A good argument for voting Libertarian

Status
Not open for further replies.
seronac,

If Bush screws us nobody will be a bigger third party backer than me come the next election! I think that all of the Supreme Court nominations will come in Bush's first term and if we can get a decent Supreme Court and a ruling in our favor, that will throw cold water all over the antigunners for years to come.

While Bush isn't perfect, the thought of Charles Schumer, Jesse Jackson, Mario Cumo, and Barbara Boxer sitting on the Supreme Court scares me a HECK OF A LOT more than whatever Bush might do in a second term! That is whay we HAVE to vote for Bush. A vote for Browne is simply a wasted vote and could do WAY more harm than any perceived good.

Joe

NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum
 
The 3rd party voters won't get it into their thick skulls until the Gorestapo comes knocking down their doors. I'm not gonna argue anymore. Let em learn the hard way.
 
A reason I'm not voting libertarian for president is that we don't have anyone who is experienced enough to be president(in the Lib party). Vote libertarian locally and for state offices. If there is an experienced candidate, get them to a national level. I don't think that we will win a national election OR get our message heard by either of the two parties until we get viable (there's that ugly word) libertarian candidates who are taking seats away from the republicrats.
Just my < $0.02

------------------
Rob
From the Committee to Use Proffesional Politicians as Lab Animals
-------------------------------------------------------------------
She doesn't have bad dreams because she's made of plastic...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
bad Kiki! No karaoke in the house!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Flynt is right. You guys stink!!!
 
Ignored my question, Randy?

Just like to carry on and have no idea of what to do?

Just going to sit there with 1% of the vote, election after election.

What will you do the day after Gore is elected and laws are passed the further diminished the RKBA?

Put up or shut up with your plan.
 
Glenn,

Hmm. Randy isn’t the only one who ignores replies he doesn’t like. We’ve all
done it.

I’ve noted that when push comes to shove, Republicans resort solely to
emotions.

Republicans, for some unfathomable reason, seem to believe the two major
parties have different goals rather than different tactics. Yet the Republicans
continue to propose and vote for gun control. Sure, it’s always to prevent
“worse” Democratic proposals, but Republicans continue to enact more and
more gun control and promise to enact more in the future.

How does the eventual goal of Republican gun control differ from that of the
Democrats?

What federal gun control law has been implemented without Republican
support?
What federal gun control law has been repealed by the Republicans?

As for carrying on, yep, you’re right. I’m carrying on. I’m trying to “preach
to the choir” that they have been supporting gun control. I’m trying to
convince the choir that they could abandon their Republican “religion” and
vote for our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and (specifically) for our Right to
Keep and Bear Arms.

That’s *my* plan, Glenn. I don’t know what Randy’s plan is, but my plan is to
present voters and activists a chance for greater freedom and liberty rather than Republican Restrictions. Hopefully, those who profess to love freedom and firearms will
quit voting like hoplophobes.

To answer the insulting and false accusations of the voting RKBA gun control
Republicans, Bush will take us where Gore would - only slower.

I, at least, do not want to place the yoke of tyranny upon my children and
grandchildren because I was afraid to vote for freedom rather than “lesser”
gun control. Therefore, I will try to increase what you call the “1%” of the
vote so we have a chance of restoring our Constitution.

Our stated goals are congruent, we merely believe the methods the “other
guy” has chosen will prove inadequate.

Oh, if Gore is elected, I plan to do the same as I would do if Bush is elected -
prepare for more gun control.
-----

I believe you used the phrase, “put up or shut up ...” Rather strong words.
So let me ask you, Glenn, to show me how the Republicans will restore our
RKBA rather than merely advocating less noxious gun control than the
Democrats.


------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
I've addressed this question before on the other thread, but this election year is so vitally important, here goes again:

The two potentially electable candidates this year are Al Gore and G.W. Bush. Al Gore is publically calling for licensing and registration of handguns. Bush gave Texas a concealed carry law, is hard on criminals, and IS a supporter of the 2nd amendment. He has to moderate his position to win the election so you are not going to hear the "from my dead hands" speech from Bush. He'll be labelled as a "gun nut" and it will be over. He has to play the "Trojan horse" routine to get the majority of sheeple to vote for him. Believe me, he's pro-gun. With him in office, the 1994 assault weapons ban will sunset into the past if the Repubs control the congress.

Al Gore is the wolf in sheeps clothing. He repeatedly states he's not trying to take your guns away, but he is part of the administration that has just claimed in the Emerson case that no American citizen has a right to keep and bear arms. Four years of Gore will be our Canada, our Australia in terms of gun ownership. It must be prevented. This is the big one, folks. We are talking licensing, registration, and confiscation. Start buying air guns while they're legal if Gore wins. Game over.

Now, the Libertarians have a good stance on RKBA, but there is NO WAY that Browne will win this election. I appreciate the empassioned rhetoric I've heard about Browne, but pure and simple, the truth is this: A VOTE FOR BROWNE (OR ANYONE ELSE) IS A VOTE FOR GORE.

Randy, I admire your patriotism, but you need to vote with your cerebral cortex, not your heart. I know you are well-meaning, but if Browne cared anything about the 2nd Amendment, he wouldn't run this year. Too much is on the line this time. The fact he's running and HE KNOWS he can't win, tells me much about his motives. Your party is going to be Al Gore's dream come true this fall, and we will all pay for it dearly if Bush loses.
 
I love the idea of insurgent political parties in this country, but they cannot come to power from the top down. Outside parties need to start on the local and state levels and focus on placing members in the congress--after experience there they will be natural candidates for the senate. Solid and electable presidential candidates serve as senators or govenors (more often) first.

We also cannot assume that the parties are static and permanently set in their present configurations and ideologies, even a cursory glance at the histories of these parties shows how volatile they are. The republicans are having to moderate the religious right the same way the dems had to do the to the far left wing of their party. What we must do to to win is to move the center, for where it goes they will follow. I think that the forces of RKBA should make direct electioneering for candidates a lower priority than getting on with some serious and sophisticated PR projects that will convince political moderates that gun control violates peoples common sense notions of what they can be trusted with by their own government. I have asked some folks I know how they feel about the idea that a person has not the right to use violence to defend themselves--when you get it on that level you should how easy it is to turn them around. I have two female friends from my high school days with whom I have dinner once a month. They were the quintessential soccer moms and wanted gun control. Over the past four months I have convinced both of them to take shooting and safety classes and they love it. Needless to say, they look very differntly now on claims that they would be safer without guns around.

I am not a big fan of the republican party because they seem to me to have a problem with the separation of church and state. I do not want the goverment invovled in matters of conscience, but I think they could be moved in the right direction, and I just can't abide Gore and the rule of the social worker and the school marm.

I will vote for a Libertarian presidential candidate when I see him/her govern a state in a way I admire. Hell, Ventura may end up in the Senate with Hillary some day-it will then be up to us to make our choices.

Enough,
Lonnie
 
Just for giggles let's wave our hands and say someone other than Dubya or Algore is elected president.

Then what? Where will they get the qualified talent to staff cabinet and key political positions? Where will they get the court nominees that will suposedly turn away from judicial activism? Where will they get the District Attorneys from that will have to be replaced one we start cleaning the barn? I am not saying there is no talent except in the two major parties. I am saying there is a decided lack of experience in governing with the third parties.

Let us not forget that one ever so small problem the current administration had is that of blistering and galactic scale inocompetitence on the part of political appointees. Sure they were crooked. Yes they were ideological. But above all they were incompetent (sp?). Can anyone tell me that Bill Richardson is not in way over his head? Butch Reno is well out of her depth as well as being crooked. I could go on for a long while fingering people who would do better in other walks of life they trying to act like they can govern.

My point? The mistake we made in the last two presidential elections was we paid attention to the top of the ticket and did not bother with who the president would bring to DC with him. If Butch Reno has a legacy it is quite simple. No longer can congress and the electorate for that matter adopt the attitude that the president deserves the right to his own team. We dare not allow the president his own choice of AJ without serious inspection.

Back to my hand waving assuption. Let's assume Harry Brown, or Buchanan, or whoever is elected. Who would they bring to government and do you feel comfortable with them. I for one will look with intent interest at who the majors bring to government. You can tell alot more about what they really believe by who they hire to help.

Enuf


------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater--1964
 
Maybe four more years of Gore ain't such a bad idea. It would be a just punishment for Bush for PROMISING to betray gun-owners, as well as for his supporters, for being so full of crap. And maybe the 50-60% of us that have not voted in the past few national elections will be shaken out of their complacency.

