[Recon By Fire]

First of all, I just want to say that I hold President Bush in very high regard.

Now, since that is out of the way, what the hell is this crap that I hear about him supporting the assult weapons (big guns) ban?

I think that with an 80% approval rating, he wouldn't need to bow to the liberals needs. Really, he should turning the other cheek to thoes who wont even vote for him next year.

Why did the present administration choose to take this path down the socalist road?

[Shaggy]

I don't know but I'm sorely disappointed in him for his comments. All any of us can do is write our reps and the white house. I have done both. I faxed letters and then sent the same via snail mail.

[cordex]

Better suited for L&P, no?

Many hardcore Dubya supporters on the board are convinced that his support for the AWB is only a political move based on his hope that the bill will never hit his desk.

Others believe that if you openly support something, you openly support it and that's pretty much that.

[Recon By Fire]

But really, dont we want someone in office that wont bow to the left's demands. I know that this is just a 'political' move, but it is still a pain in the as* to know that the left may have a hand on our guns.

[Waitone]

He's doin' the politician thingy.

--He knows AWB won't get past the House.

--If he opposes AWB he hands democrats primarily a stick for the next election to be used against him.

--He and Rove are in the business of taking issues away from democrats. If it means sacrificing principal, well so be it.

My problem with the joker is he will do an about face at the slightest sign of opposition. Campaign finance control comes to mind. He told congress what had to be in the bill for him to sign. Congress gave him none of what he demanded so he signed it anyway.

Other episode is his about face on world tobacco restrictions. National sovereignty, blah blah blah. This week he wheels around and is now in full support.

No gun support ought to feel comfortable with Bush as president. He'll throw us to the wolves just anyone else if he is to gain from it.

If you look a Bush and expect to see principaled leadership, you are sadly mistaking. He is a politician not a leader.

[Correia]

Moved to Legal & Political

[MJRW]

Pardon me but I have a question. Even if it is a "political move", am I the only one that is bothered that he said that he will sign the bill if it gets to his desk? I don't tell people I will do something banking on not having the opportunity to do it. And what happens if that bill happens to get there? Are you still going to rally behing GWB and say "well, he gambled and lost"? Maybe he shouldn't have made the committment in the first place if he doesn't want to sign it.

[Rovert]

Hmmmm... the last I heard, the statement was that the bill was "deserving of more study", or something along those lines. Has there been a new development?

[Marko Kloos]

That stuff you smell is Folger's.

[DJJ]

So far, Bush's game plan seems to be "Do what muh Daddy did".

Including:

1. Betraying the people who put him in office

2. Scheduling his war about a year too early.

[Lone_Gunman]

My question to you all is, "Have you been living under a rock?".

Bush said BEFORE the election he supported the AWB, and would renew it if a new version was sent to him.

His staff has indicated the same again recently.

Now a good number of people are acting like Bush's support for the AWB is a new development. It is not. It has been his position all along.

When I voted for him in 2000, I did so knowing his position on the AWB.

My question is, why is anyone surprised by his position now?

If you did not know his position on this issue at the time of the election, then it is your own fault.

He has not "betrayed" anyone. He has simply reiterated what has already been said.

You really ought to find out what your politician supports before you vote for him. Reading newspapers would be a good start.

[Thumper]

One

Last

Time...

He said BEFORE THE ELECTION that he would sign this IF it hit his desk

No one's being betrayed...no promises broken.

It's a political move (hint: to be President, you have to be a politician).

Would I like to see him come out and say "Look, the Second is an individual right?" Of course, but, being a politician, he had to let Ashcroft say it. Ashcroft said it well.

Lastly...CONGRESS makes laws...look it up.

[Thumper]

Lone_Gunman, ya beat me by three minutes...

We need to go have a COLD beer the next time I come back to see the 'Dawgs.

[Standing Wolf]

...am I the only one that is bothered that he said that he will sign the bill if it gets to his desk?

No, you're not the only one—and I haven't seen the Bush administration do a single thing about the millions upon millions of illegal aliens that infect our nation like a cancer, either.

