[Cellar Dweller]

Let's suppose for a moment that a new AWB passes the House and Senate, and President Bush keeps his promise of signing it when it crosses his desk. What then?

[Mark Tyson]

A new ban would be the biggest blow to RKBA in a long time, and could spell the death knell for the movement. While I am cautiously hopeful, you'd better believe I am preparing for interesting times.

Remember, if things get really desperate, a hundred year old mauser can get you any gun you desire.

[RGO]

Regardless of what happens with the AWB, I will be voting Libertarian.

[Tag]

the waters just now getting warm...

[Thumper]

Regardless of what happens with the AWB, I will be voting Libertarian.

I'm serious about this: I admire your principles.

BUT, please remember:

In a 50/50 electorate, a vote for a third party effectively nullifies your vote. You'll be helping put a Democrat in office.

Please keep in mind how many Supreme Court Justices he'll be nominating.

[geekWithA.45]

A new ban would be the biggest blow to RKBA in a long time, and could spell the death knell for the movement.

No, to be honest, it would not be the death knell of the movement. To quote John Ross, "Civil Rights Issues Don't Go Away".

What a renewed/expanded ban may signal is the end of a lot of honest people's willingness to be reasonable and to work within the system. You'll see an increase in scofflaws and folks engaging in activities newly defined as gun crime.

Eventually, the dept of saturday night will feel obligated to do something about it to justify their existence, and it will be a matter of time before some heavily armed honest folks just following orders encounter some other heavily armed honest folks just minding their own business.


Naturally, I'd expect the dept of saturday night (and what would saturday night be without alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives?) to pick some folks with objectionable, freakish tendencies as test cases, to guage public response, but that wouldn't matter.

We all saw their previous experiments in this regard for what it was.

Historians migh refer to the day of a renewed AWB as the day the excrement was heaved towards the fan, regardless of how long it takes to get there and go splat.

[kentucky bucky]

He isn't perfect and he has his warts, but he is the only viable candidate there is that is at least on our side of the fence, but maybe not as far as we want. Vote for a third party, but I don't want to here the whining when another Klinton gets into office.:fire:

[glocksman]

Of all the candidates, the only one who's stated that the AWB and 'gun show loophole' laws would be enough is Howard Dean. I have no idea what kind of laws beyond those two that GWB would support. If he's anything like his Daddy, I wouldn't reget my vote for Dean like I regret my vote for Bush the First back in 1988.

I don't trust GWB on the gun issue any further than I can throw the White House.

Given a choice between Dean and Bush, I'll vote Dean.
Any other Democrat and Bush, and I'll vote Libertarian as a protest.



In a 50/50 electorate, a vote for a third party effectively nullifies your vote. You'll be helping put a Democrat in office.

So?

If Bush is no different on the gun issue than most of the Democrats, why in the heck should I vote for him? Both parties are corporate whores who are leading the country to disaster in the name of 'free trade' anyway.

The only difference between the 2 parties are the social issues such as gun control and abortion, and if the Republicans need to be whacked over the head to learn the simple truism of 'don't betray your supporters if you want to win', so be it.

[keederdag]

Vote'in LP, sick of the Two party ces-pool; Bad and Worse. Gotta end somewhere, and that change from the inside %$# does'nt float for me.:cuss:

[ReadyontheRight]

In a 50/50 electorate, a vote for a third party effectively nullifies your vote. You'll be helping put a Democrat in office.

Ross Perot gave us Clinton. Clinton gave us the '94 AWB and all the other anti-RKBA and other political landmines we now have to back out of.

If you really want to affect change, go to your Republican meetings and take back the party. Better yet, run for office.

Meanwhile, I'm supporting the President who gave us an Attorney General who immediately stated that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and the President who is actually doing something about terrorist attacks at the source.

[telewinz]

Maybe I'm not staying up with the political front but why is the choice Clark-Clinton? I'll never vote for ANY Clinton ticket but Clark is starting to look pretty good as the most qualified Presidential Candidate. I was a strong supporter of Bush but he seems to have his own private agenda with Irag and I can't think of anything his leadership has done for conservatives. There is no excuse for this since we have a Republican Congress, a wasted opportunity. I think Bush is another IKE, he did nothing but fill the position. Voting a third party sends a message, thats all. The problem is no one in power bothers to listen to that message and your vote is wasted. Voting for Ross Perot taught me that.

[Tamara]

In a 50/50 electorate, a vote for a third party effectively nullifies your vote. You'll be helping put a Democrat in office.

You assume he would've voted Republican in the first place. I've converted many a Dem to a Libertarian vote; there were quite a few Harry Browne votes in Georgia that would've been Gore votes in '00. You're welcome. ;)

[Sean Smith]

This reminds me of an old "Tales from the Darkside" where a bunch of people partying in a hot tub were slowly cooked for stew by turning up the heat veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery sloooooooooooooowly.

[standingbear]

id never vote for ANY clinton.if gwb signs antigun issues,id be tempted to just not vote at all or for whomever is pro freedom,pro rights.

[Chris Rhines]

I'm not voting for Bush, AWBII or no. I want him out of office.

I may vote Libertarian, or I may stay home and do something productive on election day. Not sure yet.

On the topic of third-parties: the common contention that a viable third-party will split the 'pro-freedom' vote is more a matter of wishful thinking than electoral fact. It depends on the faulty assumptions that people who are interested in freedom generally vote Republican*, and that third-party voters are culled in vast majority from doctrinare Republican ranks.

Vote for your principles, not someone else's.

- Chris

* - My way of thinking, voting Republican is proof that you aren't that interested in freedom.

[Glock Glockler]

Chris II,

Please don't stay home and not vote. Remember that polititcs, aside from war, is also a business of sorts, and the parties are always looking to increase market share. A vote for a 3rd party candidate is the prime target of these guys, as they will bend to get those votes so long as their bending does not cause them to loose their base.

The reason why the Democrats have softened their anti-gun stance is because they know it hurt them in the last election, it cost them market share.

[Mark Tyson]

If you lodge any kind of protest vote, or if you decide not to vote at all because nobody appeals to you, you may want to write the party and tell them what you did and why.

[Moparmike]

Originally posted by kentucky bucky
He isn't perfect and he has his warts, but he is the only viable candidate there is that is at least on our side of the fence, but maybe not as far as we want. Vote for a third party, but I don't want to here the whining when another Klinton gets into office.In this hypothetical situation, voting for Dubbya is a vote for a Klinton with a different face. If you would still vote for Dubbya after this happened, the political wool has been pulled over your eyes nicely. After all, you havent noticed it yet.

Anyway, I would vote LP. I had already decided to do that anyway, as I have "woken up" from my ignorant youth and "have seen the light.''

[TallPine]

Meanwhile, I'm supporting the President who gave us an Attorney General who immediately stated that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right
And Chuck Schumer said exactly the same thing ... subject to reasonable restrictions, of course.

Has Ashcroft stopped prosecution of all the unconstitutional federal gun control laws?


Me ... ? I think LP and buy more ammo.

[RGO]

I'm serious about this: I admire your principles. BUT, please remember: In a 50/50 electorate, a vote for a third party effectively nullifies your vote. You'll be helping put a Democrat in office.

There isn't enough difference between the Republicans and the Democrats for me to care. The Presidency and both houses of the Congress are in Republican control, and it's hardly a pro-gun utopia. I'd rather place my vote with a party I believe in rather than the lesser of two evils.

Thanks for your comments, though.

[Quartus]

If you lodge any kind of protest vote, or if you decide not to vote at all because nobody appeals to you, you may want to write the party and tell them what you did and why.


I'd go further and say you have an obligation to do so.


And why wait? Write to the White House AND the Republican National Committee and tell them that Bush had better not sign the AWB if it gets to his desk.


President George W. Bush
The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/)
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Chairman Ed Gillespie
Republican National Committee (http://www.rnc.org/contact/contact.htm)
310 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003

[Edward429451]

If you really want to affect change, go to your Republican meetings and take back the party. Better yet, run for office.

