smoking357
Banned
imported post
Flintlock wrote:
Flintlock wrote:
Statements of logical rectitude are not based in opinion.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Should gun owners abandon the Republican Party?
- Thread starter Minneapolis Gun Rights Examiner
- Start date
Flintlock
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
Again, I should not have lopped you into the same catagory as other posters, whether I disagree with your view on the matteror not.
There is always progress to be made (even here)and just because I live in Alaska doesn't mean that I am not active in trying to help out in other areas of the country. I will not be satisfied until we have totally unrestricted open and concealed carry of handguns and long guns in the United States.
I was not trying to make any comparisons, just pointing out that for you or others to have a stance on voting that you have, I would like to know what exactly you are doing to change the issues you don't like not only in your area, but in the country as you are not letting your voice be heard at the ballot box.
marshaul wrote:
I am not an anarchist at all. I believe in a society that has the rule of law, but I believe that should be much more limited than today's rule of law.
Again, I should not have lopped you into the same catagory as other posters, whether I disagree with your view on the matteror not.
Perhaps you may have misunderstood what I was saying, I am not sure. To repeatwhat I said in my previous post, I believe those that don't vote lose credibility when they are so "politically active" on the internet. Just my opinion.
There is always progress to be made (even here)and just because I live in Alaska doesn't mean that I am not active in trying to help out in other areas of the country. I will not be satisfied until we have totally unrestricted open and concealed carry of handguns and long guns in the United States.
I was not trying to make any comparisons, just pointing out that for you or others to have a stance on voting that you have, I would like to know what exactly you are doing to change the issues you don't like not only in your area, but in the country as you are not letting your voice be heard at the ballot box.
Flintlock
Regular Member
imported post
smoking357 wrote:
However, a stance of not-voting may be presented logically, but it is not rectitude. It is opinion just the same.
smoking357 wrote:
True.
However, a stance of not-voting may be presented logically, but it is not rectitude. It is opinion just the same.
Flintlock
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
The fact of the matter is this: Most of your posts are off-topic as is this one. I try to stay away from them as much as possible but sometimes I will chime in. I am not afraid to "argue" with you Stylez but in all seriousness,I find that I don't often have to do so as your posts usually do the job for me.
You spin around in circles and no matter how much fact someone presents you with, you destroy a threadwith futile attempts to destory the credibility of the fact source.
It is normally a waist of time posting with you.
AWDstylez wrote:
This is simply not true but I am not going to go back and research all the posts to prove you wrong once again.
I never claimed I know so much. It is you that are the one charging the membership with being idiots and extremists and are trying to teach each poster, one at a time.
The fact of the matter is this: Most of your posts are off-topic as is this one. I try to stay away from them as much as possible but sometimes I will chime in. I am not afraid to "argue" with you Stylez but in all seriousness,I find that I don't often have to do so as your posts usually do the job for me.
You spin around in circles and no matter how much fact someone presents you with, you destroy a threadwith futile attempts to destory the credibility of the fact source.
It is normally a waist of time posting with you.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Well, I have rather limited means. I do what seems reasonable within those means. I'm not sure what more there is to do. I go to OC events when they come around, I advocate gun rights whenever appropriate, take new shooters to the range, donate a few dollars here and there to various 2A causes. It's not earth-shattering, but it seems like I influence more people than my vote ever could. It's small change, but it adds up.
I do think that posting on a forum is better than nothing. Look at OCDO. What we have here is a great resource of legal information, philosophical discussion and political debate. And what is OCDO? Mostly, it's a forum: mere amalgamation of individuals' meager contributions.
But people come here and learn new ideas all the time. And sometimes, they are influenced by discussions I contribute to, or even my own ideas directly from my own posts. Every time I receive a PM from a new member, saying something like,
"You know, I haven't even posted yet, but I've been lurking for a while and reading about X, and I have to say, I never really thought about it like that before, but I totally like what you have to say and agree with your analysis, so I registered to say so!",
I know that A: OCDO has a new member, and B: there are probably 10 more people who saw that post and gleaned something from it, but didn't bother to sign up to tell me so. And I've gotten a couple dozen such commendations here, with more than a couple from new members.
So, posting on a forum can have value. Don't discredit the spreading of ideas. In some ways, that's the ultimate cause of any societal change.
As for voting, I'm not sure how it adds to all that -- whether or not I otherwise do "enough". However, I will say that the day California has a referendum, "Shall California become a libertarian state, where government is only concerned with aggression and all rights are respected regardless of popularity?", I will be sure to vote "YES".
