Ron Paul Supporters: Did you vote for Bush?
- Thread starter Bruxley
- Start date
I've said before that I have primarily voted Libertarian since becoming old enough to vote. The elections of 2000 and 2004 I voted democrat while gagging. Those were my lesser of two evils votes. I won't do that again. I approve of Bushes court appointments but that's pretty much it. In most other respects I believe President Bush has done his level best to divide and damage our country. I see no real difference between the socialism of the Dems and the corporate fascism this adim has pushed, for either my wallet or my rights. If Paul doesn't get the nomination which he probably won't I will most likely vote L again. I can't see any good coming from voting for any of the top contenders of the Republican nomination, although I am willing to see what affect if any Dr Paul has on the party platform before my vote in the general election. This is my opinion only, you are free to disagree with any and all of it as you wish, it makes no never mind to me.
Brett Bellmore
New member
Voted for Bush both times, and all it did was prove to me that the lesser of two evils is never as lesser as you think. I might never vote for another winning candidate again, but at least next year I'll walk out of the voting booth with a clean conscience, and without that sour taste in the back of my throat.
Good grief. Does anyone here seriously think Kerry would have allowed a sunset? And, Clinton won with less than 50%. Significantly less.
I am no fan of the 1st Bush, but it's pretty stupid to divide. The anti's are the only ones who win. Real smart to throw votes away. Real smart.
Davis
I am no fan of the 1st Bush, but it's pretty stupid to divide. The anti's are the only ones who win. Real smart to throw votes away. Real smart.
Davis
But what difference does it make if there's an AWB or not if people are never willing to defy the ruling class on matters relating to the Bill of Rights?
Let's face it: people really don't need 30-round mags, semi-auto weapons, and flash suppressors to defend their homes from common criminals. The only time these weapons would really be needed would be in combat. So if no one is EVER willing to use them for that purpose, then why have these "cool toys"? Just so we can continue to fool ourselves into thinking we'd ever take up arms to defend the Constitution? We might as well take up another hobby. RC helicopters are every bit as fun as any assault weapon.
I'm keeping the weapons I have until the day I die, regardless of who gets elected or what laws are passed. And I'm never voting against the Constitution again. That's really what a vote for anyone but Ron Paul is: a vote against the Constitution.
I repeat: there's no point in having a Second Amendment at all if people are never willing to use it for its intended purpose. I'm not saying that I hope that ever has to be done -- far from it, I hope just the opposite. But at some point, gun owners need to grow some spine and say ENOUGH -- WE WILL NOT TAKE IT ANYMORE.
Let's face it: people really don't need 30-round mags, semi-auto weapons, and flash suppressors to defend their homes from common criminals. The only time these weapons would really be needed would be in combat. So if no one is EVER willing to use them for that purpose, then why have these "cool toys"? Just so we can continue to fool ourselves into thinking we'd ever take up arms to defend the Constitution? We might as well take up another hobby. RC helicopters are every bit as fun as any assault weapon.
I'm keeping the weapons I have until the day I die, regardless of who gets elected or what laws are passed. And I'm never voting against the Constitution again. That's really what a vote for anyone but Ron Paul is: a vote against the Constitution.
I repeat: there's no point in having a Second Amendment at all if people are never willing to use it for its intended purpose. I'm not saying that I hope that ever has to be done -- far from it, I hope just the opposite. But at some point, gun owners need to grow some spine and say ENOUGH -- WE WILL NOT TAKE IT ANYMORE.
jakeswensonmt
New member
If I remember how this works Kerry couldn't have stopped the AWB sunset, only congress could have.
I think if he could have Bush would have stopped the AWB sunset, he's all too eager to sign the next one...
"But what difference does it make if there's an AWB or not if people are never willing to defy the ruling class on matters relating to the Bill of Rights?
Let's face it: people really don't need 30-round mags, semi-auto weapons, and flash suppressors to defend their homes from common criminals. The only time these weapons would really be needed would be in combat. So if no one is EVER willing to use them for that purpose, then why have these "cool toys"? Just so we can continue to fool ourselves into thinking we'd ever take up arms to defend the Constitution? We might as well take up another hobby. RC helicopters are every bit as fun as any assault weapon."
And motorcycles are even more fun than a happy switch equipped rifle.
"I'm keeping the weapons I have until the day I die, regardless of who gets elected or what laws are passed. And I'm never voting against the Constitution again. That's really what a vote for anyone but Ron Paul is: a vote against the Constitution."
I'm with you on most of this but I would amend that last sentence to read; A vote for any of the frontrunners is a vote against the constitution. Of the current crop of the two parties Ron Paul is my choice. The sucky part is I can't find a palatable second choice.
"I repeat: there's no point in having a Second Amendment at all if people are never willing to use it for its intended purpose. I'm not saying that I hope that ever has to be done -- far from it, I hope just the opposite. But at some point, gun owners need to grow some spine and say ENOUGH -- WE WILL NOT TAKE IT ANYMORE."
Yup.
Let's face it: people really don't need 30-round mags, semi-auto weapons, and flash suppressors to defend their homes from common criminals. The only time these weapons would really be needed would be in combat. So if no one is EVER willing to use them for that purpose, then why have these "cool toys"? Just so we can continue to fool ourselves into thinking we'd ever take up arms to defend the Constitution? We might as well take up another hobby. RC helicopters are every bit as fun as any assault weapon."
And motorcycles are even more fun than a happy switch equipped rifle.
