Best 2nd amendment protection candidate - Page 2
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 77

Thread: Best 2nd amendment protection candidate

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Ed Hurtley View Post
    1. While I do know a few Democrats who consider themselves "socialists", including very pro-gun-rights ones, I am nowhere near a socialist, much less a communist. I am always amazed at people who claim that mainstream Democrats are communists. Have you forgotten what ACTUAL communism is already?

    2. Someone who is *SO* partisan that they see a political party label applied to someone and IMMEDIATELY dismiss their opinions is a frightening thing. On either side. I rebuke Democrat friends the same way who just see a name with an (R) after it has entered a political race, and immediately dismiss the person. Dismissing someone'
    s views, their RIGHT to their views, solely because of their beliefs, is a very dangerous road to go down. That
    is the beginning of demonization, which is what leads to ACTUAL civil wars. And while Andrew Breitbart may be
    happy for a real civil war to come, claiming that Republicans have "got the guns," he'll be in for a rude awake
    ning if it actually happens - there are PLENTY of left-wingers with guns, too.



    1. The Very ideal of demonzation started in the Communist/democrat regime. when has you ever heard or seen a Tea Party Patriot inciting riots like our buddies do in this regime. There is a difference between truth and demonization. Thug leader Hoffa, Jessie Hyjackson, Al extrotionist Sharpton, the Pigs in the White house, chuck u Shumer, just to name a few of the vermin that couldn't get a real job if their life depended on it.

    2. Supporting any party that demonizes the American people is despicable. Supporting a party that wants more of my sweat is stealing. Voting in those Looters is no different then stealing the only difference is the can do it at the point of o gun.

    3. What civil war in this county are you referring to? The war between the states wa not a civil war.

    4. Educated people do not assign themselves to a political party anymore, both sides have taken advantage of the producers in the county and quite frankly are feed up. Disengaging ones self from a party affiliation allows clear vision of the pigs in both parties.
    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."Frederic Bastia

  2.   
  3. Amazingly, I'm about to agree with you on a couple points, Wooddoctor...

    1. I am as ashamed of the actions of people who represented the government over "Communist hunts" in the '50s-'60s as well. Both political parties have shifted significantly in their general philosophies over the decades since. It used to be the Democratic party was the party of "states rights", the party that a racist was more likely to affiliate with, and the party with the most members who were vehemently anti-Communist. Now the Republican party tries to take up the mantle of "states rights" more often (although in some cases, contradicting themselves often - as I'm sure the Democratic party did back then, I just wasn't old enough to notice,) racists seem to be more drawn to the Republican party than the Democratic (note: I am *NOT* saying "Republicans are racists", I am saying that racists seem to be more drawn to the Republican party, correlation not causation.) And many members of the Republican party make a point of calling out Democrats as Communists, rather different than half a century ago. As to left-aligned being more "thuggish" than right-aligned, that's a tossup nowadays. There is an incident of Tea Party-affiliated people harrasing groups of old ladies, just because they are a group of elderly Democrats. There are incidents of Tea Party protests getting *VERY* scary. But, yes, there are such incidents on the left as well. Such as the recent criminal acts by a longshoremans' union in Washington state.

    2. I agree. I have yet to see the Democratic party (since I switched from independent to Democrat) as an organized group demonize any individual or group. Yes, individual Democrats do, just as individual Republicans do, as individual non-affiliated people do (as your previous statements seem to be one of demonizing me and all other progressives, for that matter.)

    3. I was referring to Andrew Breitbart's claim of an upcoming civil war between "the left" and "the right". And also referencing foreign civil wars. I'm not sure why people don't consider the US war of the 1860s a "civil war". The definition of a civil war in nearly every dictionary, textbook, or encyclopedia I've seen is along the lines of (this one taken from Wikipedia) "A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic,[1] or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly-united nation state. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies." This was a war between two organized groups (often called "The North" and "The South",) within the same nation state or republic (The United State of America. The aim was for "The South" to achieve independence. I'd say that meets all criteria of a "civil war".

    4. This one, I largely agree with. I have, since achieving voting age, been registered as a Democrat, Republican, and non-affiliated. In general in the past, I would be registered as non-affiliated most of the time, and only choose a party for primary elections, when there was a candidate in one party or the other that I preferred so much that I wanted to make sure I could vote for them in the primary. More recently, I found that being non-affiliated was nearly the same as being disenfranchised completely, as the system in the US is completely dominated by the two parties. So rather than stay ineffective, or choose a party and be its sheep, I have chosen to pick the party whose stated ideals are closest to my own, and work from inside that party to try to keep the party close to its stated ideals. When doing this, I discovered that the "stated ideals" of the Democratic and Republican parties are so similar to each other, that they are difficult to identify. Luckily for me, right at that time, the Republican party added language to their platform that I despised, making the decision easy.

    So, no, I do not, by any stretch of the imagination, agree with the Democratic party on everything. I definitely don't agree with everything certain individual Democrats say or do. But by being involved in the party, hopefully I can work to steer the Democratic party (at least on the local level,) in a direction that I prefer. One major example (that applies here,) is gun rights. I have been active in my county Democratic Party for a while now, and only brought up guns to people I knew were gun-friendly. But I became friends with the other party regulars/leaders. Once I was a known and decently respected member of the county party, that's when I gave a public talk on gun rights. If I had come in as a non-affiliated person (say, as a representative of the Oregon Firearms Federation,) I would have been vilified, and only reinforced some antigun Democrats views - solely because I was an outsider. But by being an insider that they all knew, they listened. A few pro-gun Democrats were then encouraged to stand up and make themselves known. A couple specifically said that they were "on the fence", but were now willing to support gun rights. The leadership at the county level now knows that they have a not-insignificant number of members who support gun rights. Now, it is *VERY* unlikely that they will attempt to do anything anti-gun. I'd say I have accomplished my goal at the county level. I continue to push it to higher levels now - just having sent letters to the state Democratic party leaders and state Democratic politicians who are leaders urging them to NOT take a stand against the recent court ruling allowing guns on college campuses in Oregon. (Or, more accurately, reiterating that that right already existed, and the university system was improperly denying it.)

