Who to Vote for come November?

A

AHM1776

New member
Latest Alert from GOA
------------------------- www.gunowners.org
Feb 2000

Presidential Campaign Advisory
Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

(Tuesday, February 29, 2000) -- Gun Owners of America has received a large number of inquiries from members about the presidential primary candidates, particularly in the Republican primary.

Members have heard a great deal about how anti-gun the two Democratic contenders are from their own mouths. Both former Senator Bill Bradley and Vice President Al Gore have called for gun owner licensure and registration. If they got their way, the stage would be set for the kind of gun confiscation looming in California and that has occurred already in New York City.

Of the remaining GOP candidates, Sen. John McCain (AZ) and Gov. George W. Bush (TX) are engaged in an increasingly tight race for the brass ring.

GOA finds minor differences between McCain and Bush on firearms issues. If anything, McCain has voted on measures somewhat more anti-gun than Bush.

Both McCain and Bush support the NRA position of closing off private sales at gun shows with the instant background check, although McCain voted for the three day background check if necessary while Bush only supports a one day delay. In either case, GOA thinks this an unwise policy.

Additionally, McCain and Bush both support trigger locks legislation, or as Gun Owners of America more correctly describes it -- Lock Up Your Safety. Both candidates would also raise the age for which a young person could own certain semi-automatic rifles or shotguns.

Sen. McCain did support Sen. Bob Smith's successful effort to gain Senate passage of a funding shut off of the FBI's registration of gun owners who have their backgrounds checked when buying a gun from a dealer. He also voted against banning guns in school zones, which GOA more aptly describes as the Criminal Protection Act of 1996. However, that same day he voted for the misdemeanor gun ban which has disarmed people for "offenses" as slight as pushing or even yelling at a family member.

On behalf of the shooting community, Gov. Bush did sign into Texas law bills that legalized the carry of concealed firearms in Texas and that made it illegal to bring phony product liability lawsuits against firearms manufacturers.

GOA does not see either Sen. McCain or Gov. Bush as a champion for gun rights or leading the charge against gun owners.

McCain, however, has greatly concerned Gun Owners of America because of his crusade to change the campaign finance laws. His proposal, the McCain-Feingold bill, would make it illegal for GOA to criticize an incumbent candidate within sixty days of an election. In the current situation, that would have been a date in early December 1999. Gov. Bush has little interest in changing the campaign finance laws.

Alan Keyes, who takes a very staunch pro-gun stand, has so far not risen above five percent of the vote in the primaries and shows no likelihood of winning a single delegate.

GOA sees the U.S. House of Representatives as critical to the defense of the Second Amendment. That is where gun owners have the best chance, based on past performance, to stop bad legislation and get proactive legislation started. GOA urges its members to actively support pro-gun candidates in House races with their time, money and votes.

Larry Pratt's weekly talk radio show can be heard at http://www.gunowners.org/radio.htm on the Internet. You can listen live at 11:30 AM Eastern Saturdays and call in to the show toll free at 1-800-773 TALK (8255). The show is archived for 60 days and can be heard that way 24 hours a day, seven days a week by going to the same URL.

-----------------------
Cheaper Than Dirt donates a percentage of your total order to GOA if you use
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/goa.htm to enter their online store.

--------------------------------

Join GOA!

AHM1776
 
Vote for the Libertarian candidate if you want to vote for someone who's not just a lukewarm supporter of RKBA. Harry Browne will probably get the nomination (party conventions haven't been held yet) although L. Neil Smith would be better. But the Libertarian Party, unlike the Democrats (Socialist Party A) and the Republicans (Socialist Party B) actually believes that the Second Amendment was intended to mean what it says. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear-cut.
 
Who to vote for in September? HMMMMM let me see the election is a selection so I do not remember anyone I know choosing Gore,McCain,Bush or anyone else as "their" nomanie. I also have not heard anyone say that they would be firm supporters of the Constitution. Since we all should realize that the Constitution is not or has not been followed by any president since Lincoln. Also the Electoral College can place anyone in office they choose. Even if we wanted to we could not and did not remove the discrace of a president that is in office now, I would say no vote is a good vote. What this country needs is someone who will follow the Constitution and return Amerika back to the way the founding fathers intended it to be.
 
Devin:
I'm for one of those no-votes in September also. However, in November I will be voting. A no-vote will put Algore just that much closer to the White House. Which will put this country even further away from where the founding fathers intended. As far as I'm concerned, someone who has the opportunity to vote and doesn't is saying they just don't give a damn. If your not going to try and fix it, then you have no right to complain.

------------------
bullet placement is gun control
 
"As far as I'm concerned, someone who has the opportunity to vote and doesn't is saying they just don't give a damn."

If voting really worked, it would be declared illegal :)
 
I've heard good things about L. Neil Smith, but he's still going to be a write-in? Why? Not enough support? You gotta know a write-in candidate has absolutely no chance in a national election. You say don't waste your vote?

------------------
bullet placement is gun control
 
It seems sometimes that there are folks on this forum who are hell-bent on shooting it out with the feds. What other possible motive could there be for casting "no" votes, or votes for candidates who cannot possibly win?
If Al Gore wins, you _will_ be required to surrender your handguns. You _will_ be required to submit photo and fingerprints to the DOJ. You _will_ be required to register your long guns.

Acting (or voting) on principle feels really good. I do it every day, and eat macaroni and cheese instead of steak because of my principles. But, if I can forestall even by a few years the prospect of a bloody civil war by voting for somebody like Bush, I'll do it.

There's pragmatism, and then there's suicide.

Dick
 
I'm 100% with you on this one, Dick!

ABG!

------------------
"Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it."
 
I wonder if the question might be better phrased: Who Not to Vote for come November?

