A Call to Arms - Literally

There are very serious Second Amendment-related issues being buzzed about on talk radio (George Nory discussed it on Coast to Coast Friday night), and I really think the three major third parties should say something about it. Libertarians and Constitutionalists are big pro-gun; not sure what the Green Party stance is, but it should concern many that the ATF is forcing scores of gun shops and stores to close their doors.

I’m not too sure why that is, but it will be discussed on Thursday’s Libertarian Politics Live! show (10 p.m. CST).

20 Responses to “A Call to Arms - Literally”

  1. FacingTheSharks Says:

    I’m going to be voting as an independant, probably for the rest of my life now, but what I don’t understand is if our Constitutional rights are slowly being taken away from us, why are there so many Third Parties?

    Why not just form one giant Third Party so all of the votes aren’t split up, and then just get out of the “Two-Party” system all of America is stuck in?

    I look at your list of Third Parties, and it just seems like all the votes will be wasted because if there are too many candidates (so each Third Party has a representative) then there won’t be enough votes to stop the current system. Why not unite?

  2. Anthony Distler Says:

    The Green Party is pro-gun control.

    And the discussion of uniting the third parties together has been brought up many times. Problem is that third parties in general have different ideologies then other third parties. I mean, I could never see the Constitution and the Green Parties endorce the same candidate, considering the Constitution Party is ultra-conservative and the Green Party is ultra-liberal. Or, even more extreme, imagine the American Hertige Party uniting with the Socialist Party. You have a bar roon brawl waiting to happen.

    In the grand scheme of things, the two major parties are relatively moderate in comparison to most of the other political parties out there. The only political party that really don’t have a single ideology or single platform to run on is the Libetarian Party, and that’s shown, being at that are the largest third party in the US (despite claims to the contrary.)

  3. Andy Says:

    From what I’ve seen from the Green Party, they are generally for gun control , but there are a few pro-gun Greens.

  4. Mike Indiana Says:

    Green as a whole are generally divided on a great deal of issues but due to the decentralized party structure of the GP this allows verious state parties to take completely different stances. The Midwestern and Western greens tend to foucus a great deal less on gun control, and in many cases are actively pro-gun (in a sense). It is important to remember that environmentalism and hunting have a symbiotic relationship. Thusly Rural Greens who may very well have grown up hunting and fishing (handling firearms) are more inclined to see guns as tools. While these greens take a softer stance to fire arms the urban (costal) greens see things quite differently. There experience with fire arms has been all together different and thusly these state parties hold vastly differing views. Since the anti gun Greens happen to reside in the media markets there message gets held up as the view of the entire party. This in many ways resembles the nation as a whole those who grew up around guns see them as tools those who did not see them as lethal weapons (without a purpose).

  5. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove Says:

    If there’s one freedom issue to not worry about, it’s this one. Gun grabbers have no traction. Conservatives support gun rights—no OTHER rights, but gun rights—and there are enough liberals who support rights in general (not economic ones, mind you) that this is dead. Even after that Virginia Tech massacre, no one was calling for gun control. When Don Imus says “nappy headed ho” we get conservaties and liberals saying we need to abolish the first amendment, but NEVER the second.

    This is just a bunch of fear-mongering B.S. The real liberties under threat are those protected by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. amendments, as well as economic rights which are under assault by the cultural and economic protectionists of the left and right.

  6. GreenCutip Says:

    yea. There are some pro-2nd amendment Greens. Rich Whitney, the Illinois Green Candidate for Governor was actually for open carry.

  7. SovereignMN Says:

    GE…I would agree that lately there haven’t been too many overt attempts at revoking the 2nd but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be diligent in fighting any covert attempts or keep guard to make sure the 2nd remains safe.

    IMHO the 2nd is the most important. Lose the 2nd and the others will follow. If you lose the others first but retain the 2nd you can always fight to get them back.

  8. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove Says:

    SMN: First, let me make it clear I am not wishy-washy on this issue. I am 100% pro-2nd amendment, and 100% against any and all gun control.

    However, I don’t see organized militias taking up arms to stop the Patriot Act, therefore, your theory isn’t true. It is the rhetoric of a bygone era when a group of organized men could theoretically challenge the government. It just isn’t possible. that doesn’t mean the 2nd isn’t still important, it just means it’s not MORE important than the 1st-10th, and the others should not be ignored as they are by virtually all 2nd-amendment rights groups.

  9. FacingTheSharks Says:

    I’m so naive about politics. I probably shouldn’t display my ignorance of it on a public forum, but you know what I thought? I thought a Third Party was all something of the same, as long as it was not Democrat or Republicican.

    I never thought about other parties as being conservative or liberal too. That makes sense now that I read all your comments. Sorry about that. I didn’t realize how different all the other parties were.

    Ok, what Third Party is for God (the God of Abraham) Family (one man and one woman) and The Constitution of the United States (freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, and will fight to get the Constitution back on track) and does not want social groups and activists to get tax money?

    That’s the Third Party I want to study more on.

    I have so much to learn!

  10. miche Says:

    Facing The Sharks,
    As a Libertarian Party county chairman, I advise you to look at the Constitution Party. As much as I would love to add you to our group, our ideals and yours don’t mesh. I do want to weaken the 2 party stranglehold on our country and so happily lose you to a third party that you can call home.

    Good luck on your search! I have a feeling you won’t be naive long.

  11. Anthony Distler Says:

    Yeah, see, even though we’re all united in the fact that we believe the Democrats and Republicans have failed us in leading the country, we still believe totally different things. Compare me and regular poster Joe, for example. Joe is anti-gay marriage and pro-gun. Me, on the other hand is pro-gay marriage and pro-gun control.

  12. Trent Hill Says:

    Facing The Sharks,

    Constitution Party is home.

  13. SovereignMN Says:

    “However, I don’t see organized militias taking up arms to stop the Patriot Act, therefore, your theory isn’t true. ”

    I never said having the 2nd amendment would guarantee that people would take up arms when other rights are violated. I simply said that having the 2nd in place would allow them to do so.

  14. FacingTheSharks Says:

    Thanks guys. I had heard about the Constitution Party from people in Macon, GA, and attended one of their business meetings, but because it was a business meeting, I didn’t get to learn much about their values. It was more like something those who already knew the values attended to go over some financial stuff or something like that.

    Anyway, thanks for the info. I guess I have a home then. I voted for their candidate in the last Presidential election. I was a Republican but abortion, illegals and H1B visas, and big business bullies have caused me to look for a new home.

    I actually have a lawsuit against our Senators, one congressman and our governor over the big business issues at Robins Air Force Base and trying to learn politics to understand how the bully system works and how I got caught up in it. I just want my life back and I’m more than willing to switch parties.

    Anthony, I’m with Joe too on both issues. Can you imagine what will happen if pro-gun control people get their way? We’ll all be disarmed and then how are we going to defend ourselves against those who call us infidels and want us to die? And how will be defend ourselves against those that want to rule America as tyrants?

    You can’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals even with gun control laws. Because in case you haven’t figured it out yet, criminals don’t follow the laws anyway! So, what’s a gun control law going to matter to them? Nothing. It’s just another law they’ll break. And the rest of us, who got disarmed, won’t be able to defend ourselves against the lawbreakers.

  15. FacingTheSharks Says:

    By the way, in case you’re wondering why I voted for the Consitution Party’s candidate for president, without knowing all their values yet, it was because I knew their values concerning God. I wasn’t about to vote Democrat or Republican because even though they claim to love God, their actions speak louder than their claims, and their beliefs, as a whole, have nothing to do with the Bible. The Constitution Party wasn’t in office so they have time yet to say one thing about God, then do something different once they were in office.

    So, I voted for a party for the party I thought would most likely do what was right in the site of God. Now I better learn all their values so I can be wiser in voting.

  16. Alan Augustson Says:

    The Second Amendment exists because the states wanted the ability to oppose an American tyrant. At the time we had no standing armies, so by keeping the weapons in the hands of the people, and controlled by the states, no Federal government could exert its will by force.

    The Federal government has since subverted that, by assuming control of the state militia. National Guard troops are alleged to fulfill the role of the militia in the Second Amendment, but they are in fact US Army troops. They are each directed by a State Adjutant General who answers to the Army, not the Governor.

    Many States now have State Defense Forces that are permitted under the Constitution, but by Federal law these forces are unarmed. Moreover, many SDFs are forbidden to recruit from among citizens who are eligible for service in the National Guard.

    One pillar of my program, while I was running for President, was to return all National Guard assets, including troops, arms, vehicles and even real estate, to the control of the Governors of their home states—thus restoring a major safety mechanism in the defense of liberty.

    So, how does my position relate to privately-owned guns outside the control of the militia?

    I could be called a “pro-gun Green” but that would be an inexcusable oversimplification. I have owned firearms in the past—I was well-trained in their safe use and keeping, courtesy of the Marines, and I abided to the letter with all state laws with respect to their keeping and carrying. I sold my firearms to a licensed dealer when I moved to Chicago.

    My so-called “pro-gun” position has two points, both of them purely practical in nature. First, I do not support government confiscation of any legally-owned property of any kind.

    Secondly, any attempt at gun control at this point in history would be a very, very expensive exercise in futility. Only the most altruistic of law-abiding gun owners could be expected to surrender their weapons. Not the realists. Not the narcissists. Sure as hell not the criminal and sociopathic elements.

    The result would be only a nominal decrease in gun ownership, and a severe skewing in the demographic of that ownership. It would be open season on law-abiding citizens.

    I don’t think anyone seriously believes the police have any ability to “protect” the citizenry—they really only have the resources to pursue and punish an offender, after the fact—but that seems to be the ability attributed to them by hardcore gun control lobbyists. I could not in good conscience subject anyone to the realities of that scenario.

  17. Anthony Distler Says:

    I’m not for confiscation. I think it would be extremely difficult to take guns away from people, and really, it’s actually kind of wrong. But I don’t think we should be able to get guns on demand. I support a cooling-off period and a background check. Have guns. Own guns. But I don’t think it’s right to just walk into a store, ask for a gun, and they hand one to you.

  18. Alan Augustson Says:

    Thank you, Anthony. Agreed, that my position addressed exclusively the guns already on the streets, forgetting about the continual influx of new guns.

    I submitted to a background check for my purchases, along with three-day waiting periods for pickup in each case. In those cases where I felt a need to carry, I applied for the appropriate permits. I didn’t find any of these things unreasonable.

    I also don’t care at all for a) gun shows, unless purchases can be made to adhere to normal purchasing procedures and regulations, or b) the issuance of dealer licenses to individuals who are not operating a business of any kind—thus allowing them to obtain fully-automatic weapons and other more tightly-controlled firearms.

  19. Green in Brooklyn Says:

    I do agree that it’s way too late to try to take people’s legal guns away - that would be reckless and downright dangerous. However, we need to strongly enforce the laws on the books, especially the laws regarding transport of weapons across state borders, etc. New York is one of the safest big cities in part b/c of tight gun control - it’s one of the only things Giuliani and Bloomberg got right.

    We also need to install a national gun registration program - either on all legal guns (we register and license cars, why not guns?), and/or ammunition. The U.S. has amongst the highest rates of murder, gun violence and gun accidents, because there are too many guns out there, and there is no accountability. I think gun control is first and foremost a law and order issue.

    Eventually, we need to take a look at clarifying that 2nd ammendment, but like the immigration issue, we need to deal with the immediate problems first.

  20. Bernard Continelli Says:

    There’s really no ‘intrinsic’ contradiction with the concept of Pro-Gun Greens any more than there is with the concept of Pro-Green Omnivores.
    It just seems that way because more Greens are likely to be ‘Gandhian’ influenced than, say, Libertarians or Constitutionists. I like the concept because the Libs and Cons just don’t have all the answers - especially with the environment and corporate power. I am also among those “American Spirit” types who believes that organic tobacco - though not harmless - is MUCH less so than the chemical-treated crap that REALLY killed my dad. Same with meat. Personally (an ex-conservative turned ex-Libertarian turned Green-ish) I’d not only like to see these additives banned outright, but also livestock feed that contains animal by-products. Such livestock are true vegetarians, and this type of feed is the real “unnatural abomination”, not to mention all the antibiotics used as well. Both the Tobacco-Free Coalitions and PETA should be more moderate and pursue these endeavors rather than outright bans on tobacco and omnivorism.
    Finally - and while I do believe in ‘harm reduction’ for hard-drug offenses - the Greens at least advocate legalization of cannabis (marijuana). I’ve been smoking it since 1974, have NOT progressed to hard drugs, and still feel fine!

Leave a Reply