"I'm keeping the weapons I have until the day I die, regardless of who gets elected or what laws are passed. And I'm never voting against the Constitution again. That's really what a vote for anyone but Ron Paul is: a vote against the Constitution."
I'm with you on most of this but I would amend that last sentence to read; A vote for any of the frontrunners is a vote against the constitution. Of the current crop of the two parties Ron Paul is my choice. The sucky part is I can't find a palatable second choice.
"I repeat: there's no point in having a Second Amendment at all if people are never willing to use it for its intended purpose. I'm not saying that I hope that ever has to be done -- far from it, I hope just the opposite. But at some point, gun owners need to grow some spine and say ENOUGH -- WE WILL NOT TAKE IT ANYMORE."
Yup.
Liberty.45ACP
New member
Bush both times. But I believe in the long run the current crew has done far more damage to our country than the terrorists have done or would have done. Now, I think that Kerry would have done much damage as well.
As to the AWB... Bush would have happily signed it given the chance. The same is true of the majority of the candidates running on both sides. Romney & Guiliani are both anti-gun and pro-awb. McCain - well, McCain/Feingold is enough to deep six him with me.
My first choice is with Ron Paul. I can't find a second choice. As I mentioned in a separate thread, I looked at Huckabee, but his comments mark him as a hard core theocrat. No way. It's a sad bunch of candidates this time around. And I'm getting WAY off track here...
---Bill
As to the AWB... Bush would have happily signed it given the chance. The same is true of the majority of the candidates running on both sides. Romney & Guiliani are both anti-gun and pro-awb. McCain - well, McCain/Feingold is enough to deep six him with me.
My first choice is with Ron Paul. I can't find a second choice. As I mentioned in a separate thread, I looked at Huckabee, but his comments mark him as a hard core theocrat. No way. It's a sad bunch of candidates this time around. And I'm getting WAY off track here...
---Bill
Last edited:
Denny Hansen
Staff Emeritus
Without a sunset provision...
Unregistered
Moderator
When all else fails, just try to scare people into voting Republican.
I agree we want something better than most of the field. But the alternatives are something that cannot be taken. You can jump ship and send the Republicans a lesson. The price will be AWB-II. There is no scaring to that, just a matter of fact.
And Kerry would have ensured the continuation of the AWB. Bush did not pull the strings to get it continued. Kerry would have. And, a Kerry victory could have turned congress to the Democrats 2 years earlier, which would have guaranteed the AWB renewal.
Davis
And Kerry would have ensured the continuation of the AWB. Bush did not pull the strings to get it continued. Kerry would have. And, a Kerry victory could have turned congress to the Democrats 2 years earlier, which would have guaranteed the AWB renewal.
Davis
Continuing to support the current Neocon Republicans is going to result in AWB-II anyway. (I'm not convinced that an AWB-II is inevitable.) Instead of happening in 2 years it will happen in 6-10. Both parties are sliding in the wrong direction.
Yes people like you and others are trying to scare people into voting Republican. Saying the current Republican frontrunner's are better then the Dems is like saying that one bowl of sh*t is better than another because it smells less. The fact remains that you are arguing over two bowls of sh*t. The longer you keep voting over those two bowls, the more they are going to stink. In the end, you are still going to have a bowl of sh*t.
(I'm sorry I have to stoop to this, but it's the only way to get my point across.)
Many people, like myself, are not going to vote between two bowls of poo. We are going to find something better and support it. Like a plant, with some nourishment and the right conditions it will grow over time into something great.
Those of us who support Ron Paul know he isn't perfect, but we believe he is a step in the right direction.
I voted for Michael Badnarik in 04. Am I a fool for doing so? Looking at Bush's actions of the last few years, probably not.
If Romney or Giuliani gets elected, they'll vote for another AWB as well. But I'm not sure Congress will bring one to the president's desk. The Democrats have been pretty silent on guns over these past years, so it's possible they've learned their lesson from past electoral losses due to that issue.
Other GOP candidates, even if they wouldn't support such measures (far from assured), will likely support other violations of the Constitution. Ready for more warrantless wiretapping, facial-recognition cameras on every city street corner, mass email monitoring, and general police-state surveillance? Don't laugh -- a LOT of government funding is being spent on research into newer and better technologies for citizen control.
Even Mike Huckabee, whom I regard as the least offensive GOP candidate besides Ron Paul, has echoed Al Gore's line that "the Constitution is a living, breathing document." :barf:
Actually, the Constitution is a dying, gasping document. If we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, then we cannot expect to get good. Something needs to change big-time if the Constitution is to be saved. If the majority refuses to take part in this change, then it cannot hold responsible the minority who insist on that change.
How far has voting for the lesser of two evils gotten gun rights in America since 1934? We should look at the big picture and long-term direction of this country beyond the next election.
Other GOP candidates, even if they wouldn't support such measures (far from assured), will likely support other violations of the Constitution. Ready for more warrantless wiretapping, facial-recognition cameras on every city street corner, mass email monitoring, and general police-state surveillance? Don't laugh -- a LOT of government funding is being spent on research into newer and better technologies for citizen control.
Even Mike Huckabee, whom I regard as the least offensive GOP candidate besides Ron Paul, has echoed Al Gore's line that "the Constitution is a living, breathing document." :barf:
Actually, the Constitution is a dying, gasping document. If we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, then we cannot expect to get good. Something needs to change big-time if the Constitution is to be saved. If the majority refuses to take part in this change, then it cannot hold responsible the minority who insist on that change.
How far has voting for the lesser of two evils gotten gun rights in America since 1934? We should look at the big picture and long-term direction of this country beyond the next election.