RKBA President: Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Coinneach

Staff Alumnus
In our last episode, BTR raised some concerns about voting Libertarian.

I think Dennis is right, we need to put some heat on Bush. I will not vote for him in the primary. However, I do not personally agree with some Libertarian positions, so I probably will have no choice but to vote for him in the election.

BTR, I'm curious about a few things.

First, do you agree with more, as a percentage, in the GOP platform than you do in the Libertarian? I have problems with some LP planks (granted, not many). I have far more problems with the GOP.

Second, what exactly is it that you disagree with in the LP platform? If you can provide specifics, perhaps I can help with any misunderstandings. If it's something not germane to TFL, feel free to contact me offline.

Third, bud, you *always* have a choice. No one can force you into the booth and make you punch the hole next to any candidate's name. It's all you. If you feel like you *must* vote for someone, then the system is broken. Of course, some of us have been saying that all along. :)

Again, if you (or anyone else) have any specific concerns with the LP, you're more than welcome to contact me personally, and I'll try to help you work through them.

------------------
"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

[This message has been edited by Coinneach (edited January 20, 2000).]
 
Message for my buddy Glenn:

I tried "debating" with Dennis, etc. etc. before on this issue, and I've given up. Now I'm praying for their enlightenment. I remain faithful that God can move the mindsets that are like mountains (i.e., very large rocks) to me. Don't get me wrong. I really like Dennis. He's a very good, albeit misguided, guy. He even suggested we have beers together after the election (and a little shooting on the range, which hopefully will still be legal then!), and I'm determined to take him up on his offer -- even buy!

Oscar
 
Dennis, while misguided :), at least writes cogent responses.

I stand on my brillant exposition of not
chewing up the front runner. Pressure on him though is not a bad idea.

Since we seem to live in a reasonably close proximity to each other, shooting and then beer is an attractive prospect.
 
Fitz, you must really LIKE to open cans of worms, eh?

Don't even get me started. I hate all of them. They are of necessity, coalitions of views. Some people agree with all in their party. MOST people disagree (strongly) with one or more. Repubs seem on the whole the worst to me, due to constant attacks on basic freedoms. Dems are (generally) very slightly better (hill of beans difference) except for the all-important issues of RKBA and states' rights, and also overall level of taxation/role and size of fed gov't. Libertarian seems the least offensive, BUT there are obvious problems with a strict libertarian lazzias-faire approach, due to market externalities (e.g. environmental protection, among many others). I'm not going into detail on specific issues beyond this, but let me say that if you look at the two major parties from a civil libertarian perspective:

Dems would love to destroy the 2nd and 10th amendments;
Repubs would love to destroy the 1st, 4th, and 7th (jury trial) amendments.

All BAD, BAD, BAD!

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited January 20, 2000).]
 
And Dennis, I feel for you, buddy - your support seems thin, but you have my word:

If the Duocratic party doesn't let Pat in at least one major debate, then my vote will not go to either major party in the Prez general; damn the cost of this. We'll see. It may be the case that Gore or Bradley will push hard to let the 3rd party in. But I heard a news report that some debate commission was not going to let in any candidate without 15% of the vote in a stinkin POLL, which will prob preclude Pat.
 
No Oscar - I was talking about some other folk, not you. My basic beef is folks who want to make a statement rather than talk strategy.

Dennis can talk strategy and disagree with
mine.

Is the statement more important than the loss?
 
Glenn,
I couldn't agree with you more. I firmly believe that a vote for anybody other than whoever the Republican nominee is (looks like GW right now is our best hope) would be a statement with a very big price tag indeed. And I also agree about Dennis and many of the other moderators in this forum. They are very articulate and well read. We just don't agree on this strategy, that's all.

Best regards to all,
Oscar
 
Fitz, you must really LIKE to open cans of worms, eh?

Futo, believe it or not, I don't. I wish we didn't have to beat the same issues around every few weeks. Gets old, it does.

Is the statement more important than the loss?

