George Bush has done more for your RKBA than any politician in the last 40 years.

That's right. And in your martyr complex, you've ALREADY forgotten about it. In your "We'd be a strong political party if others would just do what we tell them" mentality, you've ALREADY forgotten.

What has Bush done??? He appointed John Ashcroft.

Ashcroft made a clear, unequivocal statement that the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right of Americans to own firearms. NO OTHER POLITICIAN HAS MADE AS BOLD A STSTEMENT IN THE LAST FOURTY YEARS. Bush appopinted Ashcroft. Without Bush, it NEVER would have happened.

What?? It doesn't count if it doesn't come out of Bush's mouth??? What other requirements do you have for Bush's pro-RKBA statement??

Does he have to be sitting on a stack oh hi-cap mags, holding an assault rifle aloft, wearing an AR15.com T-shirt???

You've got to understand "the game." Ashcroft takes the hard line - Bush remains central. We get our RKBA restored, and Bush isn't murdered in teh press as being a "baby killer" so he STILL accomplish some other objectives.

But in your lust for political power for the Libertarian party, you've ALREADY forgotten, and have continued with your assault on Bush..

Our RKBA is being restored, RIGHT NOW as I type. Baby steps, yes, but that statement alone by Ashcroift is almost more than Clinton did in eight years to destroy our rights. [b]And that is to say NOTHING of Ashcroft's order to destroy all NICS records IMMEDIATELY. [/b]

For my $$$, you Libertarians are beginning to be more of a problem that you are a solution.

I know this is harsh, but I think I've made my case / argument.

Honestly, NO offense is intended. Ashcroft is accomplishing what we want. I think its time we ALL get behind him, EVEN if that delays politcal power from coming to the Libertarians for a while.

You're exactly right, gm, except that I would say Reagan did more than anyone else...he actually got gun control laws rolled back.  Aside from him, W has already done more than any of the rest.

Well spoken, garandman.  I like Bush, and he knows what he is doing.  Bush taking the hard line would surely do more harm than good b/c of the media whipping that would surely ensue.

Ashcroft was the best choice Bush could have made.

radioman

I don't recall anything Reagan did specifically.

What are you referring to??? (this is an honest inquiry)

Couldn't agree more!!!!!!!!!

Amen, Brother, Hallelujah![>]:)]

Edited to respond to garandman -

The Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 (also referred to as the Vollker-McClure Act)was the most important thing that our beloved President Reagan did for gun ownership. Do you even recall that there was a time when you had to register for ammo (other than .22 cal) by showing a valid drivers license and signing a form, before this Act was passed?

There was a last minute amendment, called the Hughes Amendment, that blemished this otherwise excellent accomplishment.  The continued sale to the public of newly imported or manufactured Class III (NFA) weapons was banned.

Of course, even this ban backfired on the sponsers.  While it took fifty years for 90,000 NFA weapons to be licensed, there were an additional 110,000 'new' NFA weapons created and licensed within the space of the 30-day grace period under the Hughes Amendment! Class III shops were running on a 24 hour schedule!

Eric The(NFA-guy)Hun[>]:)]

Honestly, I think the Libertarians won't be happy until Bush does a Playboy pic, surrounded by a couple hundred assault rifles, 100 cases of ammo, and a joint hanging out of his mouth. [}:D]

What y'all are asking Bush to do is to commit political suicide. We are ALL here to fight for freedom - NOT to commit suicide. Remember what that general said - "The idea is NOT to die for your country. The idea is to make the OTHER GUY die for his."

Same is true of ideologies.

garandman... in your pic, don't forget to include a few hundred thousand illegal immigrants...

Damn it Garandman...

You keep posting threads that make sense, how are you going to get anyone to argue with you?   [:P]

I don't agree with you often GM, but I'm with you on the John Birch, tinfoil hat, in your face, all or nothing types. These pukes want an outright immediate statement from anyone in office that they support the 2nd and RKBA with no restrictions. While I would like that, I realize the political death it would bring about as well as you. The repubs in office may not be what everyone wants, but they are the best we got right now.

