Presidental Candidates platforms on "Gun Control" now defined.

Until a third party _really_ gets its act together as a viable alternative, what else can we do?

Monkey, no flame perceived here. :)

The problem is the circular argument of "viability." The Republicans weren't "viable" either, and the Whigs screamed about how people who voted GOP were assuring Democratic victories. Sound familiar?

"Viability" is, IMNSHO, a red herring. The Republicrats are no more inherently viable than the Libertarians, Greens, Reformers, or any other party. It's all in how the people see them, and until the people wake the hell up and realize that the major party is too far gone to save, no other party has a chance... because the people refuse to allow it.

IOW, the people are bent on drowning when there's a life preserver within easy reach.

------------------
"If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance."
-- Samuel Johnson
 
Ack!!

I simply cannot be a one issue voter. It is just far too irresponsible IMHO.

The major contradiction as I see it: people are saying that by voting for Keyes, they are rooting for someone who will uphold the Constitution. Yet, Keyes has no problem with expressing his desire to add an anti-abortion amendment. In fact abortion is the an issue I actually side with Gore on. Of course, if you agree with Keyes, then by all means vote for him, but I can't stomach being "Pro-Constitution" only when it suits your needs.

Not to mention Keyes wants to get rid of the Department of Ed. which would terminate my job.

Unfortunately, I can't vote for Gore, because a lot of things about him bother me. Bradley is worse.

Don't get me started on the Republican party. GWB is hardly a step in the right direction from whatever angle you see it from. For awhile, I liked McCain, until I saw his ability to flip-flop on a whim. I don't know where Steve Forbes is coming from.

I find Buchanan too frightening to vote for, Bauer has no shot, and Hatch is out (fine with me anyways)

So who do I, the disenchanted voter, pick? I'm leaning more and more Libertarian everyday, but I feel like I'm backing the electric car :(

To me, a litmus test, whether it's abortion, gays in the military, or gun control, is just a lazy way to vote.

...tm
 
Here's a perfect example of the problem Keyes faces or any other candidate who actually Supports the Constitution faces. Department of Education is unconstitutional. Who wishes to argue this point? But we support the constitution only when it suits our "needs". See how the arguement can be turned around? At least Keyes supports a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, and doesn't just want to pass law outlawing the stuff. Whomever came up with the idea that we can just assign any which function to the government that the present ruling party wants to, is rediculous, unconstitutional and dangerous. Can anyone remember the the 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution? At least when they wanted to prohibit alcohol, they did the right thing and amended the constitution instead of passing an unconstitutional law. We may never see a constitutional government again, because if we did too many people living off the public dole, would be unemployed. Socialism is on its creep towards totalitarianism, and I really do believe that it will take a river of bloodshed to bring us back to 'proper' governance.
As for Alan Keyes and the Supreme Court, you are right to notice the importance of the appointment of 3-5 justices. Now, who do you want to appoint these men? Keyes, a pro-constitution president? or Bush a moderate? Or Gore? Judging from just the Iowa caucus, the democrats had such a pathetic showing in numbers that I'm no longer worried about them being elected.
Would anybody like to tell me why you shouldn't support him in the primaries? He is a viable candidate, and Coineach is certainly correct about the self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm glad that the Wright brothers didn't use this pathetic logic. "Man can't fly, it can't be done, so I'm not going to bother attempting it."
Oh-BTW, If the Republicans are so much better than the Democrats, why didn't they get us out of Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia ect...? All they had to do is cut off the funds. All this would take is a 51% vote. Republicans could have done this, but only one republican consistantly sponsored bills to do this. Ron Paul. Not Newt, Not Kay Bailey, Not any of them, just Ron. So how much do the Republicans have our best interest in mind?
 
Keyes is the man. Ron Paul, by the way, was the perennial Libertarian candidate who was "unelectable" until he switched labels to republican. It ain't the man or his ideas, but rather his label that determines electability. That right there is a more damming commentary on the whole two-party system than anything else, IMHO.

