1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.

Best Second Amendment Quote Ever! by a politician

Discussion in 'Politics' started by melbo, Sep 25, 2007.

  1. melbo

    melbo Hunter Gatherer Administrator Founding Member

    "The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms."

    Rest of the Article here
  2. melbo

    melbo Hunter Gatherer Administrator Founding Member

    Re: Best Second Ammendment Quote Ever!!!!

    I implore you to read the rest of that article and see if any other candidate out there even comes close to that stand.
  3. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    Re: Best Second Ammendment Quote Ever! by a politician

    I don't think it's possible to say it any better than that.
  4. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    Re: Best Second Ammendment Quote Ever! by a politician

    That's why freedom loving Americans are supporting him by droves. At least the ones who don't get their entire world view from Fox News.

    People like Aaron Zelman from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and Larry Platt from Gun Owners of America.

    The only pro gun organizations not backing him are Wayne LaPierre and the other political lackeys at the NRA.
  5. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    Re: Best Second Ammendment Quote Ever! by a politician

    Thats because the NRA dosent want gun grabbing to stop. They have gotten fat off of it and been to long in bed with politicians , learning their ways and they know that if there werent still threats to our guns and occasional guns being banned and such then people wouldnt need to pour millions upon millions into their coffers every year.
  6. BAT1

    BAT1 Cowboys know no fear

    Re: Best Second Ammendment Quote Ever! by a politician

    Ron Paul is right on target. Look at Burma, they can only throw rocks and have to break furniture for clubs. Let us not end up like that. GOA, JPFO, and other gun groups don't comprimise. Yet the NRA [National registry association] is lying down like some preachers telling their people to submit. If we do, we will be like those poor jews sent to the camps, the ones Halliburton is building as we speak. NEVER!
  7. melbo

    melbo Hunter Gatherer Administrator Founding Member

  8. ricdoug

    ricdoug Monkey+++

    I'm no Ron Paul Fan, Melbo. My current choice is Fred Thompson. We'll see, closer to the election. If my 1ST choice is not the frontrunner, then, I will vote for the lesser of two evils. If Ron Paul were to run as a Libertarian, Constitutionalist or Independent, I would have a little more trust in Him. Ron running as a Republican is false advertizing. If Ron Paul were to be the only candidate running against Billary or Osamabama, then he would have my vote. Ron Paul's too out of touch with Conservatism, for me. Notice his voting record of over 60% liberal. Gun Control is a single issue, which Ron generally votes the right way. It's not enough to earn my vote. Ric Douglas

    http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/states/inde x.htm?state=tx#vr

    Browse By State Delegation

    · Main Page Overview
    · Rating Methodology
    · Senate Votes · House Votes

    To search the vote ratings database
    or view different sets of scores,
    go to the Main Page Overview.

    Use the map on this page to view the complete set of scores for members of Congress in relation to other members from the same state. Choosing Alabama, for instance, will show all liberal and conservative scores for both senators and all seven representatives from Alabama.

    You can sort the ratings for House members from most or least liberal to conservative, and vice versa, or by district.

    How To Read These Ratings
    A score of 78 on economic issues, for example, means that the representative was more liberal than 78 percent of his or her House colleagues on key economic votes during 2006. "N/A" means the member missed more than half of the rated votes. "*" denotes members who have left their seat. The designations "E" and "S" and "F" in the results display refer to the "economic" and "social" and "foreign" policy votes used to determine overall ratings.

    Ratings Liberal
    Ratings Conserv.
    Ratings Composite
    Score Composite
    Results from the Senate E S F E S F Liberal Conservative

    Paul, Ron, R-Texas-14 48 56 77 51 44 20 61 39


    Examine the following voting record for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and you will see for yourself why he is not endorsed here.

    12/06/2006 Abortion Pain Bill Did Not Vote
    09/26/2006 Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act No
    10/20/2005 Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill No
    06/22/2005 Flag Desecration Resolution No
    04/27/2005 Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act No
    06/03/2003 Desecration of Flag resolution No
    04/09/2003 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act No
    07/17/2001 Flag Desecration resolution No
    04/26/2001 Motherhood Protection Act (Substitute Amendment) No
    04/26/2001 Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 No
    09/30/1999 Substitute Amendment to Unborn Victims of Violence Act No
    09/30/1999 Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999 No
    07/15/1999 Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1999 No
    06/30/1999 Child Custody Protection Act No
    06/24/1999 Flag Desecration Amendment No
    06/04/1998 Religious Freedom Amendment bill No
    06/12/1997 Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment No

    No votes on Minor notification, and lack of support for the unborn by the means on not protecting pregnant mothers and their unborn children make Ron Paul weak on the abortion issue.