Sorry,man   :embarrassed:

Actually, i got plenty of other thoughts rattlin' 'round in my head that I can start arguments with  [:D]

Even my best freind has said about me that people either love me, or they hate me, but almost no one is apathetic about me.  [}:D]

Sweep -


I agree wholeheartedly. See my post in THIS thread....


[url]www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=36576#lastPost[/url]

Now I remember why I switched to the Libertarian party, I didn't consider myself a limp-wristed spineless coward.



I support Liberty 100%, with no concern for a politician's career.

Yes John Ashcroft is better than Janet Reno, there is no doubt about that, but Bush IMHO is a "lesser of two evils" politician.  I vote my conscience.  I will not vote for a canidate simply because I dislike a canidate less than another. If you have a problem with me exercising my constitutional duty by voting for the person I believe in, then YOU sir are the problem NOT I!

Pro-Life, Anti-Immigration Libertarian

Little early to be jumping on the Bush bandwagon.  Have not seen anything happen yet to sway me one way or the other.

Post from mtnpatriot -

What a coincidence, I'M a Pro-Life, Anti-Immigration libertarian Republican!

But there may be yet another plank in the Libertarian Party platform wherein we may agree to disagree with them.

The Death Penalty! I seem to recall that they were dead set against Capital Punishment! So I went to several websites looking for the answer, but to no avail.  They had a lot of material on crime and punishment, but nary a word on the single most devisive issue in the entire crime control debate?  Hmmmm....

Let's hear from some Libertarians - does the Libertarian Party support the death penalty or not?  Should be plain and simple, nicht wahr?

Eric The(Hang'EmHigh)Hun[>]:)]

mtnpatriot -

OK, give me the name of a Libertarian candidate  that wouldn't offend your conscience.

The only guy I can think of (and he's NOT a Libertarian) is Alan Keyes.

FWIW, I'm NOT a Bush supporter. As I've pointed out a couple of times, I didn't vote for the man.

My point is that Bush IS President now, and he's headed in the right direction, albeit somewhat slowly for some of our tastes (mine included)

So, we have two appraoches -

1. Continue bashing Bush for WHATEVER reason, and get NOTHING accomplished, other than to bemoan how bad things are, or

2. Unite behind him for ONLY the next four years, and get much accomplished for the good of the country.

That's a no-brainer, isn't it?????

It's not a question of appearances or what those appointed SAY. Haven't you folks realized that yet? Bush et al claim their positition on guns is 'strict enforcement of current laws.' I'm sorry, but all current laws that infringe the RKBA are Unconstitutional and enforcing them means you are a traitor to the Constitution. How is this not understood?

Reminds me of a Dennis Miller repeat I saw the other night. David Spade was the guest and talking about a guy who was making $20/hour in construction. Problem was the guy had not been paid in over a month. When David Spade asked the guy why don't you quit, he replied, "Dude....$20 bucks an hour." LOL

Saying you support the RKBA all the while undermining it is akin to earning $20/hour and never getting paid. Screw political considerations. What those of us grumbling want is someone who makes no compromises concenring ANY part of the Consitution. It means what it says, pure and simple. We want someone who will defend that concept with their life. We don't give a damn about political concerns. This (RKBA, the Constitution and their protection) is a matter of life and death, quit cloaking it in any other terms.

"Do you need proof of God ?..... Does one light a torch to see the sun ?"....Buddhist proverb

My sentiments exactly.

Edited for a stupid spellchecker, ME!!

well the  ony thing i can rember reagon did was the 86 gunowners protection bill witch had alot of pro gun stuff in it got rid of the ammo book. the inster state transprotation of firearms even if u were going thru a state whare the gun was illegal to a stae where i twas legal ie OR thru ca to az. but then there was that damn MG manufactor ban for citizens

A very good point.  At least we have not heard anything about taking more rights away.

You miss the mark, my friend.

Its more of a convenient strictly sexual relationship. [}:D]

It works - FOR NOW.

