ANOTHER REPUBLICAN PREPARES TO SELL OUT OUR GUN RIGHTS

by Vin Suprynowicz

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's so-called "assault weapons ban" has nothing to do with true select-fire weapons like the M-16 or original AK-47, much less their progenitor, the German Sturmgewehr 43/44. Those are already priced out of the average American shooter or collector's reach by the completely unconstitutional edicts of federal executive agencies that refuse to allow them to be imported, assembled, or manufactured for civilian use, whether we'd willingly pay an equally unconstitutional $200 tax, or not.

Instead, 1994's so-called "assault weapons ban" is an intricate plot to entrap, disarm, and finally jail owners not of true selective-fire assault weapons, but rather of semi-automatic civilian hunting and target rifles, based on a complex menu of banned cosmetic features, from pistol grips to full-sized detachable magazines to bayonet lugs.

The BATF has even ruled the statute can make you a law-breaker if you own a semi-auto rifle with invisible internal foreign-made parts identical in function to perfectly legal American-made parts. (And the lawyers keep telling me I can't be right in my interpretation of the geographic jurisdiction of the federal income tax acts, because "There's a doctrine that the law always has to be read in a way that makes common sense"!)

Anyway, the big news in gun-rights circles back in April was the announcement by White House spokesman Scott McClellan on April 12 that "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law" — which has to be done by September 2004, lest it "sunset" and pass away to the Graveyard of Defunct Idiocies.

The announcement was really no change from Mr. Bush's previous stance, of course, since both the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America — conservative Republican outfits whose main task is to make sure gun owners keep voting for socially conservative Republicans, whether they stand for gun rights or not — gave candidate Bush a "bye" on his anti-gun-show record in Texas back during the Year 2000 presidential race, adopting the old "lesser of two evils" rationale.

Still, the 2004 elections dawn in a different world, acknowledged even Shannon McCaffrey of Knight-Ridder Newspapers, who broke the story of Mr. Bush's electoral suicide dive on April 12, pointing out "Republicans now control the House and the Senate and are using their newfound power to breathe life into the stalled pro-gun rights agenda. This week, they pushed through a bill in the House to give gun makers and dealers sweeping immunity from lawsuits."

Continuing the traditional Kabuki in which smaller gun-control organizations pretend to arm-wrassle the nation's largest gun-control organization, Joe Sudbay of the Violence Policy Center (a group which joins the Brady-Law-backing NRA in encouraging violence against smaller, weaker Americans by working to disarm them) said the McClellan announcement "creates a huge problem for Bush with the NRA. The NRA said they would be working out of the Oval Office when Bush was elected. This creates an interesting situation for them."

Back in the real world, Knight-Ridder hit closer to the truth when they reported "Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, failed to condemn Bush for his betrayal, rationalizing that Bush's support was somewhat irrelevant. 'Ultimately, I think this issue is going to be decided by the Congress,' LaPierre said."

At which point a renewal of the law would be promptly signed by whom, Wayne? Someone other than George W. Bush? His evil twin, perhaps?

Even Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., who was elected to Congress on a Victim Disarmament platform after her son was wounded and her estranged husband killed because both state and local laws prohibited them from carrying arms to defend themselves against a deranged immigrant gunman on a Long Island commuter train in 1993 (don't try to make sense of it; she's a Democrat), acknowledges Democrats are nervous about the gun issue — as well they should be, since no less a liberal icon than Bill Clinton admitted Victim Disarmament was the issue that cost Democrats control of the House of Representatives in 1994.

"Democrats largely abandoned the gun issue in the 2002 midterm election after some determined that it had been an albatross for Democratic presidential hopeful Al Gore in 2000," reports Ms. McCaffrey of Knight-Ridder.

Yet the NRA will now shrug and quietly acquiesce as a Republican president cooperates in extending this unconstitutional assault on our gun rights? And you mean to tell me anyone still believes the NRA is a "pro-gun-rights" organization?

