[Scottmkiv]

Even though he still thinks we should have the assualt weapons ban, and should ban all private sales.

Vote for him!
He supports us gun owners

[Ironbarr]

Moreso - Kerry WILL BAN GUNS - he said so. He'll find a way.

[Spot77]

It's not about SUPPORTING Bush, it's about keeping Kerry's paws off my firearms.

[one45auto]

Were you listening to Kerry's comments on this issue at all?!? Did you hear his views?? Both candidates are going to say they favor a renewal, it would be political suicide not to. However Bush didn't push the issue, whereas Kerry has just said that even if there are not enough votes to pass a renewal he'll "fight" like Clinton did. You know what that means, don't you? It means he's going to arm-twist, blackmail, and bully every opposing senator until he gets it passed. Is that what you want? Let's be realistic, neither candidate is exactly pro-gun yet Bush is the first president since Reagan who has endorsed gun ownership via his administration. His Attorney General supports it. You can bet your backside that Kerry won't, nor will his appointees.

But no, you go right ahead and bash Bush. You go ahead and vote for Kerry. But don't expect to have much credibility when you're here on these forums whining about some new AWB or gun law should Kerry win the election.

[insidious_calm]

...actions still speak louder than words. Bush signed Concealed Carry in TX. What did Kerry do? He signed the original AWB. I think I'd rather have Bush for four more.



I.C.

[Rebar]

The critical point is, who gets to nominate the next supreme court justices.

Bush will appoint constructionalist judges, who will support the 2nd amendment. Kerry will appoint activist judges, who will rule against the RKBA. This is far more important than any AWB.

[insidious_calm]

What Rebar said.



I.C.

[Scottmkiv]

I'm not a kerry fan at all. I just think its sad to see gun owners continuing to support Bush, right after he says that private sales of guns should be outlawed.
Me? I'm a libertarian.

[tlhelmer]

The DemocRATS are so much better at allowing their candidates to compete in the arena of undecided voters. They allow their candidate to say things that they know he doesnt mean and still support him.

I believe that Bush supports the 2nd amendment. He did not push the AWB which allowed him to say he would sign the bill if it made it to his desk. He knew it wouldnt make it there. You dont have to vote for Bush because of what he said about the AWB. It did not pass and it did expire.
do you want a President John F. Kerry then just dont vote for Bush. They can still enact another AWB if he wins and pushes for the AWB.

[cslinger]

ScottMKIV,

The reality is that either a democrat or a republican is going to be president end of story. Bush has a record of pro-gun actions. Kerry has a record of anti-gun stances.

Kerry is much worse for gun owners than Bush.

Hell I really don't like either of them all that much but Bush is way better than Kerry on many issues and has a solid cabinet.

As much as I would like to see a third party win, if for no other reason then to shake the system up, it's not going to happen and I will not throw my vote away on an election this close.

I do firmly respect you for voting however you see fit. Hell I respect anybody who takes the time these days to actually vote.

Chris

[Marshall]

Bottom line is, if Kerry was President over this last year, there would have been a vote on this issue and there would have been a huge push to keep the ban! Under Bush, there wasn't a vote. Actions speak louder than words.

[P12]

Actions speak louder than words

Ditto.

Bush did a good job of side-stepping the issue.

But what counts is there was NO push. Unlike Clinton. Unlike Kerry.

I really think Bush's statement during the 2000 election was a shot across the bow. A warning shot for gun owners to get off their duffs and do something.

Guess what, it worked.

[Scottmkiv]

There is no doubt in my mind that Bush is better on guns. That being said, he is no where near acceptable to me. It continually amazes me that Bush gets so much support around here. If he follows through with what he said, there will be no more private sales in the country. In my mind, this would arguably make him the most anti-gun president ever.

[Akurat]

Someone who will leave our gun rights alone vs. someone who will fight "tooth and nail" to further impede on them. Hard choice.

I'll vote Bush, thanks.

[Scottmkiv]

This is my whole point. Bush is calling for new restrictions on guns. He isn't leaving the issue alone.

ETA: Here is his quote about it "I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don't get in the hands of people that shouldn't have them."

There you have it. He believes in background checks on every single gun sold in the country. No more private sales.

[Shanghai McCoy]

A couple of companion campain sloguns have come to mind:

VOTE FOR BUSH (he could be worse)...

VOTE FOR KERRY (he WILL be worse)...

[Dave R]

What is it the dwarf said in Lord of the Rings II?

"Small chance of victory? Or certain destruction? What are we waiting for!"

You are ALL forgetting the huge victory Bush's administration won for us in the early days of his Presidency. Remember the UN Council on Small Arms?

The UN wanted to adopt a resolution registering them or banning them. The (new) US delegate utterly refused, and the result was a very watered down resolution that just deplored gun violence. Had they passed the registration/ban language, it would've been a huge tool for the antis and liberals.

And of course, the Ashcroft/2A is an individual right thing.

Neither would have happened in a Gore Presidency.

The current choice is equally clear to me.

I personally think Bush only took his AWB position to try to reach moderates (a mistake in my eyes) knowing full well he would never have to sign it.

[RavenVT100]

I personally think Bush only took his AWB position to try to reach moderates (a mistake in my eyes) knowing full well he would never have to sign it

Look, there's no doubt in my mind that Bush probably has next to no idea about *** the AWB really covers. Kerry does, because he signed it.

Let's stop looking at what the candidates have said during a debate and review what they've done while in politics. For me, the choice is clear when it comes to the gun issue.

[blackdragon]

Kerry does (know what the AWB covers), because he signed it.???

He stated that a drug dealer had an ak47, and that is why we need the AWB
1. I bought 2 ak47s during the ban...because it didn't cover them.
2. A drug dealer is a criminal, and can't buy guns anyways.

So...does Kerry actually know the bill (and laws), and lied, or did he simply not read it, and vote anti-gun because that is his, and his party's line?

Both options show he does not deserve his senate seat, or the presidential one.

(btw: in debate2, he also lied/errored on why he never voted on the partial abortion and child abortion notification bills).


Keith

[bigmtnman]

Typical politicians. :barf: If at first you don't succeed, SUCK HARDER!:what:

[RavenVT100]

He stated that a drug dealer had an ak47, and that is why we need the AWB
1. I bought 2 ak47s during the ban...because it didn't cover them.

If they weren't automatic, they weren't true AK-47s. Or you have an FFA permit.

So...does Kerry actually know the bill (and laws), and lied, or did he simply not read it, and vote anti-gun because that is his, and his party's line?

He knows the AWB, he lied, and he wants to scare people into supporting a ban on "assault weapons," only the new AWB will most likely cover far more than the old AWB covered.

There's a very good chance you'll say goodbye to your ARs, for instance, if a new AWB shows up.

[Standing Wolf]

The lesser of two evils is still evil. I'm voting for Badnarik.

[Dbl0Kevin]

I've said this in the other thread and I believe it's important enough to repeat here:

Bush never mentioned a word about a gun show, he simply stated "i support background checks". I don't see that being such a horrible statement. As for the AWB it was obvious to me from his answer that he really doesn't support it. Couldn't you see the look on his face when he said "the bill wasn't going to move.....Republicans AND Democrats didn't want it". At that point it was obvious where he stood, but he couldn't outright say it or it would have given ammo to Kerry. The President basically believes that us gun owners are smart enough to read in between the lines unlike the illogical blissninnies. The fact remains that he was the Pres for the past four years and there is no longer an AWB. I for one am not complaining about his methods.

[GrayBear]

There are many people on several sites making a lot of President Bush's statement he'd sign the AWB if it were passed and sent to him, so he's "anti-gun."

Isn't that what he's supposed to do? This is a republic, or at least what's left of one. We elect Legislators to pass our laws. If any bill comes to any President, that's what he's supposed to do. The people elected the House and Senate, so it must be the people's voice, right? Maybe we've been electing the wrong Legislators, not the wrong President?

As for Bush being on "our" side, look at the record. I know for a fact he really is a hunter, at least for dove and quail. My dad used to lease game bird hunting rights for so many days a year on a ranch in South Texas and the Bushes' were co-leasors and actively hunted.

Bush's state administration brought CCW to Texas plus decent self-defense and property defense laws after Ann Richards vetoed it. I believe it was part of his platform, but I could be corrected on that..

The Bush administration directed the justice department to, basically, consider the 2nd amendment to apply to individuals. BTW, several cases were dropped.

On the AWB, Bush's people did not make a single phone call, write a single memo or "leak" a single anti-gun hint to any Congress Critter to support the AWB. This royally ticked off the pro-control crowd. Brady took out an ad blasting him for it. Of course, his statement that he'd sign it if it passed kept them from really blaming him directly. Just good old-fashioned Texas politics!

Hey, he's so much more on our side than Kerry is that I, for one, can't believe it when people state the opposite! I want to be aware of what people say but I'll be be more influenced by what they actually have done!

GrayBear

[Thumper]

Bush signed Texas' CHL law? Hell, he actively campaigned for it.

Important distinction.

[El Rojo]

If he follows through with what he said, there will be no more private sales in the country. In my mind, this would arguably make him the most anti-gun president ever.Ah hell, we already lost that one in the PRK. I might as well vote third party since none of this matters to me anyway. Afterall, it is better to waste my vote than vote evil right? :rolleyes:

I sure hope most of you realize that a vote for third party is a vote for Kerry. The way the liberal media wants us to think, this one is going to be close. It might be if we have people throwing away their votes on an impossible dream.

[Scottmkiv]

The theory that a vote for any third party is a vote for Kerry is fundamentally flawed.

