Thoughts and questions from a right-leaning gun owner in the run-up to Election '08


PDA






the pistolero
August 26, 2006, 11:34 PM
Does anyone else here who leans to the right and the Republican Party feel like we're being discounted?
I read many conservative blogs from time to time in addition to several newspapers, and the names that keep on popping up as the best chance to get the GOP nomination in 2008 are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. McCain seems to have earned no small amount of enmity from the right due to the Gang of 14 filibuster deal, CFR, etc. So who's left? Giuliani, and we all know he's no friend of gun owners. But it seems to me that our concerns about Rudy are being marginalized in the name of the War on Islamic Extremism. Now, far be it from me to say the Islamists are not a grave existential threat or do not at least have the potential to be. I agree with the Giuliani cheerleaders that if we all die, nothing else is going to matter...but still, all the issues we had to deal with before Sept. 11 are still there on the table -- Social Security, out-of-control spending, the deficit, gun laws, etc. ...and they're all still going to have to be dealt with even as the larger threats are tackled. As far as the gun laws are concerned, we all know that once those are put in place, no matter at what level, they seem to be pretty much set in stone...NFA '34, GCA '68, the draconian D.C. gun laws, and the list goes on. It seems to me sometimes that as gun owners we are being told that our concerns don't matter, that we're basically being told to "sit down, shut up and vote for who we tell you to vote for." I said it on my blog, but I'll say it here too...I really don't think telling 60 million voting-age people that their concerns don't matter is all that sound of a political strategy. And as far as nothing else mattering if we're all dead, I keep thinking of what Winston Churchill said once upon a time, "You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Perhaps some might think that observation extreme in light of something like a Rudy Giuliani candidacy, but if we keep willing to throw freedoms on the fire that many good men and women have fought and died for, that's exactly what we'll end up being -- slaves. (After gun licenses, what next? Safe storage requirements? Registration? "Ballistic fingerprinting?" Where does it end, Rudy???:mad: :mad: ) Call me the eternal optimist, but there has to be a better choice for us out there. There just has to be. And I for one am sick and tired of being made to think my concerns don't matter. Anyone else? Thoughts?

If you enjoyed reading about "Thoughts and questions from a right-leaning gun owner in the run-up to Election '08" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SolaScriptura139
August 26, 2006, 11:50 PM
I kinda feel the same way. I can say 100% that if those two are my only options for the republicans, I won't vote, at least for the republicans (never for the democrats). I personally feel that while there is danger from the Middle East, I think it's very extreme for any politician to say that it won't matter if we're all dead. It's unlikely, from my perspective, that it will come to that, and if it does come to that kind of war, shouldn't every citizen be armed? I mean, it just makes sense. ANY politician who tells me how to think will not get my vote.

beerslurpy
August 27, 2006, 12:12 AM
Uh, the mainstream media is the one trumpeting the ascendancy of McCain and Guiliani. They want a RINO president because if they can get two one-world, nanny-state socialists to run against each other, they have basically won before the election even happens. This is the main gripe I had about the 04 election, being stuck with a choice between Kerry and Bush.

There are conservative republicans out there, I'm sure of it.

Off the top of my head...
Newt Gingrich isnt too bad as conservatives go.
Tom Tancredo is a worthy contender.
Bill Frist? He is pro-gun and also conservative.
Jeb Bush has been an awesome governor, but the stink left behind by his brother pretty much precludes him from running.

Ultimately, who is to blame if there arenty any politically prominent conservatives out there? Look in the mirror. If youre 50-70 years old, rich and conservative, you should be running for office instead of living as an ex-pat or playing golf.

CarbineKid
August 27, 2006, 12:38 AM
Guys three words for you: President Hilary Clinton. If that doesn't scare you enough to vote Republican, I don't know what will.

Kim
August 27, 2006, 12:44 AM
I agree with the above the Liberal MSM would love Gulliani on social issues. MCcain probably could win as he would be 1 million times better than a Democrat. Gulliani almost NO chance. Just wait till his personal life and his view of social issues become known. No chance. It is the elite Liberal Repubs dream and they are a small small number of people. ;)

Harry Paget Flashman
August 27, 2006, 12:59 AM
I have voted Republican my whole life. I am leaning toward voting against incumbents in the future in order to get some fresh blood elected. The best way to make a politician listen is to vote him out of office.

Kelly J
August 27, 2006, 12:59 AM
the pistolero, This is my humble opinion but to me I really don't see a viable Candidate for 08 as yet, The issues are really inportant to us all, to ellect a man that is a known Anti Gun, person, or a man that has efectivlly destroyed our First Amendment Rights before an election which has accomplished two things, one showed us that the President signed into law, a law that is Unconstititional, and no one seems to care, two this same law muzzels the NRA and like Groups, on the Gun Issues, and just a point of FACT there is not a single law on the books that limits, restricts, or denies Gun ownership, that is not also in and of themselves a VIOLATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, and not one Supreme Court Judge has Chalenged that fack nor has there beenm any effort from anyone that I am aware of to get these laws removed from the books.

Until we as a nation return to a Republic Form of Government we are going to be in a very huge pile of you know what.

As to the 08 election if it should come to Clinton, McCain, or yes even Giuliani I truly feel that the Country looses no matter which one wins, and in this one I personally don't even see a lesser of evils to choose from.

I trully think it comes down to the old saying "things will get worse before they get better", How much worse do they need to get before the American People wake up and regain control of our Government????

Kelly J
August 27, 2006, 01:15 AM
Here is an off the wall thought, How about putting Newt Gingrich on the Republican ticket for President and lets say, just for the sake of things lets put Zel Miller on the Ticket as a VP candidate. Or if you like reverse the order. eigther of these two would be better that what is being talke about.

Who do we have in the third Parties as Possible Canidadates?

Robert Hairless
August 27, 2006, 02:51 AM
Four questions.

Let's say that the people who want to own guns don't vote Republican or don't vote at all. And let's say that the people who don't want them to own guns vote Democrat.

Question 1: Under those circumstances which party--Republican or Democrat--will get more votes? Hint: If 1 person decides not to vote and 1 person votes Democrat, how many votes would there be and which party would get it?

Question 2: If the Democrats get more votes, and their policies and constituency are anti-gun, is there a chance that guns will be banned and/or confiscated? Hint: What happened in New Orleans?

Question 3. Do you think guns will be confiscated for keeps, or do you think that the guns will be stored somewhere nice with a record of their owners so they can be returned if at some time the gun owners can win a victory and make the nasty laws go away?

Question 4: If nobody can own guns, how can there be any gun owners?

Lone_Gunman
August 27, 2006, 03:12 AM
I learned one thing from Bush. Never vote for the lesser of two evils.

If the House and Senate are still in Republican hands in 2008, we would be better off with a Democratic president.

Gridlock is the only thing that saves us from politicians.

thunderchicken_83
August 27, 2006, 03:35 AM
dhdsbh

Robert Hairless
August 27, 2006, 03:36 AM
If the House and Senate are still in Republican hands in 2008, we would be better off with a Democratic president.

And if the House and Senate are not still in Republican hands in 2008, maybe we would not be better off with a Democratic president. :)

Mr.V.
August 27, 2006, 04:09 AM
Robert Hairless--

your rhetorical questions aren't proving much of anything. Republicans against guns are FAR more dangerous than liberals against guns. Liberals mostly will be against guns, but when conservatives elect an anti-gun "conservative" it allows anti-gunners to say they have a bipartisan MANDATE against them.

So, at least to me, it's much safer having a gun-grabbing liberal in office than a gun-grabbing conservative...

Also how does your Katrina hint lead us to any conclusion that voting for democrats would be worse? For the last 8 frickin' years we've had a Repulican house, a Republican senate, a Republican president, and a Republican judiciary. Let me ask you some questions...
Why did the national guard, led by a Republican commander-in-chief in a moderately Republican state, confiscate citizens' firearms? Where are all our gun-rights that should have been reinstated? Where are the court rulings demanding that if States are prohibited in denying citizens equal protection under the law for the 1st amendment, the same should hold true for the second?

They've had 8 years to enact policy to these ends. 8 years and they've done nothing. (I'll grant you one...they allowed the AWB to sunset by essentially doing nothing. Whoopee for states that didn't already have sucky gun-control laws.)

Koobuh
August 27, 2006, 04:20 AM
"Guys three words for you: President Hilary Clinton. If that doesn't scare you enough to vote Republican, I don't know what will."

But, that's the point we're making. All this doom-n-gloom about Hillary taking the oval office is designed to make us vote republican to avoid that outcome. Regardless of what kind of snake-in-the-grass they will try to foist on us this time around.

I am really, really getting tired of this bad argument.
I want a solid, conservative President that won't stab me and the Constitution in the face after being elected.
Damn the 'War on Terror', damn 'blasted Libs!', damn 'Christian values'. These issues don't matter to me, as they are periferals, and are not the qualifications I will be considering when I look very, very angrily at my ballot in two years.

I believe the last few years have demonstrated to full effect the folly of expecting 'our guys' to get the 'job' done if only we elect them to office and support them to the hilt.

bowline
August 27, 2006, 09:05 AM
I'm hoping Allen gets the nomination. No way I'll vote for Giuliani or McCain. Just too easy for them to stab gun owners in the back.
What really gets my goat is that, bill of rights notwithstanding, I have to be seriously concerned, every time an election rolls around, about losing a fundamental right.
We need either supreme court recognition of the second, in clear terms, or another law passed that not only upholds the bill of rights but states serious penalties for attempts to modify, undercut or destroy same under color of law.

Fred Fuller
August 27, 2006, 09:25 AM
If in the first place you are one who thinks your vote still counts for something (in spite of all the Diebold and other 'black box' voting machine stories), IF you would all vote for something OTHER THAN "the lesser of two evils," then perhaps we wouldn't all be in this handbasket we're in, smelling the smoke and fumes.

Meanwhile, doing what you've always done and expecting something different to happen is not very bright. As long as you are convinced that no one other than one or the other member of the two- party coalition can win, and you won't vote for anyone else other than the Demorat or Republicon offering, guess what?

Dunno why anyone persists in trying to talk politics on gun boards anyway, it always boils down to the same thing.

lpl/nc

saltydog
August 27, 2006, 10:45 AM
Guys three words for you: President Hilary Clinton. If that doesn't scare you enough to vote Republican, I don't know what will.

I didn't think people with the 2nd Ammendment and guns could be scared.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

the pistolero
August 27, 2006, 12:06 PM
beerslurpy -- awesome list of candidates, and I was thinking of some of them myself, most notably Tom Tancredo and Newt Gingrich. As for the Hillary mention, all I could think was, there they go again, pulling out the HILLARY! boogity-boogity-boogity-man...no offense intended, Carbine, but that's exactly what the party apparatchiks pushing McCain and/or Giuliani keep trotting out in the attempt to get us gun owners in line with their agenda. And all I can say to that is, would Hillary really be all that much worse than Rudy Giuliani? Either way, we lose. If it comes down to Rudy vs. Hillary, our only hope is to maintain control of Congress, and even then it's a dicey affair, what with RINOs like Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee and Mike DeWine contaminating the Republican side of the Senate.

Republicans against guns are FAR more dangerous than liberals against guns. Liberals mostly will be against guns, but when conservatives elect an anti-gun "conservative" it allows anti-gunners to say they have a bipartisan MANDATE against them.
Interesting argument, and right on the money, too. I had never thought of it like that, but, of course, that's what certain leftist East Coast journalists are intimating with Michael Bloomberg's war on the gun industry and the new Republican president of Handgun Control -- the whole bipartisan aspect of it -- and with someone like Rudy Giuliani in the White House, we'd really be in trouble.

What really gets my goat is that, bill of rights notwithstanding, I have to be seriously concerned, every time an election rolls around, about losing a fundamental right.
The heck with you and your rights, if you die, nothing else matters. :D
Seriously, though, that's another observation that's just dead on the money. More often than not I wonder if the Giuliani cheerleaders have the slightest idea of what they're advocating beyond the War on Islamic Extremism -- namely, more of the same tripe we had under eight years of the Clintons. I guess it's true what they say -- love is blind -- but I really wish they'd stop and think, because it's getting tiresome. And it's still early yet! :banghead:

I am really, really getting tired of this bad (Hillary) argument.
I want a solid, conservative President that won't stab me and the Constitution in the face after being elected.

Amen, and amen.

saltydog
August 27, 2006, 12:25 PM
Here we go again with the "who's better on gun control thing". The Republicans or the Democrats. As far as PRESIDENTS go, there is no difference. Regan, Bush Sr. and Clinton are as bad as you can get. Bush jr. hasn't been put on the spot to show his true colors, which is good. Actually Clinton did less damage than the other two mentioned, at least you got your "evil features" back with a 10 year sunset clause. From the other two guys, machine guns and so called non importable assault weapons are "GONE FOREVER"!:barf:

The House and the Senate are other issues.

Art Eatman
August 27, 2006, 01:23 PM
It's way too early to have any rational clue about real-world probabilities about
the next President. It's all speculation.

We know the Senate is at best lukewarm for "our cause", now. It might go against us; I don't know.

It seems to me that the present structure of the House of Representatives is our best hope. While an anti-gun bill may pass the Senate, and be introduced in the House, we have quite reasonable odds of defeating it--which means there is nothing for a President to sign.

So, for whatever my opinion is worth, voting for a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives is in no way voting for "the lesser of two weevils".

Art

longeyes
August 27, 2006, 01:56 PM
...except the likelihood, the way it's looking right now, is that the GOP loses the House this fall. Then what?

In the end, it comes down to one thing: either we really have a Second Amendment and it means what it says, or we don't. And if we have one and it means what it says, are we willing to to make that stand against all the forces arrayed against us? "Molon labe" was, is, and will be the answer; it's not romantic, it's the only realism around.

As for '08, who know if there will even be an '08 Election? I expect major tumult on the foreign front before the Election happens and, frankly, all bets are off stateside if Congress passes an arrogantly stupid illegal immigration amnesty bill next year. The American people are going to go through shock therapy in the next two years. That should be highly interesting. Fasten your seat belts.

I don't believe we can any longer count on gridlock to save this Republic. That worked in the old days when there was some kind of connection between the will of the people and our representatives in government. No longer. The fact is a relatively small number of people run America from stem to stern. That is both an ugly truth and yet, in its own dark way, hopeful. Draw your own conclusions.

Brigrat
August 27, 2006, 02:02 PM
The last four years, and the liberalization of the republican party in california was enough to convince me to register libratarian when I recently relocated to SE New Mexico!!!

Perhaps the republicans can still win my vote, but they are going to have to earn it. When a Democrat Gov in New Mexico can be more conservative and pro 2nd amendmant than a Republican Gov in California, it is time to reconsider party affiliation.

SomeKid
August 27, 2006, 02:27 PM
Bill Frist? He is pro-gun and also conservative.

Beer, he is a spineless coward. He has shifted his position with the wind on a few issues, stem-cells, border security, you get the idea. He would be no better than a Bush in the White House.

Deanimator
August 27, 2006, 02:27 PM
Guys three words for you: President Hilary Clinton. If that doesn't scare you enough to vote Republican, I don't know what will.
As a gunowner, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between her and Giuliani. And I say this as a pro-abortion liberal.

I will NEVER vote for Giuliani. I wouldn't care if he ran against a Hillary/Hugo Chavez ticket. Look at the NYPD's record under Giuliani. Do you want him in control of the BATFE?

The Republicans aren't going to run Giuliani, but if they did, that's the election I sit out.

No Wacos, no Diallos. Neither Hillary nor Giuliani.

longeyes
August 27, 2006, 02:31 PM
No Hillary, no Giuliani, no McCain?

And your plan to stop them is to not vote or just withdraw?

The point is, we all know that no candidate who cares about liberty as we understand it on this forum is going to get near the nomination of either major party, much less get elected.

And that leaves us where? After one of the anointed candidates gets elected?

As marginalized dissidents?

beerslurpy
August 27, 2006, 02:40 PM
Frist is a high ranking politician. You can't expect constant ideological purity out of someone like that. His job is to hold the party together and get things done. That includes saying whatever is necessary to motivate the morons in the senate.

However, he has gone to bat for gun owners when it mattered. Back in 2003 and 2004 he did his best to kill the AWB renewals in the senate and to kill the immunity bill when the 4 horsemen got the renewal appended to it. While RINOs like Specter side against gun owners when we need them most (during at tight vote for example) people like Frist have played procedural rules to stack the deck in our favor. He is on our side.

longeyes
August 27, 2006, 02:44 PM
Frist isn't on my side--not if he sides with Bush on "comprehensive" immigration "solutions" (like Pence) that will make discussions of the 2A moot in five years. You can't look at these problems in a vacuum; they are part of a much larger cultural landscape, of which disarmament is merely one aspect.

beerslurpy
August 27, 2006, 02:57 PM
As opposed to McCain or Guiliani? Lets get some perspective here about what "on our side" really means. No candidate will perfectly represent us. We have to admit that and so we must choose the one that is closest to a good match and throw our support behind them.

You guys really love to criticise, but I dont see any great alternatives being offered.

