BUCHANAN OR BUSH?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am a Republican and have voted Republican ever since I was old enough to vote, starting in 1971. Right now I am sick of them. Dennis is absolutely correct when he said it takes BOTH parties. BOTH parties are statists. If you don't believe it, just look at the much touted "Contract with America". What happened to it? How much of our rights have been lost over the years of "Republican control of Congress"? Look at the great, big tax cut our Republicans were going to "give back to the American people". What was it---one per cent over how many years? Oh, don't forget how they CAVED IN when that POS/POTUS said he would veto it. Republican hard line stance---let's wait until next year after the elections.

I have had it with the Republicans and will never vote Democrat, so I'm voting wherever Buchannan lands. He represents my views and beliefs. This ain't a football game. If it were you would have to have a program to tell the players apart. There is no offense and no defense. It is either bi-partisan or total cave-in to the Democratic way. Don't think so---well, wasn't Bob Smith sandbagged by a Republican on his filibuster on gun control? You bet he was. By Republican Senator Lott.

You say a vote for anyone but Bush is a vote for Gore. I ask, why does it have to be so? There are 80 million gun owners in this country. Can't we sway an election? Why pick the lesser of two evils and vote for Bush, hoping he will not do as much harm to our rights as citizens as Gore certainly will. We gun owners have a candidate we KNOW STANDS BEHIND THE SECOND AMENDMENT and yet we talk of voting for a maybe in Bush????

Well, maybe you are right---a vote for Buchannan is a vote for Gore. With gunowners this wishy-washy on a candidate who openly supports the RKBA, if we vote for anyone else, we get what we deserve. I believe that WE are powerful enough to overthrow this statist government of Republocrats at the ballot box with a vote for Buchannan. If we can't come together and do it, just like HCI and all the others do, and Gore does win, then at least what we are all afraid of happening will happen much quicker
 
We need the Reform Party to be for reform of the whole crooked system from top to bottom. nothing less will suffice. Bring our industries home, break up the big corporations that bleed the farmers to death with their control of packing houses to grain elevators, eliminate the Fed Reserve System and Irs, eliminate the UN, bring our troops home from Europe and the 80 other countries they are in, work legitimately with other countries in a Godly manner, put the federal government back in DC and the territories, and have major trials of all our domestic criminals(politicians, judges,and police officials) who have sold our nation down the river. I am sure there are many othere "reforms i missed. The road we are traveling with these two so called political parties can only lead to chaos and eventually dictatorship. America could again be a light to the world as she was at the turn of the century,instead of a hated Imperial power that she is today. This Restoration of our former greatness as a peaceful prosperous Republic is what the Reform party should be concentrating on. But it looks like they are following lockstep in line with the two plutocratic parties.
 
How many of us have ever checked the $1.00 to Federal matching campaigns box on our IRS returns? How do you know someone didn't check that box for you at the IRS office?

Fact is, there is a whole lot of "matching money" in that fund that a lot of politicians want to get their hands on - Pat Buchanan may be one of them.

Just remember, it's our own money they are using to run elections, and to buy the guns they point at us in order to demand more of our money for their social reforms.
 
“Right now, it is better to "vote defensively" than to risk our beloved
Rights on "principle".”

We’ve been saying “right now” and “defensively” and avoiding
“principles” for decades. Such a “defense”:
- Has brought us to where we are today.
- Continues to outlaw guns and accessories one after the other
- Leads us down the well-worn path of Australia, Japan, Canada,
England, Germany, etc.

Oh, “compromises” will be made. Gun ownership might not even be
totally outlawed! But gun ownership will become so restricted and so
expensive that it will be prohibitive for most people. Think not? How
many of you gave up your FFLs because of the cost and the problems?
See? The concept of “right now”, “defensively” and avoidance of principles is working!

But it is only working to destroy gun ownership in America.

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited September 22, 1999).]
 
Dennis, FrankH and others who currently intend to vote for anyone besides a Repub in the Pres general election: Please listen to what I have to say here before voting.

First, let's agree on the FACTS. If you dispute a specific FACT, let me know, so we can discuss it:

1. You are older and wiser than me, in general, and you are absolutely right when you say you've voted year after year for Repubs and it's gotten you nothing (except more gun "control"), so you feel it's time for a change. This is all true, that Repubs jump on the bandwagon for "lesser" gun "control" when all is said and done - year after year after year.

2. Absolutely we should all at the very least try to pull the Repubs in the freedom direction. This is accomplished by voting for Pat B. in the primaries, and encouraging him and others like him to stay in the party and fight like hell.

3. As others have pointed out, it is, quite unfortunately, a fact that, like it or not, we have a "two-party system", and one of two people will be president come Nov 2000: the Dem candidate or the Repub candidate. Perot came much closer to anyone currently offered could, and he still wasn't close to actually winning. So you can forget about a third-party candidate being viable - I don't like it any more than you do. But are we going to stick our head in the sand, or face reality and use the best possible tactic given the reality? So it's a fact that one of two people will be Pres.

3. Now here is the key, critical fact which people have touched on but most everyone is overlooking: The future of our rights lies NOT in "narrow party politics", or having a Congress of a different party than the Pres, or trying to stem the tide of unconstitutional legislation - that just won't happen. The future of our rights (and consequently quite possibly the future of our country vis a vis a revolution) lies in one and only one thing: how the Supreme Court of the United States interprets our rights. This is for all the marbles. One good Supreme Court opinion trumps thousands, of unconstitutional gun laws at the federal AND state levels. The Pres is the only one who can appoint Supreme Court justices. As mentioned, there are several upcoming appointments. Therefore, I think we would all agree appointments are all-important, especially in light of cases that may possibly go up to the Supremes in the near future, such as Emerson.

4. Regardless of the good points mentioned above, it still remains a fact that a third-party candidate WILL take more votes from the Repub than from the Dem candidate - yes there are factors working both ways, but in the final analysis, the Repub will suffer more than the Dem from a strong third-party candidate - and folks, even if the Repubs lose just ONE more vote than the Dems lose, it ONE too many.

So, given the above, what I am suggesting to you gun owners/freedom lovers who plan to (understandly) abandon the Repub party in the general election (regardless of your own party) is that you should hold out JUST a little longer. It's not yet time for a constant stream of protest votes, followed by a revolution if necessary. Vote for the Repub nominee, whoever that is (unless it's Liddy Dole - George W. is a hundred times better than her or algore in terms of gun rights) in 2000 in the general, and wait just a couple more years after the Supreme Court appointments to see if a victory can be obtained to stop the idiotic legislative nonsense. There's really nothing we can do, NO MATTER WHO WE VOTE FOR, to stop the legislative crap, because the media's on their side. The only thing you can do is HOPE that an independent judicial body (as they're supposed to be), i.e. the Supreme Court, will correclty interpret the law (they actually do sometimes and are in fact a LITTLE bit more insulated from political pressure than the legislators). Now, you can still voice your opinion in several ways:

1. Just be a member of some third party (the more the membership numbers, the more the two parties try to take the third party under its wing).
2. If you are a Repub, vote for Pat or whoever in the primaries. If you're a Dem, vote for someone with a brain - if there is such a Democrat ;)
3. If the Supremes fail to take up the issue in the very near future (5 years) or wrongly decide the issue, hey, then I say it's time for radical change and radical measures.

What I'm saying in a nutshell is that the power of the court to change history in a heartbeat and instantly "decapitate" hundreds of violative provisions is mind-boggling. It's happened before and can happen again. We tend to waste way too much time focusing on legislative battles, which, while important, are grains of sand compared to the rock of gibralter of a favorable court opinion. Hold out just a little longer please and vote Repub for Pres - it's the appointments, it's the appointments, it's the appointments! No one can doubt George W. is pro-gun. He of necessity must distance himself a little from the NRA to get elected, but his true tendencies are pretty conservative, I believe, if you look at his record. That means he will nominate good judge candidates; certainly better than algore or bradley. If you just REALLY want to do something radical, vote Repub, read The Pelican Brief, then see if you can't help encourage all of the liberal Supreme Court justices to retire during the tenure of the Repub Pres. It might be strong insurance against a revolution, and just may be the difference in being able to preserve our great nation.

All this from someone who hates the Repubs, as they too constantly try to take away our freedoms. The one big difference is that the freedom that the Dems would like to take (Second Am) is the one that preserves all others. So the lesser of two evils is certainly at play here - if you vote Repub and lose a few freedoms now, at least we as a people have the power and armament to restore said freedoms (make the pendulum swing back). But if the pendulum swings too far in terms of gun rights, then we're no longer free, and it will never swing back.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited September 22, 1999).]
 
Futo,

I'm afraid we're going off thread here a bit as this is not Buchanan v. Bush. But you wrote a thoughtful article and I’ll try to be as honest as you obviously have
been. I'll try to answer by your paragraph numbers.
-------
1a.(First a smile) Age brings experience but not necessarily wisdom. I
would never hold myself out as wiser than you. I’m sure I will come to that conclusion within the next few minutes. ;)
1b. The rest we agree on.
-------
2a. I agree, “Absolutely we should all at the very least try to pull the
Repubs in the freedom direction.”
2b. I’m not sure about voting for Buchanan in the primaries. Frankly, I
prefer Keyes (by a bit) right now only because I don’t know much about
Buchanan. BUT, just for the sake of this thread, I’ll say okay to your
plan so far.
-------
3a. I agree we have a two-party system. However, just as the
Republicans replaced one party of a two-party system I believe the
Republicans are so close to the Democrats that the Republicans should be
replaced. Apparently that is our first disagreement.
3b. Our second disagreement would appear to be the invulnerability of
the Republican Party. (If all gun owners voted for the same third party
candidate, we would win in a landslide!)
3c. Our third disagreement (perhaps part of the first or second) is the
inevitability of either a Democrat or a Republican becoming President. It
does NOT have to be that way. (Repeat: If all gun owners, etc. etc.)
3d. Our next disagreement is a bit volatile (for both of us), the “viability”
of any third-party candidate depends solely upon our integrity, our
honor, and belief in the Second Amendment, Bill of Rights, and our
Constitution.
- If we insist on compromise, then freedom is not viable.
- If we unite and vote for our rights, we can not lose!
3e. To “...forget about a third-party candidate...” is to forget all that I
hold dear. The compromise that you propose is too great for me to make
- I simply can not do it. When people scoff and degrade me voting for
“principles”, their scorn embarrasses me not for myself - but for them.
That they can cloak their compromise of our liberty in words from our
Founding Fathers I find to be either immoral or (at a minimum)
self-deluding. I have tried not to say this before because I realize it
sounds insulting. But, here as in court, the truth is a perfect defense.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety...." Benjamin Franklin

Therefore, to vote for a representative of any party which advocates gun
control would be, FOR ME, immoral. I clearly understand that others who
share neither my goals nor my perspective have every right to disagree.
3f. And since you used the comment about head in the sand, let’s see
whose head is in the sand.
- It is a reality, we agree, that the Republicans and Democrats worked
together to implement gun control.
- It is a reality, we agree, that the Republicans and Democrats will bring
us MORE gun control. They both have PROMISED to bring us gun
control.
- Therefore, to vote for a Republican or a Democrat hoping for no gun
control is the ultimate example of “head in the sand”!
3g. If either a Republican or Democrat becomes President we will be
cursed with more gun control. Now THAT is reality. That is FACT.
3h. Those who vote Republican only to vote against the Democrats are
wasting their vote. Rather than vote for the “lesser of two evils”, we all
could vote for what is right, honorable, and uniquely American. We could
vote to rescind the evil - to rescind gun laws. That can NOT happen
voting for the Republicans or Democrats. To win our freedom all we have
to do is vote for it. We do not have to take up arms as our ancestors
did; but, like our ancestors, we must unite!
- Just as our forefathers had to cope with the English, we must cope
with the Democrats.
- Just as our forefathers had to cope with Tories, we must cope with
Republicans.
- But If we unite and vote both the Republicans and the Democrats out
of power, we can win our revolution at the ballot box.
3i. The argument about what type of Supreme Court Justices a
Republican rather than a Democrat would nominate is an argument
without substance! If we elect a real pro-gun President - one who
advocates rescinding gun laws instead of creating “less evil” gun laws -
we could have pro-gun Supreme Court Justices such as we have not seen
in this century. There ARE some judges who are pro-gun. Would you
like to see Emerson and his kind in the Supreme Court? NO Republican
will nominate them and ruin his Republican career. So the Rep/Dem
argument is without merit because the third solution is available.
3j. As Dr. Stephen Covey states, your mind creates your reality. You
and I look at the Democrats and say, “No way”. You decide a third party
candidate is not “viable” therefore he is not. I look at the people, all
people, who feel that way and say, “For shame!” All we have to do is act
together and we could ELIMINATE gun control.
-------
4a. The difference between Democrat gun control and Republican gun
control pales before the vision of NO MORE gun control or RESCINDing
gun control - therefore, voting for the “lesser evil” is too evil for me.
(Previous comments apply.) I do not hurt my country by voting against
gun control rather than voting for it.
4b. I find it inaccurate and insulting that anyone would call my vote a
“protest” vote.
- You are voting Republican only to hurt the Democrats. THAT is a
protest vote.
- My goal is not to vote against the Republicans or the Democrats. My
vote will be cast to eliminate gun control. Nothing more, nothing less. Nobody
who votes for a Republican or Democrat can say that.
4c. Your suggestion that we “...should hold out JUST a little longer. It's
not yet time for a constant stream of protest votes, followed by a
revolution if necessary...” can only appeal to those who wish to restore
our liberty by use of violence. I want to do it at the ballot box, therefore
I can not wait to see how oppressed we can become before we try to
revolt using pitchforks and sharp sticks because the government has taken
most of our firearms.
4d. To say that one evil is one hundred times better than another evil is
to disregard the good one can do by encouraging neither. Again, all it
takes is gun owners working together - for a change.
4c. If I had to pick one infuriating concept from your post, it would be
the widely held belief that “There's really nothing we can do, NO MATTER
WHO WE VOTE FOR, to stop the legislative crap, because the media's on
their side.”
- The media is informative - not legislative. We already know voting for gun
control is wrong. Those who have ears to hear let them hear, etc.
- We can replace the President, large numbers in the legislature, as well
as federal judges, the Attorney General, and Supreme Court Judges if we
vote with honor and integrity rather than fear and compromise.
((And let me add here, that only those who have no principles would dare
to use that term with scorn!))
4d. “Now, you can still voice your opinion in several ways:...” Yes, sir. I
chose to lend my voice to what is right rather than what is compromised.
If we wrest control of our government from the combined,
mutually-reinforcing hands of the Democrats and their “me, too”
Republicans, we can restore honor to our government. We can restore
liberty and freedom to our citizens. But we can not do it voting for “lesser
evils”. We can not do it by casting protest votes against the “greater
evil”. We must do it by voting for what is right rather than wrong. We
must unite as did our forefathers to say, “No more!”

And you don’t say, “No more!” by voting for those who oppress you.

4e. You say, “What I'm saying in a nutshell is that the power of the
court to change history in a heartbeat and instantly "decapitate"
hundreds of violative provisions is mind-boggling.”
I will not put my children’s existence in the hands of George W. Bush!
He promised more gun control. He believes in gun control. He has said
so in public! His “pro-gun” stand in Texas was a political maneuver to
win the governorship from the pompous and despised Ann Richards!
Bush promises more gun control but by Almighty God it will not be
because of MY vote!
4f. As you say, “All this from someone who hates the Repubs, as they
too constantly try to take away our freedoms.” You are correct. But in
your hope that the Republicans will not destroy as much of the Second
Amendment as the Democrats you are ignoring the fact we could stop
the erosion of our rights, we could restore American values to America, if
we only had the integrity, honor, bravery, and common sense to unite
and overthrow the current government the way Jefferson intended - at
the ballot box.
-------
The strongest argument against me you have not used. As Fubsy says, "Give me a name." I have none at this point.

But just as I know arsenic and hemlock are poisons, I know the Democrats and Republicans are poisons to our freedoms.

Somewhat like Diogenes, I go forth with my lamp searching for an honest candidate who will free me from this burdensome gun control. I find none in the major parties. I continue my search.
 
