Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: Jim Webb and the Supreme Court

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Jim Webb is a pro-gun democratic candidate for the US Senate in Virginia.

    I am informed by the Jim Webb for Senate campaign that the campaign filled out the NRA questionnaire supporting NRA positions 100%, and that he expected to be rated with an A+. Webb is a real life war hero: a man of integrity from SW Virginia who has a carry permit, walks a rifleman’s walk and “sweats bullets.” He is going to stay true to the people of Virginia who send him to the Senate: there is just no way that this guy is going to vote for further gun restrictions.

    But the NRA has him listed at this time with a “?” signifying that he did not fill in the questionnaire.

    I suspect that this supposed “confusion” on the part of the NRA may have something to do with his party affiliation, and not his positive position on guns. This seems to be based on the theory that if the gun community elects democrats -- even forcefully pro gun Democrats like Jim Webb – they will confirm evil Liberal Judges to the Supreme Court. These liberals -- they suppose -- will do bad stuff to the Second Amendment.

    I have developed quite the opposite view: I start with the observation that the Supreme Court has no modern 2nd Amendment jurisprudence: the last time the Supremes visited it: United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 83 L. Ed. 1206, 59 S. Ct. 816 (1939), the Court upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934, and determined that it did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. However, as Clarence Thomas recently observed, and as the 5th Circuit in Emerson explained “the Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.”

    Insofar as I can tell, Justice Thomas -- the Supreme Court’s most activist Justice -- is the only one of the nine who has any real record of enthusiasm for the Second Amendment. I am told that Justice Scalia may be on board, but he is considered by some to be a “rule conservative” and I think that we could be disappointed by him in a crunch.

    So if Thomas gets his way, and the Court actually takes up the 2nd Amendment, that would likely be BAD for gun owners, as it has been in most cases where lower court conservatives have considered the 2nd Amendment: my guess is that most judges want the political system to address substantive 2nd Amendment issues, and keep it OUT of the Supreme Court.

    While we can be pleased with the scholarship that went into the 5th Circuit’s Emerson decision, I can’t see the other Circuits or the Supreme Court running to embrace it: The recent victories for gun owners at the Supreme Court have come for reasons completely divorced from the 2nd Amendment: it is the Court’s hard line view of states’ rights -- not individual gun owners’ rights -- that caused the undoing of gun free school zones and federal Brady Law mandates.

    But Federalism is not likely to yield many more treats for gun owners beyond that: instead radical Federalism may have some harsh tricks for the gun world: eroding private property rights, and preventing the enforcement of conservation laws, for example.

    Bush’s recent appointments to the Court essentially ensure that the gun world’s gains in the “State’s rights” area will not go away, but make it more likely that unfortunate excesses may occur. My developing view is that liberal Justices are a good counterbalance against Federalism run amok, and the consequences that might have for gun owners.

    The real important gun rights fights are likely to come over issues like qualified immunity, standing, the Eleventh Amendment, and some of the other complimentary provisions of the Bill of Rights. The Court’s moderate to liberal wing is very good for gun owners and users who hope to enforce their rights in civil actions against state and local governments. Judges like Thomas and Scalia differ – most significantly for gun owners – from the moderate Judges who are left on the Court in that they tend – with a few notable exceptions -- to construe the rights of the people guaranteed in the Bill of Rights against the people, and construe the remedies for vindication of those rights into non-existence. So no matter what the 2nd Amendment or the law says, these so-called Conservatives have made it easier for officials not to process your gun paperwork; to keep illegal records on you because of your guns; to prevent you from going places where you have a right to be with your guns(see, e.g., http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...04Jul14_2.html ); to enter your house; to confiscate your guns, to arrest you because of your guns; and to shoot you or kick your ass in the process for good measure. Because of these Justices, gun owners who have their rights violated in these ways find they have little to nothing they can do about it.

    I cite as an example the experiences of your own Mike Stollenwerk in regard to the federalist/strict constructionist’s 11th Amendment and “standing” jurisprudence. Clearly these restrictive doctrines hampered his efforts to get the State of Pennsylvania to approve carry permits and gun sales without illegally demanding Social Security Numbers, and how the Right Wing’s legal jurisprudence affects gun owners rights generally.