If there is anything I've learned over the last seven years, it's that Clinton has done nothing that the Republicans did not let him do. And they let him do a hell of a lot. Only an idiot would reward such betrayal with continued support.

So Bush will appoint gun-friendly Supreme Court justices? Yeah, right. Clarence Thomas was the last such man we will ever see in our lifetimes nominated by either major party. If you think that Bush will cease his current pandering to the left when he selects justices, then I want to buy a pound of whatever you're smoking.

Oh, and those of you that think Browne & Buchanan should drop out of the race because Bush is supposed to be some kind of 2nd Amendment saviour, and are morally suspect if they don't, need to get bent. Neither man owes Bush a damn thing. Whether it's gun rights, foreign policy, or domestic policy, Browne or Buchanan are much better choices than Bush. If Bush cared about anything other than his own political future, he would be backing a better man, like those two, or say Alan Keyes. But then again, if Bush was not a self-serving moral coward, he would not have pulled the confederate plaques from the Texas justice building.

And no, four years of Gore will not bother me at all, since I make no practical distinction between him and Bush. And you Bush supporters, with all of your mental-masturbation mind games, rationalizations, and contortions, have never proven otherwise. Maybe in 2004 the Republicans will have the sense to put forward a man who is a real man, a real Republican, and a real American, which would be the first time in twenty years they did so.

To sum up, ladies and gentlemen, I do not trust George Bush II, therefore I will not vote for him.

Remember, a vote for Browne is a vote against Buchanan. And vice-versa.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Westtexas:
Bush ... IS a supporter of the 2nd amendment. ...Believe me, he's pro-gun. With him in office, the 1994 assault weapons ban will sunset into the past if the Repubs control the congress. [/quote]

Unfortunately, West, if we are to think that Bush is pro-gun, we will have to believe you, since if we believe Bush, it is clear that he's not.

Bush's own web site says that he:

--Supports requiring instant background checks at gun shows.

--Supports the current ban on automatic weapons. (Whatever that means -- I doubt if Bush knows.)

--Supports banning juveniles from possession of semi-automatic "assault" weapons.

--Supports increasing the minimum age for ossession of a handgun from 18 to 21. (Right. All you 20-year-old in the USMC -- put down those Berettas!)

--Supports banning the importation of foreign made, "high-capacity" ammunition clips.

--Would sign legislation requiring mandatory trigger locks for all new handguns.

No candidate with the slightest respect for the Second Amendment would seriously propose such hogwash. Yet you somehow infer from this that Bush will allow existing laws to sunset?

Back in 1992, any candidate daring to put forth an anti-gun platform like the one above would have been slammed for the statist that he is. Today, however, we have people here on TFL trying to convince us that this kind of platform represents our side.

There's simply no stretch of the imagination by which one could consider Bush pro-gun. He's simply not as anti-gun as The Evil Al Gore.

Vote for Bush if you want. Just don't pretend that you're doing it because he respects the Second Amendment.
 
David,

I voted for Alan Keyes in the primaries. The reason that Keyes didn't win was because he pi$$ed people off and didn't appeal to the sheeple. If you're going to win in today's politically correct environment, you've got to look "politically correct". That is what Bush is doing. Sorry you can't appreciate it, but he's already been hit hard for his association with the NRA. Libertarians want to make it seem he's no different than Al Gore, but where on Bush's website do you see a licensing and registration plan for gunowners? Get real, David. I suspect you don't live in Texas, or you'd know a lot more about the REAL George W. You Libertarians aren't fooling anyone. This is the last post I will make regarding this topic. I think we should stick to RKBA, and quit turning this board into a "you're a communist if you're not a Libertarian" website.
 
I watched ALL of the libertarain convention ... and those are the guys I want in charge. NOT!!!!! But to get to the point, why argue with our third party brethren? We aren't going to change their minds ... fact. So why waste valuable ether on them. Go to another thread, ignore their idiocy, and lets talk about something interesting. Let them talk to themselves.
 
Dennis, how soon you forget. I posted several times strategies that I would implement to secure the RKBA. You usually call them compromise and miss the point.

You usually just call for no compromise and a line in the sand but make no suggestions of how we can turn the electorate to favor gun rights.

In fact, it is the strategy of most gun organizations to try scare the choir and raise more money for themselves. That seems to be their goal.

Folks in the know and close the NRA leadership admit that infighting in the organization and lack of administrative and financial skill have lead to NO strategic planning of late.

