As our ‘I Am A Gun Owner’ Facebook album illustrates, gun owners come in all shapes, sizes, colors, predilections and points on the political continuum. Which is as it should be. That said, it’s safe to say that the majority of our readers — and gun owners in general — tend toward the right/libertarian segments of the spectrum. Generally speaking, opponents of Americans’ Second Amendment freedoms reliably line up stage left. So again, generally speaking, friends of the RKBA will be found among members of the GOP. But as a couple of recent examples make clear, blindly assuming that Republicans are gun owners’ friends can be hazardous to the health of your civil rights. Take bloviating egotist extraordinaire Bill O’Reilly for example . . .
Federalize all firearms-related offenses? Give the power to prosecute all “gun crimes” to people like Eric Holder? People who are avowed enemies of Second Amendment freedoms? What could possibly go wrong?
Acknowledging the inconvenience that individual states to regulate guns as they see fit, blow-hard Bill prescribes federally-mandated “regulation conformity” across the states as a fix for America’s (ever-declining) gun crime problem. But whatever he may think that means in theory, in practice any federal attempt to homogenize gun regulation across the nation would inevitably lean toward more restrictive regimes enacted by the population centers of the northeast and California rather than the liberal (in the original sense of the word) laws in effect in locales like Arizona and Vermont.
Which brings us to that paragon of Republican establishmentarianism, Karl Rove (top) and his comments this morning regarding the Charleston church shooting. Appearing on ‘Fox News Sunday,’ here’s what he had to say (via dailycaller.com) about preventing future spree killers:
WALLACE: How do we stop the violence?
ROVE: I wish I had an easy answer for that, but I don’t think there’s an easy answer
We saw an act of evil. Racist, bigoted evil, and to me the amazing thing is that it was met with grief and love. Think about how far we’ve come since 1963. The whole weight of the government throughout the South was to impede finding and holding and bringing to justice the men who perpetrated the [Birmingham] bombing.
And here, we saw an entire state, an entire community, an entire nation come together, grieving as one and united in the belief that this was an evil act, so we’ve come a long way.
Now maybe there’s some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean basically the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough “oomph” to repeal the Second Amendment, that’s not going to happen.
Got that? The presence of guns in society is the problem. And the root of the problem is the Second Amendment. So until someone with enough “oomph” comes along, we’re stuck with the guns.
Rove has apparently missed the fact that violent crime in general and crimes involving firearms in particular are at historic lows. And while he may long for the maneuvering room more oomph-intensive countries like Australia and the UK have in banning civilian firearm ownership, maybe he hasn’t seen what’s happened to their post-ban violent crime rates.
The moral of the story: party affiliation alone isn’t a reliable predictor of anyone’s reverence for individual freedoms. As our comment section frequently reflects, many of you learned that lesson long ago. If you know gun owners who haven’t figured that out yet, pass the word.
Tom Gresham made to same point regarding party affiliation earlier today, in reference to the same comment.
Rino`s are the worse, we had a total rule over Congress and the
White House and what did they do with it? Not a damn thing.
RINO`s need to leave the party for they have no place in it.
Without RINOs, there wouldn’t be much of a party remaining.
I’d say it’s about 50-50 between actual conservatives and RINOs. The problem is that the Democrat Party is about 95% leftists.
There isn’t much of a party even WITh the “RINO’s…” The establishment is about furthering the establishment, the constituency is an afterthought under the best of circumstances. The silly slack-jaws will vote the right way no matter what those dirtbags do.
@Heartland Patriot: Quite the optimist! I wish I had so much blind, unwarranted faith.
Wrong, for the most part.
To defeat fillibusters in the Senate, you need 60 GOP Senators. That hasn’t happened in over 120 years.
There HAVE been 60 Dem senators, in the 1960’s and most recently from 2008-10. They gave us Obamacare.
At least they don’t have the white house AND congress, then we’d get more gems a la the PATRIOT Act.