I'm NOT a Republican. In fact, they are MORE of a dissappointment to me than the Dems are, beacuse they have HAD the truth, but willingly abandoned it, in my lifetime.

The reality of it is (and, YES, its a MAJOR bummer) is that there is NO legitimate alternative. And I DO NOT believe its a good idea to relinquish control to teh Dems right now in the HOPES that a Libertarian party might emerge in 10 years. It will then be eternally too late. Fifty years ago, I would do what you are saying and vote Libertarian (where I could)

Bseides, I have a few religious beefs with Libertarians anyway. Not the time, or the place....

The following quote is from another post in this forum. And I quote

"In his letter, Ashcroft said the Second Amendment did not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for "compelling state interests.""

And Ashcroft is the man you are pinning your hopes on to uphold the RKBA and the Consitution? You either support and defend all of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights or you support NONE. There is no in between. Hasn't history taught us at least that?

[url]www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=36617#lastPost[/url]

I don't care one way or the other.[:D]

For "compelling state interests..."  Hmmmm... what could that mean?? Could it be a cleverly worded application of teh Tenth Amendment???

Or could it be a meaningless red herring inserted to throw the gun grabberz off the trail???

HOW EXACTLY would the Fed gov't go about "enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for 'compelling state interests.'"??? Constitutionally, it is IN THE STATES INTEREST to allow individual ownership of firearms, so that the citizens can protect the state from a repressive Federal gov't. Its called using Clinton-speak for good purposes. Sounds like Ashcroft threw the gun grabberz a meaningless scrap of fat. Good thing too, cuz we all know that rosie ain't NEAR fat enuf.

What you don't seem to get is that it is SUICIDE and would ultimately DAMAGE RKBA to come out with an extreme sounding position. I know of a state that got Class III ownership legalized by WORKING BELOW THE RADAR of teh Liberals and the media. NO, they didn't throw it in the Liberals face, but YES, they did accomplish recognition of the RIGHT to own Class III in the state.

SO, which is more important to you - embarrassing the Liberals, or getting your rights officially recognized???

Can't you just admit that Ashcroft / Bush are doing a GREAT job here?? Or is that beneath you????

Don't let the major libertarian news groups lead you astray.  The majority of libertarians I've spoke with are adamantly pro-life.  I am primarily because I feel that a living baby inside of a mother's womb has the same civil liberties that the mother has.

If you have to get permission, it is not a "right".

Well said.

And i guess i SHOULD have known better than to beleive what the mainstream media is saying about the Libetarian position.

I have a freind that hails from Vermont. He told me that a full 70% of the citizens are against gay marriages, but the Commie legislators snuck it thru anyway.

Go figger.

The state has NO restrictions on the RIGHT to own Class III. ONLY the Fed gov't does.

So, theh point stands - sometimes recognition of RIGHTS are accomplished by working "beneath radar" in a low-profile manner. where getting all belligerant about it like SOME peopel want to see Bush / Ashcoft do would accomplish exactly the OPPOSITE of what we want to accomplish. In battle, the single greatest advantage is the element of surprise. Much better than a full frontal assault.

its my contention that that is EXACTLY what Bush / Ashcroft are doing.

garandman wrote:
SO, which is more important to you -embarrassing the Liberals, or getting your rights officially recognized???

Can't you just admit that Ashcroft / Bush are doing a GREAT job here?? Or is that beneath you????

Having someone stand and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the only thing important to me in this regard. And, no, it would not be beneath me to admit a good job if in fact a good job is being done. Having said that, these are WORDS, they have not backed anything up with action so far as I can tell. And to echo mtnpatriots point, asking for permission to exercise one's Creator-derived rights--well now, I don't believe words can properly express on how many levels that disgusts me.

So in essence what you alleged gun-lovers are saying is that it's good to say you support the RKBA, just don't hurt anyone's feelings while doing it or jeopardize your whiny-little political career in the process? Huh. Guess I just disagree.

I'm not trying to argue semantics, but if a person has to get permission from ANYONE (state, fed, local, etc...), then they do not have a RIGHT to do it.