People who want it ALL NOW!

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KAC556

New member
I guess this is what it has come to, in an age where people want what they want, ALL that they want, and THEY want it NOW!

Why can't we learn anything from the opposition? You know, the Democrat Party was once a respectable political institution, instead of the Socialist Criminal Conspiracy it has become. How did this happen?

It happened very s l o w l y, incrementally, from the INSIDE, over time. The Socialists infiltrated the party, step-by-step, brushing off small defeats, and building on small victories.

Yet, people on OUR side say; "F**k the NRA. If they don't openly support MY right to have ANY gun ANY time ANY where, I'm taking my marbles, and I'm goin home!" How short sighted, and how that attitude plays into the hands of the opposition! If you are on the OUTSIDE, you cannot work to change things from the INSIDE!

The same people are saying the SAME thing about Bush, and the Republican Party. They say, "F**k Bush! He doesn't support MY right to have ANY gun, ANY where, ANY time I want. I'm gonna vote my conscience, and vote for (fill in any NO chance 3rd party candidate)!"

George Bush, or any major candidate, who has a chance to win, has to take public positions that appeal to the CENTER of the spectrum! Like it or not, most of the voting public never even think about guns, unless there is a shooting in the "News."

The next President will almost surely have to appoint at least 3 new judges to the Supreme Court. Do any of you really want to leave that task to Algore, because you are too "principled" to vote for Bush?

The NRA, whom a lot of you apparently hate, is spending vast sums of money from your contributions trying to elect Conservative Republicans in Congress. They realize that this is essential to even begin restoring the RKBA.

The leadership of NRA understands the incremental nature of political change. They are under a political spotlight, and cannot be seen to be the right wing extremists the Media would like to paint them as.

It's very sad to me, when patriotic people fail to see that; "A loser, on the outside, cannot effect change, and a winner, on the inside has all the opportunities."

You did not lose your rights overnight, and you will not get them back, if you are not even in the game.
 
Agreed! Even though I really, really, really would like to cast my vote for Alan Keyes, I feel that it is my duty, as one who longs for freedom, to insure the election of George W. There should be 3 Supreme Court appointments in the next term. Bush has stated that his only cryteria for Justice appointments, will be those who "narrowly" interrupt the Constition. These Justices would mean a world of differance, if the Supreme Court agrees to here a 2nd Ammendment Case. Such a case could reverse much of the current unconsitiuional gun legislation.

The flip side is that a Supreme Court with 3 of Gores nomines, could destroy the Constitution, and all of our freedoms, for many, many years to come.

I am a Libertarian, and have always "voted my consceince" in the past, but there is just too much at stake this time around. A Bush Presidency, and the Supreme Court Justices he appoints, would be a small, but first step back to a America with "Freedom and Justice For All".
 
I agree with KAC556 and Gusgus. I was just explaining this to my libertatian friend. I told him he has to be patient. The country is so far left, that we have to bring it back to the right before the libertarians can make a dent. We have to get people in the mindset of helping themselves instead of turning to the feds to stop every "crisis" that comes up. Incrementalism brought us to this point and incrementalism is the only thing besides revolution that will take us back towards libertarian ideas. I will put my vote where it will count this November for Bush and hope that the socialist attitudes will die and give rise to more libertarian type politicians.



------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
 
AGREED! The supreme court judges are very important and will catch the attention of many anti-Bush, McCain supporters. I have used this successfully in the far left (NYC).

I voted for Keyes in the primary, the republican contender will get my vote in November.

We can only come back as we went, one step at a time.

------------------
If we don't need the second amendment why are they trying to take it away?
GUNS STOP CRIME!
http://www.sas-aim.org
 
I agree with the points made here about the NRA. They're not perfect, but they're the major player for our side, and deserve our aid.

However, the idea that you throw away your vote by casting it for someone you really support is nonsense. If someone really believes Bush is the best candidate and supports him on those grounds, then fine. But don't expect me to vote for him just because he's less hostile to RKBA than The Evil Al Gore is. I want someone who is _pro_-RKBA.

I've voted for Libertarian candidates since 1976 after I determined that the LP platform was the closest to my own personal beliefs. When Reagan was running for president, I well recall how my Democratic acquaintances urged me to vote against him because he was the candidate of religious nuts and was opposed to women's rights. "A Libertarian vote is a vote for Reagan," they said. It was a stupid argument then, and it's not any smarter now when it's used by Republican apologists. I want a president who supports freedom of choice on all issues, not just RKBA. That's why I will vote Libertarian in November.

It's amazing to me how many people here seem to think the Republicans as a body actually care about RKBA. For most of them -- former President Bush is a fine example -- RKBA is useful only to the degree it provides an opportunity for lambasting the Democrats, or for personal posturing. KAC556, do you remember Bush's well-publicized resignation from the NRA? And -- pop quiz time! -- was it a Democratic or Republican administration that gave us the 10-round magazine limit?

If everyone who believes in the principles of the Libertarian Party would vote for Libertarian candidates, you'd see more Libertarians actually elected -- a great thing -- and almost as good, you'd see both the Democrats (Socialist Party A) and the Republicans (Socialist Party B) move more toward Libertarian positions.

I have no problems with people who want to vote for Candidate 1 because they genuinely believe in him. I'm not impressed by those who tell me I should vote for him because he's slightly less evil than Candidate 2.
 
When you entertain the idea of backing a "loser" at the polls and vote to back a "winner" instead remember...
Jesse Ventura won in minnesota because people got out and voted their minds , not what the polls told them to do.
Political parties are like physically abusive relationships..they only have the power that we give them. When we walk away and make another choice, they either have to change or are left behind. Either way , we are the better for it.
If you continue to back things you dont agree with, the ones you do agree with will never take hold.No one will back them , they'll dissolve.
I dont ever hear a liberal whining because another liberal backs green peace or sierra club, or peta.We divide ourselves in our own minds...no one divides us.Read the papers...we are pro gun people...they are gun grabbers.

I dont say F*** the NRA..never have ...read my posts...I just dont agree with them.And by playing this word game, where either you join or are crap, just plays us against each other.
I'll ask you all this..NRA membership costs 35 bucks...thats the same as the postage on 106 letters...how many of you have written 106 letters to your congressional rep a year.Politicians like their jobs...the NRA lobbying is one thing..knowing that they will lose a couple thousand votes if they vote a certain way is another entirely...its far more personal. If all 3.5 million NRA members did that do you realize the voice you'd have??It would be far larger than wasting the 35 on the NRA...BUT..you dont have the time or the inclination to write...well i do...and thats what I do.

Playing from the inside to effect change is an interesting theory.I'd rather pick the time and place for my fights, and change the rules of the game.
I've been working for the gov't for fifteen years...there's a HUGE amount of inertia..change seldom if ever comes from the inside..its demanded from the outside.
Desegrigation of the sevices, voting rights,abortion rights,major directional changes start with a segment of people who are relentless and who "educate".Thirty years ago Green peace was a joke, now they're a player.They picked their battles , fought hard and by not giving an inch made the rest of us compromise in their direction...HCI does the same thing...the NRA compromises in thier direction..and we lose another piece.
If you want to back the NRA feel free..I wont.Not until they represent what I believe in and are willing to launch a concerted campaign to achieve it.
 
Yea and as Jesse V is finding out and as any third party canidate will find out if they ever get to the white house. If you dont have support in the senate or house (state or federal) you can't do **** but speechify.

Can you spell lame duck
 
David,

You asked, "KAC556, do you remember Bush's well-publicized resignation from the NRA? And -- pop quiz time! -- was it a Democratic or Republican administration that gave us the 10-round magazine limit?"

Answer: It was Diane Feinstein, and the D-e-m-o-c-r-a-t-s, in 1994 (Clinton)! Go to her website. She BRAGGS about it!

"Know your enemy, and study his ways." Tao of Tsun Tsu; The Art Of War.

[This message has been edited by KAC556 (edited March 09, 2000).]
 
Alan B
Jesse may be having a hard time getting some things thru....but all politicians do...The difference is people press and reps can't blame party politics anymore...Issues are beginning to stand on thier own..as are the opinions that go with them...no more republican this or dfl that...Its a start
BUT ...if you like to keep the staus quo..
 
I'd still rather get some of what I want this November (w/ Bush) and more of what I want later (incrementally) rather than none of what I want (w/ al-gore).

