Do we gun owners shoot ourselves...


PDA






Apachedriver
February 25, 2008, 03:22 AM
in the foot? Bear with me for a minute of reading. Thanks.

Like many of you, I've been reading threads here regarding the potential myriad of outcomes from the upcoming election. Some say we're done for, others say we will stand strong. One person said we need to lay low until it was time to strike and others say be as active as possible now politically and otherwise. Heck, there's even talk of secession or civil war and who knows what else I may have missed.

A few say to win over new "converts" by inviting them to share in our interest; others are adamant they will never get it, so why bother.

Someone made a very good point(I think so anyway) of how the diversity amongst ownership types could hurt us due to hunters not caring about CCWers and either of those perhaps not caring about sporting types, etc etc. As long as their type of firearm isn't affected, it's all good. You get the drift there.

We talk about this politician vs. that one vs. the other one and how they all suck but that one is less evil or moderate or whatever.

While all these differences of opinion by themselves are not necessarily a bad thing, it sure makes you wonder if we can stand together on the AWB issues.

And then today I see the following quote:
"I personally will not cast a vote for the presidency -- that is, if McCain is the Republican nominee. Under no circumstances will I vote for either of the Democrats. This will be the first time in fifty years that I have made this choice. I hope it will be the last." :what:

Now, as a youngster, I was taught how important a person's vote is regardless of how the system works. As an adult, I know it matters because in my contributions to this country through military service, I've lived and almost died through the good and poor decisions of our leaders.
Like many brothers-in-arms, I've lost many valuable friends, throughout the last 21+ years, while voluntarily carrying out the orders and decisions of those leaders. And now more than ever, with our rights being politically threatened as they are, I really hope that the rest of our country is feeling compelled to not stand idly by and just let things happen. Sometimes in spite of our fight (votes) for the things we believe in, we can be left with poor selections to choose from, but I believe we still have a responsibility to take an active part and choose from what we give ourselves as a country.

BTW, this isn't an personal attack on anyone. I just got bothered(high road speak:cuss::banghead:) when I went on the GOA's website today to find out what they are about and read the FEB 08 letter posted by the GOA's Chairman of the Board. I was okay with it until I saw his quote in closing.

http://gunowners.org/mcnoway.htm

After all, I don't need to shoot myself in the foot, and I sure as hell don't want someone else shooting me in the foot either.

Thanks, rant off.

If you enjoyed reading about "Do we gun owners shoot ourselves..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
wideym
February 25, 2008, 07:00 AM
Not voting or voting for a third party is just as important to the American electorial process. It shows your party that they did not nominate a candidate you agreed with. Your party may lose this election, but hopefully they will remember the lesson during the next election.

When citizens vote stictly along party lines with no regard to whom the person they are voting for you cease being a person and become just another drone.

Vote your concenince not your party.

wheelgunslinger
February 25, 2008, 07:08 AM
Believing that your vote will influence the corrupt presidential electoral college system is pretty naive anyway.

If you want to do some real good, get involved in the State and Federal representative's elections. And, get involved with the election of your next Sheriff. That's where you can make a difference.

The presidential race is pretty much a waste of time to worry about. Pundits talk about it, candidates run, but unless you're a delegate you're just wasting your time.

MaterDei
February 25, 2008, 07:14 AM
Vote your concenince not your party.

Amen, brother.

Robert Hairless
February 25, 2008, 01:07 PM
How does any party know that you didn't vote for its candidate in an election?

And how does any party know why you didn't vote for that candidate or vote in that election?

Is there a way to put a little note on a ballot you didn't cast to explain why you didn't cast it?

I'm curious about how my parents voted in the 1934 Presidential elections and why they voted as they did. Can you guide me to the database that would let me find out?

I didn't know that the Electoral College was "corrupt." It is embodied in the Constitution, which always seemed honest to me and susceptible of amendment by a fairly reasonable process.

Since "The presidential race is pretty much a waste of time to worry about" maybe it would be a good idea to tell the candidates and save them the time and money they spend doing it.

Perhaps we could even push for a ban on Presidential elections or get as many people as possible to boycott them.

I appreciate the level of political sophistication I find on the Internet, most especially in gun forums, because it helps me learn so much about the political process from expert people who have been successful in it. Were it not for such people I would be concerned about matters such as increased gun control, assault weapons bans, gun confiscations, and other threats to the ability of individuals to keep and bear arms. (I'm reluctant to mention the Second Amendment because I don't know whether or not it is corrupt too. Am I correct in assuming that it is corrupt, and also the Constitutional articles referring to the rights of a free press, free assembly, and free speech?)

wheelgunslinger
February 25, 2008, 01:17 PM
RH, are you implying or stating as fact that popular vote is what elects a President?

Robert Hairless
February 25, 2008, 01:55 PM
What's your point, Wheelgunslinger? I referenced the Constitution in a manner that implies I read and understood it. Can't you take a little agreement?

I well remember that brave men fought and died for our right not to vote, so I wouldn't for a moment want you to think that I was disagreeing with your political position. I'm well aware that people throughout the world aspire for the ability to not cast votes or participate in national elections, and I certainly wouldn't betray all of them by sounding like a dimwit.

Let us stand firm in the principle "One man, no vote." The corruption in the Constitution of the United States of America is clearly revealed by amendments that increase the number of voters by guaranteeing the ability of people to vote regardless of their race or sex.

To paraphrase Hillary Clinton's recent statement: If I have offended you through some misunderstanding or misinterpretation, or by your other incapacity, of any kind whatsoever, to follow my argument, I regret it.

So we are agreed: let us all not get out the vote in the next Presidential election. Only by not voting for the best candidate while we wait for the perfect candidate and a perfect political system can we make a statement about who we are.

As for the comment quoted by the original poster, which stimulated what many of us call thinking, I have no doubt that the person who made the statement is on the right track to accomplish his ambition:

I personally will not cast a vote for the presidency -- that is, if McCain is the Republican nominee. Under no circumstances will I vote for either of the Democrats. This will be the first time in fifty years that I have made this choice. I hope it will be the last."

When enough people sit out elections they may well discover that elections become as irrelevant as you and others believe them to be, and what follows will take no effort on your part or any compromise of your conscience either.

Mikee Loxxer
February 25, 2008, 02:22 PM
There is a good reason why the presidency is not decided by the popular vote. If it was there is the potential that sparsely populated places like Wyoming would have no effect on the election and places like New York or California would completely drown them out. What would that do for gun rights? It sad to see how few realize why the electoral college system was put into place.

Deanimator
February 25, 2008, 02:28 PM
Barring some horrendous faux pas before the election, I will be voting for McCain, albeit with a profound lack of enthusiasm.

That having been said, I cannot condemn someone else for refusing to. Had Giuliani come out on top, I would either be voting third party or not at all. I have such all consuming loathing for Giuliani that I would have rather put a gun in my mouth than vote for him, no matter WHO he ran against.

I don't feel that way about McCain, but I have to respect the views of those who do.

Robert Hairless
February 25, 2008, 04:42 PM
Condemn is as unnecessarily harsh and extreme as declaring a Constitutional process corrupt. It so happens that I share your revulsion towards Giulani and I faced the same dilemma at the prospect of his nomination. I hadn't resolved the question of what I would do and I trusted--anxiously--that the process would reveal his weaknesses and destroy his chances. It did.