Dennis, thank you for your thoughtful reply. Very good points, all. What the differences all come down to really is two things: The viability of a third party candidate, and voting your conscience. I concede that you are right about the possible resurgence of a viable third party to become the second party. As to voting your conscious regardless of the costs, that is honorable and good, and I believe you are right about it. And on this principle, I even registered as a Libertarian. But the party got kicked off my state's list of parties because the Lib candidate didn't receive at least 5% of the vote in the 96 elections. So now I'm registered "Independent", whatever that means. I am going to be pragmatic, however, just one more presidential election, to see what happens with Repub appointment. After that, I'm with you - I'm voting my conscience, and let the chips fall where they may. Now you are obviously right when you say Alan Keyes or Pat B. will appoint even BETTER judges - true. So IF one of these guys is in fact on the ballot as a third party candidate, and they have a groundswell of support showing the poll numbers anywhere in the ballpark (within 5 or 10 points of the Repub), then I will strongly consider voting for that candidate. I would love to have Keyes or Pat as Pres (even though I'm not religious at all, a candidate who supports religious values is not a bad thing, but a good thing for our society, IMO).

The real sticking point is this, though: You are unwilling to wait until we have only sharp sticks and pitch forks to fight, understandably. I agree. But the point is that, although we've had hundreds of infringements, we're still NOWHERE NEAR having only pitchforks. We still have millions and millions of guns with which to fight if necessary. So why not see if we can abrubtly turn the tide with one or two big-time supreme court cases in the early 2000s. IF that doesn't work, I could then foresee within 10-25 years us actually being reduced to pitchforks (i.e. a much-accelerated pace of gun-banning relative to the past). What I mean is, the near future is, I believe, a big turning point in history. Our gun rights will either receive a resounding fortification or be severely curtailed or abandoned altogether. The Supreme court will hopefully be forced to hear the issue fairly soon because of the political climate and court cases resulting from radical infringements like Lautenberg and the '94 gun and magazine ban. So I agree - work within the system for change first - it indeed is not too late IF we focus on our legal rights and how the courts protect them. If we rely on the continued legislative battles, we are doomed to lose because of the ignorance of the general public and the media on the anti-defense crowd's side. I believe the foregoing is true EVEN IF the Repub party were totally replaced with a TRULY conservative party epitomized by Keyes.

Also, I appreciate your bringing to my attention George W's true colors, as you indicate them. If he really is just pure politician (Clintonite) then surely he will abandon freedom once he gets out of Texas (where it was politically expedient to support gun rights) and into the White House.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited September 23, 1999).]
 
Futo, good point! The composition of the Supreme Court is the only good argument for having a Republican president. However, with the current composition of the Senate, getting the best appointees thru will require quite an effort. Who knows what the President may have to trade for his appointments?
 
Hank,
Exactly. And what we forget is that the political trade-offs will NOT only be with the Democrats, but also with fellow Republicans for career and party enhancement purposes rather than the general good of the citizenry.
-------

Futo,
I know I should wait until you come back, but already we have hit our biggest stumbling block. I don't understand why so many people feel a third party is not "viable". It is our votes that count.

If the majority of voters refuse to vote for party "A", that party is not viable (at least not at the moment ;) ) whether that party is Democrat, Republican, or a third party.

There were NO "viable" political parties in America until we became tired of the King's oppression. If our forefathers stayed with "viable", we would be subjects of the crown today.

Third parties will not be "viable" until we become tired of the oppression of the combined Republican/Democrat party (singular) and brave enough to do more than preach to the choir.

At that point, Americans will stop voting for gun control (less v. more) and again will vote for freedom in America.

I guess after nearly forty years, I just got fed up quicker than most gun owners. So, there's no way we can agree until gun owners decide that it is gun control that is not "viable", at least not viable to me.

I prefer work within the system by voting for a revolution at the voting booth whether guns are available or not; and well before they become outlawed and our ranks are thinned by the "law-abiding".

Voting for the Republican/Democrat party is voting for gun control. Period.

I refuse to vote for gun control. I, for one, just will not do it.

-------
All,

And if one more dipstick says I'm voting for Gore by not voting for Bush I may become less than polite! Vote for your accursed gun control if you must! But don't you DARE use perverted, twisted, illogical whimpering to tell me I voted for Gore!

Also, if you're so brave you insist on making such an asinine accusation, be brave enough to post your e-mail address so I can discuss your attributes off TFL property! ;)

And one more point, e-mails are supposed to be private communications between the correspondents.

I'll quit here before I break my keyboard or DC has to kick me out! :(
 
My Republican friends have been harping on me to vote Republican, "just this time, then things'll be better!" since '88. Every time, though, things have gotten worse. 1994 was the Republicans' big chance to show their true colors, and, unfortunately for liberty, they did. The Republicans are, at best, political incompetents; at worst, they are deceitful cowards. Neither is an attribute I look for when deciding who gets my vote.