    Not limiting Gun manufacturers for frivolous lawsuits, and big bank money grabs by the ACLU and their ilk, makes Ron Paul Weak on Gun Control

    Votes against getting the government out of the affairs of my Church makes him weak on defense of the Church.

    Votes also show him weak on the defense of the flag.

    And when you consider that he has voted no vote to every defense appropriation bill that has come down the pike, you will determine his voting record is more Libertarian than Republican. If you caucus with the Republicans and have this kind of voting record, well that make you a RINO.

    The facts and the record speak for themselves.
  9. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    Given that you at least bring some facts to back your opinion, I can respect your views on it but his BIGEST attribute as far as most are concerned is that he truely supports the constitution and wont vote for things that outreach the governments authority per the constitution even if he personaly likes the ideas. He supports getting rid of the laws and agencies that are not authorized under the constitution which is also his reason for voteing against funding a war that while it may have good merit, is not in sinc with constitutional means and foriegn policy.

    While most of us have some of the unconstitutional things we like or would like to have/keep (maybe a ban on flag burning that infringes freedom of speach/protest that is disgusting to most patriots, or a personaly favored government program that helps pay farmers which the Fed is NOT authorized to do by the constitution or whatever) the constitution is really an all or none proposal and the powers not given to the Fed by the constitution it dose NOT have and must be adresed at the state or local levels without infringing our freedoms protected by the constitution and bill of rights or not be done at all unless we agre to go along with 'Dubyas idea that the constitution is 'just a goddamn piece of paper'.

    RP is the only remotely viable candidate in a LONG time who would actualy show any likelyhood of actualy honor the oath of office by preserving and protecting the constitution and that alone is enouph reason for me to be sure to not only vote for him but to fully support him.
  10. ricdoug

    ricdoug Monkey+++

    A Protest Vote does not determine the outcome of our country's well-being for the next 4 years. Right now, Ron Paul AND Fred Thompson are Protest Votes. If one of them becomes the frontrunner against Billary or Osamabama, they will have my vote. Ron Paul is a far cry from a first choice for President, in my book. Fred Thompson for President! Ric Douglas
  11. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    If I was going for a protest vote I wouldnt go for ANYONE running on either of the big 2s tickets simply to protest the Dempublican/Republicrat crap of both wanting to screw us. IMO RP is the only candidate that is electable who dosent have that agenda and given the cross party line support he has as well as the number of straw polls he has won, placed and shown in (very high and very under reported) I think he has a real shot at the nomination and if he is put up against Hitlary or Osama then I figure has a VERY good shot if not a flat guarantee of winning. Also givven Freds support for a North American union anexing us into being a part of Mexico and Canida and giving up our sovernty, theres NO WAY I would vote for him.
  12. ricdoug

    ricdoug Monkey+++

    Even if He was the Frontrunner against Billary or Osamabama? Ric Douglas
  13. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    At that poit I would cast a protest vote either for a third party or a write in for Ron Paul. Whats the point to voteing between the various demons who want to devour you? None of them would leave our nation in tact if the had their way, each of those would make us a part of Mexico and Canada loseing our sovernty and looseing our rights starting with the second amendment since globalism means going along with the UN who already are wanting us disarmed, becomeing a part of a union like Europe has simply makes servitude to the UN come quicker and more complete.

    So yeah, even if he was running against Hillary or Obama he still would NOT get my vote.
  14. ozarkgoatman

    ozarkgoatman Resident goat herder

    That makes two. Either RP will get my vote or the liberatain party will get it, NO one will get a protest vote from me. I have never casted a protest vote and I shall not start now. A vote for Fred Thompson is a vote for more socialist [BSf]IMHO.

  15. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    Same old misdirection and smoke and mirrors. We have to be so afraid of the boogie man (person) , that we will rush to vote for the "only" hope to stop the monster. The hand picked, NWO, globalist that will sell our nation out.

    I have heard this same line from several people. As far as Ron pauls voting record he has only one criteria, is it constitutional. If it isn't he votes no. More than any other politician in DC. He believes that the government has no place making federal laws for things that the constitution says belong to the states. That is why we have such a bloated mega fed now. They sponser these things that most people vote for with emotion, not reason. They help to create the massive federal buracracy that is sucking the life blood out of this nation.