[Feanaro]

2. Scheduling his war about a year too early.

I thought it was too late. If we had done both Afganistan and Iraq a month or three after 9/11 I think we would have recieved more support. Maybe not but that's how I see it.

[longeyes]

We'd all like Bush to be The Answer. He's not. In times of yore he'd been a mainstream Democrat. He's hooked on "the compassion thing" and that leads him to strange places. And of course there's that Rasputin in the White House by the name of Karl Rove. This is all too bad because the guy really seems to have the potential to do the right thing. But that's like talking about the "potential" in a love relationship. I think most of us have gotten past the "potential delusion," haven't we? It's either there or it isn't, and Bush is a politician who will in the end disappoint. I wouldn't be surprised if in the end he did a pre-emptive strike against gun owners by pushing the AWB all by his lonesome. I still expect him to lay an illegal alien amnesty on us before the '04 Election.

[Mark Tyson]

I like him, but I will vote against him if he signs a renewal.

Maybe I'll vote against him just for supporting a renewal. Maybe what we need to do is throw him out and terrify future poilticians about even mentioning gun control.

In the meantime, let's all write, write, write and let 'em know how we feel.

[Lone_Gunman]

Voting against him kind of cuts off your nose to spite your face, don't you think?

[Bruce H]

All ballots should have a none of the above box. It should be used about ninety percent of the time.

[Thumper]

Aren't you guys noticing that Schumer, Feinstein, et al are hopping mad that he's not pushing Congress to renew this deal?

From USA Today:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is arguing that if Bush truly meant what he said about the ban during the 2000 presidential race, he would pressure GOP leaders to pass a measure. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer countered, the ban is not at the top of Bush's to-do list.

We have to show some savvy if we're going to continue with the gains we've made since Bush came into office.

[Tamara]

We have to show some savvy if we're going to continue with the gains we've made since Bush came into office.

Other than appointing an Attorney General who stopped tapping our phones and reading our mail long enough to mumble something about "the Second Amendment is sort of an individual right, but it can be restricted by the government", what gains would those be?
:confused:

[Thumper]

We've got Circuit Courts recognizing the 2nd as an Individual..

Possible Individual Right cases coming before the USSC...

Yeah, Ashcroft said the 2nd wasn't absolute...You can't yell fire in a movie theatre either.

These things are occurring in a political climate set at the top...

You don't think Joe Blow citizen doesn't regard Bush as a 2nd Amendment proponent?

What would you have us do, Tam?

Vote Dem? I don't think you would.

Vote Lib? Great...in theory...but even if you're wildly successful campaigning for a Libertarian, the BEST you can do is pull votes from the Rebublicans and hand things to the Dems.

We're a 50/50 country...I know you stayed up all hours last election just like I did. You KNOW that we're balanced at 50/50.

So you're gonna hand the ball to the Dems? You honestly think that would be better?

[JimP]

Thumper, good stuff. Everyone rants and raves about G-Dub. What are you going to do?? Vote for ALGORE??? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.... :rolleyes:

[Tamara]

False dichotomy.

[Thumper]

OK..Tam...Gore was a false dichotomy.

So Dub v. Kerry

Better?

Only a false dichotomy if you can prove that there's a viable third candidate that will work for our side.

Got any?

[Tamara]

So, my choices are A Viable Candidate That Will Work Against Our Side, A Viable Candidate That Won't Work For Our Side, and An Unviable Cadidate, right? Hmmm...

This is, of course, assuming that "Our Side" is limited solely to the RKBA thing and leaving out gems like the new Committee For State Security, the comically misnamed "Patriot Act", and the TIA (which seems to have risen, zombie-like, from the grave), none of which are on "My Side".

[Thumper]

I admit to being a single issue voter.

I agree that the Patriot Act is an abomination. I also believe that, in a worse case scenario, the 2nd trumps that Ace.

I have high hopes that the Patriot Act will be in the USSC soon. The recent fiasco with the Texas Dems running seems to lend credence to that.

