Top Navigation  
U.S. Flag waving
Office Hours Momday - Friday  8 am - 5 pm Pacific 1-800-835-2418
Facebook   YouTube   Twitter
 Home Page
 Current Issue
 Article Index
 Author Index
 Previous Issues

 Kindle Subscriptions
 Kindle Publications
 Back Issues
 Discount Books
 All Specials
 Classified Ad

 Web Site Ads
 Magazine Ads

 BHM Forum
 Contact Us/
 Change of Address

Forum / Chat
 Forum/Chat Info
 Lost Password
 Write For BHM

Link to BHM

Massad Ayoob on Guns

Want to Comment on a blog post? Look for and click on the blue No Comments or # Comments at the end of each post.

Massad Ayoob


Wednesday, September 19th, 2012

I try to stay out of politics. Ain’t my job.  Here at Backwoods Home, I’m the resident gun guy, and because I’m the only staffer who also works in the criminal justice system, I sometimes go there too.

A hugely important Presidential election looms upon us.  The next four years will see new appointments to the United States Supreme Court, with obviously great implications for those of us who believe in the Constitution and have sworn an oath to uphold it.  As has been discussed here before, the one-issue voter isn’t necessarily wearing blinders.  Rather, he or she recognizes that no citizen can be on top of every critical issue in our society, but our leaders must be.  Therefore, we pick one issue we DO know inside and out, and use that as the litmus test to determine the candidate’s reasonableness, fairness, and logic in the other matters we will vote to entrust to him or her.

This is not to say that we don’t have other issues which are important to us.  I am sadly watching the Republican Party, whose platform is much closer to my One Combined Issue of the civil rights of gun owners and the right to self-defense, walk perilously close to the cliff of unelectability on other issues. 47% of people voting for Obama so they can suck on the public teat? I know a lot of taxpayers who are very productive to our society who are going to vote to re-elect the current President for other reasons.

It’s not my place to talk about those things here. It is my place to talk about my corner of the Backwoods Home blogs.  In those areas, the choice is starkly clear.

The Democratic Party has chosen to support a reinstatement, presumably permanent this time, of the totally failed and Draconian “assault weapons ban” dumped on us for a decade by Bill Clinton when he was President.  Don’t believe me?  Look here:

The Republican Party, on the other hand, isn’t buying that crap and instead, is for the first time endorsing national reciprocity for concealed carry, that is, the right to carry a loaded, concealed handgun in every state to protect yourself and your family when you’re traveling.  Don’t believe me? Look here:

Yeah, I know: “the lesser of two evils.”  There are two ways to look at that.  One, of course, is that “the lesser of two evils is still evil.”  Cynical pragmatist that the decades have made me, I go with the other view: “the lesser of two evils is still…LESS EVIL.”

For the one issue voter, if the issue is gun owners’ civil rights and the right to protect self and family, Romney is the indisputable choice.


  1. Paul Hogan Says:

    Mas, I have always regarded your opinion as sound advice coming from a basis of knowledge greater than my own. As a neighbor to your southern border (if you still are in the land of ‘Live Free or Die’), I live under what Romney left us with in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. The firearms laws are just plain rediculous in Mass and the potential for worse is a real posisibility. I’m not in a swing state, and I detest the idea of supporting Romney, but I have come to the understanding that he will do the least amount of damage to our Constitutional rights. You are very right in you’re conclusion! Be safe and I look forward to taking one of your classes someday! Cheers! -Paul H.

  2. Richard Says:

    I’m going to go in to vote then go home and try to wash the filth off me. Two sides of the same coin is what we have to vote for but back in 2008 I thought why bother voting, it wont make a difference. I have come to the conclusion that the difference it makes is in delaying the inevitable forward progression to a statist tyranny. Thus giving me more time to prepare and become as self reliant as I possibly can. Eventually even giving up US Dollars for trade “…give unto Caesar what is Caesars ” and all that.

    Keep up the good work and thanks for your fine articles.

  3. Lorenzo Says:

    The lesser of two evils…

    It was an issue the Founders battled with as well, which led in part to the creation of our Constitution. And that is my one issue. I will be more likely to support/vote for the individual that adheres closest to that document. It’s the guy that respects freedom and liberty, even when he has the power to destroy both, that get’s my respect. Will there ever be a perfect candidate? No, not since Eve ate the apple. (I don’t mean to blame it all on you, ladies) The best we can do is continue to hold their feet to the fire.

    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. — Thomas Jefferson, to Archibald Stewart (23 December 1791).

