Silver Bullet
New member
Exactly right. We also have to get more involved at the primaries.
What about the next presidental election
- Thread starter coolridelude
- Start date
- Status
progunner1957
Moderator
error.
Last edited:
progunner1957
Moderator
Vote for 3rd party candidate = Clinton wins, just like in 1992
Voting for a 3rd party candidate means Hillary wins in '08. You might as well vote for her to begin with.
Because "Daddy" Bush (#41) was a somewhat weak President and because he was a no-load as far as gun rights, I voted for the 3rd party candidate (Perot) in 1992. The result? The first scumbag Clinton was elected.
From this, we can learn three lessons (if we will learn):
1: THOSE WHO DO NOT REMEMBER HISTORY AND LEARN FROM IT ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT.
2: THOSE WHO DO NOT REMEMBER HISTORY AND LEARN FROM IT ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT.
3: THOSE WHO DO NOT REMEMBER HISTORY AND LEARN FROM IT ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT.
Any questions?
Voting for a 3rd party candidate means Hillary wins in '08. You might as well vote for her to begin with.
Because "Daddy" Bush (#41) was a somewhat weak President and because he was a no-load as far as gun rights, I voted for the 3rd party candidate (Perot) in 1992. The result? The first scumbag Clinton was elected.
From this, we can learn three lessons (if we will learn):
1: THOSE WHO DO NOT REMEMBER HISTORY AND LEARN FROM IT ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT.
2: THOSE WHO DO NOT REMEMBER HISTORY AND LEARN FROM IT ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT.
3: THOSE WHO DO NOT REMEMBER HISTORY AND LEARN FROM IT ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT.
Any questions?
Somehow, I think that there are more important issues than guns at stake in the next election. Face it folks, gun ownserhip is a recreational issue for most people, not an issue of survival or livelihood. Sorry, I don't vote according to my recreational interests.
I see we're still at it with the cute "Hitlery" jokes. :barf: How original ...
I see we're still at it with the cute "Hitlery" jokes. :barf: How original ...
A typical liberal/leftist statement. As if the 2nd Amendment, and the consitution as a whole, is just a scrap of paper in the way of the socialist "paradise" folks like this have in store for us.
Read it and learn fellow gun rights activists. The enemy is among us, trying to tear down our moral with their endless Bush/republican bashing and their endless "moral equivalence" nonsense. We cost them the last two elections, and their going to do anything and everything to confuse and deflect us.
Then when they win, they'll neuter us.
Rebar, I think you misunderstood my statement. I don't believe I ever called the Constitution or the Second Amendment a "scrap of paper," nor do I have a socialist paradise in store for you or anyone else, or even neutering for that matter (though my knives are sharpened ... just in case).
My point was that for me, a candidate's stance on guns or gun-related issues is relatively unimportant compared to, say, their stance on the war, or their stance on the First Amendment. Like many people, I'm not a single-issue voter, and yes, for me, guns are primarily a recreational issue. I like the Second Amendment, but my vote will not go to some candidate who will gut the remainder of the Constitution and invade other countries on false pretexts just to save my playthings, Constitutionally protected or no.
I don't recall ever trying to misrepresent or hide my political views; you're welcome to check my previous posts if you believe so. In case it's unclear, yes I'm a (GASP!!!) liberal, no, I don't like Bush, and yes, I will be working my utmost to ensure a Republican defeat in 2008, regardless of their candidate's views on guns. As for being an "enemy among us," ... :barf: I guess you can try to get me banned if you think I'm such an enemy.
My point was that for me, a candidate's stance on guns or gun-related issues is relatively unimportant compared to, say, their stance on the war, or their stance on the First Amendment. Like many people, I'm not a single-issue voter, and yes, for me, guns are primarily a recreational issue. I like the Second Amendment, but my vote will not go to some candidate who will gut the remainder of the Constitution and invade other countries on false pretexts just to save my playthings, Constitutionally protected or no.
I don't recall ever trying to misrepresent or hide my political views; you're welcome to check my previous posts if you believe so. In case it's unclear, yes I'm a (GASP!!!) liberal, no, I don't like Bush, and yes, I will be working my utmost to ensure a Republican defeat in 2008, regardless of their candidate's views on guns. As for being an "enemy among us," ... :barf: I guess you can try to get me banned if you think I'm such an enemy.
Silver Bullet
New member
We all support the entire bill of rights. And because it's my vote, I get to choose where I think the BOR most needs shoring up.
Recreational issue ?
Like most folks here, I see the Second as at least as important as any of the other Rights, insofar as it's what keeps, or at least has the potential to keep, a government from tyrannically suppressing the others.Calling the Second a recreational issue is like calling freedom of the press a People Magazine issue.
Silver Bullet
New member
Well, almost all of us.
Leif doesn't support the Second Amendment.
Leif doesn't support the Second Amendment.
They you are an enemy here. Banning isn't up to me, but everyone here should be aware of what you are.