While I agree with the RINO statements here, this is something different.
Rove is a strategist. He knows they can’t “ban” the 2nd Amendment and
hopes his words encourage democrats to take that stance. They will lose.
Democrats = Gun Control = Registration = Confiscation
Not a comment on the story, but is it just me or does the poll sometimes show up where the video should be and vice versa?
Maybe I am naive but the GOP is just a means to an end. If we can force them to our will I don’t care what they believe.
The democrats won’t get us there, the republicans are it.
Stupid party vs evil party.
Except we CAN’T get the Republicans to do what the people want. Why are they pushing Obama’s trade bill and not letting people read it before voting? They are just as bad as the Democrats. We need to establish strict term limits and get more parties involved in our government.
Nono… They just need more control, and if you don’t vote their way you’re part of the problem. Socialist!
O’reilly is clueless but supports carrying a gun. Rove is a total azzwhole…
O’Reilly supports carrying a gun as long as you get permission from your betters to do so. F–k that guy.
Karl Rove pushes the wrong candidates on us but this statement of his is being grossly misinterpreted. He said “a magic law”. That means he doesn’t believe in gun laws to stop gun violence. He also correctly said that the only way to stop GUN violence is if ALL GUNS were removed from society. “That’s not going to happen”. Context people. Context.
Boycott Oreilly. His foolish ignorant words hurt. Turn him off, do not record the show and write to them telling them why. We can make at least a bit of a difference. Throw him away and let him know why.
No; they are fair weather 2A supporters at best. I am telling you in a heartbeat if they thought it would cost them an election they would not stand up for our rights.
If I remember correctly, O’reily once stated he wanted large purchases of heavy ammunition to be reported to the Feds. Get this: his example was a case of 7.62×39.
If I could just find that damn link. Only thing I found was a link to the ak files forum. But I know I watched it on his program…
O’Reilly loves to BS about how he supports the Constitution, but he constantly rants against the 2nd amendment, against free speech, against people who want the government to have warrants before searching through your belongings, etc. I really don’t get how the supposedly “small government” Fox News puts him on the air and how Republicans who claim to support the Constitution and small government actually watch that retard.
“I really don’t get how the supposedly ‘small government’ Fox News puts him on the air…”
The key word you hit on is “supposedly”. Fox News’ management (and most of the so-called “conservatives” in the media and elsewhere) don’t really want small government. They’re only worried about the size of government when it’s under “liberal” control. As soon as their guy gets the reins, they can’t spend money and expand government fast enough. I don’t recall much criticism from Fox during the eight years that the federal government was growing and metastasizing under G.W. Bush…
@Stinkeye: It’s not the “conservatives” in the media, it’s most of them everywhere. Pick their pet topic and they’re all about the government telling you how you need to behave. Disagree with anything they say you’re an Alinksy worshiping communist muslim with homosexual tendencies who murders babies…
I long ago realized that neither so-called “party” is much different in philosophy or standard operating procedure from the other. It’s just their execution methods that truly set them apart — and they always suck and are, deliberately, counterproductive.
That is also why I cannot in good conscience vote for either them in any event, at any level of governance, going by principle alone. It’s high time we all started voting that way.
Stompy footed child. The next president will probably nominate 2 scouts judges that will be making 2A rulings for the rest of your life. Shanon Watts thanks you for your temper tantrum.
Spineless Moron.
Yes, let’s elect us a good solid Republican like GW Bush (who gave us Justice John “It’s a Tax so I can still go to DC cocktail parties” Roberts), or his father before him (who gave us David “Reliable Fourth Leftist Vote” Souter), or that stalwart Republican lion Reagan (who gave us Sandra “The Constitution says whatever I want it to say” Day O’Connor, and Anthony “Which way is the wind blowing today” Kennedy).
When Dems get elected, we get leftist judges 100% of the time.
When Reps get elected, we STILL get leftist/squish judges 67% of the time.