First, I don't really find eitherof these statists to be more palatable than the other. In fact, if Kerry got elected, the republican House and Senate might actually find some principles again.

Secondly, because of the electoral college, only people in a handful of states have the possibillity of changing anything. I live in texas. Texas is going for Bush, end of story. It doesn't matter who I vote for. It doesn't matter who me and my 100 closest friends vote for, texas will be going for Bush.

Now, if I lived in Ohio, I had would have to consider it. Most people though, don't live in swing states.

[El Rojo]

You know, I will give the third party this, they had Ross Perot. He had a snowball's chance in hell. Anyone third party this election? None. However, lets not forget, there would have been no Bill Clinton in 1992 had there not been a Ross Perot. Bush would have won. So the question is, what did we teach the Republican Party in 1992? What did we gain from "waking up" Congress? Well lets see, I guess one example would be the always popular 1994 AWB and the Brady Law.

Are you willing to trade some more liberties by teaching the Republicans a lesson? Some day the feds are going to get wise like the PRK has. They are going to stop putting in sunset provisions. Don't be so sure the next AWB isn't permanent. Are you willing to take that risk in Kerry by voting third party? Are you absolutely sure Bush is going to take Texas? Will you feel any better voting for a guy that has no change in hell knowing that if you did pick the lessor of two evils you would chose Bush? Are you really voting your "principles" if you know your vote would have gone for Bush, but instead you took a vote away from the lessor of two evils and helped strengthen the worse candidate?

I guess you can vote by principle if your idea is to "screw this country up so it can get better." Wow that idea works great here in California. I can't wait for the sheeple to get so pissed off about our stupid laws they suddenly backlash. Oh wait, they aren't. They keep pusing for their socialist utopian dream. Everytime we give them a little, they keep going. Darn this theory didn't work. Oh well, we only lost most of our semi-auto rifles, pistols, and shotguns in addition to large bore target rifles, standard capacity magazines, a 10 day wait, and mandatory FFL transfers. No big deal. :banghead:

[OF]

No need to listen to the debate yapping. Kerry has voted for every single gun-grabbing bill he's ever seen. Bush's administration let the AWB die, changed the official gov't stance on an individual right to individual, told the UN gun-grabbers to go screw themselves and has not floated so much as a single anti-gun provision in 4 years.

If Kerry wins and the senate goes 50/50, Edwards will be the tiebreaking vote.

If Kerry puts a judge on the SC bench, it is all over.

Anyone who thinks these two candidates have similar records on the 2nd Amendment isn't paying attention. CLUE IN. You think Feinstein is the enemy? WAKE UP! Kerry will make destroying you his mission in life. How do we know that? Becuase it has been for 20 years.

If you give a rats ass about the 2nd Amendment, do everything you can to keep this scumbag out of the white house.

- Gabe

[Master Blaster]

I saw the debate, Bush supports Prosecuting crimminals vigorously WHEN they commit CRIMES with guns and giving them serious jail time.

Kerry supports keeping guns out of the hands of lawabiding citizens like you and I.

He voted for banning cop killer 30-30 ammo and all other rifle rounds on which was a rider to 1805 pushed by Turddy Kennedy. He came in from the campaign trail on the day before super tuesday after he told people that he was a hunter and a sportsman who supports the 2nd ammendment. .http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=1293715THE LIAR And his buddies right after they Killed 1805 the Defense of Lawfull commerce in firearms act with the rifle ammo and new AWB ammendments

[ProGlock]

These debates have helped reinforce my decision to vote libertarian across the board this year.

[BeLikeTrey]

Do me a favor and vote Bush for our gun rights. The only way a third party candidate is going to win president is when we have elected enough of them in mainstream politics like state offices and have enough of them out there to let the public see through legislation what they stand for. Don't waste a valuable presidential vote in this time. Do your best to get libertarians or constitutionalists into office locally and build a base from that. This election is really important. Please lets support the man who brought us the end of the AWB. Besides Kerry Says Bush did it! Don't you believe him? Really guys any and all votes would be helpful.

[ProGlock]

Screw the GOP. Where is the legislation to repeal the '89 import ban or the '86 MG ban? Hmmm??

Where is the legislation to give nationwide concealed carry to EVERYONE, not just super-citizen LEOs?

This country NEEDS the Patriot Act? Don't even get me started on this BS.

The entire airline industry is practically going bankrupt and wants government handouts. Why? Oh hmmm...gee I don't know....maybe people don't enjoy getting treated like a jew in Auschwitz with all the invasive probing and feeling up of one's breasts/genitals just to board a freaking plane.

Hmmm....the entire DHS and TSA came into existence because of our current administration. And you actually believe they've made a real (positive) difference? Here's a wild notion: let the PEOPLE protect themselves with the appropriate tools.

Neither candidate has touched the issue of Social Security. For many seniors, yes, they'll get their retirement money, but for people in their 20s-40s, they will see nothing. Absolutely not one single penny. Dems haven't touched it, true, but neither has your party of salvation (the GOP).

And btw, don't even start in with that stupid argument "We have to think about whose going to appoint the next Supreme Court justices". Stop feeding me this ridiculous %^@(*!@ line of BS! The Court dodged the Silveira v. Lockyear case and could have given all gun-owners everywhere the affirmation that the 2nd amendment conveys individual rights and not this stupid National Guard argument. On top of that, I have yet to hear any Justice announce their retirement. Yes, true, there is TALK of retirement, but that is all it is: talk.

[El Rojo]

I steal the following comments from another poster in another one of these threads. Basically, our opponents win by using incrementalism to slowly errode away our rights. Look no further than California for proof positive of this. First it was "assault weapons" now it is .50 BMG. They will keep going and as long as they can incrementally take away some guns, not everyone is going to get upset.

Many on this board do not understand the successful incremental strategy. The last poster stated that since Bush has not come out against the 89 import ban and the 86 MG ban, The President won't get any of his support. It seems some gun owners are not happy with incremental gains and they want it all and they want it now. In order to show the GOP that they want it all and they want it now, they are going to help elect John Kerry so they can teach them a lesson. Instead of backing up the President who let the AWB expire and who's administration affirmed our individual right to keep and bear arms and seeing what he can do in the next 4 years, we are going to help elect a anti-gun senator who has stated he will make the AWB come back. This is lunacy.

If you think the direction we are currently heading is a good thing, keep it going. Elect Bush. If you like gun laws and losing your rights, move to California, you are welcome here. I really don't want you here, but that is better than screwing the rest of free America.

Make no mistake about it, we are starting to win this war. it doesn't take a genius to figure out what Kerry is going to do to our gains. You might not like everything about Bush, but you should be able to support him because he did let the AWB die. Show him that it is in his interest to help out the gun lobby. What you are advocating is that we punish him because he doesn't do enough. That kind of screwed if you do, screwed if you don't attitude would make me say, "Screw it". I would then take the stance of saying how do I get as many undecided sheeple to come my way in the election, since I obviously can't do anything right for the gun nuts. Take a wild guess where the sheeple stand on our issue?

[ProGlock]

El Rojo:

Your argument to vote for Bush (ie: a vote for anyone else is a vote for Kerry) is also equally lacking. You choose to look at a single issue: gun rights.

The assault weapons ban expired. You believe it was because of Bush? You sound just like those Million Moron Moms who say it was Bush's fault that the AWB wasn't renewed. I guess you fail to understand the power and duties of our legislative branch.

I, for one, want ALL of my rights enumerated under the Bill of Rights ALL THE TIME. The Patriot Act can die a burning charred death, but no, according to your man Bush we NEED that Act. You also don't really seem to give a damn about the out of control spending this administration has let happen.

Well you know...I've found a better candidate and there's no way in hell that the GOP or liberals own my vote. Your own shallow arguments serve to provide me further reinforcement to vote libertarian.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Screw the GOP. Where is the legislation to repeal the '89 import ban or the '86 MG ban? Hmmm??

What have you done to give the GOP the votes to repeal that legislation? Hmmmm?

There are not one; but two GOP Senate candidates running for office right now who support both of those things. One stands as much chance of winning as Badarnik does; but the other is actually polling slightly ahead of his competitor. Have you sent him money? Encouraged others to vote for him? Do you even know his name?

Should that Senator be lucky enough to get elected and write such a bill, who do you want to have the option of signing or vetoing it? Bush or Kerry? Because Badarnik is not going to be elected - you could combine the LP vote from every election since 1972 and triple it and Badarnik would barely leap the hurdle for matching federal funds. He is not going to win in 2004.

You can speculate about what the Easter Bunny might do if elected because it is exactly as relevant as what will happen if Badarnik is elected for this election.

And btw, don't even start in with that stupid argument "We have to think about whose going to appoint the next Supreme Court justices". Stop feeding me this ridiculous %^@(*!@ line of BS! The Court dodged the Silveira v. Lockyear case and could have given all gun-owners everywhere the affirmation that the 2nd amendment conveys individual rights and not this stupid National Guard argument.

Speaking of stupid arguments, do you not see a connection between the two events? More than one person has suggested the NRA is deliberately tanking Second Amendment cases because they know that the result will not be favorable to an individual-rights interpretation under the current line-up of judges.

In fact, considering that the Supreme Court is the ONLY hope that the "I want everything and I want it right now!" crowd ever has of seeing gun rights restored at the rate you are demanding, I would think it is an argument you would have to take pretty seriously because the only other route is to get back the same way we got here - incrementalism.