NO Rebar, it is you who should be banned. The majority of your posts are filled with low content hate spewing rhetoric. I enjoy debating with some hardliners on this board who are polite, but you are not one of them. Why is it you have to bash and say that Leif should be banned because he disagrees with you? YOu talk about, socialism and communism but I dont think you have a clue what it really means beyond it being a concept that differs from your rigid opinions.
It would be nice to see you deported to somewhere like North Korea, and being beaten and forced to work the fields under the shadow of good ol little Kim Junior. Then maybe when you got back from your holiday you might appreciate what makes democratic nations great. The ability for us all to hang out in peace and agree to disagree with each other without the threat of extremism and or violence...
Do you get it yet?
NO Rebar, it is you who should be banned. The majority of your posts are filled with low content hate spewing rhetoric. I enjoy debating with some hardliners on this board who are polite, but you are not one of them. Why is it you have to bash and say that Leif should be banned because he disagrees with you? YOu talk about, socialism and communism but I dont think you have a clue what it really means beyond it being a concept that differs from your rigid opinions.
It would be nice to see you deported to somewhere like North Korea, and being beaten and forced to work the fields under the shadow of good ol little Kim Junior. Then maybe when you got back from your holiday you might appreciate what makes democratic nations great. The ability for us all to hang out in peace and agree to disagree with each other without the threat of extremism and or violence...
Do you get it yet?
Silver Bullet
New member
Rebar didn't say he should be banned.
In fact, the only one who said anyone should be banned ... is 459.
Ya gotta luv the irony.
In fact, the only one who said anyone should be banned ... is 459.
Ya gotta luv the irony.
Rebar, no one here wants to disarm you UNLESS you are a danger to society and/or others. Saying so in such a context merely points out how disharmonious your statments are. Stop taking it so personal and realize that a disagreement with your opinion doesn't mean we're out to get you.
AND I'm not picking on you but I saw this and had to point out...
We've already BEEN neutered by tons of legislation starting with the GCA and the still in existence in Calif assault weapons ban. Anyone who believes differently is living in a Waco fantasyland.
And, to keep it on topic, HILLARY CANNOT BE ALLOWED to turn this country into a wasteland. She cannot control her greed and has no ability to understand what real leadership means (but then again, neither does dubya). We'd be looking at a serious depression (worse than today's depression that they're calling a recession). WWIII would begin within a year and canada just might side with the bad guys against us.
I believe that this is one election where we all need to toss out the liberal/conservative monikers and vote for SOMEONE who will honestly and truly fix this mess. Hillary ain't it.
AND I'm not picking on you but I saw this and had to point out...
We've already BEEN neutered by tons of legislation starting with the GCA and the still in existence in Calif assault weapons ban. Anyone who believes differently is living in a Waco fantasyland.
And, to keep it on topic, HILLARY CANNOT BE ALLOWED to turn this country into a wasteland. She cannot control her greed and has no ability to understand what real leadership means (but then again, neither does dubya). We'd be looking at a serious depression (worse than today's depression that they're calling a recession). WWIII would begin within a year and canada just might side with the bad guys against us.
I believe that this is one election where we all need to toss out the liberal/conservative monikers and vote for SOMEONE who will honestly and truly fix this mess. Hillary ain't it.
Stupid computer ... I had this wonderful rebuttal all typed up on my laptop, which naturally ran low on its battery and closed before I could submit it, so let's see if I can remember what my points were. 
Rebar, I believe that you continue to misundertand my position. What I said merely reflects a fact of American politics - that few people find a candidate, party, platform, etc. with which they agree across the board on every issue. The recent dissent within the Republican Party is clear evidence of this.
Most Americans play out mental exercises like this on any given election day: "I like this candidate's positions on X, Y, and Z, am ambivalent about his position on A, and don't like his positions on B and C, but I feel that X, Y, and Z are more important to me and to the country as a whole, so I'll vote for this candidate regardless of their positions on B and C."
In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a registered Democrat, though I have tended to vote Democratic during the last several presidential elections. No, I am not thrilled with the 'liberal' attitude (term used loosely) toward or some Democrats' stance on guns and gun ownership, but I am even less thrilled with the Republican administrations' activities during the last eight years, some of which threaten First Amendment rights.
I should explain more clearly by what I meant by "recreational issues." To be clear, for me, guns themselves are recreational, not the Second Amendment. I do not CCW and feel no need to; I have a .44mag for bears, but even then I rarely take it with me on hikes. I do not purchase guns based on their defensive capabilities, though I suppose they can be used for such if the need arose. I do not play out "Red Dawn" scenarious in my head, or worry incessantly about when the SHTF or TEOTWAWKI. I do not hunt for survival, though I do hunt on occasion.
However, I do not pass judgement on anybody who engages in these activities legally; I do not think that these reasons even encompass the vast majority of gun-owners. But for me, guns are a recreational issue, and will continue to take a back seat to more important political and Constitutional matters. I worry far more about government interference with private life as protected under the First Amendment that government interference with my hobbies as protected under the Second.