As Art said, it is a few years off anyway.

mec
August 27, 2006, 03:04 PM
Republicans (even RINOs though they don't mean it) at least give lip service to the right to keep and bear arms. Heck, the attorney general actually said the second amendment refers to an individual right while the ones the democrats have put in say that it is only a collective right of the government. the last six years have been nice as anti-gun legislation has not been a priority with the administration or congress. Some may even notice that the Awb was allowed to lapse, there are one or two pro gun supreme court justices, ccw reciprocity has spread, and the law baring frivolous anti gun law suits passed. The current administration stood up to the United Nations where is the democrats are eager to jump on the communitarian band wagon.

The left would probably like to see a RINO candidate if Hilliary is as unelectable as the left now seems to believe. Rudy or McCain would probably fall right in line with the internationalist agenda of a democratic congress and senate.

longeyes
August 27, 2006, 03:09 PM
No candidate will perfectly represent us. We have to admit that and so we must choose the one that is closest to a good match and throw our support behind them.

Excuse me, but this is exactly what they want you to believe. Accept their vision of What Is Possible and play by their rules and we have already lost. It will take a few more years, but the die is cast. Understand that their vision of America--and I mean both parties--cannot co-exist with an armed, informed, self-empowered citizenry. Cannot. To think otherwise is to think that crumbs from the king's table constitutes sharing the feast.

saltydog
August 27, 2006, 03:31 PM
It seems to me that the present structure of the House of Representatives is our best hope. While an anti-gun bill may pass the Senate, and be introduced in the House, we have quite reasonable odds of defeating it--which means there is nothing for a President to sign.

Art presents the only solution to this problem. This is by far about the only way things won't get any worse than they are now when it comes to gun control. I to think that the House of Reps is our only hope. Everything else is just a dream.

longeyes
August 27, 2006, 03:43 PM
And this Republic was once "just a dream."

Sure, let's hold on to the House if we can.

And if we can't? We just accept inevitable serfdom?

NO.

Deanimator
August 27, 2006, 05:16 PM
And that leaves us where? After one of the anointed candidates gets elected?
Giuliani's not going to get nominated. He's got almost as many negatives with the Republican base as Hillary.

For me as a gun owner, there wouldn't be any difference between them AT ALL.

I'm not a partisan Republican. I can't see one iota of advantage to a virulently anti-gun Republican over a virulently anti-gun Democrat.

They're the Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum of gun control. And they'll cheerfully lie between their teeth about it too.

saltydog
August 27, 2006, 05:34 PM
And this Republic was once "just a dream."

Sure, let's hold on to the House if we can.

And if we can't? We just accept inevitable serfdom?

NO.

Nobody said anything about accepting serfdom.:confused:

If you ever find us a good candidate for President, just let us know and a bunch of us will be there with you to vote. Not a RINO. An honest for goodness real American that hold's the same principles as your founding fathers. I'm not going to hold my breath for something like that to come out of Harvard or Yale. :(

Lone_Gunman
August 27, 2006, 06:21 PM
I to think that the House of Reps is our only hope.

The House is only on our side because conservatives in fly-over country still slightly outnumber liberals in the northeast and California.

Eventually the scale will tip in their favor, and the House will be as bad as the Senate.

Zedicus
August 27, 2006, 06:39 PM
Personaly I have yet to see in my lifetime a canidate that was worth my vote.

Hence why I don't vote.

grislyatoms
August 27, 2006, 06:41 PM
I'd like to see a Condi Rice / Gingrich ticket.

Doubt it will happen, though.

Zedicus
August 27, 2006, 07:04 PM
Forgot to mention that if Bruce Willis & or Ron Paul desided to run for prez, they would get my vote, they are the only 2 I would consider voting for.:cool:

Deanimator
August 27, 2006, 07:05 PM
I'd like to see a Condi Rice / Gingrich ticket.
If Condoleeza Rice ran for President, I would register as a Republican.

If the Republicans nominate Giuliani (as likely as nominating Michael Moore) or McCain, I won't be voting at all.

lamazza
August 27, 2006, 07:08 PM
Vote third party and show where we stand.
There is no difference between McCain, Giuliani or Hillary.
In any case, I beleive the one that is going to win is predetermined anyway, but my vote won't be included in their win.

Norton
August 27, 2006, 07:23 PM
Vote third party and show where we stand.


Agreed.....much better than not voting at all as you would essentially be registering your vote as "neither of the above" for the two major parties.

I went along in the last election and voted for the lesser of two evils and will not do so again. The last 8 years should have been the best time to be a gun owner in United States history and they have let us down miserably by not using the weight of their majority to correct the evils done to our rights over the last 70 years.

If the Consitution Party runs a candidate here in MD again I will vote that way this time. I'm not crazy about the overt religious tone to their platform, but as someone has alread suggested, no candidate is perfect and we need to vote for those that closest represent our beliefs.

longeyes
August 27, 2006, 07:31 PM
Nobody said anything about accepting serfdom.

If you ever find us a good candidate for President, just let us know and a bunch of us will be there with you to vote. Not a RINO. An honest for goodness real American that hold's the same principles as your founding fathers. I'm not going to hold my breath for something like that to come out of Harvard or Yale.

Maybe we can't depend on the President, Congress, or even SCOTUS to protect our civil liberties? Maybe that's what I'm saying here? Maybe it's beyond expecting the suffrage game to preserve the rights we are already entitled to as God-given?

I don't see much if any help on the way. Condi Rice? No record in elected office. And I didn't see any greatness displayed recently. Yes, she's allegedly an "absolutist" when it comes to the 2A but she hasn't been tested either. I see her as an academically superior woman who somehow found favor with a President whose liabilities now far outweigh his assets. The rest? Gingrich, if electable, might be one to consider. Tancredo's a possibility but right now he's a one-issue candidate; that could change.

ceetee
August 27, 2006, 10:28 PM
I have to wonder about the wisdom in suggesting Condoleeza Rice as a potential Presidential candidate. I've no doubt that she's an intelligent person. No one climbs as far up the corporate ladder as she did in a male-dominated field like the petroleum industry without being either a suplerative business person, or a sneaky backstabber. But what has she ever done in any public office to make a difference? Anything?

beerslurpy
August 27, 2006, 10:34 PM
Political realities are called "realities" because they are where the buck stops.

I would love to have Ron Paul as a president, but I think we all recognize that his politics might not go over with the other 80 percent of the populace, some of which votes.

It really does boil down to what is "possible"- not what the mainstream media tells us is possible, but what we, in our wisdom, know is possible. If you can think of a better candidate than Guiliani, lets hear it! If you can think of a better candidate than Gingrich or Frist or Tancredo, DONT HOLD BACK! Tell us!

Once you tell us who the best candidate is, we can start a huge letter writing campaign over the next year and a half to get them motivated into running. Nearly any politician will leap at the chance to become president if he thinks there is enough support out there.

the pistolero
August 27, 2006, 10:55 PM
It's way too early to have any rational clue about real-world probabilities about the next President. It's all speculation.

This is true, Art. I think it's much better to start making noise now, though, than to wait until someone who isn't amenable to our beliefs starts getting any kind of traction and momentum. Two years may seem like a long time, but there's no doubt in my mind our opponents are looking ahead, and we would be wise to do the same.

Heck, the attorney general actually said the second amendment refers to an individual right while the ones the democrats have put in say that it is only a collective right of the government.

That was Bush's first AG, though, John Ashcroft. Alberto Gonzales is much less friendly to gun ownership.

No Hillary, no Giuliani, no McCain?

And your plan to stop them is to not vote or just withdraw?

The point is, we all know that no candidate who cares about liberty as we understand it on this forum is going to get near the nomination of either major party, much less get elected.

And that leaves us where? After one of the anointed candidates gets elected?

As marginalized dissidents?

That would be my guess, yes. If, that is, we don't make noise, and carefully consider our strategy now, while there's still time.
There's something we need to consider, though. America didn't get to where it is overnight. It took years of brainwashing and indoctrination by many people and organizations...politicians, the education establishment, the media, you name it. And just as it took a long time for us to get so far from the vision of liberty our Founding Fathers held, it's going to take a while for us to get back to it. How long? Do we have that kind of time? I don't know, but it's something to consider when we speak of a candidate not being perfect. Judas, now I am sounding like those party hacks who talk about the perfect being the enemy of the good as they push their preferred candidates on us, and I HATE that, but what are we to do as we find ourselves here?...

Robert Hairless
August 28, 2006, 01:37 AM
Mr. V:

your rhetorical questions aren't proving much of anything. Republicans against guns are FAR more dangerous than liberals against guns. ...

So, at least to me, it's much safer having a gun-grabbing liberal in office than a gun-grabbing conservative...

...

We disagree, especially about your assertion that my rhetorical questions "aren't proving much of anything." They are allowing me to see part of the electorate that has been outside my own experience.

I understand that you prefer to have your firearms confiscated by people who say they will do it and that you won't tolerate being denied everything you want. I've never met adult people like that before. I'm getting very, very scared no matter who might win future elections.

mack
August 28, 2006, 02:31 AM
Just me, but I can no longer vote for the lesser of two evils - both parties support through their actions - ever larger and ever more powerful government. Therefore, I will no longer compromise my beliefs and values, I will vote third party. If I were to do otherwise, I could not look at myself in the mirror in the morning, nor could I look my children in the face knowing that I had supported those who will take away their freedoms. :(

Kelly J
August 28, 2006, 03:12 AM
Just for the record, I am not a Republican, nor a Democrat, I have voted an independant vote, and untill I see a real Party I will Remain so, and will comment that I found a Party that really comes close to being a real Party and that is the Constitution Party, after reading their Platrorm, I could go along with them and only found two measures that I would Question, Abortion and Returning to coins as our money, the abortion issue is based on Bible Principles and I'm ok with that with a proviso,their stance is that the Child can not be held responsible for the sins of the father, but I personally hold that in the case of a Morhers Health, a rape, or incest, the woman should be allowed to make the choice as to wheather or not to terminate the Pregnancy.

As to the other issues I have been reading here the central theme is MY GUNS, and Which Candidate is going to respect OUR GUN RIGHTS, let me be perfectlly clear My guns are just as important to me as yours are to you, but there is a Much larger issue here and that is voting for A real Candidate for office That is a Constitutionalist not a Party Member as has been so for a long time now, we need to rturn to a REPUBLIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

We as a Votiong Population need to vote for only those people that are STRONG CONSTITUTION MINDED PEOPLE, by that I simply mean they should believe in the Constitution and understand that it is NOT A LIVING DOCUMENT TO BE TRIFILED WITH TO FIT THE WHIMS OF THE FEW . We must return to a Republic Form of Government if we want to see all of our rights returned to us as the Constitution states, We must all get out and vote when Elections come up, if you don't like the Dems., or the Republicans, then vote an independant ticket or choose a third party candidate, and by doing one of the latter two you will send a clear message to the GOVERNMENT that business as usual ain't going to get it anymore.

It was stated the other day on a news network that in the upcomming election that there is a projected voter turnout of 30%, Folks that is a sad statement agianst the Population of this country to think that ONLY 30% OF US ARE GOING TO VOTE, but I bet you if it does not go to the Liking of a lot of us there will 92% of us opining on the lousy results of the Election.

Again if we take control of the vote and insist on voting on those people that want to return this Government back to a Republic form of Government then we have a chance and would no longer have to wory about the 1st, 2nd, or any other of the BILL of RIGHTS as they would be protected by us the voting Public.

We should not be in a position of voting for the lesser of two or more evils, we should only vote for the BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB NO MATTER WHAT PARTY THEY ARE ALIGNED WITH so long as they are Totally aligned with the Constitution, as written, and insist that Judges who are appointed to the FEDERAL COURTS ARE ALSO CONSTITUTIONAL MINDED JUDGES.

I'm probably all wet here but this is the way I see things, I'm tired of hearing about the people in office who are doing everything wrong, and not once have I heard the Voters say that WE REALLY MESSED UP ON THIS ONE, if we didn't put them there, they could not make the decisions they do, think about that for a second, and then tell me who's at fault here them or us?

The last point I would like to make is this as a people of the United States of America, we have got to stop looking for the Federal Government to take care of us, and assume some responsibility for our ownlives and Finances, if we plan our budgets and live within our means we can make it just fine some will have more than others but that is a normal thing,and if those that have less want more they have the opertunity to get more by earning it, the old fashion way.

Mr.V.
August 28, 2006, 04:19 AM
I understand that you prefer to have your firearms confiscated by people who say they will do it

So instead you prefer to have a gun-grabbing conservative, who sells gun-owners out and makes us look like fringe whackos with no political support whatsoever?

I'm sorry. I guess living in California has made me sensitive to this. Conservative gun grabbers have been just as bad (at times worse) than their democratic counterparts. Ronald Regan, the HERO of conservatives everywhere, banned open-carry here in the state (and of course went on nationally to politically support the Brady bill and the 1994 Assault weapon ban), Deukmejian, also a republican governer here, signed into law the first major California assault weapon ban. Schwarzee didn't like the .50 and now it's no more as well.

and that you won't tolerate being denied everything you want
Everything I want? I believe the term I used was "nothing", which, instead, is the complete opposite of everything. I looked it up in Webster.

gcerbone
August 28, 2006, 02:54 PM
I have to wonder about the wisdom in suggesting Condoleeza Rice as a potential Presidential candidate. I've no doubt that she's an intelligent person. No one climbs as far up the corporate ladder as she did in a male-dominated field like the petroleum industry without being either a suplerative business person, or a sneaky backstabber.

As far as I know, Dr. Rice has never worked in the oil industry.

She was on the board of directors of Chevron, but her entire career has been in academia and government.

Thefabulousfink
August 28, 2006, 03:25 PM
I am tired of elections that are akin to choosing between getting shot in the face or injected with ebola. I am also tired of having to choose the ebola because it will kill me slower than the bullet/face option.

ceetee
August 28, 2006, 03:53 PM
As far as I know, Dr. Rice has never worked in the oil industry.

She was on the board of directors of Chevron, but her entire career has been in academia and government.


This might put me in the ranks of the unenlightened masses, but I thought Chevron had something to do with petroleum. I stand corrected.

robert sherman
August 28, 2006, 04:25 PM
Dr. Tom Coburn, junior senator from Oklahoma, gets my vote. He's a principled and decent conservative. Too bad he is not running.

tcgeol
August 28, 2006, 04:28 PM
Dr. Tom Coburn, junior senator from Oklahoma, gets my vote. He's a principled and decent conservative. Too bad he is not running
Exactly! One of the top men in the Senate. He would get my vote any day.

ceetee
August 28, 2006, 04:52 PM
Well, I just spent a few minutes researching internet biographies of Condoleeza Rice, and I must say that she seems to be quite the smart cookie, indeed. On that note, though, so is Hillary.

And I'd not vote for her for President either, unless my only other choice was Pol Pot.

xd9fan
August 28, 2006, 04:58 PM
Guys three words for you: President Hilary Clinton. If that doesn't scare you enough to vote Republican, I don't know what will.

wow this is the best reason to vote for the party......this is all you got...fear?
(I know the domestic agenda is dead but wow)
The current GOP crop have done enough with fear. Just like the liberals, its uninspiring and will not win elections.

If she wins or the Democraps take either house of Congress...then so be it.

The Gop has losted its way and needs a much deserved principled kick in the ass.


'the pistolero' your not alone.......

desertvet762
August 28, 2006, 04:59 PM
I think the key is the senate and house races gentlemen, not the Presidency. We have less than 70 days to stem the democratic tide before we see a return of the AWB, this time permanent, or worse.

Those of you who think its time to make a statement by not voting Republican had better think twice about the possible "unintended consequences!" We stand to lose a lot this November.

xd9fan
August 28, 2006, 05:06 PM
I think the key is the senate and house races gentlemen, not the Presidency. We have less than 70 days to stem the democratic tide before we see a return of the AWB, this time permanent, or worse.

Those of you who think its time to make a statement by not voting Republican had better think twice about the possible "unintended consequences!" We stand to lose a lot this November.

This is not enough


So how does the party learn to hear us again?? Because if your tellin me to continue to reward this party by continuely voting for it........how will they learn???? dont give me the fear line.....

longeyes
August 28, 2006, 05:06 PM
Obviously, it would be preferable to control Congress and stop all anti-gun legislation in its tracks. Yes, we should do our best to thwart the gun-grabbers in November. But if we permit ANY party to disarm us, in violation of the Second Amendment, we will only have ourselves to blame for handing over America to fascists with smiling faces.

xd9fan
August 28, 2006, 05:16 PM
The last four years, and the liberalization of the republican party in california was enough to convince me to register libratarian when I recently relocated to SE New Mexico!!!

Perhaps the republicans can still win my vote, but they are going to have to earn it. When a Democrat Gov in New Mexico can be more conservative and pro 2nd amendmant than a Republican Gov in California, it is time to reconsider party affiliation.

Whats really sad is Cali had a great conservative running in the Gov race (Tom McClintock) and Sean Hannity picked Fame over principle by going goo-goo over Arnold. wow he's a RINO! Nobody saw that one:rolleyes: and look where the GOP is now....................

up_onus
August 28, 2006, 05:17 PM
I learned one thing from Bush. Never vote for the lesser of two evils.

