The "all or nothing" attitude displayed by many belies a lack of knowledge regarding the history of THE WHOLE FREAKIN' WORLD! Never in history has anyone managed to "get it all." The best anyone has ever done is "most." The "all or nothing" attitude will get you nothing. History has proven this. The problem here is that when matters of national politics are concerned, you're dragging the rest of us who are striving to achieve "most" down with you. If given the choice of most vs nothing, I'll take most every time. Face it freedom lovers, we're outnumbered. The 2nd American Revolution will have more in common with the Russian Revolution (Bolsheviks) than the 1st American Revolution. If that's what you want, fine. Go somewhere else and start it. I don't want it here.
Why I want Kerry to win
- Thread starter USP45usp
- Start date
I've been involved with political campaigns, gun rights, and lobbying efforts for over twenty years....the "all or nothing attitude" illustrates a lack of knowlege concerning the art of political gamesmanship.
Most responses here show a lack of understanding political stategy.....it's really quite simple, as in Chess you are setting up the opponent in advance for future moves.
Best efforts to defeat a gun law is before or while it's in committee....once out of committee you will be fighting a publicity and public perception battle.
Bash Republicans all you like, but they have already put in place political moves to defeat the AWB. Those thinking GWB is anxiously waiting to sign it couldn't be more wrong. If I could only tell you more...unfortunately this is a public forum with many eyes and ears.
The defeat of the AWB is being led by Tom Delay (R), strategy is to kill it in committee so it never goes to a vote. Committee Chair has a great deal of influence over what gets brought to the house for a vote. Do you know who the committe chaiman is? Tom Delay....and how did he get that position? by being in the majority party...and who is the majority party? Republicans!! (Oh My!
)....you know, the same party some have described as crooked politicians not interested gun rights.
For the most part Democrats have been for the AWB, there are a few who want it to die...Zell Miller, Dingle, and others.
To play the game, you must first understand how it's played and know the rules....
Most responses here show a lack of understanding political stategy.....it's really quite simple, as in Chess you are setting up the opponent in advance for future moves.
Best efforts to defeat a gun law is before or while it's in committee....once out of committee you will be fighting a publicity and public perception battle.
Bash Republicans all you like, but they have already put in place political moves to defeat the AWB. Those thinking GWB is anxiously waiting to sign it couldn't be more wrong. If I could only tell you more...unfortunately this is a public forum with many eyes and ears.
The defeat of the AWB is being led by Tom Delay (R), strategy is to kill it in committee so it never goes to a vote. Committee Chair has a great deal of influence over what gets brought to the house for a vote. Do you know who the committe chaiman is? Tom Delay....and how did he get that position? by being in the majority party...and who is the majority party? Republicans!! (Oh My!
)....you know, the same party some have described as crooked politicians not interested gun rights. For the most part Democrats have been for the AWB, there are a few who want it to die...Zell Miller, Dingle, and others.
To play the game, you must first understand how it's played and know the rules....
Last edited:
Scott Conklin
New member
Might electing Kerry send a message to the Repubs? Yep.
It would send the message that leftist Dem policies on taxation, defense, society and the 2nd Amendment are what the people of this nation want. That message will tell the Republican party that, to win elections, they must swing further down the leftist/socialist path the Dems are blazing. A Kerry victory means a further leftist shift for the long-term policies of this nation. That means a good chance they will eventually achieve the goal of socialized medicine, UN control of US troops and the subjugation of US sovereignty to European control.
We simply can't handle a Kerry presidency and remain even the vague simulation of a Constitutional Republic that we are today. We can't handle 4 years of anti-gun legislation which we know will likely never be repealed. We can't handle a Dem weilding the full power of the PA against groups at home that are not politically correct and don't support the Dem policies of social engineering.
This election WILL send a message. It will be that either Conservative or Leftist goals are in ascendancy. While Bush may be nobody's conservative he does represent conservatism. Kerry OTOH is the embodiement of the leftist future. So you go ahead and vote for Kerry. Tell the parasites in the Beltway where you want the future of the country to go...I'll be telling them something else in spite of the fact Bush generally sucks on an individual level.
