With Fred out, a new strategy


PDA






joemerchant24
January 22, 2008, 04:05 PM
For too long the GOP has taken the gun vote for granted.

After all, they say, who else will be vote for... Democrats?

Well, now that they've chased Fred (no support from HQ), I've had it.

This year, the entire gun culture needs to vote third party. I don't care which third party, either. Vote Paul, vote Kucinich, vote Reform, vote Libertarian, vote Gree, vote Cyclon, vote Scientologist.

Just don't vote mainstream.

If the GOP sees we actually have the intestinal fortitude to vote third party, they might rethink their ways come 2010.

Before you tell me its a wasted vote, I want you to tell me how voting for McCain, Huck, Mitt, Rudy, Hilary, Obama, or Edwards is NOT A WASTED VOTE.

Gunowners are screwed no matter who wins.

So, let's put our votes to good use and vote third party. We're gonna get saddled with an anti-gun liberal no matter who wins, so we might as well use our vote to send a message for 2010.
__________________
"I'm a man. But I can change.
If I have to. I guess."

Pull up a barstool in The Shack
--- joemerchant24.blogspot.com ---

If you enjoyed reading about "With Fred out, a new strategy" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Cougfan2
January 22, 2008, 04:14 PM
Sorry, but I will hold my nose and vote for any of the republicans if it keeps Hillary or Obama out of the Oval Office. :barf: I know it may be the lesser of evils, but if Hillary or Obama get elected they will actively pursue registration and gun bans. I don't think there is as much danger of that with the republicans even with Gulliani.

jlday70
January 22, 2008, 04:16 PM
Interesting thought but good luck in getting it to work....I say we pencil in someone(fictional or dead preferably) like Sam Colt, or John Browning.

LT1coupe
January 22, 2008, 04:17 PM
Sometimes is about picking the lessor of the evils. By doing what you suggest, you're letting others decide your fate. I value my right to vote & won't piss it away.......

1 old 0311
January 22, 2008, 04:54 PM
Pretty sad that in a Democracy of 300,000,000 THESE are our choices.:(

joemerchant24
January 22, 2008, 05:07 PM
So you consider voting for a person who has a record of trying to kill your rights... including rights you obviously hold dear... is not a wasted vote?

Voting for the lesser of two evils just makes for more evil the next time around.

Look what the GOP has reduced us to... Someone is actually trying to rationalize that Rudy G. "might not be as bad" on guns.

Think about that. That's what the GOP has forced on us.

Others (Dem and Rep national parties) have already decided my fate. As a gunowner, I'm boned.

au1776
January 22, 2008, 05:12 PM
I'm not a single-issue voter, but that may be a rarity around here.

ilbob
January 22, 2008, 05:20 PM
thread lock in sight.

Autolycus
January 22, 2008, 05:21 PM
Why does the original poster assume that we were going to vote for Fred "The Fatboy" Thompson in the first place? Some of my friends are 2nd Amendment advocates but were planning on voting Democrat.

Others are voting for Libertarians or Greens. I myself am voting for Ron Paul as he is the one I wish to see take the primary. Gun rights are not the only rights, no matter what. The ability to raise your child as you see fit, the ability to ingest what you want, and the ability to marry who you wish are very important to me. Fred Thomspon was an enemy of those things.

So as of right now, I am voting for Ron Paul. Unless someone who I agree with more than Ron Paul comes along, then he is getting my vote.

MDMadrid
January 22, 2008, 05:32 PM
Fortunately or unfortunately (you decide) RKBA is not the only issue we face as a nation. To vote on only this issue is a mistake. Take a step back and try to look at the big picture. (smoking a cigar will help!)

tinygnat219
January 22, 2008, 05:40 PM
Sorry,

Fred never gained traction. The man campaigned like he was a kid in high school waiting for that bell to ring on Friday afternoon so he could get out of it. When he was woken up from his nap, got his coffee, read the paper, and then decided to campaign, it was time to go back to sleep. The few times he showed any kind of fire, he'd go back to his laconic rituals.

He was too little too late, and frankly too dull.

Still, that being said, I refuse to vote for a third party in this election. Until something like the Republican party comes along like it did in the 1850s, I am not interested.
The Libertarians have some good ideas, but don't have a plan for how they will work in the real world.
The Greens, well let's just say that the only thing I agree with them on is Green is made from a combination of Yellow and Blue.

I refuse to vote for the Democrats because they are all gun-grabbing, tax-hiking, socialists who want to let Richard Simmons run National Security because our current foreign policy "offends" those who hate us anyway.

I will vote for the Republican Candidate, even if it's McCain, unless it's Giuliani whom I consider worse than the Democrat candidates.

Then, I sit out this election and wait for the 2010 Congressional elections where we win it all back.

taliv
January 22, 2008, 05:45 PM
Gridlock '08

Markbo
January 22, 2008, 05:47 PM
It is exactly that strategy that got Bill Clinton in office when Bush 1 lost because Ross Perot siphoned off a large percentage of the conservative vote.

I suggest another strategy, like let's pick a mainstream candidate and do whatever we can to them in office!

joffe
January 22, 2008, 05:49 PM
Paul isn't a third party candidate and won't be one.

Vote Republican.. Vote Paul.

Thernlund
January 22, 2008, 05:51 PM
I'm not a single-issue voter, but that may be a rarity around here.

I fear it is. That's why Paul get so much support on THR.

Gaaa. I guess Giuliani is my next choice. Damnit Fred.


-T.

Ash
January 22, 2008, 05:57 PM
When 2010 comes around, if we do not act in 2008, it will be too late.

Ash

au1776
January 22, 2008, 06:01 PM
Vote for the GOP candidate, then campaign like hell for a GOP leaning Congress that would help reduce any pressure on the President to sign new gun laws.

MutinousDoug
January 22, 2008, 06:35 PM
The next POTUS will serve for 8 years at the most. If a Dem is elected then I see Ruth Ginsberg retiring from the Supreme Court. Two other SCOTUS positions will likely become vacant in the next 4-8 years to be filled by our new president/s. I think Hillary would nominate Bill to that vacancy or any opening in the court. Just to get him out of the White house. He will make a mockery of that position for the next 25 (+!) years just as he did to the presidency for 8.
I'll not see that happen if I can prevent it, even if I have to hold my nose and vote for McCain. Several Dems I have talked to have stated they would vote for McCain if the Dem candidate were Hillary.
The election will be won because of defections by members at the middle of one party or the other (meaning "centrist" Dems and "moderate" repubs), not by voters at the fringes. Single issue voters, unfortunately, represent part of that fringe.

Geister
January 22, 2008, 06:36 PM
The Libertarians have some good ideas, but don't have a plan for how they will work in the real world.

You don't know very much about libertarianism then. It's not about fixing current problems but rather putting a system in place that will keep those problems from occurring again. Everything Paul has said applies to the real world.

I remember the people supporting Thompson before he officially announced his candidacy. I never really thought much of him because frankly, why wait so long to decide to campaign? He never really struck me as being serious enough.

camacho
January 22, 2008, 06:36 PM
Before you tell me its a wasted vote, I want you to tell me how voting for McCain, Huck, Mitt, Rudy, Hilary, Obama, or Edwards is NOT A WASTED VOTE.

Gunowners are screwed no matter who wins.

Gun owners are screwed with Huck:confused:

Might want to brush on Huck's 2 Amendment background and credentials. Fred "I won't tell what guns I own" Thompson is a gun liberal compared to Huck!

As to the rest, I do not think we have to worry about Romney or Rudy. McCain will still be better than any of the Dems.

EricTheBarbarian
January 22, 2008, 06:41 PM
vote Kucinich

uhhhh, lets not get too carried away. You ever see that guys voting record? especially on gun rights? Water guns would be illegal if that guy got his way.

Its embarrassing to let people know he comes from my home state of Ohio. How he keeps getting elected to congress Ill never know.........

alsaqr
January 22, 2008, 06:49 PM
I spent over 20 years in the uniform of the US Army. Got badly injured in the process. I did not serve and fight so that a feel good POTUS could send his lackey to the SCOTUS to fight against my right to own a gun. I could care less about all the feel good stuff like gay marriage, abortion, flag burning. etc. My Second Amendment rights are the most important rights that I am provided by the US constitution.

I belonged to the Republican party for over five decades. Have contributed money until it hurt. No more contributions to the Republican party-ever. IMO: Republicans have forfeited their right to rule this country.

Ain't drinking the Republican Kool Aid any more. Ain't going to hold my nose and vote Republican. I will vote for the incumbent county sheriff who is a Democrat as I always have. I will vote against every Republican who holds state office in my district. I will vote against Inhofe and Cole.

For president, I will write in the name of the local dog catcher who I know well.

Cougfan2
January 22, 2008, 06:56 PM
joemerchant24, all I remember is when I and a bunch of people voted for Ross Perot out of frustration with both the Repubs and Dems, that is what swept Bill Clinton into office. I won't be making a mistake like that again.

JaxNovice
January 22, 2008, 06:59 PM
au1776- +1 on not being a single issue voter.

I would vote for Yassar Arafat before I voted for Obama and would probably vote for Adi Amin before I voted for Clinton. If John McCain stood up today and said I will institute a similar gun policy as Clinton, you can bet your A$% that I would still vote for him.

20nickels
January 22, 2008, 07:43 PM
I've voted for "the lesser of two evils" before, it was a wasted vote and a contribution to the endless gungrabing cycle among other things. Not voting for the right man is a wasted vote. I want the Mayor of Crazytown to turn things around. Ron Paul 08.

Javelin
January 22, 2008, 07:50 PM
In the end it seems to always boil down to the contemplation to vote for a freak or a wierdo.

:)

Prince Yamato
January 22, 2008, 07:51 PM
Hooray for the crazies coming out of the THR woodwork and posting political rants!

mike6161
January 22, 2008, 07:56 PM
I look at it this way if Hilary gets in then 2A rights will be out the door with in the first 100 days. However, if we get Giuliani we will have 3 or 4 years before he gets around to 2A rights. So do you wont 4 year to say goodbye to your 2A rights or 100 days? I will vote for a Republican if thats Giuliani then that’s who I will vote for

lamazza
January 22, 2008, 08:22 PM
they might rethink their ways come 2010
There won't be a GOP by then if HillaryObama gets in.

