[Thumper]

From another thread.

And the really sad thing is, Bush wouldn't BE anti-gun if he didn't know he could get away with it.

Okay...to those who don't realize Dubya's history on the gun issue:

You do realize that antis consider Bush the most pro gun president since Teddy, right?

You do know that Bush won the Texas governorship on the CCW issue, right?

You do know that Bush was instrumental in protecting our industry from the frivolous lawsuits that were a serious threat.

There's more, but it's really too much to mention...ask the "we're now working out of the oval office" NRA.

Characterizing Dub as an anti is pretty silly.

Yeah...Bush's official position (that he refuses to repeat) is that he supports the existing ban...so do most gun owners, according to polls. THAT is our fault.

Congress passes bills, folks...let's not forget it.

Is Bush the best possible pro gun candidate? No. He supports NICS, among other things.

Is he the best we have that has a chance of winning?

Absofrigginlutely...join us in the real world.

[Hkmp5sd]

Is he the best we have that has a chance of winning?
It's simple. If he signs a new AW ban next year, he is no different than Clinton doing the same thing in '94. I will not reward that by voting for him. He may lose the election and we may have to live with a democrat for the next four years, but possibly the president after that will have learned a lesson.

He can say or not say anything he wants, but it's his actions that will determine if he gets my vote or not.

[Thumper]

If Bush loses, do you think anyone in the media will equate that to the AWB?

'Course not...

That bill should never get to his desk...Our most politically astute scholars (Gottleib, et al) don't believe it will. I hope they're right.

But that's far from the point...the point is, Bush ain't perfect, but if we demand an absolutely ideal candidate, we're gonna be waiting a long time.

Bush, in my opinion, is by far the most pro gun candidate we could hope for.

[dustind]

You do realize that antis consider Bush the most pro gun president since Teddy, right?
Based mostly on the fact that he is from Texas. They also painted him as a boogie man because he was a republican and the guy he was against was anti gun. Everyone needs a vilian to fight.

You do know that Bush won the Texas governorship on the CCW issue, right?
If he was not pro-ccw he would not have been elected, all this proves is that he is not a hard core grabber willing to commit political suicide to keep guns out of people's hands. I am not saying that is his goal, but that is all it proves.

You do know that Bush was instrumental in protecting our industry from the frivolous lawsuits that were a serious threat.
How so? I have not kept up to date on the issue, but please tell me what he has done to help it. How hard has he been pushing this? Has it even passed yet?

Is he the best we have that has a chance of winning?
Yes, well maybe Dean, but I do not trust either. I think both are closet antis who if they could would be open antigun except for it being political suicide. They both do as little as they can to help, and are willing to hurt the rkba.

There's more, but it's really too much to mention...ask the "we're now working out of the oval office" NRA.
That was just one guy that was happy Gore did not win, I am happy that the NRA is happy, but they have sold us down the river a few too many times when they did not have to, and even for no reason.

Is there any solid evidence that he is pro rkba? I think he is a politician being everything to everyone, and doing what will get him the most votes. Has he done anything on the gun issue either way that will hurt the number of votes he gets?

[Lone_Gunman]

I agree with Thumper. 100%.

[Thumper]

[How so? I have not kept up to date on the issue, but please tell me what he has done to help it. How hard has he been pushing this?

With respect, that's why I posted this...a lot of folks (pretty smart, IMO) get most of their news from THR...but a lot of the Bush stuff is skewed, to say the least.

Google is your friend...please...look into this.

edited to say that Google is not your friend, but pound thier engine anyway.

:D

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

One-issue voters are dangerous. We lost it incrementally and we have to win it back incrementally. Yes, the AWB is big, but so are tax cuts, foreign policy, privatizing the ponzi-scheme we call social insecurity....If you elect a socialist, then we lose other freedoms so that you can have a tantrum. Patience, grasshopper. Bush is working on re-election, then the second and final term, where he can shed the middle road on the gun issues. He has to appeal to some sheeple to win. THINK.