Well, I have rather limited means. I do what seems reasonable within those means. I'm not sure what more there is to do. I go to OC events when they come around, I advocate gun rights whenever appropriate, take new shooters to the range, donate a few dollars here and there to various 2A causes. It's not earth-shattering, but it seems like I influence more people than my vote ever could. It's small change, but it adds up.
I do think that posting on a forum is better than nothing. Look at OCDO. What we have here is a great resource of legal information, philosophical discussion and political debate. And what is OCDO? Mostly, it's a forum: mere amalgamation of individuals' meager contributions.
But people come here and learn new ideas all the time. And sometimes, they are influenced by discussions I contribute to, or even my own ideas directly from my own posts. Every time I receive a PM from a new member, saying something like,
"You know, I haven't even posted yet, but I've been lurking for a while and reading about X, and I have to say, I never really thought about it like that before, but I totally like what you have to say and agree with your analysis, so I registered to say so!",
I know that A: OCDO has a new member, and B: there are probably 10 more people who saw that post and gleaned something from it, but didn't bother to sign up to tell me so. And I've gotten a couple dozen such commendations here, with more than a couple from new members.
So, posting on a forum can have value. Don't discredit the spreading of ideas. In some ways, that's the ultimate cause of any societal change.
As for voting, I'm not sure how it adds to all that -- whether or not I otherwise do "enough". However, I will say that the day California has a referendum, "Shall California become a libertarian state, where government is only concerned with aggression and all rights are respected regardless of popularity?", I will be sure to vote "YES".
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Flintlock wrote:
Too classic. You're a funny guy, even though you don't intent to be.
Flintlock wrote:
Too classic. You're a funny guy, even though you don't intent to be.
R a Z o R
Banned
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
:what:President Al Gore :lol:
:what:President John Heinz Kerry :lol:
hehehe hehe hehe hehe hehe
:monkeyJohn Edwards would have been HEINZ's VP :what::what:
AWDstylez wrote:
:what:President Al Gore :lol:
:what:President John Heinz Kerry :lol:
hehehe hehe hehe hehe hehe
:monkeyJohn Edwards would have been HEINZ's VP :what::what:
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Threads like this are so much fun.
> First off, let's analyze this argument:
"If you donot vote, than you have no moral ground on which to criticize the government."
That is absolutely false. You have a right to free speech regardless of who you vote for, or don't vote for, even if you choose not to vote at all. The Right of Conscience is your birthright, choosing not to vote is, in fact, protected by that very right, as well as an expression of it.
Speaking your mind, of course, is a natural right. If I choose not to vote, I can still complain when they raise my taxes or confiscate my guns, on the grounds that regardless of the outcome of any election, taking my property is a violation of my rights.
Democracy does not equal Liberty
> Second, to address the question in the title of this thread, "Should gun onwers abandon the Republican Party?":
My answer is, "No, not completely, just as we should not abandon the Democrat Party completely".
I do not believe in party loyalty. We need to keep our eye on the ball: liberty.
The Republican Party leadership is not our friend. It's a cabal of cynical politicians who want to gain power and win elections, just like the DP leaders. Do not deceive yourself into thinking one's worse or better than the other all the time. We should manipulate both parties as required to obtain the desired result. Get them both to pander to our cause; reward them when they enhance freedom and punish them when they don't.
An effective activist can't get mixed up with a particular party, lest the party manipulate you.
Edit to add: Third Parties are the same, including the Libertarian and Constitution Parties. I count myself as a "libertarian" for the most part, but not a member of the circus of egos known as the LP, which is just as nasty when it comes to politics as any other group of wannabe bosses.
Threads like this are so much fun.
> First off, let's analyze this argument:
"If you donot vote, than you have no moral ground on which to criticize the government."
That is absolutely false. You have a right to free speech regardless of who you vote for, or don't vote for, even if you choose not to vote at all. The Right of Conscience is your birthright, choosing not to vote is, in fact, protected by that very right, as well as an expression of it.
Speaking your mind, of course, is a natural right. If I choose not to vote, I can still complain when they raise my taxes or confiscate my guns, on the grounds that regardless of the outcome of any election, taking my property is a violation of my rights.
Democracy does not equal Liberty
> Second, to address the question in the title of this thread, "Should gun onwers abandon the Republican Party?":
My answer is, "No, not completely, just as we should not abandon the Democrat Party completely".
I do not believe in party loyalty. We need to keep our eye on the ball: liberty.
The Republican Party leadership is not our friend. It's a cabal of cynical politicians who want to gain power and win elections, just like the DP leaders. Do not deceive yourself into thinking one's worse or better than the other all the time. We should manipulate both parties as required to obtain the desired result. Get them both to pander to our cause; reward them when they enhance freedom and punish them when they don't.
An effective activist can't get mixed up with a particular party, lest the party manipulate you.
Edit to add: Third Parties are the same, including the Libertarian and Constitution Parties. I count myself as a "libertarian" for the most part, but not a member of the circus of egos known as the LP, which is just as nasty when it comes to politics as any other group of wannabe bosses.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
I would like to add mine, though.
My standing to complainhinges on whether the government adheres to founding principles--whether government operates from a healthy respect for all my rights.
The only distinction I might make in Tomahawk's analysis is that I would separate two things just a bit.
Demanding the government recognize and respect all conscience is primarily to protect us from government--can't trust government with the power to say whose ideas are valid and whose are not, etc.
But that is a little different from expecting the rest of us to recognize and respect all conscience. Especially when it turns into speech. To do so would include letting destructive ideas and speech run unopposedly rampant.
TheFramers did not give usthe First Amendmentto protect the destructive personalities and their ideas. To say so would be to say that the Framers want destructive personalities to have equal chance to tear down society as fast as the social people built it up. This is of course absurd. The framers gave us the 1A to protect conscience from government. That it protects destructive people is incidental, and was judged less harmful than letting government decide whose conscience to suppress.
So, given the validity of founding principles,if my conscience aligns with founding principles and the government does not, I have standing to complain, regardless of whether I voted.
Tomahawk wrote:
Very good points, 'Hawk. Even more fundamental than mine.
I would like to add mine, though.
My standing to complainhinges on whether the government adheres to founding principles--whether government operates from a healthy respect for all my rights.
The only distinction I might make in Tomahawk's analysis is that I would separate two things just a bit.
Demanding the government recognize and respect all conscience is primarily to protect us from government--can't trust government with the power to say whose ideas are valid and whose are not, etc.
But that is a little different from expecting the rest of us to recognize and respect all conscience. Especially when it turns into speech. To do so would include letting destructive ideas and speech run unopposedly rampant.
TheFramers did not give usthe First Amendmentto protect the destructive personalities and their ideas. To say so would be to say that the Framers want destructive personalities to have equal chance to tear down society as fast as the social people built it up. This is of course absurd. The framers gave us the 1A to protect conscience from government. That it protects destructive people is incidental, and was judged less harmful than letting government decide whose conscience to suppress.
So, given the validity of founding principles,if my conscience aligns with founding principles and the government does not, I have standing to complain, regardless of whether I voted.
redlegagent
Regular Member
imported post
Yes, the constituion provides you with the right of free speech and under that right the decision to withhold your vote in protest is validated. Never the less, the right to criticize something does not in itself lend credibility to your stance in the eyes of others - your lack of meaningful participation in maintaining our system of government - i.e. voting - can be viewed as less constructive as you choose to merely complain without offering any substantive recourse. For you people out there who see our government out of control, you must consider this - The Constituition grants congress the power under Article 1 -
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Additionally - Article 5 grants that - "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;"
My point is the Founding Fathers recognized that changes would need to made and made provisions for that - The Constitution is not necessarily set in "stone" - it can be changed if the majority agrees. Government is authorized to make new laws but these laws can also be changed - either through the legislative process or by removing the existing congress by voting them out. If you don't like the way things are running, then make your presence known by participating in the process - voting and pushing for reasonable restraint. Sitting back and feeling sorry for yourself and complaining solves nothing.
Yes, the constituion provides you with the right of free speech and under that right the decision to withhold your vote in protest is validated. Never the less, the right to criticize something does not in itself lend credibility to your stance in the eyes of others - your lack of meaningful participation in maintaining our system of government - i.e. voting - can be viewed as less constructive as you choose to merely complain without offering any substantive recourse. For you people out there who see our government out of control, you must consider this - The Constituition grants congress the power under Article 1 -
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Additionally - Article 5 grants that - "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;"
My point is the Founding Fathers recognized that changes would need to made and made provisions for that - The Constitution is not necessarily set in "stone" - it can be changed if the majority agrees. Government is authorized to make new laws but these laws can also be changed - either through the legislative process or by removing the existing congress by voting them out. If you don't like the way things are running, then make your presence known by participating in the process - voting and pushing for reasonable restraint. Sitting back and feeling sorry for yourself and complaining solves nothing.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
redlegagent wrote:
Wrong. Try again.
My rights do not come from a piece of paper, anymore than they count on my participation in a democracyritual.
redlegagent wrote:
Wrong. Try again.
My rights do not come from a piece of paper, anymore than they count on my participation in a democracyritual.
smoking357
Banned
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Sadly, the gun community is invaded by so many Liberty haters who believe freedom is a grant of the government.
One another gun board, I said:
Originally Posted bysmoking357
Liberty is found innaturallaw, not in the BOR. The BOR memorialized a few examples of Liberty, but only a smattering.I was told:
Tomahawk wrote:
Great post, T-hawk. You've really been rocking this thread.
Sadly, the gun community is invaded by so many Liberty haters who believe freedom is a grant of the government.
One another gun board, I said:
Originally Posted bysmoking357
Liberty is found innaturallaw, not in the BOR. The BOR memorialized a few examples of Liberty, but only a smattering.I was told:
Gun owners are the greatest enemy that real gun owners face.
redlegagent
Regular Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
I rest my case. If you are "above" the law of the land, then you are not part of the system - hence you are squatters. You exist in the realm of your betters who maintain the system of government that provides you with a place to live until the "majority" - the true owners of this land root you out.The beauty of this is you do it yourselves - like suicide. You cut yourselves out of society until you become irrelevent and wither on the vine.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
smoking357 wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
Dammit, gotta get the dictionary again.
smoking357
Banned
imported post
redlegagent wrote:
T-hawk is pretty bright. Read before contradicting him, then read, again, if you still fell like doing it.
redlegagent wrote:
The "law of the land" is first, the natural law. Laws of man cannot be against the law.Tomahawk wrote:I rest my case. If you are "above" the law of the land, then you are not part of the system
T-hawk is pretty bright. Read before contradicting him, then read, again, if you still fell like doing it.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
smoking357 wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
Yep. That is my practice when it comes to Tomahawk's posts. No joke.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
redlegagent wrote:
Edit: Or should be astounding, at any rate. Truthfully, it's all too common. That's why we've become a nation of subjects, though.
redlegagent wrote:
It's too bad you never had a chance to study civics. Or philosophy. Or much of anything. The disconnect evidenced by your post is truly astounding.Tomahawk wrote:I rest my case. If you are "above" the law of the land, then you are not part of the system - hence you are squatters. You exist in the realm of your betters who maintain the system of government that provides you with a place to live until the "majority" - the true owners of this land root you out. The beauty of this is you do it yourselves - like suicide. You cut yourselves out of society until you become irrelevent and wither on the vine.
Edit: Or should be astounding, at any rate. Truthfully, it's all too common. That's why we've become a nation of subjects, though.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Citizen wrote:
I'm fairly certain I have yet to contradict Tomahawk. Not that I have any pressing desire to start, or anything.
longwatch
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
redlegagent wrote:
redlegagent wrote:
You sorely need to read the Declaration today.Tomahawk wrote:I rest my case. If you are "above" the law of the land, then you are not part of the system - hence you are squatters. You exist in the realm of your betters who maintain the system of government that provides you with a place to live until the "majority" - the true owners of this land root you out.The beauty of this is you do it yourselves - like suicide. You cut yourselves out of society until you become irrelevent and wither on the vine.
redlegagent
Regular Member
imported post
I've read the constitution. I'm just realistic. If it were set in stone, the framers wouldn't have made provisions for the majority to make changes. Never the less. for all you libertarians and modern day whigs and the fringe of the fringe who constantly bemoan why the rest of the country - i.e. that pesky majority - just can't see things your way so they must be out of step - I have a song for you. Civil liberties are importantand their loss is the result of people not participating in the process which created them. Natural law is nothing more than a codeword foranarchy. Civil laws are the byproduct of a organized society and don't spring up from the ground. Laws are created by man and can be changed by man. If you don't want them changed, then make your presence known via the system provided - vote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKn6h2x5IcY
I've read the constitution. I'm just realistic. If it were set in stone, the framers wouldn't have made provisions for the majority to make changes. Never the less. for all you libertarians and modern day whigs and the fringe of the fringe who constantly bemoan why the rest of the country - i.e. that pesky majority - just can't see things your way so they must be out of step - I have a song for you. Civil liberties are importantand their loss is the result of people not participating in the process which created them. Natural law is nothing more than a codeword foranarchy. Civil laws are the byproduct of a organized society and don't spring up from the ground. Laws are created by man and can be changed by man. If you don't want them changed, then make your presence known via the system provided - vote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKn6h2x5IcY