Quote of the Day: More Than Just the Second Amendment Edition

GOP_2016_CPAC_Paul.JPEG-04132_c0-0-2505-1460_s561x327

“We do a great job defending the Second Amendment, and everybody knows that. But we have to defend the whole Bill of Rights. To defend the Second amendment, you have to defend the Fourth Amendment. You need the First Amendment to protect the Second Amendment… The Fifth, the Sixth — we should have speedy trials in our country.” – Senator Rand Paul in Rand Paul: GOP needs to care about more than gun rights [at cbsnews.com]

comments

  1. avatar Bob108 says:

    It is a package deal, but the 2nd amendment is the reset button. It is the amendment that tells the government that the people have the means to oppose tyranny.

    1. avatar AnotherOne says:

      Great point.. without it, there can be no defense of the others. They are just words.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      A lot of people say that, but how many constitutional rights have already been lost, all with a lot of talk and no shots fired over it?

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        That’s a question in the minds of many pro-liberty folks I’ve talked with over the last 13 years. Some of them had their eyes opened through the 1950s and 1960s. The individual has lost so much liberty. However, I sill believe that some imaginary line must exist somewhere in our near future where we will see at least mass civil disobedience and the individual right to keep and bear arms will be crucial in keeping those protesters safer.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          I agree. In casual conversation we need to draw the parallels between ISIS, Charlie Hebdo, Mexico, Canadian Parliament attack, Ferguson, NYC cop executions, Katrina, Sandy. It ‘can’t happen here’ given the iron-clad security on our borders.
          Maybe ask our friends if there were violence in their community, would their neighbors be able to protect them? Would the cops be guarding their house or those of the town councilmen?
          We need not sell the uncommitted on the idea of becoming armed themselves. That’s much too far a leap. Instead, we want to impress upon them the utility of having one or two armed neighbors. Perhaps they will recall their Uncle Fudd (may he rest in peace) who had a shotgun and hunted from time to time. Not such a frightening image.
          Likewise, we need not suggest to our acquaintances that they concealed-carry; much too far a leap. Simply asking them if they know anyone who has a CC permit will bring to mind the possibility; i.e., that someone they know and trust might be there for them in the mall when the SHTF.
          The recent events – including the threat against the Mall of America – are bringing the possibility of threats closer to home.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @MarkPA: (I generally avoid the border issues when discussing the RKBA in public as I tend to support more open borders but along with other corrections to our law and more about travel than immigration. It would muddy the waters for me to discuss border security in these situations so I keep those thoughts to myself.)

          Pretty much what you’ve laid out is what we do. I know that I try to find to what degree of keeping and bearing arms might be palpable to the individuals and discuss within those parameters. We had an extremely large armed gathering at the Ohio Statehouse a few years back and I spent most of my time hanging out by the metro bus stops because it was less of the choir to work with. A good sized gathering of local city dwellers were interested in what was going on with the gathering and about my AKM. The group was composed of predominantly black urban young men. All but one were really supportive and even the one agreed with an armed people when I asked who they would rather have at those bus stops; VIPR teams, DHS officers armed to the teeth dressed in their storm trooper attire or local people going about their daily business armed. After thinking about it, the support for armed individuals doing their thing over agents of government watching everyone was unanimous. Of course, people also want thumbnail information about the laws regarding bearing arms in Ohio. We give them that and provide contact information so that they can learn more. We encourage all to be armed as often as they can and we see more armed as a result of our efforts.

        3. avatar MarkPA says:

          ” (I generally avoid the border issues when discussing the RKBA).
          . . .
          Pretty much what you’ve laid out is what we do. I know that I try to find to what degree of keeping and bearing arms might be palpable to the individuals and discuss within those parameters. ”

          Illegal immigration is a separate issue from RKBA. I am NOT an open-boarder person. Who a nation admits from outside the nation is a political question that the people must resolve with their representatives. I simply observe that our representatives are ducking their duty. I am certainly in favor of legal immigration.
          I think the major issue about boarder security is that if we are unsuccessful in stopping drugs and illegal immigrants we will be unsuccessful in stopping cartel agents and terrorists from crossing the boarder. Moreover, even if the Anti’s magically succeeded in closing down domestic manufacture and commerce in guns they couldn’t stop imports from Mexico or the Caribbean.

          We agree on framing our message. We need to address the open minded and bring them from where they are to where we would like them to look and study.

      2. avatar MarkPA says:

        The Declaration of Independence provides: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”
        Apparently, Americans believe our “evils ARE sufferable”. Indeed, a large minority of the population is absolutely DELIGHTED to be ruled as we are. Obama’s approval ratings are around 40%; the Loyalists in the Revolutionary era constituted about 1/3 of the population.
        Prevailing circumstances are as favorable to democratic action as could be conceived. (Access to the polls is open. Vote fraud is not YET rampant.) Nevertheless, voter turnout is around 50%; abysmal compared to dozens of other democracies where the figure reaches into the 70%% – 80% and even 90%. Switzerland is only a few percent higher than the US; apparently, they have plenty to be content about.
        US elections are often very close, a few percentage points between the contenders. It wouldn’t take many votes to tip the balance one way or the other.
        I wonder if our most effective strategy would be to send our campaign contributions wherever they would do the most good to close the gap between re-electing the incumbent to flipping his seat. I’ve always lived in Blue States where my vote wouldn’t count. Nevertheless, nothing stops me from sending my money to any OTHER State where my dollars WOULD count. So, now, that’s where my money goes.
        I wonder if the most important thing to do is to put our impact in the primary races to try to bump the incumbent from his party’s nomination. Ideally, the Republican-elite choice would be running against a Republican-constitutionalist. Then, we could vote for the constitutionalist. It isn’t essential that the constitutionalist win the primary; if he threatens the elite choice then the elite must spend money on the primary that they won’t have for the general election. If the Republican-elete choice loses the election or even comes close to losing the election then he will need to realign his politics to avoid suffering the same attack in his next primary or general election. Politicians are chameleons; they will drift some of their Congressional votes to improve their chances of being re-elected.
        Less ideally, the Democrat-leftist is being primary’ed by another Democrat-leftist. Tweedle-dum vs. Tweedle-dummer. If the Democrat candidate is sure to win then primary the Democrat incumbent. Better a Democrat with no seniority vs. a Democrat with some seniority.
        Incumbents who run nearly ALWAYS are re-elected. Power in Congress depends less on whether a chamber is controlled by one party or the other. What matters much more is who has SENIORITY in either party. Think about it; why is a Senator from Kentucky and a Representative from Ohio in charge of what happens in Congress? Are these high population States like NY or CA? Are they bastions of intellectual leadership of their party? NO! These are the guys who were re-elected often enough to have built up seniority and the political power within their caucus to get elected to leadership positions.
        It is probably more important to churn incumbents who won’t do us any good relative to maintaining control of a chamber for one election cycle. Controlling a chamber works for the elite but doesn’t change the course of the nation.

  2. avatar neiowa says:

    Followed Rand last cycle when he was hanging out in Iowa, thinking he was less of a flake than his father. I was wrong.

    Frequently hits some of the hot conservative buzzers to score points and a decent speaker. But none the less, is a nut.

    1. avatar joelT1 says:

      I agree he’s not my first choice, but we could do worse. Id take him over a big government republican: https://www.conservativereview.com/members/r/412492#6

      1. avatar DisThunder says:

        That’s where I am, too. I like what I hear from guys like Rand Paul and Dr. Carson, but once upon a time I liked some of the things I heard from Senator Obama. So, needless to say, talk is cheap.
        A more left-leaning colleague at work had a wonderful suggestion yesterday- he suggested the first step to bi-partisanship could be easily achieved by removing both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton from the ballot. I told him to draw up the proposal, he could probably get that mythical “90%” number they pretended to have for background checks!

        1. avatar David P. says:

          I wouldn’t touch Dr. Carson with a 10 foot pole. He calls AR 15 an assualt rifle and has been out talking about increasing background checks and pushing smart guns. He would be okay until his first public outcry after a shooting ( you know, the ones were polls show the people want it and then tapper off 3 months later) and he would fold quickly. To Carson the 2nd is just a law that can come or go. He does not feel it is THE LAW.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          The first step to bipartisanship would be a Rand/Sanders ticket, with an agreement between them that once elected, they only sign a law or issue an executive order if both can agree on it.

      2. avatar fcmatt says:

        Rand has already been caught by the Washington machine. Last month he met with AL Sharpton to “connect” with the black community. There is NO excuse for any conervative or libertarian to do such a thing except to play election/popularity games at the cost of principal. Sharpton is the quisling racist shakedown artist extraordinaire of DC.

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      This country could use whole lot more of Rand Paul’s “crazy” and a whole lot less of Obama’s “normal.”

      1. avatar Art out West says:

        Amen to that!

      2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        Yep. And well said. Rand Paul is an intellectual and an honest one. As a libertarian influenced conservative I tend to part company with the party doctrine on foreign affairs and a strong military. I can still support Paul if he’s the choice for president.

        I’m continually running across people who “voted for Obama and now wish I hadn’t” . . . Really? What part of that glossy fraud’s background and subsequent campaign made you think he’d make a good president?

      3. avatar JasonM says:

        Or McCain’s “normal”, Romney’s “normal”, any Bush’s “normal”, etc.

        Especially since the “crazy” of both Doctors Paul is a desire to limit the government to doing the things explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Why they’re both almost as “crazy” as Washington, Jefferson, or Madison. And we know those guys could never be president.

      4. avatar int19h says:

        FWIW, I’m a liberal, but I’d rather see Paul than Obama (or Hillary) as a POTUS.

    3. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Personally, I’d like to see Rand Paul as AG. But even for Pres I’ll take him over Bush and Christie, to say nothing of Hillary. Barring any of that, I’d be perfectly happy to see him stay in the Senate.

      1. avatar B says:

        Trey Gowdy would be a brilliant AG.

