The difference between Republicans and Democrats . . .

[jhetley]

. . . lies mainly in which rights they think we can get along just fine without. 

The other side of the coin, counterpoint to all the unconstitutional excesses of the Bush Debacle:  Gun shops experiencing an uptick in sales, in the face of a bad economy.

http://www.bangornews.com/detail/92892.html

" . . . shall not be infringed."

Comments

Response split due to comment length limit (1 of 2)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I am very uncomfortable with the kind of gun-nut extremism which claims that any regulation on gun purchase and/or use constitutes "infringement".

The problem here is that we "gun nut extremists" have learned that if you give the gun control lobby and the Democratic Party an inch, they will take a mile. In their minds, a "reasonable compromise" is one in which, instead of taking away all of our Second Amendment rights today, they take half today and let us keep the other half until tomorrow. Dianne Feinstein has gone on record as saying — and I quote, verbatim — "If I had the votes there in Congress, it'd be 'Turn them in, Mr. and Mrs. America, every last one.'" Barack Obama, when asked if he planned to confiscate firearms from law-abiding Americans, did not say "No"; he said, "The votes aren't there."
I'll leave it to you to figure out what that answer most likely means if he thought the votes were there — which he may well now think, after this election. But I'll point out that in the Illinois legislature he voted in favor of a bill to totally ban all handguns in the State of Illinois; that before being elected to the Illinois legislature, he stated on a poll that he was in favor of confiscating firearms from Illinois citizens; and that since he reached the US Senate, out of eight bills impacting firearms law, he voted for more gun control seven times.
(The eighth was a vote on gun confiscation in the immediate aftermath of the huge public outcry over the City of New Orleans illegally seizing firearms after Hurricane Katrina, and a vote in favor of confiscation would have been political suicide as far as future Presidential candidacy was concerned. So in that one case, he was willing to put his own personal political career goals ahead of his established principles. And we elected this guy?)

Re: Response split due to comment length limit (1 of 2)

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

And we elected this guy?

Yes, dammit, we did, by a wider margin than Bush ever got. And I'm going to shoot right back at you what the Republicans were saying to us after 2004: if you don't like it, you can find somewhere else to live.

Re: Response split due to comment length limit (1 of 2)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yes, dammit, we did, by a wider margin than Bush ever got.

If I were inclined to do so, I might take that as uncomfortably close to damning Obama by faint praise.

And I'm going to shoot right back at you what the Republicans were saying to us after 2004: if you don't like it, you can find somewhere else to live.

Some Republicans. Some Democrats are saying the same now. There will always be asshats.

Re: Response split due to comment length limit (1 of 2)

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

Sorry. I really shouldn't post to LJ when I'm that hungry.

A more reasoned response: Yes, we did elect him, despite the steady drumbeat of Republican scare-talking-points, of which "OMG he'll take all your guns away!" was only the first of many. And I seriously doubt that all the votes cast against Obama were made on the basis of his (real or perceived) position on guns.

This suggests to me rather strongly that there are a LOT of people who are more concerned about issues like being able to keep a roof over their heads for the rest of their lives than about hypothetical gun-ban scares -- and probably also a number who were willing to think, "Deal with the major issues now, and with that one if and when it happens." Just because that issue is the most important one in the universe to you personally doesn't mean that it is to everyone... nor that it should be.

Re: Response split due to comment length limit (1 of 2)

[cymrullewes.livejournal.com]

And I seriously doubt that all the votes cast against Obama

See, that bothers me. If one didn't vote for Obama it is automatically a vote against him?

I voted for Ron Paul. I did NOT vote against Obama nor McCain. (I'd be willing to consider that it was 15% a vote against Biden and Palin, however. Those two scare me.)

Re: Response split due to comment length limit (1 of 2)

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

This strikes me as hair-splitting. When you cast your vote in favor of one person, you are automatically casting it against anyone else running, simply because you didn't like them enough to vote for them. This is another concept which has been severely tainted by the Republican regime; too many people now equate "voting against X" with "anyone but X", and it's not necessarily that strong.

Re: Response split due to comment length limit (1 of 2)

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure she is splitting hairs. Or hares . . .

It's been a long time since I saw a candidate that I could vote _for_. This time around, I was most assuredly voting _against_ Gov. Palin. That "one heartbeat" thing.

Re: Response split due to comment length limit (1 of 2)

[cymrullewes.livejournal.com]

No, I'm not splitting hairs.

You make my brain hurt. I don't see voting as being against the other candidates. That's a fallacy the Demolicans/Republicrats have pushed on the voters.

It's the "Vote for the lesser of two evils" concept. As Alaric says, "That's still voting for evil."

You like two candidates equally so you flip a coin to decide who you are voting for. Does that mean you don't like the person who lost your coin toss anymore or not as much as you did before you flipped the coin?

Re: Response split due to comment length limit (1 of 2)

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

"Vote Cthulu. Why settle for the lesser evil?"