Now the Republican rallying cry is, "if we have both houses of congress and the presidency, then we'll be able to really make some changes!" Pardon me if I'm skeptical. Many of us here say, "judge them not on what they say, but on what they do." Maybe we should apply that standard to the Republican Party.

As Dennis has so masterfully pointed out, the Republicans want more gun control, they have promised more gun control, and in the last 5 years while controlling congress they have voted for more gun control. Quiz time: What are you certain to get if you vote for a Republican? To me, you can vote for the Democrat or the Republican, it amounts to the same thing. In fact, a vote for either is a vote for the status quo, so if you like what you're getting, keeping being pragmatic at the polls.

------------------
"...the probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tender-hearted person would get the job of whipping-master in a slave plantation."
Prof. Frank H. Knight
 
Third parties can't win, so people don't vote for them.

Because people don't vote for them, third parties can't win.

This looks like a hopeless vicious circle, but in it hides a silver lining: The ONLY reason many people vote for the major parties is because they think there's no viable alternative. The major parties, and especially the Republican party, are like ticking time bombs. They are like balloons, swelling with ever increasing pressure. Let that pressure get just the slightest bit too high, and BANG! Scratch one major party.

Futo, we don't need a sledge hammer. We need a pin. AND, we need to be poised to reap those gains when the bomb goes off.

That's why I write off the Reform party. The simple truth is that the Reform party is a hollow shell. They don't have ballot access in most states, they don't run candidates for most offices, they don't have think tanks or talent pools. They don't have a legislative agenda, or even positions on most issues. What they have is a matching funds check written by the federal government, thanks to the millions Perot funneled through them in '96. And that's all they have! If tommorrow the GOP ceased to exist, they couldn't exploit it.

The Libertarian party could. We've got the think tanks, the talent pools, we run candidates at every level of government; More candidates than every other third party put together. More WINNERS than every other third party put together. And we not only know WHAT we believe, (The Republicans used to know that much.) we know WHY we believe it, so we'll keep believing it even after we win.

What we need is a good big pin, and to push REALLY hard.

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!
 
Sorry, folks, this is not so complicated. We always talk big about making a difference at the polls, standing up for our rights, fighting the good fight, etc. How can we square that with our prevailing attitude that we should figure out ahead of time which guy will win and vote for him rather than the platform we believe in just so we'll be on the winning team?

As for the football analogy, talking about goldbrickers is all well and good, and yes I played with some guys I didn't like, saved their butts a few times too. But if a guy purposely throws a game, or if he's just afraid to play hard for fear he'll lose or get hurt, the team comes together to bench his ass. It's not easy to do, but it's not complex.
And when did we become so terrified of losing? Look, if our guy loses, he loses. If we vote for someone else and he loses, then he lost because we didn't have the balls to support him and that's not right. Look at it this way--if your guy loses and some gun-banner wins, then we might be in trouble. But do you really think we'll be in less trouble if we abandon our principles to vote for the banner from the start? All that can accomplish is to let him claim even more support.
All this said, I'll just say I'm not even all that sure about Pat Buchanan. I like the way he talks, and it has to be a good sign that the media works so hard at defaming him. :) But if he runs as a Republican, it better be on HIS platform. And if he expects me to vote for him as a Reform Party candidate, he'd better get a platform written for them and SOON.
Check into the Libertarian Party and just see what they have to say this time around.
 
At heart, I'm also a Libertarian. Donald B. Kates converted me many years ago.

Still, I'm a Texas shooter and have been very much involved with Texas issues - especially regarding firearms - enough to know that GW made promises to us, and that's WHY he got elected Governor. Anne Richards was defeated specifically because of her anti-firearms notions.

What's more, GW got re-elected because he fulfilled his promises to enact CCW in Texas, and to then went further and signed legislation to prohibit municipalities/counties from sueing gun manufacturers?

Now, how many gun manufacturers do y'all know of in Texas? I know of three: Strayer-Voight, STI and that single-action clone outfit out Fredericksburg way. They're all pretty much selling to niche markets - and none of them have the financial resources to "buy" the Governor on this issue.