So tell me again how imperative it is that a Republican wins, no matter who it is.
Cause it seems to me that it makes a big damned difference WHO is doing the nominating, not just the party they’re from.
vote for any independent candidate. Don’t vote at all. Both are your choices. But either of these choices helps to bring in hillery or whoever those gun loving dems want. You make that choice. GOP that may be good on guns or Hillery.
No independent candidate can win an election for prez. And if he could he’d be surrounded by dems and repubs with no support.
I do not like the party of halliburton. But I vote for them. My hot button issue is guns. And to protect my guns I vote gop.
Duh…because the D side is 100% and the R side is better.
That’s the adult answer.
Vote your idealistic libertarian votes in the Repub primary and if they win great. But if they lose be an adult and vote for the Rino who will give you a percentage of what you want.
@JWM — What actually happens is that your vote simply brings a different flavor of civil and financial slavery to the State upon the whole lot of us. It’s precisely this asinine and ass-backwards notion of “lesser evils” that got us into this mess in the first place.
I don’t like the party of Haliburton, either — which is why I don’t vote for them.
Neither should you. That — and that alone — is the only recourse.
Period.
@Deosky2 — The “adult” answer is realizing that neither “side” is better than the other. That is because, and whether you want to acknowledge this or not is irrelevant and of no consequence, they are both the exact same “side.”
Vote.
For.
Someone.
Else.
Ex, whether we like it or not we have a 2 party system. I vote for the party that does the least damage, at least to my gun rights.
I live in the reality of now.
@JWM — J, whether you like it or not, there quite obviously isn’t actually any “two-party” system. It’s a one-party system simply wrapped in two different colors. I vote for the party that won’t do any damage to my rights at all.
I live in reality, after finally taking off the blindfold that you’re clearly still wearing.
@Doesky2 — Willfully pig ignorant, historically-illiterate, sycophantic Statist goon. The next President will be exactly like the last no matter which rat bastard (or b!tch) your stupid ass votes for. Michael Bloombger thanks you for being just deluded as he is.
Cthulhu 2016! Why settle for lesser evil?
@Pieslapper — Hell, I’d rather write-in Mickey Mouse than vote (R) or (D). A random selection out of the fucking Yellow Pages is seriously an infinitely better choice than literally anyone that the Red clowncar or the Blue abyss could ever possibly put forth.
The floor is still shaking from your stomping.
@Doesky2 — And IQs are still dropping from your incoherent thought spasms.
“Are Establishment Republicans Any Better Than Dems on the 2A?”
Most are but some aren’t, but if you are a betting man bet GOP. After all the only thing stopping Obama and the Dems from honest to God taking your guns are the Republicans in the House and Senate.
+1
No republicans are NO better than dems on the 2A. The real only difference between the two now is what group gets welfare. dems every person depending on government. The repubs big business. Both sides don’t really want us serfs having firearms.
Don’t be a moron. Check the vote of the 2013 attempt of gun control and come back and show us the data of “no better” between R and D.
+1
Senate vote on cloture for Manchin-Toomey:
Democrats – 51 out of 55 votes yes. Only Democratic Nays (Heitkamp-ND, Baucus-MT, Pryor-AR & Begich-AK). Officially, Harry Reid also voted nay, but that was to preserve the bill for reconsideration.
Republicans – 41 out of 45 voted no. Only Republican Yeas (Kirk-IL, Toomey-PA, McCain-AZ & Collins-ME)
That’s 92.7% on the Democrat side, 91.1% on the Republican side.
What this teaches us is that the vast majority, but not all of the respective sides are solid anti or pro gun right, but yhe Republicans need to be watched more closely since they have a lesser backbone and will pander a la Toomey if they think it’ll help win an election.
I hope liberal gun owners can turn the Democratic party more in favor of gun rights, but it’s a long uphill climb likely to take generations.
Well done.
