The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: ericire12 on February 01, 2009, 09:00:42 AM
-
Other then Ted Nugent, who would you suggest for NRA president and why. I already gave my short list in the Ted 4 President thread:
Ted may not be 100% right for that job....... or rather there may be others who are better for the role. Others like Tom Seleck, Rob Lathem, Jerry Miculek, Jim Scoutten, our own Michael Bane (I'm not kissing ass here), Julie Goloski (Gasp! A woman), Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Bill Jordan, Cindy Garrison (Gasp! Another woman), Charlie Daniels or maybe a retired athlete
I am interested in seeing who else us gun folk think would be a viable poster child for the NRA...... I will put together a poll for us in a few days with 10 or so candidates to vote on.
*No one else mention Ted Nugent in this thread please. There is already a thread for that discussion and he will also be included in the poll.
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=4968.msg58973#msg58973
*If you are giving more then a one word reply, please highlight the name of the person so I can find it easier.
-
JIMO, given the current political climate, I would say the best person is some one that just just a shade left of center.
Gun control is not a a left of right thing... its a control/ Look what I am doing to protect you thing.
-
Just as an aside...Bill Jordan is dead. :'( My pick would be Oliver North, Selleck or Huckabee. Another aside...Selleck received last year the greatest number of votes for Director in history of NRA.
-
JIMO, given the current political climate, I would say the best person is some one that just just a shade left of center.
Gun control is not a a left of right thing... its a control/ Look what I am doing to protect you thing.
Tab,
I tend to not attack people on forums but ... ARE YOU OFF YOUR FRICKEN ROCKER?
The anti-Constitutional gun control crowd are playing hardball, and you want to counter with a kittenball pitcher?
What turnip truck did you fall off of?
I'm not saying that there aren't others that could do as good a job as Ted Nugent, and I'm not saying that there are some that could do better, but we absolutely do not want anyone that will not be just as educated, firm in beliefs, living the beliefs, and unashamedly open about their Constitutional Rights!
People say, and you are saying, that we need to use a little honey and not be brash and offensive. BS !!! Does Billy Graham tone down his message so as to not offend others? No! He stands up there and openly says to anyone and everyone that if they do not accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and let Him control your life you are not going to Heaven ... period. Does the mainstream attack Rev. Graham? No. The mainstream goes after the wishy washy "feel good" clergy and pick their messages apart. What do the abortion advocates do? Do they pussy foot around the issues? No, they stand up and tell anyone and everyone that they destroy fetuses, and because of this brashness they have made this act a Constitutionally protected "medical necessity.
We need to pick up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wave it in their faces and tell them "From my cold dead hands!"
http://hematite.com/dragon/jefferson2nd.html (http://hematite.com/dragon/jefferson2nd.html)
"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
http://www.fightthebias.com/Quotes/thomas_jefferson.htm (http://www.fightthebias.com/Quotes/thomas_jefferson.htm)
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
-
Who do you think the current congress/ adminstration is more likly to work with?
Some one like ted nugent or some one that has simlar views on most issues?
Also who do you think will bring in more members? some one thats far right, or a moderate? Did you learn anything from the last election? All McCain did was go after the right voters, obama went after the moderate voters. The right was already going to vote for McCain and the left was already going to vote for Obama... no need to go after those votes, they are already in your pocket.
-
Who do you think the current congress/ adminstration is more likly to work with?
Some one like ted nugent or some one that has simlar views on most issues?
Also who do you think will bring in more members? some one thats far right, or a moderate? Did you learn anything from the last election? All McCain did was go after the right voters, obama went after the moderate voters. The right was already going to vote for McCain and the left was already going to vote for Obama... no need to go after those votes, they are already in your pocket.
TAB, You just don't get it, do you ? We don't want to "work with Congress", we want to beat them about the head and shoulders with the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Federalist Papers until they cry Uncle and conform to the letter of the law.
People who have bothered informing themselves, instead of spouting feel good BS, understand that in a REPUBLIC, the Constitution trumps the choice of the majority.
