Stock up.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nothing I've written is "antigun propaganda." I have a lot invested in my guns. I would be hurt very badly if the antigunners won.

I am trying to find a way to keep what I have. If you and others like you persist in stonewalling, we will all lose everything. As the wise Italian Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa said, “If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.”

History has proved time and time again that appeasement does not succeed in stopping those who seek more power. This quote says it best “I have a lot invested in MY guns.” How about joining in and saving the rights of EVERYONE?
 
Last edited:
Popular vote = "Tyranny of The Masses"
If gun rights have only minority support, it means that they're on their last legs. In the long run, we have to grow the pro-gun side until it represents the majority, or we're doomed.

The current Electoral College system disenfranchises the minority in most of the individual states. Why should a Republican in California, for example, bother to vote for president, when he knows his vote won't count? If there was a national popular vote, his vote would be worth the same as any other. As it is now, the only votes that matter are those in a handful of "swing" states.

The true defeatists in the gun debate are those who concede that the pro-gun side has a permanent minority status.
 
By counseling people to stock up (to buy more than their immediate needs), you are tacitly admitting that some form of further restrictions (perhaps less than outright confiscation) is coming.

Wow. That means that you are just as "defeatist" as I am !

I use coupons and look food that it is on sale. Using your reasoning I am admitting that mass shortages of food is coming.

You're from California. What good are all those pro-2A, pro-Trump votes there when the result is a foregone conclusion? Virginia is the same way.

Maybe we should consider a national popular vote for president, so all those millions of pro-2A votes won't be wasted.

So now you are complaining that Hillary should have won the election since she got the most popular vote. The Founding Fathers created the electoral college votes to stop the country from becoming what you want.
 
History has proved time and time again that appeasement does not succeed in stopping those who seek more power.
Timing is everything. We may be rapidly reaching the point where "appeasement" is irrelevant, and we get the worst of the worst shoved down our throats. At that point, it will be as if our house is on fire, and we are trying to save as many valuables as we can before it burns to the ground. Here in Virginia, we're going to be facing this as early as this November.

A lot of this could have been prevented. Years ago, the gun community could have done a better job of self-policing, so that the kooks could not so easily have gotten guns. It's too late to even discuss that now.
 
So now you are complaining that Hillary should have won the election since she got the most popular vote.
It's not clear that Hillary would have won if there was a national popular vote. For one thing, millions of Republicans in states like California, Illinois, and New York would have been encouraged to vote by knowing that their votes finally counted. Under the Electoral College system, and winner-take-all in most of the states, a lot of people are being effectively disenfranchised. The only voters that count are those in a handful of "swing" states. Surely this was not what was envisaged by the Founding Fathers.
 
The current Electoral College system disenfranchises the minority in most of the individual states. Why should a Republican in California, for example, bother to vote for president, when he knows his vote won't count? If there was a national popular vote, his vote would be worth the same as any other
Wow, not only are you anti-gun but anti-Constitution and anti-Bill of Rights too. Your words speak the truth about you.

if there was a national popular vote ... Surely this was not what was envisaged by the Founding Fathers.
The founding fathers of this great country set up a government where minority groups/states had EQUAL VOICE as majority groups/states. Electoral College ensures EQUAL VOICE to smallest of the states with smallest population as largest states with largest population and our Senate was set up to give EQUAL VOICE to ALL states large and small.

And instead of the founding fathers choosing a pure Democracy where the will of the majority can be imposed on the minority, the founding fathers chose a Constitutional Republic with Bill of Rights to ensure the will of the majority cannot be imposed on the rights of the minority as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Having just freed themselves from the oppressive British rule, the founding fathers wanted to make sure an oppressive government could not impose on the citizens and we have the First Amendment to speak out against oppressive government and we have the Second Amendment to ensure the First Amendment can be sustained and we have the Third Amendment, and so on.

Our fight for gun rights should be viewed in same light as blacks fighting for freedom, equal treatment and voting rights. Yes, blacks were the minority with the white majority wanting to impose their will on the black minority. Now we have the majority of the population sentiment and oppressive anti-gun/2A law makers wanting to impose their will on minority gun owners' rights. Constitutional Republic, Electoral College, the Senate, Bill of Rights, etc. were all set up to protect the rights of the minority groups like blacks. women, disabled, LGBTQ and yes, even gun owners.

Gun owners' desire to be free to own firearms, enjoy their hobbies and sporting activities, and to share with their families and significant others is the same as what other minority groups desired, fought for AND WON.

Years ago, the gun community could have done a better job of self-policing, so that the kooks could not so easily have gotten guns. It's too late to even discuss that now.
No. No. No.

The anti gun/2A crowd and law makers could stop imposing their will on the minority gun owners' rights.

Since our legislative branch of the government and executive branch of past presidencies have failed to protect and preserve the constitutional rights of the minority gun owners, we now look to the judicial branch of the government to determine the WILL of the antis and anti gun/2A law makers they want to IMPOSE on the RIGHTS of the gun owners to be ruled "unconstitutional" AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN. Just in case you haven't noticed, The SCOTUS has started to rule in favor of gun owners and will be hearing many many gun rights/2A cases in the near future :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...lated-information.849620/page-6#post-11208355

And this is why we need to vote for Trump in 2020 as EVERY Democrat candidate has made it loud and clear that they will push for more gun control laws to work towards confiscation and ban
. I believe Trump will win the 2020 election to benefit rigths of the gun owners (And why the antis and anti gun/2A law makers are foaming at their mouths going ape crazy trying to remove him from presidency as his re-election will ensure more federal court judge and SCOTUS justice appointments).