Well you know...I've found a better candidate and there's no way in hell that the GOP or liberals own my vote. Your own shallow arguments serve to provide me further reinforcement to vote libertarian.

You vote however your conscience dictates. I would not have it any other way; but as a matter of practical politics in the current system, voting Badarnik isn't going to do one damn thing to get you where you claim to want to go.

[El Rojo]

ProGlock, I respect your reasons for voting third party. Where we differ is I am not willing to ignore reality and vote based solely on principle when I know it will not do a single bit of good, but will actually cause us harm. Either John Kerry or George Bush are going to win this election. There are no other choices. Period.

So you have a choice to make. Help elect Kerry and lets see where he gets us in the next 4 years, especially with his supreme court nominations. Or elect Bush who although has many flaws, but is clearly better than Kerry.

It is one thing to be shallow, it is another thing entirely to know what you can change immediately and what you cannot. Your third party vote for President will do absolutely nothing to change this system. Supporting third party candidates locally and building your base from there will. Again, incrementalism is the key. You will never get everything you want in one big package. Even the liberals understand that. So change what you can and know the difference in what you can't. I disagree that this is a shallow take on things.

[Warbow]

Bartholomew Roberts, once again, is dead right. Thank you from a fellow realist. :)

[Black Snowman]

A Lib pres vote isn't even an option in 3 states. Already we've a handycap in the presidential race there. Bush is getting my prez vote. I'm weighing my congressional votes and it's looking like the Repub are going to get it. State and local, every chance to get a Lib in I'm taking. All the state/local Repubs are antis. :mad: One of which is even pro confiscation :fire:

[Ironbarr]

By whatever fluke, Badarnik wins and named president in January.

Faced with a Republican led House, an almost even Senate, an existing top-down government structure - and - the shock effect of his win on those movers & shakers of the economy; those several millions of the adherents of both parties; those other millions of people, voters and non-voters alike who had their own perpective on the next four years; and those international business, government, and military decisioners both friend and foe - what's next???

Do what you will.

-Andy

[ProGlock]

What have you done to give the GOP the votes to repeal that legislation? Hmmmm?

There are not one; but two GOP Senate candidates running for office right now who support both of those things. One stands as much chance of winning as Badarnik does; but the other is actually polling slightly ahead of his competitor. Have you sent him money? Encouraged others to vote for him? Do you even know his name?


Yes, I am familiar with them, but you might find it surprising that I have not given the LP a single penny of my money. I have not given the GOP one penny either. Why would I wish to campaign for Senate candidates for whom I can not vote? Are people in those states so lazy they need others from other states to help out?

I write my rep and senators on every issue that is important to me. Not some stupid email, but either a fax or formal letter. All three of them are republicans. I do not always like their responses, but I am persistent and eloquent in addressing my concerns to them.


Speaking of stupid arguments, do you not see a connection between the two events? More than one person has suggested the NRA is deliberately tanking Second Amendment cases because they know that the result will not be favorable to an individual-rights interpretation under the current line-up of judges.


My arguments are stupid? Perhaps as moderator you could be a little more cordial. I tend to tie some level of respect with that little tag by people's handles here, but you can go ahead and start down that emotion road by calling arguments "stupid", much like liberals do when gun owners confront them with facts. Anyway....

So all of a sudden the NRA is the de-facto organization for which we all rely on some kind of political expertise? Are you for real? Need I remind everyone here again that it was because of the NRA that we now have the NFA of '34.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3653
This is part of official record. You can thank for the NRA for helping institute some of the very first, all-inclusive gun control laws in our nation.
Secondly, don't forget for a second that the NRA considers the value of money above the value of firearms these days. The NRA is NOT the organization it once was.

In fact, considering that the Supreme Court is the ONLY hope that the "I want everything and I want it right now!" crowd ever has of seeing gun rights restored at the rate you are demanding, I would think it is an argument you would have to take pretty seriously because the only other route is to get back the same way we got here - incrementalism.

I think you seem to misunderstand the arguments I've made here entirely. I'm all for incrementalism, and I think it's a great approach. So in other words, you're saying that 18 years is getting too hasty in getting the 1968 GCA off the books? Because that's exactly how long it was between 1968 and 1986. Yes, I know what the original intent of the '86 FOPA was, so don't start in on that, I know the amendment added in at the last minute was what did it, but nonetheless, it happened. So, again, 18 years....that's being too hasty? That's asking for a "we want it all right now?" What about the 30 years between the FFA of '38 and the GCA of '68? Is that too hasty also?

Do you see a trend here? Let me connect the dots for you. . . the GOP has NOT put in enough effort at all to restore the rights we citizens have LOST while on their watch.


You vote however your conscience dictates. I would not have it any other way; but as a matter of practical politics in the current system, voting Badarnik isn't going to do one damn thing to get you where you claim to want to go.

So somehow the GOP is going to do an about-face and give us everything we want now? Do you remember those general elections Hussein held back in 2003 and he (of course) won like 99% of the vote? So I guess because since he was the most likely to win everyone *should* have voted for him anyway hmm? Hmm...let's see.... Hitler (D) and Stalin (R)....gee which one should I vote for?

ProGlock, I respect your reasons for voting third party. Where we differ is I am not willing to ignore reality and vote based solely on principle when I know it will not do a single bit of good, but will actually cause us harm. Either John Kerry or George Bush are going to win this election. There are no other choices. Period.

So you have a choice to make. Help elect Kerry and lets see where he gets us in the next 4 years, especially with his supreme court nominations. Or elect Bush who although has many flaws, but is clearly better than Kerry.

When you can come up with a better argument than "A vote for anyone but Bush is a vote for Kerry", let me know.

It is one thing to be shallow, it is another thing entirely to know what you can change immediately and what you cannot. Your third party vote for President will do absolutely nothing to change this system. Supporting third party candidates locally and building your base from there will. Again, incrementalism is the key. You will never get everything you want in one big package. Even the liberals understand that. So change what you can and know the difference in what you can't. I disagree that this is a shallow take on things.

Alluding to the argument that I am shallow doesn't earn you any points of respect from me. I DO support the local candidates running on the LP ballot, and well what do you know, the LP also has a Presidential candidate running. This is not hard to understand why I am voting for him.

[RangerHAAF]

Bush is saying what he has to in order keep the barbs out of his back until the election is over; after November 2nd and if he wins we will see his true colors which are more conservative than a lot of people realize.

I think a lot of people are going to be surprised by him. He's not really going to care what anyone thinks of him because barring some sort of impeachable offense he'll be untouchable. Who knows, he might even show up at the NRA convention to thank those of us who have shown the most steadfast support of him. He won't have anything to lose and he'll be remembered as a man of principle, unlike another more recent president.

[stevelyn]

Bush will appoint Constructionalist judges who'll support the 2nd Amendement. Kerry will appoint activist judges who'll rule against RKBA.

As if Bush's appointments will ever get confirmed or that SCOTUS will change their ducking and dodging history concerning 2A issues even hear a 2A case.:rolleyes:

These debates have helped reinforce my decision to vote Libertarian across the board this year.

I don't know about across the board, since I think our congressional critters do a good job, but I'm definitely voting for Badnarik.

No third party candidate is going to win if voters don't vote for them.

[Dbl0Kevin]

Screw the GOP. Where is the legislation to repeal the '89 import ban or the '86 MG ban? Hmmm??

I think you need to wake up and realize that the government has OTHER more important priorities than spending an entire session having losing votes on gun law. Things do not happen fast in Washington and, though you may find it hard to believe, there are other more important issues to deal with than gun laws. The fact is that gun rights is not even on the radar for the great majority of the people in this country. In order to get things to move in our direction you have to be PATIENT and can't expect to get everything overnight. Bush has done the best job of this since any president in recent history. There has not been ONE anti-gun proposal that has passed out of either house of congress AND we have had a MAJOR anti-gun proposal taken off the books, without ANY pressure from the White House otherwise. In addition he's stood up to the UN on their "treaty of small arms", had the AG state the second amendment is an individual right, and has repeatedly asked for a CLEAN bill to give gun manufacturers immunity from frivolus lawsuits. I swear some of you people will cut off your nose to spite your face. :banghead:

[ProGlock]

Bush is saying what he has to in order keep the barbs out of his back until the election is over; after November 2nd and if he wins we will see his true colors which are more conservative than a lot of people realize.

I think a lot of people are going to be surprised by him. He's not really going to care what anyone thinks of him because barring some sort of impeachable offense he'll be untouchable. Who knows, he might even show up at the NRA convention to thank those of us who have shown the most steadfast support of him. He won't have anything to lose and he'll be remembered as a man of principle, unlike another more recent president.

If Bush is re-elected, I really and truly do hope that we can restore more of our rights that all lawful gun-owners deserve. I absolutely hope for this with every fiber of my being. BUT...that is still not changing the fact that I will not be voting for him.

No third party candidate is going to win if voters don't vote for them.
My god...that statement all by itself is so simple and straight to the point it's almost scary. My hat's off to you sir.


I think you need to wake up and realize that the government has OTHER more important priorities than spending an entire session having losing votes on gun law.

Ugh....if you would please go back and re-read my posts you'll notice plenty of other major issues about why the GOP has let me down.

[El Rojo]

When you can come up with a better argument than "A vote for anyone but Bush is a vote for Kerry", let me know.Nope, that is it. Cast your vote for Kerry and sleep well at night. We are not going to change your mind and I respect your ability to choose. Just remember, if Kerry gets elected, you forfeit your right to complain about him because you helped elect him. So be sure you are comfortable with a John Kerry as president, because a third party vote will help achieve that. As long as you acknowledge that you would rather see John Kerry be president, then you are consistant and your argument is valid.