Glenn, we will lose regardless of who gets in, if it's a major. In that light, since defeat is inevitable (since you refuse to vote for the most constitutionally-correct candidate), why not? Why not publicly thumb your nose at the anti-Americans? Why not put them on notice that while they may have won, they most certainly did NOT do it with anything resembling a majority, and they'd therefore best watch their step?

If you think a "minor" party candidate can't possibly win, think again. It happened in Minnesota. There's no reason why it can't happen on a national level.
----------

Folks, this is getting really tiresome. "We can't get a *good* candidate, so we'll go for the not-quite-so-bad one." What kind of attitude is that? We can't win so we won't try?

What happened to the independent spirit so prevalent in gun owners? Have we become so cowed that we won't speak up against the "popular" candidate, for fear of losing to an even worse one?

Good g-d, people, Bush and McCain, the current favorites to win the nomination, are both on record as supporting gun control. By voting for them, you are voting for gun control. Do you think that, if either one wins the gun vote, they'll suddenly reverse themselves and say, "You're right, guys, we need to repeal NFA '34 and GCA '68!"? My dimpled white butt they will. They'll make it worse, and you will have allowed it to happen by voting for these avowed gun-grabbers.

We can win by voting for Keyes in the GOP primary or Browne or Gorman in the LP primary. We can. We must. The future of the country depends on us. We are potentially the strongest voting bloc in our nation's history. Can we afford to squander this opportunity on someone who looks good on camera, but has sworn to further erode 2A?

I think not, and I will not. I will vote for the best candidate, not the most popular. And if my man doesn't win, I'll sleep well knowing I did what I could to save our rights.

Will you?

------------------
"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

[This message has been edited by Coinneach (edited January 21, 2000).]
 
Coinneach, heck of a speech.

I do agree with it. Wish I'd said it first though.

I don't think the general American public givesa tinkers damn about the LP. They've seen enough word-associatin games by the media shrinks, to believe it stands for anti-American groups intent on ruining America.

I've heard that we gun owners are somewhere near 70-80 million strong. Hmm, lets see, the last time I looked at the Census site, the TOTAL population was @ 275 million, give or take. Well, I'm not a rocket scientist, but that shows a healthy 25-29% voting block. I seem to remember hearing only 49-60 % of eligible voters practice the right.
Well dammit, if that's the case, then we're nearly half of that!!!

I get journals from my representative work union about why I have to vote Demo, in order to secure my rights as a working American. Nothing in that journal is the notion that guns are NOT FOR ME. In fact, they go out of their way to portray an image of the hardworking, scapping lad, good 'ol boy, goes hunting on the weekends with his Spaniel. When in reality, they have no such image for me and mine. No, no, they have a different plan altogether for me. If they had their way, I'd be working 'til I drop dead at work. That way, I'd be paying the high Union Dues right up to the end. And my survivors would be living on scraps.

Oh yeah, I've got issues with the Unions of America, just like we've all got issues with the Anti-Self Protection crowd.

(Wheww, do I feel better getting that of my chest.) :D :D

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
He that suffers his life to be taken, from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself.

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited January 21, 2000).]
 
The Ventura effect of winning with a plurality is not going to happen in the presdential election.

But, some of you have proved my point.
Bush has supported some gun controls so
in an absolutist sense you would rather he lose as you vote for some third party.

Thus, we get Gore.

So I vote for Bush

But we have more of a chance of getting no new ones that are crippling to the RKBA and with
new SC justices rolling some back.

The sunset of the mag ban - do you want to argue with Bush or Gore about the push to renew this. National reciprocity - Bush or Gore. Stopping the HUD suits - Bush or Gore.
The suits are incredibly effective today.

Folks are right that we are repeating ourselves.

The dread truth is most gun owners are not
"GUN OWNERS" anymore than they are ideologically committed to their refrigerator.

They are not going to rise up. If you think that having Bush lose and Gore coming in will start the revolt of Unintended Consequences, you are probably the guy with all those MREs waiting for Y2K mutants to attack.