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    ARIZONA
    Posts
    8,673
    Since the Democrats have become Socialists, and the Republicans have become Democrats, choices are tougher than ever.
    ~ Truth Is Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth ~

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    3,004
    Seems we drifted from the original question, 2nd Amendment, would be Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Paul, Paul and Bachmann most likely cannot be elected, I am leaning toward Cain look what this guy has done in his life, also like Perry. Romney is a no go on 2nd Amendment.

    I will vote pro 2nd Amendment and continue to look into the gun background of all running for office.

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek Michigan
    Posts
    1,269
    Some rambling to throw a little fuel for the fire:

    An earlier post used the term "demonetizations." They mentioned political name-calling, etc. Here are some recent statements: (From memory)

    1. "To HELL with the Tea Party!
    2. "Tea Partiers would like see us (black people) hanging from trees."
    3. "Let's take those Sons of Bitches out."
    4. "As far as I'm concerned, "The Tea Party can go straight to Hell."
    5. "The real enemy is the tea party –- let's remember that,"

    You get the idea. Apparently if the left doesn’t have the facts available or on your side it's OK to make such uncivil, unprofessional statements. Since it’s difficult to point to your accomplishments when you have none, your strategy must be to divert attention away from reality by making the most outrageous, shocking statements you can. Then of course, there's the old liberal favorite, The Race Card. We must not forget this one!

    Of course if none of that works, there is the fear tactic, good old-fashioned lies to muddy the waters and scare large voting blocks like seniors, the disabled and veterans into believing that they will lose their benefits.

    I, for hone, hope they keep it up and turn up the volume. Americans are so pissed off at politicians in general for this type of behavior are liable to vote EVERYONE they can out of office, regardless of party. One other item: While coverage from the lame-stream media lasted only hours, when the left made these statements, I wonder what would happen if ANY of the current Republican candidates made the same type of statements. Got a feeling it would last a LOT longer!

    As for the Tea Party, I have NEVER seen the left so petrified of anything, possibly because of their own fears, but if they’re THAT scared of something like the Tea Party, then I guess I'll need to side with them. After all, the enemy of my enemy is MY friend.
    Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia...Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Hurtley View Post
    1. While I do know a few Democrats who consider themselves "socialists", including very pro-gun-rights ones, I am nowhere near a socialist, much less a communist. I am always amazed at people who claim that mainstream Democrats are communists. Have you forgotten what ACTUAL communism is already?

    2. Someone who is *SO* partisan that they see a political party label applied to someone and IMMEDIATELY dismiss their opinions is a frightening thing. On either side. I rebuke Democrat friends the same way who just see a name with an (R) after it has entered a political race, and immediately dismiss the person. Dismissing someone's views, their RIGHT to their views, solely because of their beliefs, is a very dangerous road to go down. That is the beginning of demonization, which is what leads to ACTUAL civil wars. And while Andrew Breitbart may be happy for a real civil war to come, claiming that Republicans have "got the guns," he'll be in for a rude awakening if it actually happens - there are PLENTY of left-wingers with guns, too.
    As I have posted before....
    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."
    - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944, and 1948
    - This was from a speech in 1944.
    Charlie

  8. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Hurtley View Post
    And also referencing foreign civil wars. I'm not sure why people don't consider the US war of the 1860s a "civil war". The definition of a civil war in nearly every dictionary, textbook, or encyclopedia I've seen is along the lines of (this one taken from Wikipedia) "A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic,[1] or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly-united nation state. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies." This was a war between two organized groups (often called "The North" and "The South",) within the same nation state or republic (The United State of America. The aim was for "The South" to achieve independence. I'd say that meets all criteria of a "civil war".
    And techincally the "Revolutionary War" was a civil war amongst English peoples. Just as the many wars during the Yugoslavian break up were civil wars, there were at least four such wars and the Serbs fought in all of them, including an extremely rare tripartite war with Bosnia and Croatia.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by cougaram:233382
    Quote Originally Posted by mncarrydude View Post
    What about Perry/Bachman? He carry's and Michelle is quite ok with it also.

    Perry 'seems' (for the moment) a decent 2nd amendment advocate but time will tell but I hate the guy's stand on subsidizing illegals' education and his weak stand on illegal immigration and refusal to build that wall. As for Romney, I trust him about as far as I can throw him. As for Ron Paul, he's an idiot who wants to legalize drugs and quit fighting terrorists on their own ground. I like Cain (a lot) so far but I've yet to hear anything definitive on his true 2nd amendment stand

    If (big if) Bachman wins the nomination, I'll gladly support her, otherwise, I will indeed hold my nose and vote for ABO (Anybody But Obummer).
    Paul didn't say legalize drugs, he said its a state issue not a federal issue. If your state wants to legalize drugs that's your states business, not the business of federal law.

  10. #19
    Who ever it comes down to, all i can say is I will 100% definitly not vote Obama.

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    993
    I think Cain/Paul would be the safest pro-2nd Amendment ticket. Each of Romney, Perry, and Bachman would compromise in one way or another.
    When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
    Don't retreat. Just reload.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast