[Jeeper]

I have always been a person who votes for basically "the lesser of the evils". I think that if GW upholds this AW ban then I will vote aginst him no matter who is running. I think that if we continue to support people who do not share our agenda then we are losing power. If he rep's loose due to not supporting the NRA and such then maybe our agenda will be heard next time around. It might cause 4 years of crappy laws but in the long run we might be better off.

Any thoughts

[Mike Irwin]

"Vote against him no matter who is running..."

Sure...

I'm going to vote for Chuck Schumer...

Or Hillary...

Thanks. No thanks.

If the AW ban is upheld, it will essentially because we as gun owners weren't effective enough in contacting our members of Congress.

[CZ-75]

The alternative is that your vote, while not going to a leftist gun-hater, will be expended on a third party candidate who can only "show" (as opposed to "win" and "place") in the race. We get the next Bill Klinton or worse, who then decides that you should turn in all semi-auto rifles with detachable mags at a government regulated price and that 10 rounds is still too many.

We're fighting a holding action, rather than trying for absolute victory, unfortunately. I'm not sure we can afford 4 years of someone who thinks America "heard his message," when that message includes support for gun control, as I speculate that most to all demokrats will include as a plank in their platforms.

[KMKeller]

Bush is playing the middle ground trying to convert some swing votes before the next election cycle. He know darn skippy that it will be difficult for the ban to renew given the majorities in the House and Senate. He's banking that it will never reach his desk and I'd be willing to bet that he's received at least cursory verification that it won't.

[CZ-75]

I'm sure hoping he's playing lip service to what he knows to be an improbability.

I do think that the fact that this ban must be actively renewed plays into the Republicans hands rather than having to vote to overturn existing legislation. Let is get studied, then die in commitee.

[Derek Zeanah]

If the AW ban is upheld, it will essentially because we as gun owners weren't effective enough in contacting our members of Congress.You could view it that way, or you could view it as the Republican party thinking the gun vote isn't worth pursuing because we're locked in to voting Republican. That leaves them free to court the "middle" looking for votes.

I like to hope for a future where the Libertarian party can pull 8-10% of the vote -- enough that the republicans can see the advantage of pulling toward our side of the fence on issues.

[Waitone]

Bush is playing the middle ground trying to convert some swing votes before the next election cycle. He know darn skippy that it will be difficult for the ban to renew given the majorities in the House and Senate. He's banking that it will never reach his desk and I'd be willing to bet that he's received at least cursory verification that it won't. And that is precisely the strategy he used during the Campaign finance control debate. He counted on his threat to sign the bill as a way to insert some steel in the spines of republicans. He failed. He miscalculated the moral cowardice of the republican party.

At this point I can only conclude the republican party in general and Bush in particular believe in nothing.

[CZ-75]

I'd like to vote Libertarian, but considering how badly they did when I voted and encouraged others to vote their slate for the gubernatiorial elections around here, I'm loathe to vote for a cause that loses us ground on RKBA issues. You may argue that this is a gambit and that it will pay dividends, but I'm not sure I can afford to wait for the payoff.

[Ian]

If Bush passes a new (and probably worse) AW ban, you'll have four choices:

1) Vote for him (or his Republican replacement) anyway. A slow death of freedom beats a fast one, I suppose. Keep mailing Congress-critters and telling them how they should do what you want even though they're guaranteed your vote anyway.

2) Vote for his major Democratic opponent. To use the slowly-boiled-frog metaphor, maybe more people will wake up to the problems with our government if we let a Dem crank the heat up faster. Let people simmer under an even faster-growing socio-fascist state, and then do your best to convince them that they should give freedom a chance.

3) Vote for a Libertarian (or other 3rd party candidate). Demonstrate that you will vote for a real pro-freedom candidate even if they are not likely to win. Show the Dems and the 'Pubs that your vote really is conditional upon them doing what you want. Maybe scare them into loosening government reins a bit.

4) Don't vote (at least not in Federal races). Work hard to bring actual freedom to yourself at the state and local levels, since you have no effective say at the national level anyway.

None of those look too appealing, do they? I'm probably in the fourth category myself, mostly by default. :(

[Derek Zeanah]

You may argue that this is a gambit and that it will pay dividends, but I'm not sure I can afford to wait for the payoff.The only real shift in the political stances of the parties in the US was IIRC William Jennings Bryan -- started his own (communist?) party that gathered enough of the vote that the Democrats shifted their platform to encompass his goals. Didn't work well for Bryan, but his goals became accepted.

This is from memory, BTW -- it's been ten years since I looked at the issue (briefly) and I'm too lazy to look it up. Feel free to correct me. :)

Anyway, draw enough of the vote from the bi-parties, and you'll get a reaction. Hell, the margin in that last presidential election was pretty thin...

[Sam Adams]

Ian, you forgot the 5th choice - you know, the one taken by braver souls than we about 227 years ago. I sincerely hope that this can be avoided - forever.

I voted against Bush 41 because of the import ban he imposed in '89, as well as letting Saddam not merely survive, but massacre hundreds of thousands. Regrettably, we got Clinton instead. Looking back on it, I honestly don't know which was worse. Clinton pushed through some awfully bad gun laws (among a host of other crud), but did get his own party out of the House for the 1st time in 40 years. Of course, the Pubbies didn't do much with that gift, so I question its value. Next time around, IF the AWB gets renewed, I will probably stay home. I can't stomach voting for a Dem again (once is more than enough).

[CZ-75]

I don't think the "boy orrator of the Platte" was ever a communist, but "populist" would be accurate, which is connotative of being toward the left. All I remember was his statement that "mankind shall not be crucified on a cross of gold" or some such in favor of a silver standard in the 1896 presidential election.

Interesting that he was a Christian fundamentalist (Snopes trial), which we associate with the right today.

[Ebbtide]

I hate to say it, or dare indicate this is true, but with the exception of a insignificant number of people no one really cares about the assult weapons ban.

And for the short sighted, I will vote more than one issue next election as there are plenty of other important issues on the table.

However, I do understand the frustration.

Sam Adams,

Looking back on it, I honestly don't know which was worse.

Are you serious? A Bush vs. Clinton thread would be interesting.


ehenz