So I'm not impressed by polemics and feeling good votes. I want to win - if it takes an incremental step rather than an absolute victory I can deal with it.

Dennis argues a strategy. I might disagree but that's better than going to sleep doing the absolutist right thing and losing the battle.

Such statements do not appreciate strategic and tactical planning.
 
Gentlemen:

I live in Minnesota, and I can attest that Jesse wasn't elected by anything akin to the electoral college. By contrast, electoral votes, not popular votes, elect U.S. Presidents. A minority party candidate will likely get zero electoral votes, but could very well tip the delicate balance from the Republican candidate (our only hope, albeit an imperfect one) to the Democrat (our worst nightmare). Therein lies the problem. A third party candidate, such as Pat Buchanan, who could easily garner 20% or so of the popular vote, throws a very dangerous wild card into the mix. And while I agree such a showing could persuade Mr. Bush to adopt a more unequivocal RKBA position, it will have virtually NO impact whatsoever on Gore or Bradley's "anti" position. In fact, it could galvanize the Democratic position because the RKBA position has been watered down by our second and third place finishes in a three person race.

Just one man's humble opinion,

Oscar


[This message has been edited by Oscar (edited January 21, 2000).]
 
Here's how it works in case nobody noticed. A GOP canditate states that he is not opposed to "Reasonable Gun Control". This means that he's only going to sign a small infringement on your rights. Maybe limit the magazine capacity of your pistol to 10 rounds, or maybe just place an import ban on guns meeting a certain criteria. None of this really hurts our cause, because my pistol without the ban, would only hold 12 rounds at best anyway. The newly elected president won't lose too many votes, because he wasn't completely destructive to our rights.
The problem is that GOP candidates keep signing these small bills, and incrementally taking our rights away. Now if GW only signs one bill, and the next president after him only signs one bill, then at the end of 24 years, you will have 6 bills, that totaled up completely changes your rights into a privelege. I don't vote for a guy who is only going to hurt me a little at a time over a period of decades, I vote for the guy who will not vote to hurt me at all.
Of course the GOP uses fear just as much as the Dems, and most of you don't see it. Whoever in the party came up with the line: "if you vote for that other guy, you'll end up getting the guy you hate most" was an absolute marketing genius! Now most Americans don't vote for who they really want, but rather vote for the guy who is most likely to win (as dutifully reported by his cronies in the press), and to borrow from another poster (I think Coineach) this becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The only thing this line of thinking does is purpetuate the loss of your essential liberty over a period of many, many years. At least the Democrats don't lie about where they stand. They tell you up front that they don't care about your rights. Strategic and tactical planning to destroy the rights of our posterity don't seem to be very good strategy. I often wonder how it is that some people can look their kids and grandkids in the eye after voting for "reasonable gun control". A vote for Keyes in the primaries does not hurt GW one bit in the regular election. All it does is serve as a wake up call. By voting Bush in the primaries, you serve to validate that the constitution is not as important as having someone you like in office. You may continue to vote as you wish, because that is still allowed, but I hope you notice the lack of quality people running, and now when you have a choice, a clear choice in a better candidate, you still vote for the guy with the most political favors owed. I guess this will keep on indefinately, and when we are all old men, we can sit around and talk about what it used to be like, and how you used to could walk right in the Walmart and buy a gun. We can try to apoligize for the sorry world, we handed our kids and hope they forgive us.
 
A vote for Keyes in the primary may do no harm, granted. But I started this in another thread and my point was that if the candidates that can't win (sorry) as so
vicious that they seriously hurt the front-runner, we are screwed. Forbes supposedly did this to Dole (not that I like him at all). I see the same in Forbes now.

In fact, I might even argue - that all protest votes should go for Keyes and cut Forbes, McCain , Bauer and Hatch out of the running. Quicker that mutant howdy doody
gets his, the better.
 
Oscar, regarding your statement about a 3rd party candidate siphoning off about 20% of the republican vote -

What we really need is a Green Party siphoning off 10-15% of the democratic vote!
 
Oscar,

I find one of your posts to be a bit of a challenge! :)
(In other words, I’ll take the bait you offered! :D )

(quote - numbers in parens added for reference)
Message for my buddy Glenn:
I tried "debating" with Dennis, etc. etc. before on this issue, and I've given
up. Now I'm praying for their enlightenment.(1) I remain faithful that God
can move the mindsets that are like mountains (i.e., very large rocks) to
me.(2) Don't get me wrong. I really like Dennis.(3) He's a very good, albeit
misguided, guy.(4) He even suggested we have beers together after the
election (and a little shooting on the range, which hopefully will still be legal
then!)(5), and I'm determined to take him up on his offer -- even buy!(6)
Oscar
(Unquote)

1) My dictionary explains enlightenment as bringing knowledge to the fore.
If we can only judge the future by the past, then we must agree that the
Republican Party has abandoned the Constitution.
-- In the past, the Republicans have compromised away portions of our
Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
-- The Republicans have promised to compromise away MORE of our Right
to Keep and Bear Arms in the future.
-- The Republicans even presented their own proposals to restrict our Right
to Keep and Bear Arms.

Therefore, as you vote for Republicans to free us from the very laws they
espouse, seek out self-enlightenment before praying true believers in the
Second Amendment give up their Rights in the name of compromise.

2) My mindset is truly like a rock - you are right. Thank you for
complimenting my steadfastness to the freedoms of our Forefathers.
- I refuse to compromise with those who recognize compromise ONLY as a
beginning point for the next compromise. (Follow?)
- And I will build my philosophical house upon the ROCK of certainty in my
Right to Keep and Bear Arms - rather than build my house upon the sand of
compromise with those who have sworn enmity toward me, my freedoms,
my Liberty, our Constitution, our country, and our way of life.

3) With NO trace of sarcasm I say, “How nice!” For in my heart I truly like
nearly all our TFLers! Additionally, I respect both the members and their
views. I learn quite a bit from TFLers - even when engaged in fruitless
debate. ;)

4) Misguided: “to lead astray”. (You should see this one coming! :D )
I put my belief in the wisdom of our Constitution and the Second
Amendment as it was intended and as it was written. It is those who are
attempting to edit, re-write, re-compose, and redefine our Constitution who
are going astray and leading others astray from their individual Rights,
responsibilities, and freedoms. It is their followers who indeed are
mis-guided.

5) Rather than merely “hope” our inalienable Rights will remain legal, vote
against the tyranny of gun control and its supporters. Eschew compromise,
shun those who incessantly nibble away at your Rights and your very
sustenance. Vote your beliefs - not your fears.

6) After the election, I may drink out of sorrow and defeat as you drink out
of joy and victory. It will be a hollow victory for me later to see you
recognize you have been betrayed as my rock-hard convictions turn out to
be true and the confiscators in our government perform as I (and a few
other clear-headed prognosticators) have warned.

-----
PS. What next? After our government makes gun ownership too difficult to
achieve or even outlawed, what Rights will be next? Will the tyrants outlaw
drinking (again!)? Oh, what a lovely addition that could be to The War On
Drugs.

(I’ve tried to present a serious view in a slightly humorous manner. I hope
that’s obvious.)

-------

Glenn,

I hope we DO get together - maybe you can show me how to shoot a
handgun effectively!!

By plan or by accident, your comment hit me pretty hard!

“Is the statement more important than the loss?”
We agree the loss is terrible to imagine, but what about the statement?
My rockheaded statement says to our government, “I will fight your attempt
to subvert the Constitution to suit your personal goals of tyranny.”
If I voted for a Democrat or a Republican, I would feel I was saying, “The
Constitution is irrelevant. The government knows better than any of us
what position the people should play in this country. Make everyone as
subservient to your will as I want to be.”

That is what I truly feel the two major parties have become - seekers of
total power over us as subjects. They already control my job, my home,
and my environment. Then they extort 55% of the fruits of my labor. And
now my guns? I say, “No!”