By the way, I write my representatives. From what I understand, one personalized letter to your representative carries more weight than a demonstration or a phone call or an e-mail. Because very few people take the time to do it, they estimate (at least here in NYS at the state level) that the views expressed in one letter are equivalent to those held by 5,000 constituents.

------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
 
I'm willing to support the lesser of two evils if it's the only way to defeat the greater of two evils.

But...

Back in 1996 when I followed that philosophy and voted for Dole (despite considerable misgivings), Clinton won anyway.

Why should I expect the 2000 election to be any different?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KAC556:
Answer: It was Diane Feinstein, and the D-e-m-o-c-r-a-t-s, in 1994 (Clinton)! Go to her website. She BRAGGS about it!
[/quote]

KAC556 is right; the 10-round limit was proposed under the Bush administration, but was actually enacted under the evil Clinton administration. I should have checked my notes instead of relying on my memory.

That point aside, I hold to my argument that as a party the Republicans, like the Democrats, have no interest in preserving RKBA.
 
It's not a matter of wanting it all right now; it's a matter of principle. We have to draw a line in the sand eventually. If the Republicans had managed just to stop the growth of government and its intrusiveness, I'd be supporting them as we post. But, as we know all too well, this has not been the case.

How many here can say with a straight face that government is smaller and less intrusive now than it was in 1994? The Republicans have shown themselves to be just as eager as the Dems to spend, spend, spend. They've shown themselves to be utterly gutless against Clinton and the Dems. I tend to believe this is due to the fact that most of the Republicans support big government and have no desire to argue against it (other than in fundraising letters).

Incrementalism is fine, and I agree that it is the only way to change things, but it NEVER moves in our direction. Whenever there is a "compromise" we're always on the losing end. When they come back at us with a ban on 6+ magazines and we compromise on a 7+ ban, is that victory? Is that kind of incrementalism working for us?

That's the Republican Party.
 
Rmc, and others:

The Republicans currently, and in the recent past, have had only the slimist majority in Congress. The last time the Republicans had, both the Presidency, and a firm majority in Congress, was in the 1950's during the Eisenhower Administration. I don't know if you're old enough to recall, but during that time we had both peace and prosperity, and one could buy guns by mail order, and have them drop shipped at your house. We also had dramaticaly less defecit spending, crime, and virtually no drug, and school shooting problems. Preditors on death row, were on a short "assembly line to final judgement," until the Democrats came into power.

I don't know how to respond to someone who contends that there is no difference between the Republican and Democrat Parties.

Surely, empirical evidence would indicate otherwise.

[This message has been edited by KAC556 (edited March 10, 2000).]
 
KAC556,

I'm fully aware of that fact, and that it has been used as an excuse by Republican congresscritters since the 1996 election.

I've worked on several Republican campaigns, given money to the RNC, and have in the past always voted Republican, so don't think I've made the decision to switch to the Libertarian Party lightly.

I stated above that if the Republicans had at the least frozen spending and government intrusiveness, I'd gladly vote for them this November. But they chose not to. Having even the thinest majorities in each house would have allowed them to do this, to have checked government expansion. But they chose not to.

With a few notable exceptions like Ron Paul, Bob Smith, and others, the Republicans in Congress are moral and political cowards who capitulate at even the tiniest hint of adversity. They don't make a case for Conservative/Libertarian principles because they don't believe in them. Either that or they're just plain stupid.
 
It is funny how the election of a third party candidate like the Libertarian Party would be the best thing for America but that a vote for them ends up getting Gore elected - the worst thing for America.

I will vote Libertarian and hope for the best. If Bush gets elected we get Son of Satan, if Gore gets elected we get Satan himself.

It really matters not. The tidal wave is coming no matter what and all will be decided at that time.

Either we will someday return to a Constitutional Govt. which neither major party believes in, or we relentlessly slide to further into Socialism and then to complete Totalitarianism. We already have a police state so that is moot I guess.

------------------
Thane (NRA GOA JPFO SAF CAN)
MD C.A.N.OP
tbellomo@home.com
http://homes.acmecity.com/thematrix/digital/237/cansite/can.html
www.members.home.net/tbellomo/tbellomo/index.htm
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all
must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
--Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top