[mohican]

Forgive me for this rambling post

I had this going on another BB

I brought it up after GW said he would sign an extension of the "assault weapon bill" and not let it sunset.

Of course, there were the "now the gun owners will leave the republicans, and a Dem will be back in as president in 2005.

It could happen. Everyone knows GW's slim 2000 victory. Could this be the equivalent of "no new taxes"?

Could this end his approval rating?

I just don't know. I don't see a Perot on the horizon. In fact, Sharpton could be a Perot to the Dems in 2004. Al Sharpton is loudly singing R-E-S-P-E-C-T and if he doesn't get it, he is threatening to splinter the dems. And the black vote might follow Sharpton.

But back to the title of this thread. Suppose gun owners vote libertarian or similar, and Bush loses. If a dem lands in the white house, could we last 4 or 8 years? Can conservatives maintain enough congressional control to at least gridlock everything?

When the repubs swept in in 94 with the "contract for america" they didn't get anywhere because clinton threatened to veto everything, and the repubs them were squeamish about gridlock. I strongly criticize them for that. When clinton wouldn't sign newt's budget and they briefly gridlocked, some national parks closed briefly. there was a media howl, (I didn't see any mass demonstrations, however) and the repubs caved, and basically caved everytime clinton threatened veto.

In light of that, gridlock is good.

Currently, gridlock is the democrat weapon. How many Judges has GW had appointed? The Dems now are a minority, and for goodness sakes, they are gridlocking congress. Conservatives need to stop being so squeemish and image conscious. I think Sanatorum will be the litmus test. If they Dems force Sanatorum out, I think the repubs are done, maybe not as far as getting re-elected, but as an effective force.

Like him or hate him, Ronnie Reagan knew how to do what the dems are doing - take it to the press and people to get what you want. Look what he accomplished with both house and senate being democrats. Clinton had that page from the playbook. Wake up!!

Can we last 4-8 years? Your thoughts please.

[priv8ter]

You raise a good question, and I wish I could give you a nice, happy answer. But, you raise some of the same questions that are in my mind.

In fact, I see a future even darker and bleaker than yours, because in my future, G.W. won't be the only republican to suffer the gun owner's wrath...all the RINO's that support the ban will fall also, giving the Demorats complete control...

That would be bad, and I think things would get very bad indeed in a relatively short time.

But, what are we supposed to do...keep voting for the Republican's even when they don't support our wishes?

In my case, it will mean just another case of 'throwing' my vote away for the Libertarians.

Greg

[Hkmp5sd]

It's time we overcame the "lesser of two evils" mentality. Reagan banned guns with the '86 Machinegun Ban. Bush (41) implemented the '89 "Non-Sporting" import ban. Clinton gave us the '94 AW ban (which Bush (41) would have also signed had he been reelected). Bush (43) has stated he will sign a new AW ban.

In that regard, I don't see any benefit of having a republican president in office. By supporting pro-gun senators and congressmen, we can minimize the odds of new anti-gun laws making it to the president for signature.

The only way to get republican presidents to oppose new gun bans is to not let them get away with signing these bans without any concern about losing the pro-gun vote.

The massive losses the democrats incurred in the 1994 elections that were held right after the AW ban was approved, put the fear of God in them. In the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections, the democrats did not push the anti-gun issue because of that fear.

It may be time for the republicans to learn that same lesson.

[Gordon Fink]

Suppose gun owners vote libertarian or similar, and Bush loses. If a dem lands in the white house, could we last 4 or 8 years?

In the 2000 election, Bush and Gore received about 50 million and 51 million votes, respectively. If 80 million gun owners voted Libertarian in the next election, then we would have a Libertarian president!

Of course, that’s not going to happen. :(

~G. Fink

[Standing Wolf]

Like him or hate him, Ronnie Reagan knew how to do what the dems are doing - take it to the press and people to get what you want.

Ronald Reagan had more political sense than any president since.

I keep waiting for the Republicans to stand up and fight. They keep sending me solicitations for contributions, but they're not getting a shiny Truman dime out of me until I see some evidence that they've got back bones.

I've been sending my contributions to the N.R.A. and G.O.A. instead.

[HankB]

There's a reason Republicans are called "The Stupid Party."

After a MASSIVE victory thanks to the Contract With America, the GOP started backing away from it . . . and they kept losing seats over the next few election cycles. Stupid to abandon a winning strategy.

...gridlock is the democrat weapon. How many Judges has GW had appointed?...

This is a sore spot . . . when Dems decided to filibuster Bush nominees, I thought we'd get to see a scene like the one in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" but the GOP is allowing breaks and recesses to go easy on the dems. Stupid.

And now rumors are that GWB wants to cost the GOP the White House and both houses of Congress by backing renewal of the Clinton Gun Ban. Heck, his daddy learned that when you screw gun owners you lose their votes, yet he's thinking of doing the same? And after analysts on BOTH sides of the aisle said gun owners gave Bush states like Tennessee, putting him over the top in the last election? Stupid.

If the Clinton ban is renewed, it will ONLY be because of the GOP Senate, the GOP House, and the GOP president. This is a litmus test. Renewed, no GOP vote - at any level - from my household. Defeat the renewal, and a lot of GOP candidates will get our votes.

[amprecon]

The two primary political parties are the Democrats and the Republicrats.

I'm thinking of re-registering as a Reform Party, Libertarian or Constitutionalist.

[ahadams]

there are not enough *voting* gun owners (note how I phrased that - I'm convinced over half of all gun owners I've met NEVER vote - just talk) to elect anybody.

yep - you vote for a libertarian you might as well vote for a socialist - 'cause with the demoncrats that's what you'll get.

Note also that as a conservative Christian I cannot morally vote for any party that supports abortion and I (and others) will be certain to remind all of our friends and acquaintances of that. Now maybe if you could find another pro-gun, antiabortion party, that had ever elected anyone to federal office, some of us might consider it, but I don't see *that* happening anytime soon either.

The above being the case, I'd bet that within 12 years (yeah we might last 8, but...) someone like algore or nancy pelosi would call for UN support to aid in disarming us, and then you know where that goes....

So if we can deal with the republicans, we can hold this thing together, but otherwise...

just my 2 cents' worth,

[Monkeyleg]

First off, the Republicans didn't lose to Clinton because of the Contract with America. They lost because he stole most of the points of the contract and made them his own. I guess when you have no guiding philosophy, you glom on to the one that's most popular at the moment.

I was watching Dick Morris on Fox last night (hard to do while eating), and he did make some good points. Historically, no party has been able to hold the White House for more than two terms. (FDR the exception). Eisenhower couldn't get Nixon elected, Johnson inherited the White House but couldn't get Humphrey elected, Nixon left but couldn't get Ford back in, Reagan held two terms but couldn't get Bush 41 back in, and of course even Clinton couldn't get Gore elected. If history holds true, that's scarey.

Eight years just may be the maximum attention span of the American public. Add to that the looming demographic changes of now-young super-predators reaching their peak crime years, and you could see a call for much more gun control as these little sociopaths wreak a heretofore unheard of level of violence.

Clinton I seized the crime issue from Bush Sr. by framing it in terms of gun control. Clinton II (aka the Shrieking Shrew) will seize upon anything, even her own family, to mount another raid on the White House silverware.

Come 2008, I'm hoping to be somewhere in the Nevada desert, and damn hard to find.

[MPFreeman]

If you're not paranoid, you're not paying attention.

[Chris Rhines]

I'm not too worried.

For one thing, I'll never be unarmed. This is less a show of bravado (or a threat) than a simple statement of fact. I already have weapons, and more importantly, I have the knowledge and skill to create weapons. So I'm okay on that end.

For another thing, I don't worry too much about the threat of a democratic presidency. I survived eight years of Clinton, I doubt eight years of Gephardt will be any worse. Besides, I'm comfortable with the idea (and the practice) of circumventing and/or ignoring laws that I don't like.

I doubt that it will come down to a fight in my lifetime. If it does, that's nothing special. Most of humanity has been before where we are now.

When it comes down to it, you are as free as you want to be. If only more people took that to heart.

- Chris

[SteelyDan]

I think we need a reality check here. We do not live in our own utopian paradise, nor do we live in the fantasy-land envisioned by those who would outlaw any private ownership of firearms. Instead, we live in the real world, and in the real world there are only two candidates for most elections who have any realistic chance of winning: the republican and the democrat.

Let's also remember that while gun ownership is certainly important to us, it is not, and should not be, the single most important issue. We face a whole range of problems and dangers, and firearms will not solve or even affect most of those issues. That is reality, and if anyone cannot accept it they are kidding themself.