What troubles me greatly is drumbeating to spread cynicism and withdrawal from the electoral process. I understand that it's often fashionable and terribly sophisticated to rail against our system and reject it, but I've never been favorably inclined towards self destruction. That I do condemn.

Everyone on a gun forum is a political sophisticate at four year intervals and some even at two year intervals. Those who pretend to expertise in these forums pontificate about matters they barely notice except when it provokes them to complain that they are wrong, they are evil, and they are out to get us. There isn't any them, only us, and where I come from people who don't do the work don't get the ticket that justifies their complaints. Voting is the stage at which the effectiveness of the work is tabulated numerically. People who withdraw, do little except complain, refuse to vote, and urge others not to participate either do nothing useful for anyone. When they also lack knowledge, such as the ignorance noted by Mike Loxxer above about matters that used to be taught in high school civics courses, they do real damage.

Of course everyone has the right to an opinion on absolutely everything, because that is the American way. But it does matter to me that the opinion be informed by knowledge, experience, and thought rather than cynical pigheadedness.

ReadyontheRight
February 25, 2008, 05:10 PM
There is a good reason why the presidency is not decided by the popular vote. If it was there is the potential that sparsely populated places like Wyoming would have no effect on the election and places like New York or California would completely drown them out. What would that do for gun rights? It sad to see how few realize why the electoral college system was put into place.


Also -- What is to prevent a place like Chicago from placing 2.8 million votes? or 3 million votes? Or 6 million votes? (from a U.S. federal census population of 2.8 million) for one candidate?

The electoral College limits the power any one State can have over our only national election.

TexasRifleman
February 25, 2008, 06:03 PM
Well the good news is that there are only about 20 people left in the membership rolls of GOA after their recent activities so no one is listening anyway......

Rachen
February 25, 2008, 06:07 PM
We already shot ourselves in 1964. Right in the right foot. If that didn't hurt enough, we forgot our mistakes, and shot ourselves in the left foot again in 1992. That means we already shot both of our feet, haven't we. If we keep on forgetting our mistakes, where do you think we are going to shoot ourselves next? Right, we're going to shoot ourselves right in the b*lls. And this time, it's going to hurt FAR MORE than it hurt us the last two times we shot ourselves.

In Chinese, we have a saying. " BU DAO HUANG HE, XING BU XI. DAO HUANG HE LE, LIU YAN LEI JU LAN BU JIE LE" It means "When one doesn't fall into the Yellow River the first time he tries to fool around on it, he never learns from his mistakes. When he finally falls into the Yellow River, it will be too late to shed tears, and he is going to drown."

We already played around on the banks of the Yellow River in 1964 and 1992. Both times we got a mouthful of water. If we don't start electing REAL politicians who care about our rights, we are playing around on the banks of the Yellow River again, and we are going to fall into it again. Oh, did I mention that the FULL MOON is out tonight? That means high tide is rising rapidly. I can already feel the water around my ankles.

Robert Hairless
February 25, 2008, 06:54 PM
It's awful to work hard at shifting politicians towards more favorable views of Second Amendment issues only to be confronted by gun owners who urge people not to vote because they're just not good enough.

There's nothing wrong with that suggestion but at least it would do some good if it were made in the Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton forums. Get those people to not vote because Barack and Hillary aren't perfect. Spread some of that enlightenment there where it might help gun owners retain their ability to own and use firearms instead of here where it can do nothing except work against us.

Of course the Democrats would laugh at anyone making such a suggestion, but that's because the Democrats are fatally flawed: they want to win and they know how to do it. We're just 'way smarter than they are and we can argue our brilliance all day long, but we can't focus on the real goal long enough to accomplish it. We need rescuers. Of course we'll attack our rescuers: they're not perfect either, and none of them belong to Gun Owners of America and you know what that means! It means they c o m p r o m i s e and n e g o t i a t e. (Forgive the profanity please. I'm not a real gun owner. I only own guns and like shooting them.)

I'd try offering the Democrats a whole bunch of sophisticated political theorists from here and I'd cut them a great deal too, but they'd throw me out amidst a bunch of hoots and catcalls and send me back here.

The Democrats want all of the sophisticated political theorists here, urging people here not to vote for a less-than-ideal candidate or participating in a less-than-ideal national gun rights organization. Good enough or better than the alternatives isn't what gun owners want.

They want all or nothing, but of course either way they'll complain that it isn't good enough.

While I'm waiting, somebody get me a warm corned beef sandwich on rye bread and a cold bottle of root beer. I want the corned beef lean, but not too lean, and warm but not hot. Make sure the bread is firm, not limp, but fresh and not stale. Cut the sandwich in half on a diaganol, not straight across. Make sure to put the right amount of delicatessen mustard on it, not too little and not too much, but on the underside of the upper slice of bread. The root beer can be Hires but I prefer STB, and I won't drink any of the cheaper kind. Pour it into a soda fountain glass when you serve it to me so it has just the right amount of foam. Not too much foam, though, because it doesn't feel right on my upper lip.

One of the other guys will pay for it. I won't pay because I don't like your attitude. Be quick about it.

wideym
February 25, 2008, 07:05 PM
I would have voted for McCain until he started SPONSORING bills like the campain finance and immigration ones. But voting for either McCain or Obama is like asking if you want a slow death or a quick death, either way you end up dead.

Robert Hairless
February 25, 2008, 07:15 PM
Good point, Wideym. That will teach John McCain not to vote for the campaign reform act in 2002.

I know someone who hated the Knute Rockne Story and thought that Ronald Reagan overplayed his part, so he didn't vote for Reagan as President.

So we can count on you to help elect Hillary Clinton. She'll appreciate it.

wideym
February 25, 2008, 07:54 PM
I'm not out to teach anybody a lesson. I'm letting my displeasure at his political record be known by not voting for him. That is why I did not vote for Bill Clinton for President, even though I was a Democrat at the time, I withheld my vote.

Apachedriver
February 25, 2008, 10:10 PM
I'm not out to teach anybody a lesson. I'm letting my displeasure at his political record be known by not voting for him.

wideym (or anyone else),

Not trying to pick on you but how exactly are you making it known to him? I see where you withheld your vote in the past but how does the candidate know why that was your choice? Did you write and let him/her know? Did you protest or sign a petition to send to the candidate? I'm just asking.

It seems to me that simply not voting followed by not taking any other action results in your disappearance into the shadows surrounding the multitudes of faceless Americans that just sit and hope that someone else will do the work for them. (because they are entitled??:uhoh:)
I mean sure, lots of them will stand for a minute or two and complain about the results but then it's "whew, I'm winded." Or it's back to that All-American Fatburger with the side order of cheesy curly thighs, a slice or two of fupa pie and a Diet Coke to balance it out.:scrutiny:

I mean I understand the frustration with available candidates and their stands but it's our issues. I also understand how big a part the electoral college plays in all this.

Maybe our popular vote for the Presidency is not all the politicians crack it up to be to the "simpleton" masses, but there have to be a ton of other ways to legally let them know our choices and displeasures.

