Bush backing gun control measures

Status
Not open for further replies.
The argument that states, "I will vote for the one most likely to win even though there are better choices." is self-defeating.

Here are our choices:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>"A", an individual that has openly stated that if elected, there will be more and more gun control legislation passed.

<LI>"B", an individual who waffles on the issue in both action and word.

<LI>"C", an individual that takes a stand of pro-gun, reduced restrictions, and has supported this stand in both word and deed.
</UL>

We are now told that choice "A" or "B" are the favored ones, and that "C" doesn't have a chance.

Well, since choice "B" is more in line with what we want, and "C" hasn't a chance, let's vote for "B" and take the bet that he will fall onto our side of the fence.

Yet, if we don't support "C" then he will never have that chance and the message to parties "A" and "B" will be that they have the monopoly to give Joe Q. Public only two choices, since party "C" doesn't have a chance.

Is this circular enough for you? When does the cycle break? How about when we decide that it does?!

It's extremely narrow to think that we only have only two choices.

Frankly, if the the vote is divided and the gun-grabber takes the office, let it be. I will have cast my vote for the one that I felt would do the most good for our country and constitution, not for the one that was most favored to win.

And should the gun-grabber take office, maybe then it will be time to "shoot the bastards".

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

http://www.countdown9199.com



[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited September 01, 1999).]
 
So like you know you don't like need a gun to knock over an SN'L so like whats the problem. Lets get an 8Ball! Wow who is that with the camera? Where's my pants man? Wow man Dave's not here.
 
Jefe,
You ask a fair question.

Calmly now. My point is that both the two major parties will give us gun control. All we 80 million gun owners have to do is quit saying the third party is not viable, and we win. If a third of us switched to Libertarian, that would reduce the Rep/Dem votes to second and third place. It's that simple!

By "win", I mean at *worst*, every future gun control bill would have to override a Presidential veto - a hard thing to do with a loudmouth Libertarian telling the people they are being shafted.

By "win", I mean at best, a Libertarian President would restore the Second Amendment and restore our country to Constitutional Law.

I understand Congress would have a hissy-fit. And that's fine. Americans would see that the Reps and Dems are really one elitist party bent transforming our country into a Socialist state.

Now I've been told that the Libertarians don't have a candidate. Well, neither do the two major parties. Each political party has nominees from which candidates will be selected by the party.

By the way, it is my belief that the little public pillowfights the Reps & Dems have are about us rigged as the Wrestling matches. :)

The upper crust of both parties get along so well that the candidates (of both parties) are much more alike than different. Both parties state in public that they want gun control. Interestingly enough, the Democrats state their position and the Republicans react with compromises. The Democrats are doing the driving and the Reps have become the "Me, too!" party. Voting for one is much like voting for the other. Not 100%, I understand, but too much for any practical differences.

I've read Libertarian literature. Unlike the Republocrats, the Libertarians do NOT promise gun control or compromises on gun control. Libertarians say gun control is UNconstitutional, therefore illegal, and they will void gun control laws.

That's why I have become a Libertarian. I have set aside ALL my other political goals to re-establish, re-take, re-incarnate our Constitution. If we do that, then we will have a say on other subjects.

If we lose our Second Amendment, the government will have the only say on those other subjects.

-----
Glad to hear you're in the military. I'm retired AF. Should you stay in long enough to retire, don't bank on your military medical care - unless you're an O-6, very lucky, or have a malady that happens to interest them - you lose.

Oh. Let's agree from the git-go that we are both equally fervent believers in the RKBA. We merely disagree on how best to preserve those Rights. And by Jefferson and Madison, it's still our right to make our arguments and try to convince the other guy to switch, okay? As a Libertarian, I have the advantage of saying I don't vote for gun control. The Reps and Dems can't say that! ;)

About the only rule is not to get personal or really nasty. Or if you must, go to e-mail. (For the full story, check out the rules and stuff you read before you register as a member.) And the FAQ has all the skivvy on various formatting tricks. Outside of that, let 'er rip, son! :D :D

------------------
Real Americans vote their conscience, not their fears.