I nominate Marko Kloos (formerly lendsringer (sp)? , right? Thats the guy!):D

In a 50/50 electorate, a vote for a third party effectively nullifies your vote. You'll be helping put a Democrat in office.

Is this true or some propaganda rumor that was created to shy us away from voting third party? Anybody got the real scoop on this?

[Thumper]

I've converted many a Dem to a Libertarian vote; there were quite a few Harry Browne votes in Georgia that would've been Gore votes in '00.

Quite a few? Maybe. Harry pulled exponentially MORE votes from Bush though, right? The exception doesn't prove the rule.

There isn't enough difference between the Republicans and the Democrats for me to care.

With regards to the gun issue????!!!

:banghead:

[RGO]

With regards to the gun issue????!!!

Like I said, the federal government is controlled by the Republicans right now. Why then, do we even need to worry about the AWB? Where is our national concealed carry? Why doesn't Bush rescind the 1986 executive order against machine guns? What about the 1968 GCA? The list goes on...

[RGO]

Another thought: Let's say that the Congress was approaching 100% republicans. Do you really think that we would see a rebirth of gun rights?

[tcdrennen]

My partner and I were both called by some national GOP group (Senatorial Campaign Comm. or something) and stated flatly that unless Bush and the national party unequivocally condemned thw AWB (at least) and came out four square for the RKBA they'd get zip point diddly from either of us. The woman I spoke to said, "Oh, my husband said the same thing!" and I told her maybe she should make sure the PTB of the GOP get the message.

I wrote in L. Neil Smith last time. in CA, it didn't make any difference, but it felt right :cool: :evil:

[Hkmp5sd]

Either the Libertarian or "none of the above".

[hammer4nc]

If Bush signed AWB II, who would you vote for?

Just to clarify, the current proposed bills in congress (S1431, HR2038) are much worse then the current '94 AWB. The grabbers aren't happy with the current restrictions; they want the whole thing.

If Bush were to approve this bill, we should seriously consider drafting our own "El Sup, del Norte".

[HankB]

If Bush signs AWB II, my voting pattern will change WAY beyond my presidential ballot!

See, the GOP controls the House, the GOP controls the Senate, and the GOP has the White House. If the '94 Klinton Gun Ban becomes the '04 Bush Gun Ban, it will ONLY be because the REPUBLICANS did it . . . it will be a GOP gun ban, and under those circumstances, I will NOT vote for ANY Republican at ANY level of government, even if its third assistant dog catcher in my own home town.

Better a declared enemy (democRATS) than a backstabbing friend.

[Justin]

Hmmm....
Let's see...
As mentioned before the GOP controls the House, Senate, and White House. Yet we have a president whose support for RKBA is lukewarm at best and is happily careening toward a spending level not seen since the days of FDR. We have an Attorney General who, though he may be pro-gun, is doing his damndest to make sure that the rest of the Bill of Rights get the same beating that the 2nd Amendment has been getting since 1934.

I'm sorry, but I cannot see voting for Dubya in the upcoming election. From where I stand, the Republicans and the Democrats are exactly the same group.

Hate to say it, but the Republican party has left me behind.

[USAFA]

I sent Mr. Bush and my representatives each a letter stating that if they renewed the AWB I would not vote for them. I am not a politican, if I make a promise I stick to it.

[No4Mk1*]

If the AWB passes by passing in a Republican House, Senate, and Executive, then it is time to vote Liberterian and "help put a Democrat in office."
Both Republicans and Democrats feel the need to spend over 1/3 of everything I earn, so I really don't see a difference, but I will vote Republican if the Homeland defense rifle ban ends.

[tetleyb]

I'd still vote for Bush, and I shall.

[Cellar Dweller]

Well, 67 responses so far.

2 want to "get on with the revolution already," :uhoh:

11 are hunters and sportsmen, :cuss:

41 are principled, :cool:

13 are "paranoid tinfoil-hatters" or well-prepared. :evil:

At least that's MY interpretation. :neener:

[seeker_two]

As of right now, I'm leaning toward voting for Bush in the general election, but I'm really hoping for a strong, conservative, RKBA candidate to give him a big challenge in the primaries. That person would get my vote.

If Bush signs the AWB & wins the primaries, then I may go third party to send a message....

But I'll NEVER not vote...

[F4GIB]

Telewintz says "Clark is starting to look pretty good as the most qualified Presidential Candidate".

So..... you won't vote for GW Bush because he'll sign a new AW ban but you want to vote for Clark - whose only known views are about a new AW ban - he'll sign it.

Are you in touch with reality?

:banghead:

[Sam Adams]

The '86 prohibition on the manufacture of new machine guns for civilian use is NOT an executive order, it is LAW (albeit an unconstitutional one IMHO, but a LAW nonetheless). As such, no president can rescind it with the stroke of a pen.

That being said, were I the President, I would immediately order the BATFE to stop enforcing the '34 NFA, the '68 GCA, the '86 law as it applies to machine guns, the Brady Act and the AWB, pending review by a presidentially-appointed commission on the constitutionality of these laws. And I'd pack the commission with pro-2A stalwarts. Mr. Justice Thomas would be on there, just to lend some real credibility to it. Of course, I'm not living at the White House....

[Sam Adams]

FWIW, I think that we are locked into a 2-party system. Any attempts to get out of it will end up like the '92 elections, i.e. all such efforts will benefit the Democrapic Party. Since the Dems are almost universally anti-gun, I cannot in good conscience contribute to putting any of them into power. Of course, the Republicrats ain't tremendously better. They are pro-gun as a party when they aren't in power and need to mobilize their base...but in the current situation the Party wants to "build its base" and become "more inclusive," which involves treating us like a bunch of poor relatives.

What is the solution? My opinion is that anyone who is a single-issue voter (any issue will do, not just the RKBA) should fight like Hell between elections within the party most friendly to their point of view, to get the individuals most friendly to their issue within that party on the ticket for the general election. However, once the intra-party fight is over, you stick with that party in the general election. To do otherwise is to hand victory to the party that is clearly against you, and which will do everything possible to screw you and your issue. Voting 3rd party or staying home may be satisfying in the short term, but that cool feeling that you get from pi$$ing into the wind is very temporary, while the smell sticks around for a while. In practical terms, voting 3rd party gave us Clinton, the Brady bill and the AWB. Maybe it felt good to dump Bush I, but I'd hardly say that gun owners are better off than if Bush I had a second term and Clinton became a footnote in the history books.

Is this the ideal solution? No. However, IMO it is the only realistic one, the only one that prevents powerful enemies of your position on your critical issue from getting into power. If you can't get your people elected, at least total disaster is staved off for another 2 or 4 years, time which can be used to work within your party to get things changed for the next round of elections. Politics is the art of the practical - to get anything accomplished,you first have to get people friendly to you elected. Going "off the reservation" every other election because you are ticked off ain't a good way to get or keep friends in politics.

Just my $0.02.

[sw442642]

I sent my congressman a letter about the fallacies, etc. of the AWB. He is usually a strong RKBA type. However, he send back a letter that said this is a serious issue and he will see how the discussion unfolds.

Without a strong position from Bush, the renewal is a shoo-in. Just wait. Bush has no real understand of the RKBA. I'm sure he hasn't read any of the scholarship on it (or anything). He thinks it is just for duck and deer killers and so Momma can keep a gun in her car in case the slaves revolt again.

[Shooter 2.5]

Bush.

If you were discussing the Primary that would be different. He's a moderate but voting for anyone else in the general election is suicide. Voting to allow the dems back in is stupid.

[Cal4D4]

Seems that the Judicial Branch has most of the stroke on this issue. Everything else is just pandering for votes. Supremes could easily rule AWB (current and future) are unConstitutional. Or not. If Hillary gets to pack the court are we going to be better off than if GWB does the packing? Dems seem to be able to stop appointments anyway. Repubs are not "in control" of anything. Every significant bit of legislation is bartered and battered due to 50/50 nature of the current game. If SCOTUS was doing it's job in deciding Constitutionality, the Prez wouldn't really matter much. The Legislature is where we are being betrayed and SCOTUS is putting their approval on the dirty deed.