I don't think we're wrapping ourselves in the constitution only when it suits our needs. The abortion thing is a grey area really, since homicide is already illegal, but when does a zygote/ fetus obtain rights as a human? When it's divided into two cells? 16? 32? The age of three months? What? Are sperm & eggs potential humans, and therefore birth control is mass murder? (insert well-known Monty Python song here) Those are really the questions that need to be answered, but you'll get a lot of different ones. I guess the whole weirdness of the situation came to me when I read that a drunk driver was being charged with a murder 'cause he killed a pregnant woman's fetus. Excuse me? Is it murder only if she wants the baby? What if she was planning to abort it anyway, did he just save her the trouble of an office visit? Can Louie Katona's wife press for murder charges? Sorry, but I think stuff like this is why the issue will be a tar baby for a long time to come. Sorry to drift off politics/guns though. At least Keyes promised an amendment instead of just stroking his pen and making it law of the land (no pun intended).

As far as appointing SC justices, well Keyes would be nice, but, worst case scenario, and Gore appoints 5 Chuck Schumer types, so what? I'd rather get it over with fast (while I'm still in good physical condition) than a slow slide into the abyss ala George Bush Sr. and the '89 import ban. Screw socialism lite, people. Although, at this late date, I think even tossing the frog into the boiling water at once may not be enough to wake a significant number of people from the bread-and-circuses slumber, especially if the frogs are told "It's for the tadpoles!!"

</Rant mode off
 
Gopher, I wish it would be fast if gore makes it but it will be the slow oxidizing errosion that is already infecting this country. They will not suddendly revoke the 2nd but bury it in red tape and regulations until it is gone for all practical purposed and if the other (formerly free) countries are any indication this will happen slowly and with hardly a yelp heard from the masses.
As I said before I belive Thomas will vote our way reguardless of his appointer Bush and his import ban. As I have said before, just because bush if far from Ideal doesnt mean his justice choices will be bad. Will take Keyes in the primary.

Life, Liberty, and Arms are protected, but never heard abortion mentioned in there.
 
Granted, I forgot the sterling examples of England and Australia. Although it was sort of quick in Australia, you've got to admit. I don't think anything that sudden would happen here, us having different traditions and all, but I well agree that everything firearms related will be buried in red tape and be so agonizing to deal with that more and more people won't bother until a final ban isn't such a big deal after all. Whatever else we say about the anti crowd is that they are not all stupid. They may not use logic, but that's because logic doesn't serve their position (nor could it stand up to a logical scrutiny). So, they deal with what works for them, emotional appeals, which is smart tactically, if disgusting and ingenuous. I will vote for Keyes in the primary, but if he's not available on any ticket then I'll have to weigh my choices then. This incrementalism is even more dangerous, I admit, hence my desire to see it all out in the open. I guess that's another anti strategy: people get so fatigued dealing with the same gun control laws presented year after year that they give up after a while. After all, it's a lot more expensive to fight bad legislation than it is to propose it, isn't it? I guess eternal vigilance is the price of victory, truly. That does give me an idea, though. How come the Republicans, self-styled champions of individual liberty, haven't proposed laws repealing some of the more asinine and innefective c*** legislation that's been foisted on us all (not just gun owners) over the years? Sure, most of it won't fly, but wouldn't it be nice to take the offensive for a change?? I never saw anything about abortion in there either, just playing devil's advocate to show that the issue is likely to remain sticky for a while to come.
 
I have sad news for you, people:

In the political reality of January, 2000, Alan Keyes will NOT be the Republican nominee, in spite of the fact that he is clearly the best of the bunch and that he will get my vote in the primaries.

Neither will Bauer, another staunch conservative and RKBA supporter, or the robotic, fish-eyed Forbes, which is perhaps a blessing in disguise.

Between W and McCain, I sincerely hope that W gets the final nod. I don't like McCain's stance on campaign finance reform, nor his quasi-Democratic ideas.