Organizations like the GOA and JFPO are useful in prodding the NRA into action sometimes but are not attractive alternatives.

I said that the only grand strategy that is viable is to expand the appeal of the RKBA to the political middle of the country. Through such appeals we might increase gun ownership to those who will take it seriously.

Waiting for a conservative revival in the USA is a fantasy. The conservative political agenda has too many negatives to be truly successful. That's why the RKBA has to be separated from these and made a right that all in the political spectrum respect.

The arguments that work are the utilitarian self-defense ones. I've said this all before.
Search on my name.

Gore in office will start a dramatic loss of
gun rights that may well be irretrievable.
Understand this, third party boys.

Bush will slow this down and then by working at the grassroots offers the chance to turn it around.

Once more, I see the suicidial behavior of the true believer. You want the righteous loss so you can just howl.

This position knows nothing of strategy or persuasion. In fact, it is irrelevant to the struggle at best and counterproductive at its worst.
 
The only reason I've ever heard to vote for Bush is that he's not Owl Gore. This is not argument, it is blackmail.
He poses no threat to the Left. This is why we hear lukewarm support for Gore on NPR.
There's no real difference. This is why without a conservative renewal, led by Alan Keyes, there is no hope for RKBA, the rest of the Bill of Rights, nor the Republic itself.

Look for a Liberal/Socialist landslide in '04 or '08, followed by full-contact political confrontation.

Sounds pessimistic but that's how all of this is gaming out.



------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!
 
Glenn,

Let me see if I understand your strategy.

You believe if Gore becomes President our RKBA losses will be both severe
and irretrievable. Therefore, by electing the lesser of two evils (Bush) we can
minimize our losses while we convince middle America of the utilitarian need
for firearms for self defense.

If that is correct, how do you plan to win “the hearts and minds” of 50 million
or so Americans - especially in view of the generally leftist culture infecting
the media, education, and politics?
 
Any thought that anyone except Al Gore or GWB can win the Presidency is to ignore common sense and reality. I voted for Alan Keyes even though I knew he couldn't win. He is courageous, brilliant, and has a good moral base. Now there is no reasonable choice except GWB. To let Al Gore get in is to severely damage the nation for a generation or more considering the Supreme Court and the coattail possibility. Jerry

------------------
Ecclesiastes 12:13  ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14  For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
 
People - please make the distinction between being a libertarian (I am one myself, end the war on drugs, etc. etc) and voting for a party that calls itself Libertarian.

If libertarian ideals could win democratically, the two major parties would be adjusting their stances to accomodate.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but it's a sure thing, barring the unfortunate, Bush or Gore will be the next president of the United States.

Libertarian, Republican or Democrat - can you disagree?

Now let's use some of that logic. Either you believe Bush/Gore to be identical in terms of any long term goals that you have (in which case it's pointless supporting either), or you hope that the vote count for a losing candidate (Browne) will help the Libs next time around.

(Logic mode off)

Yes, even under Bush the majority opinion that guns should be slowly banned will be come to be. Is there any advantage to having this happen more slowly (Bush) than rapidly (Gore)? Does this outweigh giving Browne an impressive but losing vote count?

It well may. But ultimately Libertarians/Objectivists I know do not believe change will come politically so much as in educating others to objectivism. This is very hard with socialist education in public schools. This, too, will get worse under either candidate; but will happen faster under Gore.

I'll get to the point; both suck; but if Libs/objectivists are planning on doing something at some point, a vote for Bush may buy you some time.


Battler.
 
The only folks who will gain any time from a Bush Presidency will be the liberal/socialist axis. Bush and the Republicans will fall all over themselves to include evey pervert and lunatic into the Republican party, while fobbing us off as extremists. Bush WILL NOT attack the left. He will appease them. He will continue to smile and smother us with mediocrity and blandness. In the meanwhile, the radicals will have completely overrun the Democrats, and they will have organized themselves for a killing blow in the next elections.

Bush poses no threat, therefore he is tolerated by the media. Gore's babbling his way into the ether-zone so much the media won't do anything to support him.

Either way, we lose.

In his quest to "heal" the nation and "bring us all together," does anyone in his or her right mind think that Bush will do anything but continue to pander to the most depraved and destructive elements?

Hell, Hitler had Chamberlain, and Hillary's got Bush.


------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!

[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited July 10, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top