Feanaro
January 22, 2008, 08:42 PM
Might want to brush on Huck's 2 Amendment background and credentials. Fred "I won't tell what guns I own" Thompson is a gun liberal compared to Huck!

You might want to do the same. I don't remember Huckabee writing an article about Virginia Tech and advocating CC. Thompson did. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTIwYzMyZmQ1YzQ1MDNmZTMyYzQ1Y2U3YTU4YzNmNGE=)

telomerase
January 22, 2008, 08:49 PM
It's going to be President Hillary. The Powers That Be had that figured out long ago. Get involved in local politics, or some educational group, and quit wasting your time pretending that you can affect the Presidential race.

(Not that I didn't give to the Paul campaign, but national politics is a rigged game and we're not the riggers...)

JKimball
January 22, 2008, 09:04 PM
joemerchant24,

I think you're overreacting a little bit. The GOP actually has some viable candidates who want to defend the 2nd Amendment. Huckabee is right on. McCain is opposed to gun control, including assault weapons bans. Romney supports background checks and restrictions on machine guns, but has recently stated that he doesn't support bans on semi-autos.

Here are some good links to some of their statements on the 2nd Amendment:

McCain:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/77636553-6337-4ecd-b170-49e1c07d2fbd.htm

Huckabee:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=18

Romney:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press...cond_Amendment

I couldn't find anything on Giuliani's site in my brief search. We all know he has a terrible record of gun control in New York. But in an interview with Hannity he at least recognized that gun laws should be left up to local government, and tried to distance himself from a national gun control agenda. That suggests to me that he isn't determined to seek gun control laws. But still, if the ban hits his desk, my best guess based on his past is that he'll sign it.

jjduller1946
January 22, 2008, 09:18 PM
Shooters,

I am a supporter of the whole Constitution, including the Amendments and of course the 2d Amendment. The 2A is our insurance policy on all of the rest. That said, for those of you anxious to vote for your dog catcher or some non-starter third way candidate, you may be shooting yourself and the rest of us in the collective foot (feet).

IMHO, the way we protect our constitution is first through the Supreme Court. I look at the positions and records of the Candidates and try to figure out who represents as much of my values and hopes for the country. A key question is what kind of justices would he appoint to the Supreme Court (I already know what kind she would appoint). Another consideration is can he beat the Socialist or the Marxist.

So far any of the leading Republicans would be geometrically better than the Socialist (Obama) or the Marxist (Clinton). Now none happen to meet all of my druthers. But so far in my life as a voter, only Ron Reagan came really close.

Once we have one of these guys sworn in on 20 Jan 2009 I say keep your powder dry. Remember how ordinary folks rose up and defeated the Bush-McCain-Kennedy’s Amnesty Bill? We now know we can punish Congressmen and make them fear for that which many hold most dear: their power and prestige.

If you plan to do anything with your vote that lets the country slide further to the left then I say get out your Glock, take careful aim at your foot and blast away. You may also want to cut off your nose to spite your face for good measure. Having gotten over your orneriness and irritation with the imperfect situation, please heal, limp to the voting booth and vote for the best bet for the country and my Grandchildren, given the alternatives. Unless something very dramatic happens it will be the Republican.

IMHO, Thanks for listening

dralarms
January 22, 2008, 09:36 PM
I smeel thread lock. Did someone leave a bottle open?:evil:

coorsdrifter
January 22, 2008, 09:39 PM
Pity when you vote at the primaries they don't have a spot for 'none of the above'.:banghead:

v35
January 22, 2008, 10:11 PM
Before the thread gets locked, a thought: a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. And I'm not voting for evil.

JCT
January 22, 2008, 10:32 PM
RON PAUL!!!!!!
We had a money bomb yesterday, he's got about $3,300,000.00 this quarter.
Romney is broke, Giulianin is broke, McCain is broke! Economy is bad, so Paul's ideas and strengths are more appropriate than ever!! He got 2nd in NV, should do well in Florida and unlike other candidates, his campaign is growing on it's own, despite media ignorance. He's the most conservative and with libertarian and constitutionalist ideals, he's just what we need now!
I don't want to try to convince those who are behind someone other than Paul, but I hope they'll at least visit www.ronpaul2008.com and read and watch the video network. He has a real chance if you support him.

camacho
January 22, 2008, 10:37 PM
You might want to do the same. I don't remember Huckabee writing an article about Virginia Tech and advocating CC. Thompson did.

Well, not true. Huck addressed Virginia Tech: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3062324

and also wrote a whole book (not just an article) on the subject of violence in our society in general and kids specifically:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/080541794X/qid=1111766051/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/103-4900295-5800609?v=glance&s=books

jerkface11
January 22, 2008, 10:39 PM
Thompson isn't pro-gun anyway so what difference does it make.

Robert Hairless
January 22, 2008, 11:42 PM
Fortunately or unfortunately (you decide) RKBA is not the only issue we face as a nation. To vote on only this issue is a mistake. Take a step back and try to look at the big picture. (smoking a cigar will help!)