    As to these supposed evil “liberals” they are about liberties: just like we are: they just would like to forget about the Second Amendment. But if the Court is not destined to grapple directly with the Second Amendment anyway, we should not fear them: we should embrace them: the rule conservatives are just as bad as the liberals are on the Second Amendment, but the liberals are better on ALL other likely gun issues than conservatives.

    Take Justice Ginsburg, for example: as a federal appellate judge, she found that the “free exercise” of religion required the DC government to grant a drivers license to a person who refused to disclose a social security number, because that person was a Christian fundamentalist who thought the SSN was “the Mark of the Beast.” That kind of individual rights emphasis is consonant with the individual rights emphasis that most gun owners would like to see applied to gun rights.

    And so it is my contrarian proposition that most outdoorsmen and gun owners likely will approve of the kind of decisions that democratic appointees actually will write in the foreseeable future on the Court: and from that, that the election of pro-gun democrats to the Senate and White House is a good thing -- or at least not bad – insofar as gun rights in the Third Branch are concerned.

    The Donkey

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Post imported post

    I suspect that this supposed “confusion” on the part of the NRA may have something to do with his party affiliation, and not his positive position on guns. This seems to be based on the theory that if the gun community elects democrats -- even forcefully pro gun Democrats like Jim Webb – they will confirm evil Liberal Judges to the Supreme Court. These liberals -- they suppose -- will do bad stuff to the Second Amendment.
    Here's another interesting tidbitthat you and everyone else here on OCDO may not have known about. Of all the Blacks currently serving in the 109th Congress, all of them are Democrats, and all but one, Sanford Bishop of Georgia, have been given a lifetime grade of F by the NRA. Bishop was given an A. See here http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rati...x=9&go.y=8





  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    What does race have to do with anything? I'm not sure what you are trying to imply by your post.

    To the original post, as much as I would like to see one of the parties do better by all our rights, I don't trust the Democrats will be any different on privacy issues than the Republicans have been. I don't expect any push by democrats to abandon privacy infringing programs when they get power.

    Ginsberg is not that good on individual rights in my opinion. Her vote in the Kelo decision is pretty much puts the individual at a loss against the state when it comes to property rights, I really don't want to see that thinking put towards gun rights.

    I never put much stock in NRA ratings or endorsements. As they don't publish whats in the surveys or the comparative results they are kind of worthless to the voter. Also the will not endorse if they feel a candidate cannot win, even if that candidate is 100% pro gun, and the opponent a hard anti. This is so they can say 98% of our endorsements went to victors and they can play kingmaker.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    842

    Post imported post

    The Donkey, I respect you opinions (even though I don't always agree). After the last VCDL meeting there have been somerumors that you might work for Webb, or for his campaign. I am not trying to flam you, I would just like to know if this is true or not?

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    TEX1N wrote:
    After the last VCDL meeting there have been somerumors that you might work for Webb, or for his campaign. I am not trying to flam you, I would just like to know if this is true or not?
    That's what he said at that meeting. The Donkey plans to return to the next VCDL monthly meeting in FFX County: 10/25/06 - Mason District Governmental Center Large Conference Room7:30 - 9:30

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    I do volunteer for the Sportsmen for Webb group: that is one reason why I am upset that NRA has not yet reported that Mr. Webb turned in the survey, when he has turned it in, and would get an "A"if they included him:

    I never expected an A+ or an endorsement from the NRA: what I expected from them was simply a fair shake forthe candidate who is at least as good, and probablyBETTER on guns than the incumbant:I think that the NRA is playing the establishment's game here, and as a former member I am sorry tosee it: makes me glad that Idid not pony up again this year.

    Mostly what I do these days isvolunteer at gunshows with guns and campaign literature, and tell peopleabout where Webb stands on guns and issues that affect people who like to hunt, fish and recreate outside.

    This weekend, we"Sportsmen" havea table at the Militaria show at the Dulles Expo Center in Chantilly Virginia. Today, the table is beingminded by Jim Kirkman, the volunteerChairman of "Sportsmen." Tomorrow early PM, I will be there.

    Mostly behind our table are a bunch of old soldiers, hunters and gun enthusiasts -- that is -- when we are not checking out the show.The Allen table last night was staffed by several very attractive young female college students, one of whom was walking around with a roll of "Allen" stickers.