Alluding to the argument that I am shallow doesn't earn you any points of respect from me.I was just responding to this quote from you.Your own shallow arguments serve to provide me further reinforcement to vote libertarian.Be sure you are clean before you start casting stones ProGlock. You started the talk of shallow arguments. Maybe you forgot you had mentioned it first.

[MP5]

Bush will appoint constructionalist judges, who will support the 2nd amendment.

I don't understand why people think the man who loves the Patriot Act is suddenly going to start respecting the Constitution, through judicial nominations or otherwise. (BTW, the Senate has to actually confirm nominees, so it's not all up to the pres.)

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Why would I wish to campaign for Senate candidates for whom I can not vote? Are people in those states so lazy they need others from other states to help out?

Maybe because a single Senator can't do much; but several Senators working together can accomplish more? Let me just say that I don't consider myself lazy; but I still welcome help when there is a hard job to be done. If you feel like you are doing enough, then OK; but I find it ironic that someone who seems to want a great deal of change in the current system of government doesn't seem to feel that they need to do more besides write their legislators in their own state.

My arguments are stupid? Perhaps as moderator you could be a little more cordial. I tend to tie some level of respect with that little tag by people's handles here, but you can go ahead and start down that emotion road by calling arguments "stupid", much like liberals do when gun owners confront them with facts.

Start down that road? Maybe you should go back an reread some of those posts and see where that phrase first crops up, eh? Those who want respect should show it to others. In any case, I think that arguing that Supreme Court appointments are not relevant is an incredibly stupid argument. You may not agree with my opinion; but there it is. You have a right to not be personally attacked, not to be shielded from all offense and I will be more than happy to give up that "moderator" tag next to my name rather than babysit those who are unwilling to take what they so freely dish out.

[So all of a sudden the NRA is the de-facto organization for which we all rely on some kind of political expertise?

Do you understand the contention that the current Supreme Court may not look on ANY Second Amendment argument favorably with the current lineup of judges? Do you see how if one accepts that contention, it would place a great deal of emphasis on appointing judges to that court who might give you a fair hearing? Can you see the additional connection to putting someone in charge who might be more willing to appoint those judges than say, a John Kerry?


I think you seem to misunderstand the arguments I've made here entirely. I'm all for incrementalism, and I think it's a great approach. So in other words, you're saying that 18 years is getting too hasty in getting the 1968 GCA off the books?

OK, so we agree on incrementalism.

Do you see a trend here? Let me connect the dots for you. . . the GOP has NOT put in enough effort at all to restore the rights we citizens have LOST while on their watch.

Do YOU not see a trend here? You complain about it taking 18 years to get from the 1968 GCA to the 1986. Let me ask you this, in terms of practical effects, which party is taking us in the direction you want to go? Republicans? Democrats? I know it isn't the Libertarian party because you can't take legislation anywhere if you aren't in a position to write or sign it.

So somehow the GOP is going to do an about-face and give us everything we want now?

No, they aren't. They will give us some of what we want now and as we prove a solid base of political power for them, they will give us more. If we are solid enough, eventually the Democrats will give us more too in an effort to split that base from the Republicans.

No party is going to give us everything we want now. However, of the two parties who actually have the ability to dole out favors, one of them will give us a kick in the groin and the other will give us some of what we want.

Do you remember those general elections Hussein held back in 2003 and he (of course) won like 99% of the vote? So I guess because since he was the most likely to win everyone *should* have voted for him anyway hmm? Hmm...let's see.... Hitler (D) and Stalin (R)....gee which one should I vote for?

That is a false analogy. In Iraq's case, your vote would not count because the dictator would determine the outcome and the election was a sham from the start.

Here in the United States, your vote will not count because the majority of your fellow citizens don't agree with your ideology enough to support it. No vote you can make in this election is going to change how your fellow citizens feel about that in the next three weeks. If you want to risk the chance that your vote puts Kerry in the White House, that is your decision. I don't think it is a good risk assessment myself; but it is already clear we assess things quite differently.

[CannibalCrowley]

Bartholomew Roberts If you want to risk the chance that your vote puts Kerry in the White House, that is your decision.Why do Bush supporters keep pushing this flawed reasoning? Only a vote for Kerry, helps put him into the White House. For many people such as myself, the choice is either a "second party" candidate or nobody at all. If Bush and Kerry were the only two choices on the ballot, I'd leave it blank.

[buzz_knox]

SCOTUS will change their ducking and dodging history concerning 2A issues even hear a 2A case.

You might be surprised to know that there is more than one judge on the SCOTUS that has come out effectively in support of the 2nd A, at least as far as they can and not have to recuse themselves. Thomas particularly has indicated a desire to see such a case before the Court. They haven't done it because the right case hasn't come along yet.

If Kerry gets to nominate 3 or 4 justices, we had better pray that such a case doesn't get before the SCOTUS, as it's a guaranteed death knell for the individual right.

[Ironbarr]

Not to hi-jack this thread, (we'll get this post moved if necessary), but I wonder just what kind of case would be "right".

My fear is that - one day - (if there were a spate of in-USA attacks by the supposed 25 Chechens (sp) supposedly crossing into AZ with backpacks) - there will be a need for FIRST first-responders as an on-site deterrent and/or LEO/Mil back-up.

Seems to me we should - must - be armed. I just don't understand the head-in-the-sand attitude of antis - at whatever level.

-Andy

[Tag]

I will not vote for Bush because of the Patriot Act and the Domestic Security Enhancement Act.

This man does not care about our rights, and I will not help him destroy our constitution.

[Ironbarr]

...and I will not help him destroy our constitution.And... Kerry won't?

[Gordon Fink]

Bush is saying what he has to in order keep the barbs out of his back until the election is over; after November 2nd and if he wins we will see his true colors which are more conservative than a lot of people realize.

Not necessarily. He still has to look “moderate,” so another Republican can be elected in 2008.

Republican apologists praise G. W. Bush’s “shrewd” handling of the “assault-weapons” ban and his “principled” support of concealed carry in Texas, but do they ever wonder if that support for CCW wasn’t just more “shrewd” politicking?

~G. Fink

[BamBam-31]

Why do Bush supporters keep pushing this flawed reasoning? Only a vote for Kerry, helps put him into the White House.

How is this reasoning flawed? It's the reality of how the system works. Dems blame Nader for Gore's loss to Bush the first time around. Being from the left, had those voters voted for Gore instead, he probably would have won.

[fds5116]

Here is the transcript of the question; my comments are inserted between the square brackets [...].

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, new question, two minutes.

You said that if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you'd sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not?

BUSH: Actually, I made my intentions -- made my views clear. I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban, [either you believe that Bush is lying for the sake of political expediency, so as not to alienate the gun-fearing-soccer-moms, or he really believes that ‘assault weapons’ do not belong in your hands or mine] and was told the fact that the bill was never going to move, because Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties. [So he expects us to believe that the congress-critters were against the ban? Come on, you, George, and I all know that the real reason none of them wanted to vote on the AWB is that most of those who voted to extend the AWB would be looking for a job on 3 November 2004]

I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks at gun shows [let’s make sure none of _those_ people have guns] or anywhere [so in a private party transaction, we must beg the governments’ permission?] to make sure that guns don't get in the hands of [_those_] people that shouldn't have them. [I don’t need to point out to you guys that government autocrats are defining just who those folks are – and it could be you or me]

But the best way to protect our citizens from guns is to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns. [Gosh, and I thought that John Lott showed that criminal activity was reduced when a small fraction of the population was carrying heat, and the crooks knew it] And that's why early in my administration I called the attorney general and the U.S. attorneys and said: Put together a task force all around the country to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns. And the prosecutions are up by about 68 percent -- I believe -- is the number.

Neighborhoods are safer when we crack down on people who commit crimes with guns. [Yup, that crook will be so dumb that he’ll mug you right in front of that nice police officer; come on, the reason that there’s never a police officer around when you need one is that crooks are not that dumb – you have to protect yourself].

To me, that's the best way to secure America.

SCHIEFFER: Senator?

KERRY: I believe it was a failure of presidential leadership not to reauthorize the assault weapons ban. [It was a failure to obey the Constitution to pass it in the first place]

I am a hunter. I'm a gun owner. I've been a hunter since I was a kid, 12, 13 years old. [Crawling on his belly with his trusty Purdey, no doubt] And I respect the Second Amendment and I will not tamper with the Second Amendment. [And he proved it by voting for all those gun control laws]

But I'll tell you this. I'm also a former law enforcement officer. I ran one of the largest district attorney's offices in America, one of the ten largest. I put people behind bars for the rest of their life. I've broken up organized crime. I know something about prosecuting. [Non sequitur]

And most of the law enforcement agencies in America wanted that assault weapons ban. They don't want to go into a drug bust and be facing an AK-47. [I believe that ‘most’ is an exaggeration – most seem to be neutral on the subject, likely because they knew the AWB was only a cosmetic measure]

I was hunting in Iowa last year with a sheriff from one of the counties there, and he pointed to a house in back of us, and said, "See the house over? We just did a drug bust a week earlier, and the guy we arrested had an AK-47 lying on the bed right beside him."