You're blowing smoke. Yours is an extremely narrow and shortsighted vision that ignores a developing crisis and will only increase it. Here is a partial outline of the big picture that you seem unable to see past your smoke.


The U.S. is becoming increasingly urbanized. Urban population centers tend to be anti-gun.

Both houses of the Congress are controlled by the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party tends to be anti gun.

The economic base of this country has shifted from small family-run businesses to large corporations that are increasingly absorbed into multinational corporations. Multinational corporations tend to be anti gun.

The United Nations and the European Union have increasing power which extends into this country, including influence on politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Supreme Court Justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The UN and the EU tend to be anti gun.

The United States is one of the few remaining countries in which individuals are allowed to own firearms and carry them for the defense of their own lives and that of their families, but it is under increasing pressure from within as well as without to abolish that situation.

In other countries the firearms owned by individuals have been seized and destroyed, sometimes under the guise of gun "buybacks," as in Australia. Similar events take place in the United States often enough to be reported in messages by forum members, and those events are documented in newspaper reports they provide. The most notable of such events took place in New Orleans in 2005.

Gun registration, ballistic fingerprinting, and similar schemes are increasingly promoted in the United States. All such schemes have the same inevitable result: gun confiscation.

In England and other countries the parallel movement to anti-gun schemes is the discouragement and disparagement of self defense. That same movement is rampant in the United States and it underlies the drive to discourage individual ownership of the means for self defense: firearms.

In many institutions--schools, colleges, universities, airports, places of entertainment, and other public arenas--even pictures, photos, drawings, and symbols of firearms are banned and anyone who displays even a toy gun is subject to arrest.

The media--nearly all of it--is anti gun and anti self defense.

When a firearm is destroyed or confiscated it is gone forever, never to be recovered by its owner.

When gun owners are deprived of their firearms they are gun owners no longer. They are former gun owners who have no political power as a group whatsoever and will never have any ever again.


The rabidly anti gun forces know all that and count on it. It's a disservice to gun owners to tell them to look at some other picture when this one is real and its consequences are always imminent.

It's also especially dimwitted to argue that gun owners waste their votes on ideal Presidential candidates who have no chance of winning, or to "send messages," or to vote for other than the Republican Presidential candidate in this coming election. It makes no difference who he is. The alternatives--Clinton, Obama, and Edwards--all are adamantly and avowedly anti gun, and all have committed themselves to disarming every individual in the United States.

This election is for keeps. The one major element missing from the above dismal mix is a Democratic President. When that element is in place, not all of the gun forums in the universe will have any possible effect on the eventual outcome.

What makes this situation even worse is the repeated attacks on the NRA by some gun owners and so-called "gun rights" organizations. Imperfect as the NRA is, it is the only power base available to gun owners. Weakening the NRA, voting for third party candidates who have no chance, sending "messages," looking for illusory "big pictures," and all such childish pseudosophisticated nonsense are what will end individual firearms ownership in this country, and with it the right to self defense.

This is what happened in other countries and this is what will happen here if gun owners allow themselves to be deluded or self deluded. In the grand political picture every person who reads this message is no more or less than one vote. When they use it to "send a message," that message goes to the dead letter office.

firearms_instructor
January 23, 2008, 12:21 AM
Ron Paul has been my Congressional hero since I found out about him in 1984. His record of upholding and defending the Constitution is unmatched by any of the other candidates. He has actually introduced legislation to repeal most, if not all, of the current Federal gun-control laws. Finally, I will not have to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. I will vote for him even if I have to write him in.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

http://freedomjoyadventure.blogspot.com

wuluf
January 23, 2008, 12:25 AM
Thank you, Robert, for your clarity.

jeepmor
January 23, 2008, 12:33 AM
Fred lacked any real zeal. Being a guy who's been in front of the camera for a living for a long time, he should have known better.


BTW - ever notice how all the anti-gun politicians have armed bodyguards....hmmm



Ron Paul, as whacky as he may come across to the brainwashed masses, is the only man running for President that has showed any real loyalty to the people and the founding documents of this country. The rest of them are OWNED by special interests. And those interests are all notably anti-gun.

Pete409
January 23, 2008, 12:40 AM
Several Dems I have talked to have stated they would vote for McCain if the Dem candidate were Hillary.
The election will be won because of defections by members at the middle of one party or the other (meaning "centrist" Dems and "moderate" repubs), not by voters at the fringes.

Doug, I think you have brought up a very important point. I intended to vote for Thompson until he withdrew. Now, I'm trying to decide which of the candidates would do a good job of preserving my Second Amendment rights and still have a reasonable chance of getting elected this fall. I'm thinking it will either be McCain or Romney.

JCT
January 23, 2008, 01:07 AM
Pete, please check out www.ronpaul2008.com he's the best pro gun candidate, he's the biggest supporter of individual liberties, less government, the constitution and a conservative foreign policy that allows us to take care of our own country for once!