[PATH]

Best place to stop AWB is in the House. Kill it deader than a door nail and remind the DEMS about what happened to many of their buds in '94!

[Shaggy]

Other than appointing an Attorney General who stopped tapping our phones and reading our mail long enough to mumble something about "the Second Amendment is sort of an individual right, but it can be restricted by the government", what gains would those be?

Oh brother.....

I just did a sweep of my phones last week. I did'nt find any of Ashcrofts bugs. AFAIK, he's not reading my mail either. Although I did get a Tapco catalog the other day that the seal was busted open. I think the mailman was looking at it though, not Ashcroft.

[Marko Kloos]

So you're gonna hand the ball to the Dems? You honestly think that would be better?

You know, the only reason why Republicans think they can get away with abandoning constitutional principle for expedient vote-whoring is the fact that many Conservatives echo that very same sentiment. The Republicans know that people like you will *always* vote for them, because "where the hell else are they going to go?"

Look, you don't have to become a Libertarian. You don't even have to *vote* Libertarian. All you have to do is tell Bush and your Congresscritter that you'll vote Libertarian if they ever let the AW ban renewal out of the House. If enough Conservatives did that, the Republicans would fall over their own feet in their attempt to backflip and accomodate the sudden swell of angry "Libertarians".

Ideally, you'll come to your own senses and realize that the Libertarians are the only politcal party with a clear and consistent pro-Bill of Rights message, but for now all you have to do is make the Republicans aware of all the votes they'll lose if they don't stop trying to grab the BoR-incinerating Zippo from the Democrats.

You will not accomplish this by slavishly voting "Republican, no matter what". If you keep doing that, you'll wake up in 20 years and wonder what happened to the Bill of Rights.

[Waitone]

Ideally, you'll come to your own senses and realize that the Libertarians are the only politcal party with a clear and consistent pro-Bill of Rights message, but for now all you have to do is make the Republicans aware of all the votes they'll lose if they don't stop trying to grab the BoR-incinerating Zippo from the Democrats. I'm right there with you . . . . . and I go Libertarian just as soon as they demonstrate and ability to translate an appealing political ideology in to politically practical actions. Libertarians inability or unwillingness to compromise will ensure they sit on the bench for a long time to come. I don't care how satisfying and intellectually appealing Libertarian philosophy is, if it can't be translated into meaningful political combat it might as well not exist.

[Marko Kloos]

We won't see a Libertarian majority in Congress for a long time, if ever, for two reasons:

The "politically practical compromise" you mention will get you votes, but it will accomplish nothing but the gradual erosion of freedom, because it moves the debate from the solid foundation of a consistent philosophy to the shifty quicksand of degree. Once you've conceded that the Bill of Rights is not absolute, that it can be overridden by majority rule, you have abandoned the only path that will preserve freedom in the long run. There can be no compromise when it comes to the Bill of Rights, otherwise the document is pointless.

Unfortunately, this position is not popular, partly because it doesn't promise anyone the continuation of taxpayer-stolen subsidies in the form of welfare or other "gummint money" from the pork barrel, and partly because it doesn't give anyone enough power to run other people's lives. This is not acceptable to a majority of both politicians and constituents.

I will still vote Libertarian, even if it doesn't get anyone elected, and even if it does take away votes from the guy who's the Lesser Evil. The way I see it, both major parties are anti-freedom, and the only difference is the part of the Bill of Rights to which they hold the Zippo. People don't vote their convictions, they vote themselves the highest amount of loot, and they vote for their pet prohibition. Since almost everyone has those, it's no wonder we're becoming less free every day.

I vote Libertarian because I must vote my convictions. What's right and what's logical is not dependent on majority vote, and I will continue to vote Libertarian if I am the only one left to do so.