  4. Long Island Mike Says:

    The one issue voter is lazy. If your telling me that the average Joe can’t handle looking at a candidate on a half dozen critical issues to this nation, then I don’t know if you can cross the street without an escort.

    If you pull the lever for the most important individual in the Free World, the guy that is going to have to deal with life and death matters around the globe, set the course for the USA for the next generation, based on his stand on 2A, then you scare me. Remember that the idiots like Senate leader Harry Reid have endorsements from the NRA. But does that make him worth a warm bucket of spit? Nah. On every other issue he is just worrisome wrong. Folks like him will leave you bankrupt, dispirited, dependent and out of work. You may have your guns, but you’ll still be a drone in a communist republic of America.

    So by this November please take the time to list out a half dozen issues that mean something to you and your children, then take the temperature of the various national and local candidates (you’re local elections are JUST AS important as the Presidential race). You can include 2A but by for the love of god don’t make it the only issue.

  5. Ryan B Says:

    Talk is cheap…the two parties show us this on a regular basis. I’m not sure I’d trust Romney being a strong gun rights advocate. If we push past the cheap talk, we see his actions aren’t nearly so pro-gun. He signed a permanent assault weapons ban as governor of MA. Before his last presidential campaign, he purchased a lifetime NRA membership as an admittedly calculated political move; “I’m after the NRA’s endorsement,” he said. After declaring himself a hunter and gun owner, he admitted he didn’t own a gun, and had hunted only twice in his life. I’m not saying he has some sinister plan to take away guns, but it’s clear that he is a political opportunist who frequently changes his positions, and he’s smart enough to test the wind and say what he thinks will appeal to voters he must have. But hey, that’s politics.

  6. Jaji Says:

    As far as other issues go, I do focus on them. In my city there has not been anything other than Democrats in power for 2 decades. Not much of choice ever, and not a chance in this “Sanctuary City” for “undocumented workers”.

    The Health “Care” law that was recently passed will not be repealed by Romney, since a lot of it was based on what he did in MA. Ergo, that is a non-issue in my mind.

    Social Security: Again, does it matter? It won’t exist when I “retire” since career politicians control it, not the President, and they are lining their pockets with this pyramid scheme.

    Unemployment? Maybe so, but regardless of who warms the Oval Office chair with his ass, it’s still career politicians who control policy. I’m on my own.

    That leaves only the 2nd Amendment as a national issue that matters to me. With McCain-Feingold being a direct violation of the 1st Amendment with barely a ripple by “the Average Joe”, it’s hard to believe that a government with a proven track record of trying to ban guns outright won’t try doing so again. The sitting Vice-President helped write the “assault weapons” ban passed in ’94, so that does not give me hope should he and his boss be re-elected this year.

    I see no choice (FYI: Ron Paul is NOT on the ballot anywhere…) but to hold my nose and pull the lever for Romney.

    PS Buy more ammo…but only with cash!

  7. Jeff in WI Says:

    I’ve never been so scared of the outcome of an election as I am with this one. Romney is hardly the ideal candidate to lead our nation, however, the alternative is depressing, to say the least. Higher taxes, higher unemployment, fewer rights, no incentive to WORK for a living, redistribution of wealth, out of control union powers, etc, etc, etc, are the future if Obama is reelected. I’m not ecstatic about it, but my vote will go to Romney. I guess I am a one issue voter, and that issue is a future I can look forward to.

  8. EDG Says:

    Individual candidates often deviate from the “official” position of the party (or of whomever wrote the respective websites). For example, you have the “Blue Dog Democrats” in the south and we have Romney signing the an Assault Weapon Ban into law in Massachusetts. How is the same Romeny the “indesputable choice”? Because of a few paragraphs, that he did not produce, on Come on, man. Vetting a candidate is better done by examining candidate individually.

  9. CWP_in_FLA Says:

    Living in a modern egalitarian society is worth more to me than being able to purchase an AR-15 or a TEC-9.

    Despite the fact that we will disagree on who to vote for, I do appreciate some political discourse based on facts.

  10. California Mark Says:

    If you live in a winner take all electoral State & it’s not a possible swing State. You will not affect the outcome in any way shape or form if the lesser evil you vote for is not going to take your States majority vote.

    In my case I align much more closely to the Libertarian party than I do the Dem or Rep. Since my state isn’t in contention my vote is wasted voting for anything other than Libertarian. The idea is if enough popular sentiment is shown it will help sway the two main other party’s platforms back in a Constitutional direction.

    Ohio or Florida and some others it may make sense vote for a lesser evil, not in a State like mine.