    4. avatar Omer Baker says:

      I can’t say I’m a total Rand guy, but who would you prefer? Someone who will spend numerous more trillions of dollars bombing brown people on the other side of world claiming its to protect us here at home from their sticks and stones? Terrorists don’t hate us because of our blue jeans and MTV, it’s because we’ve been killing hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east over the last few decades or backing totalitarian regimes.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        Terrorists don’t hate us because of our blue jeans and MTV, it’s because we’ve been killing hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east over the last few decades or backing totalitarian regimes.

        Stop parroting your leftist professors. They were the same idiots blaming America for the Soviet atrocities during the 60′-80’s.

        The Middle East is controlled by a death cult just as sure as the German people were under the Nazi cult. They will only realize when they are standing in rubble or melted into a puddle.

        1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          +1000

        2. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          LOL @ calling Islam a “death cult” when the US government has started more wars and murdered more people than muslims ever did in the last 50 years.

        3. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          Keep spewing your leftist, anti-human sh*t. That way everyone knows what a piece of sh*t you are.

        4. avatar Publius says:

          Thump that Bible harder! You didn’t sound ignorant and bigoted enough!

        5. avatar JasonM says:

          And why is it that those death cultists have been able to motivate the people into their intense hatred, after years of relative (compared to Europe) peace?

          Could it be that they can focus the people’s anger at 70 years of US government meddling, overthrowing popular governments, propping up ruthless dictators, and bombing innocent civilians?
          Nah…it’s probably the blue jeans and freedom. That’s why they hate Canada, and Switzerland, and Sweden, and…oh wait…they don’t.

        6. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          “That’s why they hate Canada, and Switzerland, and Sweden, and…oh wait…they don’t.” Yes, they do hate all of them, and attack them merrily at any opportunity.

        7. avatar doesky2 says:

          Islamists have been sawing peoples heads off long before George Washington was in diapers. They also have a long history of doing it to other Muslims (just like they are doing today). Now go back to your professors see if he has another stupid “idea” for you to parrot.

      2. avatar Elephant Rider says:

        “…but who would you prefer?”
        His father!
        You can tell by how he was demonized by the media and marginalized by the GOP statists that he was one of the few honest politicians around.
        Ron Paul is my president, the rest of them can FOAD.

    5. avatar AllAmerican says:

      In what way is he a “nut”? Explain.

      1. avatar B says:

        The same way that Cruz is a wacko bird. They want to follow the Constitution to the letter and limit government powers! Its 200 years old, times have changed, living document, free college and healthcare blah blah blah!

        I really wish Cruz or Rand were governors instead of Senators, they’d have a much better chance. Walker is looking like he’s not Christie or Fat Bush, so there is that. I don’t really know much about him though. The media and unions seem to hate him, so he’s got that going for him.

    6. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      I agree with you guys. Rand has a screw or two loose, but it’s a screw or two that most of the rest of the GOP don’t even have. He isn’t my first choice, but I could support him if nominated. I’d expect a GOP Congress could keep a lid on most of his eccentricities, while complementing his strengths.

  3. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Seems to me it’s the second and fourth amendments that are most under attack. The left doesn’t care much for the first either. Anyway, if the state eliminates all but one, you’d better hope the one that’s left is the second.

    1. avatar The Original Brad says:

      On the contrary – they love the first as they interpret it. Free speech is their speech, all other speech is hate speech and should be banned. One of the things I love most about the Che Guevara loving free speech advocates is thier hypocrasy. It truely knows no bounds.

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        Net Neutrality. It’s their foot in the door. In the short term, it will be more taxes passed on to customers as higher fees. Long term, “hate speech” laws, meaning bans against expressing all ideas that the left hates.

        1. avatar Chris says:

          That’s not what net neutrality is and it’s not how Title 2 works.

        2. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          Yes it is, and yes it does. Back to “intent”, that term the alphabet soup nazis LOVE to bandy about.

        3. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          Oh, and yes, Title 2 was used by people in government, elected and unelected, to shut down people they did not like.

        4. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Yes, freedom for me but not for thee. They also have no qualms about hiring armed personal guards for themselves, but no arms for the people who can only afford a $400 pistol.

          Nobody really knows what net neutrality really is because even now that they’ve passed it they still won’t release the 330 pages of regulations to the public, or even congress for that matter. That fact and the fact of where it’s coming from should tell you that it’s pretty bad. At the very least it’s a foot in the door to allow the left to censor content on the internet.

      2. avatar JasonM says:

        Che is a hero of freedom.
        He personally freed dozens of people from their addiction to oxygen.

        1. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

          Nearly p!ssed myself laughing at that one. +1,000

    2. avatar doesky2 says:

      The most obvious example of how the Left desecrates the first amendment is to witness how the Left has imposed speech codes over thousands of universities where they are unchecked and have a free reign.

      “The American campus is run by the Left and it is the least free place in the United States….. Dennis Prager

      The next big wave of freedom clampdown by the Left will be the campus laws that make drunken sex equal to rape and that it will be up to the male to prove her willingness if it occurred. Remember how the Left loved to scream at the Republicans to “Keep your laws out of my bedroom!” Oh the rich irony.