[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited September 01, 1999).]
 
El jeffe,
I see the libertarians are ganging up again, lol........there whole premise revolves around the magic wand theory of government, with classy rhetoric.
They believe that the reality of politics should be the way of a party that dosent control anything, not even a county govt., there membership seems to be growing with disatisfied conservative republicans, although not yet in an amount to become a party in power.
The worse part is they try to sell this as a moral move, and try to stake a moral hi-ground--I voted for whats best for america---and you didnt..lol....the problem with that argument is that if your vote allows a democrat to win, you have helped him...ut we showed them evil republicans....of course they dont want to admit or recognize that--cause even if the democrats win, we can help do to our country whats been done in bosnia......lol...
They completely ignore the 92 election were the 3rd party of record, the reform party cost bush the election and by voting for perot they in effect guranteed clinton to be elected-----it makes me wonder if they just want the democrats elected so they can have there little war in america...
The reality is you've got to be elected in order to enact anything. They seem to believe that the two party system is so flawed that only there party can save us, or heck we can shoot it out cause I dont like the way things are going---they seem to want gurantees so they take a promise, a statment of intent as a gurantee although the mechanism is not there for a single person to make that change.
Heck who wouldnt like to have it go their way on the 2nd amendment, but even if they elected a president, which is not going to happen, att, it still wont go their way cause of no support anywhere, no congressional support, oh yeah, thats right the media will carry there message to the people...right...you wanna buy a bridge?,how often did you hear what the republicans had to say in a fair and equitable manner.... They think that magically some how it will be different with their guy in office--even though there not even on the ballot in all 50 states?did yall finally get on the ballet in all 50 states?, if they were it wouldnt matter.
And what really bites is that i agree with em on almost every issue cept for drugs/open borders....hey I did notice yall ganged up on the drug thread, what do yall do go over to dennis's for shiner bock and plot strategy for tfl?..lol....,
All of us think we are fighting for what right and have the right way to do it, some of us have already drawn our lines, I dont like a static fight, I want to win, so I fight to win, and take every little win I can and build that to a victory if possible. I dont see w as a win, Im hoping he's not a loss,,,,but the way I see it folks, we have the potential to replace what, 1 or two supreme ct judges this time around, and we have two diametrically opposed 2nd amendment cases headed in that direction, I cant risk a democrat in office-- the supreme ct is were i see the best chance for victory. I know the democrats will put up a antigun canidate, bush might not, and that little bit of chance is important, the libertarians wont have the opportunity to appoint a canidate as they wont get elected to the presidency, yet.
Its been puzzling to me how the libertarians believe that there one guy can go to washington and out manuever the press, the two parties that are already there and have no party and no support, and still govern. Let alone fulfill his promise's or campaign plank's. the belief seems to be that all americans should realize that they are the party to save america from the evil republicans and democrats, everyone just needs to join us......
You know we are all so pissed at the two parties, and concerned for our loss of freedoms, that the disgust and frustration just mounts especially when we consider ourselves impotent in the ability to effect a change in our govt.,
Asbestos clothes on, Ive got a day or two to haggle bring it on, hey how do i put a niffty little msg at the bottom of my posts?. you know something like.......

elect a democrat vote libertarian...lol...just kidding guys...fubsy.
 
fubsy, we're not ganging up, we all just happen to agree. For what it's worth, I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party, never have been, and I don't feel attached to a particular party. It sounds like you're almost libertarian. A few more debates and we'll get you there ;).

I, too, would like us all to get behind a true pro-gun candidate, for once. It doesn't have to be a Libertarian Party candidate; the guy I mentioned earlier, L. Neil Smith, will NOT be the Libertarian Party's candidate because he has problems with the Party, not the philosophy, but I doubt there is a more staunch advocate of a person's right to bear arms than Neil. It almost certainly will not be a Republican, as they seem hell bent on inflicting gun-controller Jr. GWB on us.

I think all that we libertarians are saying in this thread is: continue voting for a party that has systematically screwed gun owners for the last 20 years, and you will continue to get screwed. The Republicans and the Democrats both knew in '94 who elected the Repub congress: the gunowners. The Republicans repayed that gift by turning their backs on gun owners, by whitewashing the Waco hearings (which we will now have to do all over again) and by passing more gun control. Wow, what a great deal, you're right, fubsy, we need more of that.

Are the Reps slightly better than the Dems, in general, on the issue of gun control? Yes, as long as we admit the emphasis is on slightly. It is simple fact that there hasn't been a single repeal of a gun control law under the Republican leadership, and there have been many additions to gun control law. Ie, they are anti-gun, just not as anti-gun as the Democrats. But don't kid yourself, they're taking us to the same place, a tiny bit slower and a little bit cheaper.

Why doesn't the "smaller evil" crowd pick a party that stands foursquare behind the 2nd Amendment. I'm not even asking for the entire Bill of Rights (that would be the Libertarian Party) just the 2nd. Pick one and I think most of us would go along with you.

Or, continue to give your allegiance to a party that has no principle, that will sell out gun owners almost as fast as the Democrats will, just don't be surprised when some of us (a small but growing minority) refuse to vote for a party that is anti-gun.

I honestly don't think that our country can be turned around at the ballot box at this point. There are a few reasons I continue to engage in these debates:
1. I still hope we can resolve our problems by voting.
2. I can't stand to see a person help out the group which is at least 50% responsible for our current predicament, especially when that person is as ticked as I am about gun control.
3. I like to argue.

------------------
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." Henry St. George Tucker
 
Ok, simple political calculus. No, forget calculus, this is political addition! Politicians want to maximize their vote, to appeal to as many people as possible. That's how they get elected. So what do they do to a group which shows the sort of blind loyalty some people advocate we should have for the GOP? THEY BETRAY IT! That way they retain the votes of that group, and appeal to that group's enemy as well. That's all you need to know, to understand why voting for lesser of two evils Republicans doesn't help, it makes things worse!

Look, if the Republicans wouldn't repeal one stinking gun control law after '94, if they wouldn't even STOP ENACTING them, then what would it take to get them to defend our rights? Giving them both houses of Congress on a silver platter wasn't enough; They wouldn't even admit we had anything to do with it! SO, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE?

Answer? There is nothing, absolutely nothing, we can do FOR the GOP, which will persuade them to defend our rights. Because until we demonstrate that it is possible for them to lose our votes, until we demonstrate that our votes are "in play", they will do NOTHING for us, because it would be a waste of resources they might otherwise use to buy the votes of some group which isn't already committed to backing them! Is that so complicated?

Heck, find a real political scientist, and ask them if I'm wrong!
 
Hi Guys, Quite a spirited debate. I think the reason GW sold out the 18-21- year olds, is that polling and statistics show that they don't vote in mass numbers so both parties have crapped on them.

I'm afraid that to enrage the mass of gunowners some BIG Anti measure is going to have to be enacted, to get a total encompassing rejection, of this tyranny. I think that if this happens in the near future, a true patriot has a chance to be president, otherwise a strong no holds barred GUN PARTY, will be organized for elections after the major crisis occurs

The way that I see it most Americans will give up there freedom for a fat 401K, A season ticket at the football stadium, a place by the lake, or a new Suv in the driveway. I think politicians know this and use incrementalism to take away our freedom.

Take care of your family and your friends, cause I think we are in for a rough ride.

YOUR BROTHER IN ARMS-------------CHAINSAW
 
Fubsy,

The people who vote Republican to prevent Al Gore from becoming President are fighting
a desperate but losing battle with reality.

The Republicans want gun control just as much as the Democrats want gun control. The
Republicans, however, sense their party is disintegrating - therefore they play on fears and
try to call it “political reality”.

Reality is this: Whoever gets the most votes wins.
Reality is this: With 80 million gun owners, a third of them could vote for gun rights and
take over our federal government.
Reality is this: A vote for a Republican is a vote for gun control.

Now there’s your reality, fubsy.
-------------

Now, let’s get to your comments. This time you pulled my chain pretty good.