There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, supporting the GOP over the Dem candidate is the way to increase 2A rights. Strategic voting for pro-2A Dems makes sense only for lower level offices, to send a possibly squish Republican a message.
Therefore, the following are true:
Any 2A supporter who has not in the last 20 years supported a GOP Presidential candidate over the Dem WAS politically and statistically a moron.
Any 2A supporter who does not currently support a GOP Presidential candidate over the Dem IS politically and statistically a moron.
Any 2A supporter who will not in the next 20 years support a GOP Presidential candidate over the Dem WILL BE politically and statistically a moron.
@Doesky2 — Try taking your own advice for once. You go ahead and check the votes for all gun control measures prior to 2013, and then try (and inevitably fail spectacularly) to explain to me that that wasn’t simply a fluke.
I just dare you to try.
For all of the collective benefits of a tribe one evil remains and that is going along with the group. Our government is moving away from its original charge of protecting the minority from the majority. It now seeks, and in some cases creates a majority to impose its will onto the minority.
Violence is a natural thing, you can’t stop it. You shouldn’t stop it. You can only apply higher intellect to focus it for good instead of wild animalism.
“Are Establishment Republicans Any Better Than Dems on the 2A?”
No.
No. Heard once…something about the tea party…if you want to get rid of the democrates you have to get rid of republicans.
The Democrat are HOPEless
The Republicans are feckless
The TEA Party gives a feck.
..about the Koch brothers.
OReilly also called for a universal, central registry of guns and gun owners. Now what could possibly go wrong with that? And don’t you dare disagree with Bill or you’re an extremist loon.
Huxley and Orwell. Democrats and Republicans. The Yin and Yang of oppression.
Federalizing all gun crimes would lead to a complete collapse of the federal court system that is already operating beyond its capacity, without even considering all of the unfilled trial court seats. There are not enough judges, enough courthouses, or for that matter enough federal cops to handle the volume. And I don’t think an increase in the numbers of federal officers is such a great idea. Take the ATF (please). In order to validate its existence, it has to create crimes to prosecute. Thanks but no thanks.
No statist wants the masses armed. Much better for them if the propaganda gets out that violence is out of control (if it’s a complete lie), so they will agree to disarm themselves.
+1000. Well said Carlos. It really doesn’t matter what their party affiliation is, statists all favor the domination of government over individuals. With them, freedom and liberty are extensions of—and controlled by— government. But they can never come up with a viable counter “the good guy with a gun” argument. Every time some spree killer demonstrates the utter vulnerability of people in “gun-free zones” it becomes harder and harder to argue against the hard fact that if just one armed person had been present lives would have have saved. That’s why they lose and we win.
The only virtue the “Establishment” GOP has is at least they don’t spend their free time pushing for more gun control. Whether that’s a lack of enthusiasm for gun grabbing, or it’s just restraining themselves because they know who votes for them, is another question and probably differs by individual.
They do, however, enthusiastically allow themselves to be stampeded after every bloody “incident” that riles up anti- sentiment, and as such certainly aren’t on our side out of principle.
Florida is an excellent example of Authoritarian RINO Oppression and Corruption. Look what happened a few years ago when we tried to push for Open Carry. 8 Senate Republicans, all with major ties to the Florida Sheriffs’ Association, lied, propagandized, etc… They used the very same arguments against Open Carry as they used against Concealed Carry just 2 decades prior.
Dean isn’t even bashful about swinging the big stick, he’ll make your children disappear like his less intelligent, less restrained understudy and successor; Dawsey.
But….it’s the no spin zone…..
As always, i have to say…
If you look to the government to defend your right to defend yourself from government, you’re in for a rude awakening.
O’Reiley is a bloviating idiot. Christie is only pro-gun if it is politically convenient. Rove is a loss.
The only assumption I make – with all politicians – is that they are lying for the sake of money, power and control. Most politicians will never earn my trust.