Because of the president's decision today, law enforcement officers will walk into a place that will be more dangerous. [Not true, no more dangerous than last year, or 12 years ago] Terrorists can now come into America and go to a gun show and, without even a background check, buy an assault weapon today. [Not true]

And that's what Osama bin Laden's handbook said, because we captured it in Afghanistan. It encouraged them to do it. [Argh]

So I believe America's less safe. [because of those of your ilk]
================
In my opinion, neither guy passes. Sure, one is the lesser evil, but hey, it's still evil...
Sauer

[GOV]

As gun owners we need to stick together till a better solution is available! Kerry is not the answer and neither is the LP. Divide us now and conquer over the next four years...The last thing we need is to fight amoungst ourselves! So, throw it all to the wind and vote for what is not in the combined interest of all. You think your pissed now!!!!!!!Keep the HARDHEAD and see what happends over the next four!!! Bush gets my vote hands down!!!!!

Steve

[buzz_knox]

The funny thing is that should Kerry get elected, people that helped get him in office by voting against Bush will be among those whining loudest about loss of rights, etc.

As for the claim that the incremental argument is shallow, this is the tactic that has achieved success. The everything now or nothing at all crowd has achieved a universal and resounding failure time and time again. We are in the position we are now because we failed to adapt to the enemy's tactics and use them ourselves. The death of the AWB is both a resounding victory but Ashcroft's pronouncement was the camel's nose under the tent that will have longer effects.

The guns rights battle is a war, ladies and gentlemen, and the doctrine of the one decisive battle is as outmoded here as it was in World War II.

[fds5116]

buzz_knox
"The guns rights battle is a war, ladies and gentlemen, and the doctrine of the one decisive battle is as outmoded here as it was in World War II"

Agree with you here, but (always there's a but), but it could work quite well in the case of a Demo President with a Repub Congress. Gridlock is good thing, especially when it comes to (taking away) gun rights.

Remember, it wasn't a Dem Pres who signed the 1989 import ban. It wasn't a Dem Pres who called guns "an abomination" (hint, think Tricky Dick). It _was_ a Repub Senator who ramrodded the Brady bill thru Congress (Bob "Brady Bill" Dole). It _was_ the former Republican National Chairman Lee Atwater who gloated that Republicans can afford to ignore gun people, who will vote Republican no matter what, because who else will they vote for?

I recognize the urge to vote against the greater evil, I'm just pointing out that the lesser evil is still, in fact, evil.

[fds5116]

A list of our 'friends' in the Republican Party:

Jim & Sarah Brady call themselves 'conservative' Republicans - She's a principal at HCI, now VPC;
Republican commentator George Will called for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment;
On 'Face the Nation' a few years back, Republican Jack Kemp called for a universal ban on all semi-automatic weapons (except for the police, feds, and military, of course);
William F. Buckley endorsed the passage of the "Brady Bill";
my own senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, republican, helped pass the Brady Bill;
Republican senator John Chaffee of RI who introduced a bill in 1993 proposing a nationwide ban on handguns;
George H.W. Bush (the 41st) proposed the legislation and implemented the 1989 import ban on semi-automatic weapons, which action arguably cost him the election in 1992, giving us you-know-who;
William Bennett, republican theorist and self proclaimed morality czar, is a constant advocate for victim disarmament laws;
George W. Bush (the 43rd) has said in public (as late as last night) that he is in favor of renewing the 'assault' weapons ban;
Republican Governor of California Pete Wilson who let the state level Roberti-Roos AWB pass without vetoing it;
The present Republican Governator of KaliFornia who is squishy soft on individual right to self defense, or even sporting purposes since I don't think anyone carries their Barret 50 BMG concealed...;
Republican Mayor of NYC and all-around-post 11-September-superhero Rudy Giuliani who did nothing to get rid of the Sullivan Act that disarms everyone in NYC (unless they are a celebrity or a big contributor to the party coffers);
Richard Nixon, who stated shortly before his death that the Brady Bill doesn't go far enough because, "Guns are an abomination"?
Republican National Chairman Lee Atwater who gloated that Republicans can afford to ignore gun people, who'll vote Republican no matter what, because who else will they vote for?

I know the list is far longer than this on the Republican side, and much, much, MUCH longer on the Democratic Party side. That isn't the point. The point is that "The enemey of my enemy may still be my enemy". These folks are not on our side; they are slightly less against us.

[OF]

I guess I'm not seeing the problem here. Is the argument that somehow Kerry is either better or equal to Bush on gun rights?

Maybe people aren't paying attention, but Kerry has the absolute worst record on 2nd Amendment issues of anyone, ever to run for president. Ever. He's never voted against an anti-gun bill in 20 years.

Maybe Bush isn't Aaron Zellman, but he sure as hell isn't John Kerry. Nancy Pelosi wishes she was as anti-gun as Kerry. Kerry is Chuck Schumer's anti-gun hero for crying out loud. 20 years voting to dismantle the 2nd Amendment and he claims to be a 'hunter and 2nd Amendment supporter' with a straight face. Schumer would kill for that kind of camoulflage.

If you want to make a point, vote L in local races where there isn't a clear difference between the R and D. Put L's on your school board and your local committees but for crying out loud, if W loses we are screwed in a major way. How'd you like Kerry to put the next SC judge up there? Think we'd have a shot at a decent 2nd Amend. case after that? Maybe in another 50 years.

- Gabe

[OF]

PS: Hows about this: Kerry wins, senate goes 50/50 and Edwards gets the deciding vote. Hello AWBII. Hello UN arms control signatory. Hello Rebecca Peters head of the Kerry administrations 'Assault Weapons Task Force". Hello ammo tax. Get the picture?

WAKE UP!

- Gabe :banghead:

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Agree with you here, but (always there's a but), but it could work quite well in the case of a Demo President with a Repub Congress. Gridlock is good thing, especially when it comes to (taking away) gun rights.

Gridlock is great if you plan on playing defense for the rest of eternity and like where the gunlaws are at right now. Not so good if you want to actually roll back some of the more heinous gun laws that have been hoisted upon us.

Here are just a few examples of how GWB has gone beyond playing defense to help us out:

Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_020507.html) - reverses 35 years of previous Justice Department doctrine on the matter.

Attorney General refuses to allow legitimate purchase of NICS data to be used for fishing expedition (http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/press/release.asp?Record=368) - Ashcroft stops grabbers from sifting through NICS data of legitimate purchasers to look for "terrorists".

Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day (http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/press/release.asp?Record=368) - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy

Signed the appropriations bill containing the Tiahrt Amendment (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200401270928.asp) that protects gunowner privacy by making item #4 the law of the land.

Partially repeals Clinton ban on import of some semi-auto firearm parts (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=599575#post599575) instituted in Summer of 2000 to allow import of parts for repair purposes.

Notice that the executive branch did a LOT more than the legislative branch did - mostly because we have lacked the votes we needed to push much through Congress.

Coming into this election, we know two things - we will gain pro-gun seats in both the House and the Senate. Here are two good bills that got killed in the Senate because the current Senate lacks the votes:

1) Repeal of the DC Gun Ban
2) Protection from Frivolous Lawsuits

Now neither one of those is a tremendous victory; but they both represent progress in the right direction. However, that progress isn't going to help much if we elect a Senate that will pass it and then elect a President who will unquestionably veto the same.

Your list of Republicans ignores a long list of Republicans who have gone out of their way to stand by us and help fight for RKBA. I hope you aren't suggesting that because 10-20% of the Republican party supports additional gun control, we should turn our backs on the 80-90% who want to help us out.

Your point might also be more valid if we were talking Republicans in general; but we're not - we are talking about a specific Republican who has a four-year track record as President of the U.S. and two terms as Governor of Texas before that to judge his actions - and those actions consistently support the Second Amendment.

Perhaps they aren't as strong as some in this thread would like; but there is no question that they are moving in the direction of rolling back restrictions on our RKBA.

[Ironbarr]

Looking to the future:

A Bush win (hopefully with a few more senate seats - SD for one) can give us four years of growth of our 2A/gun issues... growth we urgently need before the '08 onslought of the Hildebeast vs Guiliani/Petake [sp]/whomever - (I see no savior in the '08 world at this time).

The stronger we can become the harder for "those people" to change it back - short of creating major debacles across the land to say "See - we need to eighty-six the guns".

Remind yourself that, with arms, we are at the mercy of those who rule. The Second Amendment must not only survive, it MUST be known and believed as the saving grace to what we know as the United States of America.

Else we may soon be known as the Contiguous Area of Greater Europe (CAGE)... or worse.

-Andy

[one45auto]

ProGlock,

Look on the bright side, should Kerry win you'll have the pleasure of changing your screen name to "RegisteredGlock", then "BannedGlock", and finally "ConfiscatedGlock" in keeping with Kerry's policies and judicial appointments. Just don't expect any sympathy when you're complaining about the situation on these forums.

[Ironbarr]

What forums?

It's already out that the Kerryitis Kids intend to shut down the conservative radio talkers (Rush, et al) to get even for all the noise they're generating re Kerry. The bloggers who have also been a pain will feel their wrath too. After the 1st is shredded the forums that preach 2A stuff will be attacked, but for two reasons: To stop the "preaching" and to remove a communications link that could lead to - whatever. Well, maybe not in that order.

The old formula - divide and conquer.

Add this thought, folks... 4 or 8 years of Kerry would build a Liberal base strong enough to be followed by another 4 or 8 years of HRC.

I shudder at what I might leave to my grandchildren. We need these next 4 years!

-Andy

[GLOCKME]

All I can say is....

Thank God we have a President that will be the next President of these our Great United States...

Go W...:D

If you think Skerry is a "sportsman" I have a bit of Prime swampland for sale..:rolleyes:

[Roon]

Gotta say I sit here shaking my head at some of this debate.

Libertarian? Hell, why not go all the way, become an Anarchist.

I'm a pragmatist. Right now, the enemy of my enemy makes the situation work for me. If that person becomes my enemy, well then, that's another day and I'll deal with it then.

I mean, why create a fight when it can be avoided.

I reckon I'm just too practical. But I figure 95% of folks here are pragmatists, and I'll go run a poll to see whats up.

[Ryder]

I think gunowners have lead the way in building this country. I can't see participating in tearing it down so my vote is for freedom. It will not hurt Bush to send this message. Gore won this state the last time, Kerry will take it this time.

[sigman69]

WE have a choice....Kerry or Bush...maybe Bush isnt the best but he is alot better than Kerry on gun rights....so ANYONE that is voting third party...go ahead but we better not hear you guys complain when Kerry is in there pushing to ban on guns and other new stricter gun laws.....

[MP5]

The Second Amendment must not only survive, it MUST be known and believed as the saving grace to what we know as the United States of America.


That's going to require a major cultural shift before a major legislative shift. I think future Congressmen and Presidents will by and large keep heading towards the moderate, wishy-washy middle ground that gets them elected. Until there's a big cultural change where the populace comes to value the Second Amendment (and civil liberties in general), I don't foresee the federal government suddenly taking a truly strong, continued RKBA stance, regardless who's elected. Currently, mainstream America by and large seems happy to give up its rights (by voting for people like Bush or Kerry). We strong supporters are still a fringe, afaik.

so ANYONE that is voting third party...go ahead but we better not hear you guys complain when Kerry is in there pushing to ban on guns and other new stricter gun laws.....


There's a very serious pesonal moral question at stake: do you sell out or compromise your principles (like the politicians casually do) and vote on purely pragmatist grounds (the lesser of two evils), or do you vote your conscience?

[RealGun]

I am pretty certain, based upon some low profile gun politics in South Carolina, that LPers want Kerry to win in order to heighten the contrast between the establishment and the LP platform. That is a very high stakes gamble that I do not support in the slightest. It would take many years, if even possible, to undo the damage that Kerry could do.

I think what they want is to appear to be the only 2A ombudsman. I think that would be wrong, because the platform in total would not attract enough votes to elect anyone and would simply subtract the gun vote from real political influence.

I think what is needed is solidarity, so whoever is endorsed by major pro gun organizations should be the choice for those voters who really care about their RKBA. Those who think otherwise seem to me to clearly have a different agenda, actually disingenuous about their support for gun ownership rights as a priority.

I expect that after the election, should we be looking at a Kerry presidency, many here will not be so open about who they voted for, if they live in States that had close races that Kerry won by a nose.

[buzz_knox]

It will not hurt Bush to send this message. Gore won this state the last time, Kerry will take it this time.

Sending a message cost Bush I the country, not just a state.

The whole sending a message idea is a myth. Politicians do not see that you voted for X for a particular reason; they just see a vote they didn't get. Maybe, just maybe, you'll be involved in a poll where one of the questions fits your particular reason. But that's doubtful.

A much more powerful message is sent via a letter, where you can explain why you do things. But don't bother sending them to a candidate you didn't vote for. They are only interested in the votes they can possibly get, and if you are ardently pro-gun, Kerry has already counted you out.

[buzz_knox]

I expect that after the election, should we be looking at a Kerry presidency, many here will not be so open about who they voted for, if they live in States that had close races that Kerry won by a nose.

If it were a principled stand, then I suppose they wouldn't be quiet about it. But the feeling I get is that it's more about "I hate Bush" than anything. And when Kerry signs the UN treaty on small arms, then they'll shut up.

[riverdog]

For those who don't actually know how President Bush feels about the 2nd Amendment, read his interview in this month's "American Rifleman". He believes in the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, rather than applying only to state militias. "My opponent believes that the Second Amendment only protects the rights of state militias. I think that makes the Second Amendment meaningless."

I'm not sure how Bush really feels about the AWB, but I'm fairly certain he knew it would never reach his desk. Regardless of the political stand he took on the AWB, Bush has a significantly better position on the 2nd Amendment than John F'n Kerry. Kerry is the most anti-gun Presidential nominee in U.S. history and as buzz_knox just mentioned, he would sign the UN treaty on small arms.

[El Rojo]

There's a very serious pesonal moral question at stake: do you sell out or compromise your principles (like the politicians casually do) and vote on purely pragmatist grounds (the lesser of two evils), or do you vote your conscience?The real question is, if you vote for a third party candidate, knowing that if you didn't you would vote for the more conservative guy, and you know that your voting for this third party candidate is going to take a vote away from the lessor of two evils, aren't you really voting for the worst case scenario? Look at Bush I in 1992 with Ross Perot and look at Gore in 2000 with Ralph Nader, in both of these cases the third party candidate helped cost the other guy the election.

So if you know that your third party vote is going to hurt us and help get the worst case scenario elected, are you really voting principle and conscience? Yes, I guess you are. You are voting for the worst case scenario. Just be sure you understand that. I don't have a problem with some of you voting third party and helping get Kerry elected, just don't try to hide it behind "voting your conscience" when you know exactly what the result of your "principle" vote is. A vote for anyone other than Bush is a vote for Kerry. Don't try and argue that it isn't. If there were no third party and you had to vote and you had to choose one or the other, who would you choose?

[CannibalCrowley]

buzz_knox But the feeling I get is that it's more about "I hate Bush" than anything. No, it's about voting for a candidate that one can be proud of and respect. In fact, many of the people voting for Bush are part of the "anyone but Kerry" crowd. They don't believe in Bush's agenda, they simply want to keep Kerry out of office. Of course while doing this they criticize the "anyone but Bush" crowd for doing the same thing.

El Rojo Look at Bush I in 1992 with Ross Perot and look at Gore in 2000 with Ralph Nader, in both of these cases the third party candidate helped cost the other guy the election. Perot and Nader are not responsible for Bush 1 and Gore not getting elected. The lack of appeal of the candidates is the reason that they weren't elected. If they were good candidates, then Perot and Nader wouldn't have gotten those votes. Besides, many people were going to vote for Perot/Nader or no one at all. Bush 1 slit his own throat with "read my lips", you can't blame that on Perot or even Clinton.

A vote for anyone other than Bush is a vote for Kerry. Don't try and argue that it isn't. If there were no third party and you had to vote and you had to choose one or the other, who would you choose? That's incorrect on multiple levels. For many of us it's a "second party" candidate or nobody at all. If Bush was a good candidate, then people wouldn't want to vote for anyone else. If my choices were either Bush or Kerry, I wouldn't vote. I voted for Bush the first time and I refuse to let him fool me twice.

[riverdog]

I voted for Ross Perot in '92 and to this day I regret having helped Clinton get into office.

I'm voting FOR Bush because he's the best guy to have in the White House during this ramp up in the war on terror.

I'm voting against Kerry because he shouldn't be in the Senate, let alone the White House. The man should have "felon" attached to his bio.

[El Rojo]

So just admit it then CannibalCrowley, you want Kerry to win. That is all we are asking for, is a little honesty. Take responsiblity for your vote.

[Zrex]

So just admit it then CannibalCrowley, you want Kerry to win. That is all we are asking for, is a little honesty. Take responsiblity for your vote.


You are like a medieval peasant asking the first agnostic whether he worships God or the Devil. (thanks R.A.W.)

[Intune]

For many of us it's a "second party" candidate or nobody at all. If Bush was a good candidate, then people wouldn't want to vote for anyone else. If my choices were either Bush or Kerry, I wouldn't vote. I voted for Bush the first time and I refuse to let him fool me twice.
There are two options. Vote for Kerry or vote for Bush. Period. IF you think that Bush let you down (how?) then vote for Kerry, vote 3rd party or don't vote at all. EACH of these options in my book is a vote against Bush. We're in a battle here folks and the gunnie side needs some help so there will be at least four more years until the real poopoo hits the political scene.

[Zrex]

We're in a battle here folks and the gunnie side needs some help so there will be at least four more years until the real poopoo hits the political scene.

Do you really think a republican congress is going to start willy-nilly passing gun control legislation if Kerry gets elected?


By the same token, if a democratic congress is elected, what makes you think Bush will veto gun control legislation he already promised to pass?

[Roon]

Things are still unsettled over in the senate races... no automatic certainty.

I play the odds in politics, not the words or what they might have done. You want to keep a pol honest? Hold the fire to his feet every damn day... and make noise - a lot of noise! :fire:

[Roon]

I just saw the latest Swiftie ad, over at this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106163) . If you've got any doubts about voting against Kerry, you owe it to yourself to see this.

[buzz_knox]

I realized what I find most interesting about this whole argument is the following:

For the last 4 years, people have said that they would base their vote largely on how Bush handled the AWB issue. Well, now that the AWB is dead (and those who don't give credit to Bush on this issue are being disingenuous), many are saying "I still don't like him, so screw him." Too many people changed the target on this issue.

[Zrex]

Roon:


According to electoral-vote.com (http://electoral-vote.com/) Bush is leading Kerry 52% to 45% in North Carolina.

If this holds until election day, Bush will win NC. If voter turn out is like 2000, thats pretty close to a 200K vote margin.

Now, do you really think that it would matter one way or another for whom you vote? You could just as easily vote 3rd party, send a message to the Republicans that you are serious about freedom enough to vote 3rd party AND still have a Bush win.

[buzz_knox]

Now, do you really think that it would matter one way or another for whom you vote? You could just as easily vote 3rd party, send a message to the Republicans that you are serious about freedom enough to vote 3rd party AND still have a Bush win.

I know many people who said the same thing in '92. I'm going to send Bush a message because I can rely upon the country not to elect a draft dodging, drug using liar who went to Moscow to protest America.

How exactly does Bush know that your vote for a third party is pro-freedom? How does he not know that you're just peeved at him for some reason, but hate Kerry just as much?

A reasonsed principled vote for a 3rd party is one thing, if you are willing to acknowledge the responsibility that comes with any negative consequences that result therefrom. But sending a message? Please, send a letter and don't risk the whole thing.

[Roon]

You're right Zrex, I could do that. But even though there are a ton of things I think Bush has dropped the ball, especially on health care and the environment, I support him on the Iraq invasion, and don't want to turn over that mess to anyone else. So, I'm giving him a confidence vote...

and I'm supporting swing state gunners groups to action, as well.

[Zrex]

You're right Zrex, I could do that. But even though there are a ton of things I think Bush has dropped the ball, especially on health care and the environment, I support him on the Iraq invasion, and don't want to turn over that mess to anyone else. So, I'm giving him a confidence vote...

I respect your decision.

[OF]

Please, send a letter and don't risk the whole thing.Seriously. There can be no worse nightmare for 2nd Amendment advocates or freedom loving Americans than a Kerry administration. That reality must be taken into account in a voting decisions you make.

- Gabe

[one45auto]

A little reality check for the third party voters.


One person voting for a third party candidate in a close race will not sway the election one way or another. We'll grant you that. The problem, however, is that you have hundreds of thousands of people who each think the same thing. They each think that they're the only one doing it, that thier vote won't count anyway, and pad thier conscience with the mistaken assumption that enough people will turn out for Bush in order to save them from the consequences of thier folly. Think about it. They're counting on someone else to step up to the plate and secure a victory for Bush so that they can rest easy, safe in the knowledge that they "voted thier conscience." They're willing to risk the safety and security of our nation, not to mention the future of our Constitutional Rights, all for the sake of having the ability to proudly say that they didn't vote for either candidate. I'm sorry, but that's what my grandmother would have called "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

Maryland is an overwhemingly Democratic state. The voter registration here is two-to-one in favor of the Democrats. Yet each election year I faithfully trudge off the polls because it's my duty as a citizen. Maybe Bush won't win my state. Maybe there won't be enough registered Democrats swayed by Bush to give him our electoral votes, but I'm not going to waste my ballot on a third party candidate who won't win or sit on my behind at home hoping and praying that someone else will take my place. If nothing else, should Kerry win (God forbid) I'll at least have the satisfaction of knowing that I did all I could to oppose him.

Moral of the story? Don't count on someone else to do what you should be doing, because they might be counting on you.

[CannibalCrowley]

one45auto They're counting on someone else to step up to the plate and secure a victory for Bush so that they can rest easy, safe in the knowledge that they "voted thier conscience." Nope. We're screwed no matter which candidate from the first party is elected.They're willing to risk the safety and security of our nation, not to mention the future of our Constitutional Rights, all for the sake of having the ability to proudly say that they didn't vote for either candidate. Both candidates are a danger to our Constitutional rights, they're just dangerous concerning different ones and in different ways.

GRD There can be no worse nightmare for 2nd Amendment advocates or freedom loving Americans than a Kerry administration. You have a point about the 2A advocates, but not the "freedom loving Americans" part. Many would argue that Bush could very well be worse for those who values their freedom. His track record hasn't been too good so far, and he intends to make it worse.

[Zrex]

People learn best from their mistakes. If George Bush looses this election because all of the libertarian leaning Republicans voting 3rd party, do you think the Republican Party will learn from this? Yes. The democrats learned what happens when you vote for the AWB in 1994.

If GWB looses this election because of a strong 3rd party turnout, I guarantee that the Republican Party will gradually start adopting Libertarian philosophies. If GWB wins this election because all the libertarians vote for him, then what does he learn from this? He learns that he can keep promising gun control, he can keep introducing hugely expensive social welfare programs, and keep taking away our 4th, 5th, & 1st amendment rights in the name of Homeland Defense.

A GWB win may be a short term victory at the expense of a long term loss.



Here is a way to think about it. You have two choices :

1.) Take a job at a WalMart making 7 bucks an hour. Over the next four years, you will make $58,240.

2.) Go to college & get a degree in electrical engineering. Over the next four years you will "loose" $80,000.

In the short term you will be ahead by $138,240 if you work for WalMart! In the long run, the Engineer has a much higher lifetime earning potential. Short term sacrifice for long term gain at its finest.

Would you take a Kerry presidency for 4 years if it meant that in 2008 the Republicans were seriously PRO-gun, PRO-freedom, and PRO-constitution instead of just being NOT ANTI?

[Zrex]

Oops. Ok, I forgot about the potential openings on the supreme court. That is a big deal. Of course, if the Senate Dems are willing to fillibuster non Supreme Court judicial nominations, what are the chances they will do this to a SC nominee?

[MP5]

We're in a battle here folks and the gunnie side needs some help so there will be at least four more years until the real poopoo hits the political scene.

For my part, I don't reduce politics to a simple, binaristic question of pro/anti-RKBA. I love my guns and my right to keep and bear them, but there are many other major issues that impact me, my family, and the world at large.

He learns that he can keep promising gun control, he can keep introducing hugely expensive social welfare programs, and keep taking away our 4th, 5th, & 1st amendment rights in the name of Homeland Defense.

Exactly. A vote for Bush is just as clearly a vote against Constitutional liberties as a vote for Kerry is. As CannibalCrowley noted, it's just a question of which liberties you're willing to have axed. For me, the entire Bill of Rights is vitally important, and the amendments work in concert. Start chipping away at any one of them, and the whole edifice of liberty is in danger of crumbling down.

Would you take a Kerry presidency for 4 years if it meant that in 2008 the Republicans were seriously PRO-gun, PRO-freedom, and PRO-constitution instead of just being NOT ANTI?

In a heartbeat.

[buzz_knox]

In the short term you will be ahead by $138,240 if you work for WalMart! In the long run, the Engineer has a much higher lifetime earning potential. Short term sacrifice for long term gain at its finest.

That's a false analogy. What if during the period you are going for short term sacrifice, they make the long term gain illegal? That's what we are facing. You want a short term action that will have lasting, negative effects.

Yes, the democrats learned their lesson. More specifically, they learned to stay quiet and bide their time, waiting for the gun rights movement to fragment. That long term strategy is about to pay off big.

As for SCOTUS nominees, yes the Dems will filibuster Bush's nominees if they are in the minority. But there is a strong argument against such filibusters, and it's been gaining ground. The Senate is supposed to advise and consent on nominees, not stand as an impediment to qualified individuals due to Senator's individual litmus test. If Kerry wins, you'll see the Dems adopt this position wholesale. If they are in the minority, the Repubs will look like the bad actors when the ABA (which will support any Kerry nominee) and the Dems work together to paint any judicial candidate (even Clinton or Shumer) as a moderate. If the Dems are in the majority, the effect will be even more intense.

Yes, Bush isn't what we all hoped he would be. But he is the only viable alternative to loosing this war here and now. This election will, if it goes to Kerry, reshape the legal and political movement for decades. What use will the LP or Badnarik be when Kerry signs, and a Dem Senate ratifies, the UN arms treaty or a "watered down" version? What use will they be if Kerry signs the treaty and even though it's not ratified, it's considered customary international law and we are held to it anyway (yes, this is a real possibility)?

[El Rojo]

If GWB looses this election because of a strong 3rd party turnout, I guarantee that the Republican Party will gradually start adopting Libertarian philosophies. Would you support this statement by outlining the the adaptations that that the Republican Party made after their loss to Clinton in 1992 and how George Bush II is the new more "libertarian" candidate that was a result of this lesson that you claim will happen. Wait, if you are not happy with Bush II, then obviously the party didn't learn anything when the third party taught them a lesson in 1992. Your theory won't work.

And the main reason this theory of punishing them won't work is because elections are not won on the poles. That is the hard core individuals on the edges aren't big enough to worry about. Who is big enough to try and get their vote? THE MIDDLE! Yes, it is those undecided middle voters that win and lose elections. How do I know? I was a freaking Political Science Major and I studied this crap. The middle wins elections. Now there is an exception when you get enough people to leave the party they usually would associate with and they vote for a third party. Perot in 1992 was an excellent example. Some might say Bush wasn't electable and that is why he lost. Fair enough. What was the end result? Bill Clinton. Everyone raise your hand if you enjoyed Bill Clinton's 8 years in office?

The Republican Party isn't going to learn a darn thing if they lose this election because Badarnick or whatever his name is got 3% of the popular vote. You can look forward to Kerry ruling the roost for four years and you can look forward to at the very least an AWB II. If you think some RINOs in the house aren't going to give Kerry AWBII in exchange for some pork in their district, you are kidding yourself. We don't need to discuss the Senate because they already had enough to put AWB extended on the liability bill. Bush isn't going to fight for AWBII, he is done with new guns laws. There is a big difference between not doing anything and actively seeking to get something passed when you are the President. He isn't called he most powerful person in the world for nothing.

This is a dead horse, but lets beat it some more. If you want to reform the Republican Party, you are going to have to get off your lazy butt and do it where it matters the most, on your local level. You won't be able to do it by casting your vote for a 3rd party in the Presidential election. However, your ineffective means of sending a message to the Republican Party unfortunately can cost us all in the long run. 4 years of Kerry should be something that appalls everyone on this board.