And oh BTW, when they send you responses that blow you off or belittle you because you don't support their view, well don't just sit there and say screw it. Tell others about it and write them again because if you let them gave you the side door exit, guess what crowd of faceless and voiceless Americans you will end up sitting alongside in the alleyway.

RedLion
February 25, 2008, 10:42 PM
Withholding your vote does not help at all.

In fact it makes the situation worse. The only reason the Clinton's ( yes both of them) are running is because they can't get enough power and honestly believe America is in love with them.

CPerdue
February 25, 2008, 11:16 PM
People who try to, 'send a message,' by not voting (or by voting for the other party to 'punish' someone) forget that messages have to be received and understood before they mean anything. The only message an election winner hears is, "I'm right by God!!"

To have an influence you need to start working for people you believe in months or years before the election. You might even have to give them time and money.

Troutman
March 4, 2008, 12:47 PM
<<They want all or nothing, but of course either way they'll complain that it isn't good enough.

While I'm waiting, somebody get me a warm corned beef sandwich on rye bread and a cold bottle of root beer. I want the corned beef lean, but not too lean, and warm but not hot. Make sure the bread is firm, not limp, but fresh and not stale. Cut the sandwich in half on a diaganol, not straight across. Make sure to put the right amount of delicatessen mustard on it, not too little and not too much, but on the underside of the upper slice of bread. The root beer can be Hires but I prefer STB, and I won't drink any of the cheaper kind. Pour it into a soda fountain glass when you serve it to me so it has just the right amount of foam. Not too much foam, though, because it doesn't feel right on my upper lip.

One of the other guys will pay for it. I won't pay because I don't like your attitude. Be quick about it.>>

I like that one. Your a trip!

nstoolman1
March 4, 2008, 08:27 PM
When you don't cast your vote you become a part of the vast numbers that the media brushes off as complacent people. I don't give them the satisfaction. I vote for who I think is the best candidate from the begining and if he doesn't make it I keep voting for the next best. We are the silient majority. If we all went and voted for good common sense candidate we would have the kind of government we need. O well sorry about the rant. I'm hungry and tired after a 12.5 hour shift. Sorry if I offended any one.

siglite
March 4, 2008, 08:52 PM
It's disappointing seeing the GOA advocating abstinence from the election. No, McCain is not our friend. But the problem is, he's going to wind up with the nod. This means, that we (we being the GOA, the NRA, and 2nd amendment advocates in general) have already failed to get our BEST candidate the nod. We didn't pull it off, and now we're stuck with what's left. These are the results of failures which have already occurred. And, the GOA solution because you took a shot in the nose is to give up the fight and succumb to the inevitable beating? Curl up in a ball, suck your thumb, and cry because you can't win? Place yourself completely at the mercies of a process from which you voluntarily withdraw?

Lunacy.

Writing someone in is superior to not voting.

Mr. Hairless and I have had vocal disagreements in the past, particularly on the GOA and the NRA's willingness to compromise. And there likely will be more of that to come. However, it's unfortunate, but on this particular issue, I'm forced to eat a little crow. Maybe a lot of crow.

My crow entree aside, I find this statement by Mr. Richardson to be horribly infantile and irresponsible. I hope GOA members see this infantile temper tantrum for what it is, and do your duty as citizens of this country.

Hammer-52
March 4, 2008, 09:01 PM
Well other than when I voted for Ronald Reagan (I'm too young to have voted for Goldwater) I can NOT recall ever voting for a candidate that was my PERFECT choice. I look at voting as an important right to exercise. But paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson; I must be educated & informed. So I've looked at where McCain stands on all the issuses and where the other stand and on the important issues McCain gets it right.

Personally I wish Fred Thompson would have made it; I consider him the reluctant candidate--NEVER trust anyone that REALLY wants the job because it is ALL about them.

Just my two cents

Cosmoline
March 4, 2008, 09:09 PM
I owe neither loyalty nor trust to the GOP. The party is not the nation, no matter how much the leadership wishes it. And from all I've seen that particular party has been in power way, way too long at the national level. With power comes corruption and isolation. They have all but forgotten why they got into office to begin with. They need to be reminded.

I don't think President Obama will be as rough on gun owners as you might expect, but his administration won't be much fun. That, too serves a vital purpose. We all need to be reminded of why the liberal Democrats got booted out of power to begin with, and I think Obama will do that for us with bells on. Besides, on gun rights McCain is liable to be vastly worse than Obama. Obama will need to govern to the center to function, while McCain can swing left on certain issues as he is prone to do. The worst we'll get from Obama is a new AWB, and we survived that once. McCain is liable to make all private transfers illegal, which is orders of magnitude more dangerous than a stupid cosmetics law. On top of this, while Obama has a real desire to be loved by millions McCain has always been slightly insane and I don't see that improving with age. I don't trust the man.

do your duty as citizens of this country

Duty? What duty? I have a RIGHT to vote, and a RIGHT not to vote. This isn't Australia. I am free to withhold participation from a system I find too corrupt to support. And if ever there was a time to walk away or vote for Cthulhu, this election is shaping up to be one.

How does any party know that you didn't vote for its candidate in an election?


Your registration and whether you voted are recorded. If in the end X number of registered Repubs vote in a county, but only X-Y number voted for the GOP candidate, they know they lost Y number of their core.

Sans Authoritas
March 4, 2008, 09:10 PM
Hm... how is it that the world has gone from being ruled by Emperors, then by Kings, then by one's neighbors? Not by voting, I guarantee. Nor by force of arms. The changes have occurred because of ideas. People began to realize that Emperors only had power because, well, they allowed them to have power. And it never worked out well for them. Kings only had power because the people believed they needed a king. And it never worked out well for them. People elected by your neighbors only have power because your neighbors think they need petty kings. And so it will continue to not work out, until people realize that coercively-funded government is counterproductive and deadly. Period.

Liberty is sucked dry by people in power. They have the power to tax, and the power to enslave you to fight for them, and sell it to the populace as some sort of brave "fighting for your country." Your country is not the government's policies. Your country is not their corporate interests and lining the nests of the powerful with cushy gifts from offense contractors. But they make you believe you are fighting for truth, justice, and to keep your neighbor's wife from being raped and his house from being ransacked by Brits/Canadians/Mexicans/Southerners/Spanish/Filipinos/Bloody-handed Huns/Nazis/North Koreans/Vietnamese/Grenadans/Panamanians/Soviets/Iraqis/"Terror." There is no force on earth that could invade and occupy the U.S. Yet they still go off and fight, believing naively that they are somehow "protecting the country."

People should fight not to be in power, but to be left alone. When's the last time that's ever happened in the history of the U.S. government? Probably 1865. They were the Southerners, in case there was any doubt.

That's why I don't vote. I want to be left alone, and I want you to be left alone, too. I have no right to use your money for anything. I have no right to take it from you by choosing a proxy to take your money from you. I only have the right to live peacefully with my neighbors. I have the duty to treat everyone I meet with justice. No more.

But keep voting. It will change the nature of people with the power to tax and enslave people to fight for them. Really.