    The show (and my table, if I might add) hasan impressive arrayof classic guns and military ephemera. I picked up big, shiny pistol therelast night! I think that Sportsmen for Webb's female auxilliary will be there on Sunday: another excellent reason to attend the show.

    Because of this volunteer work, and some independent research I have done I know a few things about Webb and Allen'spositions on guns: However, all the opinions I am expressing here about the Supreme Court, etc., are my own: I aman attorney living in Virginia but practicing civil litigation in Marylandwho has done a few things before the US Supreme Court, and what I am sayingabout the Supremeshere mainly draws from that experience.

    I will probably beat the VCDL meeting on the 25th even though the band "War" will be playing at the Birchmere that evening: my view is that I would rather sing "Why Can't We Be Friends?" to a bunch of fellow gun enthusiasts than listen to a bunch of old rockers sing it to me again.

    On the Kelo decision, I think Justice Thomas is right in his dissent when he pointed out problems with the Supreme Court's earlier decisions interpreting the words "public use" in the Fifth Amendment. See Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984); Bauman v. Parker, 346 U.S. 26 (1954). However, I do not think that Kennedy, Ginsburg, Stevens etc. made their decision because they do not support property rights: they were upholding somewhat flawed earlier precedents, which is often an appropriately CONSERVATIVE thing to do, and what our Senators most often ask about these days in confirmation hearings.

    The main way that future Supreme Court decisions by Republican appointees interpreting the "Takings" clause could effect gun owners is that it may make it more difficult for the government to enact conservation/clean water/clean airlaws: e.g. requiring the government to pay tax dollars to private citizens who otherwise would have the "right" to pollute the water.

    My guess is that Webb would probably vote to confirm both Republican and Democratic appointees who do not have such an activist judicial agenda that it sets them "beyond the pale."

    The Donkey

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    I don't know what "folks" you are talking about who told you the Webb "folks" are so "clueless" about guns.

    Webb is a life long sportsman, gun owner, and gun carrier who has a concealed carry permit, and actually concealed carries on a regular basis. The only thing George Allen carries is his tobacco pouch, and his instructions from big oil.

    Webb strongly and without apology:

    * Supports concealed carry reciprocity;
    * Opposes renewal of the Assault Style Weapons Ban;n
    * Opposes the DC gun ban;
    * Opposes further restrictions on Class III licenses;n
    * Opposes any further gun regulations whatsoever.

    It is probably true that there are some "folks" who accompany or try to represent candidates at some of these events who know less than others about various gun issues: take the attractive looking pre-law students who set up at the Allen table at the Chantilly gun show this weekend: they were delightful, but not big on guns: and when I talked magazines, they were probably wondering if I was referring to Cosmo or Newsweek. At the same time -- they were quite effective at pinning Allen stickers on the starry eyed, dumn struck, paunchy 40 something male gun fans who attended -- even if they were not talking guns.

    I will be there early this afternoon behind the Webb table, hopefully accompanied by someone way prettier than me with Webb stickers: but tell ya what: why don't you come on over and tell me how I am a "poser" and how "clueless" I am about my guns to my face? Let us reason together.

    It is certainly true that the "Sportsmen" have gone to some pains to educate folks about Webb's strong pro-gun stance at gun shows: we need to do this because -- for cultural reasons -- some gun folks just assume that just because Allen chews, wears boots, talks football, does not speak his french in public, and has learned to affect a virginia drawl, he is solid on guns.

    He's not: Allen supported the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban in 2000, and then flip-flopped under pressure from VCDL and NRA in 2004 (Richmond Times Dispatch, September 15, 2000). And when he ran in 2000, he said he supported legislation that would:

    • Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks on guns.
    • Increase penalties for the possession of any guns deemed illegal at that time (e.g. semi-autos with pistol grips or bayonet fittings; broomhandle mausers with stocks)
    • Require background checks of gun buyers at gun shows.

    (Source: Vote-smart.org NPAT Issues questionnaire Sep 20, 2000) http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/George_Allen_Gun_Control.htm)

    And all this was after he agreed to push the repeal of one gun a month, as a one time gubernatorial candidate, and then found he had other priorities, as governor.