  11. Johnm Says:

    It is my sincere hope that Vice President Paul Ryan becomes a strong advocate for those of us who cherish our Second Amendment rights. Even if it is angled from his background as sportsman, at least he can call BS on the fear mongering the left uses to portray all guns as “evil no matter what.” Gun control has been advanced in this country a nibble at a time, so if our only reversal option is baby steps, I say let’s get hoofing.

  12. George Says:

    The only important issue going into this election is Foreign Policy. All the others pale to insignificance in the face of Obummer’s policy of Muslim appeasement and his obvious disdain for Israel’s existence. His policies or lack thereof will lead us down the road to WWIII which will be really bad. God, I hope I’m wrong. But just in case I’m not — he ain’t getting my vote nor my wife’s!

  13. Marc-Wi Says:

    I feel dismayed at having to vote for the lesser of two evils every election cycle. We used to vote for the greater of two fine men of stature. The Quality of presidential timber has fallen so low we now vote for “shrubs”, paying great sums of treasure to have the privilege of watching them sling vast quantities of mud at each other.

  14. Marc-Wi Says:

    Yes, I’m getting pretty cynical these days.

  15. Matt Says:

    Gary Johnson is who I’m voting for.

    He stands where I do on many issues. Not all of them, but the ones I care most about, including firearms.

    Don’t call it a waste of a vote. A waste of a vote is one not cast, or one cast for someone you truly don’t feel comfortable endorsing with your name.

    I’d rather put my name on a ballot for someone I agree with and have him not get elected than sell out for “lesser of two evils”

  16. Chris - VA Says:

    They are both garbage.

    2A issue is a tie breaker.

  17. Matthew McLaughlin Says:

    Long Island Mike,

    I appreciate your coments regarding the importance of many issues outside of just the Second Amendment. Personally, I have several issues that I always weigh candidates against.

    I find individual responsibility to be very important. I look at which candidate will expect the people of this country to stand on their own two feet. I look at which candidate is more likely to create jobs that increase our exports and decrease our reliance on imports. I look at which candidate will be less likely to further reduce our liberties and responsibilities. I look at which candidate will make our current government less intrusive into our lives. I look for whch candidate will be less likely to reduce my ability to freely express my opinions and values. I look at which candidate is more likely to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

    I must remark, however, that the issue of the Second Amendment seems to be a very good indicator as to the commonality of general views between me and the candidates that I generally have to choose from.

  18. Jack Zeller Says:

    Mas, you are spot on. Period.

  19. Roger in NC Says:

    Mas, you put your finger on THE critical election issue that effects all others and that is the make up of the Supreme Court. Folks need to remember that these are life-time appointments, not something you can “fix” next election cycle by voting the appointees out. We are dangerously close to having a Progressive-leaning SCOTUS now and, if Obama is re-elected we will be there in spades when he appoints up to four progressive replacements. That is the outcome we must not let occur.

  20. Drake Says:

    Mas, I highly respect you, but I’m going to have to disagree strongly here. Yes, the Republican Party platform is pro-gun. However, Romney’s record is not – in fact, it is arguably as or more anti-gun than Obama’s. Of course, that’s not the only issue – we’ve also got economics, where Romney and Obama are again, much the same, as well as health care and foreign policy.

    I guess what it boils down to is that I hold myself personally responsible for actions taken by the people I vote for. I can’t in good conscience vote for Romney, Obama, or Johnson, and probably not Goode, either, though I need to research him more. More than likely, I’ll be writing in Ron Paul as a protest – it’s not like it’ll do any good, but at least I won’t have blood on my hands.

  21. Captain Bob Says:

    Mas: Romney did not say that 47% of the voters are Obama voters that are sucking off the gov’t teat, he said “Obama’s BASE (emphasis mine) voters are…” There are lots of Democrats who will vote for Obama that are very productive members of society and support his policies (only God knows why). However, the vast majority of his voters ARE in the groups that Romney mentioned and Obama’s party is always looking to draw in more by promising handouts. “If you rob Peter to pay Paul you will always have the support of Paul” and he wants as many “Pauls” as he can get.
    Another error is condemning Romney for saying, that as President he won’t care about those people. What he did say is that for the election he doesn’t care about that 47% because he will never change their minds to vote for him and he wants to concentrate on the swing voters. He never siad he won’t care about those “welfare’ folks AFTER he was elected.
    Lastly, I agree that it would be virtually impossible to find a candidate with complete agreement on all a person’s views so you are always voting a compromise. There are mch better candidates for our gun rights platform but none has the slightest chance of beating Obama, so a vote for someone else is a wasted vote. Not voting because you don’t like Romney is also a wasted vote. We need to vote not FOR ROMNEY but rather to DUMP OBAMA even if what we get isn’t perfect.

  22. Doc Martin Says:

    Hi Mas,

    While not getting into voting specifics, I do have trouble with single-issue voting especially when it comes to gun rights.

    I know of ranchers around here who campaigned hard for a gun-rights candidate only to learn that said individual was also anti-zoning so now there is a loud, dusty, high traffic gravel pit next to their property dropping its value and their quality of life. Something that never would have been allowed previously. There are stories of pro-gun pro-business candidates who have helped shut off river access to fishermen. And there are many stories about pro-gun pro-development candidates that pushed for changes in land use policy forbidding hunting and recreation use because of the deep pockets that bought up the land for a song and also financed the campaigns.

    Right now, under Obama, I have more access to acquire guns then ever before in my life. The three closest gun shops to my house have over a hundred black rifles sitting on sale racks, more auto pistols than imaginable, and enough high and ultra-high capacity mags to choke a heard of horses. And that does not even mention all the holographic sights, night vision optics, armor piercing ammo, suppressors, bullet-proof plates and carriers, and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammo just sitting on store shelves and floors. In fact, I bet I could wear the numbers off my credit card buying ammo right now. In less than an hour from now, I could have half a million rounds of 5.56 in the back of my previously empty truck.

    I read the book Glock, and in addition to learning about what goes on in your kitchen, the author weaves a story contradictory to common beliefs about anti-gun-pro-ban events. Following the author’s logic, there might be nothing better for the gun/ammo/concealed carry/range industries then the threat of a ban of some sort. And since some gun organizations almost ate their young for even the most mild perceived transgression considering anything but a ultra-firm across-the-board pro-everything-gun stance, I suspect that if such a boogie-ban were to ever take shape (not go into effect, just appear on the horizon) the instant outrage would circle the wagons so fast that it would make the Tea Party look like a Tupperware party.

    My point is that there is so much more to governing a country in today’s world then just gun policy. One of my greatest fears is that we will be so busy patting ourselves on the back for our wide-open gun rights that we fail to see the looming economic tsunami from Asia, or the instability in the middle east, or the competition for local recourses in North America, or movement of the manufacturing base to South America, or….

    Single issues make complex issues friendly, but just as dangerous are those who weaponize the singe issue in order to use it against us. A sort of deliberate election friendly fire.

    Mas, the lesser of two evils is sometimes closer than it appears.

  23. JSW Says:

    When it comes to voting, or anything, really, I’m a One-Issue voter for the most part, and everything else follows after that. The Constitution and BoR are very important to me and I vote following them. But the main issue- the one without which there are no other issues- is Life. I don’t know how long I went blindly along the ‘D’ line without realizing this. Once I pulled my head out of my rectal orifice, I left the ‘D’ and tried ‘R’.
    Honestly, the only difference between ‘D’ and ‘R’ is what’s on paper. Not one ‘R’ president has done anything to withdraw abortion from the national landscape. Not one ‘R’ legislator has really got into strife over repealing all the abortion laws.
    My point is: it doesn’t matter how they vote for guns or anything else, they’re all pro-abortion and anti-life.
    Evil is evil- to vote for one sin over another is still voting for sin. I’ve compromised my beliefs since 1964 by choosing the lessor of evils. No moe. I refuse- and catch lots of hell for this- to any longer vote for less evil to rid myself of a bigger evil. This country has chosen to damn itself, I will not lend my vote to helping it along.

  24. Steve Says:

    They are two dismal lying and hypocritical people IMO but since I’m not in a swing state, itself an odious concept of disenfranchisement for the rest of us, I don’t have to worry about who to vote for.

    I wouldn’t worry about platforms, they are meaningless and there is no way an “assault rifle” ban would make it to law these days.

    Mitt was not an asset to gun owners here in MA, for sure, with laws so idiotic and confusing that lawyers can’t tell you the answer. If you are not a LEO and want a post 1998 Glock in MA, the best way to get one is to have an out of state elderly relative buy one and leave it to you in his will. The trigger will be 5.5 and you’ll get a loaded chamber indicator. No one is dumber or crookeder than an MA legislator.

  25. Matt Says:

    If Romney is unelectable – and I don’t think he is – it’s hardly because he dared to say the unpleasant truth: that half of Americans now support the other half, an obviously unsustainable scenario in any welfare state or any democracy during prolonged bad economic times as a “new normal.” Instead, it’s because he’s seen by conservatives – who normally vote Republican reflexively – as a liberal. If Romney is unelectable, his role as a Massachusetts liberal who spawned Obamacare also has a LOT more to do with it than his daring to say the truth about the current unsustainability of the welfare state in America.

  26. Ft. Defiance Says:

    This would be a lot easier to swallow if Mitt Romney had not signed some of the most Draconian gun legislation into law while Governor of Massachusetts. Further he has never renounced his actions and admitted them in error! Instead he says that the NRA said the laws were okay and then goes on to attack Obama
    I trust Romney not a whit and I suspect should he be elected he will cave on gun rights the first time it is expedient to do so!

    By the way to say my trust in the NRA is shaken is to understate the fact and if they endorse Romney in light of his actions they will be a fraud.

  27. robert Says:

    Party platform documents are seldom adhered to by presidential candidates…. thank a god. I don’t believe the restriction of one type of weapon is going to prevent me from defending my family. I strongly believe in the right to carry but also believe my country is at more risk if Romney is elected than Obama. Take a look at the income growth trends over the last several decades. I may or may not pay more taxes if Obama is elected; regardless we will all be better off if incomes raise on the lower end… Obama is just smarter and more middle of the road in his decision making.

  28. JMD Says:

    I’ve come to the conclusion that national elections like this will always feel like choosing the lesser of two evils.

    I’ve also concluded that the nature of politics and the necessities of running a campaign naturally weed out the truly worthy candidates. That is, anyone who is honest, moral, intelligent and doesn’t thirst for power will abhor the things that need to be done and the compromises that need to be made in order to win a national election and “get things done” in office.

    That said, we could certainly do much worse than Romney (as Obama has shown us). As far as 2A issues are concerned, I read a good article by Howard Nemerov recently that talked about gun control legislation during Romney’s time as governor of Massachusetts:

    While things are certainly bad there as far as gun rights are concerned, it looks like Romney was able to make incremental improvements despite a strongly democratic state legislature. The Massachusetts’ Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) reported:

    “GOAL had more access to this administration than any other since the days of Governor Ed King in 1979.”

    “During the Romney Administration no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk.”

    “Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law.”

    Not perfect, but certainly not bad.

  29. Kentucky Kid Says:

    Bottom line: barring something totally unforseen and highly unlikely, one of these two guys is gonna be our next president.

    Review the issues.

    Pick a side.


  30. Crawler Says:

    Gun rights issues aside, I could never vote for a petty tyrant that lies to me and every other American that some stupid amateur low-budget video is to blame for the deaths of four Americans in Libya and all of the current uprisings and unrest in the Mideast.

    If the petty tyrant will lie to us all about the aforementioned, he and his minions would sure as hell lie to us all about Operation Fast & Furious (now that he owns it lock, stock and barrel by exercising his Executive Privilege to shield Eric Holder) .

    November 6th, 2012: Alpha Bravo Oscar

  31. Noah Vaile Says:

    While I’m afraid (and doubt) that Romney can be trusted I know that 0bummer can’t be.
    Let me rephrase. i know that the current prez can be trusted to do everything in his power to undermine everything in the United States from our Constitution, our culture, our economy, our financial structure, our military, our allies and our social fabric.
    Romney, at least, won’t do that. I hope.

  32. MD Matt Says:

    It comes down to either the most electable person who will do the least damage or the candidate who most closely represents my views. The first requires me to buy into the two party strangle hold on American politics but prevents someone worse from being voted in. The second may send a message but risks my least favorite candidate being elected. In that situation it’s easy to pick who I will vote against, but it’s much more difficult to pick who I will vote for.
    Should I take a stand against the perversion of our democratic system? Should I vote, not for one candidate but against another?
    If you are familiar with the damage previous executives have raught, then you may understand why this isn’t an easy choice.
    We are at the point now where the voters aren’t voting for candidates, but against potential outcomes.
    That’s a terrible place to be.

  33. Chris Blow Says:

    Mas,you are right:
    There is only one thing that makes the other “rights ” possible;
    the 2nd amendment ! The framers of our nation’s constitution and bill of rights knew this from experience ! The right to keep and bear arms is the difference between freedom and slavery.
    Romney is the only choice !

  34. Debbe von Blumenstein Says:

    Anyone who knows me knows where I stand on gun rights and self defense… but why label people in need as “sucking on the public teat” ????? …. b/c after near death and 65K in medical bills I am having to do so…. otherwise with the Repub agenda, I would be just another with a doctorate degree AND a homeless person and probably I would be dead. What about self defense as to health care and care when you are going to die b/c of lack of health care?… and not allow a single woman to be a street person and killed there b/c she is sent into homelessness????? If you don’t want me sucking on the teat (due to medical issues) then you are wishing me dead!… BTW, I just had to testify at the sentencing of a murder trial b/c my Client ran out of the care I fought for for him and was murdered b/c he was on the streets and defenseless.