This is a gun board, and we all obviously want to see our gun rights vindicated. The best way to accomplish this is to continue supporting the party, the republican party, that is most in-line with our position, and pressing that party to make our wishes a reality.

Deciding not to vote, or to vote libertarian or for some other fringe candidate, does not help the cause. Al Gore had the most votes nationwide last election; this is incredibly close stuff and a wasted vote is exactly that. The country's shifting demographics do not bode well for future elections.

I really do understand the concept of "voting your conscience," and in a perfect world I would vote libertarian in a heartbeat. But we don't live in a perfect world. We live in the real world, and we have to do the best we can within those constraints. We need to keep pressuring, but still supporting, the republicans.

And that is my 2 cents.

[Justin]

I'm really sick and tired of hardcore Republicans peddling tripe that is nothing more than fear mongering. "If you don't vote for the Republicans, the Democrats will come take your guns away, WOO-WOO-WOO!"


Well you know what?

If I vote for Republicans, they'll work to have my guns taken away, too.

It's that simple.

A gun-grabbing neo-statist is a gun-grabbing neo-statist, and I don't give a hoot if he happens to think that elephants are better than donkeys.

:fire:

[Byron Quick]

Republican supporters: Please list how the Republican Party has helped gunowners since 1994 with a Republican majority in the House. With a majority in both houses since 2002.

List the gun control laws which have been repealed by the Republicans, please.

List the pending acts that have been blocked from becoming law by the Republicans, please.

Don't get me wrong, I've strong hopes for the Republican Party in the matter of the AWB sunsetting. All they've got to do is let the bill to reauthorize AWB die in committee.

However, I'm not willing to bet money on them having the gonads to do so.

Based on performance to date, the Republican Party is not a friend of gun owners. The Republican Party wants our support and tries to gain it by holding up the Democratic boogie man...not by doing anything concrete.

[Phyphor]

Justin said:
"A gun-grabbing neo-statist is a gun-grabbing neo-statist, and I don't give a hoot if he happens to think that elephants are better than donkeys.
"


Damned right... I'm ashamed to admit I used to vote Democrat (I'm only 25, so cut me some slack, folks. <g> )

Then again, the Repulsivecans aren't looking much better than the Demoncrats, so I guess I'm voting Libertarian from now on.....


Wish these ****ers would get a clue.

[Gray Peterson]

If they Dems force Sanatorum out, I think the repubs are done, maybe not as far as getting re-elected, but as an effective force.

Let's look at the reason why Santorum is in deep trouble: He basically made me, and others like me, to be in the same league as bestialists, pedophiles, and other reprehensible groups.

Can you understand why so many are pissed at him?

[BigG]

It's time we overcame the "lesser of two evils" mentality. Ha ha ha .... ha :rolleyes: I'm from the L/libertarians and I'm here to help! :uhoh:

[Byron Quick]

List the gun control laws which have been repealed by the Republicans, please.
List the pending acts that have been blocked from becoming law by the Republicans, please.

Come on Republicans!

Why aren't y'all falling all over yourselves to present the evidence of the gun control laws repealed since 1994 by the Republicans or the acts blocked from becoming law?

[Leatherneck]

HankBHeck, his daddy learned that when you screw gun owners you lose their votes
And what, exactly, is the evidence of that? It never ceases to amaze me that Republicans above the local level have the arrogance to assume that supporters will stick with them simply because the Dems are too abhorrent . Why would you abuse your core supporters? :fire:

TC
TFL Survivor

[Byron Quick]

Reagan held two terms but couldn't get Bush 41 back in,

False to fact in relation to your premise of two presidential terms per party. This was three for the Republicans: two for Reagan, and one for Bush I...2+1=3 :D

[Waitone]

I hate to poke balloons here but Bush has problems having nothing to do with guns and gunowners. He has yet to demonstrate to the voter the domestic value of having 1>a republican president, and 2>a republican congress.