It would send the message that leftist Dem policies on taxation, defense, society and the 2nd Amendment are what the people of this nation want. That message will tell the Republican party that, to win elections, they must swing further down the leftist/socialist path the Dems are blazing. A Kerry victory means a further leftist shift for the long-term policies of this nation. That means a good chance they will eventually achieve the goal of socialized medicine, UN control of US troops and the subjugation of US sovereignty to European control.
We simply can't handle a Kerry presidency and remain even the vague simulation of a Constitutional Republic that we are today. We can't handle 4 years of anti-gun legislation which we know will likely never be repealed. We can't handle a Dem weilding the full power of the PA against groups at home that are not politically correct and don't support the Dem policies of social engineering.
This election WILL send a message. It will be that either Conservative or Leftist goals are in ascendancy. While Bush may be nobody's conservative he does represent conservatism. Kerry OTOH is the embodiement of the leftist future. So you go ahead and vote for Kerry. Tell the parasites in the Beltway where you want the future of the country to go...I'll be telling them something else in spite of the fact Bush generally sucks on an individual level.
"Why do I want Kerry to win, because if he does, and we lose our Rights as we know we will, then I will then know if this is an America worth fighting for any longer."
Does this pass for logic where you live? I don't get it. Isn't this country worth fighting for? What does Kerry getting elected have to do with it?
John
Does this pass for logic where you live? I don't get it. Isn't this country worth fighting for? What does Kerry getting elected have to do with it?
John
While Bush is definately not perfect, Kerry would the death nail to this Republic.
As a Conservative, both of the parties represent more government and the welfare state. As much as I hate to admit it I am voting for the lesser of two evils but we need to play a delaying game until the parties start representing our needs or they are replaced.
We are in a war now, and Kerry has absolutely no understanding of the world and or realize that terrorists are gunning for us for one simple reason - "We exist".
As a Conservative, both of the parties represent more government and the welfare state. As much as I hate to admit it I am voting for the lesser of two evils but we need to play a delaying game until the parties start representing our needs or they are replaced.
We are in a war now, and Kerry has absolutely no understanding of the world and or realize that terrorists are gunning for us for one simple reason - "We exist".
Scott Conklin
New member
Neither party will ever represent conservative Constitutional thought again. There is simply too much money involved to expect any major change in the Republicans and the Dems fundamentally do not believe in the origins of this Republic. We can, possibly, swing the Repubs more rightward for a while and thus achieve that holding action you speak of, but we can't waste it expecting to actually change them in the long haul.
No, it's time for another party. One that starts at the grass roots electing schoolboard members and City Council members and builds loyalty at the base. The "Libertarian" model of claiming to be a party and then running the same people for president repeatedly, without building a foundation and local loyalty simply doesn't work. But I know someone who is going to try and do it right very soon. Then we'll see if there is anyone left out there who will fight for this country the way it should be done.
No, it's time for another party. One that starts at the grass roots electing schoolboard members and City Council members and builds loyalty at the base. The "Libertarian" model of claiming to be a party and then running the same people for president repeatedly, without building a foundation and local loyalty simply doesn't work. But I know someone who is going to try and do it right very soon. Then we'll see if there is anyone left out there who will fight for this country the way it should be done.
Yuppers, the "The "all or nothing" attitude" will get us nothing. Just like it did over 200 years ago.
As for "not wanting a revolution here" attitude, if I remember right, it was only a small percentage that wanted the 1st revolution in the first place, and only a small percentage went with the "all or nothing attitude".
Which, by the replies here (and the not so hidden "you're an idiot" references), it does seem that most of all are big talkers but are not very good walkers.
The way I am seeing it, most to all here and other places are quite happy with the slow boil and will sit there with a big smile on their faces. Of course, this is just one persons opinion.
Since I don't know anything about history, then I'm wrong to think that when we did have a Republican President, House and Senate, I (and I could be wrong) didn't see ANY gun laws repealed or made better. So, we don't win either way and I've found that if something doesn't work, try something different instead of just doing the same thing and hoping that it will work someday.
What is one of the things that I always see in siglines and in posts here and other places:
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and hoping that it will work? Not a direct quote, but close enough.
I've found that when no one wants to do anything, but something needs to be done, that sometimes force or being forced must be used.