[mjydrafter]

Well said lendringser. I don't care to cast my vote for the lessor of 2 evils. I will continue to vote Libertarian. It's just like you say with both parties "holding the zippo to different parts of the BoR", when the dust settles and the fight's over, all that will be left is ashes. That is unless we can "show the sheeple the hold the Matrix ;) has on them". The percieved control of ones neighbors is far more important than anybodies silly civil liberties. :rolleyes:

[Waitone]

Lendringser,

I admire the stance you are willing to take on principal. That said, you must by definition be willing to accept the eventual destruction of the very system for which you are standing so firm.

I would love to be able to vote for strong libertarian candidates but if their attitude is "I would rather have no loaf than 1/2 loaf" I must tip my hat, bow at my waist, and humbly depart the room. As a libertarian at heart (properly a constitutional libertarian) I would rather not see law infringe on the RKBA. As a candidate for office that stance would ensure defeat. So my approach would be to take less than the 1/2 loaf by sunsetting every single law out there. Then when the lights are about to go out I would fight for constitutional principals to the best of my knowledge. Constitutionally pure? Nope. But it is a small blow that I made.

I think the biggest threat to our social contract is the ability to tax at the federal level. My campaign would be destined for failure if I came out for eliminating federal taxation. So the 1/2 loaf I'll accept is fight for a reduction in the growth of the federales. I personally would like to see the federal govt reduced to 1/2 current size in 5 years. That is a net negative growth of 14% annually for 5 years. Not a chance it will ever happen so I'll fight for 13% reduction, or 10% reduction or a mere 1% reduction. Point is the indicators would be pointed in the correct direction. Would I be true to my libertarian principals? Not to a purist but I will take what I can get and come back tomorrow for another reduction.

That is what I'm belly-aching about when I take the wood to libertarians. The unwillingness or inability to to sacrifice proximate principal in favor of ultimate goals will guarantee them only a footnote in history.

[Marko Kloos]

I admire the stance you are willing to take on principal. That said, you must by definition be willing to accept the eventual destruction of the very system for which you are standing so firm.

I realize that, but I'd rather have my principles shot out from underneath me, than put a bullet into them myself.

The system is too much rigged towards increasing government control, and diminishment of freedoms. Nothing we can do in the short term will outweigh the large bloc of voters who have something to gain from increasing Statist intervention. I'd rather have my objection logged in a historical footnote as a strict principled Constitutionalist, than participate in the destruction of our constitutional Republic by contributing my vote to the grease that lines the slippery slope.

[Shaggy]

The answer is not the 3rd political party. That is never going to happen at this point without the country being completely destroyed in the process.

What needs to happen is that these wishy washy RINO's need to have compitition in their primaries, and I mean knock down drag out primaries. And what needs to happen is to send guys like Ron Paul (R) TX to the congress and the Senate.

Bush is not a conservative. Conservatives used to stand for small limited gov't. I would like to see taxes cut, and the federal budget slashed. Not just a decrease in the rate of growth, but a cut in spending.

Imagine what would be happening right now if we had 235 Ron Paul's (R) TX sitting in US House seats and 55 more Ron Paul's sitting in the Senate. Thing is, they will never make it with (L) behind their names. Ron Paul tried and lost. Changed to (R), same guy, same views as always and he has been re-elected several times already. Look at his record in congress.

[Battler]

I admire the principled stand, and know where you're coming from.

But do this:

Figure out what you want, and how to get it.

Ron Paul is a good example of someone who takes principled stands, while still pragmatically joining a party. The difference between Ron Paul and an unelected "idealist" (word used for convenience, not as derogatory) is that the house gets to hear what he has to say.

I look at my goals. There will always be these two parties - if liberty were to become popular, one or both would embrace it. . . . but it would still be these two parties.

Communists didn't sit around and pout. They picked out an existing party and infiltrated it. The democratic party wasn't chock full of socialists like it is today; but they just took a few, then the rest had to follow them to "stay with the party".

You can't get a large percentage of the US population to support liberty. But it would certainly be easier to get some members in control of the Republical party, and have even anti-liberty Republicans do your bidding to "vote with the party".

In short, if you can't win the Republican party, you certainly could not win enough people AWAY to win what you want.


Support the Republican party. And fix the republican party. The strategy worked for communists - the results are all around us.


Battler

[Thumper]

Look, you don't have to become a Libertarian. You don't even have to *vote* Libertarian. All you have to do is tell Bush and your Congresscritter that you'll vote Libertarian if they ever let the AW ban renewal out of the House.

I do...often. Not just regarding the AW ban either.

I'm not, however, going to vote Libertarian and take a vote away from the only game in town for gun owners...no matter what I threaten to do.

Battler just made the most lucid point of the entire thread.

[Tamara]

And fix the republican party.

I'm still a little lost as to how we do this if they know we're going to vote for them no matter how much they take a leak on our rights... :scrutiny:

One more time for us slow kids, please?

[Thumper]

I think your buddy laid it out pretty well, Tam...

Write 'em...go see 'em...organize our voices. Tell them anything you think would be effective.

Let's try another tack...what do you think would be the only result of your being wildly successfull in turning gun owners against Bush?

You're normally one of the most level headed of the imaginary people that live in my computer.

Recognizing the limitation of our realistic options is important in the decision making process.

I'm open to suggestions as to what you think we (as freedom loving gun owners) should do.

[Tamara]

I ain't tryin' to turn anyone against anybody; I'm trying to turn them towards a pro-freedom/pro-human rights stance. ;)

[Thumper]

if they know we're going to vote for them no matter how much they take a leak on our rights

My point is that they don't know. And, while gun owners aren't as big a factor as the media seems to think , we can be scary when motivated.

Let's be scary.

[Thumper]

I ain't tryin' to turn anyone against anybody; I'm trying to turn them towards a pro-freedom/pro-human rights stance.

I can't argue with that.

[SteelyDan]

Time for a little story...

A lawyer friend of mine represented a couple in their mid- to late-50's, who owned their dream home on a 5-acre river lot. The government wanted to take the property, for a "scenic easement" or "wild river easement" or something; the point was to eliminate all development along the river. Needless to say, the couple was strongly opposed to the taking.

The government, as I understand it, made two offers. First, they offered the couple a life estate plus cash for the remainder value of the property, which would have permitted them to keep the property until they both died. Second, if they opposed the taking, the government would simply take it now and pay market value.

Their lawyer told them they had a 2% chance of stopping the taking, but the couple decided, on principle, to fight it anyway. As expected, they lost the lawsuit and they lost their dream home.

If there is any moral here (and I obviously think there is), it is that for better or worse we all live in a "real world," where some outcomes are possible and some are not. The concept of "fighting for one's principles" makes a good sound bite, but in the end it is too often self-defeating and counterproductive, like the couple in my story.

Facing up to reality isn't nearly as romantic, but it does give us a chance to make a difference, if we're willing to work at it. Of course, it's a whole lot easier to proclaim that you're "standing on your principles" and refuse to get involved in anything that might actually make a difference.

[Tamara]

Facing up to reality isn't nearly as romantic, but it does give us a chance to make a difference, if we're willing to work at it. Of course, it's a whole lot easier to proclaim that you're "standing on your principles" and refuse to get involved in anything that might actually make a difference.

How is voting for and publicly giving support and encouragement to someone who wants to take away my rights going to make a difference? (In the positive sense, I mean...) :confused:

[Thumper]

Isn't it Mas Ayoob that's always talking about the Law of Competing Harms?

There's some truth in that concept.

[Battler]

Tamara:

I hear you on the "voting for Bush, no matter what" problems.

But picture this - a third party won't win.

For a third party to win, it would need over 33% of the vote. 33% of the voters wanting liberty (yeah, right).

For Bush to win, he needs ~50% of the vote.

Bush CAN win. So assume Bush gets 50% of the vote. What proportion of THOSE would dictate how HE acts?

Assume Bush would spontaneously go with opinions of half of those who voted for him. Half of the 50% is 25%. Now, to sway Bush, you only need 25% of all voters, instead of 33%.