-
Who do you think the current congress/ adminstration is more likly to work with?
Some one like ted nugent or some one that has simlar views on most issues?
Also who do you think will bring in more members? some one thats far right, or a moderate? Did you learn anything from the last election? All McCain did was go after the right voters, obama went after the moderate voters. The right was already going to vote for McCain and the left was already going to vote for Obama... no need to go after those votes, they are already in your pocket.
Tom said it best as I was about to post, so let me just add, McCain lost because he was too much like Obama, remember his Gang of 14 - left of center group that wanted to get things moving in the Congress, his support for the illegals, his anti-1st Amendment law, and on and on.
No real choice other than in his selection of Palin, which was clear pandering to the more conservatives and it did what he wanted it to - energized us to a point where we would not have to hold our noses too tightly to vote for him.
Tom's right, we no longer want to "work" with Congress, we want them to get the message that we do not support them, will not vote for them, and will see to it that our rights are respected by the gummint - ALL of our rights, not just the ones the elites want to recognize when they want to be re-elected.
One solution would be to elect a pretty face like Selleck as President, someone the elites will recognize as their own (Hollyweird and all that), and then appoint the Motor City Madman as some form of roving ambassador, a front man for the press, someone who can push the agenda without the President getting his hands dirty.
I do not for a moment think Lapierre (the real authority within the NRA) would stand for Ted, but it would be interesting to see. And Ted would force Lapierre's hand, force him to be more direct and honest, or otherwise risk a split within the NRA again.
-
TAB, You just don't get it, do you ? We don't want to "work with Congress", we want to beat them about the head and shoulders with the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Federalist Papers until they cry Uncle and conform to the letter of the law.
People who have bothered informing themselves, instead of spouting feel good BS, understand that in a REPUBLIC, the Constitution trumps the choice of the majority.
Thanks Tom...
TAB, with all respect...BHO was elected by a margin of 3%, that percentage could barely mark an "X" on the ballot. He won the election by the "Dumbass" vote who can barely read above an eighth grade level...
-
TAB, You just don't get it, do you ? We don't want to "work with Congress", we want to beat them about the head and shoulders with the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Federalist Papers until they cry Uncle and conform to the letter of the law.
People who have bothered informing themselves, instead of spouting feel good BS, understand that in a REPUBLIC, the Constitution trumps the choice of the majority.
We have been doing that for decades, it has not worked. Not to mention the fact that NRA will sell out parts of the gun community to protect others. Cough NFA Cough CA Cough NJ Cough HI Cough NY....
-
We have been doing that for decades, it has not worked. Not to mention the fact that NRA will sell out parts of the gun community to protect others. Cough NFA Cough CA Cough NJ Cough HI Cough NY....
Don't blame NRA for YOUR pathetic condition. That's purely on the state. The selfish tendency to elect the BS artist that promises the most freebies is YOUR problem.
I understand that your Attorney General is a likely to run for Gov. again. Jerry Brown was Great for you last time wasn't he ?
-
We have been doing that for decades, it has not worked. Not to mention the fact that NRA will sell out parts of the gun community to protect others. Cough NFA Cough CA Cough NJ Cough HI Cough NY....
All liberal states with huge voting welfare populations...and you forgot Massachusetts.....
Your gonna lose a few battles but you still have to win the war!
-
My point is why are they not doing things for those states?
and don't give me that BS about how they can't help. CA has more gun owners then several states have population and I'd be willing to bet CA has more NRA members then most other states.
-
My point is why are they not doing things for those states?
and don't give me that BS about how they can't help. CA has more gun owners then several states have population and I'd be willing to bet CA has more NRA members then most other states.
Don't keep up with the news much do you ? They just beat SF in court. Why don't you do like Dick Heller, quit sniveling for "The NRA" to do something and start fighting back yourselves ? Like the Bible says, "God helps those who help themselves", why should the NRA spend money to do for you what you will not attempt to do for your selves ? The SF case shows that if you show initiative the NRA DOES respond.