At least the smaller and somewhat more principled Gun Owners of America responded with an April 14 e-mail alert, recommending that gun owners again resort to a political strategy about as fruitful as what teen-age boys typically do in the bathroom with a girlie magazine, "write the president and urge him to remain true to his constitutional oath of office," blah blah blah.

"This unconstitutional law must be repealed," GOA reasoned. "Otherwise, it will be used as a precedent to ban even more guns."

Well, duh. So what am I missing here?

In the words of one of the country's most effective gun-rights activists, Dennis Fusaro, "Politicians don't care who loves them. They care about those who can — and who have the will to — defeat them."

When is one of these so-called gun rights organizations going to say, "OK, the maneuvering is over. No more zone defense. We don't give a damn about 'access' and whose Christmas parties we get invited to next year. Pro-gun voters delivered three traditionally Democratic states — Tennessee, West Virginia and Arkansas — to George W. Bush three years ago; we made him president. He owes us.

"So either President George W. Bush announces by Sept. 1, 2003 that he demands the assault weapon ban must end; he's going to veto it; he's going to work to defeat of any Republican who votes for it; and he's immediately ordering the executive branch to stop enforcing it as a violation of the Second Amendment, meantime OK'ing import licenses for as many REAL select-fire assault weapons as the civilian market can bear, or we're going to a) endorse the Libertarian candidate for president in 2004 (or the Democrat if they're smart enough to put up a pro-gun-rights candidate we can believe); b) enlist and fund primary opponents for any Republican who votes to extend this monstrosity; and c) withhold all moneys from anyone of ANY party who votes for the extension, funding their opponent to the maximum legal limit — and just to make sure we're clear here, that INCLUDES backing pro-abortion peacenik San Francisco lesbians, as long as they come out in favor of guns."

(continued)

When are the NRA and GOA going to come out and say that? Or will they, instead, finally admit they're nothing but the "Gun-Owners' Auxiliaries to the Republican Party and the Christian Right"?

America's gun owners are waiting.

'SIX MILLION JEWS ARMED WITH RIFLES'

Meantime, two pieces of good news, bookending one thoroughly predictable piece of idiocy:

Our first piece of good news is that the challenge to California's state assault weapons ban — Silveira vs. Lockyer — appears bound for the U.S. Supreme Court, which may have a hard time ducking the need to resolve two diametrically opposed versions of the Second Amendment now being promulgated by the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans (the Emerson case — where the appellate court adhered to the logic of the high court's own 1939 Miller decision, that the "militia" referred to in the Amendment means all us guys) and the posturing pantywaists of the Ninth Circuit.

The piece of idiocy? I decline to waste precious space here on the "logic" of the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit which held on May 6 that the Second Amendment guarantees "no individual right" to bear arms, insisting this is a "collective right" which can only be exercised by the states when they field National Guard troops in federal uniforms answerable to presidential authority.

(Someone explain to me why American troops encountering armed civilians with no uniforms in Bosnia or Iraq disarm them, describing them as "militias," yet if I and three of my buddies saunter downtown with our Garands over our shoulders here in the States, explaining to Officer Friendly that we're free to do this because we're a "militia" as described and protected on these shores by our beloved and much envied Constitution ... we'll be similarly disarmed and arrested. Iraqis with guns are a militia ... but we're not?)

You can read the Ninth Circuit's entire Jesuitical exercise in proving seven impossible things before breakfast at: www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/ newopinions.nsf/019661EF3BAAF4C488256D1D00793D3A/ $file/0115098o.pdf.

But instead of wading into that cesspool of desperate casuistry just now, let us instead turn to the refreshing wisdom of the Ninth Circuit's dissenters.

"Our circuit has effectively repealed the Second Amendment without the democratic protection of the amendment process, which Article V requires," writes Judge Andrew Kleinfeld (a 1991 Bush appointee.)

"Much of the panel decision purports to be an attempt to figure out what the word 'militia' means in the Second Amendment. But the panel's failure to cite the contemporaneous implementing statute defining the term demonstrates the tendentiousness of its analysis. ... Besides overlooking the statute, the panel somehow failed to notice that the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Miller, held that the term 'militia' in the Second Amendment meant, and means, 'all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.' We are an inferior court, bound by this holding of the Supreme Court.

"The panel opinion swims against a rising tide of legal scholarship in this country, relying heavily on a single law review article ... About twenty percent of the American population, those who live in the Ninth Circuit, have lost one of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. And, the methodology used to take away the right threatens the rest of the Constitution. ..."

Think that was good? Well, best not to read what follows in front of any womenfolk. I wouldn't want to be held responsible if a few stray tears of joy should come welling up unbidden in the eyes of any of you gnarled old tough guys:

"It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us," writes Judge Alex Kozinski (a 1985 Reagan appointee.) "As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. ...

"Had ... the able judges of the panel majority ... brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth, and selected portions of the Fifth, they would had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to ignore binding precedent. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) did not hold that the defendants lacked standing to raise a Second Amendment defense, even though the government argued the collective rights theory in its brief. ...

"The panel majority not only ignores Miller's test; it renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court is was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.

"The majority falls prey to the delusion — popular in some circles — that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out. ... Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South."

(Judge Kozinski here references a 1991 article in the Georgetown Law Journal, "The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-American Reconsideration.")

"All too many of the great tragedies of history — Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations," Judge Kozinski continues. "Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. ...

"If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

"My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. ...

"The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion — the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text — refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it — and is just as likely to succeed."

Amen, Brother Kozinski. And Molon labe.

There's the key sentence.

The same guy that thinks he doesn't have to pay federal income taxes, thinks republicans are our real enemy on gun issues.

[lol]

You know, as much as I may be against a lot of the social big government currently being debated, all I have to say to the sentence above is YEAH, RIGHT!

Al Gore (and now Dick Gephart) want FULL, SINGLE-PAYER, CANADA-STYLE health care, which would be fifty times bigger (and WORSE) than ANYTHING being debated now.

Al Gore (and most of the Dems running now) want DRACONIAN gun control far beyond GWB's tepid support for a new AWB.

Al Gore (and most of the Dems running now) would have called for an environmental impact study in response to the attack in New York, and would likely have asked to have te Pentagon torn down, since it houses those baby-butchering murderers who were ultimately responsible for the attacks, anyway, right?

So no matter how "bad" the current situation may be (and admittedly, it's disturbingly more "bad" than I would have expected given the current political makeup of Washington), it's NOWHERE NEAR as bad as it would be under Al Gore or any of the other Socialists, er, Democrats currently jockying for the nomination.

So, Imbroglio, who do YOU plan on voting for, anyway?

One more out of the park.....asked for facts...facts given, sidestep to the "source of facts is suspect" then insult and hyperbole...next!!!! You boys got nothing and once again it is proven that not a one of you can stand toe-to-toe and argue that your party is the one that should get the vote in the next election. The ONLY thing you can come up with is that the altwernative is worse. Well once again I say so be it....let Hillary be Queen, let shrub going to his death bed knowing that he could have done all of the socialist things he wanted and anything else he wanted to do, but instead he did things ass backwards and lost to a woman that more evil than --I can't even think of an example--Say good bye to the grand old party, the hardcore can't even defend it anymore. It was nice watching the dems self-destruct, I think it is as much fun watching the republicans do the same thing......

hound What the hell is your problem ?
I see you address Clinton as WJC and you  disrespect the President by calling him "shrub".
I can see your agenda hanging out from under your liberal skirt their buddy.
Why don't you start addressing the President properly or STFU!  

yes sir...why don't you go back and READ my posts....like where I said W BJ K...I love calling the little feller shrub, I think it is the most appropriate nick-name ever in politics.....you should see the pictures of him when he was younger walking down a highway in Texas, he looked like a cute little tumbleweed blowing in the wind...Respect the office--always- respect the man after he broke his oath....not even close buddy. And I don't remember BJ saying that he would sign a bill even though it was unconstitutional...

Thank you. I thought I did quite well, also.



Because they are...



You mean like this:?



[lol]

Why don't you tell us who YOU want to vote for? I find it interesting that NOT ONCE do you (or any of the other resident Bush-bashers)  say, "Why don't you guys consider voting for Mr. John Smith of the (fill in the blank) party? He's REALLY with us! Here's his website: www.fillintheblan.com".

The ONLY guy who's done that is Liberty86 with the Constitution Party, whose platform I disagree with, but at least he TRIED. What's your excuse?

Yes, we are aware that your juvenile lack of respect is exceeded only by your total lack of knowledge.

Because I ain't here to give you answer, I am here to raise questions, when you go to sleep at night content that you will continue to be able to own your guns, I am out traveling all over the frikken world and I know it ain't true. I come home to best country in the world and see canadian policies and german gun-control and british social programs and you guys are cheering because your party is in power. That's it buddy, when I come home I don't want to see the feds waiting on me.
And how about this, instead of worrying about me and mine,and who we vote for. Clean up your own house. And maybe we will be happy to say we will vote for George W Bush.

[lol] ...and then you accuse US of sidestepping!  [lol]

Well no shit.  

Ok I will vote for the candidate that most closely holds to my value system and continues to show a good faith effort of the same. If that person is not running then I am voting for the worst possible choice. If the election was today I would be screwed because I am registered repub and I could NOT vote for Hillary in the primary....good enough? It is funny that three or four of you keep trying to take me to task and failing......I don't have a belief system to challenge that can't be moved.

[lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2]

I'm not about to start to believe there is any such thing as "Socialism Light" and that is the spin.

Nope, nothing to be happy about when domestic social agendas are hijacked from the Dems and implemented.  Middle of the road=roadkill.

You said it.  I don't know what the hell you said, but you said it.

What's so funny Zaphod, over the past couple of months I have been caught on facts occasionally, and when WJD was in power I refused to discus his lying ass because I would get so damned mad,that changed when shrub starting pissing me off.  But I can be moved, that is my point. I do not have a belief in the republican party, I have a belief in the Diety and my friends, not in man.

i'm hoping you mean that you respect bush the man, not that you respect him because he's the president.  the president is a *citizen* and is not to be elevated above any joe schmoe on the street.  "the president has to be respected no matter what" is some head in the sand type thinking.

now, i respect our system and i respect the office of the presidency - but i don't respect bush.  hell, i don't even like him.  he's a spoiled ass rich kid who's had everything in life handed to him.  i think he's making the usa look like a giant who's just stubbed his toe and is beating the shit out of everything in anger.  

war is fine.  war doesn't bother me.  this wishy washy sh*t about wmd and 'hidden terrorist factions' bugs my ass, however.  just flat out say, "we are bigger, and we are going to kick the sh*t out of you to further our interests."  that i could respect.

there was only one man of presidential caliber in the last election, and that man was john mccain.  he was the man our forefathers would have elected.  they would have seen right through bush's fake righteousness and right past gore's bullsh*t.  mccain was a man i could have respected as president.

but i'll work w/ what i got.

[lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2] [lol] [rofl] [rofl2]

For God's sake, STOP IT! I'm at the office, damn it!

Hound,

Go back and READ what you wrote, and what has Rik, myself, and certainly a few others laughing so hard that our jobs may be in jeopardy. REALLY READ IT.

Sorry Zaph, I ain't getting it. I can't type for shit and both my hands are hurting and I am looking froward to a weekend at the farm, so I ain't the sharpest thinker on our little discussion today. So please explain to me.
I read it again and I don't see what is funny, I come to the table and say what have you got...the sum is dems are bad reps are good....not good enough. I don't have and interest in the party{either of them) and I am willing to concede to facts on what is going on...that's is why several months ago, I started changing my opinion on war with Iraq...because whatever "story" Bush came up with did not matter. The Iraq government
chose to spit in the face of the world after they lost and were asking for a second round of ass-kicking....not because of some tenuous link to terrorists of threats of using their WMD here.

hound, have you tried ibuprofen for temporary relief for your hands?

ibuprofen, cold water, massage,tequila, sex, drugs and rock and roll....unfortunately I spend to much time on computers...home and work.
Surgery is going to be scheduled in late july...when you can't sleep because of the pain, it is time to fix it.