--Democrats still control the congressional agenda.
--Democrats control court nominations
--Democrats control the taxcut flap
--Democrats control the gun control debate. All the gun control action is at the state level and there the progress is quite positive except for the unfortunate souls in CANTNJMDMAIS.
--Bush has yet to exercise domestic leadership anywhere close to what he is capable of exerting.
--Congressional republicans particularly in the senate still pull boner after boner handing control of key issues to democrats.
--Bush is still on is compassionate conservative kick.
--The UN and France and Germany and Russia slipped Bush the weenie and he has yet to make a move to indicate he will do anything to extract payment.
--Meanwhile back at the border nothing is happening in spite of evidence that immigration is a huge issue with te voter (see attached file for a remarkable poll conducted on immigration issues).

Bush is in trouble and I don't think gunowners and gun rights will help or hurt.

[HankB]

Leatherneck:And what, exactly, is the evidence of that? He lost. And he blamed the NRA. In fact, shortly before the election, his people contacted the NRA and asked when the endorsement was coming. It absolutely INFURIATED the Bushies when the NRA told them it was NOT going to endorse a man who made promises to gun owners, broke many, and considered the rest negotiable. Endorsing Bush 41 would have been like a battered wife climbing back into bed with the man who abused her.

Of course, Bush 41 (aka Mr. Read My Lips) rather than mending his ways, waited a while before, with MUCH publicity, quitting the NRA as "payback" for holding his feet to the fire.

Leatherneck, your comment about GOP arrogance is right on target.

GOP - backstabbing friends.

DEM - declared enemies

What a choice!

[Bartholomew Roberts]

List the gun control laws which have been repealed by the Republicans, please.

The 1986 FOPA repealed the requirement to fill out paperwork for pistol ammo purchases and revised several other portions of the 1968 GCA. Signed by Reagan. It also protected private sales by specifically exempting them from the regulations that apply to business sales. Without this bill Clinton wouldn't have needed the so-called "gun show loophole" as an issue, he could have just regulated private sales via executive order the same way ATF regulates business sales.

In 1996, the Republican controlled House passed a repeal of the Assault Weapons Ban, only to see it die in the Senate (in no small part due to lukewarm support from their Presidential candidate, Bob Dole, who goes on to receive the same lukewarm support from gunowners in the 1996 elections).

List the pending acts that have been blocked from becoming law by the Republicans, please.

Take a look at the gun control bills submitted to Congress every year. There is stuff in there so extremist that it would make you beg and weep to have the current state of law reinstated. Who do you think kills that in committee?

On top of that, here are a few major pieces of gun control legislation shot down with bipartisan (and a lot of Republican) help recently:

Lautenberg Gun Show Background Check bill (essentially registration of gun owners - this bill came real close to passing)

Without Republicans, there would be no sunset in the 1994 AW Ban - we'd just be stuck with bad legislation that could only get worse and politicians too spineless to remove it.

The Republican Party wants our support and tries to gain it by holding up the Democratic boogie man...not by doing anything concrete.

The Republicans support us to the extent it is politcally feasible - the same as the Democrats screw the unions and any of their core groups when it is no longer feasible to support them. That is what politicians do.

We are doomed in the long run if we are relying on any political party (Republican, Democrat and especially Libertarian) to save us. The only way we will keep RKBA is to educate enough of voting society that the parties get smart enough to keep their hands off the issue. Having watched the Dems get branded on the rear by it a few times, I think we are making good progress here.

Having said all that, I don't care what politicians say - I care about what they do. If the Republicans renew this ban, you can bet I am going to hold anyone who supports it accountable at the ballot box and if that means 4 years of Democrats, well, they should have thought of that before they sold me down the river.

[oldfart]

Guys, we know gun ownership is important, and we know why, too. Bbut it's a whole lot more than guns. Heck, if I thought giving up my guns would make the world safer I'd toss 'em in the river.

But the guns are only a part of the problem with our government. There's trust too. The point has been made by a much better writer than I. I'm sure most of you have read it before, but,_just in case some of you haven't seen it, I'm enclosing it here.

WHY GUNS?
-- by L. Neil Smith --

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has _always_ determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single-issue thinker, and a single-issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, _anything_ -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your _friend_ no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about _you_. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with _anything_?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or
defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in _jail_?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about _you_, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a _woman_, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue
-- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this
X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn't true, is it?

[B9mmHP]

That is a hard one to answer.