+1
Both parties are utter whores, beholden to banking and corporate interests — observe the composition of Congress overall: it’s a club of millionaire lawyers. And once they get there, they stay there, often for twenty years or more. I can’t fathom the kind of deals you’d have to cut to be nominated for President.
Politicians are not exactly like the rest of us citizens. The politicians are already armed to the teeth and happy to impose their will. IMHO the beauty of the Second Amendment is that, should the lawyer’s club (either flavor) decide it’s in their interest to abrogate the Constitution, the opposition would have teeth.
Politicians are only PRO themselves and will support whatever is politically advantageous for them. Snake oil anyone?
The (D) party and (R) party represent different CULTURES *NOT* different philosophies.
Neither cares deeply about the WHOLE constitution or individual rights.
The REAL source of *EXTREME* desire to disarm US civilians is not Obama or any elected official. It is the *Deep $tate* — the INTEL_MIL_OLIGARCH_AXIS that actually runs things and makes executive decisions.
Right now — US civilians cannot be ruled by force — many wish to change that….
I don’t think Rove is actually anti-gun. The bi-partisan panel had been talking about gun control and the very next words out of his mouth after the quote was ‘I don’t think that’s an answer.’ I think his point was you can’t take away guns unless you change the Constitution and as long as there are guns there will be people who misuse them, albeit a bit inartfully stated. Not that I’d count on him as a solid ally though.
O’Reily on the other hand is a lost cause. I don’t think he’s ever fired a gun. He’s about as ignorant about firearms as any anti-gun liberal, and he cuts off anybody who starts to point out where he’s wrong.
But Rove is right. A ban on and buyback of handguns, semi-auto long guns, and pump shotguns, a partially discretionary licensing of hunting weapons, mandatory club membership and regular participation for target shooting with whatever is still allowed for that purpose, tight ammunition controls, and a couple of decades of having special police units hunting for the stashed away guns, as the penalties for possessing one get more and more severe, would eventually reduce gun homicides and mass shootings significantly. Overall homicides? Maybe, maybe not.
The question is whether one would want to live in such a country. A fair number of our fellow citizens would. The majority, at the moment, wouldn’t, or so it appears. All that assuming that the US would end up resembling Australia and not Mexico, which is not a given.
And yes, we do have the 2nd Amendment, which at least in its psychological impact transcends even what SCOTUS has to say about it.
In the near term, the Republican establishment’s attitudes will in part depend on their reading of the public opinion, now that gun control is all but certain to play a prominent role in the 2016 elections. The fact that Mrs. Clinton is clearly convinced the gun control theme is helpful to her presidential bid seems like an interesting fact in itself.
” . . .and a couple of decades of having special police units hunting for the stashed away guns, as the penalties for possessing one get more and more severe, would eventually reduce gun homicides and mass shootings significantly. . .”
Probably not. There’s a phenomenon called “patterned evasion of social norms” which emerges when government tries to prohibit things that are popular. If government tried that kind of prohibitionism gun running (i.e., smuggling) would become a growth industry as demand for guns, if anything, would continue despite government attempts. There’s a rough calculus here: the more government tries to control things people want, the more concentrated and sophisticated the smuggler’s become in developing ways of distributing contraband items to eager customers. Widespread corruption always follows such efforts.
The federal BOP system is over capacity with the number of prisoners and with unfilled vacancies in the courts, to enforce such bans would overwhelm the system. America is in severe financial trouble as it is. If just 20% of the gun owners defied a Australian or UK style ban (it would be much higher in my opinion) the cost for aggressive enforcement would run in the hundreds of billions.Same with buybacks aka forced sales, to pay just compensation could easily pass the trillion dollar mark. Other constitutional rights would have to be ignored such as the Fourth and Fifth Amendment to make such a law workable. Even more frightening, to flush out all the hidden stashes of guns, bounties,informants and a even more intrusive surveillance system would have to established. Were this to actually happen, your freedom of speech and expression would be on the chopping block. If it got to that point, God forbid, it would be time for a revolution. I pray to God this scenario never happens and that enough Americans and elected officials will hold the line against this wave of authoritarianism.