[Grey54956]

I am so tired of the idea that casting a vote for a third party candidate is wasting my vote. This idea is clearly the work of the one, er... two major parties. Both parties use this clever little piece of commune-sense to smother smaller parties. Don't vote Greens, they steal votes from the Dems. Don't vote Libertarian, they steal votes from Republicans. I am pretty sick of it.

I vote for whoever represents my views most accurately. If this means the libertarians, then so be it. The more votes the third parties get, the more the other two parties will have to adapt their core principles. If 10% of people were leaning toward a third party, the two major parties would try anything they can to try to syphon some of those voters back and insure their victory over the other.

Voting for third party candidates is voting for change. Not necessarily immediate change, but slow progress.

[keederdag]

Ya, know from where I'm standing when you vote third party, your not just sending a message to the GOP. The Dem's seem to notice too. This is a whole lot more principled, and effective (historically) than trying to change a bad party from the inside. DUUUUHHHHHHH.:banghead:

[TallPine]

Just a thought ...

IF the AWB is "renewed", it will be a much broader version (ban), and so very many of us will be criminals anyway by the time the election rolls around.

FWIW .....

[Dan from MI]

If Bush signs it, this Republican will be voting Republican for all the races.....except president, where I'd be voting Libertarian.

My line in the sand.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If the Republicans aren't going to help us out when the control the House, Senate and Executive and the Dems are trying to minimize their anti-gun image, then they aren't ever going to help us out.

If the ban is renewed in any form, I will absolutely vote against the person who signed it because they have already decided that they aren't going to be doing me any more favors.

[tiberius]

I'll vote Libertarian anyway – on principle. Since they won’t win, I don’t even particularly care who the candidate is, I just want to support a party with a reasonable platform.

Though it doesn’t really matter. W is gonna win Texas big anyway and despite the pleas from the Leftists in 2000, we still use an electoral delegate system. :)

Frankly, I can no longer tell the Democrats from the Republicans. Sure the two parties attract different extremes, but the mass of the parties are the same and support the same platforms.

[voilsb]

I would probably vote libertarian; but only probably. I am not a one-issue voter, so there are many other things which I would have to consider.

However, RKBA is a very important one, and it trumps many of the other issues, so it would seriously sway me to vote lib. And the prez, my reps and senators, and the Supreme Court will hear about it in writing if this does come to pass, though.

[45auto]

Wow,
60% would vote for a third party which would help a Democrat to take office.

I hope that's just momentary anger, because one of the major differences, real differences, between Democrats and Republicans is gun control. In many issues it is hard to distingush between the two, but not in gun ownership.

If you think the AWB was a hardship, for whatever reason, just elect a Democrat for president and see what happens.

Even if it's not extended, it will be a state's issue. This is a tough one for Bush, it wouldn't be for a Democrat.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not merely anger.

In order to have any real leverage over gun control police in the voting booth, at least one of the major parties has to be pro-gun. And that party pretty much has to be the Republican party.

The only way that's going to be the case, is if Republicans believe that being pro-gun is a matter of political survival. If they get the notion that they can do something like making the AW ban permanent, and not be thrown out on their ears, it's "game over" as far as the ballot box is concerned. It will be civil war or complete surrender, in a matter of a couple of years.

That's why, for the sake of the long run, it's more important in any given election to punish turncoat Republicans, than to keep Democrats out. It's the only way to make sure that voting in the NEXT election will be worth bothering with.

[Augustwest]

I live less than I mile from my polling place. I'll dig in a little, go cast my third-party vote, and go home and dig in a little more.

voting for anyone else in the general election is suicide.

Voting for either major party is suicide. Question, is do you want to die quickly or slowly?

[GSB]

Bush is already on thin ice with me on a number of domestic policy issues, so signing a new AWB would not enhance my chances of voting for him.

[RGO]

People like me do not vote Libertarian to help the Democrats. We vote Libertarian because the Republicans are not helping us. If our votes cause R's to lose seats, maybe they will better acknowledge the segment of population they've offended.

I am not a one-issue voter, either. Although Republicans do tend to be better on RKBA, in other important areas they don't do any better than the Democrats.

[Hkmp5sd]

60% would vote for a third party which would help a Democrat to take office.

I hope that's just momentary anger,
Nope. IMO, there is no difference in a republican president that signs an AWB than a democratic one that does the same. It's time to show the republican party that they cannot do unto us as they please and expect our votes regardless since they are "all we have".

Of the last 5 presidents, the republican ones have signed more anti-gun legislation than the democratic ones.

[Oleg Volk]

Libertarian on all levels would be a good response to me. Would end up having to dig in anyway.

[gunsmith]

I am not sorry about being a one issue voter.
If he signs the AWB or a newer badder version the Repubs
can forget I exist cause they will never get another vote from me.
I am never voting Dem again,if need be I will only vote libertarian!

[Cellar Dweller]

106 "votes" in.

3rd party (I should've specified Libertarian, oh well): 65
no vote: 21
Republibackstabbers after hypothetical AWB2003: 17
Demograbbers: 3

Democrats and Republicans get their REAL power from:
1. the apathetic, who don't vote because "it doesn't matter anyway" or "why vote, the Democrat (or Republican) is going to win anyway"
2. fearmongering that a 3rd-party vote is "throwing it away" or "voting for the other guy"


If the real elections broke down like 35% winner - 33% loser - 32% 3rd-party, you'd see a major shift in Dem/Repub policy (better still, 90% 3rd-party, combined 10% for Dem/Repub! Wishful thinking!).

[Tamara]

In practical terms, voting 3rd party gave us Clinton, the Brady bill and the AWB. Maybe it felt good to dump Bush I, but I'd hardly say that gun owners are better off than if Bush I had a second term and Clinton became a footnote in the history books.

The Brady Bill and the AWB were inevitabilities no matter whether Clinton or Bush was in office. Both were all about "common sense gun control". Do a little research on the AWB. Type "Assault Weapons" into the search engine over at the site for Bush I's Presidential papers (http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/wg-cgi-bin/webglimpse/home/httpd/html/bushlibrary/papers?query=assault+weapons&submit=Submit&errors=0&age=&maxfiles=50&maxlines=30&maxchars=10000&cache=yes) and see what you get.

"Fourth, at my direction, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms suspended the importation of certain assault weapons. ATF is continuing its examination to determine which, if any, of these weapons are not acceptable under the standards in existing law. And the standard talks about suitability for sporting purposes -- and you're hearing this from one who prides himself on being a sportsman, and have been a hunter all my life. And at the conclusion of this study, and after careful consideration, we will permanently ban any imports that don't measure up to these standards. I am going to stand up for the police officers in this country.

And toward this end, I am proposing the prohibition of the importation and manufacture of gun magazines of more than 15 rounds for citizens' use. I just don't believe that sportsmen require these 30-round magazines if the legitimate purpose is sports." -George Bush, 6/15/89

[Yaqui]

I always vote Libertarian if there is a LP candidate running for that office.

Failing that, Republican if it's a choice between R and D.


Is my vote "wasted"?

From where I'm sitting, every vote for a Republican (or a Democrat) is keeping a Libertarian out of office...

Talk about alot of wasted votes... :uhoh:

Please don't waste your vote and come join the principled party www.lp.org

[Trempel]

"Another thought: Let's say that the Congress was approaching 100% republicans. Do you really think that we would see a rebirth of gun rights?"

Absolutelly not. Why would the govt., ANY govt. give you rights that they took away? IMO, politicians don't do something because they got elected. They do something because of not getting elected, or at least because they fear that happening.
The Dems. have softened they stance on RKBA because they lost in the last two elections. In the mean time, the Republicans have failed to use all opportunities to make a push against gun control. Patriotic wave/fear of terrorism sweeping the country after 9/11, control of the White House, and both houses - all advantages that were pissed away by the Republican leadership. And now that we know that Bush II will sign AWB many pro-gunners still say that he should be re-elected. Why? I see no reason to give my vote for the party that only claims to recognize my rights in their speeches, but ignores them in their actions.