I didn't start this post to flame, or to anger. I started it for rational discussion on why I think (or my opinion) on why I hope that sKerry wins. It, in my opinion, may be the straw that broke the back of the road that we are heading.
I know what is at stake, and I know that both paths are not worth going down. One path will lead to hell, as will the other path, just at a slower pace. But I think that it's the time and I'm not talking bloodshed or illegal things, but doing what we've been doing just at a faster pace and maybe waking up the so-called 80 million gun owners and keeping them awake. At the pace we're going now, too many are either giving up the battle due to being tired, frustrated, or just throwing up their arms in defeat.
So, like a small percentage of people that decided to take the "all or nothing" attitude, we should do the same. Hopefully it will never take the course that the 1st revolution took, but if it comes to that, then so be it.
We all fear for our children, or those whom you take as your children. Their future is what matters most. Yet, I would rather my child to be dead, then to see them slaves (this is a figure of speech, don't try to take it any other way).
If everyone would see beyond their hatered of my words, then maybe you would see what I am trying to say.
I also would like to hear why I should vote for the lesser of the two evils. Why is one evil better than the other when both are on the same road, just one is in the fast lane while the other is in the slow lane. Why not vote my mind and my heart, why should I vote just to ensure that we stay in the slower lane but headed in the same direction.
Wayne
*also, I would request that we keep this civil. No attacks towards ones intelligence levels, against generalized opinions of people on the boards, or personal attacks, either outright or hidden. I just wanted a civil discussion about why I feel that I can't vote for either of the parties at this moment.
As for "not wanting a revolution here" attitude, if I remember right, it was only a small percentage that wanted the 1st revolution in the first place, and only a small percentage went with the "all or nothing attitude".
Which, by the replies here (and the not so hidden "you're an idiot" references), it does seem that most of all are big talkers but are not very good walkers.
The way I am seeing it, most to all here and other places are quite happy with the slow boil and will sit there with a big smile on their faces. Of course, this is just one persons opinion.
Since I don't know anything about history, then I'm wrong to think that when we did have a Republican President, House and Senate, I (and I could be wrong) didn't see ANY gun laws repealed or made better. So, we don't win either way and I've found that if something doesn't work, try something different instead of just doing the same thing and hoping that it will work someday.
What is one of the things that I always see in siglines and in posts here and other places:
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and hoping that it will work? Not a direct quote, but close enough.
I've found that when no one wants to do anything, but something needs to be done, that sometimes force or being forced must be used.
I didn't start this post to flame, or to anger. I started it for rational discussion on why I think (or my opinion) on why I hope that sKerry wins. It, in my opinion, may be the straw that broke the back of the road that we are heading.
I know what is at stake, and I know that both paths are not worth going down. One path will lead to hell, as will the other path, just at a slower pace. But I think that it's the time and I'm not talking bloodshed or illegal things, but doing what we've been doing just at a faster pace and maybe waking up the so-called 80 million gun owners and keeping them awake. At the pace we're going now, too many are either giving up the battle due to being tired, frustrated, or just throwing up their arms in defeat.
So, like a small percentage of people that decided to take the "all or nothing" attitude, we should do the same. Hopefully it will never take the course that the 1st revolution took, but if it comes to that, then so be it.
We all fear for our children, or those whom you take as your children. Their future is what matters most. Yet, I would rather my child to be dead, then to see them slaves (this is a figure of speech, don't try to take it any other way).
If everyone would see beyond their hatered of my words, then maybe you would see what I am trying to say.
I also would like to hear why I should vote for the lesser of the two evils. Why is one evil better than the other when both are on the same road, just one is in the fast lane while the other is in the slow lane. Why not vote my mind and my heart, why should I vote just to ensure that we stay in the slower lane but headed in the same direction.
Wayne
*also, I would request that we keep this civil. No attacks towards ones intelligence levels, against generalized opinions of people on the boards, or personal attacks, either outright or hidden. I just wanted a civil discussion about why I feel that I can't vote for either of the parties at this moment.
Hard Charger
Inactive
It is really funny to read that people have so little understanding of how our government works.
Ladies and gentlemen; John Kerry is running for president, not God. John Kerry will not be able to unilaterally disarm the American citizenry, like Republicans want to pretend. Typical fear tactics, straight from the republican party headquarters.