[Moparmike]

As far as my vote goes, it is a tossup between Bush and the LP candidate. If Bush has the AWB accross his desk and signs it, he is toast in my eyes. If he doesnt, then I will consider him on other issues, and vote as I see fit. I may still end up voting LP.....

I would love to see the LP candidate in a debate with the other two.:)

[4v50 Gary]

I'll cast my vote for Bush before *******, Gore or Lieberman. He's no Teddy Roosevelt, but he's better than the other three.

[Justin]

Bush maybe the lesser of two evils.

This emphatically does not make him pro-gun.

All it means is that he is less anti-rights than the other choices out there, and maybe, possibly able to logically look at the issue.

But I doubt it.

[carpettbaggerr]

Better look at the opposition before you vote against Bush. I doubt he'd sign a new AWB, but it shouldn't even get to him. The Republicans have a lot on their plate without worrying about laws that make no difference whatsoever.

Does anyone doubt Al Gore would be passing antigun laws left and right? Do you think any Democrats would be better? How 'bout Al Sharpton.

[El Tejon]

And now a word from the tilecrawlers: Gentlemen, please be advised,

1. the next President of the United States will appoint at least three Supreme Court justices and name a new Chief Justice;

2. Bush is NOT our ideal;

3. However, I would rather Bush nominate federal judges and justices rather than than his opposition in the (more)socialist party.

We did not lose our freedom overnight, we will not regain it overnight.

[SC_shooter]

I agree with Hkmp5sd.

If Bush does sign the AWB, I will be voting for the Democrat to send a message to the Republican leadership. They will be no different from Clinton. It is the only thing that politicians understand - getting votes or losing votes.

Paul

[NukemJim]

Is there any solid evidence that he is pro rkba? I think he is a politician being everything to everyone, and doing what will get him the most votes. Has he done anything on the gun issue either way that will hurt the number of votes he gets?

As far as my vote goes, it is a tossup between Bush and the LP candidate. If Bush has the AWB accross his desk and signs it, he is toast in my eyes. If he doesnt, then I will consider him on other issues, and vote as I see fit.

NukemJim

[BenW]

If Bush loses, do you think anyone in the media will equate that to the AWB?
Not if this represents the opinion of your average non-gun owning (or at least non-gun enthusiast) Republican:

http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=20866

[Thumper]

Bush has repeatedly said that he believes that, not only is it our right, but that those that carry guns reduce crime.

He is strongly for CCW...

Read that again...Our President is strongly pro-CCW.

Is that everything? No. But painting that as "anti-gun" doesn't pass the sniff test.

[geekWithA.45]

The awb renewal bill is gonna happen right before the election?

The sunset/expiration date has NO BEARING on any subsequent legislation.

The NJ smart gun ban happened the same way: It was scheduled for vote right before the election, the governor made a phone call, and magically, the vote was rescheduled.

We all know how that turned out.

Since America willing to tolerate the lunacy of the AWB in the first place, there's nothing especially surreal about winding up with "pre-ban, post-ban, and Sept-Dec2004, and post-post-ban" class firearms.

Make no mistake, if the AWB is renewed in any form, the "check on tyranny" rationale for 2A is officially flushed down the toilet.

[w4rma]

Bush Supports New Extension Of Assault-Weapons Ban
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04122003/nation_w/47311.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891827/posts

Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11013-2003Apr11.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891697/posts

[Cactus]

It's nice to see that w4rma is so concerned about not reinacting the AWB and is worried that President Bush MAY do that. Let's see how HIS candidate, Howard Dean, feels about the issue:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_sensiblegunlaws

:eek: That doesn't look too good! I'm confused. Could it be that our Second Admendment brother, w4rma, is not what he seems? Could it be that he is just another troll? Let's check out w4rma's website he lists on his profile to learn more about him: http://www.democraticunderground.com/ Isn't that the same website that had one longtime member writing in calling for the death of MORE American troops?

:what: Well, I guess we now know what w4rma is!

