Dan Coats, borne arms and repealing ObamaDems

The Indiana primary is over, and the most conservative candidate for US Senate did not win. Get over it and support Dan Coats for US Senate. Instead of going with someone who is using an Alinski rule use the rule of vote most conservative in the primary and vote Republican in the general.

Dan Coats is going to help restore our country as a US Senator and Brad Ellsworth will just be a lackey for Obama and his minions who are trying to radically transform the US. Dan Coats is not part of the Republican Congress who went astray over the last twelve years because he was not in office during that time. Hoosier voters are wise enough to know the difference between a Mike Sodrel who had been turned out by them in 2006 and chose not to elect in 2010 and Dan Coats who chose to not run in 1998.

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

there MUST be limitations….like for me honestly I believe burning the American Flag is NOT a speech issue and should NOT be allowed however lefties do believe that.

Humans if left to their devices each and every time will take something too far!

that once the primary is over, we have to focus on getting the Republican elected. Nothing else will stop the Obama/Socialist machine. Nothing.

Birthday wishes are sent from penguin, South Pole of course.

OK, he’s got the nomination. Now get him elected, and THEN stand by and watch him like a hawk. We let the Class of ’94 morph itself into the Grand Old Progressive party, and look where it got us. No Congresscritter or Senator can ever again be allowed to run unattended !

Assuming you can afford and maintain one, of course.
People do, you know. With functional weapons, even. None of the current ones with their classified technology, but you can find the rare F4 Phantom out there and virtually all of the old fighter planes in private hands. Used to be quite a few Shermans out there, too, though I believe age and lack of maintenance has killed most of them.

While I agree on restrictions of NBC, I don’t agree on restrictions of anything else that’s not classified.

If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi tell the Democrats to restrict guns they will. It will be just like Stupak on healthcare reform with abortion subsidies.

Frankly, yes. Those Republicans who believe in restricting rights deserve no more respect for such violations than anyone else just because they have an R instead of a D behind their name. The phrase “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” seems to me to rule out outlawing a group of otherwise legal firearms.

On the other hand, the lesser of two evils is still the best choice, and if I lived in Indiana, I’d still vote for Coats.

you can do better than that GC. You come from a state that was quite good at limiting gun rights, not by the type of firearm, but the type or person who carried on, you know what I mean? This is why former Jim Crow states, aside from Virginia and Florida, are not usually leaders in 2A rights. When we want to hear about freedom and the 2A, we look to the West.

I don’t have it in for Coats, the primary is over. But when I hear the absurd red herring about owning nukes, I just don’t listen anymore, that is lefty gun grabber talk. Coats was wrong on the Clinton Gun ban because he was WRONG and the ban was WRONG. It has nothing to do with nukes or fighter planes or Napoleon Cannons.

If Coats want’s support from 2A organizations, HE NEEDS TO ASK FOR IT AND SHOW WHY HE DESERVES IT!!! I know it sounds simple, that is because it is simple.

> does Dan Coats deserve the vitriol he has received from many gun
> rights advocates because of an argument over just how many
> bullets can be fired from a rifle every 60 seconds?

I assume that question is in good faith, but it seems to confuse NFA “machine guns” with the semi-automatic carbines that the Clinton “AW” ban, er, banned. That’s not really an accident–the gun control lobby *intended* you to make that mistake. Rate of fire is simply not an issue here.

> So this column is a sincere inquiry on the relative importance of how
> semi- must semi-automatics be

Not much…unless you think the Constitution is still binding and that Madison & Company might, after all, have been right in connecting gun ownership with freedom.

> (and what is the constitutional basis
> for same, e.g. a right to “bear” bazookas?)

Of the several specific things the 2A is supposed to protect, the only one important enough to be enshrined in a prefatory clause was your ability to own the rifle that you are obliged to report to militia duty with, until roughly age 45 (that number has essentially been constant for the entire history of the Republic). That is your weapon of honor and civic duty–I suppose that sounds incomprehensible today, but the document was written by men for whom honor was so metaphysically concrete that they still fought duels. To be well-regulated, among other things you need to report with the standard-issue rifle chambered in the standard-issue cartridge. Thus, according to the original logic, the AR-15 pattern rifle should be the most protected firearm in America. It is the one that the government has the power to *require* you to possess and maintain, after all (if you are a male between about 17 and 45, or IIRC since about 1903 a female in the National Guard or reserves).