Point is, by influencing Bush/Republicans, rather than starting your OWN party, you gain the leverage of not only pro-liberty voters; but voters who happened to also vote for your candidate even WITHOUT wanting liberty. This influence can, and DOES come.

For example, pro-second-amendment interests already get SOME coverage, even though pro-second people are a minority of Republican voters. If we get pro-second movement from the Republican party (and if AW ban goes away, it will be because of Repubs), it is not supported by the majority of all people, or even Republicans. But our cause is bolstered by the votes of the many Republican voters who don't care.


The example I gave of communists and the old Democratic party was a good one. They could sway the party to do something, and get the leverage of the bulk of an (existing) party, the majority of whom probably didn't even like them.

I maintain, for the above reasons, that we DO benefit from working with an existing party, and can benefit further.

To gain this influence, do what people here often suggest. . . . write your congress-critter, make him think that pro-liberty voices are the ones that are behind him and giving him votes. Make sure that, as you campaign for a RINO, you're simeltaneously showing him that it is pro-liberty people who are getting him elected, and get on his case.

Even Anti-liberty politicians, mostly, don't stand on principle. Particularly RINOs - they're the weakest of all. But their wishy-washiness will make them bend easily for the votes - a good opportunity for those who want to make something out of the Republican party - and let's make that someone us, eh?

[Lone_Gunman]

The Libertarian platform is too philosophically pure to allow for the party to succeed.

Compromise has been a cornerstone of American politics since the beginning.

Inability to compromise will keep the Libs on the fringes of the political spectrum indefinitely.

I think the biggest thing holding them back is their view on drug laws. I understand where they are coming from. The government should not make laws to regulate what a person does to themselves. Makes sense, even. But eliminating drug laws is something you will never never never never be able to sell to the American public, and makes the Libs look like a wacked out fringe group. Many people stop listening to Libs entirely when they hear of this.

[Marko Kloos]

But eliminating drug laws is something you will never never never never be able to sell to the American public, and makes the Libs look like a wacked out fringe group.

From where I am sitting, it looks like the majority of the American public treats the drug laws with about the same reverence as the speed limit, much like their great-grandparents treated the Prohibition.

Libertarians in power or not, the War On Some Drugs will come to a crashing halt within the next 10-20 years, simply because the futility and counterproductive nature of it will become obvious to even the most dim-witted, self-righteous church lady. It will go the way of the Prohibition, because it is not logical and because even the most dedicated drug warrior knows deep down inside that it's all a pointless, hypocritical, job-generating farce.

[H Romberg]

Bush is going for the "median voter" right now, and that's not us, no matter how much we wish it was. The fact that we've continued to vote republican regardless of their actions has given them the freedom to ignore us. After all, what'll we do? Vote Democrat? Well, screw both parties. I say we ought to give the left enough rope to hang themselves, while we build either the Reform or the Libertarian party into something that can at least spoil any election it gets into. That's the only way we'll ever get either party to care a whit what we want. What we're doing now is the eauivalent of giving the dog a treat when he pees on the floor and expecting him to stop.

It's stupid.

[Battler]

To get a party that does what we want, we need two elements:

1. Party that can and will win.
2. Party inclined to do what we want.

I'm not certain I WANT the repubs to ditch the "median" voter, because then they lose and Democratic primaries BECOME The election.

The strategy for victory involves keeping enough median voters, and USING THEIR votes to get what we want.

Saying one thing : "I support the assault weapon ban" and doing another "hehe - Tom Delay won't send it to me and I won't really ask for it" seems just fine in this.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't be leaning on Bush more. Exciting one's base to get out and vote is always important to them, as well, and remind him what his base is.


Battler.

[H Romberg]

Nice theory, but I don't understand how to influence the votes of the party if they already know they can't lose your votes? What do we have to offer the Republican party in exchange for that influence, other than votes that they are already guaranteed to get? Not flaming. Looking for a less depressing option than walking away from the big 2.