1) “there whole premise revolves around the magic wand theory of government, with
classy rhetoric”
The vote is not a magic wand. Voting for promised gun control will NOT regain
our rights. And thank you for the term “classy rhetoric”- it’s based on the principles of
our Founding Fathers. That truly is “classy”!

2) “....the problem with that argument is that if your vote allows a democrat to win, you
have helped him”
The problem is a vote for a Republican is a vote for gun control. If we vote to reverse
the gun control process, neither the Republicans or their partners, the Democrats, win.
If you want to win, do NOT vote for those who take away your rights. Now THAT is
political reality!

3) “they seem to want guarantees so they take a promise, a statment of intent as a
gurantee although the mechanism is not there for a single person to make that change.”

What happened to political reality here? When Governor Bush and Senator Trent Lott
both promise additional gun control measures and compromises, they assuredly have the
“mechanism” to make that change! If not through Congress, where the Republicans have
promised to cooperate with Democrats for “reasonable” gun control measures, Bush
would have the same power to write Presidential Executive Orders and his beloved
predecessor.

4) “how often did you hear what the republicans had to say in a fair and equitable
manner....”

Every time they spoke. Bush and Lott promise more gun control and I believe them.

5) “And what really bites is that I agree with em on almost every issue cept for
drugs/open borders....hey I did notice yall ganged up on the drug thread, what do yall do
go over to dennis's for shiner bock and plot strategy for tfl?..lol....,”

Good! Then come on over to the side that will represent your beliefs! You will not have
left the real Republicans - the Republican Party left us when they became the Democratic
Party Auxiliary!

Let me know when you’re coming and I’ll have a Shiner Bock for ya! And that’s a
promise you can believe every bit as much as Governor Bush’s promise of gun control.


------------------
Real Americans vote their conscience, not their fears.




[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited September 01, 1999).]
 
ipeac,
oh no,,,,,your getting the feeling im changing positions?....no Im not., although Im pobably more pro-constitution and individual then you'd believe--I just dont see the lp's having any real affect on politic's, look at it this way, if you cant put someone in office they cant do anything. If that position your trying to fill is the office of president, tell me again how with out congressional support he can govern? How is he going to fulfill his campaign planks?....first off im really not concerned with the lp party taking votes away from the republicans the lp party just isnt big enuf by itself to have an effect, now when you start combining the lp's and the reform party now they might be effective as spoilers but thats two different parties and they cant win because there divided and they have just weakened one of the major parties and in effect have reentrenched the democrats in office, who in case you havent noticed vote in mass and do not care what there canidates do as long as they can get reelected. Normally at this point I hear, "there is no difference between them, maybe the republicans are slower to enact anti-gun laws, its still the lesser of two evils", I cant completely disagree with that argument, I do think that as voters we are not realistically evaluating the party system, there are two branches of the legislative govt, the house and the senate. the 3rd party canidate will also have this problem except he most likely wont have any help in congress. The house republicans, are somewhat handicapped by the senate republicans, as well as only a two year stint, the problem as i see it is in the senate, in power for 6 years, the rockafeller republicans have control of the seniority in the republican party, the group that supported bush sr. and most likely jr. for the republicans that is were the change needs to take place, it wont happen over night, and it might never happen, it might never happen with the 3rd parties either. Idont recall off of the top of my head, I do remember readin of smaller parties through out our history that have just faded away some quickly, some slowly, never having an affect on anything other than a footnote in history.
AS for all for one and one for all voting for a progun canidate great idea---allthough do we know of any that has $50 million dollars to campaign with?---only one Im aware of is w, can you believe that hes already got 50million dollars...sheesh....the absolute most money that has ever been raised, heck even the chinese didnt give clinton that much.....
Now dont fall out of the chair at what im gonna say here, but i would vote for a libertarian if and only if the choice was between him and a democrat---which is not going to happen----not until the lp party gets stronger, im not sure it can. Its how old now?, major wins-1 ron paul--great guy, good views, how effective is he by himself?

Yea, lets see the republicans have had control for what 6 years now----thats not quite 20, the democrats prior to that 6 years controlled the congress almost exclusively for 30 plus years-thats definitely a republican problem. They didnt arm twist those democrats enuf during the clinton hearings cause they, the democrats still voted in block not to impeach clinton-yeah I guess the republicans can be blamed for the democrats not breaking party ranks...lol....of course there the same so it dosent matter..lol.......sheesh...although I do have a problem with the republican controlled senate and the way they tied the hands of the house republicans.....heck imagine that the problem once again goes back to the senate...durn it...
So lets see how did you put........(paraphrase), "by passing more gun control. Wow, what a great deal, you're right, fubsy, we need more of that".........and you think that by supporting a libertarian or third party canidate who can not get elected and will possibly weaken the republican party so there ability to be able to thwart more restritive gun control measures by losing the house or senate control will not get you more democrat sponsored gun control?--quit running from that issue you know it will--there fore it must be what you want. Heck I know thats not what you want, but i know it is what 3rd parties voting can achieve, a democratic controlled congress and possibly the presidency. thats a nightmare....
.....dont forget the president this time gets to possibly appoint 1 or 2 supreme ct justices and that is were we can break it off in the schumer's, finestein's, boxer's orifce's, right now I see that as the most promising situation to come our way. One we can eaisly ruin by supporting a 3rd party and ensuring a democratic win. So tell me are you willing to throw those supreme ct. appointments out the window or give them to the democrats?
the ballot box moves slowly, its like that box of chocolates, ya never know what your gonna get, not even with the lp's--rhetoric aside that is.
I dont mind discussions even spirited ones, ....lol...fubsy.
 
Poor Republicans. It must be hard trying to get people to vote for gun control. Grasp at straws, blame the minority Democrats for overpowering the majority Republicans.

Just remember, every gun control bill Bush would sign into law would be vetoed by a Libertarian. But then, the Democrat Party Auxiliary (aka Republican Party) is too eager to "compromise" for "reasonable" gun control to worry about individual rights, the Constitution, etc.

What a shame so many people will vote for the Nazi Party just to avoid the Socialists (or was that the Communists?). Ooops, sorry. That was an earlier election in another country.

Better NO figurehead than an anointed tyrant.
 
Dennis and my fellow compatriots, See if I can clear this up, First I am nothing but calm and I am thoroughly enjoying this spirited debate, it's healthy and helps us to understand the needs, wants and desires of my fellow RKBA bretheren. Which in the long run will keep us unified. Second: My statement was fairly simple in the PRIMARIES cast your dissention/protest vote that will send the Signal you are looking for and may even surprise a few people by pushing a third party candidate to the forefront. If your third party candidate becomes a contender then votes may very well sway his or her way, even mine. However (now read the question closely) If and when it comes down to 2 choices Bush or Gore (for the sake of arguement lets presume that this election boils down the way every other one has) then WHO do you vote for? Casting your vote for the Democrats ensures further Gun Controls and hastens the loss of our 2nd amendment rights, a vote for a third party as a protest vote can (and has) ensure a Democrat victory thus ushering in a more Gun control However you make your Protest vote in the primaries (sending a strong signal to the candidates) and vote for the MOST pro gun Candidate that has a chance of winning. DON'T Stop there....Keep those cards and letters pouring in as a constant reminder It is not good enough to just get any candidate in office, you have to fully support them by reminding Congress that your still out here watching them. Saliant points were made concerning a third party President and his ability to impose his will when he has virtually no support in either house?! Thirdly: Join the NRA/GOA whether you agree with them 100% or not they are OUR PAC Their Political teeth would be much larger if it had the strength of 70 Million gun owners, They have the werewithawl to get our voices heard and the political machine to influence the outcome of any anti-RKBA issue (Imagine it's influence with the voice of 70 million gunowners!) Regardless of WHO is in office thru unity and Cohesiveness WE can make things happpen!! We can grease those skids by ensuring that the most PRO Gun candidate gets in the Whitehouse!! We can manifest our own destiny we just have to take the reins! Stay pro-active and drop the passive aggressive routine. You still have not given me something I can get my arms around, something/someone tangeable. You have given me plenty of issues/problems but I need solutions....VIABLE SOLUTIONS ( much as some seem to hate that word) If you do not have something for me to get behind...SAY SO and let us move on....Together! I said ONE TEAM ONE FIGHT, Not One team, LETS fight..

------------------
...Those that are willing to give up some of their rights for a little security deserve neither...Benjamin Franklin

Take care and God Bless, El Jefe
 
Dennis;
You know, I been a republican since I was old enough to vote. I always voted pro gun and look where it has gotten us. More and more gun control. Look at California now. I've just about lost all my rights here. So what more do I have to loose?

The answer is very little. I don't have anything to loose anymore so I may as well vote third party to screw the republicans and thus make them understand that THEY NEED US. It's political payback time against the likes of the Bush's and their rejection of the NRA......now it's my turn to do some rejecting and tell Bush to go to hell! It's too late for me and my rights so I might as well screw them up! As far as I'm concerned, this former, staunch, republican is going to vote third party......any party but republican or democrat. I'll tell you this much, when guys like me abandon the republicans, they are in serious trouble! Hey! My gun rights are almost gone anyway so what is the difference? Screw em'!

Now what we need to do is get a constitutional amendment to allow a presidential runoff election in the event that no single party gets a clear majority of the vote! Then a third party may in fact be a viable alternative!
 
I started to write a long explanation of my view point, but deceided to narrow it down. I will vote for the canidate who best represents my views and belief's. Regardless of what party they are from. If they win then that is great. If they loose, well then I know I'm not part of the majority. How else are we the people to know what the majority want? If you vote for a canidate who does not represent your views, because you feel they are the lesser of two evils but has the best chance to win... what kind of message are you sending? Are you sending the message that they in fact do support what you believe? Don't you think that the other americans will believe because you voted for them that that is what you believe? To me it is simple... you either support those who support the constitution or you don't. There is no middle ground.

One last point... what is the big deal with letting the democrats take over control? So they try and deny us our god given rights faster than the republicans do. Well maybe we should let them. It might wake those other gun owners up. I'm tired of haggling over the issue. Let's either vote our will and set us back on course, or take the other road.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
I would vote Libertarian. We are, in a way, in the same boat as Poles who had a choice of sorts between Russkies and Germans in '39. I, for one, would be inclined not to cooperate with either enemy.
 
I think we all enjoy spirited debate, or we'd be out doing something productive, instead. As I've said before about TFLers, they can debate without flaming.

fubsy, I'm glad we agree that the Republicans are gun controllers. As to the Democrats hanging together so well, they sure didn't right after the '94 elections. I watched a lot of C-Span at that time, and started to notice that the Dems lost a greater percentage of their vote to the Repub side than vice versa, on almost every vote. It seemed to me like they sure got the message sent at the ballot box. Sadly, we all know what happened to the Republican Revolution, and the Dems were quick to pick up on Republican wishy-washyness (did I just invent a word?).

Supreme Court appointments? Who cares? History shows us that justices tend to be somewhat fickle, and to not turn out quite like the party that appointed them thought they would. I don't imagine we'll see a 2nd amendment case anytime soon, and I have about as much confidence that GWB would appoint someone who actually understands the BoR as I have in him calling for the repeal of all gun control laws going back to 1934. On this I'm sure we'll disagree.

I haven't seen much "thwarting" of gun control by the Republican congress; in fact, I have seen gun control proposed by Republican members. Let me get this straight, I'm to believe that, even though they've been talking like anti-gunners, even though they've been voting like anti-gunners, I'm to believe that if we reward them with the presidency and the congress the GOP will suddenly show their true colors and begin repealing the gun control legislation they helped to craft and pass? And who has a bridge to sell to whom?

I've never run from the issue that the Dems move faster on gun control. Permit me to pint out that many of my posts say just that. The key word, however, is 'faster'.

Voting Republican is, at best, a short term solution. It's kinda like the boy sticking his finger in the holes in the dike: you're still flooding, just a little slower.

Maybe it's time to run for help.

------------------
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." Henry St. George Tucker
 
It amazes me to see the short sightedness of some people and the willingness to just throw up our arms in disgust and quit. Thank God that this attitude was not prevelant amongst our forefathers. I cannot believe the shear number of pedantic individuals that act like petulant young children because there are no absolute like minded candidates that have a snowballs chance in Hades of getting noticed let alone getting elected. I am not advocating just give in and vote for the lesser of two evils! I am saying that you will most likely find yourself having to choose between two frontrunners PICK THE ONE THAT BEST REPRESENTS YOUR POLITICAL IDEOLOGY don't waste your vote, make it count and then make yourself heard...Be PRO active instead of REactive. Your Congressmen and President will do it's nation's bidding they just have to know what THAT is. Right now the ANTI's are more organized and are reaping the sympathy of recent events. While we move about aimlessly and ineffectually doing nothing to rectify our situation!! How many of you are NRA/GOA Members?? Do you just send money and be done with it or do you petition your Congressmen when they get out of line?? Keep your focus on the goal at hand and take the proper measures necessary to achieve it! That means being unified in mind body and spirit. We will manifest our own destiny one way or the other. Should you throw away your vote when you could have made it count...Go fishing on election day rather than vote, DON'T complain when you are stripped of your rights like some felon. George W. Bush has been very Pro-Gun in his tenure as Governor his actions speak much louder than words. He is far from perfect that I will grant you, nor am I going to agree with everything he says however he is our best bet to date. Do what you must, Do what you will, It is one of the God given rights that I swore I would protect and defend, with my life if necessary. I am thankful that in at least that respect my 19 years of service has counted for something. Viya Con Dios El Jefe

------------------
...“ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
--Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
..."The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." --Thomas Jefferson
Take care and God Bless, El Jefe




[This message has been edited by El Jefe (edited September 01, 1999).]
 
I think there is some misunderstanding here, First as I understand it, it is a little bit difficult to vote for a 3rd party candidate in the PRIMARY election. There is a slate of candidates that are all of the one party.

My current strategy will be to vote for the Republican Candidate (not GW) that I want, and then vote for the Candidate that I believe best supports my views (most likely that will be Smith or the LP candidate ...) Frankly, I've had misgivings about GW for nearly a year - whenever it was that the first noises were being made!

If the Republican candidate turns out to be very pro-RKBA, then I'll vote for him ... but if it's Bush, I gotta think we can do better.

BTW, El Jefe, no one is going to force you to vote for one of the two major party candidates. This is, I think, what frightens a lot of people, they believe they must vote for one of those two, when in reality, a third or fourth party candidate (or even a write in) might be the best! Imagine, if there were no LP candidate actually on the ballot in more than 50% of the states, yet he recieved enough votes to win! Simply on teh strength of a write in. It can be done if, as Dennis stated, only 1/3 of the Gun owners could be persuaded to vote for him.

Also, I find your signature quote to be... shall we say ... interesting?

...“ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Aren't you accepting the security of a GWB win in place of the fight for liberty by not voting for a candidate that supports your position because of the posibility you might lose?

I agree with Dennis on this one. If we all were to put aside our other "issues" and for this one election vote Pro-RKBA[1] we would be able to put this problem to bed. Especially if we voted that way at all levels, from dogcatcher on up.

For me, as much as I pay in taxes, I'd like to see them go down, but I'll wait another 4 years if the next president will repeal encroachments on my RKBA...


1. Pro-RKBA is defined as a candidate that wishes to stem the tide of anti-RKBA legislature and would like to move Congress to repeal anti-RKBA Laws.

[This message has been edited by TR (edited September 01, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by TR (edited September 01, 1999).]
 
Fubsy, I find this assumption that, if a Libertarian President gets elected, he won't have any Congressmen backing him up, kind of curious. Were you under the impression that the LP only runs Presidential candidates? We run a full slate, from dog catcher to President, and we HAVE elected people to state legislatures. Making in into the House wouldn't be that much harder. I'm reasonably sure that if we elect a President, we'll elect some members of Congress, too. And some people who currently call themselves Republicans, like Dr. Ron Paul, will switch parties.

Anyway, here's the TACTICAL case for supporting the Libertarian party: We're the only party out there that's willing to publicly DEFEND the Second amendment! Remember all those "Hurah! We banned "assault weapons"!" comercials the Democratic party ran, for a year or more leading up to the '96 election? And the Republican party never responded? The GOP won't touch the Second amendment with a ten foot poll. Get this: They are ASHAMED of defending gun owners. They feel GUILTY about it! Even if they wanted to publicly defend gun ownership, they couldn't, because they agree with the gun grabbers, and accept all their arguments as valid. THEY THINK SAHRAH BRADY IS RIGHT, AND THAT THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING SLIMY BY SEEKING OUR VOTES!

We Libertarians don't feel ashamed of it, we don't think it's something to feel guilty about, we're PROUD to defend the Second amendment. We know all the arguments, and we're willing to say them out loud.

And we're a political party. This is important: WE CAN'T LEGALLY BE CENSORED! The TV networks can refuse to sell the NRA airtime, but if they sell it to any candidate, they have to sell it to all of them, and that includes US. And we've offered the NRA a simple deal: Support our candidates, even if only for offices where there's no Repubican running, or even Wayne LaPierre can't stomach the GOP candidate, AND WE WILL SPEND THE MONEY ON PRO-GUN ADS! To put it bluntly, we're willing to launder the money the NRA want's to spend on pro-gun advertising, but can't because the networks and magazines won't sell them the time and space.

We get some exposure, and the pro-gun movement gets it's arguments out. Like it?
 
Brett, I consider you one of my Libertarian Friends because anyone who adopts a pact of non-aggression and has no problem with my basic right to be left alone is the remotest example of a political enemy, and truly an ally. Currently, I consider the LP a great educational resource, yet I doubt its current political viability as a party of change. Most of the Parties funds are channeled to high profile races, like Venturas'. Your argument that LP candidates are supported from the bottom up is questionable. Can you name an LP candidate elected to any State office who succeeded without Republican endorsement? Ron Paul did switch parties. That probably enabled him to be elected at that time in Texas. He became a republican with the same libertarian principles. Loathe it as I do at times, the republican party has an infrastructure that still welcomes and supports candidates at all levels. This same structure sadly does not yet effectively exist in the LP.
 
G-Freeman: We're building it, bit by bit. I'm a hard sell for the Republican party, because I've seen what that infrastructure can do to defeat pro-gun people. Back in '94 I had a dalliance with the Republican party. Mike Sessa, the head of Gun Owners of Macomb County, had a great idea: He said that if we didn't like the Michigan GOP's approach to guns, why couldn't we change it through the system? So a bunch of us ran for Republican precinct delegate, in order to have some say in the Michigan GOP platform. Care to guess what happened?

I lost, by a handful of votes. A lot of my pals won. Fair and square! At the appropriate time, they headed off to the convention. The Republican leadership arranged for the convention to certify the people who LOST THOSE ELECTIONS! My friends were escorted out of the convention by the police, as though they were criminals. For the crime of believing that the GOP could be reformed from within. IT CAN'T.

I like Ron Paul. I've voted for him, I've stuffed envelopes for him, I've even sent him campaign donations after he went back to the GOP. When was the last time you heard of a bill Rep. Paul originated being passed by Congress? Even being permitted to come to a vote? He gets less cooperation from the Republican leadership than the Democrats do! And every two years his own party puts up a primary challenger against him, and then fails to support him in the general election. They'd rather a Democrat had that seat, than a principled man like Dr. Paul! They do the same thing to our most pro-gun state legislator here in Michigan, Dave Jaye. And look at how they let the Dems get away with stealing Bob Dornan's seat, because he wouldn't compromise enough!

Believe me, institutionally, the GOP is hostile to the Second amendment. They'll take our votes, they'll take our money, but they have no intention of doing anything in return. They're just playing us gun owners for suckers, and they despise us for crawling back to the hand that strikes them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top