    And then there is our great "Champion of Confederate History"'s recently found sudden “sensitivity” to what the Confederate Battle Flag means to African-American Virginians. Think about that waffle and what it says about our grinning incumbent: a California aristocrat, who throughout life up till now personally embraced the Bubba symbolism of the stars -n- bars, but now runs away fast as his cowboy boots will carry him when he realizes it won't help him get elected. So what do you think our newly minted "sensitive" Senator will do in relation to gun issues to prove that he is moderate enough to be President after the next Columbine? What do you think he will do to the liberties in this country to show people he is protecting their "security?"

    Now Webb doesn't do the grinning talking point shuffle, and it sometimes causes "folks" who are too close to DC and its pundetry to discount his chances. But I think that the "folks" who bother to get to know him realize that he is the real deal: and in my own estimation, we don't need to re-elect a politician whose greatest ambition is just to satisfy his ambitions.

    The Donkey


  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    The Donkey - I am still examining this race, so I'm enormously interested in your opinion of this.

    Mr. Webb apparently is "for" many thing we here support strongly. What has he done, or can he do, to demonstrate this? I mean, we have Mr. Allen's record to examine - what do we have of Mr. Webb besides words on this issue?

    I really don't mean to be inflammatory, though I don't know how to phrase my question in a non face-to-face forum that doesn't make it seem that way.

    I'll compare their records on other issues in other ways.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    I know that Jim is sincere on concealed carry because he showed me his concealed carry permit which dates from before he was contemplating any campaign.

    I have never been to his house, but am told that he is one of those guys who is "never more than five feet away . . . "

    Looking for a few of Jim's guns for our "Sportsmen for Webb" table, I broached the issue with him by inquiring whether it would be OK if I "took some of his guns away" from him. His face turned red, and he gave me that grinning marine platoon leader "out of my cold dead fingers" look.

    He is almost reflexively anti-establishment: although his roots are democratic, he ran away from the party after he returned from Vietnam as a result of Carter's decision to pardon the draft resisters in Canada. He spent considerable time in Vietnam experiencing guns from both ends: his idea of an "assault rifle" is always Class III.

    And if you read his newest book "Born Fighting," about the Scots-Irish and their history in America, you'll get a flavor for this guy's roots in SW Virginia, and where that places him in terms of growing up with guns, gun culture, the idea of liberty, and self-reliance.

    Please also note that Jim does not win friends among key parts of his base with his pro gun stance: in fact, more than a few members of democratic establishment in this state and elsewhere have not even been luke warm: the key to Jim winning this election is whether he can mobilize the democratic base, not whether he can appeal to gun owners. In fact, Jim LOSES votes and support among the million mom march set every time he opens his mouth about guns. That is what we call in the law a "declaration against interest" and it is reliable because people don't normally deliberately disadvantage themselves when they are running for office like that.

    Allen -- on the other hand -- does have a record on guns -- positive at times -- but rather spotty at others: it is those spots that he has been misrepresenting to a significant extent in this campaign as he tries to mobilize his base. Every time Allen says something positive about gun rights, it is to his strong advantage to do so among the people he is targeting. That does not necessarily mean he is lying, but it does mean that you have to be a bit more careful, and to weigh his record against his words.

    I am among those who think that it is important to nurture the pro-gun/pro liberty voices in the democratic party -- not squelch them and punish them for their stands. Sooner or later, the democrats will have their turn to run things, and we will want a seat at the table and a voice when that happens.

    The Donkey



  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    I sure wish you could have answered that without attacking the other guy.

    Because, I'll tell you, his endorsement from Hillary scares the snot out of me.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    377

    Post imported post

    All I can say is "God, forbid the Defeatocrats taking over the Senate." A vote for Jim Webb is the same thing as a vote for Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, and Kim Jong Il. Oh, and let's not forget Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, CALIFORNIA!

    Webb may personally be pro-gun owners' rights, but the party whose funding he is accepting as fast as the checks can be cashed wants to disarm every law-abiding civilian if it were possible. If he gets in, he will be beholden to the party, and that party hates the Second Amendment.

    If the Democrats win, you can bet I will be ordering as many Bushmaster M-4 semi autos, 30-round .223Remington mags, and Springfield Armory XDs with 20-round mags as I can afford. And don't forget to stock up on ammo and Pelican cases so you can bury the cache in the back yard.