If the House and Senate are still in Republican hands in 2008, we would be better off with a Democratic president.

Gridlock is the only thing that saves us from politicians.

Im no polititian, nor am I very well versed in politics, but this only makes sense to me. Proof is in the puddin as my grandmother used to say....

Colt
August 28, 2006, 05:46 PM
So how does the party learn to hear us again?? Because if your tellin me to continue to reward this party by continuely voting for it........how will they learn???? dont give me the fear line.....

Bingo! I'm getting sick of GOPers telling me that not voting for Guiliani or McCain in 2008 will get Hillary into office and send the message to the rep. national committee that they need more liberal candidates.

The RNC knows how many registered voters are out there for each party. They know that if Hillary gets X amount of votes, and McCain gets Y amount of votes, that a certain percentage of their base abstained. They will get the message loud and clear.

Voting for a RINO is only going to show that RINOs can get elected. The RNC will take that as the message that so long as they are just a little bit right of the DEM candidate, their loyal base will continue to put them into office.

No thanks. I'd rather spend 4 or 8 years under Hillary if that's what it takes to get the GOP back on track. With a nearly balanced SCOTUS and close legislature, it's a calculated risk, with a potentially huge long-term payoff, and a relatively benign short term downside.

Cosmoline
August 28, 2006, 06:00 PM
Guys three words for you: President Hilary Clinton. If that doesn't scare you enough to vote Republican, I don't know what will.

I'd much rather have HC as President than RG. Rudy has made a career of actually going out and taking firearms. His plainclothes teams search anyone they suspect of carrying and have proven themselves more than willing to kill anyone who gets in their way. The notion of that man at the helm of power in DC scares me more than ANY Democrat.

HC, in contrast is going to be trying to govern to the center. That may mean a push for a renewed AWB, but I doubt she'll do more than yap about it. I don't view her as any greater threat than her husband was. Annoying? Yes. But fundamentally ineffective and vacillating, just like all the other Dems. Rudy can actually get things done, and that scares the hell out of me. He cannot be allowed to win. A President who uses NYC as a model for governing the US will bring an end to the union. That mobster scum must never be allowed in DC. NEVER!

3fgburner
August 28, 2006, 06:56 PM
If it's McCain or Giuliani vs Mark Warner, I'm voting Democrat this time. For that matter, if it were Mark Warner v John Warner for VA Senate, I'd vote Mark. I'd rather have a fiscally-conservative, somewhat pro-gun Democrat, than all the RINOs in the biz.

the pistolero
August 28, 2006, 07:56 PM
I'm getting sick of GOPers telling me that not voting for Guiliani or McCain in 2008 will get Hillary into office and send the message to the rep. national committee that they need more liberal candidates.

I really, really hate to think the GOP is that hopelessly out of touch with its base. I would love to think that if Giuliani or McCain went on to get the Rep. nomination in '08 and lost, it would send the elites the message that RINOs are unacceptable at the highest level (i.e. the Presidency). But then, once again, I am the eternal optimist. The fact that these two names are even being bandied about, let alone held forth as the great hopes for the country in 2008, is the best evidence that those running the Republican Party are indeed that out of touch.

Rudy can actually get things done, and that scares the hell out of me.
Indeed. What scares the hell out of me is the fact that the Giuliani boosters are using this very attribute as his greatest asset. "He's a doer, not a talker, and everyone loves him!" (Not an actual quote, but it sums up the attitude.) It makes me wonder, once again, if they have any idea of what he's actually gotten done in New York City and how he's gotten it done. And then, there's the previously mentioned "bipartisan mandate" that the press will trumpet, not just for more gun control, but for every other nanny-state pet program that Giuliani might propose.

Whats really sad is Cali had a great conservative running in the Gov race (Tom McClintock) and Sean Hannity picked Fame over principle by going goo-goo over Arnold.

I think that very phenomenon has much to do with all the adulation of Mr. Giuliani. He admittedly made a stellar image of himself in the public eye in the days after Sept. 11, and people think that translates to leading the country as a whole back into the light of liberty and justice for all. In other words, "the cover's so pretty, you know the book has to be excellent!"

I understand that you prefer to have your firearms confiscated by people who say they will do it and that you won't tolerate being denied everything you want. I've never met adult people like that before.

Hairless: I could very well be wrong, but I believe that the point Mr. V was getting at, or at least one of the points, was this (and feel free to correct me!): If someone somehow got into office who made it clear, with his/her words, that gun confiscation, door-to-door or otherwise, was on the agenda, it would wake a lot of people up and we would finally get the ball rolling to get our country back on track, whether it be with court decisions, civil disobedience, or even bloodshed. Whether someone could make it that far with that kind of agenda, I don't even know, though. Gun control has proven itself to be a losing issue at the polls for a long time in much of the country, even when it's pushed by organizations with names like "So-and-So Against Gun Violence." (After all, who could be FOR "Gun Violence"?) But someone who continually sells us out with the incremental approach is much more dangerous, as just a little bit at a time is seen by the general public to be not so bad. If I remember correctly, the Violence Policy Center went so far as to say the AWB's biggest virtue was that it conditioned the public to accept more gun control.

But that's enough for now. The siren song of the Golden Triangle Gun Club is calling my name. :D

Bruce H
August 28, 2006, 08:29 PM
For people who state they own firearms and understand what they are ultimately for this thread is depressing. If they go against shall not be infringed they are derelict in their oath of office. We have several there at present that should have been thrown out and not by election. Until we recover from being whipping boys and girls and stand up hard nothing will change. McCain and Guliani are not acceptable in any instance for any office. Authoritarians will continue to deride firearm owners and legislate against them until they get it all.

saltydog
August 28, 2006, 08:36 PM
Guys three words for you: President Hilary Clinton. If that doesn't scare you enough to vote Republican, I don't know what will.