  4. avatar nynemillameetuh says:

    I always wonder how much, deep down, Rand is like his father. Is he playing the long game by acting “moderate” to secure the presidency and go full Paul? Or is he really a sellout spitting on his father’s legacy? Does his appeal stem from people like me secretly hoping he took the former path?

    1. avatar John P says:

      Ron Paul is, if anything, even more sanguine about Iran getting nuclear weapons than Obama is. As far as I am concerned, that point by itself is enough for me to say I would rather vote for Obama than Ron Paul for POTUS.

      Obama is a terrible president, and he’s not serious about Iranian nukes. And as far as domestic policy goes, we could do a lot worse than Ron Paul (I’m all in favor of ending the Fed and our fiat currency and the 16th Amendment). But the President is in charge of the nation’s foreign policy. That’s his Constitutional job. So while I’m cool with Ron Paul having a cabinet position (say Secretary of Labor), I’m not cool with him having anything to do with our foreign policy.
      .

      1. avatar actionphysicalman says:

        I fear/suspect that preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is an unrealistic goal unless one is willing to drop a shitload of bunker busters (at least) and suffer very severe consequences.

        1. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

          Exactly. People just don’t get that Iran isn’t going to negotiate away their right to build one. Unless we are willing to bomb them, they’re gonna get a nuke. To think that any other outcome is possible just isn’t smart.

        2. avatar John L. says:

          Ragnarredbeard:

          Or just lie and maintain the capability.

          Your basic atomic bomb is an incredibly simple device. Sure, if you want a more efficient weapon, or a boosted fission-fusion-fission device, or a bigger yield in a smaller package, then you are talking some serious engineering.

          But seriously, your basic gun-type device is not a lot more complicated than using an 18th century cannon to fire one cannonball into another.

          The hard parts are really separating and sequestering the materials to make the cannonballs. And Iran has had a lot of time to get that sorted.

        3. avatar int19h says:

          A basic atomic bomb is the kind of stuff that you drop from a bomber (and good luck doing that over USA), not the kind of stuff you strap to an ICBM. Oh, and speaking of ICBMs, Iranians don’t have them, and it looks like they won’t, since they have quietly shut down their national space agency for the lack of funds this year.

        4. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          The Mad Mullahs do not need to reinvent the wheel, they can and are buying IC capable systems from their buddies in Russia and North Korea. And they already have industrial capacity to build monkey copies of other people’s equipment.

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        Ron Paul would have likely made a great president. and I could care less about foreign policy when compared to our own rights killing policies within the US. I would much rather fix our problems here – than play global police officer trying to fix other countries problems (especially when they didn’t ask for nor wanted our help) based on our own opinions.

      3. avatar -Peter says:

        Why is it our job to prevent Iran from developing a Nuclear weapons program? Let Israel stop it, if they consider it to be that big of a deal. In fact, Israel was planning an airstrike to do just that, until the Obama-led U.S. Defense Department informed them that we would shoot down. There are plenty of other middle eastern nations which also don’t want to see a nuclear Iran. But no one will take responsibility or act on their own accord if they can simply sit back and allow the US to act as the world’s police.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          You might want to consider the promises Iran has made to the world that as soon as Israel is a smoking hole, they will be coming to America. NYC, of course, is full of Jews and would be the first target, Miami probably second, but they’ll get to all of us. At what point do you think we should get involved? They don’t wish to conquer us, they wish to kill us all.

        2. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          “They don’t wish to conquer us, they wish to kill us all.” And there it is. They will be happy to loot what is not smoking rubble and enslave whosoever is stupid enough to surrender, in the final measure they just want all Infidels d-e-a-d.

        3. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          “Why is it our job to prevent Iran from developing a Nuclear weapons program?”

          Probably because they keep saying they are going to use them on us. As for Israel stopping them, America keeps standing in the way. The Tribe has kicked the sh*t out of every muslim army that has attacked it, and America has each time stopped them from finishing the job. Why you think that is?

      4. avatar Blain Cooper says:

        If the psychopaths in the US government can be trusted with nukes, so can the Iranian mullahs. After all, Iran hasn’t started a war in hundreds of years, unlike the US government.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          The Mullahs gained control over their own country violently, slaughtering many people on the way to enslaving the rest; a practice continuing through to today. That takeover included an attack on U.S. sovereign soil in Tehran in 1979. They’re not saints.

          Moreover, they’ve run a proxy war against Israel for decades via their client terrorist groups. Even in the Iran-Iraq War, which Saddam started, Iran could have ended it, but didn’t want to. Iran, ramshackle and dazed from the Revolution, needed a great patriotic war to rally and unify its population and validate Khomeini as supreme ruler. So the war was as welcome as if they’d launched it themselves.

          The proof? Iraq declared a unilateral cease-fire in 1982, which Iran not only rejected, but answered with an invasion of Iraq. Well. In self defense law, typically once an aggressor clearly breaks off the attack, the original defender may not then go on the offensive, lest he become the new aggressor. That’s what Iran did and their war lasted another six years. Iran also attacked third party tanker ships in the Gulf, what we’d call piracy and an act of war in another age.