I will maybe not vote for shrub if he lets it past his desk. It comes down too, who, will be the Democrap running against him, if it is ******* clintoon. Well then I guess I would sooner die of the drizzling poops than have to see her ugly *** as pres :barf:

[Cal4D4]

Bush puts himself out there as a man of principles not overly sensitive to political whim and polls. His guiding light has him pandering to the illegal infiltrator vote thru amnesty and other concessions and volunteering (without being asked!) to extend the assault weapon ban. He seems to have abandoned Kali to the antics of the ruling socialist party (we got the gov't we deserve). If he doesn't vigorously and successfully defend his judgeship nominees what does he stand for? A paltry tax rebate and a short war against ONE of the threats to society. Bread and circuses.

On the other side, you have a party dominated by the likes of Madame Hillary, who will capture the bleeding hearts and minds of every well intentioned buffoon and sinister socialist out there to trounce all opposition at any cost to the truth or our Constitution.

On the fringes you got Libertarians. A platform of good intentions like minimalising government and leaving people alone. And a level of political ability that would even make the Republicans look talented.

This is the political and moral relativism of the 21st century. We certainly do not have the rights and freedoms laid out by our founding fathers. We also don't have the socialist paradise the Dems keep trying to promise. I am sending my kids into a world where health care is unaffordable except by gov't edict, taxes are crippling and the powers of The State are so total that our way of life exists only at its whim. Sounds like the climate is getting ripe for a demagogue to rise up and lead us in his/her direction. Hope it's benevolent.

[Ed N.]

Most of you folks are assuming that you will see what the legislature and GWB do with the AWB prior to the 2004 election, since the ban expires in September 2004.

I don't think it will play out that way.

Every 2004 candidate knows that the gun control issue is radioactive. They will avoid it. No bill to renew the ban will come to a vote prior to the election, and it will therefore expire. HOWEVER, it will be renewed shortly after the new congress is seated.

That means you'll have a period of, oh, maybe six months with no AWB. Imports will still be banned, though, and no domestic manufacturer is going to start producing weapons that he likely won't be allowed to sell in a few months. A few people will take the brief opportunity to put a folding stock (American made) and a detachable hi-cap mag (also American made) onto their SKSs, but that'll be about it.

[Byron Quick]

The 1986 FOPA repealed the requirement to fill out paperwork for pistol ammo purchases and revised several other portions of the 1968 GCA. Signed by Reagan. It also protected private sales by specifically exempting them from the regulations that apply to business sales. Without this bill Clinton wouldn't have needed the so-called "gun show loophole" as an issue, he could have just regulated private sales via executive order the same way ATF regulates business sales.

And what else did this fine bill passed by the Republicans and signed by a Republican President do? What'd you leave out, hmmm?

[Justin]

Take a look at the gun control bills submitted to Congress every year. There is stuff in there so extremist that it would make you beg and weep to have the current state of law reinstated. Who do you think kills that in committee? Statistically speaking, roughly 20% of the US population suffers from some sort of mental illness. That would equate to roughly 100 congresspersons who are a few paint dabs short of a Monet. The fact that Republicans (and Democrats) regularly shoot down proposals by people like this isn't a favor, or the Repubs saving our bacon. It's an example of democracy in action. In other words, when Nadler the Hutt (http://www.house.gov/nadler/) proposes outlawing .22 rifles and he gets shut down, it ain't because the Republicans are our saviors. It's because he's a flipping nutcase and enough people realize this to shut him down.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

And what else did this fine bill passed by the Republicans and signed by a Republican President do? What'd you leave out, hmmm?

The ban on new manufacture of NFA firearms was already mentioned in this thread so it was hardly "left out"; and as much as I hate the ban, I'd have signed it myself after seeing what Clinton could have done if this legislation had not been in place.

Stop by VPC or Brady and read their comments on the bill. It is pretty plain they hate the law and for good reason - it stopped a potential avenue of attack on gun ownership long before they had even considered it.

Now if you want to make the argument that the Republicans could have had this bill (in a Democratically controlled House and Senate) without that compromise, then let's hear it.

However, we were discussing what Republicans had done for gun owners and your previous posts in this thread don't give them any credit at all on the issue.

It's an example of democracy in action. In other words, when Nadler the Hutt proposes outlawing .22 rifles and he gets shut down, it ain't because the Republicans are our saviors.

And what about the laws that get shut down that aren't seen as nutty? How about laws masquerading as "gun show background check" and "trigger lock" bills that include long wish lists of gun registration and other onerous provisions. Who shuts those bills down (anyone remember the post-Columbine tide of legislation) even when the bills themselves remain politically popular to the o-so-numerous ignorant voter crowd?