    Really, don't be fooled by the Donkey. That's a good handle by the way.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Henrico County ,
    Posts
    537

    Post imported post

    In my opinion, Jim Webb is essentially a Republican who is adamently against the Iraq War. He had to run as a Democrat because we already have an incumbent Republican senator.

    Regardless of who one is voting for, I do think we are somewhat lucky in that whoever wins, we will have a senator representing us who is much better on gun issues than the overwhelming majority of other senators - regardless of party.

    Although I was born and raised in Virginia, and lived here until I was 25, I then spent five years in California, where the average Republicanis considerably"worse" on 2nd amendment issues than the average Democrat in Virginia is (of course, there are exceptions). I have been back for two years, and it brings a smile to my face to have the luxury of deciding between these two men!

    I have some issues with both men, and in a system where there are two dominant parties, I am certain I will almost always have some "issues" with all candidates.

    I wish Jim Webb would publicly assure everyone that he would only vote for pro-second amendment judges for federal courts. I would switch my vote from likely Allen to definitely Webb if he did so. As it is, I just don't know.

    If you go to http://www.realclearpolitics.com,. you will see that that even today Allen is likely to be the winner regardless of the wishes of the (mostly liberal) chattering classes. Nonetheless, this will be a turnout election - and Iwonder ifWebb can afford to be more publicly pro-second amendment than he already has been without losing Democratic votes. But, if he would do so, he would have my vote - and maybe those of many, manyothers.

    The Donkey - please use whatever influence you have to share this message with him!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Henrico County ,
    Posts
    537

    Post imported post

    A vote for Jim Webb is not a vote for Nancy Pelosi (thank God). She is in the house. Jim Webb is running for Senate.

  14. #14
    Regular Member zoom6zoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dale City, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,694

    Post imported post

    So he's got a concealed carry permit? So does Mayor Bloomberg.

  15. #15
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    Donkey, Is there some media outlet or somewhere Webb's 2A stance is, in his own words?
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,715

    Post imported post

    Some folks think people who take the gun issue so seriously are just "single issue voters". Indeed, the war, taxes, and the economy are all significant issues, but I consider the "gun issue" to be the canary in the mine shaft, so to speak. It is a consititutional issue regarding a basic civil right, not some mundane matter like what change there should be our taxes. Taxes can change like the weather, but once a right is weakened or lost, it can take more than a new election to put things back together.

    For all I know, Webb may be a stand up guy when it comes to the issue of self-defense rights, but if he really cares about our rights, why on earth would he want to caucus with the Democrats in the senate? Look at the "Grand Old Men" of the Dem senate: Robert Byrd (D-KKK), Ted Kennedy (D-Chivas). Other standard bearers include Hillary!, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, etc., etc. Clearly, the Dem Party is so far left and so anti-freedom, that Webb would simply be absorbed and ignored in a crowd like that. Anyone who thinks his "voice" could help moderate the present-day Democrat Party is deluding himself. I know this analogy is extreme, but electing a "moderate, pro-freedom" member of the Nazi party to the Reichstag in 1939 wouldn't have helped reform the fascist agenda.

    At this point in our nation's history, I couldn't bring myself to vote for anyone allying him or herself with the Democrat party. From my nearly half century perspective on this, I believe the stakes are too high.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    The last thing I wanted was to cause a partisan debate - and please, gents, let's not get negative here. We find enough of it elsewhere.


    What would convince me Mr. Webb *really* supports my rights are:

    - A stand-up, written promise that if the guaranteed reciprocity bill is not passed prior to his election, he would re-introduce AND push it.

    - An explanation of how his mind has changed on women in the military - something more than "I said that 27 years ago". Pointing to how far Hillary has come doesn't do anything for my faith that he's changed his mind since the 80s.

    - An explanation why he felt it necessary to attach Mr. Allen from the get-go. The very first campaign literature I got from Webb attacked Allen.



    If he can/will answer those, he's still in the running.


    (I sure would like to vote FOR someone, though, and it's getting tougher and tougher.)
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  18. #18
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote:
    The last thing I wanted was to cause a partisan debate - and please, gents, let's not get negative here. We find enough of it elsewhere.
    I really dislike the partisan crap also. The problem is that the house and senate has these people called "whips".