-Sans Authoritas

R127
March 4, 2008, 09:19 PM
Like many brothers-in-arms, I've lost many valuable friends, throughout the last 21+ years, while voluntarily carrying out the orders and decisions of those leaders. And now more than ever, with our rights being politically threatened as they are, I really hope that the rest of our country is feeling compelled to not stand idly by and just let things happen.

Also not a personal attack or anything but there is an extremely intresting concept in there. I could not suffer two decades of cognitive dissonance required to do the bidding of enemies of freedom, the constitution and our national security. That's a personal thing but it prefaces the main thrust of the concept I find so interesting which is accentuated by the line that goes

I really hope that the rest of our country is feeling compelled to not stand idly by and just let things happen.

We have the most powerful military on the planet equipped with the most powerful weapons ever created employing the most highly trained soldiers history has ever seen. This juggernaut exists for the purpose of defending the constitution and securing our borders against invasion. It doesn't do either. 20 years in one of the mightiest aircraft to ever take to the skies did not manage to keep us from sliding off the edge of that slippery sloped we've talked about for so long. I don't think it is realistic to expect an amateur diebold jockey with two minutes in the hot seat to do much better.

This is where we get back to the cognitive dissonance. I respect you and your fallen friends for what you tried to do but from your own writing it sounds like you yourself see those "decisions" of our "leaders" as a bit sketchy at best. How about we just stop helping them stab us in the back? There is no sense in operating the war machines if they are not going to be used for their chartered purpose. There is no sense in voting for politicians who are not going to fufill their oath of office yet alone keep a campaign promise. How about we start holding politicians to a high standard and rejecting scumbags while simultaneously refusing to voluntarily carry out their orders? So far nobody forces anybody else to vote for their guy and nobody forces anybody else to fight for the broke system. It makes a whole lot more sense to start acting like Americans again instead of playing all these weird little games with ourselves.

Do vote though. Nobody cares if you don't vote because your voice doesn't get heard at all. If you vote your conscience you are still participating in the diebold opinion poll so it gets registered along with everybody else who supported a certain voting issue. Probably won't change a lot in the final analysis because the problem is systemic in nature but at least you get to register a complaint. Seriously though. Voting is not the time to be playing good cop bad cop. That has to be the oldest trick in the book. You'd think people would have figured that one out by now.

siglite
March 4, 2008, 09:28 PM
Duty? What duty? I have a RIGHT to vote, and a RIGHT not to vote. This isn't Australia. I am free to withhold participation from a system I find too corrupt to support. And if ever there was a time to walk away or vote for Cthulhu, this election is shaping up to be one.

You misunderstand my use of the term "duty." It's my fault, as my choice of words was poor. So allow me to clarify my position.

Legally it is a right.
Morally it is a duty.

In my opinion, of course.

Nobody's_Hero
March 4, 2008, 11:16 PM
That's why I don't vote. I want to be left alone, and I want you to be left alone, too. I have no right to use your money for anything. I have no right to take it from you by choosing a proxy to take your money from you. I only have the right to live peacefully with my neighbors. I have the duty to treat everyone I meet with justice. No more.

But keep voting. It will change the nature of people with the power to tax and enslave people to fight for them. Really.

I used to feel the same way. But, now I feel that, even if I voted for my dog, I would feel better than if I skipped out on elections altogether.

It depends on who/what you are voting for. Believe it or not, there are some candidates out there who want to leave you alone.

SuperNaut
March 4, 2008, 11:43 PM
All in favor say "aye" those opposed say "nay." The motion is passed by those abstaining.

Waitaminute, it doesn't work that way does it?:scrutiny:

Hmm, that process doesn't make sense at all...

inkhead
March 5, 2008, 12:09 AM
If you vote for a candidate not in your registered party, you automatically get 10 years in gitmo. Or maybe that was a law I was going to put in place if elected ;-)

Sigh... elections suck.

bloodedsky
March 5, 2008, 02:47 AM
I know this would never happen, but if no one voted at all...

Then someone would still find themselves the new leader, because lo and behold, it has become fashionable to steal elections from one's foe!

The only candidate who's worth a damn is Nader.

Titan6
March 5, 2008, 06:16 AM
Condemn is as unnecessarily harsh and extreme as declaring a Constitutional process corrupt. It so happens that I share your revulsion towards Giulani and I faced the same dilemma at the prospect of his nomination. I hadn't resolved the question of what I would do and I trusted--anxiously--that the process would reveal his weaknesses and destroy his chances. It did.

I can tell you what I would have done with absolute certainty. Since I will now never have to face that choice any answer I can give now is too convient.

On gun rights, of the three left in the race McCain is the only with even a partially proven record of sometimes strong, somtimes limp wristed support. On this issue he is leaps and bounds ahead of any of the democrats, who would both easily and eagerly sign another AWB if it came across their desk. So I suppose if I were concerned with maintaining the system status quo and did not care about my other freedoms he would be the ideal choice.

But the system itself appears to be deeply flawed on a fundamental level. We are only a few more bills, acts, and supreme court rulings from slipping into Touqueville's dictatorship of democracy that we were warned of nearly 200 years ago. It is happening exactly as scripted, by majority rule. The RKBA was supposed to be the fail safe when all other measures have failed, not a concern in of itself (although it has become that by default).

Both sides appear to have near identical views on freedom, government interference in private life, the economy and most other meaningful issues. Although the democrats appear to be slightly more in support of individual freedoms, slighty more in favor of the parent state, slightly less interested in the financial suicide of the country. At least McCain is opposed to torturing people out of hand because even though we know that they know something but won't tell us what it is that we know that they know unless we put them on the rack and stretch them. But you never really know till you get them in office.

Either way it is completely irrelevant. Because none of those running will address any of the issues that I care about:
- Neither side will do a thing to restore financial sanity to the country
- Neither side will restore freedoms and work to to repeal crazy anti-freedom "laws"
- Neither side will reduce the size of the Federal Government to reasonable levels
- Neither side will work to restore lost gun rights
- Neither side will work to restore states rights
- Neither side will reform the tax code
- Neither side will resolve the wars we are in in manners that are peacable, stable and with eye towards freedom

If the best we can do is to try to avoid more slippage into anti-freedom I am not so sure that is good enough, especially when the choices are very nearly indistinguisable. So why should I be interesting in maintaing the status quo or slowing down the slippage? What is in it for me and those I care about?

WayneConrad
March 5, 2008, 09:41 AM
To anyone who won't vote, because the choices are going to be awful...

I agree, they are awful.

And I want you to not vote.

You've made my terrible, awful vote more powerful. It'll be distasteful--the most distasteful vote I've ever cast, but I'll cast it, nevertheless. Thank you for staying home. Happy to make your choice for you.

And now, a short rant on quantity over quality come election day

And all of this "get out the vote" nonsense? Rubbish. Let's not. "Get Out the Vote" is aimed at uninformed youngsters who are going to vote for the candidate I despise even more, or just punch the ballot at random. They can stay home. It's not important that everyone vote. Only those who will vote for the same waste of protoplasm as I will need go to the polls.

I don't know who it was that decided that it's important that sheer numbers of voters is important. Numbers of informed voters, sure. Numbers of mindless, network-soaked drones? They should stay home and watch American Idol or MTV.