W has an impeccable record with gun-owners in Texas, having given us a long-hoped-for CCW law, having initiated an NRA-backed "Texas Exile" program and having barred lawsuits against gun-manufacturers. Besides, he is an honest man, an optimist for America and has the political savy and media skills to really grill Algore in the general election, which should be seen as the ultimate goal. Too much is at stake in this election, and not seeing that would be dangerous blindness.

Yes, Keyes would make a formidable president, but should he not be the Republican nominee, gun-owners should all back the Republican candidate. Period. If you think you are too squeamish to vote for Bush, just watch a Democratic debate, and see yourself gag. These are men who make lying and cheating their regular modus operandi and that would love to live all our lives for us (especially that disgusting human slug Algore), who couldn't chose to be honest if his daughter's life depended on it.

Politics is not fantasy-football, and, as much as it would be nice to have a dream team, sometimes "reality" dictates that we go with the best available to achieve the real goal: to win the season. And W is it, in my mind.

------------------
If you are younger than 20 and not a Liberal, you have no heart.

If you are older than 20 and STILL a Liberal, you have no brain.
 
I will not hold my nose and vote for Bush. I firmly believe that he is anti-RKBA, despite the fact that he signed a Tx CCW law. That was no more than a political ploy in his campaign against Anne Richards. Had he not signed CCW post-election, he would have been crucified.

The apple does not fall far from the tree...and the 'shrub' is not far from the 'Bush'.

Republicans and Democrats both are political prostitutes.
 
"Pat Buchanan or the Libertarian party. I haven't made up my mind."

Really??? That's like saying, "Keyes or Gore". Buchanan is far from a libertarian.
 
"The major contradiction as I see it: people are saying that by voting for Keyes, they are rooting for someone who will uphold the Constitution. Yet, Keyes has no problem with expressing his desire to add an anti-abortion amendment. In fact abortion is the an issue I actually side with Gore on. Of course, if you agree with Keyes, then by all means vote for him, but I can't stomach being "Pro-Constitution" only when it suits your needs."

Amendments have to pass strict tests to be included in the Constitution. It's safe to say that 2/3 of the people will not vote yes on a pro-life amendment.

This is the same with any issue, since anything the prez wants has to make it through Congress. That's why a libertarian prez would not necessarily get anywhere with libertarian policies. He could certainly get rid of all those extraneous fed departments though ;).

"Not to mention Keyes wants to get rid of the Department of Ed. which would terminate my job."

See my response to this below.

"So who do I, the disenchanted voter, pick? I'm leaning more and more Libertarian everyday, but I feel like I'm backing the electric car."

The electric car is on its way :). If you are considering voting libertarian, and you want to keep your education dept. job, those are incompatible goals. Read more about libertarianism before voting.

"To me, a litmus test, whether it's abortion, gays in the military, or gun control, is just a lazy way to vote."

I don't think it's lazy, since a litmus test on one issue can be an indication of how that person thinks about other issues. The stereotypes don't always hold as we all know.

I don't agree with some of the libertarian party platform, but I generally vote that way anyway. Keyes is close enough for me.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cruiserman
"The major contradiction as I see it: people are saying that by voting for Keyes, they are rooting for someone who will uphold the Constitution. Yet, Keyes has no problem with expressing his desire to add an anti-abortion amendment.[/quote]

What's unconstitutional about amending the Constitution?
 
jefflekins:

If you think you would have to "hold your nose" in order to vote for Bush, and you are therefore going to vote for the irrimediably unviable 3rd party (yes, "unviable": I don't think it's actually that bad a word); well, then be ready to hold your nose for the next 4 and maybe 8 years with that human rot of Algore in office.

Hold your nose at the thought of another term of the likes of Reno, Hillary, Carville Begala, spin, lies and in-your-face machiavellian politics. And kiss your guns good-bye.

As far as Bush, you "think" that he is anti-RKBA. Based on what? I'm sorry if I sound exasperated, but I'm so tired of hearing people equating a mainstream Republican with a good record with the "establishment". If you don't see any difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, I am really at a loss as to what to say. In all his years in office here in Texas he has done NOTHING to be even remotely considered anti-RKBA. He has a really good chance in defeating someone who REALLY has the "establishment" on his side (Gore), and you and, sadly, other gun-owners turn their backs on the Republican party and, in my mind, squander their votes on someone the greatest majority of the voting public hasn't even heard of.

Why? Because Bush is "not perfect"? Who is your candidate, then, that is so infallible, and why haven't I ever heard of him yet?

I'm sorry if I'm ranting, I really don't mean to be offensive to any of you, and, trust me, no offense is intended. But, for crying out loud, let's be realistic about beating Al Gore, because he is going to be realistic about gun-control. That's why we have the primaries. To give us a chance to find a good line-up to beat the opposition. But once the line-up is drawn against the foe, we should be very clear about who the foe is. The foe is Gore. It's the Democrats. It's the Liberals, like the mayors suing gun manufacturers (all D, I bet), the HUD (not a Republican establishment, for sure). And now, for the first time in 8 years, we have a chance of defeating not only Gore and the Democrats, but also a WAY OF THINKING GOVERNMENT that is getting more and more engrained in our society's collective mind.

The flimsy hope that, were Gore to be elected, the American people would open their eyes and, somehow, realize that we are being robbed of our freedom and magically turn the country around, is just that. A flimsy chimera. Rest assured that the Democrats, with their tax-and-spend mentality would make the most of another 4 years and buy enough complacency from the voters with their "generous handouts".

I'm gonna vote for Keyes in the primaries and then back whoever emerges from the primaries as having realistic chance of beating Gore, be it Bush (whom I consider an intelligent, humble, wise and reasonably conservative candidate), McCain, Keyes, Forbes, or even Beelzebub, if he can beat Gore.

But I am not going to squander the only sliver of power in my hands to vote for some loser no one has ever heard of IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!!!!!!

=>rant mode off<=

Again, no offense intended to anyone, but the instant gratification of "feeling good right after I cast the vote" is not going to override the anger and frustration of another whole 4 years of post-Clinton liberalism.

------------------
If you are younger than 20 and not a Liberal, you have no heart.

If you are older than 20 and STILL a Liberal, you have no brain.
 
Rigby, no group (even the RKBA crowd) is more single-issue oriented than the right to life crowd. In my work on past political campaigns, I've never seen a more focused group. And they're now largely backing Bush, not because he's the most pro-life candidate, but because they feel that Gore (who twelve years ago was pro-life) will appoint judges who are pro-choice. It's pragmatism. If Keyes isn't nominated, what good can come from voting for a third-party candidate in 2000?
Gore and Bradley have drawn a very sharp line in the sand on gun control. No hot-button issue--abortion, school vouchers, medicare, national healthcare---will be as definitively decided by one election as will gun control this year. To those who say they would have to hold their noses to vote for Bush: hold them, or start digging those holes in your backyard in the spring.

Dick
 
Amen.

------------------
If you are younger than 20 and not a Liberal, you have no heart.

If you are older than 20 and STILL a Liberal, you have no brain.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheBluesMan:
What's unconstitutional about amending the Constitution? [/quote]

Nothing. As long as it does not stray from its foundation: our rights are unalienable and natural. They existed long before the constitution and shall be valid long after fools play with the words on parchment.
Monkeyleg, Those that oppose abortion are in reality just as loosely organized in numbers as RKBA. True, both issues have organizations that promote an agenda. It is statistically easier to say the NRA has X members yet there are X # of gun owners also. My point is that you or I may be suprised that the greater number of people against abortion in its current form may not be aligning themselves with GW or Right to life, any more than RKBA types see him as the messiah. IMO GW don't care about either. He doesn't have to because he has you and the masses, real or imagined, on his side. P.S. I shall bury nothing in my back yard, including my right to vote for whom MOST REPRESENTS MY VIEWS. It is my birthright. To abuse it due to fear of the unknown is shamefull. Pragmatism can be turning in your neighbor first also or other convienient moralities.

[This message has been edited by G-Freeman (edited January 27, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top