    They are there to make sure that people like Webb, will vote with the party leaders. I have serious doubts about continuing my support of the Dems because of it leaders that are very, very, anti-privacy, anti-gun, and anti-individual. Ms Clinton is a very big player in that party now, and she is on record to protect us by keeping us beaten down and easily controlled.

    There is a third option. I'm hoping to do research and find outwho that is (what he/she stands for). I may just write in Philip...

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Glen Allen, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Because, I'll tell you, his endorsement from Hillary scares the snot out of me.

    That says it all, Tess.

    Fred



  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Another issue is that regardless of his stance on guns or any freedom for that matter he will end up voting right along his party lines so he can gain and maintain the support of the Dems for future elections. There are not many politicians that will go against the "wishes" and "totalitarian roadmap" of their respective parties. Now overall the Repubs. generally are for 2A rights, but that has been changing over the years and I foresee them aligning more with the Dems over time.

    Voting is merely choosing which path you would like to see the Government take to a total police state; the Democrats fast track method or the Republicans slow and steady method.

    I vote to hang on to the meager remnants of freedom I still have for as long as possible.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    longwatch, THANK YOU for questioning tattedupboy's comments about race because i don't understand it either. let me be clear and up front now! i'm black and NOT a DEMOCRAT and I will stand toe-to-toe with ANYperson who stands for REASON! personally, i'm one of very, very, very few individuals whoclearly see that there is NO difference between democrat OR republican because I KNOW who controls BOTH parties. It doesn't matter to "them" who runs the White House!! PLEASE people! Don't get caught up in race because both white's and black's have been MUNIPULATED!! Please, OPEN youreyes!!





    Jersey Ron

    PS- When in doubt just follow the money!!!!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Glen Allen, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Ahmen to that , Ron....I agree....

    fred

  23. #23
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    Jersey Ron wrote:
    longwatch, THANK YOU for questioning tattedupboy's comments about race because i don't understand it either. let me be clear and up front now! i'm black and NOT a DEMOCRAT and I will stand toe-to-toe with ANYperson who stands for REASON! personally, i'm one of very, very, very few individuals whoclearly see that there is NO difference between democrat OR republican because I KNOW who controls BOTH parties. It doesn't matter to "them" who runs the White House!! PLEASE people! Don't get caught up in race because both white's and black's have been MUNIPULATED!! Please, OPEN youreyes!!





    Jersey Ron

    PS- When in doubt just follow the money!!!!
    Ron, I've experienced this...

    I was reading The Ten Things You Can't Say In America by Larry Elder on the DC Metro. A black woman felt the need to come over and ask me: "Why are you reading that? Don't you know he is a republican? You should just burn that book!" When I was done laughing at her, I told her that is just what Mr. Elder said you would say! The part I didn't understand was her need to tell me that he was a republican.

    After telling her she should educate herself instead of being a media and political sheep. I was then told I would never understand anyway because I was some [insert racist comment for white people] anyway. When I started laughing again, she just left.

    I feel for you taking a stand like that. I do not know about Jersy, but in DC, that takes more guts than a lot of people have.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    possumboy, thank you!!!!!!!!!!!











    jersey ron

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Wanted to provide resources responsive to some of the points raised above:

    Webb’s Public Stand on Gun Rights: Webb has been a forceful public proponent of gun rights: For example, on the Channel 8 website you can watch a streaming video of the rather interesting debate the candidates had at the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce debate in September. I found this reference to the candidates’ more extensive discussions on firearms in a report from a Richmond Times Dispatch reporter:

    “The candidates found something to agree about. Webb said he went along with Allen's effort to generally require states to recognize one another's permits for carrying concealed firearms.

    "I have a permit to carry [a firearm]," Webb said. "I've had guns since I was 8 years old and was raised in a family where hunting and self-defense is part of the culture."”

    http://washdateline.mgnetwork.com/in...mp;GroupID=213

    To get a better sense of what kind of man Webb is -- and why you can take his pro-gun position to the bank -- I would read the “Don’t Call Him Redneck” article in today’s Washington Post style section:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701585_pf.html

    Webb’s roots and independent streak are one reason why you don’t have to worry about him supporting gun control in the Senate.