Hound, a belief system is not something that is moved easily if you believe in it at all. It goes to character.

For example, I may disagree vehemently with GWB about any number of things, but that does not change the fact that he and I share a common believe system. He simply applies it a bit differently than I. I'm sure the same could be said for you and me if we sat down and discussed belief systems.

In any case, a belief system is a combination of core beliefs, usually grounded in a religious concept of morality and ethics. A person with a strong belief in the idea that lying is wrong probably believes it because they believe that God made lying a sin under the "false witness" clause of the Ten Commandments (I'll borrow some Constitutional lingo here).

Now, scumbags like Klinton and most Liberals have NO belief system, or one that can be swayed easily. This is why you can't believe ANYTHING they say, because to them, their beliefs are anything that's convenient at the time. It depends on your definition of the word "is".

So, when you claim, after saying everything else you said, that your beliefe system can be moved, your in effect saying that your position is NOT based on any firm ground. While it is true that a belief system can be shifted over time (for example, I used to be pro-"choice" until shocked into shifting my belief system by a clear presentation of the pro-life argument) it is NOT something that shifts easily or very often, as your statement suggested.

BTW, this post relates entirely to the response I almost burst a lung over, not the rest of your posts. Those are an entirely different issue.

Based on his response, I imagine that Rik would agree with me on my interpretation of your statement.

Yikes. That doesn't sound like fun.

All politics aside, I wish you the best of luck. Let us know how it goes.

So maybe you still still don't understand exactly what I meant and based on your reply, wjich I get now, I understand why you thought that was funny. Let me sum. I hate fanatics, liberal, Jewish, Islamic, pentecostal, republican. Because there is nothing that is absolutely impossible, highly unlikely maybe but not impossible. When you have a fanatical belief system in something, then facts don't matter, only your belief. This is even recognized in our court system. That is what I mean, if you and me and George W sat down and had a beer and I could ask him questions, maybe he would convince me that he is the slickest little connecticut yankee ever. But based on his public speaking and actions, he is an objectionable liar and oath-breaker. That is my point when I said that and I didn't realize it was funny...I come here to discuss not to preach and convert...you guys aren't coming to my side and I sure as hell ain't coming to yours.

The part highlighted in red tells us all everything we need know about you, this is what a scumbag liberal woiuld say and do.

On this you and I are in complete agreement.



Okay so far....



This is where we part company. Klinton meets that description in spades, because he willingly and knowingly used the Constitution as toilet paper for eight years. Only die-hard Liberals and Communists would disagree (and again, they'd be lying, because they KNOW what the Constitution means, and it AIN'T Liberalism!)

That isn't to say that I'm blind to several things GWB has done/said that go against my beliefs, or that I support him 100%. I do, however, find your description extreme in its own right.

GWB said during the campaign that he supported the AWB. It's bullshit, and I disagree with him, but he said it. He's not breaking a promise in that case.

CFR, OTOH, was a complete fuckup of biblical proportions, and based on the shining rulings of the SCOTUS last week, I tremble when I think of the law going up to them.

Unfortunately, politics is a nasty, scummy, disgusting business, no matter WHO is in power. So the reality is the choice between someone with who you disagree with 95% of the time, and the guy you agree with 95% of the time. Finding the 100% match is simply never going to happen.

WHere I split with many here is when they tell me to vote for someone I agree with 98% of the time over the 95% guy, even if it means victory for the guy with who I MIGHT agree 5% of the time. That is not a choice I can make with a clear conscience.

Now, if the Republicans continue to go Left, and the number drops to 90%, then 85%, then 80%, THEN voting for another guy becomes a very real possibility.

Your decision to vote for the WORST possible candidate is simply suicide and cowardly, and NOT the action of someone with a firm belief system.