It would be a long-term project – they would figure out how to cook the frog slowly enough for it not to jump out. I bet things weren’t so bad in NYC right after the Sullivan Act passed, but after enough years had passed the whole culture there changed. And NYC was part of a very different country than we live in now.
How many lives would be ended or ruined by draconian gun laws? How many lives were ruined by the War On Drugs — compared to people “saved” from (fully available) drugs?
And WHO is going to be saved?
The DEFINITION of being an amoral person is: “The End Justifies The Means”.
THAT is what the fight is about.
In general establishment Republicans are better than Democrats. And yet establishment Republicans love gun control as well. Plenty of establishment Republicans support licensed carry only (no Constitutional carry), gun free zones, the Hughe’s Amendment of 1986, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act of 1934, and laws that prohibit people from purchasing firearms out of state.
The day that most establishment Republicans are ready to eliminate all that rigmarole will be a day to celebrate. Until then, we simply support the candidates that refuse to worsen the current situation while keeping a keen eye out for much better candidates.
The Dems are total federalists: far left. The opposition party should not start by meeting in the middle. Start far right, and compromise middle-right. If we start in the middle, we can only compromise left of center. I vote for the most conservative candidate that has a snowball’s chance to win. And the worst thing is that the RINOs know I won’t stray. No way around it without giving up a few elections.
I hope I am wrong, but after this next election, they are all going to want your firearms. The republican hierarchy has all but merged with the socialist party. I expect them to complete that transition once hillary is in office.
“Now maybe there’s some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean basically the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough “oomph” to repeal the Second Amendment, that’s not going to happen.”
Mr. Rove,
In order to make the above a reality one would need the vote of 3/4’s of the Senate and 3/4’s of these 50 states, just what do you think the cost (and I’m not referring to money) to make that happen would be?
I can’t stand McCain, but voted for him as, marginally, the lesser of two evils. Wasn’t crazy about Romney either but voted for him. If so many conservatives had not sat on their hands and stayed home Barack Obama, would have been a one term president. Want to see Clinton in the White House, just stay home like the last election. May have to hold my nose again when I vote for Republican candidate 2016 but at least I’ll know I did not, by default put that old, radical granny in the the peoples house.
Gungal has just put 15 rounds in the bullseye!
Who stayed home from the last two Presidential elections……..white, middleclass, blue-collar males. Who owns the majority of firearms in this country?…………white, middleclass, blue-collar males. If Clinton is elected she will redouble efforts on immigration in an attempt to change the electorate before 2020. She will appoint radical liberal judges (including at least 2 supreme court justices). Heller will be gone. A new era of firearm supression will be possible.
If you like your rights………get off your keister and vote for anyone who will prove to be better!
Actually, that’s not what happened.
Romney got more votes than McCain did, meaning that everyone who turned out in 2008 did so again in 2012, plus some.
However, Obama turned out (or outright manufactured, we’ll never know) a bunch more people from the “downtrodden” demographics than he did 2008.
They either won with exceptionally well engineered fraud, or exceptionally well engineered Get Out The Vote work.
Either way, they had the bigger number at the end of the night, and the future continued to get darker.
You can’t lay the loss of 2012 at the feet of Conservatives, we all came out and voted, even though we hated the candidate.
Romney’s GOTV people just stepped on their peckers when it came to turning out people other than their base.
Their big money GOTV program (called ORCA) ended election night like a goldfish ends his trip home from the county fair, floating belly up at the top of the bowl.
O’s turnout was much lower, Romney’s was higher than McCain, and yet he still lost. That’s how bad McCain was beaten in 2008. Romney’s camp also suffered a systemic computer database failure for their campaigners the day of the election, not to mention systematic suppression of Tea Party grass roots groups the two years prior. Not to mention the numerous documented voting irregularities.