[longeyes]

Too many people are assuming that the politicians care what their constituents think, much less fear it. Two-thirds of Americans, when polled, want the borders tightened and strong measures taken against illegal immigration. But last time I checked maybe there were a dozen members of Congress willing to stand up on this issue, if that. To me it looks like Tom Tancredo is playing the sheriff in High Noon on this one. Representation? Not really. We are fundamentally in a "taxation without representation" situation and it's going to take some serious ignition to get any kind of change.

Like many people here I am in a quandary about just where to put my vote. I see Bush as what formerly passed for a mainstream Democrat of a generation ago. He is seeking the "sweet spot" for votes, and if we think he won't jettison 2A enthusiasts to win we're crazy.

[Lone_Gunman]

lendringser,

A couple of points regarding your last post...

First, I don't see speed limits going away, despite the fact that most people speed. Just because people don't obey the law doesn't mean they necessarily want the law to go away. At least, that is my theory as to why we still have speeding laws.

Second, if the War on Drugs will inevitably self-destruct in 10 - 20 years anyway, why should the Libs expend any political muscle right now? Just lay low, and it will all go away anyway, if your presumption is correct. This is a main reason why the Libs can't get anywhere. If they would drop this one issue, they would be much more viable.

Third, its my opinion that we are stuck with the War on Drugs. A tax payer funded industry has now been built around it. Many jobs are at stake. Too many people get a piece of the gov't pork.

[SteelyDan]

How is voting for and publicly giving support and encouragement to someone who wants to take away my rights going to make a difference? (In the positive sense, I mean...)

Hey Tamara, what can I say? I don't think I'm going to change your mind, and vice versa. But to try to answer your question: (1) because the alternatives are even worse, (2) the last time I checked the republicans were not exactly clamoring to take away our gun rights, but many democrats are, and (3) my point was not that blind support of any party will make a positive difference, but rather that our best chance of achieving positive results is to work for change within the existing parties (and yes, that probably means the republican party).

I'm really not unmindful of the deficiencies in the current two-party system, but I'm pretty sure that's the deck we will have to play in the forseeable future. I believe our best strategy is to play the cards we were dealt as best we can, and not to throw away our cards, on "principle," because we don't like the game. One of those strategies gives us a chance of winning, the other doesn't.

[Byron Quick]

2) the last time I checked the republicans were not exactly clamoring to take away our gun rights,

1986 Volkmer-McClure Act otherwise known as the Firearms Owners Protection Act...Democratic Senator from the People's Republic of New Jersey (already a non-NFA state) added an amendment to ban the new manufacture of machine guns...signed into law by the Republican idol-President Ronald Reagan. Executive order by Bush I dealing with the importation of "assault weapons"...forerunner of the 1994 assault weapon ban and will still be in effect if the AWB sunsets. Attributed by many as the reason that many gunowners either didn't vote in 1992 or voted for Ross Perot...leading to Bush I's defeat by Clinton.

Next false claim?

The ONLY difference between the Republican Party platform and the Democratic Party platform is that the catastrophe will happen a decade or two later with the Republicans.

I voted for Bush in 2000. First time I voted for anyone except a Libertarian since 1976. I voted for him for one reason...he wasn't Al Gore. I did not want to take any chance of Al Gore placing judges on the Supreme Court. Bush said during his campaign that he would sign the AW extension if it came to his desk. On the other hand, the fact that he is not actively supporting it is significant. Yes, he's trying to have his cake and eat it too. So what? He's a politician. The Democrats have been saying he's stupid and trying to denigrate him since he first ran for governor of Texas. He's beat their butts at every turn

I personally think he's doing it again.

I'm not a Bush suporter. There's quite a bit of crap I don't like. But if the bills extending the assault weapon ban get out of committee I will be amazed.

[Lone_Gunman]

What a conundrum we have here.

There seem to be 2 schools of thought:

1. Vote your conscience, ie, Libertarian. People with this idea are political purists, unwilling to compromise anything away. This results in them never gaining any significant power, but at least when we wake up one day in a police state, they can honestly proclaim they had nothing to do with it.

