This is from a local gun shop in town.. think it sums it up best :)
Posted on 09/12/2008 8:06:36 AM PDT by corbie
Okay, I agree, it’s an odious choice, and thanks to the media and our two-party system, we have to make a difficult decision. But your freedom and your right to bear arms are in the balance. If you stay home, or vote the way your union tells you to, or vote for “change,” you will get screwed in a place you will find very uncomfortable. Let me explain why.
The two contenders are Barack Obama and John McCain. McCain has not always, admittedly, been the best friend of American gun owners.
Obama, on the other hand, has a long, documented, and consistent record of being the legitimate gun owner’s worst enemy.
Let’s look at his record: Obama wants to bring back the failed Clinton Gun Ban; Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership; Obama supports local gun bans, such as the one recently vacated by the Supreme Court; Obama supports owner licensing and gun registration, and opposes Right to Carry laws; Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within five miles of a school or park, and wants to ban the manufacture and sale of inexpensive handguns; Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping, mandatory waiting periods, and one-gun-a month sales restrictions. And that’s just a sample. When Obama was campaigning in the “fly-over states,” he posed as a friend of hunters, although he would not go so far as to put on hunting garb, a la Kerry. Then in front of wealthy California urbanites, he spoke of those same middle-American folk as “clinging to guns and religion” because they were embittered by the economy. Now, Obama’s supporters would probably say that he was simply tailoring his message to the specific audience. From a more jaundiced perspective, he’s a phony, elitist a$$hole.
McCain troubles me, but not as much as Obama does. John McCain has pushed through legislation that would make it illegal for an organization such as the NRA to air advertising critical of a candidate prior to an election. He has argued for legislation to “close-the-gun-show loophole,” whatever that is. On the positive side, McCain has supported gun owners on Emergency Powers (as in the New Orleans gun-seizure outrage) and on the firearms industry lawsuit preemption. He was against Ted Kennedy’s proposed ammunition ban, against the initial Clinton Gun Ban and subsequent attempts at its renewal, against government-funded “gun buybacks,” against the hi-cap magazine import ban, and against mandated waiting periods. McCain opposed the Brady Bill, and has spoken out in favor of hunting in the Mohave National Monument. McCain might not be your first choice as President of the NRA, but as President of the United States, he would be a far more acceptable choice for gun owners than Obama. How about a third-party candidate? Don’t even go there. Remember Ross Perot and Ralph Nader? They pulled enough votes to spoil the chances of Republican and Democrat candidates respectively.
One might well argue that a President does not have unlimited powers; that the House and the Senate and the Supreme Court will serve to protect us from a presidential gun grab. The House and Senate right now have a Democrat majority, with every indication that it will stay that way or even get more slanted toward the Democrats in the coming election. And with just a few exceptions, Democrat politicians are not friendly to gun owners.
How about the Supreme Court? On June 25, 2008, the Supreme Court, by a one-vote, five-four margin, allowed for a very limited interpretation of the Second Amendment as an individual right. If, God forbid, Barack Obama were President, and a vacancy came up on the Court, whom do you think he’d appoint? Hillary Clinton? Charles Schumer? Odds are, his appointee would make Ruth Bader Ginsburg look like a conservative! I don’t know about you, but I’d feel much more confident if it were John McCain making the choice. John McCain has made it quite clear that his choices for the Supreme Court would be strict constitutionalists.
We gun owners have mortal enemies not only in this country, but especially abroad. And representing gun-grabbers worldwide is the United Nations, a cancerous growth located in New York City. The U.N. has long sought to bring the United States into its campaign to restrict small arms sales and ownership worldwide. That scheme was quashed, for the time being, by President Bush and our erstwhile U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton. But all bets are off if Obama gets into the White House. He has stated his admiration for international law on many an occasion. And make no mistake about it, the U.N.’s brand of international law is in direct conflict with our Second Amendment rights. Would U.S. armed forces actually try, under U.N. direction, to take guns away from American citizens? They wouldn’t have to; the U.N. could and happily would send in foreign troops to accomplish that task.
Eight years ago, I wrote an article entitled “If you don’t vote like a gun owner…you suck!” It was harshly worded, and it got people’s attention. And perhaps it made a difference in keeping a liberal, anti-gun bloviator out of the White House. Today, we’re faced with an even more toxic threat to our First Freedom. Please, for the sake of all that’s holy, go to the polls and vote for John McCain. He’s not perfect by a long shot, but the alternative is a disarmed America under a socialist, one-world dictatorship.
Tight dress? Check.
M134? Check.
You have good taste for a New Yorker. 8^)
I hear ya.
Those aren’t the only two choices.
Peter doesn’t seem bright enough to understand just what exactly it is that guns do.
Absolutely correct, but do you want those replaced by 4 young liberals who will be on the court the next 30 years???? That will keep the 2nd Amendment and our Constitution on the harry edge of extinction for several more decades. We just loaded the court we a couple young conservatives, and have a huge age advantage. We have two liberal justices hanging on by a thread, letting them be replaced by young ACLU types is not a solution. The balance may not change by letting Obama replace them, but the age factor is huge. A chance to replace rapid liberals with at least a moderate swing vote, is an opportunity that we can not afford to pass on.
Feel free to copy for appropriate threads like this one.
Dillon Aero makes some nice huntin’ guns, too.
Some videos here: http://www.dillonaero.com/videos.html
Sweet!
This is from a local gun shop in town.. think it sums it up best :)
Here’s an interesting blog piece by a gal who has modeled for Dillon:
http://www.cathyrankin.com/military.html
I am gladly eating crow. I said I would never vote for McCain and up to 2 months ago was sending RNC mail back to them with big a “NO” written on it, but his insight of choosing Palin and setting the Republican up for a rejuvenation if they promote her right.
I will pull for McCain and I sent him money.
...”Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it.”
—Ronald Reagan”
___________________________________________________________
...think on this awhile
the outcome is the end of life as we know it ...
changed in ways not intended.
IGNORE WARNING at your own risk!!
http://www.cathyrankin.com/military.html
Wholeheartedly agree on a moderate swing vote being the better choice and is what we would most likely get from McCain. While I will not be voting at the top of the ballot, I am fairly optimistic, right now anyway, that McCain/Palin will be successful.
That was a beautiful passage from President Reagan. Dr. Suzanna Haup while testifying before Chucky Shumer and the rest of the Senate put it even more succinctly when she said that the second amendment was there to protect all of us from all of you.
I wouldn’t put the blame on McCain for having to go more moderate though. There are enough rabid anti-Constitution Senators that will fight a liberal being replaced by a conservative to their last breath. Bush made two great picks and was really lucky to get it through. His greatest conservative accomplishment. This time around, Arlene Specter will do everything in his power to kill any more shift right in the court. It would be great if McCain took on the fight to get a conservative to replace a liberal, but it would be the nastiest fight in the history of Supreme Court nominations. This will really have to be a stealth candidate. Just keep Redman out of the process and we will be OK.
Dillon Precision isn’t quite a gun parts company. They sell premier ammunition reloading presses and accesories. Their most popular model is the 550B. If you shoot a lot, you owe it to yourself to have one.
Thanks for posting. Vote for McCain/Palin or lose your guns. It’s that critical.
Maybe you can explain exactly what the problem is. I didn’t see it.
There is a third option. The option that John Hancock and a lot of other people chose in 1776.
That is what guns are for.
Try the first option. That’s why it’s called “first”.
I will be voting. but there is a conservative running in my state, and even though the republicans didn’t run one - I do not have to hold my nose.
The conservative gets my vote. McCain does not.
No compromises are required, or appropriate.
Compromise is not always a virtue.
Nor is peace the highest goal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.