          These aren’t peaceful little meditative folks in a pasture. They’re murderous monsters bent on death and domination globally.

    2. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

      Rand Paul has assumed a more “mainstream” conservative position because it’s quite clear that this country is not ready for a libertarian president. Which is ironic, because it was founded on what we’d today call libertarian principles.

      Many libertarians were not happy when Rand went mainstream Republican, even though that’s his best chance of getting elected and he’s still more libertarian than any other Republican candidate, as far as I know.

      Stand with Rand 2016

  5. avatar Wiregrass says:

    I agree with Paul. No question about the 2nd Amendment being the keystone holding the others together, but if we just sit back and allow the others to be abused out of existence, what good is it? Not a day goes by on here that there isn’t some article about a threat to the 4th amendment related to gun rights. The ACLU gets deserved abuse for ignoring the 2nd Amendment, I think the NRA deserves some criticism for giving Congress a pass on all the others.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      ” I think the NRA deserves some criticism for giving Congress a pass on all the others.”

      I don’t think the NRA deserves such criticism. We are the National Rifle Association.

      The NRA is not a broad spectrum civil rights group. People don’t join the NRA or donate to ILA for them to fight 4A or 5A cases, for example.

      Having a focus is not the same thing as saying they don’t care about the A’s. I’m an NRA member (and have been longer than most of the Gun 2.0 bunch has been alive) and while 1A, 4A, 5A, 6A and 10A issues rankle just has hard as 2A ones do, I don’t fault the NRA for not getting into that.

      The ACLU, on the other hand…well, they lay claim to caring about “civil rights” in general, so defending all but one is a bit more of a problem.

      1. avatar Wiregrass says:

        I support the NRA with my dollars and my time, I believe in the organizations goals. But I don’t always agree with the stances they take for political expediency*. The right to keep and bear arms is extremely important to me as I am sure it is to most all TTAGers. But if the right to bear arms amounts to nothing more than the right to bear arms, then how is it protecting anything else? I do not want to wait till that’s all that is left to try to win back the rest.

        * http://www.rollcall.com/news/nra_opposes_paul_amendment_patriot_act-206006-1.html

        1. avatar Wiregrass says:

          I will give LaPierre credit though for mentioning in his CPAC speech some of the abuses to the 4th amendment that are affecting gun ownership.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          That defeats the purpose of having a single-issue organization in the first place. The strength of that approach is that on that particular issue, you unite everyone who supports it, even if they disagree between each other on a lot of other things. There’s nothing precluding you from going and finding another organization that focuses on other rights such as 4A (off the top of my head, that’s ACLU and EFF). And on those issues, you’ll find that there are a lot of people who care about them, but don’t care about 2A. Cleanly segregating those into their separate buckets allows for maximum effect in each one, to the full extent of its popular support.

        3. avatar MarkPA says:

          Absolutely agree that a single-issue organization is important. And, it’s important that the largest organization be single-issue. For us, that’s clearly the NRA.
          It’s fine for secondary and tertiary organizations to call-out the relationships between THE single issue and other issues. I applaud GOA on this account. Yet, when the primary organization speaks it speaks for the mass of voters who back it. We need that message to be clear and undiluted. Single-issue voting and single-issue advocacy gives us this clout.

          Our other issues with NRA are also important. There are two ways to advance this cause.

          First, join NRA with a 5-year membership that comes with voting rights; then, find opposition candidates to vote for. It will take a decade or two to have an impact. Nevertheless, NRA has already undergone one thorough shakedown and it is subject to another. When NRA speaks for gun-owners it needs to speak for as large a voting block as possible.

          Second, make sure you give more $$$ to other organizations than you give to NRA. This will have a fairly immediate impact. For example, if your 2A-sentiments run to ZERO-Tolerance for compromise then contribute to GOA. If GOA membership and revenue soared faster than NRA’s membership and revenue then NRA would take notice.

        4. avatar int19h says:

          >> First, join NRA with a 5-year membership that comes with voting rights; then, find opposition candidates to vote for.

          It’s an interesting idea, but my problem with that is that if I give them money today, it gives them that much more ammunition to push their present agenda, and they also get misrepresent me as a supporter of that agenda. I’m not convinced that my internal vote will be sufficient to counter that damage, given how long it would take to make a change, even ignoring the reputation issue. So I stick to the “give to other gun rights org” approach, which are SAF and CCRKBA in my case.

        5. avatar Wiregrass says:

          I’ve got no problem with the NRA being a single issue organization, I understood that years ago when I became a member. The point I have been trying to make since my initial post is the single issue (gun rights) extends beyond the 2nd Amendment. And if you read LaPierre’s speech, you’ll see he’s not really interested in staying single issue anyway when it comes to getting cozy with what he sees as the conservative base.

        6. avatar int19h says:

          My problem with them is that they are NOT a single issue organization anymore, and I cannot in good conscience support them when they effectively campaign for a crapload of other unrelated stuff that I don’t want to be associated with.

  6. avatar BlueBronco says:

    Even the 3rd Amendment has come under attack. Police have been known to take over peoples houses to set up surveillance. For some reason, the libtard media never picks up on these stories.