Prince Yamato
January 23, 2008, 02:31 AM
Aside from the usuals here who tend to have differing opinions, anyone else notice that increasing number of posts from the Ron Paul supporters and libertarian zealots? Gosh you guys and your principles. Now, I might even vote for him in the primaries, but if he doesn't get the nomination, I'm still voting Republican. Frankly, I only care about 2 things: 1) Gun Control and 2) low taxes. None of the Republican candidates (sans Paul) are ideal on those, bet they are better than the alternative.

I love the "send a message" crowd. Seriously, who are you people and what makes you think the Republicans will give a crap about what you people think? If they lose, they'll just pander to a broader and possibly more liberal base. "Oh, I lost the election... maybe I should tighten my stance on gun control, that way I can swing more votes from the left."

Aside from God, er I mean Ron Paul, every politician flip flops. Some just do it better than others. If you want to win, you play the game. If you want to lose, you give political speeches like Ron Paul.

camacho
January 23, 2008, 07:48 AM
It makes no difference who he is. The alternatives--Clinton, Obama, and Edwards--all are adamantly and avowedly anti gun, and all have committed themselves to disarming every individual in the United States.


Robert, I agree with everything you said and your assessment of the "big picture" is right on target. However, if Gulliani or Romney takes the nomination, I am not sure how are they better than the Dems. For instance, I am under no illusion that should a new AWB reaches the desk of these two, they will sign it. I think our rights under President Romney or Gulliani are in grave danger. Now, I would not vote under any circumstance for a Dem, or a third party but voting for any of these two will not be easy of even possible for me.

Having said that, I do think that McCain will end taking the nomination, and he is one I can vote for. Also, there has been talk about Huck for the VP slot under McCain which will make me even less anxious.

JaxNovice
January 23, 2008, 08:24 AM
I am a Ron Paul supporter as well. I even gave money and signed up for his local meet up. However it is time to step back into reality and start looking at other candidates since Ron Paul does not have a snowballs chance in hell in winning anything.

I really have low political regard for people who are one issue voters. Looking at potential candidates exclusively through the lens of the 2a, or any other issue for that matter, really is stupid. I had a pro-life friend in college who would have voted for Satan himself, as long as he was pro-life. I always thought she was a political fool.

Inverness11
January 23, 2008, 08:54 AM
Someday, when you're walking down the street and are asked "Papers, please." you may wonder how you should have voted. Voting for the lesser of two evils is appeasement. Voting third party is a wasted vote.

We need need to find a way to rise above our broken bipartisan system.

Deanimator
January 23, 2008, 09:17 AM
I don't think there is as much danger of that with the republicans even with Gulliani.
Giuliani has been 100% consistent in his claims that the 2nd Amendment means different things in different places. There wouldn't be a dime's worth of difference between him and Clinton/Obama, and you can be sure that more than a couple of Republican legislators would go along just to follow the party line.

baz
January 23, 2008, 09:27 AM
thread lock in sight.I would have thought that too. I guess no mod has seen this yet. Because if they have, and let it ride, it doesn't say much for consistency.

ilbob
January 23, 2008, 09:35 AM
I would have thought that too. I guess no mod has seen this yet. Because if they have, and let it ride, it doesn't say much for consistency.
Moderation is inherently inconsistent, seeing as it is something done by multiple human beings, all of whom have their own trigger points. I also suspect they really dislike closing down any discussion unless they feel it is way off topic, or crosses their own personal line in the sand.

tinygnat219
January 23, 2008, 09:40 AM
You don't know very much about libertarianism then.
No, I understand Libertarianism very well, shoot I LIKE their stands on the issues. However, the Libertarian party in its current state has no idea how to win.

It's not about fixing current problems but rather putting a system in place that will keep those problems from occurring again.
Funny, from what I read about the Libertarian party, they were about returning to the roots of the Constitution, and challenging "the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual."
That quote was taken from here: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml under the "Statement of Principles" and sums it up rather nicely. If that's not about "fixing current problems" then I am not sure what is. Only problem the Libertarians really have here is HOW are they going to do this? I see no plan, no motion, no action beyond a distant 3rd place finish every year.
"repeal taxes" is a good idea, but how are they going to do this? Where's the economic model that shows that this really works?

Everything Paul has said applies to the real world.

I've given money to Paul, mostly because he needled the Future Captain of our Police State, Giuliani, and he brings an interesting perspective to the election. However, if he could get a clue about Foreign Policy, he'd be a shoo-in.

alsaqr
January 23, 2008, 09:57 AM
"I love the "send a message" crowd. Seriously, who are you people and what makes you think the Republicans will give a crap about what you people think?"

Big Daddy Bush gave a crap when gun owners and mainline Republicans who believed his "no more taxes lie" stayed at home or voted for Ross Perot. Bush was livid at gun rights folks for "betraying" him. Big Daddy Bush made the mistake of believing that gun right folks would have to vote for him-the lesser ot two evils.

ieszu
January 23, 2008, 10:26 AM
Not one to speak politics on a non-political forum...

However, While you may like Ron Paul (and I think some of his ideas are great), the only thing we can do to help preserve our liberties is to vote for Paul in the primaries and then vote for the republican candidate... that way the powers that be see our point of view but know we are not single issue voters...

Our system is not broken.... the purpose of third parties to show the mainstream what support various ideas have, and then they can pick and choose accordingly.

And how could Romney be broke (as one person claimed)???? The guy is worth over $500 million dollars.... and he has not spent that much yet!

If you want to push RKBA with the candidates, call their national, state and local headquarters and make a big deal about it... Only by making our voices heard (in addition to voting) can we make a difference!

Just my $.02

(I think this was on topic :) )

axegrinder
January 23, 2008, 11:01 AM
MutinousDoug said:

"The next POTUS will serve for 8 years at the most. If a Dem is elected then I see Ruth Ginsberg retiring from the Supreme Court. Two other SCOTUS positions will likely become vacant in the next 4-8 years to be filled by our new president/s. I think Hillary would nominate Bill to that vacancy or any opening in the court. Just to get him out of the White house. He will make a mockery of that position for the next 25 (+!) years just as he did to the presidency for 8."

That's one of the most terrifying scenarios ever put forth, anywhere!
I'm sure that the Clintons wouldn't hesitate to do such a thing, in that
the word "shame" isn't in their little red books.

You should write horror, man; you're scarier than Stephen King.

earplug
January 23, 2008, 11:14 AM
I'm a Ron Paul supporter. I have rounded up several in my Colorado precinct to vote for him in the caucaus.
During my door to door canvasing the only other GOP candidate with any real support is Romney.
In Nevada Ron Paul came in second behind Romney. Much of the Romney support came from the LDS vote.
Ron Paul is the better man based on past performance and record.
Ron Paul has gained respect from DEM's who can't stand there other choices.
If Ron gets the ticket, he has a good chance of winning.

alsaqr
January 23, 2008, 12:39 PM
"If a Dem is elected then I see Ruth Ginsberg retiring from the Supreme Court. Two other SCOTUS positions will likely become vacant in the next 4-8 years to be filled by our new president/s. I think Hillary would nominate Bill to that vacancy or any opening in the court. Just to get him out of the White house. He will make a mockery of that position for the next 25 (+!) years just as he did to the presidency for 8."

I continue to hear this phoney scenario from other Republicans. Do you have some godly insight into who Romney or Rudy Baby would appoint to SCOTUS?

Just how does this help gun owners if Mitt Romney appoints his bud, Fat Butt Weld to SCOTUS? Is he going to then send his Justice Dep't lackey off to give SCOTUS another "friend of the court" brief aimed at further gutting the Second Amendment? This is what Wya is doing now.

zxcvbob
January 23, 2008, 01:11 PM
We've got a new pro-RKBA Democrat for a US Representative in the last election. I intend to keep voting for him. We need more good Democrats to rise up through the seniority process into leadership positions. Infiltrate and weaken the enemy might be a better strategy than putting so much faith in the Republican party.

MDMadrid
January 23, 2008, 01:20 PM
You're blowing smoke. Yours is an extremely narrow and shortsighted vision that ignores a developing crisis and will only increase it.

So you are telling me that ALL of our nations problems stem from RKBA? I will admit that this is a MAJOR issue, but there are other MAJOR issues with this country that don't have anything to do with gun control.

I fail to see how focusing on one issue equals a broad view and taking a look at all of the issues equals narrow and shortsighted vision.:confused:

ExSoldier
January 23, 2008, 01:24 PM
Wow I'm surprised this thread has gone so long without being locked and I suspect that it's because the topic is SPOT ON to the requirements of the category.

I'll weigh in briefly as I get my last class of the day, American Government, started on their notes and other assignments.

The key to remaining free is to decisively control the Congress both upper and lower Houses. Without the US Senate no President can ratify any antigun UN Treaty that might waft thru the doors. With a grip on the House of Representatives, no antigun bill can launch without funding which originates in the House. No gun grabbing candidate to the USSC will be confirmed with a conservative grip on the Senate. In the great scheme of things, the President can propose but the Congress either ratifies, confirms or provides funding. A grip on these areas is more important than who sits in the Oval Office.

The sole exception is if the emergency Executive Orders are triggered by a national catastrophe such as a nuclear 911. Then all bets are off, the Bill of Rights disappears and whomever is President at that moment has the power to make himself "King." A moral individual truly worthy of the Presidency will of course return this country to a state of democracy after the disaster passes. Anybody know of any politician aside from Ron Paul who fits this description? From any political party? Me either. Ron Paul hasn't a snowball's chance in Hell of winning.

Rocketman56
January 23, 2008, 01:30 PM
OK... I've seen a few ideas tossed around to solve this issue.. May I suggest another?!

It would appear outside of Ron Paul that the record of the remaining Presidential candidates on the 2A is spotty..

Instead of focusing on the Presidential election, make sure your local US Representative candidate/choice is solidly pro-2A... This would build a wall that would prevent any
legislation from going to the President.. This would also get the word through
to the leaders of the parties that anything anti-2A is going to be met with enormous
resistance..

Wouldn't hurt to check out your US Senator (at least 1/3 are up for election this time), too!
They sit in review of Supreme Court justices and that could be important down the line..

THANKS!
Steve

bogie
January 23, 2008, 03:08 PM
Guys, think of it this way...

Chuck Schumer WANTS you to vote third party.

I suspect that more than a few third party advocates who have been prowling the internet are doing so from the offices of the Democratic National Committee...

Nietzsche
January 23, 2008, 03:19 PM
Obama: Said he would go after assault weapons. Not my vote.

Hillary: Doesn't have to say it now. Her record is clear. Not my vote.

Thompson: Too late too get in, too late to start running, and too late to get out in my opinion.

McCain: He'd probably protect guns. I agree. He also would probably bomb Iran. Doing so would throw the whole world into a fire. Looking at the economy, I'm of the opinion we ought to forgo our wars for awhile and work on fixing things here at home. The war on terror? We've beaten 'em as far as I'm concerned, and I'd rather see the National Guard building new bridges in Minnesota than new schools in Iraq. Yeah, call me heartless, but we may be looking at a recession or depression soon, so it's time to start bringing the jobs, the troops, and the money home IMO. And time to kick some illegals out. McCain doesn't have such a good record on that. And finally I think he's just too old. He's 72 from what I hear. I look at him at speeches and he looks like he's in pain just standing there. I wonder if he'll even make it to the convention.

Ron Paul: Be great if he would win. He would scare the bejezzus out of corporate anti-individual freedom types. But he doesn't stand a chance now that I can see. Not enough support.

Guiliani: Cross dressing, ex-New Yorker, who ignored 5 of the first states in the nation in order to concentrate on Florida, the first place that "real people" (not us idiot rubes in fly-over country in other words) live. If he jets back and forth between California and New York he might come up with enough delegates to win. In that dress though...he's gonna win the South? I don't think so. He may not even win his own home state. Polls there aren't looking to good for him. As Arnold might say, "Once anointed! Now?...Disjointed!"

Romney: Flip flopper label for one. He's going to have real problems in the South cause he's Mormon. His record isn't real clear. He's too pretty to me. I want an ugly looking Abe Lincoln joker in there right now. Someone who isn't full of himself.

Huckabee: An odd duck. In his favor, he's ugly...I guess I should say, physically unattractive. Supporter of 1st and 2nd amendment. Throws the God Talk around enough to make people who aren't God Talkers themselves suspect he's a religious wacko, but on his straight line discussion about what he'll do in Washington, he comes off sounding at times like Ron Paul Light...which is ok with me. If he gets too preachy with the God stuff, there'll be Congress and the Supreme Court to put a kibosh on any excesses of gestures he might want to make to his base. And I'd like to see a guy in there who thinks there is SOME Higher Authority waiting to burn him to a crisp in the afterlife instead of acting like they ARE the Higher Authority. Personally I'll probably vote for him. Does he stand a chance in the general election? Probably not. Of course that might depend upon how fractured the democratic party is and how well the economy is doing come election time. Right now I think the Republican Party would have a tough time with ANY candidate. People are ready for change.

Third Party: There's enough dissatisfaction with government to give them a strong showing if they've got the right mix of political ideas. But I don't see one with the right mix of ideas showing up. They are either going to be left leaning, or right leaning, and have not enough of the middle.

We'll see though.

Ragnar Danneskjold
January 23, 2008, 03:42 PM
vote for who will nominate the best SC Justices. That is the only thing that actually matters. All real decisions default to the SC.

ExSoldier
January 23, 2008, 03:42 PM
Nietzsche: Loved your analysis and I agree with most of it. I'll probably vote Huckabee in the primary even if he's run out of money to really compete here in Florida.

Although I was proud of McCain when he was the first candidate to come out in full support of the 2nd Amendment within hours of the VA Tech shootings, I also remember his blatant support for an assault weapons ban and his attack on free speech via cfr. I'm not so sure he'll protect our guns. I'm also not that certain he'll wind up dropping ordnance on Iran.

As far as Mitt & Rudy I can only go on their records. Mitt is on record opposing the NRA and favoring tighter gun controls in his state. That's not too good, no matter how you can manage to spin it! Rudy launched a losing and money wasteful effort to sue the gun manufacterers. He's also pushed some rather draconian gun control proposals. He's a two faced liar. Poor man's version of the current looney NYC mayor: Bloomberg.

I think that I'll vote for either Mitt or McCain based on their pick to be VP. If they're smart they'll pick a Mike Huckabee or a Fred Thompson as the second chair. However, I sorta feel even Fred is getting a bit long in the tooth for politics. Huckabee is young and he's healthy. He's got a great stand up routine for the general election, too.

langenc
January 23, 2008, 03:52 PM
"I could care less about all the feel good stuff like gay marriage, abortion, flag burning. etc. My Second Amendment rights are the most important rights that I am provided by the US constitution."

This is one of many reasons why we are where we are now.

I dont care what you do to them-just dont do it to me!!

We have all heard about the various type of gun owners that were having their rights trampled and one did not speak up:
I dont care if theyiof they take your pistol-I dont shoot pistols-just dont mess with my shotgun etc etc. Pretty soon no one to help defend the shotgunner.

Thse constitution has been trampled and we dont even know about it..and mostly dont care so long as I get blah, blah, blah.

Thernlund
January 23, 2008, 03:58 PM
Here is a scan of (what I think is) a canned letter I got from McCain when I wrote about a possible ban.

http://208.106.149.12/letters/john_mccain.pdf

Draw your own conclusions.