Deavis
March 5, 2008, 09:50 AM
Now, as a youngster, I was taught how important a person's vote is regardless of how the system works. As an adult, I know it matters because in my contributions to this country through military service, I've lived and almost died through the good and poor decisions of our leaders.

The first sentence is contains the classic lie foisted on us by weak candidates who try to appeal to the mass of uneducated moron voters. Think "Get out the Vote" drives that only bring in voters that have no idea what they are voting for. Hardly good for the health of a republic, it is better to let them not vote. The second sentence is a bit misleading. The leaders of the country didn't put you in life or death situations, you did by voluntarily joining our military. Don't blame other people for the risks you willingly accepted by joining a fighting force.

We can talk about informed voters and all that crap but honestly it comes down to this. If your typical public education drone goes and votes today it means reduced freedom. However if that same drone voted and the Federal government was constrained by the Constitution, then it wouldn't matter. The problem is a powerful government, not drones voting. Take away the power source of the drones and they'll quit voting to take away your rights and money.

siglite
March 6, 2008, 11:25 AM
And all of this "get out the vote" nonsense? Rubbish. Let's not. "Get Out the Vote" is aimed at uninformed youngsters who are going to vote for the candidate I despise even more, or just punch the ballot at random. They can stay home. It's not important that everyone vote. Only those who will vote for the same waste of protoplasm as I will need go to the polls.

While some of your points are valid in general, I don't think it's applicable to THR members, and even less so here in Activism. To tie it back to the OP, I doubt it's highly or reliably applicable to those whom might have read the GOA rant. By virtue of reading said rant, they're indicating at least a will to familiarize themselves with the process, key players, and issues. The thought of someone who professes to care about their freedoms abstaining from their contribution to the process strikes me as hypocritical.

Rachen
March 6, 2008, 11:36 AM
Don't vote? Thats even more awful.

Go out and vote Republican. It doesn't matter who is running on that side though, it sure will be much better than the European socialists on the other side of the ballgame.

XDKingslayer
March 6, 2008, 11:53 AM
People who try to, 'send a message,' by not voting (or by voting for the other party to 'punish' someone) forget that messages have to be received and understood before they mean anything. The only message an election winner hears is, "I'm right by God!!"

You voice is most certainly heard when you do not vote. The problem is that it's ignored. Every year you hear candidates pushing for better voter turn out. What they don't realize is that there is a poor voter turn out because the selections are poor.

I believe in this country. I believe in it's Constitution. But the electoral process is corrupt, broken and abused. I refuse to vote for someone I don't like simply to keep someone I like less out of office.

That's not what voting is for.

erictank
March 6, 2008, 01:04 PM
Every year you hear candidates pushing for better voter turn out. What they don't realize is that there is a poor voter turn out because the selections are poor.

That's what WRITE-INS are for. If your vote won't matter because Candidate (R) and Candidate (D) haven't got more than a mouse-hair's difference between them, if what puny difference there is is nothing more than a matter of WHICH freedoms they seek to crush, then why not vote for ANYONE else?

Me, I say, "To {that unmentionable place} with the both of 'em, I'm writing in Ron Paul - and sending the RNC and DNC a nice polite letter explaining why." Gotta TELL them that they lost the vote if you want to have ANY hope of change.

Works equally well with Huckabee, Arnie, or Mickey Mouse in place of RP, as far as I'm concerned at least. May not work at all - but at least I'm not voting for the one Cthulu, in the hopes that s/he can fend off the other. That fearmongering "If you don't vote for Candidate (R), you're actually voting for Candidate (D)!!!" crap? Do I really need to tell those promulgating it where you can put it?

Apachedriver
March 7, 2008, 04:31 AM
...it sure will be much better than the European socialists on the other side of the ballgame.

Funny that you made that reference in your post. We had a conversation going today at work about differences between left and right thinking in this country.
A comment was made on how liberal thinking generally seems to be in chase after the wonderful European Utopian society that does not, and has never, existed. It's a failed experiment whose only hope of success is to wipe out all other forms of thinking.
Not to mention, this is the United States of America and we exist (as a result of a slew of reasons and actions) due to a breakaway from said European society.

While I may not like a politician who claims his way is the only answer, I'm even more leary of one whose charismatic words imply that he can placate all sides at once. He is a true wolf and will end up showing his true colors once in a seat of power.

I'd add that as screwy as we can be in our society at times, we haven't been brainwashed into helplessness yet. Regardless of our problems here, in varying degrees, we all can and do play a role in our country's direction to the future. So far anyway.

BridgeWalker
March 7, 2008, 04:44 AM
Yes. We shoot ourselves in the foot in about a bajillion ways.

Not voting? Nah. We can't all be one-issue voters, and we can't all wrap our minds around certain kinds of compromise. Personally, I vote, but I respect the choice not to.

If you choose not to vote and you have kids though, you should go to the polls, take them with you, take a ballot, and hand it in. Write in Mickey Mouse, or whoever. But kids should learn how it works, and they should establish the interest and desire to make informed choices. Sitting at home looks apathetic even when it isn't.

As for shooting ourselves in the foot, oh heck ya! Are you kidding? What large group doesn't? We're better at it than most though.

AKCOP
March 7, 2008, 09:12 AM
Not voting is crazy. So many who have posted here have a better grasp on issues than many who will vote. So why would you give them power over you by not voting? Does it not scare anyone that so many people will vote for Hillary because she is a woman, the wife of Bill who they just loved! Or for the other guy because he is black and wouldn't it be nice to have a black man for president, he is so cute and positive.
Yes McCain is not perfect but my GOD the other choice is just NUTTY.
I remember how many friends I HAD that voted for Carter because they wanted to send a message to the republicans, boy that worked out great didn't it.

Guntalk
March 9, 2008, 12:59 PM
Two words.

Supreme Court.

Think "Heller" and cases which follow. Then tell me there's no difference between the candidates.

I liken this to being attacked in the parking lot. You are facing a clear threat. You have the choice of a cheap pistol, an ice pick, or nothing.

Choosing nothing to convince the gun company they should produce a better pistol seems, to me, to be a bit suicidal. You may not LIKE the cheap pistol, and it certainly would not have been your first choice, but with a thug bearing down on you, it's better than nothing.

Okay, the analogy is pretty rough, but "Mr. Perfect" is not running this year.

Many of us, I guess, will think "Supreme Court," hold our noses, and pull the lever.

Big45
March 9, 2008, 01:45 PM
Why, why, why do people post this stuff in "Activism"????

Guys and gals, this forum is for ACTION, not blather.

Mods, please get a handle on this stuff.

Elm Creek Smith
March 18, 2008, 01:02 AM
If you don't vote, I trust you shall remain silent for the next four years.

ECS

bogie
March 18, 2008, 01:29 AM
This election, we've essentially been negated as an influential voting bloc.

I suspect that more than a little of it has occurred via actions of folks who we will not see on internet forums following election day... The folks who are actively preaching the "vote for anyone but one of those nasty McCain types."

Because every vote not cast for a Republican is one less that Hilbama has to score...

3rdpig
March 18, 2008, 01:37 AM
I'd much rather have someone in the office that I agree with 60% of the time than someone I agree with 0% of the time.