I remember one of Rush's big things was to say: "the democrats have nothing to offer but fear itself". That is exactly where President George W. Bush has taken the republicans and drug unwitting conservatives: they have nothing to offer but fear itself. All of a sudden, if Kerry is elected, somehow he will have powers not enumerated the Executive Branch by the Constitution. Kerry will have the entire power of all three branches of the government combined. Somehow, Kerry as president will be able to do anything and everything he wants, Congress be darned. Not exactly true.
It is sad to see that so many people have such a lack of understanding about the separation of powers that they think Kerry would have the authority of a dictator, because he wouldn't. The idea that Kerry could confiscate guns is really idiotic, but typical. The Bush-Bots have nothing to stand on, but some unrealistic idea of what Kerry could do.
When Kerry moves into the White House (a scary thought I admit) we then return to divided government. The Republicans go back to supporting limited government, fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and a balanced budget. Most importantly, they will oppose EVERYTHING a president Kerry will try to do. That is the way I like our government, divided and neck deep in gridlock. When they fight among themselves, they leave me alone. The republicans have shown themselves to be no different when in the majority that the democrats.
I am in no way voting for Kerry, and I don't buy this simpleton argument that a vote not for Bush is a vote for Kerry.
I seem to recall that a lot of people, gunrag writers in particular, were promising that if Bill Klinton got elected, the same things; gun confiscation, registration.... that are predicted for President Kerry would happen. It didn't.
The thing I am waiting for is Republicans to start discussing why we should vote FOR BUSH, instead of voting AGAINST KERRY. Think about that for a minute. It is not about what Bush will\can do, for we know the he will do nothing, it is about what Kerry MIGHT do. That is the weakest reason of all to vote for someone.
The democrats have been running from the gun issue. At least those that are worried about reelection are. Kerry pays the same lip service to the RKBA issue that Bush does. Kerry promises not to touch it, Bush doesn't do anything to enhance it. Kerry can do NOTHING on his own, he will need the help of the Congress. A Congress that got freaked out by the desertion of Bush by gun owners.
It can be said that just like Bush says he supports the renewal, knowing it will never reach his desk, that Kerry does the same thing to appease voters. It can just as easily be said that Kerry only votes for the renewal because he knows it will not pass, and he wants to get votes from that side of the issue.
Do you folks not see the similarities?
We have a separation of powers in our government, and to think that a president Kerry could just unilaterally confiscate guns, suspend the second amendment and criminalize gun ownership is really pitifully idiotic and a very long stretch.
I have said it before: I voted against Gore in 2000, I voted against Klinton in 1996, against Klinton in 1992, against Dukakis in 1988. The last president I voted FOR was Reagan. I am not voting AGAINST anyone anymore.
If the Republicans want my vote, they will have to nominated someone that I want to vote FOR. Right now, I want to vote FOR the Constitution Party Candidate, Michael Peroutka.
I would like to hear the republicans speak to why we should vote FOR Bush, instead of why we should vote AGAINST Kerry. I don't mean vote for Bush because Kerry might....... I doubt I will get many responses.
Ladies and gentlemen; John Kerry is running for president, not God. John Kerry will not be able to unilaterally disarm the American citizenry, like Republicans want to pretend. Typical fear tactics, straight from the republican party headquarters.
I remember one of Rush's big things was to say: "the democrats have nothing to offer but fear itself". That is exactly where President George W. Bush has taken the republicans and drug unwitting conservatives: they have nothing to offer but fear itself. All of a sudden, if Kerry is elected, somehow he will have powers not enumerated the Executive Branch by the Constitution. Kerry will have the entire power of all three branches of the government combined. Somehow, Kerry as president will be able to do anything and everything he wants, Congress be darned. Not exactly true.
It is sad to see that so many people have such a lack of understanding about the separation of powers that they think Kerry would have the authority of a dictator, because he wouldn't. The idea that Kerry could confiscate guns is really idiotic, but typical. The Bush-Bots have nothing to stand on, but some unrealistic idea of what Kerry could do.
When Kerry moves into the White House (a scary thought I admit) we then return to divided government. The Republicans go back to supporting limited government, fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and a balanced budget. Most importantly, they will oppose EVERYTHING a president Kerry will try to do. That is the way I like our government, divided and neck deep in gridlock. When they fight among themselves, they leave me alone. The republicans have shown themselves to be no different when in the majority that the democrats.
I am in no way voting for Kerry, and I don't buy this simpleton argument that a vote not for Bush is a vote for Kerry.
I seem to recall that a lot of people, gunrag writers in particular, were promising that if Bill Klinton got elected, the same things; gun confiscation, registration.... that are predicted for President Kerry would happen. It didn't.
The thing I am waiting for is Republicans to start discussing why we should vote FOR BUSH, instead of voting AGAINST KERRY. Think about that for a minute. It is not about what Bush will\can do, for we know the he will do nothing, it is about what Kerry MIGHT do. That is the weakest reason of all to vote for someone.
The democrats have been running from the gun issue. At least those that are worried about reelection are. Kerry pays the same lip service to the RKBA issue that Bush does. Kerry promises not to touch it, Bush doesn't do anything to enhance it. Kerry can do NOTHING on his own, he will need the help of the Congress. A Congress that got freaked out by the desertion of Bush by gun owners.
It can be said that just like Bush says he supports the renewal, knowing it will never reach his desk, that Kerry does the same thing to appease voters. It can just as easily be said that Kerry only votes for the renewal because he knows it will not pass, and he wants to get votes from that side of the issue.
Do you folks not see the similarities?
We have a separation of powers in our government, and to think that a president Kerry could just unilaterally confiscate guns, suspend the second amendment and criminalize gun ownership is really pitifully idiotic and a very long stretch.
I have said it before: I voted against Gore in 2000, I voted against Klinton in 1996, against Klinton in 1992, against Dukakis in 1988. The last president I voted FOR was Reagan. I am not voting AGAINST anyone anymore.
If the Republicans want my vote, they will have to nominated someone that I want to vote FOR. Right now, I want to vote FOR the Constitution Party Candidate, Michael Peroutka.
I would like to hear the republicans speak to why we should vote FOR Bush, instead of why we should vote AGAINST Kerry. I don't mean vote for Bush because Kerry might....... I doubt I will get many responses.
Scott Conklin
New member
We have a perfectly good understanding of how the system works. Had Bill Clinton not lost congress to the Repubs we would have seen registration, almost certainly bans of "assault weapons" and possibly attempts at confiscation. We would not have CCW in most of the states today. We got lucky. Period.
Now, if Kerry gets elected first it sends that message I mentioned earlier: Turn Left, to the Repubs. We'll lose some of our support in congress. Maybe not enough to be fatal but still weakening. But what if the Dems take the House and Senate again? Do you KNOW this won't happen? If so I need to rent your crystal ball. Otherwise it IS a possibility and one that WOULD give Kerry free reign to further the anti-agenda drastically AND expand the PA in ways useful to societal engineering.
Why a reason to vote FOR Bush? That message, again. And the fact that whether you like it or not there are only two candidates running: Bush and Kerry. Nobody else has even the remotest chance. One of those two WILL be president and if you do not vote Bush then you subtract a vote from Bush. It's a loss Kerry gains from, while you have zero chance of helping anyone else. So you send a message to one or the other and you help one or the other. Period. Those are your only choices. Until a legitimate "third" party manifests itself, which will take a decade or more of groundwork and base-building, that's the way it is.
Now, if Kerry gets elected first it sends that message I mentioned earlier: Turn Left, to the Repubs. We'll lose some of our support in congress. Maybe not enough to be fatal but still weakening. But what if the Dems take the House and Senate again? Do you KNOW this won't happen? If so I need to rent your crystal ball. Otherwise it IS a possibility and one that WOULD give Kerry free reign to further the anti-agenda drastically AND expand the PA in ways useful to societal engineering.
Why a reason to vote FOR Bush? That message, again. And the fact that whether you like it or not there are only two candidates running: Bush and Kerry. Nobody else has even the remotest chance. One of those two WILL be president and if you do not vote Bush then you subtract a vote from Bush. It's a loss Kerry gains from, while you have zero chance of helping anyone else. So you send a message to one or the other and you help one or the other. Period. Those are your only choices. Until a legitimate "third" party manifests itself, which will take a decade or more of groundwork and base-building, that's the way it is.