    The above voting record just strengthens my support for Dr. Paul. It shows that he is exactly the kind of president that we need.
  16. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

  17. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Reagan's Gold Commission turned up some very interesting facts...such as the fact that Fort Knox has been empty since the days of FDR.

    No wonder as to why a cap was busted on his ass.

    Gerald Ford was a prime example of a good little puppet. He covered the tracks of Nixon well, and next to nobody ever realized his blunder which included utilizing the same CIA hit team for the Watergate burglary as was used to assassinate Kennedy. But that's alright. With such valiant and heroic servants of the People like Bush, Sr. and Rumsfeld keeping tabs, the CIA was never "officially" involved. And then, of course there was Mr. Clinton and Chinagate/AKA "Lewinski", which kept the masses captivated for months while he was being impeached for supplying the Chinese with secrets and nuclear technology in exchange for kickbacks.

    Just a typical day in America. Nothing new here, continue onward...
  18. gadinort

    gadinort Monkey+++

    I don't agree with all of Paul's stated beliefs, or even that he does too.

    Why I support him though, is that I think he is closer to his roots than any other candidate out there and has the ability to shake up the belief structure of the Left and Right...which is long overdue.
  19. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    Gadinort..... Agreed.

    Even if I were opposed to most of his opinions, I'd still vote for him because he is the only one that isn't a bought whore and really does believe in the constitution. The only one that will remove power from the republicrat structure that's in place now.
  20. ricdoug

    ricdoug Monkey+++

    I do not trust Ron Paul. His Talk and His Voting Record are a Contradiction. Ric

    Ron Paul: A Liberal-tarian, Not a Conservative (karma: 8) en>fr fr>en
    By FrogFryer Comments: 13754, member since Wed Apr 16, 2003

    On Thu Aug 30, 2007 09:08 PM

    Ron Paul supporters are fast making a name for themselves on the web. Not because they are just web savvy, but because they have proven themselves to be the best at hacking on-line polls, invalidating conservative polling data on behalf of their candidate. It seems that even Democrat 527 MoveOn.org is now onboard the Ron Paul anti-war train.
    Despite the fact that presidential candidate Ron Paul can not score better than 3% in any legitimate national poll, his supporters claim he is “the conservative” candidate to beat in the 2008 Republican race for the White House. Despite his less than conservative voting record in congress and his Teddy Kennedy like position on the war on terror in Iraq, his supporters think he is the most “conservative” candidate in the race. How?

    JB Williams
    Ron Paul: A Liberal-tarian, Not a Conservative
    By JB Williams
    Aug 29, 2007

    Ron Paul supporters are fast making a name for themselves on the web. Not because they are just web savvy, but because they have proven themselves to be the best at hacking on-line polls, invalidating conservative polling data on behalf of their candidate. It seems that even Democrat 527 MoveOn.org is now onboard the Ron Paul anti-war train.
    Despite the fact that presidential candidate Ron Paul can not score better than 3% in any legitimate national poll, his supporters claim he is “the conservative” candidate to beat in the 2008 Republican race for the White House. Despite his less than conservative voting record in congress and his Teddy Kennedy like position on the war on terror in Iraq, his supporters think he is the most “conservative” candidate in the race. How?
    On the Issues - Not strong on life -

    Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)

    Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)

    Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

    Not strong on traditional Marriage
    Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004 & Jul 2006)

    Not strong on crime and punishment
    Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007)

    Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)

    Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)

    Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)

    Not strong on fighting the drug problem
    Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)

    Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)

    Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)

    Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)

    Not strong on free religious speech or private schooling options
    Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)

    Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)

    Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)

    Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education
    Not strong on national security and sovereignty
    Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)

    Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)

    Military aggressiveness weakens our national defense. (May 2007)

    Criticizes use of war on terror to curtail civil liberties. (Jan 2007)

    Opposes Patriot Act & Iraq War. (Jan 2007)

    Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)

    Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)

    Not strong on government reform and campaign transparency
    Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)

    Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)

    Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)

    Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)

    Not strong on Second Amendment Rights
    Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)

    Voted NO on prohibiting suing gun makers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)

    Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

    Not strong in the war on terror
    We're more threatened now by staying in Iraq. (Jun 2007)

    We should have declared war in Iraq, or not gone in at all. (May 2007)

    Ronald Reagan had the courage to turn tail & run in Lebanon. (May 2007)

    Intervention abroad incites hatred & attacks like 9/11. (May 2007)

    When we go to war carelessly, the wars don't end. (May 2007)
    Voted against war because Iraq was not a national threat. (May 2007)

    Opposes Iraq war and opposes path toward Iran war. (Jan 2007)

    Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

    Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)

    Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)

    Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)

    I can keep going, but you can go look for yourself if you need more information. I think this is more than enough to explain why liberal Democrats are supporting Ron Paul for President. He’s better aligned with their thinking than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

    It’s true that he voted correctly several times throughout his lengthy political career too. But then, so has Hillary and Teddy. Paul is telling folks that he has never voted against Americans best interests, to paraphrase. Does that look true above?

