Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
By Chad D. Baus wrote:
From signing onto an amicus brief in support of the individual right to own firearms to attending the NRA Annual Meetings, Republican presidential nominee John McCain is doing everything he can to help America's gun owners forget his past decade of work opposing gun rights.
He glosses over McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" legislation, once referred to by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre as "the dirtiest, stinkingest assault on freedom I've ever seen" by saying "I can assure you that my motivation in this effort was directed at these out-of-control amounts of 'soft money' that seeped into federal campaigns — not a desire to restrict the ability of gun owners or any other group of citizens from making their voices heard in the legislative process." (as though being an unintended consequence somehow makes the loss of our free-speech rights any less of an issue).
He glosses over McCain-Leiberman legislation aimed at closing the non-existent gun show "loophole" by saying "I also oppose efforts to require federal regulation of all private sales such as a transfer between a father and son or husband and wife." (yes, this is code-speak for 'I still support efforts that would end private sale of guns at guns shows and likely lead to the end of gun shows altogether').
And now, even as he attempted to gloss over prior statements that he could support an assault weapons ban, depending on the details, he has repeated his belief that there may be a way an assault weapons ban could be drawn that could win his support!
From an Outdoor Life magazine:
OL: The Assault Weapons Ban-- you voted against it. But you also said you might be open to voting for an assault weapons ban, depending on the details. Do you know any details that would support that argument?
McCain: No, because a lot of these are weapons that people use for sport, for practice and for enjoyment- outdoor enjoyment. So no, I don't see a scenario where that would be the case. I'm sure maybe we could draw one. But the danger of an assault weapons ban spilling into weapons that people would use for everyday hunting is, I think, the challenge.
"No, I don't see a scenario where " but "I'm sure maybe we could draw one."
Glad we cleared that one up.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws "first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.
[sarcasm on] Still it's a lot better than this hogwash:
"More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose 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 the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying “That could never happen here, this is Americaâ€
“We, as a group, now have a greater moral responsibility to act than those who live in ignorance, once you become knowledgeable you have an obligation to do something about it.” Ron Paul
I think McCain gets it, Obama gets it, and The Witch gets its it. They're just pawns in the game, and they will obey their masters just as soon as they get in the office. Presidents don't dream up gun banning, I don't believe that any of them deeply desire to take guns. But their bosses want them taken away, and I fear their time has come to really bear down on this fundamental right we know is so central to everything else we believe in. So whomever gets the office, is going to be required by their unseen masters, to go after gun rights. Just my personal belief, not worth much.
To hell with them fellas, buzzards gotta eat same as the worms.
Outlaw Josey Wales
McCain is making it harder and harder for me to pinch my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. If the stakes weren't so darn high, I'd rather send a loud and clear message to the GOP that they strayed from the limited government conservative roots and it is going to cost them!
With the SCOTUS vacancies coming up, I'd rather bet on a remote chance than a no chance at all...
Ysabel Kid wrote:...With the SCOTUS vacancies coming up, I'd rather bet on a remote chance than a no chance at all...
I think the SCOTUS thing is overblown.
The "Justices" that are most likely to retire/die are already the most Liberal on the court.
If they get replaced with Liberals it's a net wash.
THe Republocrats are unlikely to hold a Majority in either House, so even if McChurian gets in a genuinely Conservative/Liberty minded strict constructionist WON'T get out of the Judical Hearings. Period. McChurian will HAVE to nominate someone that the Democraps approve of... i.e. a Liberal, which is exactly the same thing an Osnoba nominee will be.
The Whitehouse is a Lost Race, and will be unless enough people vote Paul &/or Barr to overcome the Big Gooberment Twins.
The only change possible MIGHT be in 2010 with another "Contract with America" sweep... assuming the Riots that will begin in 2009 when the Gooberment shuts off the People's old TVs and they haven't had enough money - even with the Gooberment handouts/vouchers - to afford a new one don't "force" the DemocrapicRepublican't admin to declare martial law... "temporairly", and for our own safety...
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough. מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976 Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
!
.***