No more compromise. No more futile appeasement

It stops here. It stops now.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Dennis - I love your strong statement and lucid arguments.

We differ on tactics and not strategic goals.

Antigunners are happy with incremental attacks to take away gun rights.

I support incremental attacks to get them back. Sometimes, this is seen as compromise.
Given my limited training in the martial arts, I know that sometimes you have to yield an inch of ground to allow you to accomplish the greater goal. That is not a compromise.

Folks just can't say - No compromise because
such negative strategies will eventually cause all rightst to be lost if there is not forward movement.

Currently, we have amount X of gun rights.
Each time an attack is mounted there is a probability it will be successful. Over time, then there will be an increasing erosion as some of these will be successful.

You can't just use a siege mentality, you have to fight back. Saying NO compromise, is not fighting back or regaining ground. It is a static defense, a crumbling Maginot line.

So for example, let's say a bill is proposed that will mandate a lock is sold with each gun. I have to tell you that this has surface validity with the public. You can personally chose not to use it. You can argue against the bill but the centrist public is not going to buy it. Manufacturers are adding locks to guns anyway, like Steyr, Taurus, Bond Arms
and more to follow.

So you say NO compromise and lose. We look bad anyway.

My strategy given the bill looks like it
will win:

Locks must be sold.
Make sure that we seem cooperative so
that the bill has no provision that they
must be used. If antis write the bill that
might be in it.
Add riders to it, like:
1. Since NICS works so well and has
keep 400,000 bad people from buying
guns (HA HA HA HA), why not allow
folks to buy new hi-cap mags with
a NICS check.
2. Or, yes, gun locks add to safety, but
we know from research that CCW saves
lives. 4000 Rapes are prevented a year
by handguns. Thus, as part of the bill,
we want national reciprocity. Or Senator
Kennedy - are you pro-rape?

Now you might argue that a NICS check for hi-caps is a compromise. But now we can't get them at all - except at exhorbitant prices.

You might argue that national reciprocity means more CCW and more CCW means registration but as I argued elsewhere, CCW is the only real progress lately and it has slowed.

I prefer these kind of ploys rather than as
a TFLer said, voting the "no compromise" way
and going to bed happy. But you wake up with Gore. We will go the way of the UK and Australia. Most of the 75 million gunowners will turn them in. I don't need to become a felon just to make a righteous statement.

Strategies like I suggest are not appeasement but a weapon to achieve a goal. The goal is that all lawabiding citizens be allowed to own firearms and carry them concealed and unconcealed. Thus, I will use small steps -
one step backward for two or three forward on a more important issue.

If you just stand in place and someone pushes you - eventually you fall back. With Gore we would fall over the cliff. We cannot withstand such a loss. I don't want to go to bed having made the right statement and then have to bury my guns in PVC pipes in the backyard. If GOP candidates are so self centered like that mutant butt Forbes that they are willing to damage Bush and give the election to Gore, I oppose them.

I strongly favor pressuring Bush for example
to be more proactive on the RKBA. But the destroy your own strategy of Forbes drives me crazy. He is giving so much ammo to the Dems that he is a traitor and a self centered slime. I would prefer a debate where you put forward your ideas and stand on them.
 
Right at the moment, the anti's are too strong to elect a really pro-RKBA president. In four years, however, there may be enough letoff of pressure to do something. That is, if there are no more idiots who decide on mass killings, in the mean time. For the moment, we have to elect a compromise candidate, basically one who will preserve the status quo until Sarah Brady's momentum spawned from Colorado Punks dies. Then, maybe we can get the ten-round limit lifted, and a few other small advances.

As for control issues, I don't oppose instant background checks, (who really wantsguns in the hands of criminals? granted that aspect doesn't help much, but it does help keep them out of the hands of schizophrenics.) Also, full auto may be fun, but it really doesn't serve any purpose that a shotgun won't as far as defense goes. It really is an offensive weapon.

~~~Mineralman
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top