Second, if we want to be really honest about it, the founders spilled a great deal of ink on the necessity that the people be comparably equipped to the regular army and to select militias (such as the National Guard). Thus, in a broader sense they were more concerned with specifically military rifles than any others. That means the contemporary military, just as the freedoms of speech and press cover electronic media (such as RedState!). The “sporting purpose” lie is precisely the opposite of the truth: sporting arms are protected simply to protect the positive gun culture that teaches boys to be riflemen before they even reach the military. The 2A doesn’t say “duck hunting being necessary to a free state. (That isn’t just a militia problem. The NRA was originally founded because the Northern recruits didn’t know which end of the rifle pointed at the other guy. Sometimes you don’t have time to take a city boy and start from scratch, and even today the army finds that hunters make better soldiers.)

Third, the incremental banning of guns has mainly progressed by first establishing the false premise that there exists at least one bad, evil kind of gun whose owners, we’re assured, shouldn’t be supported by “normal” gun owners. Then the “evil” categories of guns and owners expands until it includes *all* guns and all gun owners, but in such a way that at each step we’re told we shouldn’t have common cause with *those* people.

There is simply no doubt about this–dear departed Ted Kennedy railed on the Senate floor about the horrible cop-killing armor-piercing guns available everywhere in America–the .30-30. As that is a rather weak cartridge, and has always been chambered only in sporting arms (almost always a lever-action carbine, a “cowboy gun” to people who don’t know guns), dear old Ted let the cat out of the bag. *Everything* is going to get banned, in due time. There’s nothing surprising about this pattern–that’s how it worked in each country that lost the right, too.

Fourth, “assault weapons”, i.e. semiautomatic carbines with furnishings that make Diane Feinstein wet her pants (literally–they ban was based on appearance, not function), are actually customarily chambered in weak cartridges anyway. Most hunting rifles are *much* more powerful, and even in semi-auto an old M1 Garand from the CMP or a (modern, sporting) Browning BAR in a suitable hunting caliber is far more gun, and will fire as fast (as fast as you pull the trigger, basically).

In short: (1) we have an obligation to the rule of law to protect *everything* the Bill of Rights was understood to protect, and may not on our honor throw part of the law under the bus, (2) “assault weapons” are the do-or-die battleground where we *must* defeat the “sporting purpose” lie once and for all, and (3) we must not let the gun control lobby set up their follow-up attack against “sniper-rifles” (that will be any bolt-action rifle), “cop-killers” (that will be any cartridge at least as powerful as the 5.56, which is a varmint cartridge), “street sweepers” (eventually, any shot gun), and the like.

We *know* how their rhetoric and procedure works. We must not play their game on taxes, Constitutional interpretation, *or* gun control.

Dan Coats is the nominee. I’m behind him. That settles it.

The time for bashing Coats was before the primary. Coats won. Stutzman lost, despite a tremendous last minute push. Hostettler lost.

So if I were in Indiana I’d be voting for him without question.

The Founding Fathers made it clear, and the Supreme Court confirmed in the Heller decision, that a) the “militia” consisted of all-able bodied men (in general, the “People”). The Founders also made it clear that the militia’s arms would be “little if at all inferior” to the arms used by a standing army. Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29, regarding the militia:

“Yet is is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size, upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. “

The Founders couldn’t have envisioned NBC weapons. They are so destructive that any government is almost certain never to use such weapons on its own soil. But we know tanks have been used to terrorize populations, ordinary folks – look at Germany’s invasion of the 9 or so nations on the eve of WW II — as have pistols, rifles, & other weapons. So sorry, but Hamilton was right: ordinary citizens should be able to get what they want of the latter items – for self defense, and to make government officials just a little bit scared of the People. You can have training and paperwork requirements, and supervise heavily when it comes to the more exotic weapons, but for pistols and rifles it shouldn’t be very hard at all to own them assuming you’re an honest, law-abiding citizen.

As for Dan Coats, if he’s the best they can do Indiana, fine. Comrade Obama must be defeated. But Coats must be prevented from having his way again on the so-called “assault weapons” ban. The federal and state governments have them, the People should have them too.

after reading this:

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/04/20/does-indiana-really-remember-dan-coats/

A minor point though, since Coats is the nominee, not saying he shouldn’t be supported. Great post.

Focus, people! After the wandering comments, some facts. Coats has a proven record against gun rights. Hostettler promised, at a 2d Amendment meeting before his first election that he would not vote for any gun control laws nor would he vote for any bill which provided amnesty for illegal aliens. He kept both of those promises during his entire time as congressman.

Ellsworth screwed up on Obamacare with his naive belief that a group of novus ordo nuns have opinions worth listening to and a socialist president can be trusted to enforce an executive order when it no longer suits him.

The high muckity-mucks of the Indiana GOP chose Coats in spite of the mood of the country for return to the Constitution. They also tolerate Lugar who is a RINO and globalist of the first order. They cannot be allowed to continue to destroy the GOP. I WILL VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY IF A SUITABLE ONE RUNS, OR ELSE FOR ELLSWORTH. Hopefully Coats will crawl back under his lucrative lobbiest ROCK where he obviously belongs.