So here are your words again and mine. Are you sure you are a supporter of gun rights/2A? To me, it sure does not look like it.
Maybe we should consider a national popular vote for president
Heck no. Once again, why are you sounding like anti-gun? Stop supporting the antis!

Popular Vote = Democracy where the WILL of the majority CAN be imposed on the RIGHTS of the minority.

Electoral College = Constitutional Republic where the WILL of the majority CANNOT BE imposed on the RIGHTS of the minority.
 
Last edited:
I believe in democracy, and apparently you don't
I believe in "democracy".

I don't support democracy as "form of government" and I support Constitutional Republic as form of government which sure benefits the minority interests and ensures minority rights as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Once again, in case you didn't get it:

Popular Vote = Democracy where the WILL of the majority CAN be imposed on the RIGHTS of the minority.

Electoral College = Constitutional Republic where the WILL of the majority CANNOT BE imposed on the RIGHTS of the minority.
 
It's not clear that Hillary would have won if there was a national popular vote. For one thing, millions of Republicans in states like California, Illinois, and New York would have been encouraged to vote by knowing that their votes finally counted. Under the Electoral College system, and winner-take-all in most of the states, a lot of people are being effectively disenfranchised. The only voters that count are those in a handful of "swing" states. Surely this was not what was envisaged by the Founding Fathers.

o/t The electoral college was derived from the late medieval ideas of electing the Holy Roman Emperor (who was neither Roman nor in most cases Holy) which came about because of the more secular minded leaders did not want to rely on being picked by the pope as the secular defender of the faith. The Electors (principalities in Germany/Austria) plus certain key religious officials in the RCC, would cast that state's (or church office in the case of church officials) vote for Holy Roman Emperor. Thus, the electorate were the states that could vote and the electors were for the most part princes of a particular principality. Democracy was never in the equation here.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Imperial_election

NPV would horrify most of the Founding Fathers as when it was discussed at the convention, it attracted little support but much derision. While the Anti-Federalists criticized the Constitution quite a bit, the electoral college method of choosing was not a concern for most. If anything, the Anti-Federalists would have been even more opposed had the Presidency not been selected among the states rather than by the people.

Then, as of now, the regional differences in outlooks and desired policies made such a thing much more likely to bring about secession and conflict rather than unification. Remember the Founders were all about checks and balances and the mixed nature of government primarily because of the experiences during and after the Revolution plus their deep studies on the histories of governments and republics. For the most part, true democracies have stability problems unless the nation is small and homogeneous in its population.

A popular vote can work in a nation that is basically homogeneous because of willingness to admit defeat by the losing party because of slight differences in opinion by the population of what is desired and needed among the population. Elected officials then work out the smaller differences in opinion. When one side wants the other dead or oppressed based on ethnicity/race/religion/party, no so much. One of the causes of the Civil War was the breakdown in the party systems with the Whig party fading away and Lincoln's election coming from Northern anti-slavery states despite winning with only a plurality of the vote. Southerners had no reason to trust Lincoln who was an avowed opponent of slavery and Northerners felt that Southerners were trying to spread slavery throughout the nation. The compromise candidates split up the vote and Lincoln was elected by a plurality.

Most countries using NPV in areas with deep religious or ethnic divisions look at victory as a chance to oppress others and defeat as leading to oppression by the winning party. You also see presidential tickets reflecting this division. With NPV, there is little to no reason for an outside candidate to use a party mechanism so you could very well have multiple candidates such as 1860 or the election of 1824. If no ticket gets a majority either means you select a president that a majority voted against (no runoff), or you have the House of Representatives select the President which would also be controversial because they vote by state and it would require a constitutional amendment to change this procedure. Delaware's vote then would become the same as California's. The folks pushing NPV think that it would advantage Democrats over Republicans and avoid the difficult job of building consensus to change the Constitution when it would actually destabilize the country.

Nigeria is a case in point with three major ethnic groups and serious problems in unifying under a president. Liberia another, Lebanon yet another despite a more radical power sharing agreement in place and so on. France seems to be heading that way with serious internal religious/ethnic divisions and large policy splits between the urban and rural folks that are difficult to reconcile in the end-to some degree that may be why they are clinging to the EU so strongly because they fear future internal disorder.

There is a reason that parliamentary systems are more successful outside the U.S. on stability in diverse states because it allows the leader to be picked behind the scenes as prime minister as part of bargaining among parties in Parliament and the role of the President is constrained with few powers granted and designed to represent the nation as a substitute elected king. Federalism and the separation of powers/selection mechanisms do the same here. In a parliamentary system, it is also more difficult for someone to become dictator because the levers of power are spread about and the majority usually has to bargain internally and externally among MP's to get power. Most have an upper house of sorts that also serve as a check on the popularly elected House such as Canada. For this reason, I suspect that Erdogan's promotion of himself from Prime Minister to President plus removing the constitutional checks on the President will cause Turkey some regret in the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top