Nobody likes to be backed into a corner, nobody likes to make a choice between the lesser of two evils. In truth, I've introduced several 'liberal' friends to shooting and all have enjoyed it. What they don't enjoy is the macho chest-thumping "cold dead hands" baggage that some conservatives feel that they need to attach to it.
Rebar, I believe that you continue to misundertand my position. What I said merely reflects a fact of American politics - that few people find a candidate, party, platform, etc. with which they agree across the board on every issue. The recent dissent within the Republican Party is clear evidence of this.
Most Americans play out mental exercises like this on any given election day: "I like this candidate's positions on X, Y, and Z, am ambivalent about his position on A, and don't like his positions on B and C, but I feel that X, Y, and Z are more important to me and to the country as a whole, so I'll vote for this candidate regardless of their positions on B and C."
In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a registered Democrat, though I have tended to vote Democratic during the last several presidential elections. No, I am not thrilled with the 'liberal' attitude (term used loosely) toward or some Democrats' stance on guns and gun ownership, but I am even less thrilled with the Republican administrations' activities during the last eight years, some of which threaten First Amendment rights.
I should explain more clearly by what I meant by "recreational issues." To be clear, for me, guns themselves are recreational, not the Second Amendment. I do not CCW and feel no need to; I have a .44mag for bears, but even then I rarely take it with me on hikes. I do not purchase guns based on their defensive capabilities, though I suppose they can be used for such if the need arose. I do not play out "Red Dawn" scenarious in my head, or worry incessantly about when the SHTF or TEOTWAWKI. I do not hunt for survival, though I do hunt on occasion.
However, I do not pass judgement on anybody who engages in these activities legally; I do not think that these reasons even encompass the vast majority of gun-owners. But for me, guns are a recreational issue, and will continue to take a back seat to more important political and Constitutional matters. I worry far more about government interference with private life as protected under the First Amendment that government interference with my hobbies as protected under the Second.
Nobody likes to be backed into a corner, nobody likes to make a choice between the lesser of two evils. In truth, I've introduced several 'liberal' friends to shooting and all have enjoyed it. What they don't enjoy is the macho chest-thumping "cold dead hands" baggage that some conservatives feel that they need to attach to it.
Not all of us. Sure, those of us behind enemy lines in blue CA, NJ, and MA are in pretty rough shape. But since the republican resurgence, we went from 10 shall-issue states, to 38 today. We also got the end of the AWB and protection for gun manufacturers, as well as two good supreme court justices (so far). One good ruling from the new court will make things a whole lot easier everyone, especially the blue states.
If we keep our eye on the ball, and keep the republican majority going, things will get better still. We start cutting off our noses to spite our faces, and let democrats win, then we can expect the worst.
Hunter Rose
New member
>If we keep our eye on the ball, and keep the republican majority going, things will get better still.<
WHEN, for gods' sake?!?!?
I distinctly remember the Dems running an ad during the Bush/Gore fight, a video clip of a member of the NRA saying "If Bush wins, we'll have an office in the White House!". Cool... Bush won (AND has a Repub majority). What have they been using that office for? Yeah, the AWB sunset... so what? That was gonna sunset without people pushing for it, and there just wasn't the support in Congress to renew. The lawsuit protection was good, but that is (so far) the ONLY thing I've seen (actively) done since 2000. So when are they gonna work on repeal of NFA 34, and GCA 68 (never mind FOPA 86: make NFA go away, and the 86 MG ban dies too)? How about some form of national reicprocity of CCW? And don't tell me about how we've gotten CCW in so many states: that has NOTHING to do with politics on the national level...
The Republicans have been stringing us along for years now: so long as they aren't as anti as the Dems, we blindly vote 'em in. Since there's no competition for the "gun vote", the Repubs just coast.
Or, to borrow a line about sex and marriage: "why buy the cow when you're getting the milk for free?". Pardon the crudity here, but we've been "putting out" for the Repubs for how long, with the hopes of getting the ring? How long are we supposed to wait?
WHEN, for gods' sake?!?!?
I distinctly remember the Dems running an ad during the Bush/Gore fight, a video clip of a member of the NRA saying "If Bush wins, we'll have an office in the White House!". Cool... Bush won (AND has a Repub majority). What have they been using that office for? Yeah, the AWB sunset... so what? That was gonna sunset without people pushing for it, and there just wasn't the support in Congress to renew. The lawsuit protection was good, but that is (so far) the ONLY thing I've seen (actively) done since 2000. So when are they gonna work on repeal of NFA 34, and GCA 68 (never mind FOPA 86: make NFA go away, and the 86 MG ban dies too)? How about some form of national reicprocity of CCW? And don't tell me about how we've gotten CCW in so many states: that has NOTHING to do with politics on the national level...
The Republicans have been stringing us along for years now: so long as they aren't as anti as the Dems, we blindly vote 'em in. Since there's no competition for the "gun vote", the Repubs just coast.
Or, to borrow a line about sex and marriage: "why buy the cow when you're getting the milk for free?". Pardon the crudity here, but we've been "putting out" for the Repubs for how long, with the hopes of getting the ring? How long are we supposed to wait?
- Status