  35. RichNH Says:

    I totally agree and will be holding my nose in November. I’ve always had the policy of voting with my heart in the primaries and voting with my head in the general election.

    Brookline, NH

  36. Tim from CO Says:

    Heh I vote within the “Totality of the circumstances” but The Second Amendment is usually my Active Dynamic 😛

    I’ll admit Romney isn’t my ideal candidate. But is he better than the current guy? Definitely.

    Might be a bit of an exaggeration but I see the current administration like an angry pack of dobermans and I’m trapped in the backyard with them. Now I can hop the fence into another yard with Romney the poodle. Sure Romney might bark and bite but I’ll take that over the dobermans. Or I can take the moral approach and not let these dobermans chase me away.

    Don’t get me wrong I think Ron Paul has some great stuff going for him. And I agree politicians that are moral and honest get weeded out quick in elections. But I feel like voting for Ron Paul is like jumping out of a plane without a parachute. Is it possible to survive (and Ron to win)? Sure, it could happen. But it’s not very likely.

    Like others have said, it’s not just the next four years. It’s the Supreme Count on the line as well. At least Romney might give us some decent appointees. One more Kegan or Sotomayor and might as well kiss our Right to Keep and Bear Arms goodbye.

    Hold your breath and vote for Romney, then campaign for good candidates at the local level is all I can say.

  37. randall Says:

    Greetings Mas,

    I am puzzled by this statement you made….

    “The next four years will see new appointments to the United States Supreme Court, with obviously great implications for those of us who believe in the Constitution and have sworn an oath to uphold it.”

    With all due respect, I believe that all the candidates both on the left and on the right, all believe in the Constitution. I think you are confusing belief in the constitution with interpretation of what a given amendment actually means. I am a gun owner and strong advocate of our right to own guns for pleasure, hunting and for self defense if need be. But I also believe the second amendment, like many amendments, is vaguely written. There are reasons for that having to do with the need to put together a document everyone could sign, in a timely manner.

    For example, why was there even a need to mention “militia” in the second amendment if the point was to simply guarantee all Americans the right to own a firearm? I confess that I don’t know for sure what the founder’s intent was, for mentioning militia. Was it to justify gun ownership somehow? I have no clue.

    I think we need to stop with the “them vs. us” mentality and to stop thinking that people who disagree with gun ownership are somehow “anti-constitution” and “anti-American”. Instead we need to show respect, understanding and address their issues with logical responses. Let’s win our argument and at the same time bring them to our side.

  38. Hanza Says:

    @Mas….. Off topic from this discussion but I have been searching the Sportman channel on my cable system for your program “Personal Defense” and so far I can’t find it.

    Do you know the air date for the first installment?

    Is “Personal Defense” its actual title and not carried under the umbrella of another program name?

    I hope the reason I can’t find it isn’t because my local cable company (COMCAST in Portland, OR) refuses to carry it.

  39. Mas Says:

    Hanza, the title of the show is “Personal Defense TV”. Upcoming season may not debut until October; I don’t have the Sportsman Channel calendar at hand, unfortunately.

  40. Mitchell Says:

    I am always puzzled by the Ron Paul supporters who say they cannot force themselves to vote for Romney, yet if you look at the ticket, Ryan is every bit the conservative and 2A supporter that Paul aspires to.

    We can agree to disagree on issues of foreign policy, but the economic issues and changes to domestic law that are facing us are not in dispute. So I ask that you not stay home and let Obama return next year. Your not-vote for Romney and Ryan will likely help to concede the victory for Obama.

    Ron Paul may be too bitter to admit defeat and endorse Romney-Ryan, but the failings of one man should not drag down an entire country.

  41. Brian Says:

    According to PDTV’s tweets, “Starting 10/1, PDTV airs Mon 10:30P, Tues 1:30A, Wed 3:00P, Sun 6:00A. Times Eastern/Pacific.”. (Found this thru Google search.)

    I get Sportsman Channel as part of my DirectTV basic package here in Wisconsin, not sure about COMCAST. When I wanted to add just the Outdoorsman Channel it was $6/month or $7.50/month for the entire 35 channel Sports Package – so I’d ask COMCAST what package deals they might include it in.

    PDTV with Mas is definitely worth the money!

  42. Paul Edwards Says:

    I read a lot of good, and some different, ideas here on being a “One Issue” Voter.

    For me it is much simpler.

    I am a STRICT “CONSTITUTIONALIST”, which means If it is not written in the Constitution, or it is contrary to anything that is written in the Constitution, then I Vote Against it.