No matter how slimy some of them may be, I have yet to see a Republican Congress and/or POTUS push the kind of gun control that the Democrat Party/hard left really wants. Don’t get me wrong, I think a lot of RINOs are real horses’ backsides, but as long as they don’t go with gun control, I’ll still keep voting for the most conservative Republicans I can.
Plenty of republitards I’d vote for-NO dumbocrats. Sadly I live in Illinois so most repubs are total RINOS. My local elections are pathetic(Cook Co,Il).
Of course, the 1% and their trusted minions would be exempt from such a plan to “remove all guns from society”. They would still have concealed carry carve-outs and bodyguards armed with fully-automatic SMGs/PDWs.
Bill Reily whatever is a blowhard from the suburbs of Philly.
True, one can’t blindly trust secondary to a label. I see O’Riley the same as Mahar, paid entertainment shows. Rove’s comments were bizarre and shocking, though I have a theory in that Rove is not a dummy. Rove has made a living stirring the pot. He knows full well what the outcome of saying what he said will do, spark a hot flame for 2A support! I hope so at least. I’d not take Rove’s path but he is a crafty dude, and I’m not talking Popsicle art.
Dear Windbag O’Reilly,
Blow me.
Sincerely,
Everyone who realizes that calling us “The Folks” isn’t you being friendly, it’s you being a condescending ass.
Rove is basing his opinion on the belief that the United States is still demographically the same as Canada and Europe. This is a false assumption. We are now more like Mexico than Canada, which has more guns than many Americans think. If guns magically disappeared then the gangs would take over just like they have in Mexico. But this is exactly what the Democrats want.
Not much, but they vote pro 2A to get reelected. Now we know why Bush 43’s presidency was such a mess on domestic policy.
I guess ole Carl doesn’t understand the Constitution.
Repealing the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t grant authority to the federal government to regulate firearms.
Establishment republicans and democrats are all the same sh!t with a different paint job. A false choice to keep us rabble divided against ourselves. Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton 1, Bush 2, Obama, Clinton 2, Bush 3… All enemies of individual rights, individual responsibility, and individual choice. All moral crusaders (for their favorite one-size-fits-all prescription of morals).
Lower my taxes, cut off freeloaders, and let homosexuals or WHOEVER enter in any legally binding marriage contracts with any sentient beings they want, monogamy, polygamy, or marry a damned space alien, I don’t care. Don’t ram your religion OR your atheism down my throat. Also, birth control is cheaper than welfare and no indoctrination ever invented can keep teens from f#cking, so let’s make sure we’re up to our eyeballs in that.
The Establishment GOP are no better than the Democrats on guns, but the GOP BASE, whom the Establishment GOP politicians have to answer to, are very supportive of gun rights, thus making the Establishment GOP appear to be more supportive.
Your stance on the 2nd A has more to do with where you are from than your actual political party association.
Billy-O has a thick, NYC accent, which leads me to believe he is a city boy. And, most big city folks don’t like guns, R’s and D’s alike.
Maybe so but only generally speaking.
I actually commented on this very question of who hurts progress on the 2nd amendment more on this post: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/06/daniel-zimmerman/quote-of-the-day-if-you-like-your-guns-you-can-keep-your-guns-edition/
I will paste it here since I think it addresses this very question.
Iv’e been called an “absolutist” when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. It was meant to be an insult from fellow gun enthusiasts and “pro 2A” POTG.
There is the problem. We know the progressives/liberals, what ever they want to call themselves this generation, want to eliminate the ability for anyone outside of government employ to own guns. But it is the “Conservatives” or “pro gun liberals” that do not help preserve our rights.
Remember the Feinstein-Cruz exchange when Frau Blücher (NEIGH!!!) told Cruz that there were so many guns not on the ban list (which she denied was a ban) that the people had enough guns and “do they need a bazooka?” Well Cruz gave a decent answer but he missed the point of the 2nd amendment by not simply saying:
“Need is yet to be determined, but what has been determined is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” “That means, and it was the founder’s intent, that the people have the right to stockpile weapons for whatever reason in order to protect the Republic from collapse of National security or protect it from a tyrannical government operating against the will of the people.” “It is the will of the people that the Bill of Rights be maintained in it’s entirety.”