That agrument just doesn't hold up to me any longer. Just vote for the lesser and maybe it will get better or not.
America is at a crossroads and I firmly believe that a third party could win, if they were given the same chance as the parties in power. They don't get fed funds (our money) and they have to get so many signatures per state, yet the dems and the repubs don't. They are automatically put upon a ballet.
If the estimated 80 million gun owners could ever get organized and vote for that thrid party, they would win. But we are divided, the shotgun/rifle group may go for sKerry, the Handgun groups go for Bush, but no one goes with what they truly believe.
In the last election, which was by a hair, only 46 million people voted (and on this, I could be wrong, I had read it years ago). If 80 million gun owners were to vote for another party, they would win. They may not be able to do anything as president, but they could get more of us to vote our hearts and minds and not our fears.
As I've said, I know the risks, I know what may or may not happen, but I'm willing to take that chance. I have to vote what I feel. Voting is a powerful tool, and a tool that my ForeFathers have given me. I will no longer waste my vote unless someone explains to me why Bush would be better than ANY OTHER canidate that is running for President. (I put Any Other in caps because there is more then just a two party system).
Wayne
America is at a crossroads and I firmly believe that a third party could win, if they were given the same chance as the parties in power. They don't get fed funds (our money) and they have to get so many signatures per state, yet the dems and the repubs don't. They are automatically put upon a ballet.
If the estimated 80 million gun owners could ever get organized and vote for that thrid party, they would win. But we are divided, the shotgun/rifle group may go for sKerry, the Handgun groups go for Bush, but no one goes with what they truly believe.
In the last election, which was by a hair, only 46 million people voted (and on this, I could be wrong, I had read it years ago). If 80 million gun owners were to vote for another party, they would win. They may not be able to do anything as president, but they could get more of us to vote our hearts and minds and not our fears.
As I've said, I know the risks, I know what may or may not happen, but I'm willing to take that chance. I have to vote what I feel. Voting is a powerful tool, and a tool that my ForeFathers have given me. I will no longer waste my vote unless someone explains to me why Bush would be better than ANY OTHER canidate that is running for President. (I put Any Other in caps because there is more then just a two party system).
Wayne
MeekAndMild
New member
That about sums it up. What people don't understand is the difference between a liberal and a radical is the radical has no compunction about sending you and your entire family to the guillotine. So Bush is a libby? He isn't a radical like Kerry.
NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 11, No. 22
WILL YOU BE THAT ONE VOTE?
Not In Town On Election Day?
Want To Vote Early?
NRA Can Help!
History is replete with examples where a single vote, or a small percentage of votes, spelled the difference between victory and defeat in an election or on piece of legislation. Consider the following:
*In 1778, ONE VOTE gave America the English language instead of German;
*In 1845, ONE VOTE brought Texas into the Union;
*In 1878, ONE VOTE gave Rutherford B. Hayes the Presidency of the United States;
*In 1941, ONE VOTE saved Selective Service just weeks before Pearl Harbor was attacked;
*In 1994, a race for the U.S. House was originally decided by FOUR VOTES;
*In 1998, a U.S. Senate race was decided by 400 VOTES out of 400,000 cast;
*In 2002, an anti-gun candidate in a state primary race in Arizona won by FIVE VOTES;
*In February 2004, Wisconsin Governor Doyle`s (D) veto of Right-to-Carry was sustained by only ONE VOTE; And of course...
*In the 2000 presidential election, 537 VOTES in Florida ensured the election of George W. Bush over Al Gore!
These examples clearly prove that every vote matters. And once again, as this year`s elections are expected to be extremely close, it is critical that every NRA member and pro-Second Amendment supporter exercises his right to vote in order to protect our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Even if you can`t vote in person on November 2, your voice can still be heard!
Most states allow voters to cast their ballot early (either in-person or by mail). And every state allows absentee voting if you plan to be away on Election Day--November 2. To make sure the vote of every Second Amendment supporter is counted this year, NRA is providing a free service that will make voting easier in the 2004 general election. Working with HelpingAmericansVote.Org?, a non-partisan service, we are providing you with information about early voting and absentee voting options that will make your participation easier.