-
Come on guys.... this was supposed to be a thread for names of other possible candidates, not for ideological bickering.... if you have a name of someone that is center left and you think they would be good then tell us who.
*Bill Jordan is not dead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Jordan_(outdoorsman)
....and I only mentioned him as someone prominant in the hunting world..... I also will throw out the name Tred Barta:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tred_barta
-
*Bill Jordan is not dead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Jordan_(outdoorsman)
Unless your talking about some other Bill Jordan, the former Border Patrol officer and author of the classic "No Second Place Winners" is stone cold dead. I am sorry to break this news to you...
http://www.jmgunncompany.com/2007/02/william-henry-bill-jordan-021907.shtml
(http://www.jmgunncompany.com/uploaded_images/Bill-Jordan-7-736878.jpg)
-
Bill Jordan CEO of Realtree camo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Jordan_(outdoorsman)
-
Don't keep up with the news much do you ? They just beat SF in court. Why don't you do like Dick Heller, quit sniveling for "The NRA" to do something and start fighting back yourselves ? Like the Bible says, "God helps those who help themselves", why should the NRA spend money to do for you what you will not attempt to do for your selves ? The SF case shows that if you show initiative the NRA DOES respond.
Actually they piggy backed on to a CA group that filed...4 days after it was filed.
-
Actually they piggy backed on to a CA group that filed...4 days after it was filed.
Like I said,
"Why don't you do like Dick Heller, quit sniveling for "The NRA" to do something and start fighting back yourselves ? Like the Bible says, "God helps those who help themselves", why should the NRA spend money to do for you what you will not attempt to do for your selves ? The SF case shows that if you show initiative the NRA"
Whining that "the NRA needs to do something about this" is just like the snivelers who whimper that "the Gov. needs to do something" Your no different than those unemployed people in New Orleans protesting for "Cat 5 Levees". It's YOUR State, get off your collective butts and DO something.
Glenn Beck Not as hyper as Ted, but a conservitive.
-
Glenn Beck Not as hyper as Ted, but a conservitive.
Me Likey!
-
Tab,
First - Did you actually read my post, or did you either dismiss it when I went Uncle Ted on your or just skim for high points. Your response did not appear to address the substance of my post;
Second - You constantly harp on the NRA, and even when they do something for you you dismiss it. To paraphrase an NRA bumper sticker ("I'm the NRA, and I vote"), what are you doing as a member of the NRA? Any organization is only as good as its weakest link, and if all the millions of members in earthquake land do is send in dues nothing will ever come of it.
Not referring to Mr. Nugent in particular but any potential President or visible leader within the NRA, I would love to see a "loose cannon" in this post that has the knowledge and skill to debate, argue and get in the face of any enemy. A loose cannon would force the hand of both sides - them to admit openly that they want the Second Amendment not only repealed, but sandblasted from the limestone walls of Washington DC and every document that contains it or any reference to it, its purpose and its necessity burned in public; and second, it would force our staff of professionals and attorneys to move off the PC perch and fight the fight until they win or die of exhaustion.
We are gun owners and shooters, the last thing we need to bring to this gunfight is a knife!!!
-
Let me propose a rebranding of this thread before we degenerate into open warfare...I think it's not so much a question of "who" as "what."
What do we want our leaders to do; what do we need to do ourselves.
I will unequivocally say that running a warroom in a hot RKBA battle is not a pleasant place to be. You worry constantly, obsessively; your stomach churns with acid and you spend hours on the phone with a cadre of media experts and lobbyists, trying to figure out the moves on the gameboard as far out as you can. You don't sleep; your spousal unit lectures you on the health dangers of stress; politicians on your side constantly second guess every single decision you make. The phone rings and rings and rings and rings. You are personally vilified, again and again, and you get to read your name in the papers, and not in a good way. You lose friends — people you thought were good friends...eventually, you start believing that everyone in the world and several other nearby planets is angry with you.
If you step up, you can't have any illusions...there's a warroom is in your future.