But I'll betcha the trail lawyers have enough money to "buy" him - Oops, I forgot - Bush is fighting the trial lawyers on the tobacco deal!

There isn't enough clout in firearms manufacturers in Texas to make the pro-gun laws pass through the committees and land on the Governor's desk. It comes from the people. that's right, those of us who have sent him all that money. The committees have to know that the Guv is on their side before they will push the legislation through - because they know it will get signed.

The "clout" comes from the people he represents, and from his own beliefs. He hasn't let us down in Texas.

All of us dimwits who donate to the GW campaign are somehow silly for buying into Bush? I doubt that. He's never let me down on a gun issue. There are thousands of us who donate, and who have on a regular basis over the last six years. Because we believe and TRUST him-with good reason.

Sure, I'd RATHER have my State Representative, Ron Paul as President. But Ron Paul is not running this time, and so is not electable. But I'll be more than happy to do everything I can to make certain that any morale high ground I hold on principle has a chance to succeed by making certain that all the good stuff Ron Paul introduces has a chance, by giving him a President willing to sign it into law.

YMMV
 
I f Pat Buchanan gets the Reform Party nomination, we must support him. The elites of the Republican Party are trashing him daily for leaaving that plutocratic party. This proves that the internationalists of the republican party are very fearful that, finally, a true patriot has emerged from the moribound and anti-nationalist Republican party. I believe the other parties like the Libertarian party should join the Reform party in one final bid to perhaps save this sinking nation from total destruction from the one party system of the last 80 plus years. Time is running out. But first we must get through Y2k and the real threat of a Dictatorship(complete dictatorship) being established before the elections! The most perilious times in modern American history are now upon us. God Bless the republic !
 
ALL,

You have all made some very valid points.

Dennis and Ivan,
I agree with the fact that we should start voting on principles rather than compromise with the party/candidate that is the lesser of evils. Most of us gun rights advocates have been voting on lesser of two evils (lote) all of our lives. Where has it gotten us politically? A: The "lote" in lost liberties. We have lost liberties, albeit at a slower pace than may have otherwise been. My complaint for years has been, "Why doesn't somebody of integrety and TRUE principles run?" A: I'll tell you why, dagnabbit, a)Men of true integrety in politics have a hard time of making it very far in political offices and races. b)For some strange reason, they have less success in gaining corporate sponsorship (could it be because they can't be bought?). c) When they do come up against the establishment (powers that be) in an election, they are usually viewed as unelectable, because there is usually a compromise, "moderate", vote who does have the backing. d) Voters who DO have true principles, usually hold their noses and vote for the lotes, because, at least its better than letting that REALY evil candidate into office.

It is no wonder that we usually have no good candidates to choose from in any election, especially these big ones. Who wants to go through all of the trouble, money, attacks, and time when the people who agree with him in principles won't even vote for him at the poles?.... In the election before last I did not vote for Bush, Clinton, OR Perot. Perot was for door to door illegal searches and seizures in the inner city "drug" communities for warantless s & s of weapons and drugs (if the media source that quoted him was telling the truth). Should I have voted for him, hoping that the 2nd & 4th Amdt. would be the only liberty to lose? My candidate wasn't even on the ballot. No electorates. Just my write in. He was staunchly pro-gun and less govt/more liberty, but I couldn't even get the gun shop owners to agree. There man was Mr. Bush. I guess that FFL was like a good friend to them and they wanted more of the same. Or was it not quite as much of the same if Mr. Bill C were elected? I don't know.

Shortcut and other Bush supporters,
I can understand why you support George W Bush. If what you say is true, he certainly doesn't sound like a Marxist. The one thing that bothers me about him, well two are:
a) With all due respect to his father and the office he has held, his Dad gave us the biggest Gun Confiscation laws this country has ever known up to pres BC, even though it was w/in his power to veto the Brady Confiscation Bill. His Dad started out w/the legacy of being a heroic war veteran and NRA supporter. Many trusted him, because they ignored the next point that his son shares in common with him.