I, personally, don't mind who anyone else votes for, as long as it isn't one of the Democratic candidates.

LawDog
 
I don't think it's good enough just to not vote for one of the Democrates. I think we need to vote for the candidate with a legitimate shot at beating the Democratic candidate.



------------------
bullet placement is gun control
 
Muleshoe, I'm not one of the Electoral College, therefore how I vote has little impact on who actually gets the White House.

What I can do is load the House of Representatives and Senate with Republicans and Libertarians, thereby ensuring that no anti-gun bills cross the President's desk for signature.

And if we have a majority of friendlies in the House and Senate, any Executive Orders can be shot down as soon as they're signed.

LawDog
 
Gunowners: Hold your nose and vote for Bush.
A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Al Gore. President Gore will have you registering your guns during his first term and confiscating them in his second. In contrast, Bush, while no big champion of the RKBA, has at least a track record as Governor of Texas that has been somewhat favorable to gunowners. Moreover, Bush has a record of appointing conservative judges to the bench. The next president will appoint at least two new judges to the U.S. Supreme Court as well as appoint a new Chief Justice. Bush is your best bet here if you want to see draconian gun laws overturned on sound consitutional principle. A President Gore would have just the opposite effect. Bush is not much of a choice, but he is our only realistic choice when it comes to the RKBA.
 
(...and once again, more apologistic crap gets flung hither and yon...)

So, Trevor, what you're saying is that since we're gonna get raped anyway, we may as well provide the K-Y, is that it?

No thanks. I'll vote for Harry, or Don, or El Neil, or whoever the LP nominates. And when the GOP candidate wins and promptly clamps down even more on your guns, pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that at least you didn't vote for a Democrat. Maybe you'll be able to live with yourself and your support of a man who promised more gun control.
 
Ahhh coinneach, we meet again. Yeah I think I'll be able to live with myself after voting for the GOP candidate. Being able to live with myself after voting for Harry, or Don, or whoever, then watching Algore win would be a different story.

Before this breaks into a shouting match again I'd like to know a little more about you Libertarians. Now I ask this in all sincerity so please answer likewise. Is gun control the only issue that you worry about? Do you disagree with anything that the LP candidate says he stands for? I guess what I'm asking is, Is it just RKBA and beyond that you don't care what else he stands for?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, (like I needed to say that) but isn't the LP pro-abortion? If so that pushes me out right off. I couldn't live with myself after voting that way.

LawDog, I totally agree with your statement of having a majority in the House and Senate. If we have that and the WH I think the threat of anti-gun legislature becomes minute. I just don't see how voting for a guy who is "hoping" to see 5% of the popular vote is going to achieve this.



------------------
bullet placement is gun control
 
Coinneach: I am trying to be realistic about what may happen to the RKBA in the next 8 to 10 years. Accordingly, a vote for Bush is the best choice now. I am writing this post in the midst of the Super Tuesday primary vote. By the end of the day, there will be two men remaining in the race: Bush and Gore.
No one else has a chance to be the next president. Until this situation changes, I will vote for the candidate that most likely offers a respite from more anti-gun laws. I am not happy about the choice, but pragmatism dictates I vote for Bush.
 
"Pragmatism" only means losing your gun Rights slowly rather than quickly.

I'll vote for a pro-gun candidate - not a "less evil" candidate.

Also, voting for gun control because of a candidate's stand on other issues merely reduces the chance of affecting that issue later.

Once we lose our Second Amendment, the others will fall. We will have NO voice in ANY matter.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Dennis:

I'm not sure if you are answering my question to Coinneach or not. If you are, then you are saying you vote on one issue and one issue only? So as long as the guy is pro-gun that's all that matters to you? I'm sure he's not, but if he was also a Grand Lizard in the KKK would he still get your vote?

------------------
bullet placement is gun control
 
Muleshoe, the LP is NOT pro-abortion. Read the platform again. And again. As many times as it takes until it sinks in.

Trevor, pragmatism got us into the festering pit we're in now. "We can't do it now, this election is too important, maybe next time." BULLFEATHERS. (see, I'm trying to be a little more polite). Constantly compromising (hock-ptui) gets you nowhere except just a bit further down the slope.

Muleshoe, no, I'm not a one-issue voter. If I were, I'd still vote Libertarian, because my guys are PRO-GUN. PERIOD! The GOP candyasses, excuse me, candidates, ARE ANTI-GUN!

I've had it with being accused of helping elect Demorats, not that there's any difference between them and the Republicons any longer. I will no longer respond politely to the same tired, lame, illogical crap that I've been hearing for the last 12 years. I vote for liberty. If you won't or don't, fine. Keep your whining to yourself.

(deep breath... in, out... in, out)

If you love freedom, vote Libertarian. If you love servitude, go on and continue voting GOP, or Dem, or whoever.

------------------
"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
 
Coinneach
Think about this, it was a third party vote for Perot in 92, that split those who would have voted for Bush, and gave us Slick instead, who didn't get 50% of the popular vote. In the next election you either vote for Al "bore" or against him by voting for Bush. Voting for ANYONE ELSE is a vote for AL. And if AL wins the second amendment will be gone in 4 years (probably less). A Bush win at least buys the second amendment a few more years (maybe one more presidential election at a minimum).

Think about this.. No Third party is
A. on the ballot in every state. (you Can't count the Ross Perot..er Reform party)
B. Has a snow balls chance of ever winning.

I agree that T Lott and D Hasert would probably sell their soles as they have no core beliefs and will say one thing but do another, but thaey are a lot better than T Daschle and D Gephardt

We are not going to change the Republican party by leaving it either.


[This message has been edited by Alan B (edited March 07, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top