I'm divided between McCain and Giuliani. I had said I'd probably pick Giuliani, but McCain is sounding better as I study him more.

Still... damn it Fred.


-T.

MarshallDodge
January 23, 2008, 04:07 PM
So, let's put our votes to good use and vote third party. We're gonna get saddled with an anti-gun liberal no matter who wins, so we might as well use our vote to send a message for 2010.

I have lived through an election where voters took a stand by electing someone to make a point. The results were Bill Clinton and we had that gun grabber for 8 years and came very close to getting his VP after that. If you want to send a message, write a letter.

It isn't just the office of President that we have to be concerned about. It's your mayor, state representatives, governor, etc. that you really need to worry about. They not only make the local laws but someday they may be running the country.

Wild Deuce
January 23, 2008, 04:45 PM
Picking betweeen what's left for POTUS (excluding Ron Paul) in either party is like trying to decide whether you want to die in a violent slashing attack or would rather have your throat slit nice and quietly while you sleep.

Deanimator
January 23, 2008, 04:46 PM
vote for who will nominate the best SC Justices. That is the only thing that actually matters. All real decisions default to the SC.

This is often cited as a reason to vote for Giuliani. It's a scam.

If the Democrats keep the Senate, any Republican would be lucky to get Bill Clinton onto the court.

It's not whom the President nominates. It's whom he can get CONFIRMED. With the Democrats in charge, don't expect anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky to get confirmed.

alsaqr
January 23, 2008, 04:46 PM
"We need more good Democrats to rise up through the seniority process into leadership positions."

Bingo!!! There are quite a few pro-gun Democrats in the US House.
There have always been. 76 Democrats in the House voted against Clinton's AWB. No one ever ctiticizes those 38 Republicans who voted for the AWB.

Ragnar Danneskjold
January 23, 2008, 05:04 PM
good Democrats

So now we're entertaining fantasy and myth?

MDMadrid
January 23, 2008, 05:04 PM
"I could care less about all the feel good stuff like gay marriage, abortion, flag burning. etc. My Second Amendment rights are the most important rights that I am provided by the US constitution."

This is one of many reasons why we are where we are now.


You have it exactly...our founding fathers didn't write just one amendment...they wrote 10...many different issues make up the "Bill of Rights"

F4GIB
January 23, 2008, 07:12 PM
Hopefull McCain will live long enough to be sworn in. That means his VP really counts. Who's that gonna be? I hope it's not the Governor of Minnesota.

bruss01
January 23, 2008, 07:22 PM
Quit bringing up the Constitution! It's just a G*&da#! piece of paper!

These days, voting for the lesser of evils gets you the above. As far as I'm concerned the words (which were never admitted to) and the actions (which are a matter of public record) are both treasonous and should be dealt with according to law.

I won't vote for evil, I won't vote for treason no matter whether it's red or blue. Even not voting at all or writing someone in are preferable in my mind to signing my name to the above statement, which is what I'd be doing if I voted for someone who held that opinion in their heart.

Think about it. You aren't responsible for what everybody else does. You are responsible for what YOU do. Will you sign your name to the above quote? Or will you "throw your vote away" and follow your moral consciense?

TEDDY
January 23, 2008, 09:20 PM
I wish you posters would read romneys record in Mass. its not what has been posted.and a lot of what he said was to sooth the radicals in Mass to get the best parts changed.having lived in Mass all my life till 2000 getting the liberal asses to do any thing good is a miricle.they are radicle nut cakes. and yet there are gun clubs within 15 miles of any place.5 clubs with in 10 miles of where I lived.:uhoh:---:confused:----:fire:--:banghead:--:)---:)

joneb
January 24, 2008, 12:31 AM
Pretty sad that in a Democracy of 300,000,000 THESE are our choices.
Amen, and I feel your pain :fire: It is unfortunate that those who truly wish to serve this country never get to first base :(

MiddleAgedKen
January 24, 2008, 12:58 AM
It's not that the RKBA is the only issue that matters, it's that it serves as a wonderful metric by which to evaluate a candidate and draw inferences about what he or she thinks of one.

A candidate who doesn't waffle or weasel on supporting the RKBA is relatively more likely to think of one as a sovereign citizen, perfectly capable in general of governing one's self.

A candidate who is weak on the RKBA, or is an overt gun-grabber, likely believes one is part of an unruly mob who need to be ruled...for their own good, of course.

ArfinGreebly
January 24, 2008, 03:50 AM
I thank you all for maintaining a civil deportment through this thread.

I apologize for the "inconsistency" of allowing it to run this long, but I don't feel it was entirely a waste of bandwidth.

Some good points were made, and some valid illumination shed.

That said . . .
thread lock in sight.I would have thought that too. I guess no mod has seen this yet. Because if they have, and let it ride, it doesn't say much for consistency.
I'd really hate to get a reputation for inconsistency.

So, thanks for keeping it on The High Road, but I have to go to bed now, and I'm going to turn out the light.

G'nite, all.

If you enjoyed reading about "With Fred out, a new strategy" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!