    But Webb is a Democrat: As to the Bogey man of Democratic Control, gun control is going nowhere in the Senate. In an article on the NRA in the October 12 issue of the Wall Street Journal, Stacey Paxton, spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee stated that firearms aren’t on the list of priorities that democrats would address if they gain control of committees on capitol hill: “This isn’t anything that’s on the radar screen right now.” The article explains that nationally, democrats know that the backlash over the 1994 assault weapons ban played a roll in defeating several democrats that year – especially democrats in swing states – and that as a result there has been “no traction for gun control proposals” in democratic leadership circles.

    Republican efforts suggesting otherwise fall into the category of “Hillaryween” i.e. lets spook people into voting Republican on the basis of issues that are not on the table – because we think that people will associate certain personalities in the democratic leadership with a non-existent threat to gun rights.

    Actually, there are real threats to gun rights: but as my earlier post explains, they don’t come from where you would expect, but from general legal doctrines restricting the ability of private citizens to enforce those rights, and from more general assaults on the bill of rights.

    Webb On the Supreme Court Webb said in his first debate with Allen that he would have voted for Justice Roberts. He said that he had concerns about Alito, because that nomination was hurried through after Bush’s first choice imploded and there was not enough info on the table. He expressed concern that the Republican controlled senate seemed to be in a rush to get business done on the Supreme Court nomination rather than carefully considering issues. He said that we need to show respect to Administrations of both parties, and that he does not have litmus tests. He said that Senatorial courtesy should take place when leadership of one party asks for more time to consider a candidate.

    Allen on Supreme Court: at the debate, Allen expressed opposition to confirming federal judges who would strike down the pledge of allegiance; say you can desecrate the flag; define marriage differently than he would; and allow the Boy Scouts to be attacked. He called that “amending the Bill of Rights by judicial decree.” My sense is that Allen would impose certain political litmus tests on judges, but that gun rights would not be one of the issues: Privacy issues would: but he would be in favor of stances involving greater government intrusions.

    On Privacy: It is difficult for me to understand how anybody could associate establishment Republicans like Allen with a positive stance on Privacy: he is all about increasing government interference with your private life. It has been Democrats and a few Goldwateresque republicans that have been leading the fight to keep government out of your house; your records; and your electronic communications in matters such as HIPAA, Real ID, The Patriot Act, the Privacy Act, and FISA. Unfortunately, because of this administration, the tide of government intrusion has increased, with Allen backing Bush 97% of the time in general, and 100% on these issues.

    On Going Negative: Democats in general have allowed Republican political operatives to attack them unfairly without responding, which is one of the reasons that they have been losing elections: in his book “Foxes in the Henhouse” Steve Jarding, one of Webb’s senior advisors argues that democrats need to give Republicans a taste of their own medicine. The campaign manager Allen picked to help him through his Senate/Presidential campaigns is the reigning republican master at negative campaigning: "There's nothing wrong with going negative…Stayingpositive is a disservice to the voters." (June 10, 2005, Slate.com) For further info, see:

    http://www.webbforsenate.com/press/release.php?id=159

    Unfortunately for some of Webb’s campaign advisors, Webb himself is resistant to going negative, and has refused to participate, for example, in criticizing Allen on his dishonesty in re the racial overtones of the Macaca comments and the revelations about his behavior as a younger man. See, for example, the article in today’s Metro Section:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701408_pf.html

    I personally think that Jim should be tougher on Allen in certain matters involving personal and public integrity, and his “talking points” approach to public life. From my perspective also, some of the grist for the political mill in this campaign has been rather silly – such as Webb’s alleged support for higher taxes and Allen’s middle name. But you cannot challenge an incumbent without criticizing his record. I admire Allen’s advisers for managing to run such an unrestrainedly negative campaign (witness the commercials on women’s issues/taxes) while at the same time, managing to blame the Webb campaign for the “negative” stuff in the press that Allen – and not Webb -- is responsible for.

    I also think that Allen/Webb’s stance on women’s issues is relevant to gun rights in an indirect way, but I want to stay true to the purpose of this site, and so would commend to the attention of those who asked about these issues, todays Washington Times article, and the following additional materials:

    http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20061...4853-2578r.htm

    http://www.webbforsenate.com/press/release.php?id=168

    http://www.webbforsenate.com/press/release.php?id=144

    The Donkey

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •