Posted: 6/12/2004 7:48:01 PM EDT
|
I often find myself asking for help to fight 2nd Amendment issues in California that could go nationwide, on a PRO-gun website, and run into more messages that ring of "give it up" and "only losers waste their time supporting the Second Amendment" than of messages that are positive. This includes AR15.com, and recently more notoriously so. Those that keep the opinion to ignore an issue, have no comment, ask me to move on, or ask not to be bothered do not disappoint me. I respect that reservation. This is a free country with the freedom to also harbor apathy if one so desires. Even those that disagree with me do not bother me either; at least I know their angle. However, those that supposedly share the same interests and then vocally and loudly opt out against us to profess their negative opinion too much puzzle me. This, especially when I put a call to arms to those I consider like in kind, and that very group aggressively dissents against us as we urge a joining of the ranks in trying to fight gun control measures; if I am preaching to the choir, it is only to ask the choir to sing. But lately, the choir is giving up and goes out of its way to act as our nemesis and antagonist, which is evident by some of the replies to fighting anti-gun measures on this website. When we ask for help fighting anti-gun legislation, it is not for the goal of sympathy out of angst, hindrance, or helplessness. We are simply trying to stop anti-gun legislation, period, and know that numbers help. I do not feel helpless knowing that a bill like California's AB-50 and its previous forms, was beaten 4 years in a row, from those that helped us nationally, and that this time around could be the last time it EVER makes a showing, if we beat it this time. We have defeated several other ubiquitous bills in California recently for their last time that were equally horrible anti-gun measures. Simply go to the California Rifle and Pistol Association website to review the wins in California. We DO have pro-gun politicians in California, and we DID get rid of Gray Davis by a call to arms and by petition, then by voting, as he was the SINGLE reason for so much anti-gun legislation over the past 5 years. One man with too much power and we got rid of him by calls, letters, faxes, and eventually petition that led to a vote. A Governor being recalled successfully had only been done ONCE before in the history of this country. But we did it in California when they said it couldn’t be done. The feeling of futility and helplessness among those perpetuating messages against our resolve to fight anti-gun legislation is duly noted. I am sorry we have lost you in our ranks to fight for Second Amendment rights. Your displacement and feeling of helplessness is noted and we will try to defend the Second Amendment for you. We will do the best we can without you, and continue forward. You have our sympathy, if that is what you are looking to find, and we will keep you in our thoughts as we fight future anti-gun legislation. Now that we have recognized you, there will be no need for future posts against our call to arms. Just look at the Democrats; when an issue on abortion, gay civil rights, saving trees, stopping hunters, legalizing drugs, or banning guns is on their agenda, they don't say: "Oh well, that's such-and such state, there is nothing we can do". NO! They pull together nationally and fight for their goal. They don't put each other down and jump ship when there is a common goal. We're only safe from them right now because of Bush and Ashcroft, but if Kerry gets elected, this "only in my state" attitude is going to kill us nationally. If we continue to cajole and mock those among us that go out of their way to fight anti-gun legislation because it is localized or is relegated to a specific area, like California, we are all surely to be doomed. |
|
Sigh. Republicans are no better than Democrats when it comes to legislation. Just look at what stupid ideas have come into play over the last 4 years alone. Patriot act. Brilliant. Look up the libertarian party as they're an American's boon and a bane to government as a whole. Their party believes that the constitution is the constitution it should not be changed, modified, or the like. Free speech = free speech. Anti-gun legislation of ANY kind is wrong as we have the right to keep and bare arms and that right shall not be infringed. Also look up Bush's ideas on gun control. He's been quoted as saying: www.evervigilant.net/shelton/shelton111303.html
www.greatfallstribune.com/news/stories/20030515/opinion/302971.html
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32074
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32170
Vote for Bush you lose. Vote for Kerry you lose. Be smart and vote libertarian. |
|
I would love to vote Libertarian. I want to be considered Libertarian. Go to the Libertarian party website, run down the list of what they want to do, and yes, I am Libertarian. However, why can't the Libertarian party get a candidate that doesn't make a complete ass of himself or act as a rogue runaway spouting his own ideals that are even too extreme for the Libertarian party? Every Libertarian candidate seems like Jerry Springer with a baseball bat. The principles of the Libertarian party fit my ideals 100% but I can't vote for someone that doesn't take representing a national or state-wide political party seriously. They always seem like their candidacy is too casual, a joke, or that it is cool or fun to be lax about the party itself. Then there is always the goofy or wild statements and out of the ordinary reactions (often similar to the goofy impassioned screech speech that killed Howard Dean's campaign). They'll get too euphoric, too eccentric, too emphatic, or too over the top and come off as a bloody moron with no professional composure or poise. Often, they seem like an off-the-street loud mouth. Even when they start off great, they get to the debate or up on podium and say something stupid like "I believe there should be no speed limits on any highway" or "I think LSD and Cocaine should be legal in all 50 states" which is often not what the national Libertarian party is shooting for; there is a big difference in wanting to legalize Marijuana as opposed to legalizing heroine or crack. The two are totally different, however, you get these Libertarian rogues that scream that ALL drugs should be legalized. When they do this, when they run on their own radical "throw caution to the wind" sound bites, it may be good for a few moments to draw on irreverence, but the rest of America is saying "What a nut-ball!" Such salacious statements only encourage the stereotype of Libertarians as wanting a completely lawless free-for-all while the average American is saying "No, I don't want a world that resembles a chaotic, fractured, bumper car mentality." The majority of America does not respond well to off the wall radical statements or comments, often worse than the wacky diatribes that come out of the looniest left liberals floating on a wave of LSD flashbacks. Many of these way-out ideas might work in rural areas or desolate areas, or places like Idaho, Colorado, or Oregon but few would be applicable for even the smallest suburbia let alone the majority of cities, including small ones like Flagstaff, Arizona or Youngstown, Ohio sized. The Republican party at one time was considered very similar to that which the Libertarian party represents. Instead, the Republican Party went and aligned itself too closely with the Christian right, and now they are seen as this uber-conservative group with secret societies of the rich. What a mistake. Democrats did the exact opposite, so now we are left with these two extremes in parties. Because of that, the Libertarian party could do so well to position itself in the middle on financial, tax, and government involvement, but retain their firm commitment to constitutional rights and honoring logical personal freedoms, but franchising the party better to get its members working as a whole to avoid this constant individualism among members painting their own picture of irrational lawlessness. Each candidate needs to review the ideals of the party, and not overstep the boundaries as considering their own radical imagination as being acceptable by all Libertarians. When these "out-there" individuals run amok, they seem intent on putting their own ideals as representative of the party, ideals which are often at the extreme ends of each of the other parties, so we are left with the image of a party that has extreme left views and extreme right views, many of those traits of which is what I do NOT want from either the Republicans or the Democrats. The Libertarian party could easily take the Presidency if we can get a candidate that speaks like JFK, wears a suit, tie, and integrity like Ronald Reagan, but has the ideals of personal freedom of Benjamin Franklin, while at the same time supporting the military views of someone like Norman Schwarzkopf (kick ass if we have to, but let’s step back and really look at the evidence and try to work it out before we do; and is there a better way to take out the guy we want removed rather than blowing up the whole damn country?). Hey, that’s me! Maybe I’ll run for politics as a Libertarian candidate! Naw, nevermind, I would probably say something too eccentric, too emphatic, or too over the top concerning the Second Amendment, like 6 year olds should be allowed to have CCW licenses and carry a gun to school after taking CCW training as a part of their gym class! One of the dumbest things in recent memory from the Libertarian party was the candidate running on legalizing horsemeat in food - the campaign slogan was "If we criminalize horsemeat, only criminals will be able to eat horsemeat". It became a national joke. |