But here is the fight:
• All guns are the same...no babies get thrown off the lifeboat. That means no compromise on an AWB, no comprimise on .50 BMGs; no compromise on "exotic" calibers like 5.7 X 28. Period. Exclamation point. We are not friggin' joking here.
• No compromise on serialization/registration of ammo. No "backdoor" attacks on ammo and components through OSHA, etc.
• No compromise on closures of public land to recreational shooting; range closures; etc.
• Strike down the remaining city/regional gun bans under the Heller precedent.
• Support for national CCW reciprocity (a long shot)
There are other long shots that should have been done by the damn Republicans during their tenure, things like striking down the most onerous provisions of the 1968 and 1986 gun laws, a reevaluation of the 1934 Firearms Act, etc. I figure there's no way to even launch those initiatives now, maybe ever.
Here's the weird thing...I actually believe in compromise. I live with a contract attorney, and I thrilled when John Houseman intoned that "contracts are the basis of all civilization" in the opening of The Paper Chase. Contracts are built on compromise...each side gives something until there is a meeting of the minds; then a contract ratifies that meeting of the minds.
That's not what has been happening to us for the last 30 years. "Compromise" means we give up a portion of our rights and the other side gives up exactly nothing. We occasionally enter into agreements — contracts — that the other side has no intention of honoring, but to use as a platform for additional attacks.
We are dealing with people without any concept of honor. Their word, their handshakes, their promises are lies, and we are fools if we pretend otherwise. We will lose if we pretend otherwise.
Thoughts?
Michael B
-
Let me propose a rebranding of this thread before we degenerate into open warfare...I think it's not so much a question of "who" as "what."
Michael B
Yeah, gotten way out of control
That's not what has been happening to us for the last 30 years. "Compromise" means we give up a portion of our rights and the other side gives up exactly nothing. We occasionally enter into agreements — contracts — that the other side has no intention of honoring, but to use as a platform for additional attacks.
We are dealing with people without any concept of honor. Their word, their handshakes, their promises are lies, and we are fools if we pretend otherwise. We will lose if we pretend otherwise.
Bullseye!
-
I could think of a Bruce Willis, perhaps even DDMack (member here at DRTV) ::). How about Sarah Palin? If she isn't running for office in the future, possible? Too bad Oliver North probably won't take the position.
I could see a Mike Huckabee, or a Glenn Beck.
I think the point is IMHO, a moderate speaker who is a "really nice guy" and plays defense, while the anti's have the next 4 to 8+ years to keep slammin anti gun bills through Congress until one or more go through is not what we need right now.
Pelosi, Reid, Feinstien, Schumer, Boxer, etc,... are in power. They WILL NOT STOP. A Pres. of the NRA better not try to have tea and crumpets with these people and "compromise". Especially with the new AG, c'mon.
Its time for someone to be reckoned with that lets the anti's know, we are PI**ED and were not gonna go quietly into the night.
Too bad Anthony Hopkins is a British subject, Hannibel Lector spoke very eloquently. :o
I hope everyone realizes we(law abiding firearm owners), need to work our inner differences out to fight a greater threat. What this generation does now can make sure the guns I hand down to my son, his son, (or daughter), won't be seized or outlawed after I'm gone. The BIG picture is more important.
-
If we take your Martin Luther Theses being nailed to the door of the NRA then we will need to really have a new Cincinnati revolt. The current incarnation of management ain't going for this. No way no how. You are going to have to wrest control of the NRA from them. I am not bashing them. They do what they do well. Better than anyone else in my opinion. It's that they are not open for suggestions. They are running the show and it's their way or the highway.
This is the classic Hobsons choice. Do you take a stand so firm that you potentially fracture the only real organization you have? Do you alienate large numbers of those who might stand with you otherwise? Or do you compromise and give up something? If so what do you give up?
The analogy I like is to compare our situation to is that movie with Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier. Handcuffed together and hating each other. Trying to acheive a common goal. For good or worse we have to live with a sizable portion of the country againist us. Yet we can't get much of anything done without them.