The more I read from libertarians, the more I realize what a hopeless bunch of marginal [red][/red] they are.


[red][i]Inappropriate animation edited out.  --thebeekeeper1[/red][/i]

Thanks for the thoughts, but I will remind you that voting for the worst possible candidate was what persuaded the dems to almost drop gun-control...too many of their people sent a message. I think we should do the same to our people.....if they continue to screw us, then we vote for the other guy.
And on the other hand, I find it ammazing and very eye opening just how insulting and mean-spirited you republicans are.......you just can't have a discussion can you. Every damn time one of you has to call somebody scum or a monkey...also rather amazing how I will be the only one called on the carpet if I start using strong language.

hound, it is never a good debate tactic to paint with a broad brush.

I discussed this issue with you and I didn't call you any names or insult you.

Please don't lump "all republicans" into the same mold.   We have a wide difference in opinions about many issues.

Huh? How so?



Uh.....yeah. You know, you haven't exactly been the most polite guy, either. I'll leave others todefend their own comments, but I think you shouldn't be surprised when you jump into a predominantly Republican site and start slinging shit around. At least here they don't lock you as a troll unless you're REALLY bad.

Where on earth did you find that? I'm almost afraid to ask...

I probably should have put a smiley on that...but being called scum and being compared to a monkey bukkake party...that's not very nice....and if you will notice I was almost verbatim quote from the mean-spirited liberals...who talk about the repubs like that

Zaphod, how about posting two lists. On one list the things Bush has done you agree with. On the other, the things you don't agree with. Let's see how conservative you are....

Ah, the vagaries of democracy! And to think we could have had a king!

"Neo-cons", are interventionist rik. A Conservative would pull us out of nafta, wto, and a few others. The idea of a world police, is an old dream, one becoming reality before your blind eyes. Bush is expanding that role, today, authorizing troops for Liberia.
The idea that Ike was a "conservative", is ludicrous on it's face. Look at his military career, his CFR membership, UN support, Expansion of govt, and you call him conservative!! [ROFL2]]

You demonstrate, just how left wing you are. For me, I will NO LONGER vote for those who do not defend our Constitutional govt., and the principles on which we were founded. You vote for those who declare their opposition to the Constitution, by the positions they advocate.

Enjoy the mountain of debt the repubs are giving you, and your kids rik. And enjoy seeing the dems do a sweep in the next elections. If I can't find a Constitutionalist to vote for, I'll leave that box blank...

Ya, Vin believes, in the WHOLE Constitution, not bits here and there, like Bush and company...[rolleyes]

And all of you fail to understand, that in recent decades, the socialist, anti-freedom agenda has been advanced equally, in different administrations. Under repubs, "civil", (God-Given), liberties tend to be taken. Under dems. economic, (socialism), and moral decline seem to rule.

This administration, is implementing both the Internationalist agenda, the anti-civil liberties agenda, AND the socialist agenda. All the while "Conservative" citizens defend them!!! [ROFL2]

So are conservatives.  Reagan didn't hesitate to go into Grenada and bomb Lybia, did he?  Or was he a "neocon" too?



Why?  Does a conservative not believe in free trade?  Libertarians sure do.  



You're the blind one, Duncan, blinded by your own overidealized view of human nature.  You are a political naif of the first order if you think the world would leave us alone if we pulled behind our borders and stuck our fingers in our ears.



Yeah, that 75 man Marine unit to protect the embassy is really an interventionist move...



I guess Ike was a "neocon" too, huh?  ROFL!  You're as much into revisionist history as the Deconstructionists at the history department at my grad school!



Oh yeah, Duncan, I am soooo left wing.  I am a regular freaking socialist, boy!  ROFL!  You are a hoot, Duncan...do you expect me to take you seriously after you call me "left wing?"  Do you even KNOW what the term means?  If I am left wing, Duncan, then a Nazi is a fucking centrist, you kook.

Well, shit. I guess I'm not a Conservative after all....