The Republicans may not be a friend to gun owners; but they are certainly an ally. They work for us because they believe they gain more than they lose. If we want them to gain more ground for us, then we have to show them that there is more potential gain in gunowners - it is a simple equation. The more gunowners we get onboard and politically active, the more we'll get what we want.

My point in this thread isn't to say that if we don't vote Republican we'll lose our guns - far from it; but it is important that we make a realistic assessment of who is helping us out. We may not get everything we want from the Republicans; but they do support us, even when it is not always convenient for them and we should acknowledge that if we want to evaluate the best way of securing RKBA.

[mohican]

I'm glad there is so much good, valid discussion on this.

I wish there was a viable 3rd choice. If Al Sharpon would take the black vote, then an independent would have a chance.

Another point to ponder, Billary did not occomplish as much as they could have in their 8 years due to being outsiders. If Billery the female became president, she would have 8 years of Billery the male to draw on, plus 4 years of connections as a Senator. She would really scare me as president.

Plus, she is so shrill, I think my eardrums would burst from her 1st state of the union address.

To the person taking us to task for being too "single issue". I disagree. Freedom 1st. Let's get people willing to abide by the Constitution. I bet that most of us have enough in common that we can be single issue. If a polititian has a good grade on rkba, then he/she/it probably grades out well in other areas.

[SteelyDan]

There are some interesting and challenging points raised here, which suggest that neither the republicans nor the democrats are our friends. Even if true, however, this belief does not answer the question of "what should we do." Those who believe that the solution is not voting, or voting for fringe candidates, are certainly entitled to those opinions, but I think they're sticking their heads in the sand.

Part of living in any more-or-less free society, with other people who hold other beliefs, is that compromises are inevitable and that we have to make "lesser of two evils" choices all the time. That is a fundamental and necessary truth; otherwise it's called a dictatorship or oligarcy, where one person or group imposes their values on everyone else. In this case, I will go to my grave believing that our best way to protect our gun rights is by pressuring and supporting the republican candidates. (And for the record, I have no ties whatsoever to that party or to any individual candidates or office-holders.)

For those who want details on the legislative history of gun-related bills, sorry, I haven't researched it. I have a pretty good idea what I'd find if I did, and by that I mean finding out what really happened and why, but that's just my speculation.

Let me explain why I have these beliefs. In my work (I'm a lawyer) I represent a number of developers and property owners. When they go before a city council for routine approval of a new commercial building, which complies with every ordinance on the books, the democratic city councils might grant approval, but only if the developer agrees to: (1) make the expensive changes recommended by the architectural design committee, (2) add expensive plantings and landscaping throughout the project, (3) dedicate 60' of land to the city along the west side of the property just in case the city ever decides to widen the road, (4) meet with, and obtain the approval of, any neighborhood groups, (5) not appeal whatever assessments the city decides to impose, (6) not cut any trees, or alternatively replace them 10-to-1, (7) dedicate 10% of the value of the project to the city's wetland preservation fund because someone thinks they once saw a cattail in the northeast corner of the property, (8) and so on and so on. Understand, none of this is required under the city's ordinances, and if we challenged it we'd win, but they know the developer can't afford to tie up the land for three years of litigation, so they demand it and we have to give in.

In contrast, the same application submitted to a republican city council goes something like this: Does the application meet the zoning and subdivision regulations? Yes. Okay, you're good to go.

Now, I am admittedly exaggerating a little (but less than you might think) to make a point, but that point is that the liberal, democratic mindset does not respect or even understand individual rights and responsibilities. Instead, the liberals/democrats believe they know what is best for everyone, and they want to impose their values on everyone else.

Next time you read about some new restriction on individual rights (I don't care what it is--smoking in public places, motorcycle helmets, snowmobile regulations, whatever), take a look at who is behind it. Ninety percent of the time it ain't the republicans. Next time you read about a proposed expansion of government regulations, take a look at who is behind it; same thing.

Finally, I think some of us are in danger of forgetting that there are other issues out there that must be considered, in addition to gun rights. Little things like the economy, terrorism, education, transportation, crime, etc. Many of these will affect us, our friends, and our families a whole lot more than the gun issue. So let's keep it in perspective, and make your vote mean something. It's too valuable a right to throw away.