    1. avatar Model 31 says:

      Police feed the media information and news stories which generate “views” which translates into a paycheck for the reporter. Media will not bite the hand that feeds them “scoops” of info.

  7. avatar Shire-man says:

    Oh those Pauls. Thinking people actually want to be free.
    Our government as it is both Dems and Reps and a good majority of the mindless paranoia driven voting slobs are all operating under Mussolini’s truth that men are tired of freedom. Have been for a very, very long time.
    Unless you’re actively campaigning to marginalize a population or murder a group of people you have virtually no chance at winning an election with either party.

    1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

      Once again, we’ll have the Republican presidential debates hosted by CNN or Fox News, where the general public will be guided to vote for your typical RINO, while candidates who actually stand for conservative/libertarian values will be labeled as “crazy” or “kooky” and they’ll be ostracized and eventually dropped from debates. And once again, we’ll end up with somebody who will keep shredding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, whether that person has a D or an R next to their name. Our media and fellow voters never disappoint.

  8. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    He has it backwards. It is the second that protects all the others. For without 2 an overreaching administration with a willing congress could eliminate amendments they do not like. IMHO 🙂

    1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      I dinner know, they’ve done a great job of violating all of them while we’ve kept our guns for the most part.

  9. avatar Achmed says:

    Me personally, if this guy gets close to a nomination I may actually decide to work for a political campaign. Brightest thing going in the Republican party.

  10. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    Let’s not forget the 9th and we should also focus on the 10th.

  11. avatar TJ Reeder says:

    I’ve voted GOP for over 50 years and I’m tired of their wishy washy ways, GROW SOME BALLS !! The GOP will never rise above where they are until they back off of some of their lost causes, First, get out of bed with the Religious fundamentalist, Ones beliefs in God is fine but leave the bible at home on election day, take a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights if you feel the need to carry something to the polls, I’m not against religion, I’m against the GOP singing to that tune for votes. Stop with the abortion issue! it’s a losing battle, it really isn’t anybody’s business, it’s a very private issue for a small part of the population, and yes if you really think it’s a sin in the eyes of God then you know he will deal with it in his time. Stop with the Gay issues! I could give a sh$t who sleeps with who, Again, if it’s really a sin then God will deal with it in his time, Same sex marriage is a non issue, two people love each other and want to be married? why does the GOP care? really they don’t, but to get the Religious rights vote they think they have to make it a political issue, whats the religious right going to do? vote Democrat? I doubt it. I’m not an overly religious man, but I did get enough as a youngster to remember the part about casting the first stone,

    The GOP needs to fight for those issues that effect “ALL” Americans, as long as they keep pushing against Abortion and Gay Marriage they will give the Demo’s power. The average GOP politician really don’t care one bit about these issues anymore then they really care about the Second amendment , They care about these issues as much as the Average Demo politician cares about Blacks, they use the Black issues to get votes like the GOP uses the gun rights issue, they want to get elected, they will use these issues to get votes and that’s all. I want somebody who will stand up and hold up the Constitution and say ” This is what I believe” This is what I will defend against all laws they violate it. And that’s the main issue, the only issue. Our rights are for “ALL” Americans, Black, White, Brown, it makes no difference if you are Gay or an Atheist, there is no requirement as to skin color to be an American, No requirement as to sexual orientation to be an American,

    So, I guess this makes me a Independent Libertarian Anarchist if so then so be it, Where you pray, who you sleep with, who you are married too are none of my business, nor is it our nations leaders business, their only business is to run the country according to the rules and laws as set forth in our founding documents.
    Liberty and Justice for “ALL”.

    1. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

      Liberty and justice for all is certainly how it should be.

      The members of the Republican Party must realize at least a few things if they expect to thrive in the future:

      * There is a difference between being strongly religious and enforcing that religion via government coercion
      * There is a difference between being against drug abuse and enforcing that belief via government coercion
      * There is a difference between having a strong national defense and having a perpetual war machine
      * There is a difference between being “pro-market” and being “pro-business”
      * People’s personal business should not be the business of government
      * Being blindly pro-law enforcement is not a good thing when laws are written and enforced that violate the rights of citizens

      Republican support of programs like the “war on drugs” and the perpetual “war on terror” have helped to destroy the 4th amendment. Asset forfeiture laws (which were discussed somewhat in a prior TTAG article) and police no-knock raids a result of the “war on drugs.” Police militarization is in part due in part to the “war on drugs.”

      (By the way, I use quotes with the “war on drugs” because it’s not a war on drugs – it’s a war on some people that use some drugs.)

      If the Republicans can embrace the idea of liberty, and not simply what passes for “conservative values” these days – and understand that it’s not the job of government to enforce morality – then it should be much more successful.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        ” it’s not a war on drugs – it’s a war on some people that use some drugs”

        In less than 2 years it will have been 24 years since this country had a President who did not admit to using illegal drugs (subject to the “war on drugs”) prior to being elected. War on “some people”, indeed.

      2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        When does the Republican war on terror, which essentially ended with the initial wind down of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, become the Democrats’ war on terror? If not after Obama started bombing Libya, Syria, and Iraq, again, in the name of counterterror, then when?

