I strongly support the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is touted as a major crime-control measure. But some of the places with the strictest gun-control laws also have high violent-crime rates. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not prevent crime. The answer to violent crime is smart, effective, and aggressive law enforcement. The real effect of these gun-control measures is to place onerous restrictions on law-abiding citizens who use firearms for such legal activities as self-defense, sport-shooting, hunting, and collecting. I am committed to:
Strictly enforcing existing laws and severely punishing violent criminals.
Protecting the rights individual Americans enjoy under the Second Amendment.
So you're "committed to strictly enforcing" this?
And this?
And this?
And this?
And...
You wouldn't care to square any of that with this, would you?
Tell me something, Fred, you wouldn't be interested in responding to this, would you?
I know, I know: "Ron Paul can't win and this'll just help Hillary. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Politics is the art of compromise."
How's that working out for us?
17 comments:
"The answer to violent crime is smart, effective, and aggressive law enforcement."
Good post, many (if not most) of the existing laws are unconstitutional and unreasonable, and enforcing them is not a noble effort.
The above quote scares me a bit too, agressive policing is no good.....
So, what exactly is your point here, David?
That you're angry? I already got that. You like Ron Paul, but are grudgingly admitting that he's a bit of a nutjob, and even if you don't agree with my charachterization, you ackowledge he won't be President. So you lash out at Fred, who is by no means a perfect candidate, but who is better than the overwhelming majority of the other choices on either side of the aisle.
I freely admit that Fred Thompson is perhaps the best of a range of bad choices in 2008. Not a good choice, just the least bad.
This reminds me of the posting you made several weeks ago when after having gotten frustrated with the Archdiocese of Chicago over Snuffy, you invited a wholesale attack on the Church via a gratuitous smear job by Mr. Davis, which you defended to me by citing Mr. Davis' work on behalf of Mr. Fincher, which was off-point then and still is now.
Reality Check:
You
Me
Straightarrow
1894C
Paul W Davis
Sebastian
ETC.
That's a short list of 2A advocates who won't be President. Check your blogroll for some others.
We have no choice but to try to work with those who actually have a chance to be POTUS. And my guns are one hell of a lot safer under a Thompson Administration than just about any other. And No, I'm not supporting Senator Thompson; in fact, I'm not supporting anyone just yet, although I do have a list of folks who I wouldn't vote for on a bet: Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, Romney....
What do you think would be accomplished by his openly stating this far out that, for instance, GCA '68 is wrong and unconstitutional? Maybe it's me, but I'd make that speech after I was sworn in, not before. I hate to be the one to break this one to you, but for most Americans the 2A isn't a deal-breaker. Yeah, that's stupid I know, as that's the foundation to everything else we enjoy in this great country, but that's the unfortunate reality.
Was this statement something other than a carefully worded effort to say something positive about the 2A without giving away any campaign strategy or give the Dems something to rally against?
Um, no it wasn't.
Let's flood the candidates with that video about Repeal, and see what shakes out. Fred isn't The enemy, in fact, I don't believe he's An enemy, at least not yet.
My point, Peter?
I thought it was pretty clear.
To state things as they are.
But take heart, and don't get so upset--I'm sure the majority of gun owners will agree with you.
Um, no, your point isn't at all clear.
What would you expect from someone who is not only a 'law and order' candidate but The 'Law & Order' candidate himself?
I remind you of the 1964 elections, where LBJ famously used the nuke ad successfully against Barry Goldwater, and then, after he was safely ensconced in office, pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Anything else would have resulted in President Goldwater.
For instance, my first act as 'President' will be to demand the immediate resignation of the BATFE directors and to nominate either you or Ryan as my choice to replace them, depending on which one of you can devote the time to the project of reforming BATFE. Would I campaign on that? Not on a bet, if for no other reason than to forestall a rash of FFL revocations in the final weeks before I took Office. You don't give away your playbook 14 months in advance.
Trying to pin anyone down this far in advance will only give the Brady Bunch (etc) more time to assemble the usual array of half truths and outright lies. Haven't you had enough of idiots claiming that anything with a detachable magazine is an 'assault rifle'?
I'm pushing for Repeal, but I'll probably have to settle for Benign Neglect. And that's just for perhaps 8 years. I still think that my one and only appearance on the national stage will be the headline "Gun Nut Dies Resisting Confiscation Order". It's only a matter of when.
I really disagree that challenging a tepid pro-2A statement on a website is going to accomplish anything for us, that's all.
Exposing Giuliani's and Romney's hipocrasy (sp?) towards Gun Rights is a better use of time and effort here. And John McCain, who I just plain like as a human being, hasn't exactly covered himself in glory when it comes to the Second Amendment, either.
Peter,
Nothing in Fred Thompson's voting record leads me to believe that he is any more friendly to 2A supporters than any of the rest of them, with the notable exception of Ron Paul.
So, you think that Ron Paul is a bit of a nutjob. Personally, I think that Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and all the RINOs are nutjobs. THey are so divorced from reality that, well we could probably diagnose them out of the DSM IV.
Ron Paul is a magnet for the nutjobs who oppose socialism. That I'll accept. He is willing to, at least appear to, listen to those nutjobs.
Personally, I tend to believe the old saw that "you know when a poltician is lying because his lips are moving." Therefore, it gets down to voting records, and the ONLY ONE of the mess with a decent record is Ron Paul.
If you want the status quo then go ahead and vote for Thompson, a RINO or any of the Democrat offerings. If you want at worst a breather with no new federal weapon legislation, or at best a small rollback then vote for Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is electable. Libertarian Candidates are not. Ron Paul is in front of the voters. People in all 50 States know that he is running. (As an aside, Ron Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian. His views actually coincide with the staed aims of the Republican party, not the Libertarians.)
Ron Paul isn't perfect. Perfection is unattainable, Fred Thompson isn't even good, he's just more of the same in slightly better wardrobe.
I have to agree with you, Gregg.
Shall we nitpick Ron Paul's voting record, as well? He voted against cutting the length of some handgun waiting periods to a third of their previous values. Voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms because of damn four dollar locks.
He's no saint; you can't be one and last in the Federal level for more than a year.
And, yes, as long as it's the damned law, we should enforce the NFA, GCA, Lautenberg (and the dozens of similar laws that get attached to the name), Brady, and a fuckload of other shitty, shitty laws.
It sucks, but the alternative is trying to get half of America to support felons. Have fun with that.
He voted against cutting the length of some handgun waiting periods to a third of their previous values.
Wait, what? When have the feds ever voted to reduce handgun waiting periods? Since there isn't a federal mandated waiting period this doesn't make any sense to me.
Voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms because of damn four dollar locks.
I thought it was because he didn't think the legislature had power over the courts in determining which cases would proceed. I could be wrong on that one. It wouldn't surprise me one whit if Paul voted against 'ole S 1805 because of a minor detail (mandatory lock sales) that would conflict with his straight and narrow approach.
Meanwhile, we've got Tommy Boy over there voting for the Lautenberg amendment, retroactively removing the 2A rights of anybody that was convicted of plead guilty to a misdemeanor domestic violence charge. That doesn't smell like freedom to me; more like a big pile of shit. Thanks, Tommy Boy!
Josh, I'm wondering the level of mental gymnastics one must go through to consider NFA 34 and GCA 68 as "nitpicks". What does it take to register on your scale as a full blown outrageous act of tyranny?
We should enforce NO laws that are repugnant to the Constitution. Unless you agree that Rosa Parks should have been arrested. Slavery was once the law of the land, too, If you're going to be consistent, I suppose you'd have turned in a runaway rather than sheltered them?
You do have a line where you'd say "No More!" and defy, don't you?
I stated earlier on this site my reasons why I disagreed with Paul on the gun lawsuit bill, but understand his point on federalism and believe his stance was made on principle.
Peter and all--I see where you're coming from saying FT could create problems if he came out endorsing full-blown repeals. I do tend to wonder how many more would be driven to the Hillary camp, but here's the thing--and why I chose to comment on this--if he had just said he believed in 2A, I'd have left him alone. He had to go the extra step of saying "enforce existing gun laws." Well excuse me, but that is precisely what the government was doing at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Why you guys who advocate that never call for enforcement of the Bill of Rights remains a mystery, but let's stay focused. here's a comment fT could have stated that would have been consistent with his stated message without resorting to revealing all of his cards:
Just change one simple bullet point to read:
"Strictly enforcing existing laws THAT severely PUNISH violent criminals."
That's it and you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me on his statement, and the Brady's wouldn't have had any more to pin on him than he already gave them.
David, I think you'd like this article by Jeff Snyder. He also wrote what I think is the best book on gun control ever.
I didn't call them nitpicks. I called them laws. The nitpicks are getting pissy with Thompson for upholding existing law, particularly when he's going for an office where he'd be swearing to both uphold existing law and protect the Constitution.
He does not and can not offer to uphold an unconstitutional law, (especially as unconstitutional statutes can not be law), but while most of those laws are stupid and counterproductive, they would pass even strict scrutiny tests by the SCOTUS without a doubt under even the strongest interpretation possible of the Second Amendment.
What does it take to register on your scale as a full blown outrageous act of tyranny?
In all honesty? More normal violations than prohibitions on the ownership of machine guns and destructive devices, or even the irritating ATF taxes and licensing make tyranny. The effective bans on carry without a permit outside of your home, Vermont, and Alaska would be a big one, more notable where open carry is banned by law or idiotic police officers.
Those might actually not pass strict constitutional scrutiny. I'd like to get rid of the bans on federal grounds and most state and county-owned or leased ones, but that'll stand a snowball's chance in hell.
It's not so hard to show a compelling government interest for the GCA or NFA, and with today's judges or today's populace I can't see even 1 % of the voting populace seeing it as too widely tailored or too restrictive. Suppressors might be a win (and we should be friggen lobbying for them to be stricken from the law in the meantime), and probably the barrel lengths, but the rest even pro-gun lawyer types like Xrlq think could stand under the Constitution if not under a viewpoint of effectiveness.
Hate it myself, although probably not as much as you do, but until we actually stand a chance of getting a law stricken through Congress or knocked out by the courts or at least not result in a complete censure and impeachment of the President, I'd rather we see someone with the political clout to go completely insane with the veto, pardon, and keeping a careful leash on the worst government agencies.
It helps that a strict commitment to the letter of the law on the GCA or NFA would still be a huge reign-in on the BATFE's leash. : )
Unless you agree that Rosa Parks should have been arrested. Slavery was once the law of the land, too, If you're going to be consistent, I suppose you'd have turned in a runaway rather than sheltered them?
I don't think Mrs. Parks should have been arrested, as the bus company was actually defying the racist law at the time (they were not allowed to force anyone to move from a given seat). If she was violating the law, however, her arrest would have been justified, as well as important to getting the law eventually overturned.
A bad law only used by bad police is worse than one applied constantly -- the latter at least can be overturned in court, is known and is known to be bad by the populace.
If you think even the worst gun control law is even slightly comparable to slavery... Disarming people is very, very close -- to quote the Randian sorta thing, slaves have no weapons -- but I suggest you do what I did in Massholeachusetts, get out of dodge, and realize the distinction.
Well excuse me, but that is precisely what the government was doing at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Not quite. The issue involved at both Waco and Ruby Ridge were tax violations : the worst they could justify would be a felony conviction and a couple years in jail. Going in shooting and tossing smoke grenades and using psychological warfare isn't vigorously enforcing the law -- it's going out of your way to avoid the judiciary.
Justin
Since there isn't a federal mandated waiting period this doesn't make any sense to me.
Before the NICS system came online, the Brady bill was effectively a five-day waiting period for many gun owners, as some entire states refused to put any system or checking tech together (and were not required to given the unconstitutionality of Brady's law trying to force them). There was an attempt to shorten the maximum time, although I don't remember if it was an attempt to poison pill a gun show version of the Brady Bill, or was poisoned by such a regulation.
I thought it was because he didn't think the legislature had power over the courts in determining which cases would proceed.
Er... that'd be a rather unusual viewpoint to hold, given that the legislature *defines* what laws the courts use. I'll look at it more, but that just seems goofy to me.
So Peter, you think Ron Paul is a little bit of a "nut job"?
And you're trying to "rationalize" why all of his supporters should really reconsider their position and see Fred T. in a more amiable light?
Then, when some time passes he will "clearly" become more attractive candidate like a better packaged product in a supermarket? He will become more patriotic then we are? More religious then the Pope? Better candidate because he is more "electable"? And we don't want to vote for a "looser" of course?
Yeah, thanks Peter, for your great, intellectually advanced input and debate with Dave.
You da man. Work it for Fred some more. Maybe you'll get lucky. You're "obviously" are only pointing out valid arguments.
Chip away at Ron's record. Repeat it a million times no matter how absurd and they will all start believing.
For crying out loud, people. You don't vote out of fear, you vote for the candidate whose values mirror yours. When you stop voting your conscience and let your political expression become a game of second-guessing and hoping to jump on the bandwagon with the "lesser evil" you have just wasted your vote and spat on everything the Founding Fathers fought for.
Ron Paul can win. If we support him; if we actually vote for him, he will win. Stop being such a naysaying pussy and actually vote for someone you believe in, not the huckster that is only slightly better than what the Left has to offer but you think might have a better chance.
I posted this at Uncle..
Whatever way you want to justify your vote is up to you - my morality states I will never support evil, especially the lesser of two evils. Is time for us conservatives to wake up an realize the party has been hijacked and we’re fucked if we pick someone who doesn’t want to end the war. Excuses for fred aren’t going to win over any democrats, and if fred does get elected he’s end up at the minimum agreeing to a timeline for withdrawl so he even has a shot.
Bush fucked up big time in most people’s minds, and its going to take a radically different person to convince voters to even consider someone with an R behind his name. Ron Paul is a not the same R that Bush and the neocons are - he can and will get democrats to vote for him; I’ve held campaign signs with them!!
Freedom is popular. Voting for Paul is the morally right choice, the best political choice, and the only choice to restore liberty.
---
Look you really only have two choices: Hillary or Paul. Someone who disagrees with 70% of the population regarding the war ain't gonna get elected. Can you imagine that moron socialist debating Dr. Paul? She voted FOR the war! He voted against! Those loony liberals won't know what the hell is going on and hopefully they'll be snapped out of their hypnosis of 'D good R bad.'
Hey David,
I found this link contrasting Paul and Thompson:
http://gordonunleashed.com/blog/2007/09/17/the-second-amendment-comparing-the-fred-thompson-and-ron-paul-track-record/
The gist is that FT votes for the 2A when nothing else is on the table, but tosses the 2A overboard when expansion of government authority is concerned.
My apologies are in order here. I seem to have run my mouth, however eloquently, without doing enough research.
Anything you want to demand of Senator Thompson is fair game by me.
Thank you, Peter, i appreciate it.
It's pretty simple really--even an aspiring "leader of the free world" should be able to grasp it.
I don't "demand" any more from FT than I do from my children: the simple truth.
If we can't ask that of people who will have very real power over us--if it's off limits to ask because it's in bad taste, or makes some uncomfortable, or will be used by our enemies as leverage, or even make Josh realize there's no place left to escape to and the time to obey or defy is upon us--we might as well just surrender now and accept the yoke.
David,
Vote your conscience and let the chips fall where they may. If everyone did that guess who would win?
The initials are RP.
The problem we have is that everyone is playing this stupid game that RP can't win (Please name me one good reason why?) and so they won't vote for him because he can't win.
Viola, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
How stinking stupid can the people of this country be? (Stupid enough to elect Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr.) And we think we are so smart.
As you can tell I am pretty sick of the two faces of the same coin nonsense. Why don't we all just jump over the cliff together and get it over with. After all, if people will vote for a perceived winner, rather than a man of character, what does that say about us?
Maybe we deserve the jerks we get because we have no character, because we won't vote for a man of character because he can't win. (How about striking the "maybe" out of the previous sentence?)
Now that I have that out of my system:
Peter, you should do more homework; you will find out a lot more uncomfortable (albeit true) things that you did not know (and when you find them out, you will probably wish you hadn't).
In fact, I wish the American people (those folks I defended for 20 years) would get off their duffs and do some real research and reading about Tyranny and what happens to people under real tyranny. I also wish that my fellow Americans would take off the blinders and realize that an actor is just that -- an actor. In ancient Rome they had another word for the likes of FT -- our modern English word "Hypocrite" comes from it. However, in all fairness to FT, (he is by no means alone) just look at the rest of the crowd (excuse me while I go throw up).
Herein lies the problem: We, as gun owners (with a few exceptions) refuse to make an issue a litmus test for a candidate, and then stand by the results of that test. Instead, we are like the 2A Democrats who want to have their cake and eat it two. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. It is high time that gun owners come down on one side of the fence or the other -- and stay there.
Personally, I probably won't vote for Ron Paul. Since I am independent and lean far more toward the Constitution Party (formerly US Taxpayer's Party) I will do as in the past and vote for that candidate (guaranteed 2A support). However, I like a win-win situation just as much as the next guy -- and Ron Paul as the Republican nominee is about as win-win as anyone could hope for. Besides, of that single coin, he is the only honest one of the whole bunch -- and that counts more than everything else.
David, do you think that the American people could actually stand to have an honest person as President? Because, if he were truly honest, not only would the 34 NFA, 68 GCA, Brady, etc., be immediately thrown out, but a whole lot of government would disappear overnight, including Social Security and government welfare to individuals, corporations and farms. After all, where in the Constitution is the authority to redistribute wealth in the form of government aid?
Post a Comment