But heck, why do I care? Why am I wasting my time trying to help out free America? Bring on AWBII, I doubt it will be any worse than SB23 here in the PRK. So vote third party! join California in our quest to reach the dream of a peaceful utopia where big brother knows best. Yes, free America, join us! Join your comrades in the PRK.

[buzz_knox]

This is a dead horse, but lets beat it some more. If you want to reform the Republican Party, you are going to have to get off your lazy butt and do it where it matters the most, on your local level. You won't be able to do it by casting your vote for a 3rd party in the Presidential election. However, your ineffective means of sending a message to the Republican Party unfortunately can cost us all in the long run. 4 years of Kerry should be something that appalls everyone on this board

Agreed.

You know, I'm through with this discussion. I'm leaving it with this final point. In view of the nihilistic tendencies displayed by the LP, I will personally not vote for any libertarian candidate nor or for the foreseeable future. I just can't take the idea of supporting a group that is so dedicated to the ideals of freedom, that they throw away opportunities to preserve and protect that freedom, and regain lost freedoms. I believe in ideals; I just prefer to achieve them through practicalities. I will continue to work within the system, converting anti-gunners to our side, and telling the truth to Democrats with the goal of converting them (goals which I've successfully achieved). That's the method that's gotten us where we are today in terms of momentum going in favor of restoring our rights. The "throw the baby out with the bathwater" has done nothing but get us in this situation.

[bogie]

Oh heck. Just vote against Bush.

And in 2008, after they've taken away your "saturday night specials" and "high powered assault handguns," and "concealable death machines," and "ultra accurate sniper handguns," and "cop killer sniper rifles" with their "cop killer assault armor piercing bullets," and your "multiple projectile street sweeping assault shotguns," well...

Then you can have your revolution.

[Zrex]

That's a false analogy. What if during the period you are going for short term sacrifice, they make the long term gain illegal? That's what we are facing. You want a short term action that will have lasting, negative effects.

Its not a false analogy, its called risk. Those people who are risk averse will always take the small short term upside, versus the large *potential* long term upside.

If you are risk averse, that’s ok, I respect that. Not everyone has an entrepreneur’s spirit.


Would you support this statement by outlining the the adaptations that that the Republican Party made after their loss to Clinton in 1992 and how George Bush II is the new more "libertarian" candidate that was a result of this lesson that you claim will happen. Wait, if you are not happy with Bush II, then obviously the party didn't learn anything when the third party taught them a lesson in 1992. Your theory won't work.

Why on earth would GWB be more "libertarian" because of Ross Perot in 1992? That doesnt follow my logic. By my logic, the Republican Party would have adopted and embraced and started moving towards the Ross Perot Reform Party.

Could this have been the start of the Neo-Con movement? Think about that.

[rick_reno]

You vote however your conscience dictates. I would not have it any other way; but as a matter of practical politics in the current system, voting Badarnik isn't going to do one damn thing to get you where you claim to want to go

Actually, voting for Badarnik will get exactly where I want to go - home so I can look at myself in the mirror and know I voted for the right person. This "lessor of two" evils is exactly the position that the Demohogs and the Repiglicans want to have. Keep believing it and nothing will ever change.

[El Rojo]

My apoligies, I incorrectly associated Ross Perot with the libertarian party. Yet my point stands. Is the Republican Party more of a "reform" party now? Did the lesson the third party teach in 1992 last all the way through to the election of 2000? Speaking of risk, this is the risk you are going to have to take. That the lesson you teach in 2004 might last all the way through to 2012 like the lesson of 1992 lasted through till 2000.

Now I will give you that the Democrats learned a lesson in 1994 when they lost control of the House and Senate. Many say it is because of the NRA and gunowners. That lesson still applies today. Lets stay the course though. There is no need to cut off our nose to spite our face. Lets keep this thing heading the correct direction. Kerry's AWBII will not be a good thing, for you. Again, I live in the PRK so it won't hurt me any.

Actually, voting for Badarnik will get exactly where I want to go - home so I can look at myself in the mirror and know I voted for the right person.John Kerry? Interesting revelation.

[Zrex]

Is the Republican Party more of a "reform" party now? Did the lesson the third party teach in 1992 last all the way through to the election of 2000?

I think I am going to stick with my earlier hypothesis that the neo-conservative movement is an outgrowth of the Republican assimilation of the Reform Party base.

Do you think Neo-cons are relevant in today's Republican Party? Do you think that they are influencing the direction of the party?

I would answer "yes" to both of those questions, but that's just my perspective.

[Gordon Fink]

The real question is, if you vote for a third party candidate, knowing that if you didn’t you would vote for the more conservative [sic] guy …

If I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I would very reluctantly vote for John Kerry. In that case, I’m sure you would prefer me to vote Libertarian.

~G. Fink

[buzz_knox]

Its not a false analogy, its called risk. Those people who are risk averse will always take the small short term upside, versus the large *potential* long term upside.

Well, I thought I was out of it but this is too funny to let go. Risk is the possibility that something negative may occur. In financial terms, a risk is valid if the positive outcome is superior to the possiblity of the negative event occurring multiplied by the

What positives do you foresee by third party voting? A swing of the Republican party to the right combined with a restoration of rights.

What are the negatives? Election of Kerry, extreme damage to the 2nd A and the other freedoms you cherish.

What is the likelihood of that happening? High. Incredibly high. Bush has, according to some polls, a narrow lead which could easily be lost by heavy 3rd party voting. Kerry has a declared intent to decimate the 2nd A., and most of his platform can be achieved only through heavy exercise of the power to tax, nationalization of large portions of the economy, and abdicating considerable sovereignty to foreign bodies.

As for the goal of causing a swing in the Republican party and thus achieving some "good" even if Kerry wins, the chances are non-existent. How do we know this? Because the evidence establishes it beyond a doubt. The Democratic party did not become more mainstream or pro-gun after 1994. The liberals (the majority of the most culpable members were incumbents who still hold their offices) learned a lesson and largely stayed quiet, working behind the scenes to achieve their goals. The fact that the Democrats haven't "learned their lesson" is established by the fact that the Democratic Presidential candiate is an ardent anti-gun politician voted most liberal in the Congress. Does that tell you anything about how effective "messages" are?

So, let's do the risk/reward calculation.

Potential reward is high. Possibility of achieving complete success is non-existent. Possibility of achieving partial success is effectively non-existent based on existing evidence.

Potential negatives are high. Possibility of complete failure is extremely high. Possibility of high degree of failure is a near certainty. Expenditure of assets and resources to preclude complete failure will be incredibly high, forestalling any efforts to achieve primary goal through other means.

So, given there is little possibilty of achieving a worthwhile goal but a high probability of failure, one would have to thrive on unacceptable risks to consider this an effective strategy. It is the political equivalent of trying to regain our rights by playing a solo game of Russian roulette.

[buzz_knox]

If I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I would very reluctantly vote for John Kerry. In that case, I’m sure you would prefer me to vote Libertarian.

That's interesting. Effectively, the only times he has broken from the President's agenda legislative agenda was to vote against tax cuts and for increased gun control. He voted for the Patriot Act and has promised to restrict it somewhat, not to eliminate it. So, he is further from the Libertarian camp than Bush, yet you still support him.

[Zrex]

Buzz - I would have used a different risk reward matrix. Seriously, if Kerry wins, do you really think a good republican congress will roll over and cooperate with him? If this is the case, then we are screwed and it is definitely time to replace our republican reps with people who have spines.

If Bush wins with a democrat congress, we are hosed because Bush will sign anything that hits his desk. Look at his record. Luckily this will not happen.


The best way to destroy my argument would have been to point out that the next President gets to choose members of the Supreme Court. That right there would be enough to swing me over, except I have personal and financial reasons for not voting for bush.

Lets just hope Bush doesnt apoint Statist thugs who think the Bill of Rights is just some old document.

[Gordon Fink]

Buzz, I don’t support Kerry, though I do see him as slightly less dangerous than G. W. Bush. If he weren’t such a coward, he wouldn’t have gone along with so much of the President’s agenda.

As far as the RKBA goes, at least Kerry will attack us from the front, while G. W. Bush and the Republicans will continue to give us the knife in the back.

~G. Fink

[RealGun]

If I didn't vote Republican or Democrat in the election, I would feel that I was kidding myself about having actually participated. Voting my conscience might have its appeal if there weren't a candidate as potentially dangerous as Kerry. The problem is that there is no third party with a platform that makes sense to me. The candidates that are out there are just warm bodies. The party faithful will vote for them regardless of issues or qualifications.

[Ironbarr]

Let's adjoin - it doesn't matter.

If Kerry/Edwards win, don't worry. They will fall into their habit of non-attendance. The Sequoia will be recommisioned as the presidential yacht and Kerry will be out of the White House cruising around the Med chatting with his High Foreign Officials. Edwards will be ghost-writing for other lawyers his methodology for gaining large wins from big business.

There won't be anything congress can do since no one will be around to sign things. It'll be a caretaker government at the top... whether or not there will be some very wild department regulations will depend on who Kerry hires.

Except for caring about my progeny and what they will face - and what I will face when they realize I didn't warn them forcefully enough - I can now sit back, kick up, pour a bourbon to go with my chocolate cake, and just relish the big gov't programs that are then taking care of me.

Of course, to be "taken care of" I'd probably be asked - ever so nicely - to turn in all my firesticks. Sure glad I off-loaded my SUV.

Well, this has been an enlightening discussion.

Thanks.

.-.-.

-Andy