Bush backing gun control part Deux

E

El Jefe

New member
TR and CO.
I must really be doing a poor job at getting my point across. Did I not ask, Dennis of all people, to give me a "VIABLE alternative" something I could put my arms around?? As yet I have heard nothing but rhetoric, you put up a non sensical, specious arguement for a party that has no TEETH, gum this around all you like, say what you will but in the end we will all suffer because we cannot be cohesive and unified. We cannot sound off with one voice that is why we continue to lose ground WE continue to be our own worst enemy. My Point is that come November you will be asked to cast your vote and rather than give yourself ANY chance to correct what has been done, you would toss your vote away in protest. Hell why not vote for the Democrat and be done with it. Lets be realistic shall we? Do you believe that your LP candidate has a 50/50 chance of winning a presidential election? 40/60, 20/80 (win/lose) NO you don't, so where do you go from here? How do you correct a system gone awry? hand it to the Gun Grabber party by being passive aggressive? Or stack the deck as best you can with the most pro gun candidates, and work to better your position by utilizing the existing infrastructure? I WISH that these Republican candidates had the werewithawl that some of your libertarian Party people do but they don't. Stop trying to give me abject lessons in third party politics and start dealing in reality, Got someone Viable?? Effective?? do you even have a decent grass roots effort that can get a candidate on the ballot in all 50 States?? Nothing from Nothing STILL LEAVES NOTHING. You started with Nothing you have Nothing and that is what you can expect...Nothing. Give me SOLUTIONS not rhetoric. I am saying that there is a system in place to correct it yet you are unwilling to utilze it because?? It's too much work? you would be comprimising yourself some how?? What?? And this is correcting the problem how?? You refuse to work with what you have in favor of something that for the moment is unattainable and I am reasonably sure will remain so in the near future. does that sum it up?? I have asked you time and again yet none of the respondents have answered my question...Come November who do I vote for and a vote for that party/candidate assures me what??

As for my Signature TR I stand behind what is written despite your attempt to slant it. When it comes to my rights especially my 2nd ammendment ones you will find I will go the distance, because I refuse to go quietly into that good night!

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree....

------------------
...“ 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
 
I'm 47 years old and have voted in a lot of elections.
I have also, on occasions, voted for principle and voted libertarian.
The last election I did that, I ended up with a democratic senator that voted for ALL the gun ban bills.
Locally with the moderate republicans you at least have some access and some input.
With the democratic senator I have the ass won't even return messages or anything.
So when I hear the mantra to vote 3rd party,
I know what happens in reality.
Like I said before to Dennis, I don't think a strong conservative firebreathing "firing line" kind of guy can get elected to president.
 
FWIW I totally agree w/El Jeffe.

It's great to dream about the form of government we would all like to have. However the reality is much different. The argument of "but if every gun owner would just stand up and vote libertarian..." ain't gonna work. There are numerous other issues to consider, not every gun owner is a one issue voter nor is every gun owner as strong viewed as the average TFL member.

We all need to remember that.

I would like to see a Libertarian candidate that had a real shot at winning. But I'd also like to win the Lotto. I realize though, that spending my money on lotto tickets carries too much risk of wasting my money for the potential return, in effect it's a waste. Just like voting for a third party candidate.

Get it?


------------------
Dan

Check me out at:
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/GlocksnGoodies.htm
 
Let me ask every one a question.... is not the point of what we want is to effect change? To return our government to a constitutional republic? To restore all of our freedoms? If this is the case then how can we effect this change by voting for the same people we always have... it has not worked in the past, how can we expect it to work in the future? Sure I agree that whoever we vote for now will not have a snowball chance in hell to win... but think about it.. how does change ever come about... is it by the efforts of all at first? No rather it is like all change, small efforts at first. We must plant that seed... nurture it and let it grow. If one does not stand on their ideals then why vote? The reason that most don't is they feel that they can not effect change. They give the same reasons that have been given here for voting for the lesser of two evils.



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

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
El Jefe: Why do we have to give you a "viable" alternative to voting Republican, when voting Republican isn't "viable"?

My God! We gave them Congress on a silver platter in '94, and they didn't even so much as ATTEMPT to repeal one single solitary gun law. (I don't count that vote in the House in '96; It was so loaded down with poison pill amendments we were lucky it went nowhere.) They didn't even stop passing them, or have you forgotten the Lautenberg amendment, which RETROACTIVELY stripped the right to keep and bear arms from anyone who had ever been convicted of a "domestic violence" MISDEMEANOR, even if all they did was plead guilty because the fine was cheaper than hiring a lawyer! Under the Lautenberg amendment, you lose your right to own guns if you even have a personal protection order filed against you, and THAT doesn't require you to be found guilty of anything at all, let alone by a jury of your peers!

And it passed with Republican votes, El Jefe, because the Republican leadership WANTED it to pass.

Then there's the Kohl amendment, also enacted with Republican votes, and the support of the Republican leadership. Remember how we cheered when the Supreme court struck down that stupid "gun free school zones" bill, that made it a felony to drive past a school with a gun in your car on the way to hunting? THE REPUBLICANS RE-ENACTED IT! Adding a provision allowing the police to set up roadblocks to search your car! Thank God the police aren't stupid enough to enforce that provision of the law! (I cringe every time the NRA launches into that "Just enforce the laws on the books!" line; If they just enforced all the laws already on the books, half the gun owners in the country would go to jail, and we'd be a police state!)

And do you suppose it was an ACCIDENT that the Republican leadership brought the Juvenile crime bill up for debate at the very peak of post-Columbine anti-gun propaganda? And let the Democrats bring up any anti-gun amendments they wanted? They INTENDED that bill to pass loaded down with anti-gun amendments! And it was only the Democrats' greed, that they weren't willing to settle for half a loaf, that saved us. Not that the GOP leadership has given up on that gun control bill. Not by a longshot!

So, El Jefe, I ask you this question seriously: If what we did in '94 wasn't enough to get the Republicans to show some loyalty to us, to repeal even one gun control bill, or even to refrain from passing new ones, what would it take? Seriously, tell me: If '94 wasn't enough, WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO?

My opinion is, NOTHING we can do will get them to repeal even one gun control bill, or even stop trying to pass new ones, because they are our ENEMIES. Ok, maybe the lesser of our two enemies, but our enemies none the less. And it's LONG past time we stopped acting like an abused wife who crawls back to her husband time after time, no matter what he does to her. It's time to get out of this abusive relationship!

Ok, I know that if we gun owners abandon the GOP, the Democrats will take back Congress, hold the Presidency, and start enacting gun control laws like there's no tommorrow. In fact, I'm counting on it! The Republicans are taking our rights away just slow enough that we don't revolt, just slow enough that the frog never jumps out of the pot.

The Democrats don't have that kind of self control. Given the opportunity, they'll pass so many gun control bills, so fast, that there won't be a gun owner left in the country with any doubt that their right to own guns, any kind of gun at all, is on the line. We'll all go vote, and the Democrats will be DESTROYED.

Sure, I know this is a gamble, that even that catastrophy might not be enough to get the average gun owner off the couch, and into the voting booth. In which case we'll lose all our rights right away. I prefer a gamble to the absolute certainty of defeat we face now! You may be willing to stick with the GOP, knowing that your children won't have the rights you enjoy, but that you'll get to hang onto your hunting rifle for a few more years, but I'm not ready to make that Faustian bargan. I want to stage this final showdown BEFORE they've whittled our numbers down to the point where we're too few to win!

[This message has been edited by Brett Bellmore (edited September 02, 1999).]
 
Here is my problem with this discussion. I think that all of us would love to elect a government truly committed to supporting and defending the Constitution and that sounds like the Libertarian (or whatever) party.
The problem is that a third party isnt ready for prime time.If there were a third party candidate who was electable it would be a done deal. We have to develop and promote such a candidate. Most of us by definition are conservatives and that practically translates to Republican or Blue Dog Democrat.There are enough of US to elect a world-class third party candidate but we are not energized. In addition to having a candidate we have to have voters and at this point we have neither.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
It's a chicken-and-egg problem.

There's no point voting for the guy we really want if he can't win.

The guy we really want can't win if people don't vote for him.

Friggin' blows.

Anyone know the history of the creation of successful new parties in this country? Republicans were "new" and "unelectable" at one point, and the once-power-holding Whigs are now nowhere to be seen.
 
Just an observation on this ongoing 3rd party candidate debate that's been going on.
We seem to be focusing on the wrong office, the presidency. Even if we could elect an independent to that office, he would still have to deal with the republocrats already in Congress. They probably wouldn't have much interest in helping advance his agenda.
I think we need to lower our sights and elect viable independents to lower offices and build a proper political foundation.
Getting 20-25 congressmen elected to the House of Representatives would be far more effective than 1 lame-duck-from-the-get-go President.
We need a power bloc, not a poster boy.
Right now, our interests are being tossed back and forth like poker chips by the Republicans and Democrats. If we could get 20 congressmen to stand together and defend those interests, the other parties would have to negotiate with them just to get anything done.
The 3rd Party movement, if there is such a beast, needs to identify those districts that can be swayed to support them. They then need to concentrate their resources on those districts.
We need to lay a solid concrete slab before we can think about occupying the penthouse.
 
To vote for Gw or some other republican for president, or go third party? I tried this once and got Slick. The republicans say they need control of the House, Senate and White House to make changes so I will vote that way and try to give them their chance. If they get their chance and fail that will be the last time I vote for this crowd. As far as GW actions vs his words, his actions in Texas have been Pro gun and tax cutting I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Why should we read too much into his current words since all the polls show 80% of the people want “gun control/safety. Trent Lott, on the other hand talks pro gun and for tax cuts but his actions show his colors to be the same as slicks. If I remember right George Bush SR left the NRA over the “jack booted thugs” comment, at the time it did seem to be an extreme, but in the light of Waco and Ruby Ridge it might now be a positive comment.
As far as loosing the right to keep and bear arms it’s only a matter of time. Unless we as gun owners do several things to reverse the trend at the grass roots level.
We need to increase the number of law abiding gun owners. How many times have you taken a person who has never shot a gun before to the range and let them shoot. Why do more high schools now have swimming teams than shooting teams. The last time you went to the range if there new people there did you welcome them and make them feel wanted or were they ignored and shouldered aside because they asked silly questions and didn’t know the proper eidetic. We need to bring young people in to our sport (shooting is on of only a few sports where men women boys and girls compete evenly, how politically correct) they are the future. We need to get the word to the hunters that it is your shotguns and hunting rifles they also want stop sitting on the fence and help in the fight.
As gun owners we either educate the rest of the population about guns and the fact that the police have no duty to protect them (notice that all police cars have “ to protect” on the side). The media and Anti Gun crowd are spewing large volumes of untrue hate propaganda our way, until we counter these untruths (probably at better than 2 to 1) in the media (at our own expense) we are going too loose. This is a no holds bared propaganda war against the Socialists, and media elite and unless we start fighting back with the truth it’s only a matter of time. In that case it boils down to fighting instead of persuading. We have to remember that the general public has a very very short memory. During the LA King riots people were mad because the law in CA made them wait to buy a gun to protect them selves. Now some of these same people, just a few years later are on the gun ban bandwagon like the long time anti gunners. Maybe this got a little of point but running and hiding in a third party that has no chance, is a sure fire method to loose every thing. We the pro-gun people have to change the party and the publics perceptions to win, and only a large vocal group of supporters can do that. Ever time a pro-gun person goes to a third party it diminishes the voices in the choir by one.
 
Wow, I sound almost angry in my last post however I assure you that I am not.
The reason I want something viable is for two reasons: 1. As Best I can I want to stem the tide of the Gun Control advocates. This thing is quickly becoming a runaway train if we can slow it down, buy ourselves some time, we can figure out how to stop it. To advocate throwing more fuel on the fire and push it to the limit in an attempt to get the attention of those standing by the wayside in order to prompt them to action is the ultimate gamble! the end result WILL be catstrophic!!
2. It gives us time to rebuild our own infrastructure, regroup and move forward, if that means starting with a grass roots party great you have 4 years of slow leak to put all the checks in the block. If it means keeping the hard press on to reshape the Republican party until it fits OUR mold great. Remember Discretion is always the better part of valor! your do or die, all or nothing mentality (no offense meant) will only usher in the untimely demise of our 2nd amendment rights. Given the two choices I will take the slow leak, it gives me time to think, plan and act.
I will give you this however, where it concerns our lethargic bretheren your frog in the pot analogy has it's merits. Question is how do we wake them up?

------------------
...“ 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
 
Hey didn't mean to split the thread some great points are being made under the Republican vs Libertarian (optional) thread...

------------------
...“ 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
 
First off, let me clarify something that hasn't really been mentioned. Bush is NOT the republican nominee, yet. We're all treating this as if he has it sewn up, and he doesn't. Yes, he's got the money (so does Forbes). Yes, he's got more charisma than any of the other possibilities, but it just doesn't guarantee the nomination. If that were true, we'd have had a candidate other than Dole last time.

There is still a chance to upset the apple cart within the republican party and nominate a truly pro-RKBA candidate.

I know the more cynical among us will say that it's impossible, that Bush is "the anointed one", and that may be true.

I will say that El Jefe has a point in that a candidate from one of the 2 major parties has a more likely chance of winning, so perhaps, until the republican candidate is actually official, we should work on getting a pro-RKBA candidate there!? Say, Keys, or Forbes (I think), or maybe even Buchanan (gasp!)

As I mentioned earlier, I will work for this change... perhaps even if GWB *is* the candidate, he will have learned, through slim margins, that being anti is the wrong stance to take. At that point I must re-evaluate all of the candidates to determine which one gets my vote.

Now, I have given you alternatives, El Jefe, in this post and in the previous one. It is your opinion that they are unelectable and therfore not viable candidates. However, as has been pointed out, if firearms owners would simply ralley a small portion of thier brothers, they would, indeed be electable ... they would be elected!

It all boils down to one issue this time for me. RKBA. Because without RKBA all the other issue don't mean a damn. Why? because there'd be no way to effect change against teh tyranny that would follow.
 
I think you all have missed the point of Karanas. You have to control congress before you control the president. Who cares who the president is if the majority in congress are PRO RIGHTS.



------------------
 
As to Republicans, which ones are truly pro-Second Amendment?
- Ron Paul (who ran for President as a Libertarian), but he's not a nominee.
- Alan Keyes.

Are there others who are truly PRO-Second Amendment AND nominees for the Republican Party? Name 'em. Show us their uncompromising RKBA stand.

-------
Jefe,
The subject has broadened to more than Bush and his gun control posturing but, for the record, all you say is anything other than *your* opinion is not viable, then ask for something viable.

So, put your arms around this:
Voting FOR gun control is not "viable" for me. Give me a viable Republican who will restore Constitutional Law to our federal government - you can't. So put your arms around a fellow Republican but not your guns, for the Republicans, as they "compromise" with their Democrat leaders, will continue to take away our RKBA, bit by bit, inch by inch.

Can't be done?
CA: "If you own an SKS rifle with a detachable magazine, you have a problem!"
MD: Only firearms on the approved list may be purchased.
(I'm sure TFLers can quote more ...)

As for "specious", watch your choice of words. Your arguments are in contradiction to your signature statements and your stated RKBA stand.


[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited September 02, 1999).]
 
Take the $200,000 dollar salaries and retirement away from the Congressmen and senators, and put "real" people in there, People that have to work to live, and dont have special exemptions. People that earn normal Paychecks, and pay real taxes . Not people like "the esteemed senator form the great state of ....." those guys are so full of them selves it isnt any wonder how nothing gets done. How dod the Human Impostors get in there in the first place. I think Ill puke if Hillary gets elected for anything more than the PTA.

------------------
10MM Magnum.... tried the rest, now I got the best
 
I have to agree with Ed Brunner, "We have to develop and promote such a candidate." I would work as hard as anyone, if we could promote the right candidate....Until that time, I will not throw my vote away just as a protest, I'll vote Republican cause I really believe that to vote any other way will be a repeat of '92 when Klinton was elected.


------------------
To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state.
 
10mm, Now you're talkin'! Who says these pompous idiots have to be in session as much as they are?

I was looking through some state level stuff, and came across at least one state where the legislature hasn't even met in regular session during a year! Now that's what I call a good legislative body. If they ain't at the capitol, they can't come up with the BS laws that keep getting passed.

Personally I think the Kali legislature ought to take a 2 year recess, and simply pass a general budget bill to keep the paychecks to the employees flowing. Then these B*****ds would get an earful from thier constituents.

But to stay on topic. I agree. Somebody show me a viable Republican RKBA candidate. I think so far one was mentioned, Alan Keyes. I would also throw Buchanan in there and maybe Forbes. The only exception to the last two is I think they'd stand where we are now, but as to rolling back some of the legislation, I'm not so sure. Keyes is the only guy I know that sounds like he would.

Oh, and Dennis, now in Kali, you won't be able to purchase a handgun unless it's been deemed "safe" by the state and is on the "approved" list also.

[This message has been edited by TR (edited September 02, 1999).]
 
i tell you what guys, as much as we are disagreeing:
when push comes to shove, i'll watch your backside if you watch mine!
 
nebob,
Now THAT is unity!
Let's just hope we can resolve this mess at the ballot box; then *physical* unity won't be necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top