    The question is - why are some self-styled Republicans supporting him and why are they willing to adopt the liberal practice of manipulating on-line polls and trashing other conservative candidates in order to promote what is clearly not a conservative candidate?

    In 1992, a similar set of events were underway, both liberal-tarian Republicans with an isolationist national security outlook and a desire to end all federal spending not aimed at benefiting them personally, worked together with liberal Democrats who shared those same “all about me” values to promote a third party candidate named Ross Perot. Together, they seated President Bill Clinton with less than 47% of the popular vote, against the will of more than 53% of voters.

    A friend and fellow writer recently pointed out that libertarians are actually just social liberals who don’t want any of their money used to fund the natural consequences of a socially liberal society. They pretend to be conservatives, when all they really are is money conscious liberals with an isolationist view of the world they live in.

    Ron Paul provides a perfect example. Like Ross Perot, the notion of ending all “unconstitutional” international spending and reducing taxes is appealing to both liberals and libertarians. Withdrawing from the world for monetary reasons might prove to be deadly, but it will result in temporary reduced spending and eventually lower taxes and that is the real goal.

    Ron Paul claims to be Americas “constitutionalist.” I’m a constitutionalist, a strong supporter of the American ideals so carefully crafted by our founders more than 200 years ago. So, why am I at odds with Ron Paul?

    First, he’s not a constitutionalist, except when it serves his political agenda which is that of an isolationist liberal-tarian, not a conservative. When he is playing constitutionalist, as in the case of the war on terror (specifically in Iraq), he is a foolish constitutionalist.

    He claims that the constitution somehow prevents us from protecting our national security interests abroad. He also fails to recognize that the national security threats are much different today, as compared to those present in 1776.

    He has recently stated that America should have “declared war” before going into Iraq, and I agree. But in October of 2002, March of 2004 and June of 2006, he voted against such a notion. He has claimed that the Hussein regime posed no national security threat to America, despite the many efforts by the Hussein regime to specifically threaten America over the years. He also ignores the fact that congress has failed to “declare war” in ever military action since WWII, though they authorized military action in every case except Kosovo under Clinton.

    Ron Paul uses the pieces of the constitution that serve his political agenda, while overlooking the fundamental concepts throughout our founding documents, a right to Life, Liberty, pursuit of Happiness, security, sovereignty, morality, public decency and personal freedom.

    So again, why are some Republicans willing to use extreme tactics like poll manipulation and fellow conservative candidate bashing in order to promote such a liberal candidate?

    It’s easy to figure out why liberal Democrats are supporting Ron Paul. He’s anti-war, pro- marijuana, pro- gay rights and abortion under the guise of “privacy”, pro- gun control, anti-trade and an isolationist who believes that America is the bad guy around the globe, rather than the generous beacon of freedom that has liberated more people than all other nations combined. He is a liberal of the blame America first, last and often sort. He is perfect for liberals who believe in all the same things… Only Cindy Sheehan or Jane Fonda can draw a bigger anti-war crowd.

    Now try explaining why any Republicans support him? When you are through studying the views of his supporters, you will find that they have two common values, a strong anti-war isolationist view of world events and a deep love of their money.

    At the end of the day, Ron Paul supporters on both sides of the political aisle are driven by only two beliefs and one motivating factor. They are anti-war because they are anti-tax. They do not look beyond the agenda to reduce or eliminate taxes to see the consequences of the decisions they make. They would bring the war on terror abroad right to our own doorstep to save a few tax dollars and that allows Ron Paul to appeal to anti-war voters from the far left and the far right.

    Thankfully, he has never appealed to more than 3% in any legitimate national poll. Sadly, his supporters will continue attacking all real conservatives and manipulating all on-line polls to cause further confusion and divisions among conservative voters.

    The DNC is working behind the scenes to make him the Ross Perot of 2008, because no Democrat candidate can win unless the conservative vote is divided. Hillary Clinton can not get 50% of the vote in a general election and Barack Obama can not get even 40%. Republicans must be divided for Democrats to win.

    http://www.jb-williams.com<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary