TTAG reader David Wagner writes:
There was no shooting for me this weekend, as my wife – inspired by one of those many home improvement shows decided it was imperative that we clean and throw-away all the garbage we have stored away in the garage these many years. Now mind you most of the throw-aways were the result of her “hoarders” mentality, but that is clearly beside the point. However, as a result of this process, I did find a box containing many old gun magazines from back in the day. Attached is a pdf I created from a scan of one of articles in one of those old magazines [click here to download]. An October 1994 edition of Soldier of Fortune magazine . . .
The article is called “Selling Out the Constitution.” What I find most disturbing about the article is that the majority of the congressional wing-nuts quoted in the article are still in office today, 20 years later! And unfortunately due to the passage of time and the unfailing “peter” principal, a lot of these wing-nuts now hold positions of power within that disgrace we call the legislative body of the federal government.
So I must conclude that a lot of the gun control and gutting of the 2nd Amendment is our fault, as we keep re-electing these wing-nuts. And as my father once said: Do not vote for an incumbent – they should get 1 or 2 shots and then they need to get a real job! Boy was he right!
Without a list of the gun control nuts in question, I’m not sure what the appropriate response is.
Is Feinstein still in office? Pelosi? Well, sure. Why are they still in office? Because the People of the Gun cannot rally enough people in far-left districts to vote them out. Is this our fault?
Maybe. But I’d have to hear evidence as to how.
“Do not vote for an incumbent – they should get 1 or 2 shots and then they need to get a real job!”
I haven’t read all the comments yet, but that one quote is certainly good advice from your father; there should be tighter term limits than exists.
Too bad there are so many band wagon sheeple voters who keep returning these same old lame brains to office. They do so because it’s easier for the sheeple to go with the flow than to actually assess issues beyond political ads. These sheeple don’t even bother to evaluate their true belief on the issues, and compare how closely their current representative(s) actions reflect those true views while the incumbent has been occupying the seat. Sheeple will seldom do this; they’re either too stupid, to lazy, or too brainwashed to break out of the sheeple mold. Even personal cost to these sheeple in terms of money or freedom doesn’t seem to matter to them because, ready, “that’s just how it is”.
To finish my thought, those of us who post in these pages and ardently support gun rights are hardly “sheeple”, but I suppose there are still way too many gun enthusiasts and hunters who are also among the “sheeple” herd and ‘go with the flow’, thus allowing undesirable incumbents a pass for as long as they those incumbents want to continue to play a corrupted god.
The problem with term limits is that it shifts the balance of power from the office-holder towards kingmakers in the background. We see that in California’s legislature, for instance; the CA legislature doesn’t look to me to be the better for term limits. If anything, worse for it.
The fact that the mainstream press is too chummy with power is the bigger issue. Politicians don’t get held to account for their records and the difference between promises and results, because journalists who ask tough questions don’t get access, sources, leaks …
Unless I feel there is an absolute necessity to do so, I try to never vote for any incumbent.
We haven’t thrown them out for the simple reason that there are not enough people who vote who are going to make gun control the marquee issue for their candidate selection decision. Presidential elections get barely 50% voter turnout and off-year Congressional elections are even worse. With such a small voter turnout, change is not going to happen.
The other problem is that some of these wing nuts really do represent their constituents and all politics are local. Dianne Feinstein couldn’t get elected dog catcher in Texas, yet her views mirror the majority position in California. Ted Cruz is not terribly well liked in many areas of this country, but his constituents in Texas love him, so he stays in power.
I guess we’ll see if Ted Cruz is popular, since he is a first-termer, but I’d vote for him if I had a chance. We’ll also see how long he wishes to serve. It would be nice if it wasn’t a “career” for any of them.
I’d have no problem with Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, or Scott Walker being career politicians provided they never go full McCain on us.
So… you only have a problem with incumbents that disagree with your views?
Politicians like McCain are the reason the term RINO exists.
For me it’s not so much that I disagree with McCain, but that
he and other Republicans, like Susan Collins, are more
likely to completely ignore the will of their electorate and vote
lockstep with Dems. I view it as a form of fraud. RINOs call
themselves one thing in order to get elected then vote
another and often undermine actual conservatives in the
process.
0bama brought back a lot of the clinton people.
The Democrats stay in office because, for every person with a brain who understands the party’s anti-freedom agenda, there are two people who just want their free sh1t and will sell out the country to get it. It’s just that simple.
This guy – he gets it.
No, it’s because we have an entrenched two-party system and the republican party has become a group of anti-intellectual demagogues that like to pretend we can ‘go back’ to an idealized America that never existed. So those more annoyed by the republican crap vote for the democrats’ crap.
I don’t like the Republicans stance on social issues, so I’m going to vote for the Democrats with their destructive and irresponsible fiscal policies.
Yep, that makes a whole lot of sense.
Because the fiscal policies of the Republican party (not the bullshit line they talk about when they want to get elected, their actual actions) are so much less destructive… Here’s a hint: power in the legislative and executive branches has flip-flipped back and forth in various combinations over the last half-century. What’s the constant? The ever-increasing debt and bankrupting of this country. It’s not just the Democrats at fault for the fiscal disaster hanging over our heads.
pretend we can ‘go back’ to an idealized America that never existed
@Hannibal, it existed. I grew up in it. Okay, it wasn’t all “Father Knows Best” and “Leave it to Beaver” — nothing is perfect — but this was once a hell of a country.
If you’re not old enough to remember, then I feel bad that you didn’t experience what it was like to live in America when it was actually America. You would have loved it.
I’m 65, grew up in an AFL-CIO, UAW family in a fairly grim North St. Louis neighborhood, and remember the fifties vividly. There was a lot to like: trips to the range with the Boy Scouts, streets so free of traffic you could play ball with only an occasional car to get in the way, a general freedom to run wild that little kids today couldn’t even imagine.
On the other hand, none of us had any idea what life was like if you weren’t straight, white, and fairly conventional in your lifestyle and politics. These were things I only learned about much later as a student of history.
I don’t support the upside-down entitlement society promoted by the left, by any means. I think it’s important to realize, though, that the “good old days” were pure hell for a lot of folks we view now as regular, productive members of society.
Your ideas on the issue are almost right. Voter turnout statistics show that Repulican/Unregistered voters tend to only come out and vote if they like the candidate that is running or if there is a real hotbutton issue. Otherwise, they just stay home and don’t vote. Democrat voters ALWAYS vote and they ALWAYS vote Democrat no matter what.
The democrats are the gimmedat party.
True
Do a video search for “best of obama voters”
It’s sadly more depressing than it is funny.
On the question of fault, I recall a section from Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” whereby he explains that if we don’t violently relieve ourselves of King George then we would have no one but ourselves to blame when he inevitably got us into another war with the French or Indians or both. That logic would hold that even those of us in pro gun rights districts are somewhat to blame for the actions of liberals voted in by liberals.
Mr. Paine’s logic of course was not universal and cannot be applied to our present situation, or any situation, and I am not suggesting that the morally correct thing to do, at some point, is to react to violent oppression with violence. Thomas Paine, and John Adams, and Ethan Allen, and George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, might have said something like that, but I’m not saying that.
If only those fine gentlemen had secured their thoughts, beliefs and principles in writing, on paper, for the benefit of future generations…..
And if only the population had the requisite intellect to read and *understand* such a document – that’d really be something. I bet a country could become the strongest and wealthiest nation in the world if they were to abide by such a document, and throw out – with extreme prejudice – the A-holes who would circumvent the freedoms afforded by it.
hear, hear!
Reading and understanding is not the problem. As we have become a more diverse nation, the ideals and what and how this country came to be have been lost. The reason the democrats try so hard to attract all minorities is because these peoples are the least connected to the constitution and the struggles of how this nation was founded. They only care about what government can give them, not how they can do for themselves. While this belief is not univerasal, it is very pervasive. As long as you only have people who care about themselves, then that is how they will vote. Liberty will be lost to the promise of a free cell phone. It was reported today that the IRS has given out 4.2B to illegal immgrants. If you are an urban politician all you have to do is promiss more.
Pascal,
I don’t think the diversity is the problem. I think it’s “hypo-reality syndrome.”
Once upon a time, if you came to America, you’d better be ready to deal with reality or die. You reaped the consequences of your actions–good or bad. There was no nanny state to undo what you did. That situation both attracted and created people with darwinianly strong moral codes and moral capital. Now, you can be a dipshit and not die. That, in a nutshell is the problem.
Give them bread and circuses…
I remember that photograph very well. It was published in Time magazine, back in 1994, when Clinton rammed his gun-control legislation through. Time magazine openly stated that it would do all it can to outlaw lawful gun ownership by peaceable citizens. So be it, then.
Some of you may disagree with me, but I strongly feel that unless our enemies of liberty (in general) and of the right to keep and bear arms (specifically) are dealt with in a profound and forceful manner then the situation will never improve.
Time is a true enemy of this country, then and now. They need to be dealt with. That is all.
Tom
I believe you are correct. The politicians in office really have absolutely nothing to lose when they vote for anti-liberty legislation. So why shouldn’t they keep doing it? Sure, a few will lose their positions in office for a short time but most will remain in office and many who lost their position in office will regain it or a similar position under an executive administration.
We also have to consider a new possibility. The combined bankroll of the obscenely wealthy anti-liberty brotherhood is truly staggering. I estimate their bank roll is at least $50 billion and quite possibly in excess of $100 billion. That much money can literally buy-off thousands of politicians. To give you a sense of scale, with just $5 billion dollars (somewhere between 5% and 10% of their estimated bank roll), the obscenely wealthy anti-liberty brotherhood could pay $1 million cash to 5,000 politicians. Since many anti-liberty politicians are firmly entrenched and face no risk of losing their office, the anti-liberty brotherhood could focus those 5,000 payments to representatives who may very well lose the next election. Thus, worst case, those politicians who vote for gun control and lose office in the next election get a $1 million “golden parachute” for their obedience to the obscenely wealthy anti-liberty brotherhood.
Think about it. If you had all the time and resources in the world to identify which Legislators were at risk of losing the next election and you had the resources to offer them $1 million “golden parachutes”, you could buy off pretty much every state legislature in the U.S. as well as the U.S. Senate and House of representatives. Remember, you would not have to offer your buy out to everyone because many legislators will vote for gun control of their own doing. You would only have to offer it to key legislators who, if there were no alternative, would vote against gun control to save their office. When you look at it that way, you wouldn’t have to buy out very many people to achieve 51% majorities in favor of gun control.
“If you had all the time and resources in the world to identify which Legislators were at risk of losing the next election…”
You’d discover that, thanks to gerrymandered districts, only a tiny fraction of elected officials in this country are ever in any real jeopardy of losing their seats. Now throw in a corrupt two-party system where everyone is strongly encouraged to play ball and wait their turn, and you have a political system where the only election most of these crooks ever have to really sweat is their first one. After that, it’s gravy. Incumbency has tremendous advantages, which is why the U.S. Congress has more than a 90% re-election rate in almost every election.
Back to your hypothetical: I’ll bet in the average election year, you couldn’t even find your goal of 5,000 elected officials in the entire country, at all levels from village comptroller on up, who are in any real danger of losing their job. That’s how broken and unrepresentative our system is now.
Unfortunately it seems people in those far left districts live in an alternate reality, and their perceptions are firmly anchored there. Even tho they see the gangs with guns outside their very door they believe that those gangs got those guns by going to the ‘next state’ and buying them from a crooked FFL dealer, like Bass Pro Shop or Cabelas.
On the flip side, though, weren’t they championing that they would have wiped us out in a generation? And yet here we are, almost 20 years later, in some ways stronger than ever, and certainly in greater numbers. For all their talk, and all their solidifying their power bases in Constitution-poor states like CA and NY, I don’t think they’ve gained near the ground they were so sure they would- the AWB sunsetted, the NRA grows by another million every time they even suggest federal level gun laws, and their post-ban “magic bullets” like 922r and NFA requirements are only slowing folks down, not stopping them.
We’re a long way from winning, no question about that– but so are they. And the difference is, their ideology is strong from the top down. Sure, there’s always another Feinstank or Bloomers coming up through the ranks, but the “2nd wave” leaders? Watts and the Giffords? Bitch, please. That pool gets shallower and shallower the further down they have to dive for talent. Us, on the other hand? We’re strong at local levels. Colorado proved that. We’re much stronger than they in social media- mainstream is a dinosaur feeling heat on it’s back, let them keep it. And most importantly, we have little use for a “figurehead” with their centralized money and backing. We’ve got the NRA for the beltway, SAF for the courts, and dozens more to fight them in the streets and online. Billions of dollars and a few dozen mayors ain’t got shit on millions of angry, passionate people whose philosophies are built on handling their own business.
The biggest difference, and the one that will stand the test of time, no question in my mind? Their way creates victims, and bereaved families. Our way creates survivors.
Bravo, Sir. Well said.
I believe the only reason the tide has turned in our favor is the Internet. With ease and great speed, I have been able to verify or debunk arguments, review historical documents, and digest data. We all know that we have the facts and truth on our side. The Internet enables us to access those facts and truth and share them with others. The Internet also enables us to see what legislators are trying to do before they accomplish it … and that enables us to respond proactively rather than reactively in many cases. The Internet also enables us to organize and rally/respond in ways that were not possible just 30 years ago.
Those facts, coupled with the additional facts that our base is large, passionate, energized, and willing to throw both time and money into the fight, have combined to get us to the point where we find ourselves today.
“We” like I’ve played a part. I can only vote once and I only speak till my voice is hoarse and write until my hands cramp. If the majority still votes in these lunatics I am somehow still to blame?