Also, in the next 8 years it's likely that 3 of the most liberal SCOTUS justices the court has ever seen will leave. This could be a once in a lifetime opportunity to replace those liberal justices with conservative, originalist justices. Yes, if Hillary or Obama get in office it will be liberal for liberal, but they'll appoint young justices and they'll be on the bench for 20 to 30 years. McCain has promised to appoint originalist justices. The importance of turning the court solidly pro constitution, as it was intended, can not be under valued.

I'm not a McCain fan, but I will vote for him in November for the above reasons, and because the alternative is too horrible to imagine.

IllHunter
March 20, 2008, 01:07 PM
I was a Democrat at the time,your comments and thinking lead me to believe nothing's changed!

I don't think President Obama will be as rough on gun owners as you might expect,As my drill instructor often said, the key part of that statement is "I don't think"

I believe anyone who doesn't vote, every election should be denied the right to vote. I believe it to be a felonious waste of freedom and liberty and I know there are many who can't, who would. :cuss:

xephael
March 22, 2008, 09:25 AM
Duty? What duty? I have a RIGHT to vote, and a RIGHT not to vote. This isn't Australia. I am free to withhold participation from a system I find too corrupt to support. And if ever there was a time to walk away or vote for Cthulhu, this election is shaping up to be one.

There are other elections you can participate in besides the Presidential one in your precinct. It would be a shame to throw a number of your rights away just because you don't want to vote for a President.

You can always leave the Presidential part blank and vote for your local officials like judges, etc...


I believe anyone who doesn't vote, every election should be denied the right to vote. I believe it to be a felonious waste of freedom and liberty and I know there are many who can't, who would.

Why not just require military service before you have a right to vote? I completely disagree with your statement, but would like you to expound upon it.

IllHunter
March 22, 2008, 12:07 PM
Since you asked so nicely...I completely disagree with your statement, but would like you to expound upon it.
I believe that the act of voting is the only personal connection between the "people" and their selected representatives. Living in mostly Democratic environment Cook County, Illinois, and leaning towards conservative values as I do, I feel un-represented in D.C. My both senators are HUGE libs, Obama and Durban need I say more, okay I will. My congrescritter is Mark Kirk a RINO posterboy who failed to sign the congressional amicus letter re Heller. the governor is currently watching his chief fund raisers' federal corruption trial while my past governor languishes in a federal prison. My county board is presided over by the son of the former president, come to think of it my president is the son of a former president (doesn't that smell funny to anyone else?). My state legislature is dominated by Chicago politicians mostly democrats who are fueding with each other and don't "play nicely". We have the highest sales tax in the nation and the price of gasoline is $3.60+- for regular unleaded.
I have voted in every single election since I moved here in 1983 and firmly believe from my discussions with neighbors and friends etc. that more people think/believe as I do. But they fail/refuse to vote or pay no attention to the issues and vote as they're told. The dirth of informed voters is so blatant that during the last (primary) election, a young(17yo) student judge commented to me (the not so young judge) that it was evident. I've been in many countries of the world and seen martial law and civil unrest, I value our way of life and feel my biggest best connection to this process is when I put my finger on the voting touchscreen. I know a guy who as a convicted felon, lost his rights and of all the ramifications of his "stupid", the years incarcerated, the loss of income and status, the loss of his political voice is the most missed. He has regained some $ and status but the years are gone for good and so is this cherished connection. I have put aside the "lesser of evils" argument and console myself that if these are the candidates available those are my choices. I have/do volunteer in local politics to have a say and to be informed and sometimes although not often, my voice is heard.:)

langenc
March 22, 2008, 11:15 PM
For those not voting-and those who are not at all pleased with the selection-regardless of party, please help us all. When you start to get those letters with requests for money-just state you will not be voting and give a reason why.

It may not be worth anything but usually the envelopes have postage so it wont cost you anything either.

bogie
March 22, 2008, 11:23 PM
You know, this is probably the first election in about 20 or so years where the "gun culture" is not a viable voting bloc...

We've allowed ourselves to become so fragmented, and tried to split so many hairs, and we're ready to throw each other to the wolves over minor stuff... Sad.

There are a finite number of voters. When you are PERSUADED (and you HAVE been persuaded - think about what you've seen on TV and the rest of the media for the past seven years) to withdraw from the contest, you are giving an advantage to someone, even if you are not specifically voting for them.

If Hilbama scores, two years from now, we're going to hear a lot of you guys bitching, when there's talk of who the next Supreme Court justice is going to be. When the text of the new Assault Weapons Bill gets spewed by Schumer and Feinstein.

Sad.

Indifferent
March 23, 2008, 01:17 AM
I think anti gun owners shoot themselves in the foot.
My supervisor is so Anti gun, she thinks a gun ban would make it to only government officials would have guns, I tried to point out how defenseless civilians would be, etc. She is like we have tasers, and pepper spray. She is against guns, knives, and big sticks. So this 100lb. girl thinks she can defend herself with pepper spray, and a taser. Which to be honest, of all the defensive or offinsive tools out there, those are the only two I would want to be hit with!

my frustration, cuz, I can't argue too much, she's my boss. Grrr....:cuss::banghead::barf::fire:

JohnKSa
March 23, 2008, 01:57 AM
What I'm afraid of is that the conservative malaise about the presidential election will bleed over into the ENTIRE election.

I trust that everyone will still be showing up at the polls to make sure they are properly represented in Congress.

xephael
March 25, 2008, 12:18 AM
I have voted in every single election since I moved here in 1983 and firmly believe from my discussions with neighbors and friends etc. that more people think/believe as I do. But they fail/refuse to vote or pay no attention to the issues and vote as they're told. The dirth of informed voters is so blatant that during the last (primary) election, a young(17yo) student judge commented to me (the not so young judge) that it was evident

If your friends and neighbors are agreeing with you but not participating; have you ever considered that maybe they're not actually your friends or agreeing with you?

Sometimes candidates are equally as bad... If you had your choice of Obama or McCain regarding firearms rights who would you pick? I would pick neither and refuse to vote for them in that regard.

IllHunter
March 25, 2008, 10:40 AM
If your friends and neighbors are agreeing with you but not participating; have you ever considered that maybe they're not actually your friends or agreeing with you?


I used the line"friends,neighbors,etc." to try and illustrate my interactions with people known to me and strangers with whom I have interacted. I tend to be active in local politics and gun rights movements which are inherently more "conservative" thinkers. My work exposes me to many business and home owners from whom I infer political leanings. Though not quantifiable, these inferences are my opinion and are expressed here as such.I know who my friends are, they tend to be the politically active gun rights activists who have and will keep the opposition alive in this enclave of anti-gun sheeple.;)
I will vote for McCain and continue to let all my (and some others) of my elected representatives of my beliefs. I know Obama's history of socialist nanny tactics and gun control. A little research on his few votes and constant support of anti-gun legislation at all levels of gov'nmt may change your mind. Let me pose this to you, if Obama wants change, why does he support the Daley Administration and their stranglehold on Chicago politics and government? 40+ years of demcratic rule have only built the countries' largest socialist quasi dictatorial regime. Has your mayor ever bulldozed an airport, at night?

Grizzly Adams
March 25, 2008, 01:44 PM
I have never believed in voting for a party but have always voted for the candidate that most represented my views and beliefs. This election doesn't offer much of a choice from either side but I will vote.

The ones of you that are saying that you will not vote may think that is the sitution to the problem, but I contend that you are contributing the problem.

ronwill
March 25, 2008, 02:03 PM
For those who think not voting, or voting for a 3rd party candidate, will "teach them a lesson" think back to Perot. Did the Republicans change their ways? Did the Democrats become all powerful? The answer is no to both of these. You MUST look at the viable candidates and choose the one that is closest to what you want. I am not a McCain fan either, but he sure beats the other choices in my mind. I hope he chooses Huckabee as a running mate because a Clinton/Obama ticket scares me to no end.

R127
March 25, 2008, 06:12 PM
Sure, just realize that with your good cop/bad cop strategy things will never get better only progressively worse.

alsaqr
March 25, 2008, 06:53 PM
I am totally bent out of shape that the Republican party to which I have belonged to for 48 years could not come up with a viable pro-gun candidate for president. Furthermore, I am bent out of shape at Bush and the Republicans who controlled the US congress for six years: They did very little for US gunowners. Oh, they talked a good talk when they came home to campaign; then they wussed out when they got back to DC.

I may retch, gag and vote for McCain. Then again I may just stay at home.

CountGlockula
March 25, 2008, 07:18 PM
Just like religion, gun ownership is a deeper issue than it really is.

BamaHoosier
March 25, 2008, 07:49 PM
I've got electile dysfunction this time around:).

Catherine
March 25, 2008, 11:14 PM
Where is the original link - entire story that shows that entire post on GOA?

I can't get it to work. I would appreciate the entire story if any of you have it saved.

YES, gun owners SHOOT themselves in the foot often when it comes to GUN politics and in MANY OTHER freedom issues.

Nothing new there. Kind of sad and well... I can't say what I REALLY want to say.

They sell out with Second Amendment aka RKBA COMPROMISES along with OTHER liberty issues... history and facts prove that comment.

Thanks for the entire post if any of you have it in your email box.

Of course, you should let the politicos know how you REALLY FEEL and what the blazes you will do with it - with your VOTE - pro or con for ALL traitors and sell outs.

Most REAL conservatives/constitution people and "some" Republicans know that the R PARTY LEFT them along with all of the other STUFF that the NWO Neo Con Artists have pulled. That goes for the NWO Democrats that have screwed the old fashioned Dems too. Those traitors are more into Globalist issues instead of America FIRST issues whether it comes to real pro gun issues, illegal aliens, our infrastructure, budgets, deficits, border control, shore and sky control, amnesty for illegal aliens = criminals and the companies that hire them, I am not talking about LEGAL immigrants or citizens but ILLEGAL aliens, Ignoring the CONSTITUTION, your Bill of Rights - ALL of them, you name it!

Sincerely,

Catherine
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Catherine
March 25, 2008, 11:34 PM
PS:

Check out where SOME Republicans have pulled the anti gun - anti liberty = same sell outs as some Democrats have pulled too. Now... that is really SAD.

Can you spell RINO?

I can!

Republican in name only.

You have them in the District of Criminals and in another house that is painted WHITE.

Can you spell ANTI GUN and ANTI FREEDOM?

I can!

Go to the so called leading candidates and their websites! READ their proposed ideas. READ their voting history. Listen to their answers that change from day to day and state to state.

Go to the R and D and ALL other candidates sites for ALL of the people running.

SAD... so very sad.

Respectfully yours,

Catherine
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Catherine
March 25, 2008, 11:41 PM
VOTE with your vote... PRO GUN. If I were to vote for one issue... it would be for a PRO GUN = PRO LIBERTY VOTE.

Without your true gun rights... you have nothing to back up the rest of the Constitution.

YOUR Second Amendment protects your FIRST and all of the other ones.

What is the FIRST thing that NWO, anti gun U.N., globalist control freaks, anti gunners, kings and TYRANTS want to do from the American Revolution time to NOW?

Take away your gun rights and all other LIBERTY ISSUES... they go hand in hand.

Sincerely,

Catherine
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

bogie
March 26, 2008, 01:03 AM
Sigh...

This time around, you're either voting against someone, or you're allowing them to gain the office by placing your vote with someone who cannot ensure that they do not make it into office.

If the Democrats do not completely destroy themselves, and we've got Hilbama going up against McCain, you have to step back, and ask yourself "Who will do the worst damage?"

With McCain, at least he'll be somewhat on leash from his own party. With Hilbama, the Democrats will gleefully push any gun control through for signature... Add in supreme court appointees, and life is going to get interesting.

Catherine
March 26, 2008, 01:35 AM
It is very sad indeed.

We have the same old garbage in biased mass media and rigged elections for the sheep who don't pay attention except for a FEW people who are not sheep.

Most base it on emotion, not facts, and they certainly do NOT learn from HISTORY. Same old - same old.

LESSER

of

the

EVILS.

NO thank you - been there - done that. Regretted it with a passion ever since.

I have done "write in votes" and I have voted THIRD PARTY back in 1988 which I will never regret. Gee, I wonder who that could have been for? Grin.

I say if you have a candidate that you know the background and VOTING RECORD of in REAL pro gun and real pro liberty issues... vote for him.

If not... vote for whoever. Whatever trips your trigger.

I will be able to look in the mirror and when more gun rights and more LIBERTY issues get flushed down the toilet of NO return with a big old swooshing sound... I will wear a sign that says:

Don't blame me - I voted for THE MAN who had a clue! One who does NOT ignore that silly piece of paper that YOU know who called YOU know what along with all of those other anti gun - anti freedom candidates.

Peace and liberty,

Catherine

Catherine
March 26, 2008, 01:39 AM
PS:

You mentioned destruction?

I hope that those 3, ahemmm, politicos do destroy themselves and that they show their true anti gun, ANTI America FIRST and anti liberty issues pretty soon.

I hope that they have a circus at their conventions too.

Maybe some liberty folks will see the LIGHT but I doubt it.

Peace.

Catherine

TEDDY
April 5, 2008, 06:36 PM
well you threw the only decent canidate down the tubes but he is there in the back ground.MITT ROMNEY.I know his gun record as I am a member of GOAL of Mass.I know his financial skills.He might also be picked for Vis president.I am not happy with McCain but I hope republicans take the house back.that will steady McCain.otherwise I fear blood shed.you have never had the jack boots on you.I have.
as to the republicans they seem to be doing good here in SC.18yr olds can own pistols.just cant buy from FFL.I remember my youth always had a pistol
as did my friends from 14? up high school had rifle range and instuctor.the school supplied the rifles an ammo.old men like me can remember the good old days at lease with guns.:uhoh:---:rolleyes:---:eek:--:D----:D

ReadyontheRight
April 5, 2008, 07:38 PM
Not voting or voting for a third party is just as important to the American electorial process.

I don't see how "not voting" is important to the electoral process. Especially when the House and Senate are so much more important to the RKBA fight than POTUS.

I am all for voting your conscience. Although I fear that in 2008 it will give us a Presidency that is extremely willing to stomp all over many, many of our rights.

"Don't blame me. I stayed home and watched American Idol".:rolleyes:

nicki
April 5, 2008, 07:45 PM
Many are unhappy with our choices, but how many of us were involved before choices came to be.

While gun issues are big issues for this forum, the gun issue is not a top issue for the general public.

The reality is we are coming to a day of reckoning real soon because we can't have trade deficits, govt deficits and more govt spending.

We will have only 2 classes of people real soon, the rich and the poor.

The super rich may not be too happy with people like us owning guns after many of us have just lost our homes.

What we as a group need to do is reconsider how we run our own lives.

I am going to make some proposals for this group.

1. All of us should become financially literate. The schools don't teach us to be financially literate, that is why so many Americans are in debt.

2. We need to become self employed. Donald Trump and Robert Kiyosaki both advocate this. They reccommend that you start with a network marketing company not to make money, but to learn.

Of course if you find one that makes money, that is even better.

3. We need to recognize that the issue isn't guns, it is freedom and as such, find other groups fighting for their freedoms and make alliances.

4. We must be willing to reach across the political spectrum. Not everyone on the left is anti gun and not everyone on the right is a christian fundamentalist.

Hitler came to power because Germany was in economic chaos and he offered the Germans hope.

Hitler was good as long as you weren't a Jew, Gay, a Gypsie, Mentally handicapped, communist or belonged to any other group that fell out of disfavor with the local SS.

Without Guns, all of our other rights become government revocable privileges.

Many on the left don't like the Patriot act. Imagine how much worse the Patriot act could be if we were a gun free society.

The biggest problem for us as gun owners is that we defend gun rights.

You never win a war fighting defense, you win wars by going on offense and hitting your opponents at their weakess links.

If elected officials find that after elections we are always on their case if they support gun control, that they always have an opponent in the primaries because of their support for gun control, that they are getting heat from their political supporters because of gun control, they will soon want to avoid gun control like the plague.

Next election cycle we need to target someone in their own primaries, and really make it a super expensive primary for them.

Sure they may win their primary, but if it costs them alot of money, it gets noticed.

Imagine if Rep McCarthy had to spend a few million in the Dem primary because she was accused of being ineffective since she alienated the Congress and as such, it made her ineffective to serve the needs of her congressional district.

Nicki

mljdeckard
April 5, 2008, 08:20 PM
Skipping the second two pages of comments,

Absolutely we hurt ourselves if we don't stand together. The antis would love for us to split ourselves into splinter groups, it would make it easier to defeat us. All gun owners must stand up for the rights of ALL other gun owners. The antis want ALL guns. Not just handguns, not just 'assualt' rifles. If you admit that you owning guns is a hobby, rather than a right, you have just admitted that your hobby is less important than eliminating gun crime.

If sportsmen want to be purists and exclude 'weapons of war', it's impossible. Every class of weapon you can imagine has been used by armies at one time or another, it's just a question of where you draw the line between sporting and unfair. Nugent petitioned the state of Michigan to let him hunt deer with a knife in a loincloth. My grandfather didn't believe in scopes, because they 'don't give the deer a chance', but at the same time, he never decided to drop back to a muzzleloader or a bow.

I won't affiliate with a party. Parties work for their own interests, not mine. At the same time, It's a shallow comfort to know that you stood up for principal by 'not voting for the least bad option' in abstinance, if you allow the bad guys to win and lose your rights in the first place. Speech rights, press rights, privacy rights, etc are always changing, being re-interpreted. But once your guns are gone, that's a bell that can't be unrung. They won't come back until the next revolution. I will ALWAYS vote in the way that has the best chance of keeping my gun rights intact. If that means backing John McCain, who makes me gumble, but is unlikely to sign any new anti-gun legislation as president, then that's better than the democratic opposition.

Or, I suppose I can just refuse to participate until they come up with the perfect candidate. Oh, that's right. He or She doesn't exist.

packnrat
April 6, 2008, 11:02 AM
if one refuses to vote....then keep you mouth shut.


no vote on election day = no voice.

Apachedriver
April 7, 2008, 11:09 AM
There have been some really thought provoking comments posted in reply to my OP. I'd like to add a few comments.

First, although I presented a very simplistic view of what an individual vote represents in relation to how the electoral process works, I am not advocating "Rock The (mindless) Vote". However, I am advocating that we all need to take action in one form or another. A vote is the simplest, most unintrusive(to our daily lives) form of action an American citizen can effect. If the individual citizen won't or doesn't care to make the time for that action, how likely is it that he/she will make time for more time consuming actions in protecting our rights, ie, emailing Representatives, candidates, write in voting, etc.

Second, while I may agree with a good portion, if not all, of what the GOA President's letter says, how he ends it advocates inaction as an answer to the pool of choices available for POTUS. I agree that the selection of POTUS is only one cog in the wheel, but it is still a cog and that wheel will run roughly if attention is not given to it. Several here have made that point with the mention of future SCOTUS appointees, potential AWB's, etc.

Not to mention that due to the harried lives of many Americans, I'm willing to bet there are quite a few that will read the first paragraph, scan the middle, and read the ending, in which case, he appears to completely advocate inaction due to dissatisfaction. IMO, poor writing technique but hey, this isn't English Composition and I sure aint (or is it ain't;)) a writer.

Anyway, I found the newer link to the article from GOA back in Feb08.

http://gunowners.org/op0808.htm

Apachedriver
April 7, 2008, 11:51 AM
We have the most powerful military on the planet equipped with the most powerful weapons ever created employing the most highly trained soldiers history has ever seen. This juggernaut exists for the purpose of defending the constitution and securing our borders against invasion. It doesn't do either. 20 years in one of the mightiest aircraft to ever take to the skies did not manage to keep us from sliding off the edge of that slippery sloped we've talked about for so long. I don't think it is realistic to expect an amateur diebold jockey with two minutes in the hot seat to do much better.

There is no sense in operating the war machines if they are not going to be used for their chartered purpose.


R127,
I understand what you are saying, but keep in mind that the US military is not in place to affect political changes here at home, but instead to stand ready for any "enemy, foreign or domestic" that challenges or tries to bring harm to our country. The fact that we are used in various roles around the world by the US Govt does not change our primary purpose for being.

One fact which I think makes our military so great... we strive to be in a state of constant preparedness to ultimately defend our country(read as our citizens) regardless of how or where we are used in the meantime. The time to prepare is long before a threat even comes into existence, not the moment we are attacked nor the moment after the attack.

Also, I'd like everyone to keep in mind that I do this job because it is what I choose; not to get accolades for it nor to place blame (Deavis). I do appreciate the supportive comments, and need the active support of Americans when I am abroad because I am a citizen just like you. I just chose the best manner in which I can contribute to our society.

I believe in our country. The US Govt and I may not see eye to eye on everything, but it is the representative of our people to other countries. Therefore, I choose to be, and am, prepared to enforce it's policies abroad. What those policies are,however, is up to the citizenship to actively decide.

Voting is one way to partake in those decisions.

If you enjoyed reading about "Do we gun owners shoot ourselves..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!