-
I admit to being ignorant of who the possible choices are. Does anyone have a list? Must it be boardmember?, or can it be anyone who is an NRA member?
-
My understanding is that the President must come from the standing board. I was looking for the link on line for board members, but I could not find it. I used to know where it was, but a while back the NRA changed its web site and I consider it less than user friendly.
-
But here is the fight:
• All guns are the same...no babies get thrown off the lifeboat. That means no compromise on an AWB, no comprimise on .50 BMGs; no compromise on "exotic" calibers like 5.7 X 28. Period. Exclamation point. We are not friggin' joking here.
• No compromise on serialization/registration of ammo. No "backdoor" attacks on ammo and components through OSHA, etc.
• No compromise on closures of public land to recreational shooting; range closures; etc.
• Strike down the remaining city/regional gun bans under the Heller precedent.
• Support for national CCW reciprocity (a long shot)
.
.
.
That's not what has been happening to us for the last 30 years. "Compromise" means we give up a portion of our rights and the other side gives up exactly nothing. We occasionally enter into agreements — contracts — that the other side has no intention of honoring, but to use as a platform for additional attacks.
We are dealing with people without any concept of honor. Their word, their handshakes, their promises are lies, and we are fools if we pretend otherwise. We will lose if we pretend otherwise.
Thoughts?
Michael B
I think the definition of the fight principles is right on the money - no one gets thrown under the bus. The NRA We are the NRA, the NRA leadership in the past has had a habit of doing that. The NRA leadership has also forgotten the last part you stated, Michael, right on the money. These people cannot be trusted - ever, in any way. The must be cowed and marginalized, and then demonized as the anti-American scum-sucking pond dwellers they are.
Magpul: The enemy is anyone who can get you killed, regardless of whose side they are on.
Remember that lesson - if it is our "friends" or people "on our side" who are getting us killed (even if just philosophically or conceptually), what does that make them? Not our friends. As was posted previously, this is no time for compromise, there is too much at stake in this.
And for those here who fancy themselves Christians, this is a holy war against the godless, and it is past time to be Christian warriors and stand up to the evil that threatens us. It is demanded of us by His example and His teachings.
-
My understanding is that the President must come from the standing board. I was looking for the link on line for board members, but I could not find it. I used to know where it was, but a while back the NRA changed its web site and I consider it less than user friendly.
Eligibility is set out in the bylaws of the corportation. But that is not on the web. :(
My understanding is that there is a nominating committe for directors etc and a petitioning process.
-
NO MORE COMPROMISE. Now is the time to start taking baking our rights and if the sheep don't like it, tough.
Here are the concessions I am willing to swallow with out suggesting we hang the person who made them.
Let them keep licensing dealers If you buy from a dealer, you have to show picture ID and they make a call to get a NICS number, no paper form, The dealer records the serial number and NICS number, FBI records that the number was issued . They can continue to regulate full auto, and any MODERN arms with a bore diameter over 1.25 inches No restrictions on CCW and the feds cram it down the states throats whether they like it or not. These conditions aren't actually legal based on the constitution which states so even TAB can't argue with it "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" but it's a good start.
-
Let me propose a rebranding of this thread before we degenerate into open warfare...I think it's not so much a question of "who" as "what."
If you step up, you can't have any illusions...there's a warroom is in your future.
But here is the fight:
• All guns are the same...no babies get thrown off the lifeboat. That means no compromise on an AWB, no comprimise on .50 BMGs; no compromise on "exotic" calibers like 5.7 X 28. Period. Exclamation point. We are not friggin' joking here.
• No compromise on serialization/registration of ammo. No "backdoor" attacks on ammo and components through OSHA, etc.
• No compromise on closures of public land to recreational shooting; range closures; etc.
• Strike down the remaining city/regional gun bans under the Heller precedent.
• Support for national CCW reciprocity (a long shot)
There are other long shots that should have been done by the damn Republicans during their tenure, things like striking down the most onerous provisions of the 1968 and 1986 gun laws, a reevaluation of the 1934 Firearms Act, etc. I figure there's no way to even launch those initiatives now, maybe ever.