2. Vote practically, ie, Republican. This is better for us in the short run, but as others have mentioned, we are heading in the same direction as the Dems, just at a slower rate. Maybe we can change the Repubs from the inside, but so far that hasn't been done.


Unfortunately, I think I fall into the second category. I can't vote for a candidate who I know will lose, and thereby allow somebody like Clinton or Gore to win. I just can't do it.


If my choice is to go to hell today, or tomorrow, I would pick tomorrow.

[Battler]

Why vote for them if they take our votes for granted?

Tought call.

For starters, if you're the only person who wants liberty you won't get it.

But use as an example socialists and the Democratic party.

Was the Democratic party a socialist party before some socialists started up?

Were they able to implement a partial socialist agenda even before the party was dominated by socialists? He** yeah.

Did they take over the party, and its voice? Yeah.

Through the republican party you can get a voice to talk to other republicans, try to win them over to our side. Get the other republicans campaigning and let them see WHAT you stand for.

Ron Paul gets to speak in Congress. Our side gets heard. What if there was ANOTHER Ron Paul? 4 or 5 Ron Pauls could get awful noisy (in a good way)

[sw442642]

My take:

1. Bush actually believes in the AWB - thus, he would be an idiot.
2. He is supporting something that he knows doesn't work - thus, he is a liar. Not because he said hew wouldn't support it but because he supports a useless policy for political advantage that rapes our rights.

Neither is too attractive.:banghead:

[SteelyDan]

Byron, the truth of what you deride as a "false claim" is demonstrated by your own actions--you voted for Bush because, according to you, you didn't want Gore to win. Which was precisely my point in the first place.

If you truly believe that most republicans are "clamoring" to take away your guns rights, then you haven't bothered to check their position papers. Just for fun, try comparing maps of the states that: (1) have reasonable or lenient gun laws, and (2) those that voted for Bush, or have republican governors or republican congressional delegations (take your pick).

This isn't rocket science. All I'm saying is that our best chance lies with working within the republican party to support candidates who share our views. I'm not exactly thrilled with that conclusion, but I defy anyone to name an alternative that is more likely to be successful.

[Byron Quick]

Perhaps a dull murmur rather than a clamor.

I do not see one single gun control act being repealed by Republicans. Heck, they're not even sure they can manage to let AWB die.

The only difference I see between Republicans and Democrats is maybe 20 to 30 years longer to catastrophe under the Republicans.

They are not the answer to the Democratic Platform, merely a slower form of suicide.

[Brett Bellmore]

My take on this is that the only people who have any chance of getting what they want from politicians, are the people who ARE willing to "cut their nose off to spite their face". Politicians are very good at setting up situations where a rational person would be forced to vote for them. The only voters politicans actually are afraid of, and have to work to please, are the ones who WILL take a hike if they don't get what they want, even if the result is worse.

That said, primaries are where it's really at. Half as many voters, often much fewer. If we have influence in the general election, with the same number of votes we can dominate the primaries, and make sure that the candidate in the fall is a pro-gunner. Then the anti-gun Republicans will be the ones faced with the lesser of two evils choice.

We've got to concentrate on the Republican primaries. There's no way around it. If we wait until the general election to get involved, we've thrown away most of our leverage.

[Battler]

This is not true.

Socialists who "infiltrated" (not in secret; but appropriate word) the Democratic party, and made it their own, could have instead joined the "communist" party. They did not cut off their nose to spite their face. They are winning, incrementally.

[longeyes]

Politicians are no different from anyone else. They are motivated, above all, by fear. If you want to get their attention, you need to make them sweat and recognize there's a prize to pay for screwing you over. If Bush knows he can take gun owners for granted, he will. Expect nothing else and you won't be disappointed. It's the militant and noisy special-interest groups who are shaping the policy of this nation, more every day. When gun owners get loud and ornery and organized they'll see results. If they don't they can figure on a steady erosion of their rights over time.