HaHa, she already ran the White House for 8 years. Her husband was to busy "handling" his own domestic things! :D

Marshall
August 28, 2006, 08:59 PM
As suggested,

Tom Coburn, would be a fine choice as would James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Inhofe is rated A+ by the NRA and actually better for our cause than Coburn. He is also more seasoned and experienced due to his years serving in congress on the Armed Services Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Intelligence Committee, among others. Newt could get my vote as well and has a higher probability of actually running for President, at this point.

longeyes
August 28, 2006, 09:46 PM
Rudy can get things done. Yep. He singlehandedly wiped out the dreaded Squeegeemen. While he was Mayor crime disappeared--or did it? New York is now a floating illegal alien detention center and, like Los Angeles, a harbinger of Things To Come, a vertical plantation. As for 9/11, that was definitely Rudy's finest hour, but he was in the right place at the right time and has a good sense of theater. He was a great leader, after the fact, the way that Tom Noguchi, the famed L.A. "Coroner to the Stars," was a great detective.

longeyes
August 28, 2006, 09:50 PM
For people who state they own firearms and understand what they are ultimately for this thread is depressing. If they go against shall not be infringed they are derelict in their oath of office. We have several there at present that should have been thrown out and not by election. Until we recover from being whipping boys and girls and stand up hard nothing will change. McCain and Guliani are not acceptable in any instance for any office. Authoritarians will continue to deride firearm owners and legislate against them until they get it all.

Accepting the terms of the debate and accepting the candidates THEY GIVE US is already a loss. Maybe a terminal loss.

If there is an Election in '08 it won't really matter who wins. What will matter is whether those of us who are left who care about liberty are willing to do what it takes to preserve it against the gathering forces, both on the Left AND on the Right, that are determined to drive us into de facto serfdom.

Rudy, McCain, Hillary? This is a joke, and not a very funny one.

Keith Wheeler
August 28, 2006, 09:53 PM
Rudy, McCain, Hillary? This is a joke, and not a very funny one.

Huckabee.

...and as a liberatarian Jew, there are a lot of things I don't agree with about him, but he does one thing that the rest don't -- he actually gets off his a-- and tries to do the right thing.

I don't know if he has a chance or not, but considering the other options, I'd back my governor in a heartbeat.

saltydog
August 28, 2006, 10:46 PM
Tom Coburn, would be a fine choice as would James Inhofe of Oklahoma

I don't think the Republican party could handle Tom Coburn. He's to much of a conservative. He's to much like you and me. He would be to much of a shock to the present system. The U.S. would fall apart. Washington D.C. would be in a state of confusion. I think he would even be too conservative for Fox News.:eek: Coburn for Pres and Inhofe for Vice Pres. Dang!:D

I could only wish!:D

trapperjohn
August 29, 2006, 12:02 AM
Political parties care about one thing, and one thing only, STAYING IN POWER!

If the Republicans put someone like McCain or Rudy up for election and win then our country is probably lost for the foreweeable future. If one of those 2 wins then what the "conservative" republicans have learned is that their base is like sheep and will follow them as far left as they need to go to stay in power.
If the repubs put either of them up, the only hope is for them to get their puts kicked and learn that they need to stick to their principles to keep their base. 2 years of Bill gave us the republican revolution in 94, No telling what a couple years of Hilary will give us.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 29, 2006, 12:14 AM
I'm amazed that here we set at the very end of primary season - the one chance you get to choose from among a whole slew of candidates for the one that best represents you. Yet all people can do in this thread is talk about protest votes for third parties during the general election.

Just a suggestion; but there are more ways to make yourself heard by the major political parties than waiting until the general election before you speak at all.

Now if you vote in the primaries and your guy doesn't win and there isn't any candidate that you feel is acceptable, then by all means, vote for whatever candidate you think best serves your interests; but please don't sit on your thumbs through the whole process of determining who the candidates will be during the general election and then complain about the selection.

Several important state primary elections are being held Sept. 9 and Sept. 12 - are you registered? Have you researched the candidates?

Cuda
August 29, 2006, 12:27 AM
Don't forget that if a democrat/liberal gets voted as President it not just them you need to worry about. It's who they nominate for Judges etc. Presidents come and go, but judicial appointees will be around a long time.


I'm voting for Tancredo regardless of who's on the ballot.

C

Sindawe
August 29, 2006, 12:51 AM
'm voting for Tancredo regardless of who's on the ballot.Thats about where I'm at. I'll be looking REAL hard at the past performance of the John Jackson & Jack Johnson (http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/EpisodeSounds/2ACV03/), but based on past offerings from the respective major parties, I'll be writting in my vote for President.

http://homepage.mac.com/lagwolf/.Pictures/cthulhu.jpg

xd9fan
August 29, 2006, 06:05 AM
Now if you vote in the primaries and your guy doesn't win and there isn't any candidate that you feel is acceptable, then by all means, vote for whatever candidate you think best serves your interests; but please don't sit on your thumbs through the whole process of determining who the candidates will be during the general election and then complain about the selection.


If you are a Conservative in Minnesota and still with the republican party, vote for Sue Jeffers on Sept 12th. www.suejeffers.org

Our current Governor is might quiet these days......

Thin Black Line
August 29, 2006, 09:41 AM
Does anyone else here who leans to the right and the Republican Party feel like we're being discounted?

Yes. I've always lived in midwest "fly-over" states which don't matter until
the pre-voting trends research studies show they might actually have a little
bit of a swing. However, this doesn't happen every election and in the
meantime we are forgotten.

To be fair this has been true of both partiyas. So, for the most part we
are treated about as well by the two-headed oligarch in DC as the residents
of Tajikistan were by the communists in Moscow in the former Soviet union.

If you enjoyed reading about "Thoughts and questions from a right-leaning gun owner in the run-up to Election '08" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!