        Similarly, when does Bush’s Patriot Act, which was passed with a sunset provision and which has since been extended, twice, by Obama and a Democrat Congress, become Obama’s Patriot Act?

        On the drug war front, U.S. restrictions and/or bans on opium, morphine and cocaine date back to the 19th century, at each of the federal, state, and local levels. That’s a lot of time and territory when and where both Dems and Reps reigned. Yet the GOP gets slammed for running Operation Buzz Kill? Dude.

        Major legislative milestones in the war on drugs include the Harrison Act (1914 under Wilson), Marijuana Tax Act (1937, FDR), Opium Poppy Act (1942, FDR), Narcotics Act (1946, Truman), and the Drug Abuse and Control Amendments (1965, LBJ). Carter had a chance to end it, as pertained to marijuana, but chose instead to defer to state-by-state decisions on decriminalization.

        Yes, I’ve left out the GOP’s drug warring because, 1. I concede it and nobody disputes it, 2. That would only emphasize the Dems’ refusal to roll back Republican anti-drug efforts and, thus, their complicity. Why beat a dead horse?

        The issue here is government control, not political parties. Statists vs. Statists-light isn’t an interesting debate. I just get tired of people bashing Republicans and embracing Democrats, when the latter are as bad or usually worse than the former.

        1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

          Don’t forget LBJ’s war in Asia become Nixon’s war the minute he took office…and the vast majority of dumbocrats voted for I-rack and Pakis…er Afgan Vietnam. But I guess the dunderhead W bamboozled ’em.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Damn, TJ, I’m not certain that I didn’t write that myself! I don’t think you missed much.

    3. avatar Grindstone says:

      Preach!

  12. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    Unfortunately the 2nd doesn’t protect anything if the citizenry is afraid to exercise it.

    The 1st and 4th are surrendered. Net Neutrality puts the the internet under complete government control. There is literally no part of modern communication that is not under surveillance, and with surveillance comes suppression.

    It’s the impending encroachment on the 15th that’s the straw waiting to break the camels back. Should non citizens be granted the right to vote, than the republic is dead and we must take it back.

    1. avatar Red in Texas says:

      “It’s the impending encroachment on the 15th that’s the straw waiting to break the camels back. Should non citizens be granted the right to vote, than the republic is dead and we must take it back.”

      This is what I fear the most, and will probably lead to The American Revolution v2.0, if it happens.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        If government successfully controls the internet, then the ability to disseminate information and to organize large groups of people over vast areas will be crippled. There’s enough, IMHO, right now for the People to force government’s hands. Once the free flow of information is stifled by government, will enough people hear the message? If that tree falls in the forest, will anyone hear it; did it even make a sound?

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          The counter-side is whether the Gen-Xers will tolerate being stifled. If nothing else, these people value their liberty to communicate whatever they want to communicate. They will burrow around the censorship walls and create an underground WWW. Will the Feds be able to keep up?
          This is an overreach that the Feds won’t be able to keep in check.
          The Gen-Xers will tolerate the Feds being able to track their movements to within 1 yard. They will tolerate wire-less-tapping. But to stop them from sending or receiving information? That will be tough to swallow.
          No one cares that someone else’s rights are violated under the 1st, 2’nd, (3’rd), 4th, 5’th Amendments; when their own rights are violated under the 1st – then they will howl.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @MarkPA: True. That is a valid counter-point. It’s one of the scenarios that has given me some hope.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      +1 except that I think the People ought to take it back before then.

  13. avatar 2hotel9 says:

    The GOP only cares about being accepted by the MSM, and helping Pez Obola achieve his agenda. That includes Luap Nor’s favorite son Randi.

  14. avatar dwb says:

    Generally I agree with this. Both parties have become the party of big government for their own constituents. The GOP talks about being the party of small government, but fails to deliver. At least with the Dems, you expect big government. The truth is, the only reason deficits have shrank over the last 6 years is that with divided government, Congress and the admin can’t agree how to spend the money. Once one party has all three branches, they will agree how to spend the money. It’ll of course either be Big Entitlements, or Big Military. Between the Dems and the GOP, I have to decide between gun control and vajaja control, I do not like either.

  15. avatar Glenn in USA says:

    Mr. Paul, the GOP may need to care for MORE than the Second Amendment, but the GOP should care for ANYTHING LESS than the Second Amendment.
    The Second Amendment is the last line of defense against a tyrannical government.

  16. avatar Ray Ficara says:

    This is Rand triangulating in a Clintonian manner to seem more “reasonable” than the T.E.A. Party favorites.

    Ray

  17. avatar MarkPA says:

    Why don’t I see Rand Paul’s name as a co-sponsor of S.498?
    Joe Manchin is listed as the first co-sponsor.

  18. avatar RaulYbarra says:

    Yes, they all do depend on each other. But there is a reason for Free Speech and the Right to Arms are 1st and 2nd, respectively. The pen is mightier than the sword, yet the sword exists for when the pen fails.

    Or to put it as I have for years, the 2nd Amendment exists for when the 1st fails.