It’s not “we”, certainly not “I”, who keep electing these people. It is “they.”
Without voter ID, you can vote a whole lot more than once.
He is not full-filling his patriotic duty.
There are dead people that vote five times in a single election for democrats.
What is his excuse?
For some more moderate individuals like myself it’s kinda hard to find the perfect candidate to vote for these days. I don’t think I’ll ever see a pro gun politician that is also pro choice or pro gay even though they exist. That kind of person will probably end up nor being pro gun enough ans still sign off on more gun control laws later.
Why is it so important to vote for someone who is pro choice and pro gay? Are abortions and gay marriage going to leave us anytime soon?
Exactly… pick the candidate with the correct view on the CURRENT battle.
While abortion and gay rights are always a campaign item, exactly how much legislation is being proposed to change the status quo on those issues compared to the attacks on 2A?
More than you probably look at on an average day. Gay rights and abortion are also CURRENT battles. They are just being fought by other forces. We should all be for the civil liberties of ourselves and our neighbors. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. If you hate gay marriage, than marry the opposite gender.
We are all fighting for a fundamental individual freedom, we just need to realize that just because someone elses freedom makes us ‘feel uncomfortable’ doesn’t mean they don’t have that right.
We should all take the “We the People” stance and fight together.
I guess my issue with abortion is that I wouldn’t have chosen it for myself. I’m just going to assume that you wouldn’t have chosen it for yourself, either. We’re both glad that our mothers chose for us to exist. Looking back to 1975, I’d still chose to exist. In fact, I would chose to defend my own life, as I still chose to defend my own life now.
So given that the baby has no choice in being killed or not, I don’t consider abortion to be a matter of freedom. Not for the baby, and not by a long shot. I’d prefer that my tax dollars not pay for abortion. I especially don’t want viable babies in late-term abortion to be ripped to pieces inside their mother’s womb. Watch that on an ultrasound, if you can even stomach such a thing, and see if your mind changes.
I wrote in Lex Luthor for my first presidential election, back in 2000. How much better the world would be if a real super villain had become president, instead of some pussy pretenders….
Those issues (gay marriage, abortion) are meaningless in terms of actual policy. Their only use is political – they let politicians “divide and rule” by splitting the electorate over MEANINGLESS issues.
Abortion – prevents people who would be bad parents from having kids. Current judicial interpretation is not changing any time soon. A politician can be pro or anti with no fear of an actual change to the law.
Gay Marriage – Who cares whether the government recognizes their relationship with someone else. It is meaningless, unless you think the government is God (which some liberals do – that’s why Marxist regimes don’t tolerate religion, when the government is God, it is a jealous God).
But… I can make meaningless pronouncements about those issues to garner votes from my constituency. What amazes me is that the manipulation is so transparent, I can’t believe people fall for it.
And BTW Danny, there’s a party for the candidate you are looking for. It’s called “Libertarian”.
Schumer from NY. Yep. First thing I thought about and looking at the scanned document – there he is from NY. I still remember his hateful comments during the Waco Siege and his comments about Eduardo Saverin taking his money and renouncing US citizenship so he wouldn’t have to pay ridiculous sums of taxes. I remember Schumer’s ridiculous statements on tax evasion for NY billboards.
Schumer on Saverin:
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/92889601-schumer-eduardo-saverin-can-never-set-foot-in-u-s.html
(In other words – lets chase away capalists with money to spend ???!?)
Schumer on Waco:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR8UbTVIhOc
(Basically – US forces annihilating unarmed women and children is not against the law… sure)
Schumer insinuating that flash bang grenades are harmless and not classifed as grenades… event though they are titled “Flash bang … grenade”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaX8CiweU-E
Schumer slips up and actually says “Universal Registration” instead of “universal Background check”:
As I read the article, as soon as I got to the word “incumbent” my ipod kicked on the Imperial March….coincidence, luck?
“In my experience there is no such thing as luck” OB1K
Unless the incumbent is running against a Gun Grabber running for Congress solely to help push the anti-gun agenda..
http://fox6now.com/2013/10/14/amar-kaleka-to-challenge-paul-ryan-for-1st-cong-dist-seat/
Is that Tim Robbins manning the shovel? No better way to impress Susan Sarandon than melting some evil guns.
The biggest reason is that many of them such as Stretch Pelosi and The Wicked Witch of the West or ensconced in ultra liberal bastions. Others are protected by built up campaign “War chests” that make them hard to beat, and they also get backing from Bloomer et al.
The most important question raised here is why were you reading soldier of fortune?
Comments are closed.