In addition to the information you will need to vote early or via absentee ballot, you can also use this service to register to vote, or to update your voter registration to reflect a recent change in residence. To access this site, go to http://NRA.HelpingAmericansVote.org and select your state.
Please forward this link to your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners, and encourage them to take advantage of this service to ensure that the voices of America`s 65 million gun owners are heard loudly and clearly in this year`s critically-important elections!
With so many examples of elections and issues being decided by ONE VOTE, we can`t take even a single pro-gun vote for granted this year. Please visit http://NRA.HelpingAmericansVote.org and make sure your vote is cast to support your gun rights.
WILL YOU BE THAT ONE VOTE?
Not In Town On Election Day?
Want To Vote Early?
NRA Can Help!
History is replete with examples where a single vote, or a small percentage of votes, spelled the difference between victory and defeat in an election or on piece of legislation. Consider the following:
*In 1778, ONE VOTE gave America the English language instead of German;
*In 1845, ONE VOTE brought Texas into the Union;
*In 1878, ONE VOTE gave Rutherford B. Hayes the Presidency of the United States;
*In 1941, ONE VOTE saved Selective Service just weeks before Pearl Harbor was attacked;
*In 1994, a race for the U.S. House was originally decided by FOUR VOTES;
*In 1998, a U.S. Senate race was decided by 400 VOTES out of 400,000 cast;
*In 2002, an anti-gun candidate in a state primary race in Arizona won by FIVE VOTES;
*In February 2004, Wisconsin Governor Doyle`s (D) veto of Right-to-Carry was sustained by only ONE VOTE; And of course...
*In the 2000 presidential election, 537 VOTES in Florida ensured the election of George W. Bush over Al Gore!
These examples clearly prove that every vote matters. And once again, as this year`s elections are expected to be extremely close, it is critical that every NRA member and pro-Second Amendment supporter exercises his right to vote in order to protect our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Even if you can`t vote in person on November 2, your voice can still be heard!
Most states allow voters to cast their ballot early (either in-person or by mail). And every state allows absentee voting if you plan to be away on Election Day--November 2. To make sure the vote of every Second Amendment supporter is counted this year, NRA is providing a free service that will make voting easier in the 2004 general election. Working with HelpingAmericansVote.Org?, a non-partisan service, we are providing you with information about early voting and absentee voting options that will make your participation easier.
In addition to the information you will need to vote early or via absentee ballot, you can also use this service to register to vote, or to update your voter registration to reflect a recent change in residence. To access this site, go to http://NRA.HelpingAmericansVote.org and select your state.
Please forward this link to your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners, and encourage them to take advantage of this service to ensure that the voices of America`s 65 million gun owners are heard loudly and clearly in this year`s critically-important elections!
With so many examples of elections and issues being decided by ONE VOTE, we can`t take even a single pro-gun vote for granted this year. Please visit http://NRA.HelpingAmericansVote.org and make sure your vote is cast to support your gun rights.
I have to say, based on the comments contained in this thread, Conservative throught is very divided about what we have and have not in GB as a second term candidate/president. To say otherwise is to be in deep, deep denial guys!
By virtue of being members of this forum and even if we disagree on 100 % of the "other issues" we can be considered to have a single mind on 2A issues. No?
Yet look and the open questioning and disagreement about this man's past behavior regarding 2A.
I am a Republican.
I voted for both Bush offerings.
BUT.... both of these guys have no idea what their voting base is all about on any given issue or feel secure in being able to disregard it.
I see too much denial about what W has not been, where he has let us down and too much glossing over of the fact we can't predict what he will or won't do in the future.
There is one good issue a play here however. Opposing sides on the Bush issue here on TFL love this country and want the best for it & our freedoms but, based on the issues and data, can't agree on what will get that switch closed. I hate to say it but both sides are right and wrong at the same time but we gentleman, cannot make enemies of each other over this man or his manner of doing his job. No matter what happens in this election, we will have get back on the same side and be of one mind 2A wise and we need to get there as fast as possible especially if W is re-elected. He may do a bad job with his appointments..... if he can get them at all.
