New Republican Party Position on Guns??????

This is a discussion on New Republican Party Position on Guns?????? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I am offended by Steele's comments, which seem to parrot the evil characterization that the anti-gunners have given to "assault weapons". I wrote him to ...

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 91

Thread: New Republican Party Position on Guns??????

  1. #46
    Member
    Array C43AMG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    36
    I am offended by Steele's comments, which seem to parrot the evil characterization that the anti-gunners have given to "assault weapons". I wrote him to suggest he take the time to educate himself on rifles like the AR-15. Further, I stated that, until he issues a retraction, I won't give a dime to the RNC or to any of its candidates.

    Here is Steele's address:

    Chairman@gop.com

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,574

    SD, I knew you had a sense of humor in there

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post

    Obviously, in a multiple party scenario it would extremely common for the winner to not have the support of even half the people. A leader of the greatest country on earth that most people voted against? Ridiculous.
    That's funny. You could get a new career as a nightclub comic. (BUSH lost the popular vote, and CLINTON won by a plurality not a majority of the popular vote.)

    But your basic point is right on. Coalitions are the poison pills of parliamentary systems. And that is one reason a multi-party system would not work well, though I'm not so sure our system works well either.

  4. #48
    Senior Member Array InspectorGadget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    536
    Quote Originally Posted by trapper T View Post
    How will your Senator vote on this Bail Out? Will they vote the same as your Congressman? Did you tell them how you felt about it? How will they be on Gun Control? If you own them, they should vote for you not against you. My (Republican) Senators voted against the wishes of our state on both Geithner and Holder. Do we own them? When your Senators and Reps. quit caring what you think, it is time to get rid of them.
    I have three employees in Washington, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL), Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), and Rep Jeff Miller (R-FL). Mel Martinez voted for the bail out after we told him not to, Bill Nelson and Jeff Miller were against it. As of now Martinez has his pink slip and is looking for a new job at the end of his term. We need to be just a strong on or stance for gun rights, if your Senator or Congressman votes for Gun Control then you have to get enough citizens to drive them out of office regardless of party.
    Colt 1911 New Agent, CTLaser

    You do not work for them, they work for you.
    Senators http://senate.gov/general/contact_in...nators_cfm.cfm
    Congressmen http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

  5. #49
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    That's funny. You could get a new career as a nightclub comic. (BUSH lost the popular vote, and CLINTON won by a plurality not a majority of the popular vote.)
    Thanks, thanks! I'll be here all week.

    I am not talking about the popular vote. I am talking about the electoral college (in relation to the Presidential election.) I firmly believe that the People should not vote for the President, as the Founders intended. The only direct election the Founders envisioned was the House of Representatives.

    But your basic point is right on. Coalitions are the poison pills of parliamentary systems. And that is one reason a multi-party system would not work well, though I'm not so sure our system works well either.
    Our system has flaws. (We have to endure another 154 weeks of Obama.) But it is the BEST system of government ever devised and implemented. Our success as a nation is unparalleled in the history of the world, even when compared with Ancient Rome or Greece.

  6. #50
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,574
    Well SD, you can't resist the O bashing, but we might be able to agree on the electoral college thing. All you have to do is convince everyone else, besides me, that we shouldn't have popular elections for the electors. Let the legislatures appoint them. (And in the same general idea, no primaries either. Let the professional politicians pick their nominee.) For all but the most hard-core originalists, I doubt many of our citizens today would approve of appointed electors. So, the way we pick electors is a good example of an evolving living constitution. Same constitution, same words, completely different way of picking electors. I suppose if our present method has not been challenged yet we might well expect the radicals who presently sit on the SC to uphold appointed electors and take our voting rights from us.

  7. #51
    Member Array trapper T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hyrum Utah
    Posts
    96
    I do believe the original question was about the new Repulicans. McCain( I'm a maverick, watch me vote like a Dem.) Sarah Palin ( I'm a maverick. I used to be Independent but for votes I am now Republican) Sounds like Ron Paul. New RNC Leader Steele ( Former Dem. now Republican) What way will the Republicans go? Convince me that My Views are still held by this Party. I would rather vote for someone who holds more of my views than pick the lesser of two evils. I may be waisting my vote, but voting for one of the two parties is also a waisted vote.

  8. #52
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Well SD, you can't resist the O bashing, but we might be able to agree on the electoral college thing. All you have to do is convince everyone else, besides me, that we shouldn't have popular elections for the electors. Let the legislatures appoint them. (And in the same general idea, no primaries either. Let the professional politicians pick their nominee.) For all but the most hard-core originalists, I doubt many of our citizens today would approve of appointed electors. So, the way we pick electors is a good example of an evolving living constitution. Same constitution, same words, completely different way of picking electors. I suppose if our present method has not been challenged yet we might well expect the radicals who presently sit on the SC to uphold appointed electors and take our voting rights from us.
    The Constitution has nothing to do with the selection of electors. It is not an example of an evolving Constitution in any sense. And the Supreme Court cannot usurp the rights of sovereign states to choose electors as they see fit.

    The direct election method does not need to be challenged. You seem extremely reliant on some judge telling you what to do. The states can decide, as they please, how to select electors. That is why same states have winner take all contests while other distribute their electors proportionately.

    What is true is that direct election (i.e. democracy) is a failed political methodology, which the Founders understood. They warned the people in their writings of the Federalist Papers the differences between a representative republic and mob rule.

    Of course the people would not support our representative republic. Why would they?

    I'm surprised you do not want to abolish the electoral college. Isn't it too old fashioned for a progressive society?

  9. #53
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by trapper T View Post
    What way will the Republicans go? Convince me that My Views are still held by this Party. I would rather vote for someone who holds more of my views than pick the lesser of two evils. I may be waisting my vote, but voting for one of the two parties is also a waisted vote.
    It is not a matter of convincing you that your views are held by any indiviudal no less a party. The answer is that only you agree with all your views.

    Your vote is your personal choice, of course, but voting for someone who has no chance to win is not only wasting a vote it enables the person who holds views even more contemptible to you. I always select the person who most agrees with my views that has a credible chance to win the election.

    By the way, do you consider McCain evil? Many people toss about that phrase, 'lesser of two evils, which distorts what evil really is. Beheading Americans and dragging their bodies through the streets is evil. Murdering 3000 innocent Americans is evil. Neither Obama nor McCain are evil.

  10. #54
    Member Array concealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    466
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    By the way, do you consider McCain evil? Many people toss about that phrase, 'lesser of two evils, which distorts what evil really is. Beheading Americans and dragging their bodies through the streets is evil. Murdering 3000 innocent Americans is evil. Neither Obama nor McCain are evil.
    Very well said.
    Men look out for themselves; real men look out for others!

  11. #55
    njr
    njr is offline
    Member Array njr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    121
    I agree with the posters who say we need a third party.

    The larger prob is that both parties have their stances on the second amend and their voting blocs. Speculation from the left (Adolph Reed) The Dems are looking to b/c a centrist party and the Repugs will shrink to a provincial party of the far right.

    Personally I am a Red Green, that is a marxist in the Green Party. I was re-introduced to shooting and gun ownership by a comrade who was a state NRA Chair, Arizona Small Bore High School State Champ back in the 50s, and a civil rights organizer who carried guns for self defense.

    One of the main probs as I see it is that the Dems have locked the 2nd amend out of the major cities and metro areas through their manipulation of corrupt gatekeepers in various constiuencies. The NGO indust complex with lib whites, Sunday preachers with the Blacks, mostly.

    If the state or national NRA or any other pro 2nd org is to make any headway in the most populated areas of the country, they're going to have to start making calls and helping to organize meetings in the urban/metro areas. Then, newly formed chapters with this non-trad NRA base should start to organize forums, flyering, PR, run candidates (probably most effective with Greens or Libs).

    The other variable is the crisis we're in now and the burgeoning crisises (ecological, deindustrialization, lack of effective polit program by corp parties to address crises, etc). I think the SHTF is going to start soon. It's already starting in France, and spreading around Europe. Union busting, benefits cutting has lost it's legitamacy among wide swaths of the pop here and abroad. You're going to see more rebellions in the streets.

    So, this situation is means that those who administer on behalf of those who rule are going to be looking to crack down on the 2nd, not expand it's coverage. So, the issue will continue to be a fundamental struggle.