Let's see.....am I a Liberal?

NOPE. Just typing DUh makes me want to puke. I guess that means I'm not a communist or a socialist, either.

Hmmmmm......

Well, according to the self-annointed "Conservatives" here, and according to what I KNOW my beliefs to be, I am none of the following:

Conservative
Liberal
Socialist
Communist
Nazi

I guess I'm not allowed to be Republican, either, since by your own yardstick you must agree with a group 100% of the time in order to be a member. So seeing as I oppose the big-government largess currently being foisted upon us (Medicare, not the security-related stuff), I am no longer qualified to be a Republican.

So, I guess I actually don't exist at all. All these years my life has been but a dream generated by a deranged imagination somewhere in the universe. Obviously, since I do not subscribe to ALL the positions of [s]naive idealistic nutbags[/s] the Pure Thinkers, then I obviously occupy some as-yet undescribed plane of existence.

I'll just call it reality. Fuck it.

What's the point? You have already staked a claim to being the only true Conservative on this board. Seeing as you perceive everyone else to be either a communist or a blind dupe, what can I possibly say that will in any way change your opinion?

It's obvious that you hold complete disdain for anyone that does not agree with you 100% of the time. Not 99%, mind you, 100%. Any deviation from the specifications YOU (and others like you) espouse is cause for immediate excommunication from the cause as a heretic.

Funny how an attitude like that can exist amongst people who consider themselves Conservative. Last I checked (or at least back when I was one) Conservatives believed in free speech and individualism. Guess that doesn't apply anymore.

I will now leave the Halls of the Mighty. I am unworthy to stand in the august presence of the True Conservatives. Forgive me for polluting your presence with mine.

BTW, my guy is STILL going to win in 2004, and he's STILL going to be BETTER than ANYONE ELSE running for the office. That fact is immutable and cannot be changed, no matter how much you hope it will.

I got a better idea, [b]liberty86[/b], why don't [u]you[/u] tell us which of the Founding Fathers were conservative and which were liberal??!!

This whole argument is pure D, Grade A, BULLSHIT!

I'm a lawyer and the depth of BS embarrasses even me! [:D]

No one can deny that the chief enemy of the RKBA is the Democrat Party, and the chief enemy of the Democrat Party is the Republican Party!

So if you want to cripple those who devoutly wish to cripple the RKBA, there is no choice in this matter!

[b]The future of the RKBA is in the hands of Congress, and, for better or worse, there is NOT a single member of a third party in Congress![/b]

So, if you wish to play with your peckers on the sidelines, the very best choice would be to sit home and let the Democrats win by your support of some cockamamie third party!

Real patriotic move, all right!

If the GOP is not to your liking then do something about it! Get in and get involved!

The Texas GOP is precisely the way I wish it to be!

If the GOP in your State is a group of limp-wristed a-holes, well, consider just who it is they represent!

[:D]

Eric The(ExamineYourselves)Hun[>]:)]

It doesn't matter. What matters, is the document they produced, and the fact that the president, and the repubs ignore it.



You should be embarassed, you refuse to respond to ANY of my points.



Any president who says he wants reauthorization of the AWB is an enemy of RKBA.



[url]http://www.constitutionparty.com/ustp-99p1.html[/url]



Wrong, it's in the hands of each individual. What SCOTUS, congress, or anyone else does, will not affect me.



More so than supporting a party that ignores the Constitution..



4 years on my county central committee, 12 years as an activist. I managed a county commission race, raised $$, ran an RKBA boycott, and spent many a rainy day putting up signs. Repuba run on a patriot platform, then roll over. See Senator Gordon Smith R-OR for an example.



The Oregon GOP platform is an EXCELLENT platform. As you know, the actual workers in the party are very conservative. Trouble is, those elected, aren't.......

Maybe YOU need to examine yourself.....

Nice evasion.

I take it you support Bush, "Just Because"!! [rolleyes]

Based on performance, one is left wondering which voters the Bush Administration is courting?

Conservative...or liberal?