  19. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    I’m afraid the younger Paul doesn’t realize how important that damn foreign policy will de-rail his chances. Whatever-the 2nd amendment protects all the others. I’d vote for him over any dumbocrat…

  20. avatar Jim R says:

    He’s right, you know. I blasted LaPierre for trying to blame video games for school shootings (throwing my First Amendment rights under the bus to protect my Second Amendment rights? Not cool Wayne.).

    I want ALL of my rights, not just a few of them.

  21. avatar nicephotog says:

    If someone does not agree with the 2nd Amendment in the USA
    constitution i suppose they are neither a “democracy supporter or (and
    thus) human rights supporter” , they need to understand fire-arms in a
    context of human rights, and there is no case to say people are any
    safer if only a “government force” e.g. Police and Soldiers” have semi
    auto weapons and not ordinary citizens, the result is often the
    following… Kampuchea, NAZI Germany, Japan , Uganda e.t.c. and as much
    because of non democracy process of government..

    This the best it gets in the Constitution for most Americans aside to “concealed carry license”. .50 Is actually considered the start of Cannon caliber!
    Country Girl Shooting Gun (Barrett .50 Cal Sniper Rifle)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asHYGY_-sE8

    This is what the USA army has and national guard e.t.c.
    FPSRussia – THE MINIGUN
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d84r8gMGxFQ

    This is what the USA Government has thousands of in the air.
    A-10 Warthog Gatling Gun Test
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33teK7L4DM4

    This is the RUSSIANS at it!
    Prototype Quadrotor with Machine Gun! (FPSRussia channel is a lot of fun with guns)

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      “we have to defend the whole Bill of Rights. To defend the Second amendment, you have to defend the Fourth Amendment.” I agree. Now, how to get a Progressive to subscribe to this idea? One way is to introduce cognitive dissonance in a way that invites him to wrestle with the alternatives (vs. be so shocked that he can’t cope with the conflict.)
      The 4A prohibits “unreasonable searches”; and, the Terry decision can be read to authorize stop & frisk. Arguably, NYC had great success with S&F in reducing gun crime. To SOME extent, the NYPD could inhibit freedom of movement by armed citizens. However, NYPD was tamped-down by the racial bias the court and public read from the S&F statistics.
      I think there were two problems with S&F: first, it’s intrusive; second, it mostly resulted in drug busts rather than gun busts. If the pretext were ‘officer safety’ or ‘carrying burglary tools’ then the discovery of drugs should be subjected to the exclusionary rule (if not as a matter of law, then as a matter of US public sentiment).
      Imagine a form of S&F that was both: less-intrusive; and, excluded drugs. And, suppose that form of S&F were effective in detecting guns. Would that S&F withstand scrutiny in Progressive courts and the court of public opinion?
      For a moment, let us PotG suspend judgement on whether a form of S&F that could detect guns, but not drugs, were still a violation of 4A. Let’s carry this fantasy one more step; imagine NYC were Shall-Issue! In such a fantasy, every law-abiding person-of-color could get a CCP in NYC. And, then, S&F would look like this:

      LEO: ‘Excuse me sir, but is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
      Yout: ‘Top of the morn’n to you Officer O’Molly. As a matter of fact, it [IS / is-NOT] a gun-in-my-pocket. Nevertheless, I’m always just deleted to see you! Would you care to see my CCP?

      Such a scenario would be rather less intrusive than “Up-against-the-wall and spread-em!”.

      Some other hypothetical ‘yout’ might, alternatively, respond in the negative, in which case:

      Yout: No, it is not a gun-in-my-pocket. Am I free to go?
      Officer: Very well, then if you would be so kind as to raise your arms for a moment while I scan you with a metal detector, you will then be free to go.

      In 98% of the cases, our ‘yout’ will be on-his-way in a minute or so. Now, the Progressive mind will have to decide whether he is more interested in constraining the movement of armed: felons; or, law-abiding citizens.

      Some Progressives will respond: ‘I would rather tolerate liberty of movement by armed felons than suffer the presence of law-abiding citizens with Shall-Issue CCPs.’
      Other Progressives will respond: ‘I want liberty of movement by drug-users but want to arrest all gun-carriers whether felons or law-abiding. I want to ignore both the 2A and the 4A with respect to guns, knives and burglary tools.’
      And so forth. Now, we have the Progressive mind wrestling with a Constitutional right in which they are invested; 4A in S&F.
      Now, resume skepticism for any form of S&F. There are absolutists among us PotG. These will argue that “shall not be infringed” means exactly the same thing as “The right . . . to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches . . . shall not be violated”. An absolutist will equate “unreasonable” to “any”. Could such an absolutist argument be sustained? Or, must we wrestle with some from of S&F – Terry-stop as being within the realm of “reasonable” while at the same time holding “not be infringed” to a much higher standard? If words mean something then different words mean different things. “Unreasonable” likely means something different from “not be infringed”. It’s conceivable that a co-ed’s right to a Shall-Issue CCP enjoys a higher level of respect than a ‘yout’s right to a minute of his precious liberty-of-movement with an illegally-possessed gun.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email