merits of voting, and the political system fine. We don't need to know who you will be voting for, as it is
    1. off topic to the thread
    2. likely to cause a flame fest and lock the thread .
    Thanks for understanding
    "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Thomas Jefferson


    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  12. #27
    Ex Member Array dwolsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    IRV would indeed be better than what we have now. Combining it with the electoral college would be tricky, but it's a move in the right direction.
    People keep focusing on the national level, and forget about the state level.

    It would be possible to keep the electoral college around and still have IRV. The IRV would simply be at the state level, and be used to determine who the state's electors vote for. There's nothing (to my knowledge) saying that states must implement any type of voting system; the Constitution only says that the Electoral College system must be used to determine the President. If a State wanted to implement IRV, it should be as simple as the State legislature passing a law requiring it. To me, this would fix most, if not all the problems with voting.

  13. #28
    Ex Member Array dwolsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Further, the minority parties, those not in the ruling coalition, will simply be crushed with no voice whatsoever.

    The two party system is an electoral methodology that ensures the minority will retain some power.
    Sorry, no. The Reform Party, the Constitution Party, and lots of other parties have no power in the US at present, and they're all minority parties. You're assuming that everyone basically agrees with either the Democrats or the Republicans. Many people don't agree with either, and they have no voice whatsoever. Worse, these two parties have figured out they don't really need to represent average Americans at all, because one of them will be elected. So all they have to do is focus on one relatively unimportant issue (like gay marriage), and as long as more people agree with them on this distraction than with their opponent, it doesn't matter if they disagree with them on every other issue because they'll still get elected because there's only two choices which both suck.

    And this nonsense of bi-partisanship is similarly misdirected. The party in power should implement their policies. A perfect example of bi-partisan failure is that 'comprehensive immigration' policy. It was created in a [smoke filled] backroom and the public was not included in the debate. The result was legislation that was despised by both parties. The liberals wanted complete open borders and the conservatives wanted border enforcement. Neither was accomplished and a grass roots effort by ALL Americans put a stop to the damaging policy.
    That's not the way I remember it. To my knowledge, the liberals wanted complete open borders, and the "conservatives" wanted mostly open borders with a few noises about enforcement, but nothing really done because some companies (campaign contributors) were profiting from the situation. Real Americans wanted real enforcement, and neither party wanted to do this. The Bush Administration has been doing its very best to avoid enforcing the border, and instead pandered to the government of Mexico. There were a number of Republicans who were closer to true conservatism who helped keep any open-borders or amnesty legislation from passing, but they're not the ones in the mainstream of the Republican Party.

    The two party system is brilliant and effective. I don't care whether it is Federalists and Democrat-Republicans, Whigs and Democrats, Repubicans and Democrats, or the current Liberals and Republicans. The two party system forces the electorate to choose, not their own beliefs (like the Paul supporters espouse,) but those candidates that most agree with their views.
    It's a failed and outdated system I think. There are no mainstream candidates that agree at all with my views, or many other people; that's why there's so many people screaming about Ron Paul right now. How many people are out there campaigning for Romney, Giuliani, or Clinton, this far ahead of the '08 election? Maybe Arizona is just different, but I see Paul stickers and posters all over the place here, my coworkers talk about him incessantly, etc. The other candidates? I never hear about them. No posters, no bumper stickers, etc. That really says something to me.

  14. #29
    Senior Member Array PaulG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    1,126
    Quote Originally Posted by LastManOut View Post
    Maybe, probably not. Good thing Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, et al weren't "selfish".
    Apples and oranges, my friend.

    Our Founding Fathers led a violent revolution when they had nothing else to lose. We're talking about voting.

    Your turn.
    fortiter in re, suaviter in modo (resolutely in action, gently in manner).

  15. #30
    Member Array LastManOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Emmaus, PA
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulG View Post
    Our Founding Fathers led a violent revolution when they had nothing else to lose.
    Nothing to loose? "..we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
    That my friend is the definition of courage, and self-lessness.
    Tag

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. WA Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 04:35 PM
  2. Vote for 2nd Amendment rights
    By advantage1one in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2009, 11:45 AM
  3. Sign the petition today together we can protect our Second Amendment rights.
    By goawayfarm in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: January 31st, 2008, 09:46 PM
  4. D.C. GUN Ban Poll VOTE ON WTOP News DC Vote and show your support
    By Rob99VMI04 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: March 11th, 2007, 08:49 AM
  5. Senate Votes to Protect Second Amendment Rights During Emergencies
    By dr_cmg in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: July 15th, 2006, 11:09 PM

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors