How many of you think the Democrats are going DOWN?

H

Heavygunz

New member
My humble opinion...

While I would be pleased to see droves of Democratic seats trade hands, I am not so optimistic about the outcome. Never underestimate the power of an ignorant and/or apothetic society!

Secondly, party lines do not necessarily differentiate between good/evil, smart/stupid, pro/anti gun. This is why informed voters and ACTIVE campaigners are important.

Two separate prose are provided in subsequent posts for your edification...
 
H

Heavygunz

New member
Subsequent Prose #1

WHY GUNS?
by L. Neil Smith


Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single-issue thinker, and a single-issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy – is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

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.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil – like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdo’s out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdo’s out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdo’s, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel… about you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true.
 
H

Heavygunz

New member
Subsequent Prose #2

If you don't vote like a gun owner, YOU SUCK!
By Peter Caroline

This article originally appeared in the August 2000 issue of “The Blue Press”, the catalog of Dillon Precision Products, Inc. (www.dillonprecision.com) Note: This piece was published prior to the 2000 presidential election and has been edited to delete specific pre-election comments and eliminate most of the pre-election tense in which it was written.

(Dillon Precision) Editor's Note: While we're certain that the sentiments expressed in this editorial don't apply to regular Blue Press readers, we're pretty confident that most of you know gun owners to whom these sentiments DO apply -- if so, please pass this article on. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author, although ours are similar.
********************

According to most estimates, there are between 75 and 80 million adult gun owners in the United States. That's more people than voted in the last presidential election. So why is it, when there are so many gun owners, that we are not the DOMINANT voting bloc in this country? Because most of that 75-80 million are stupid, lazy, hypocritical barfbags. Well, I'd like to say something to that group.

Sure, you drive around in a pickup truck with a gun rack and some hairy-chested bumper stickers, and you talk big at the gun shop or the Legion Hall. But will you shell out 35 bucks and join the NRA? Oh, you don't agree with the NRA's stance on this or that, or the NRA is too soft on something or too unyielding on something else? Or maybe long ago the NRA didn't send you your free cap or bullet key ring on time. Well, you know what? That's a dumb cop-out and you're an *******. Whether you like it or not, the NRA is the only...I repeat ONLY, effective representation you have in the cesspool of Washington politics. Even the NRA's worst enemies -- YOUR worst enemies if you have the capacity to think about it -- agree that it's one of the most powerful lobbying forces on Capitol Hill. That means no one else fights your battles for you better, and if you don't understand that simple fact, you're too dumb to exist!

OK, you don't give a damn about the NRA but you still want to keep your guns. So why, in the name of all that is holy, do you vote for "gun-ban" candidates? Oh, you don't? So who does? Maybe it's all those other people who were voting while you were sucking a brewski and watching the game on TV. Or maybe you're a good union guy, and the union votes Democrat.

Some years ago, Mario Cuomo, a dedicated anti-gunner who happened to be governor of New York, described gun owners in a most uncomplimentary fashion. But the most damning thing he said about gun owners is that they don't vote, and therefore should not be considered as a factor in any election. How about that? Mario Cuomo is a liberal Democrat and, as such, is wrong about most everything, but he's absolutely right about you. And I can prove it.

If you non-voting gun owners in New York State did get off your asses and vote like gun owners, obscenities like Mario Cuomo couldn't even be elected as dog catcher. The same goes for Charles Schumer; he wasn't bad enough as a congressman from Brooklyn; you dumb schmucks had to let him become a senator! What's next?...Hillary!

Then there's my old home state of Massachusetts. Over one million Massachusetts gun owners must be really proud to claim Teddy Kennedy as their senator. And John Kerry, the Kennedy clone, is no better. The entire Massachusetts congressional delegation, both gay and straight, is anti-gun. And you Bay State gun owners are the dildoes that put them in office! Because you sat on your fat asses, you've got Chapter 180 -- aptly named because it turns your gun rights around 180 degrees -- and you've got an attorney general who wants to be governor and thinks every handgun is a faulty consumer product. Once again, Massachusetts gun owners, where were you on Election Day?

Look at every state with asinine, repressive gun laws and a preponderance of anti-gun politicians -- California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland...to cite several horrible examples -- and you will find enough gun owners to form an unbeatable voting bloc, IF they would get their thumbs out of their butts and vote, for a change. Jeez, what a concept!

We all know the excuses: I'm too busy, my vote doesn't count, they're all crooks and it doesn't make any difference, I gave $5 to Quail Unlimited so I don't need to vote, yadda, yadda, yadda. Well, here's the bottom line...your vote does not count if you don't use it. If you don't vote, then effectively you are on the same side as Rosie (I'm-not-a-hypocrite) O'Donnell, Sarah Brady, Bill and Hillary, Al Gore, Teddy Kennedy, Charles Schumer and every other low-life bottom feeder who knows what's best for you. If you don't vote like a gun owner, you are a butt-boy for the anti-gunners, and you bend over forward to please them.

Think about it. 75-80 million gun owners in this country; only 3.6 million NRA members, and who knows how many active pro-gun-voting gun owners. You can argue all you want about your inalienable rights. Rights are like body parts; they only work if you exercise them. And yours are looking pretty flaccid right now.

If you don't vote in the next election, your enemies will elect a president who will be able to name three or four new Supreme Court justices. [Note: This piece was published before the 2000 elections] Which means that by the 2004 election, you will have no guns. And shortly after that, you will have no vote and no rights. And you know what? If you let that happen, it will be exactly what you deserve!
 
L

longeyes

New member
Folks, this is not about convincing the majority, it's about protecting the rights of a minority. And make no mistake about it, the people who want free access to firearms for protection, for defense of self, home, and political freedom, are a distinct minority. In my opinion most Americans don't like guns, don't understand the Second Amendment or its connection to their basic liberties and would repeal it if given an easy way to do so. Frankly, they don't value Constitutional freedoms as highly as they value comfort, convenience, and calm. The two main Parties are for the same things (see above), and let's add a forth "c": control.

The aftermath of September 11 represents no clear-cut victory for the pro-gunners. People who are afraid and who are not self-trusting and not self-reliant--and that's most--want "professionals" to protect them. That means more police and more military, not more empowerment of the guy or gal next door.

My own view is that the principles laid down so eloquently by the Founding Fathers were intended for a simpler, smaller society, and our only hope is to find ways to de-centralize and establish smaller, local enclaves where people of like mind can find a way to live according to those ideals. As we stand now, we are a huge welfare state that is increasingly inimical to personal freedoms and steadily more forgetful of both our seminal Documents and the lessons of history.

An earlier poster suggested placing Constitutionalists in positions of education. That would be a good idea if people with those notions were really welcome in today's educational bureaucracies and hierarchies.
 
M

MuzzleBlast

New member
Remember this?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm
Looking at this map, you would have thought W won by a landslide. Instead, he barely squeaked by. Those areas in blue, the Idiots Enclaves I call them, have way too much population, and therefore political power. There is enough idiocy in these areas to keep the demonocraps afloat.
Nothing except an asteroid, a civil war, or both is likely to reverse the entropic slide toward socialism.
Click to expand...
We can slow it, but I really don't think we can stop it. Our kind is simply outnumbered.
 
B

bluetoe

New member
In my opinion most Americans don't like guns, don't understand the Second Amendment or its connection to their basic liberties and would repeal it if given an easy way to do so.
Click to expand...
I sympathize with you on that, longeyes. However in my experience I think Americans do like guns. Plenty of video games feature realistic looking and operating firearms. Go to any video store and look at how many video covers feature guns prominently. At my local video store it's well over half. I think there is still an interest in guns in the public's mind.

What I think the problem is is that people aren't interested in REALITY. Cyber-guns and make-believe are OK and fun. However, these same people cring at the thought of a real gun and the responsibilities that go along with it.

Politicians of both parties realize this and play off it. They think that most people would rather have the luxury of indulging themselves in fantasy than directing their own lives. This creates an opportunity for politicians to seize the individual's power over their own lives and make it the state's. As long as Joe TV Set has his bread and circuses, he'll go along with it.
 
Q

Quartus

New member
That article from Dillon hit it right on the head. And the idiots that won't vote for a somewhat decent candidate becuuse he isn't a PERFECT candidate are just as bad as the lazy bums who won't get off their beer drinking fat butts and vote. :mad:
 
L

longeyes

New member
bluetoe

Agree with you about Americans' addiction to fantasy. But if one doesn't like "reality," how can one really like, much less defend with one's life, the idea of Liberty? Liberty is an acquired taste and because it comes with some pain attached is all the more rare.

"All that is beautiful is difficult."
~Plato
 
B

bluetoe

New member
Exactly. Liberty doesn't even enter into the picture. Even moreso when you attach "pain" to it. The only "pain" most people are willing to endure is in the struggle to obtain luxuries.
 
D

Dagny

New member
Treason

It's a strong word and a serious allegation but
Gunowners who vote for politicians who infringe on our RKBA are guilty of treason.
Those who don't vote are also guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy.
Solution: find someone who defends individual RKBA with no infringments and recruit them to run (there are probably some such beleaguered souls in lower offices)
 
J

Jamie Young

New member
jump.gif


You can't stop me from digging up this thread!!!!!!!!!!!

:D :) :D :) :p

This thread is from 02-05-2002 09:24 PM
 
D

d`leasha

New member
hey SodaPop, if you're half as good at predicting the stock market as you are at predicting elections, i think i want to give you allllllllllll my money to invest for me! (unfortunately, you'd only be able to invest in, say, a stick of chewing gum, but what the heck!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top