Country not ready for third party!!! (?) #2

D

Dennis

Staff Emeritus
Deanf notes (on part one):

Gun owners are “between a rock and hard place.
I find the options of voting third party (Libertarian) and thus possibly
assisting the enemy, or voting Republican (which is a vote against the
Constitution) equally unappealing.”
-------
That is the crux of the discussion.
- Should a gun owner vote Republican to resist the fast dissolution of our
Constitution, and thereby ensure the slow dissolution of our Constitution,
or
- Should a gun owner vote for a third party candidate in the attempt to
influence both the Democrats and Republicans to temper their actions to
destroy our Constitution.
-------
Other points surely will arise!
However, let’s keep our discourse factual, calm, and free of insults and
innuendo.
Let ‘er rip!
Stick it to ‘em! RKBA!
 
You have to look at the candidate.
Not all Repubs are against further gun control.
Not all Dems are for gun control.
The solution? Education.
Educate yourself on the guy that is on the ballet. Learn what his goals are.

Then you can vote for the guy that will defend our rights - not considering them politcal tokens in the Washington Monopoly Game.



------------------
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
 
I am only an arm chair political strategist and am certainly no military strategist, but I will offer a start point. If we accept the possibility of overt, immediate extreme arms regulation or even consfiscation, ( fears I have read here ) at least the cards are on the table and we'll see what happens. On the other hand a more incremental approach allows the regulators the time to ensure their thorough, unrestrained success in whatever their desires may be. Point being: to risk even more gun regulation in the short term by ignoring the status candidate might be an intelligent and potentially defensive risk. To accept the defined incremental candidate may allow the "enemy" time to thwart any reaction to confiscation in the future. Just a start :)

[This message has been edited by G-Freeman (edited October 22, 1999).]
 
Ipecac,

I admire your courage in accepting the wager. Send me an e-mail so that I may give you the address as to where to send the check when the time comes.

I hope this won't make to much of a dent in your ammo supply!
 
The question Dennis poses is perplexing to say the least. We need to be wary of both Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump. Pat Buchanan doesn't have a chance and Donald Trump is scary. This past Sunday, Trump expressed an inclination towards initiating a pre-emptive strike at North Korea. Even if this action became necessary, two questions must be asked of Mr. Trump: (a) What experience do you have in International Diplomacy and Tactical Warfare and (b) Don't you think these issues are best left out of the public arena since actions speak louder than rhetoric? Furthermore, if the moral decay of this nation bothers you, don't look for any guidance from Donald Trump. He's made it clear that morals are not a priority if you read between the lines. If you goal is to put another Democrat in the Whitehouse, vote for Trump or Buchanan and your wish will come true. By the way, while you're doing it lose your affinity for legal handgun ownership since it will be eliminated if we have a Democratic Congress and Presidency in 2000.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
Furthermore, please ignore the divide and conquer campaign being waged by the Democratic National Committee. George Bush speaks to the middle and governs to the right. He pushed the concealed carry law through the Texas legislature and he has demonstrated more than once that he will execute the death penalty under massive political duress. Bush is not perfect but what more do you want? He's owned a business and knows what it's like to make a payroll. He spent a period of his life ostracized by his family and had to make it on his own. Sure, he was raised with a silver spoon but he has seen the other side. if we are not careful, we will be walking right smack dab in the middle of the political cattle shoot that the Democrats have crafted. Make no mistake about it, they are scared to death of George Bush and what he represents. Again, beware of the Reform Party and anything, anything connected to Ross Perot. The Perot and Bush family have been at odds for years and nothing has changed. To those who say Perot didn't do what he did to defeat George Bush, I must respectfully disagree.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
Bush is not perfect but what more do you want?

I want him to study Constitutional Law under Ron Paul. Is that too much to ask?

------------------
"Janet Reno is the fire that ignites my loins."
--Joe Cartoon
 
All I know is, who ever is elected as the next President he will appointing 2-3 Supreme court justices. I know you don't want AlGore to have that responsibility!!!!
Bush is a winner and he he playing the middle (just like Clinton did) to be elected. He will change to the way he really is after election day. Trust him and remember he is our best chance for us getting back the white house. There is not enough bad things that would motivate most people would switch to 3rd parties in this election. We have to go with GW Bush this time. Steve S.
 
Will Beararms,

I’m all for giving credit where credit is due but it’s a bit much to say, “He
[Bush] pushed the concealed carry law through the Texas legislature.” All
Bush did was say he would sign a CHL bill if it hit his desk. The only
reason THAT was significant was that Gov. Ann Richards said she would
not even allow a referendum on the subject and would veto any such bill if
it came to her.

Bush won by saying, “Okay.” He did NOT say, “Let’s go get ‘em!” ;)
Bush is a gun-control moderate - obviously preferable to the radical gun
control Democrats. But never forget, Bush still backs gun control.

If we simply voted for what we know is morally right and Constitutional,
we would elect someone who was NOT a gun control advocate. It IS as
simple as that!

So for those people who advocate RKBA and voting for Bush, I find it
difficult to agree - for I believe our Constitution means what it says. Bush
does not nor (apparently) do his supporters!

Bush supports raising the age for gun ownership from 18 to 21.
Bush supports banning certain high-caliber ammunition clips.
Bush supports closing the "loophole" allowing unlicensed dealers to sell guns
at gun shows without background checks for purchasers.
Bush says of Republican gun control proposals, “I support them all; they
all are reasonable measures,”.
Bush says, “innocent people, law abiding citizens ought to be allowed to
own a gun.” How does one prove himself “innocent” and innocent of what
charge?
Bush says it’s possible to “have reasonable laws to keep the guns out of
the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.”
Bush says, “...I support instant background checks.”
Bush says, “When we find someone illegally selling a gun, there should be
a consequence.” “Illegal” by unconstitutional laws which Bush supports
and wants to increase.

See the following thread for references:
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=23829

-------
Ben says, “We have to go with GW Bush this time”
I won’t do it again. I’ve learned my lesson from my Daddy (an honorable
man) and from Bush’s Daddy (not quite so honorable).
I won’t BenDover “just one more time!” ;)

Stick it to ‘em! RKBA!

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited October 27, 1999).]
 
What? No replies to Dennis' list of Bush's gun control ideas?

Dennis, I do have an argument with your use of the word, "loophole" when referring to sales by unlicensed dealers (the only constitutionally correct dealers, btw) at gun shows. I know you didn't mean it. ;)



------------------
"...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
 
No argument, Ipecac. It was an error! I went back and replaced the missing quotes. Thanks for catching it.
 
I must concede that we are in a rather precarious dilemna. Dennis, I am obliged to you for setting me straight on Bush's record. I for one, am in favor of using the constitutionally justifiable laws on the books to reduce crime. I still hold to the belief that we must re-organize the Republican party in terms of leadership and platform. I will admit to everyone that my greatest fear is that Pat Buchanan or Donald Trump will cause us to put Gore or Bradley in the Oval Office---------something far worse than the prospect of G.W. Bush as President. I understand and respect the concept of voting for a person rather than a Party. Would that we were not in the predicament of having to choose the lesser of two evils but we are.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
I will admit that my greatest fear is that Gore or Bradley will cause us to put GWB in the Oval Office (or is that Oral Office), and vice versa.

A vote for a gun controller is a vote for a gun controller. Voting for GWB is prevent defense, which doesn't win games. "I want to prevent Gore/Bradley from winning, so I will vote for a known enemy in Bush." Either way we lose: we lose more rights, we lose more freedom, we lose more time.

Ask yourself a few questions: Has Bush ever called for a repeal of any Texas gun control laws? Has Bush ever signed any repeal of gun control laws? Has Bush ever stated, unequivocally, that he will call for repeal of all gun control laws in Texas?

We know the answers, and we know that GWB has publically announced his intentions to request more gun control if elected. So what makes anybody think he will even veto any gun control congress passes?

As Dennis has said elsewhere, if the Republican supporters here won't accept a third party candidate, then they better find a Republican candidate who truly supports RKBA, and as far as I can tell, Alan Keyes is the only one.

------------------
"...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
 
Will,
I sure do agree with your post (above). I guess our only difference is about when and how to take action.

I also would like to see the Republicans become Republicans again - rather than their current imitation-Democrat position.

Time will tell. (Sure is nerve-wracking, huh? ;) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top