Then there was the topic of assault weapons ban in the 2012 debate where Obama played both sides as usual in a debate. But Romney showed either his ignorance of the Constitution or unwillingness to uphold it with his incorrect statement that “automatic weapons are illegal to own”.
As long as Conservatives feel ashamed of the Constitution, thereby refusing to be labeled an “Absolutist”, we will continue to live as subjects to the State. I’m not comfortable with that. Are you?
No, they’re a bunch of Fudds.
The government needs to get guns out of the hands of you GOP TH UGS and RETHUGLITURD GUN NAZIS and send you scum to prisons where you belong.
I heard the late, great conservative writer William F. Buckley Jr. say this at a speech I attended in Norfolk, VA many years ago. It has stuck with me. He was talking about how people justifiably get disaffected with the Republicans and get tempted to either not vote or to vote for third parties.
He said, “The only intelligent vote for a thinking conservative is to vote for the most conservative candidate who has a chance of winning.” Anything else, he said, is essentially a “vote” for something even worse.
Yep. William F. Buckley Jr. got it right. Voting for someone who is Conservative and has an actual chance of winning a given Election is the only thing that makes sense. Not Voting on “principles” just gives strength to the Candidate you’d least like to see elected. Happened in 2012, don’t let it happen in 2016.
Yeah well, maybe if the Republican Party backed candidates that truly believed in constitutional principles, instead of candidates that pay lip service to it in a half assed attempt to pander for votes, they might find they have a candidate that could actually win for a change instead of what they put out there in 2008 and 2012.
When that happens you can go hunting for flying pigs…
I hate RINO’s. I contribute to prople like benvin in Ky, walker and other anti establishment republicans.
howerer , RINO’s don’t activley try to pass gun laws and the Demmocrats do. The RINO’s are mostley talk.
So yes , they are better. than dems.
gun laws are a burning passion for the dems.
I gave to Carly Fiorina. I want to see her on the Fox News debate.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in
St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning
The last Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Obama: 19 Romney: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 Romney: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million Romney: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Obama: 13.2 Romney: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory
Romney won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low
Income tenements and living off various forms of government
Welfare…”
“I mean basically the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically increase acts of violence involving blades, clubs, fists, illegal guns, and other objects is to basically remove legal guns from society.”
Fixed.
Statists are statists, no matter what letter is next to their name. That said, D’s far outweigh R’s when it comes to treasonous policies.
Unfortunately we have a 2 party system – but that doesn’t mean all is lost. A politician once told me they only understand and respond to pain. So to get the progressive Republicans attention and keep them in check by causing them pain we should start a movement during the primary season to make it clear we will use the tactics employed by Ralph Nader. Specifically after Gore lost the presidential election, some newsperson was interviewing Nader and accused him of costing Gore the election because he ran as a third party candidate and supposedly took votes away from the Democrats. Nader didn’t deny it and appeared to even be proud of it and said it forced the Democrats to realize they can’t win in an evenly split country unless they adopt a more progressive, green agenda and it only took one election to do it.
So if the establishment Republicans employ tactics to keep pro 2A, constitutional conservatives from the primary debates and keep only a slate of candidates who are progressive and squishy on guns we should encourage everyone to support some constitutional conservative, pro 2A 3rd party candidate. If this carries through to the general election, it will suck to have Hillary (or some other Democrat) as president, but hopefully the Republicans can gridlock her by hanging on to at least one house in the Congress and the country can survive and we only have to do this once before the party is reformed.
Neither party does anything the corporations who bought them want.
We have to get corporations out of politics, and end the two-party system, or our rights are just commodities.
Comments are closed.