  12. #56
    Member Array firestarplus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    western south dakota
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    It is not a matter of convincing you that your views are held by any indiviudal no less a party. The answer is that only you agree with all your views.

    Your vote is your personal choice, of course, but voting for someone who has no chance to win is not only wasting a vote it enables the person who holds views even more contemptible to you. I always select the person who most agrees with my views that has a credible chance to win the election.

    By the way, do you consider McCain evil? Many people toss about that phrase, 'lesser of two evils, which distorts what evil really is. Beheading Americans and dragging their bodies through the streets is evil. Murdering 3000 innocent Americans is evil. Neither Obama nor McCain are evil.
    I couldnt agree more, well said. I used to vote for oddballs like Ross Perot because I was always disgusted with the other choices, then I had an epiphany that I was giving the worse candidate an advantage. You are also right about the "lesser of two evils" quote, I throw that phrase around alot at election time without ever giving it much thought. Thanks for pointing that out.

  13. #57
    Member Array socal2310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Camarillo, CA
    Posts
    467
    SD,

    Fine, we'll call it the "less bad choice" it doesn't make the other a good choice.

    Did you notice my signature line? It's for you.

    Ryan
    Those who will not govern their own behavior are slaves waiting for a master; one will surely find them.

  14. #58
    Member Array trapper T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hyrum Utah
    Posts
    96
    I believe both parties have the same agenda "TOTAL CONTROL". Their tactics may differ but the result is the same. Both parties would gladly use the BOR and Constitution for Toilet Paper on Capital Hill. There is a lot of talk about sheep, we are just a different herd, blindly following the Republicans.

  15. #59
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,574

    Total control?

    Quote Originally Posted by trapper T View Post
    I believe both parties have the same agenda "TOTAL CONTROL". Their tactics may differ but the result is the same. Both parties would gladly use the BOR and Constitution for Toilet Paper on Capital Hill. There is a lot of talk about sheep, we are just a different herd, blindly following the Republicans.
    Political parties are comprised of 100s of thousands of officials from dog-catcher to sheriff, state house representative to US Senate representative. These officials get to their positions by satisfying those who work for their election, and those who vote for them. If there is a diabolic movement (which I doubt) toward total control of the rest of us, it is happening because we are making choices in that direction. Or as the comic strip character once wrote: "We have met the enemy and it is us."

    The fact of the matter is that in many locations, most of the population has an uneasy sense of gun owners. Were the popular sentiment different, as it is in many places as well, we wouldn't be having these conversations about control with respect to 2A.

    And here is precisely why some of the positions taken by guys like SD, that it is all up to the people, are so flawed. Our founders knew the people couldn't be trusted and set into hard copy --quill and squid ink I suppose-- certain rights which were to be extended to all. They knew popular elections could be disastrous and set up an electoral system.

    If we did nothing more than insist that the BOR were applied as intended, literally, strictly, and to the states as well as Uncle, we wouldn't have to worry about anyone gaining total control over anything. Yet around here, we often hear from folks who think organizations (and professionals) who fight for our rights in front of The Bench are subversive and anti-American. Very strange.

  16. #60
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    If we did nothing more than insist that the BOR were applied as intended, literally, strictly, and to the states as well as Uncle, we wouldn't have to worry about anyone gaining total control over anything. Yet around here, we often hear from folks who think organizations (and professionals) who fight for our rights in front of The Bench are subversive and anti-American.
    The irony here is that you are suggesting the total control of the People by five unlected officials.

    The Founders intended government of the People to be local, which is why the states have their own constitutions and laws. The concept of independent, united, sovereign states is being washed away as we move closer to socialism and total Federal government control of the people. Amazing that some people want to go down that road. It is doomed to failure and with it all of our rights.

    By the way, that brings up BAC's question in the other thread...

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 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. The Sheriff, CCW Policy, And The Republican Party
    By Huzar in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2009, 03:02 PM
  2. Republican Fisherman
    By flagflyfish in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2008, 06:55 AM
  3. NEW GUY from NW FL(The Republican Part)
    By MSGTTBAR in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: April 20th, 2006, 09:00 AM