We are dealing with people without any concept of honor. Their word, their handshakes, their promises are lies, and we are fools if we pretend otherwise. We will lose if we pretend otherwise.
Michael B
Michael makes some of the same points I made in a post on another thread, but he put it much more succinctly than I did.
As you all know I advocate the full right to purchase and possess select-fire weapons. I realize that this is considered way out on the political margin, even within our own community, and I accept that. I also realize that I will probably spend the rest of my life fighting to REGAIN that right. Some may think that is a quixotic task, but it will have some benefits for the rest of you.
In terms of what we want and what we do, we need to turn this compromise game around into it's not what we give up but what we take back. We push the other side back with what we are going to take back instead of WAITING for them to tell us what they want us to give up. The only way this happens is we go on the offensive. And this requires a complete change in the way we look at this issue.
In terms of who we want to lead the NRA, we do not need any milk toast weenies! When I saw TAB's post about what type of person we need at the helm, and I started to mockingly affirm his recommendation with a one of my own - the former Prime Minister of England, Neville Chamberlain. The next president of the NRA has to be someone like Churchill, someone who is committed to principle and will actively pursue regaining our rights.
-
JIMO, given the current political climate, I would say the best person is some one that just just a shade left of center.
Gun control is not a a left of right thing... its a control/ Look what I am doing to protect you thing.
That is why Barack Hussein Obama is now president...the Republicans thought they would compromise and nominate someone left of center. What happened? The hardcore conservatives DIDN'T come out in droves like they usually do, and now we are screwed.
NUGE ALL THE WAY
-
That is why Barack Hussein Obama is now president...the Republicans thought they would compromise and nominate someone left of center. What happened? The hardcore conservatives DIDN'T come out in droves like they usually do, and now we are screwed.
NUGE ALL THE WAY
Bingo!! Sarah Palin was the only thing that got me to the polls.
-
Michael makes some of the same points...
... committed to principle and will actively pursue regaining our rights.
I second your motion. With the "compromise" of the regulation of fully automatic weapons you tacitly endorse any other control the idocracy deems necessary i.e. CCW's will result in shootouts in the street, "assault weapons" can kill with a look, or any other wild hair the Leftist (http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment (http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment) lest we forget) dream up. With the risk of beating a dead horse, the Second Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights to allow for the VIOLENT overthrow of a possible future tyranny. There were no provisions for rates of fire. The common citizen had the same arms as the government. It was the 18th Century's version of MAD.
Once we cede the point, we have lost the argument. (A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That was not a may not or should not, but shall not.) It is no wonder the issue of gun control is visited ad nauseam. We have left a crack in the door. It may not be a pragmatic stand, but if we are going to be intellectually honest with both ourselves and our opponents, pragmatism has lead us to the position we are in today.
Freedom and Liberty do not guarantee Security and Safety. It is essentially an easy choice: the more Safety and Security that are demanded the more Freedom and Liberty are sacrificed.
-
I second your motion. With the "compromise" of the regulation of fully automatic weapons you tacitly endorse any other control the idocracy deems necessary i.e. CCW's will result in shootouts in the street, "assault weapons" can kill with a look, or any other wild hair the Leftist (http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment (http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment) lest we forget) dream up. With the risk of beating a dead horse, the Second Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights to allow for the VIOLENT overthrow of a possible future tyranny. There were no provisions for rates of fire. The common citizen had the same arms as the government. It was the 18th Century's version of MAD.
Once we cede the point, we have lost the argument. (A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That was not a may not or should not, but shall not.) It is no wonder the issue of gun control is visited ad nauseam. We have left a crack in the door. It may not be a pragmatic stand, but if we are going to be intellectually honest with both ourselves and our opponents, pragmatism has lead us to the position we are in today.
Freedom and Liberty do not guarantee Security and Safety. It is essentially an easy choice: the more Safety and Security that are demanded the more Freedom and Liberty are sacrificed.
I couldn't have said it better. Great job!