George W. Gore?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Harry was correct when he said that 10 year olds USED to be able to buy drugs. That is not the same as saying they SHOULD be able to buy drugs.
And no, I never beat a racoon to death. Not sure where that comment came from.
Some Libertarian groups are VERY flaky. It depends on where. We also get some of the radical fringe, much like the Democrats are stuck with Lyndon LaRouche (who they tried to claim was Libertarian, just to avoid the embarassment. Nope. He's a Dem. WElcome to him).
Mike Irwin: The paragraphs didn't come through well in this format. Sorry. If Bush best represents you, then by all means vote for him. I'm simply saying that it isn't an either/or proposition. Treating it as such is like the cowardly jury clowns who convict an illegal concealed carrier because "The judge said we had to." _NO_. you didn't. A juror can vote not guilty for ANY REASON AT ALL, including disagreement with the law.
Such things as forced juries, gun control, and the defacto one party system (Republican Socialists or Democratic Socialists)(And I speak here of elected scum, not the member-citizens) exist because people allow them to exist, justify it as "the lesser evil" or "best we can manage" and draw a new line to defend rather than storming the enemy to take back what was lost.
Folks, I immigrated here from Britain to get away from creeping socialism. Extremist? Yes. But, folks, there ISN'T anywhere else to retreat. Even if you'd betray yourselves, please don't betray me, Viesturs from Latvia, Cullen from Ireland, or my other immigrant friends. We'd hate to hold the line alone. But we DO have our powder dry.
"Roman matrons used to admonish their sons, 'With your shield or on it.' Later on, this custom declined. So did Rome."--Robert A. Heinlein.
 
wasted vote.

Considering the SC will get the Emerson case, anyone not voting for Bush is gutting their own 2nd Amendment rights and endangering the rest of us.

madison46
 
I remember that he said the government should not regulate drugs and I remember that he said that we should return to that.I think he meant that the drug stores should regulate themselves.If you don't believe me then watch that episode.
 
I will miss my rights? Does that answer the question?

madison46

ps. I'm voting Libertarian in my CA senate race.

pss. Not voting for Bush for prez is a wasted vote. 'nuff said Emerson and our 2nd Amendment is riding on Bush.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by madmike:
"Wasted vote" is heard yet again.

Good, then you won't miss it, will you?[/quote]



[This message has been edited by madison46 (edited October 23, 2000).]
 
Anyone yet notice that glockten, who instigated this discussion, has dissappeared ?

The only messsage that the major parties will recieve when you vote for Browne and throw the election to Gore is:

"Hey thanks, moron"

CCW, no lawsuits, ...

gee whiz, what the heck more do you want from one man ?
 
Shooter 2.5: I have yet to personally encounter a politician who was more pro-gun in office than on the campaign trail. In my experience it's ALWAYS the other way around. We shall see, though; I'm going to vote for Bush, barring his unexpectedly embracing EVEN MORE gun control. And I'm going to carry a barf bag into the booth with me.

And if he betrays us after he takes office, like his daddy did? Does there EVER come a point where we stop voting for the lesser of two evils, to keep the greater evil out of office? Or are we in this two-party boat all the way to Hell?

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Let's look at the record:

Bush:

- campaigned on CCW for Texans, got elected and signed the bill.

- signed two pro-gun bills in a very anti-gun environment (clarifying concealed carry in churches etc after the Wedgewood shootings and signing the lawsuit protection after Columbine)

- says he supports INSTANT checks at gun shows; but failed to give any help to a state bill in Texas that would have mandated background checks at gun shows - bill died.

Bush's actions on gun rights are solid. He has been consistent and he has stood with us when it wasn't politically easy to do.

Now, if you want me to cast my vote for some guy who can't even pull 2% of the national vote - you are going to have to explain why I should abandon the most promising pro-rights Republican candidate in years in order to make a protest vote that will not have any effect on the election.

Look at it this way - hardcore gun rights supporters do NOT make an election. Many gunowners are sheeple just like the rest of them. At best hardcore gun rights supporters and their sympathizers may be around 20 million strong. Now, while that is a HUGE chunk of votes - it isn't enough to win an election on its own - it certainly isn't enough to take a candidate (Browne) pulling less than 2 million votes and make him a winner.

We have the choice:

We can vote ideologically pure for someone who has no realistic chance of winning - EVEN IF HE GOT EVERY SINGLE GUN VOTE and hope that maybe next year we can do better.

20 million votes won't win an election but we can play the role of kingmaker between the Republicans and the Dems and use that important SWING vote power to force them to acknowledge gun rights. If Bush wins this election, union members at NRA rallies and 2nd amendment voters in gun-friendly states are going to be on the minds of both parties.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RH:
Anyone yet notice that glockten, who instigated this discussion, has dissappeared ?

The only messsage that the major parties will recieve when you vote for Browne and throw the election to Gore is:

"Hey thanks, moron"

CCW, no lawsuits, ...

gee whiz, what the heck more do you want from one man ? [/quote]

The reason I haven't replied before now is that I thought my position was made clear in my original post. I've voted straight Republican for 20 years, and I've watched them allow our gun rights to be whittled away the whole time. The reversal of this trend has to start somewhere, sometime, and for me, here and now, it means a Libertarian vote. As for the suspicion that I'm a Gore plant, well, people will believe what they want to believe. 'Nuff said.
 
glockten,

If you want to fight, then start with the judicial. The best way to start that fight is with Bush appointing judges and NOT AL GORE. Vote Libertarian in the other races. I'm voting Libertarian in my CA senate race as Fienstien needs to go, but her opponent, Tom Campbell, got HCI's legislator of the year award.

We need those judicial nominations falling in our favor not theirs. I understand your frustration, but for judicial reasons, please consider Bush.

Thanks,
Kevin
 
Maybe it's just me, but I get the impression that some folks think that just because one, two, a dozen, etc. of Libertarians are elected to office that the entire party platform will automatically be fully enacted within the first week. This is not the case. Instead, we will simply have a much stronger pro-freedom/Constitution voice among the mass of elected officials, which will still be mostly Repubs and Dems. Some people seem to say things indicating that they agree with the Libertarians, say, on 90% of the issues, but that they disagree with their stance on border issues, or drugs, or regulation, etc., and then come to the conclusion that those issues are too extreme to have them in office. Therefore, they refuse to vote for them. When was the last time that even a Repub or Dem that you voted for won, and within the following week every last detail of the party platform was enacted in full? It doesn't happen, and it won't happen. Getting some Libertarians in office will only help to strengthen the voice of freedom and of the Constitution, and will serve to balance things out a bit. It will also help put the Republicans in general on notice that we *do* have an alternative, and we will use it if the Republicans keep drifting the way they have been lately as a whole.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shooter 2.5:
As much as I can admire the Libertarian Party I can not vote for them under any circumstances. My son went to one of their party meetings and all he could tell me about them was to shake his head. I would suggest for the people who are actively voting for them to please go to their meetings and check them out further. My reason for not voting for them is that as I understand it, they want to remove the border patrol and open up the borders. The next thing is to do away with the minimum wage laws.
I believe that the combination of those two items would ruin this country. If someone from the Libertarian Party could correct me on this, I would appreciate it. Thanks.[/quote]

Those positions are true. The official LP likes free borders and free association between employer and employee. I haven't decided on the free borders thing, but I'm for sure against the minimum wage.
 
If the Libertarians believe in opening up our borders, there is no way I will support them. If we were worried about a one world government before, I can't imagine the damage even 4 years of that will do. I work for an electronics corporation and we have whole departments full of Indian and Pakistani workers on the line that have engineering degrees. What I'm saying is what I stated before but don't think that it will be just the uneducated migrant workers crossing deserts to come here. We will be getting educated workers from around the globe coming here. This isn't the 1700's or the 1800's where we had the entire west of the continent to fill up. Remember, more gun ranges and hunting areas are being closed not because of Clinton, but because of the urban sprawl.
 
For all you lovers of the drug war out there, please cite where in the Constitution the federal government is given the power to ban heroin, alcohol, or any other drug.

Waiting for your response.

Thanks.
 
I doesn't,I just think we should keep drugs illegal so the the criminals can make their money.If drugs weren't illegal the drug dealers would have to start robbing people to make their money.So the only people that they're a threat to is the cops and others dtud dealers.
 
It is indeed a crummy situation when I am picking the lesser of two evils in a national election.

In an ideal world, I would be able to vote for exactly the person that I think would make a good president. For instance--MYSELF. Given my stand on the issues, I think many of you would agree.

But any vote for me would most definitely be wasted.
 
It's pretty simple - when you start seeing LP candidates in a significant percentage of major offices, then you can feel safe that voting third party won't be a wasted vote.

Until then, you are just pulling a Perot - and screwing the only chance we have at having any pro-gun administration.

Waaaaaaaaaahhhhh, the Republicans sold me out - do you honestly think that by voting for a third party / anti-republican during a national election you are doing anything other than helping the democrats? Let's see - who's responsible for most of the Anti legislation? Democrats? And you want to help them?

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com
www.bladeforums.com
 
Alcohol comes under the Fed's taxing authority, Article I, Sections 7 and 8 of the Constitution.

Prohibition, the ban on manufacture, possession, and consumption of alcohol in the US, was promulgated (and repealed) by the states as a Constitutional amendment. This was done under Article V.

Drugs come under the Fed's commerce authority under Article I, Section 8, clause 3, which establishes drug smuggling as illegal smuggling to avoid excise taxes, and also to provide for the general welfare.

Most laws prohibiting the use and possession of drugs are, I believe, state laws, other than the importation into the US, or transportation across state lines of, drugs.

Also check out Article IV, Section 4, Clause 3, and Section 3, Clause 2.

The Food and Drug act of, I believe, 1908, which placed many restrictions on addictive drugs and preparations containing alcohol, was, I believe, done under authority of the Commerce Department, citing Article I, Section 8, Clause 2.

(Note: I'm not an attorney, and the above is from memory from something I read a LONG time ago.)

The Constitution does not have to lay something out specifically in order for a Federal law to be enacted regulating, or banning, it.

(edit note: My section and clause citations were off...)

------------------
Smith & Wesson is dead to me.

If you want a Smith & Wesson, buy USED!

[This message has been edited by Mike Irwin (edited October 23, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pawcatch:
I doesn't,I just think we should keep drugs illegal so the the criminals can make their money.If drugs weren't illegal the drug dealers would have to start robbing people to make their money.So the only people that they're a threat to is the cops and others dtud dealers.[/quote]

Pawcatch,

On the contrary, it is well within the Federal government's authority to regulate the importation and use of addictive drugs.

The Government doesn't actually BAN any drugs (with the possible exception of a heroin derivative, heroin hydrate?), it just severely restricts them and their use.

------------------
Smith & Wesson is dead to me.

If you want a Smith & Wesson, buy USED!
 
Mike, Mike, Mike...

YES, the Constitution DOES have to specifically mention something for it to come under government regulation!! That's the entire point of the Constitution, to describe in EXPLICIT detail the ONLY things that the government can do.

And the logic of "the government doesn't BAN drugs..." could just as easily be taken as to give the government the power to enact any gun control they like short of a total ban.

BTW, sorry about the yelling. I'm a bit excitable today. I need to go shooting...

Later,
Chris


------------------
"TV what do I see, tell me who to believe, what's the use of autonomy when a button does it all??" - Incubus, Idiot Box
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top