b) George W publically anounced that he WANTS to enforce the gun laws already on the books. Now, if he were running for office back in the early 1800's when there were not the laws we have today, I'd say "No problem". Today, the ONLY thing that the laws on the books do are to prevent LAW ABIDING men and women from protecting themselves!!! I can not stress this too much. We call ourselves gun rights advocates and most of us, including me up to recently, don't even know what a right to self protection IS. GW Also says that the man who sold the firearm to the guy who entered that TX church should be held accountable. AS IF THE SELLER WAS A CRIMINAL TOO! I realize that I don't have all of the facts and don't want to make a hasty judgement, but I never heard of any conspiracy to commit murder by the FFL holder and the church killer. Am I missing something? Should the gas station attendant who sold gasoline to a guy who went out and dumped it on a bunch of people in FL a while back be prosecuted because of the action of the guy who lit the match to them?
Again, I can understand why some of you support GWB for pres. I would probably have felt the same way 10 years ago. If what he says is what he will do in office, though, I don't want him. Enough of this lesser of two evils nonsense. There are an awful lot of different firearms no longer legal to manufacture and buy/sell because of a "conservative republican" who was on the side of the NRA and gun owners.

All,

Do I think Pat B is electable if he joins the reform party?

N-O! Do you want to know why?

A: Because if most of the biggest gun rights advocates, like us in this firing line forum can't agree even on principles in voting, why in the world do we expect the general population to be any different and put Pat in office?!

I am not angry at any of you GW supporters, nor do I disrespect you. I just wish that this country in general would start picking the candidates, based on true principles, rather than leaving it up to the establishment powers that be to give us more governmental controllers, liberal OR conservative.


------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)

[This message has been edited by EQUALIZER (edited September 27, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by EQUALIZER (edited September 27, 1999).]
 
NEW Question related to the first:

Bill Bradley OR Al Gore:

If they were our only choices, who would you vote for?

Last night on Larry King, Bill Bradley said that he was much different than Mr. Gore. His first and biggest point was that he, Bill Bradley, would make sure that all handguns were registered if he were elected. He said that Al G. did not agree and would not do this.

Now, exactly where do we draw the line at the lesser of two evils? Hitler vs. Stallin? Remember, they didn't show their true colors until they were in power. Bradey Bill (Bush) vs. Crime Bill (Bill)?

Bradley vs. Gore: Who would you vote for?

------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
 
Has anybody thought about what your Sigs, Glocks and HK's (and similar IMPORTED weapons) will cost if Buchanan gets in? Sure, they will be legal, a fact I am not discounting in the least, but his trade policies (translated, stiff tariffs on imported products) could drive up the costs of an awful lot of things, including guns. Would this be a windfall for Ruger, S&W, Colt, etc.?

Don't get me wrong. I respect Pat's integrity a great deal. I just think the country could do a whole lot better than ANY of the current candidates. Any of you guys interested in running?

Regards,
MLT
 
Pat B. is an isolationist bigot and WAY too nutty to be elected.. Can't he take the years and years of hints that he's been given ? If he's selfish enough to switch parties, we can all just stay home on election day and wonder what Al is gonna say in his inagural speech...

He simply can't get his big head out of the sand long enough to realize that in today's world, you can't be an isolationist and be an economic power.

AND: To blame only the democrats for gun control is like blaming only Pontius Pilate for Jesus' crucifiction !

------------------
Lose that nickel plated sissy pistol, get yourself a GLOCK !
 
Scott,

I really don't consider Pat a bigot. I just think that's the way he is characterized by the national press (and by everybody that the press intimidates) for taking some hard-nosed, politically incorrect (if not politically suicidal) positions from time to time. I think he strongly believes in what he says and I don't question his integrity. He has every right to run if he can get endorsed by the Reform or any other party for that matter.

I agree with you that his isolationist/protectionist positions are loony and would be roundly damaging if enacted.

I disagree with everybody's position here (other than Oscar's position set forth some time earlier) that Pat would take more votes from the Republican than from the Democratic candidate. Many many old-school democrats that puke at the thought of Clinton or Gore (but still vote for them because they are democrats) would never vote Republican - NEVER. These votes (as well as a lot of pro-life democratic votes) would be siphoned directly away from Gore or Bradley. Additionally, the protectionist stance is MUCH more espoused by union card-carrying democrats. These votes likewise could be siphoned away. If anything, I think Buchanan's candidacy throws a real wild card into the race, much like Jesse Ventura's candidacy did in Minnesota. Nobody (other than Jesse) predicted that outcome!

Best regards,

MLT
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top