    In this election, however, since Obama is the total image of all that is Anti-American, and Anti-Constitutional, I would vote for the preverbial “Yellow Dog”, if it means denying Obama another Four Years to finish destroying America, and all that it has stood for over the last two hundred plus years.

    Check out the below 13 WORST Obama Executive Orders, which are only a fraction of the over 900 EOs that he has issued, and then tell me that he can be allowed four more years of his type of “Change”.
    A Comprehensive List Of Obama’s Worst Executive Orders
    JUNE 15, 2012 BY LAURIE ROTH

    There have been over 900 Executive Orders put forth from Obama, and he is not even through his first term yet. He is creating a martial law ‘Disney Land’ of control covering everything imaginable. Some of the executive orders he has signed recently have been exposed thanks to ‘Friends of Conservative Action Alerts.’ They have compiled a choice list of ‘Emergency Powers, Martial law executive orders’: Get your headache medication out while you still can without a prescription.

    * Executive Order 10990 allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
    * Executive Order 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
    * Executive Order 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
    * Executive Order 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
    * Executive Order 11001 allows the government to take over all health education and welfare functions.
    * Executive Order 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
    * Executive Order 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
    * Executive Order 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations.
    * Executive Order 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.
    * Executive Order 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen-year period.
    * Executive Order 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
    * Executive Order 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute Industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
    * Executive Order 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit, and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when the president declares a state of emergency, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

    It is more than clear that Obama is planning for the total control and takeover of America via Martial Law. Food, energy, transportation, work, banking, and health. he has it covered.
    While Obama is busy pulling executive orders out of the sky to control everything inside our country, he has been issuing executive orders to force us to submit to international regulations instead of our Constitution. Sher Zieve exposed this in one of her recent articles. Damn the U.S. Constitution, damn the American people and damn U.S. sovereignty.

    Now, you know a portion of Obama’s VISION OF “Change’ for America.


  43. Old Fezzywig Says:


    I’m sorry to hear about your troubles. We live in a rich country and wonderfully we can help those who are unable to help themselves. Even though I am a conservative, I believe the taxpayer’s money can be used to help the seriously disabled. But there is a better way. The first helpers should be family members, the second helpers should be friends and the third helpers should be charities. Taxpayers should only be counted on as a last resort. The American idea of us doing everything on our own is a myth. There are SEVEN BILLION people in this world and we need to help each other. The government needs to stay small so that it doesn’t become oppressive.

    Now let me get personal. I myself am a financial loser. I live in NJ and make less than $30,000 a year. I can’t rent an apartment on my own. I rely on family to provide a room for me at less-than-market rent price. Now I do work full-time, I pay rent, I take care of the house, I have healthcare, I own a car, I am not in debt and I even have a little savings! But I can’t make it on my own. So, I do the best I can, but I rely on other people, and they rely on me. Together we do the best we can. Americans are hyper-individualistic, but this will change as we grow poorer. Rely on God, rely on others, but reliance on the government should be the last option.

  44. Hanza Says:

    @ Mas and Brian: Thanks to both of you for the info. I’m going to have to do some more sluething on COMCAST to try and find it or how I can get it.

  45. Uncle Dave Says:

    1/3 of the US Senate is up for a vote. Flipping the Senate is more important that the White house! Rommey is a wuss, but it is still better than Obama packing the Supreme court.

  46. Uncle Dave Says:

    If you have not seen the movie 2016 please do so. As important read the books used as back ground information.

  47. Mark Says:

    Politics is a team sport. Vote against the party that will do the most damage.

  48. Kentucky Kid Says:

    Uncle Dave reminds us that we need to remember that the next president will possibly nominate as many as three new Supreme Court justices.

    This absolutely cannot be left to Obama.

  49. Noah Vaile Says:

    Randall: Our current prezidense has said that he doesn’t believe in our Constitution. he has said that he believes that our contemporary culture and world system requires that we change it to bring it into line with what other countries are doing.

  50. Drake Says:

    @Mitchell – I have to respectfully disagree with you. We have Ryan – on video – literally begging Congress to pass TARP (bailouts). He’s only marginally better than Romney. In regards to civil issues, he and Romney both support the “Patriot” Act and other domestic spying programs. Granted, they pay a lot of lip service to the right to bear arms, but what does Romney have to back it up…?

    Ron Paul is not bitter, he is principled. I respect him all the more for standing on his principles rather than caving in to the masses of ignorant “Vote with The Party” people. That said, if any man deserves to be bitter, it’s Ron Paul. A real, honest supporter of freedom and the Constitution shows up, and he is rejected without a second thought by the average American, who then proceeds to b&^#h endlessly about how terrible the choices are.

