Governor Mitt Romney will announce at 6 p.m. that he will not seek re-election to a second term, setting the stage for an expected campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, a senior aide to the governor said today.
Figures. The "moderate" hijacking of the party is damn near complete.
If he's the nominee, watch the RINO apologists trip all over themselves to convince us how much worse a Democrat will be, and continue the cycle of gutless gun owners eating GOP droppings out of fear.
Note to the Republican party:
Romney is unacceptable. If you run him, you will lose the presidency.
McCain is unacceptable. If you run him, you will lose the presidency.
Giuliani is unacceptable. If you run him, you will lose the presidency.
The two-party facade is crumbling. The "lesser of two evils" excuse is wearing thin.
"What other choice do they have?" is a question all of us had better give some sober consideration to.
11 comments:
Sometimes things need to break, bad, before they an get better. After watch Bush's domestic attitude (and doing my best to not aspirate vomit), I'm afraid that the Republicans are going to need some serious breaking before real Conservatives can take the party over again.
The scary part is what happens in the mean time. Do we get Hillary? What happens when jack booted thugs come a knockin' demanding I hand over my guns?
WWFFD
(What Would the Founding Fathers Do)
WWFFD? Where we once had the Minute Men, we now only have minute (my-newt) men.
They would spit on us. That's what they would do.
Correct me if I'm wrong but ...
Doesn't everybody agree that we need to draw a line between illegal weapons and legal ones. Does anyone want Michael Moore to be able to walk into a K-mart and buy a tactical nuke?
I think not. Abrahams tank? Probably not. SAM? RPG? 50 Cal? Maybe, maybe not?
Our founding fathers were looking at muskets. They were not expecting the creation of nerve gas. Now that things have changed
It would be nice if someone who knew something about these things came up with reasonable rule of thumb as to what should be constitutionally protected and what is just crazy.
cindy, depending on your answer I'll spend the time needed to respond to you.
What is the purpose of the Second Amendment?
There is no such thing as an illegal weapon. ...J.B. Books
Cindy was, in all likelihood, a drive-by poster. She will probably not come back to see if anyone posted a response to her. But just in case:
The Second Amendment was intended to create a civilian militia of infantrymen. Therefore, the right to keep and bear arms guarantees the citizens the right to possess and bear the common and current infantry weapons of the day. In the late 18th century, that involved muskets. Today that proposition would involve handguns and basic shoulder fired weaponry including "Assault Rifles", "Sniper Rifles", light to medium machine guns etc.
It does NOT include nerve gas, nukes, tanks, artillery, etc.
The idea is not necessarily that the populace be able to defeat a standing army decisively, but to make the proposition of subjugating the American people exhorbitantly costly if not impossible.
Not to mention that a "Sniper rifle" makes a damn good hunting weapon, Handguns and "Assault rifles" are great for self defense and a machine gun is VERY fun to shoot.
By the same token, the Constitution does provide for Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and we know that privateers with armed vessels of war were not only accepted but utilized.
I would also argue that there are legitimate private uses for nuclear and chemical substances and the issue really isn't one of what you have as much as it is are you endangering the lives and property of innocents either through negligence or intent?
Bottom line: No law is going to stop a terrorist with enough money. And if we know someone is a threat, we'll wipe him out if we can.
Incidentally--I see she mentioned an "Abrahams [sic] tank"--do a Google search for "tank driving"--looks good, clean, like wholesome fun to me :-)
Maybe its just me but I always thought the amendment is about more that the right to have a .22 in my nightstand. I thought
that the second amendment was part of the system of checks and balances that the founders layed out to protect us from ourselves.
A civilian milita was supposed to
be a deterent to the
FBI/AFT/DEA/CIA kicking down our doors and having their way with us.
This check seems to have failed. Anybody starting an independent militia is likely to find themselves vactioning in Cuba.
The constitution did not create a standing army. Citizen militias would be called to do the fighting if America was threatened but would be reluctant to be sent abroad to become involved in the forign entanglements that Washington warned about in his farewell address.
All and all the amendment did not work out as planned. Republican, democrat, federalist or whig, the power of the federal government grows unchecked.
It would be much easier to defend the right to bear (large caliber) arms if anyone was actually in a civilian militia. We are not using the second amendment except for one tiny clause. What you don't use, you lose.
Bingo, cindy. Sorry for putting up a filter, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't wasting time with an anti trolling to start an argument, for which we just don't have time. But your last comment shows perception of the true purpose of 2A--which is why we need to be able to repel tyranny with the same weaponry that would be employed against us.
And you're right--the citizen militia has been allowed to wither.
Is it dead?
I believe that depends on how bad things get and how many people have their personal lines in the sand crossed.
I think the dialog begun in these comments is a start to answering your first comments. There was a pretty
good thread on The High Road a while back that included an essay by Vin Suprynowicz, plus comments that agreed and disagreed with him.
I'm not sure there's a perfect answer, since no human system is perfect--we have a long way to go there.
That was very interesting.
But isn't the right to bear arms, just a means to an end. If we allow the executive branch to listen in on conversations without a court order, If we allow them to detain people without due process, haven't we already given up on the bill of rights. If you don't stand up for the rights of others do you think anyone will stand up for yours?
The rights you give away because you are told that terrorists might abuse them are rights that are gone. Power that is accumulated in the executive branch will stay there unless someone takes it away. How sure are you that some day a President Hillery or someone like her will not use these precedents against those whose major interest seems to be restricted to the second amendment?
Again, cindy, you have hit the nail squarely on the head.
Post a Comment