S-
By virtue of being members of this forum and even if we disagree on 100 % of the "other issues" we can be considered to have a single mind on 2A issues. No?
Yet look and the open questioning and disagreement about this man's past behavior regarding 2A.
I am a Republican.
I voted for both Bush offerings.
BUT.... both of these guys have no idea what their voting base is all about on any given issue or feel secure in being able to disregard it.
I see too much denial about what W has not been, where he has let us down and too much glossing over of the fact we can't predict what he will or won't do in the future.
There is one good issue a play here however. Opposing sides on the Bush issue here on TFL love this country and want the best for it & our freedoms but, based on the issues and data, can't agree on what will get that switch closed. I hate to say it but both sides are right and wrong at the same time but we gentleman, cannot make enemies of each other over this man or his manner of doing his job. No matter what happens in this election, we will have get back on the same side and be of one mind 2A wise and we need to get there as fast as possible especially if W is re-elected. He may do a bad job with his appointments..... if he can get them at all.
S-
Hard Charger
Inactive
When the Assault Weapons Ban was passed, the democrats had the majority in the Senate and House of Reps. But yet, they only got a pitiful little, easy to work around, sunset in 10 years ban.
Please explain why Klinton and the Democrat led House, and Democrat led Senate did NOT pass all this gun control you are saying they would have.
Why didn't the democrats do all this evil gun control when they had the chance? The Democrats controlled both legislative branches AND the White House and didn't do what you are saying they would have. Why not????
Now, consider that and tell us all, again, all the evil gun control Kerry will do to the RKBA with a REPUBLICAN led Congress.
The truthful answer is, the Dems couldn't then, with a democrat majority in both bodies of Congress and the White House. And they certainly will not be able to with a republican majority in either body of Congress.
Dems da facts.
"Nothing to offer....but fear itself"
And no leg to stand on.
Can't you see the contradictions you are putting out there?
There is that little thing called mid term elections that occurs in 2006. That means Kerry could end up with a full 2 years of a Dem controlled Congress. The last Dem Pres that had that brought us the 94 AWB. Since gun control is (by it's nature) incremental, it's safe to assume that any future legislation will only get worse. Consider the subjectiveness and downright silliness of the AWB and you should have plenty to think about. I don't think an all out ban on semi auto long guns that are capable of holding more than 5 rounds is too far out of the realm of possibility. That stops just short of stepping on the hunter's toes.
I've voted Republican in every election since when Nixon ran the first time. I went door to door in my neighborhood and contributed money to help Bush II get elected. I won't be voting Republican this year. I've seen enough in the past four years to convince me that a vote for Bush II would be a serious mistake. We put a "Republican" (in name only) in the White House - and he's had 4 years of a Republican Congress to work with and when I look at what this team delivered I know there is no way I can help them get another four years. I'm voting Libertarian and don't care who wins the Presidency.
why I want Kerry to win
Given what we've seen from Mr. Bush, I'd like to know what he would have to do to "really screw up"? I can assure you, in my opinion he has really screwed up already - and not once but many times. He had a fantastic opportunity to lead and unite this Nation - and he tossed that opportunity out the window.
Why do I vote? Because I can.
Given what we've seen from Mr. Bush, I'd like to know what he would have to do to "really screw up"? I can assure you, in my opinion he has really screwed up already - and not once but many times. He had a fantastic opportunity to lead and unite this Nation - and he tossed that opportunity out the window.
Why do I vote? Because I can.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
Good point. The Republicans have had the Oval Office, House, and Senate for the last four years, and gun owners have gotten nothing other than some lip service from Ashcroft. What magical constellation do the stars have to take for the Republicans to come out with some pro-gun actions?
Besides, even if Bush 43 had been a champion of gun owners for the last four years...I am positive that I wouldn't want to trade all the constitutional rights violated by the Patriot Act for the right to have un-neutered magazines and rifles with bayonet lugs.
The problem with this country is that people are only willing to fend for the rights they support. Like someone's sig line here says, "I'm pro-rights...on gun issues." With that kind of attitude, it's no wonder that the enmies of freedom gain a steady foothold by simply splitting their opposition...fragmenting and polarizing the "pro some rights" people against each other, so they cannot mount a concerted defense.