  51. MD Matt Says:

    At Mitchell:
    “Ron Paul may be too bitter to admit defeat and endorse Romney-Ryan, but the failings of one man should not drag down an entire country.”

    I agree “the failings of one man should not drag down an entire country.” But the assumption that I should then vote for 2 people to bring down the entire country isn’t any more palatable. I can appreciate the desire that you and others have to oppose our current president and his continued political machinations. There are however other issues at stake here.
    As a democratic country, we have a duty to vote for the candidate who most closely represents our views. Picking the one guy who might kick the other guy out of office makes sense in the short term, but has been and continues to reinforce the 2 party system. Most of the choices here aren’t really choices at all. Ryan may have the conservative nod in some circles, but he’s far from a fiscal crusader. He voted for TARP/bale out as well as patriot 1 and 2. His budget cut spending, it’s true. But even by the most optimistic estimate, his budget doesn’t balance the deficit till 2030 which is several presidential double terms away. His convention speech was sprinkled with half truths and outright lies.
    Do you have to hold a torch for a candidate who didn’t even make it past the primaries? No. But it always bothers me to hear how people should be united in opposition for someone they dislike by voting for someone they dislike a little less.
    I’d rather send the message that I demand honesty and a stronger commitment to fiscal conservatism than give people the idea that not being our current president is enough to get you elected. While Paul isn’t an option for me to vote for, at least he is what he says he is. He doesn’t espier to be something, for better or worse, he has become the gold standard for conservatism…as well as some other issues which unfortunately make him unelectable.
    That’s the issue I keep running into. We continue to tell our politicians that as long as you’re a little bit not as bad as the other guy, we’ll vote you in. That’s why many people continue to cling to Paul, because he represents more of what people want, and not less of what people don’t want.
    Finally, I think it’s worth pointing out here that Romney and company aren’t “pro” 2a. It isn’t like they spearheaded a movement for carry rights or have sought to downsize the ATF’s influence. I’m by no means saying the alternative is better, but I think it’s time someone said that the GOP’s only real favor to gun owners has been to stop those against gun rights. I know that’s not a popular view, but it’s no less valid from my perspective.
    There’s a lot to consider in this election and nobody can make that final decision for anyone else. I would simply like to hear a more open and honest discussion of the failings of our system and work to hold everyone accountable for both their action and inaction.

  52. Hanza Says:

    @Mas – OT. COMCAST cable now has personal defense TV listed on the line up for the Sportmans channel. I have set up a season pass on my TiVo to get it.

    Previously when I was checking they didn’t have it listed on the program line up.

    I’m really looking forward to watching it.

  53. Mitchell Says:

    To Drake and other.

    It comes down to simple math at this point.

    Ron Paul is not on the ballot this time either and writing in his name changes nothing.

    TARP was a bad call and Ryan regrets what it became just as honest people believed there were WMD in Iraq. Ron Paul being one of them.

    No politician is perfect, certainly not Ron Paul or Ronald Reagan.

    Obama wants all of us to sit home and vote for either him or Ron Paul. I’ve made my decision to gain some ground back versus give up more to the enemy.

    I heard Alex Jones admit that Ron Paul has as much chance this year as Roseann Barr. Both are purists and represent different sides. Neither won can win.

  54. Hanza Says:

    @Mitchelll: There *were* WMDs in Iraq. Saddam used some to kill around 10,000 Kurds.

    There are to many people, including possibly you, who think that only NUCs are WMD.

    WMDs include both chemical and biological agents.

  55. Mitchell Ota Says:

    Well Romney isn’t perfect, but he has spoken in favor of the 2A, so he has my vote. At least he was born in the USA.

  56. guntotin-mama Says:

    Ya know what’s interesting Mas?

    This election, everyone has strong – and way more educated – opinions than I’ve seen in a while. Not nearly as much apathy. No matter which side one’s on – or which issue stands out… it seems we’re lining up in support of specific collections of ideas about who we are, as the United States.

    That could be GOOD… not just bad; it’s hard to tell from this point in time.

  57. P* Says:

    I wish the right, and the Republican Party, would quit focusing on abortion.

    I have to confess, that was my single issue for years – and I voted for the Democrats, who promised me my right to CHOOSE whether to have a child would be protected. And now I bear my share of guilt for being one of the millions who helped dig this terrible financial and constitutional hole we’re in.

    How about those of us on the right agree, for now, that the Democrats have to go, and then worry about polling the nation on whether abortion should be legal? One battle at a time.

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 1998 - Present by Backwoods Home Magazine. All Rights Reserved.