[w4rma]

Not all progressives are anti-gun, Cactus. In fact a majority of DUers hold moderate gun positions and a good number of DUers hold anti-gun control positions. Do a search on DU on my posts. Do a search here on my posts. My position is consistent no matter where I post.

It is my observation that the gun control argument tends to be urban vs. rural rather than liberal vs. conservative. IMHO, liberal/relaxed gun laws are more consistent with liberal/relaxed social views than conservative/strict social views.

[Sergeant Bob]

Listen to El T!! 1. the next President of the United States will appoint at least three Supreme Court justices and name a new Chief Justice;
I don't think this is the ideal election to "send a message" to the Repubs. I think this could possibly be one of the most important elections of our gun owning lives.


geek [QUOTE]The awb renewal bill is gonna happen right before the election?
The sunset/expiration date has NO BEARING on any subsequent legislation.

The NJ smart gun ban happened the same way: It was scheduled for vote right before the election, the governor made a phone call, and magically, the vote was rescheduled.

We all know how that turned out. /QUOTE]
That's the way I see it.

[GSB]

The sad thing is, I think Bush has been really bad on a number of issues, but the whack-job field coming up on the left is so much worse that I don't see much alternative to voting for a guy I disagree with on a string of issues important to me.

Sigh. Damn real world politcs.

[Lone_Gunman]

Make no mistake, if the AWB is renewed in any form, the "check on tyranny" rationale for 2A is officially flushed down the toilet.

Now I would disagree with that statement. Everyone here has pointed out at one time or another that the weapons banned by the AWB are banned for cosmetic reasons only. The AWB violates the 2nd Amendment and may put us further down the slippery slope towards total gun confiscation, but we can't logically say that the "check on tyranny" is gone because we dont have certain cosmetically incorrect firearms.

If widespread tyranny were to fall upon our land, I certainly would not want to fight the civil war with one of the banned assault weapons, and no one else would either. A post ban rifle, or for that matter a bolt or lever action, would be just fine. Upon first confrontation with the enemy, one of two things would happen. Either I would be killed, and therefore in no need of any gun, or I would kill an enemy, and equip myself with his leftovers.

[Ed]

One-issue voters are dangerous. We lost it incrementally and we have to win it back incrementally. Yes, the AWB is big, but so are tax cuts, foreign policy, privatizing the ponzi-scheme we call social insecurity....If you elect a socialist, then we lose other freedoms so that you can have a tantrum.



THANK YOU. There are other things in th eworld besides guns, No matter what one thinks on abortion, taxes,etc. Those issues are important and will be big and discussed in the next 4 years.

[geekWithA.45]

Lone_Gunman:

While I take your point,

-Do you think the finite and slowly dwindling supply of full capacity mags are going to last forever? What about 100 years from now?

-Do you think it's just to sit in jail, gun rights lost forever, because one of your mags happened to be inscribed with the wrong mystical symbol ("LEO Use Only"), or you had some other politically incorrect feature?

While the existing AWB doesn't _immediately_ flush the resisting tyranny rationale,

The AWB has three purposes and effects:

1) To make us jump through flaming hoops, and fret about these "inconsequential" cosmetic features.
2) To provide the basis/pretext for widespread gun enforcement actions, based on a wide list of prohibited small arms.
3) To incrementally gain/cement public approval for the notion that "civilians shouldn't have military type firearms", and thus build on the foundation laid by NFA, prep the public for the future, and provide the "next step" in gun control.

It's all a part of an overall continuum, with #3 having the biggest effect on resisting tyranny. The longer the "no mil type firearms in civilian hands" idea is tolerated, the less legitimate "resisting tyranny" will seem.

At one time, the resisting tyranny rationale was taught in civics classes in schools, and was broadly accepted. Today, a great many people consider the "resisting tyranny" rationale to be both LUDICROUS, and EXTREMIST, and the AWB played a large part in that.

Right now, the gun bigots are trying to get public debate together over mag fed semi-auto, a debate which wouldn't even be possible without the AWB.

That's the big one.

IMO, mag fed semi-auto of a significant caliber is the BARE MINIMUM NECESSARY for a militarily useful firearm*, and now we're only one short step away.

We shouldn't start telling ourselves the AWB is OK. IT'S NOT.

That being said, Bush is still the lesser evil, and El-T's the point about the composition of the next SCOTUS is huge.

*For the average guy. Bolt fed high precision rifles, etc are for experts.

[dustind]

The scotus thing will probably get me to vote republican this term.

[twoblink]

I have to say, if Bush signs the AWB, consider the entire country blue on the next election.

PO'ed gun owners will vote libertarian..

I for one, have not seen any reasons to vote bush rather than libertarian..

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If Bush signs any form of the AWB then he loses my vote.

If Bush truely believes that banning weapons over absurd cosmetic criteria is a good idea, then I'm fairly confident I don't want him appointing any judges anyway.

[tfurey19]

All we are asking of him to do is NOTHING. How hard is that. We all do nothing throughout the day, many times not even realizing it.

For Bush to renew the ban he would have to go out of his way to do something AGAINST US, his loyal supporters! Remember that this ban represents the future of gun control in America. If we can beat it we have hope. If we can't, all will be lost in the end.

So in sumary if we can not beat a ban that dies on its own, with a republican house and with a republican senate and with a republican president, all of which are supposedly pro-gun, then what hope is there that anything will get better down the road?

I figure it like this. If he signs the renewal all is lost in the end anyway, another term of Bush may only delay it, but it will be inevitable. A democrat would speed up the process enough to get the country into action. Clinton moved too fast and the pro-gun movement swelled. Plus if they are going to come and take your guns, when would you prefer them to do it? in 5 years or 20?

So I think it is in all of our interests to vote democratic if Bush signs the renewal.

If on the other hand it dies, for any reason, we jump on the Bush band wagon and get him re-elected. I don't see any other viable strategy to deal with the sunset

[oldfart]

For those of you who herald Bush as some sort of Knight in Shining Armor for signing the Texas CCW law, let me point out that Texas (and all the other states that have similar laws) now has de facto gun registration. Do we really want a Federal CCW law?

[Al Norris]

I had no reason to vote democrat or republican in the last election. Nothing has changed.

[tfurey19]

if you want to get back at Bush for signing the renewal.

There's the reason

[Mark Tyson]

Vote Democrat

If you do, write and let everyone know why.

[tfurey19]

You should always let a politician know why you're voting for or against him/her.

Contact Bush and let him know that if he signs renewal you will be voting for the dem and encouraging others to do so as well

[auschip]

For those of you who herald Bush as some sort of Knight in Shining Armor for signing the Texas CCW law, let me point out that Texas (and all the other states that have similar laws) now has de facto gun registration. Do we really want a Federal CCW law?

Care to explain that one? You don't have to register any particular firearm, you can even take the class with a rental. How does that equate to registration?

[Don Gwinn]

So, Texas requires a permit ("registration") and that is somehow worse than Illinois, which does not allow carry at all, either concealed or open?
How does that work, exactly? I mean, I take your point, but trust me, it's hard for someone who has no legal right to carry to spare much concern for the evils of CCW permits. Keep it in mind.

I think we could, if "we" as gunowners would get off our collective lard butts, keep the AWB from crossing Bush's desk. That would be the best solution. I think Bush's judicial nominations have been pretty good. And frankly, the Presidency will probably never again be as important as the Supreme Court within our lifetime. Like it or not, federal judges are the most powerful people in our nation by a long shot.

[tiberius]

For those of you who herald Bush as some sort of Knight in Shining Armor for signing the Texas CCW law, let me point out that Texas (and all the other states that have similar laws) now has de facto gun registration. Do we really want a Federal CCW law?

Oldfart,

Are you even vaguley familiar with the CHL process?

The federal form (I forget the number) filled out for purchase from an FHL is quasi-registration, but a CHL has no correlation to firearm ownership.

Bush is no RKBA hero, but his support of the CHL is widely recognized as a deciding factor in his victory over Anne Richards.

Face it he's no anti, but he is a politician. If he thought he could get more votes by supporting more gun bans, then he would do it in a heartbeat. Fortunately, he doesn't seem to think that's the case right now.

[Smoke]

I for one, have not seen any reasons to vote bush rather than libertarian..

How about "Bush can win, a Libertarian candidate can't."

Bush is not perfect, but he is better than ANY democrat. I can't see voting Libertarian, or democrat to make a statement. You'd be making the WRONG statement (...at least voting dem.) and end up in worse shape than you're in now.

Vote Bush in the next election. Vote Lib or Rep in the '08 election.

[Sergeant Bob]

If Bush signs any form of the AWB then he loses my vote.
If Bush signs any AWB, it will be after the 2004 election. It will be too late to vote for anyone else.

[Silver Bullet]

How about "Bush can win, a Libertarian candidate can't."
This is similar to reasons put forth on this site for voting for Arnold over Tom in the California recall election. Given the statements Arnold has made regarding weapon bans since the recall, are you still okay with voting for Arnold ?

[jefmad]

How about "Bush can win, a Libertarian candidate can't."
This percpetion causes the reality. Didn't anybody notice that Tom McClintock had a higher approval rating than Arnold in the exit polls but people didn't vote for him because he "couldn't win". If voters actually started to vote on their beliefs rather than who they percieve to win a third party would become viable a lot more quickly.

[oldfart]

I AM an oldfart, and while I have done a lot of things in my lifetime, I haven't done 'em all. I have managed to read about a lot of the things I've missed out on though. Here's one:

When the German army moved into France and Belgium, one of the first things the commanders did was go to the local seat of government and get the lists of gunowners. European countries were (and still are) very thorough about keeping records like this. With the lists in hand, soldiers went to those homes which housed gunowners and confiscated their arms. A few hardy, but foolish, souls tried to sell the story that they no longer had those guns. They were shot.

Of course, as with any society, there were a few people who had possessed their guns without registering them. They were able to avoid that particular "knock on the door" and later, when resistance became better organized, they were the heros who were able to 'acquire' newer and better guns for their countrymen.

I don't know when this country will experience that sort of thing, but I know it will happen. So does anyone who is willing to look objectively at the events of the past seventy years and compare them to similar events in other countries and in other times.

Think about this: What if, in ten or twenty years, a squad of Pakistani soldiers wearing blue helmets surround your house and demand, on the basis of the county CCW list, that you surrender all your guns. Do you think they'll believe you when you tell them that your wife got that permit even though she didn't have agun? What would you do if you were on the other end and had to go house to house to collect weapons in Pakistan?

Those who wish to apply for and get their CCW have every right to do so. Just don't try to tell me that doing so is furthering the cause of our RKBA. The lady sitting next to you in Church may be convinced by your pleasant demeanor that licensed guns are ok, but the hard-core politician who is worried that his pet Bill is going to anger a few constituents will still try to keep guns out of the hands of all those who disagree with him.

If you want to carry a concealed gun-- then have the balls to do so! If you have to get daddy's permission first....

I give up!

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

In Utah, CCW is called a Concealed Firearms Permit. "I" have a permit to carry a concealed firearm. I am either permitted to carry a revolver, a semi-auto, or both. "I" am not limited to a specific firearm. Therefore, "I" am registered under the permit scheme, but no guns are registered. It is conceivable that a permittee may not even own a gun. My wife qualified on the instructor's firearms.

[geegee]

I have to say, if Bush signs the AWB, consider the entire country blue on the next election. PO'ed gun owners will vote libertarian..

How will that work? With approximately 80mm gun owners in our country, on it's best month NRA has been able to get around 4mm of those gun owners motivated and engaged enough in the political process to join it's organization, and in doing so add some weight to it's positions. I'm not interested in turning this into a pro or con NRA thread, but point this out to say that at the end of the day (Election Day, or any other), most gun owners read in the newspaper about their latest incremental loss of firearms ownership, offer up a weak "harrrumph!" and go on about their business. Most are very content to let the rest of us do the heavy lifting for them.

If anyone here thinks there will be a wholesale revolt by gunowners if Bush sticks it to us on the AWB, they're delusional. The truth is, most don't care. THR members don't represent the avearge gun owner in America. I'd love nothing more than to be proven wrong on this, but I don't think I will be. geegee

[auschip]

Those who wish to apply for and get their CCW have every right to do so. Just don't try to tell me that doing so is furthering the cause of our RKBA. The lady sitting next to you in Church may be convinced by your pleasant demeanor that licensed guns are ok, but the hard-core politician who is worried that his pet Bill is going to anger a few constituents will still try to keep guns out of the hands of all those who disagree with him.

You still haven't shown anyone how having a CHL equals gun registration (defacto or otherwise). If you believe hiding gun ownership as if it is a dirty secret that you don't want the neighbors to know is futhering the RKBA, or being arrested and convicted of a felony is the way to support the RKBA rather then going through the legal process of obtaining a permit then no amount of reason will change your mind.

[Werewolf]

geegee said:
If anyone here thinks there will be a wholesale revolt by gunowners if Bush sticks it to us on the AWB, they're delusional. The truth is, most don't care. THR members don't represent the avearge gun owner in America. I'd love nothing more than to be proven wrong on this, but I don't think I will be.

[sigh]
Sadly - I believe you are correct sir.

[tfurey19]

We will at least have many months to restock the supply of AWs and mags. We need to beat the ban altogether though.

As for the statement that Bush is better than the dems even if he signs the renewal, this is totally wrong. Bush will be signing the final death blow to the movement and begin the final move to total confiscation. He may be able to delay this for four years but after that all will be lost. As I said, if the bill is renewed, signalling the beginning of confiscation and total elimination of the rkba, I would rather it happen sooner than later while I at least have youth on my side.

Voting for Bush after the ban is renewed is pointless and only a feel good jesture. You will still lose all your guns. That's why will vote and campaign for the dems. I can't mind why anyone on this board would even thik about not doing whatever it takes to remove a politician that tries to take all their guns, but then again that is the problem with gun owners to begin with isn't it.

Either the AW Ban goes or Bush does

[voilsb]

Think about this: What if, in ten or twenty years, a squad of Pakistani soldiers wearing blue helmets surround your house and demand, on the basis of the county CCW list, that you surrender all your guns.Well, they'd probably start with NFA papers and 4473s, not CCW lists. And they'd probably also try to use NRA, GOA, JPFO, and SAF papers, if they could get ahold of them.

[Mark Tyson]

No blue helmets are going to be coming for your guns. It will be your friendly local sheriff or special agent, probably with an American flag lapel pin.

[Hkmp5sd]

If Bush signs any AWB, it will be after the 2004 election. It will be too late to vote for anyone else.
That is very true. And if that occurs, it will most likely have been passed by a republican controlled house and senate. That means they get they're payback two years later.

Even Clinton has stated the democrats lost control of congress in 1994 because of the AW ban. If the republicans do the same, they reap the same.

[commygun]

Thumper has nailed this one. The loss of rights was a slow process.
Regaining them will take just as long or longer. Anyone expecting
some kind of fire-breathing, John Brown like, pro-RKBA avenger to
storm the White House and magically restore all our rights in the
teeth of half the electorate is living in a complete fantasy world.
Enjoy your self-righteous indignation and kiss ALL your guns, CCW,
whatever goodbye.

[Hkmp5sd]

Anyone expecting some kind of fire-breathing, John Brown like, pro-RKBA avenger

Actually, all I expect is a president and congress that do not sign into law any new gun control legislation. I seriously doubt they will be removing any controls in the near future, but they don't need to make it worse.

[Don Galt]

Hey, Thumper admitted bush is anti-gun-- he supports NICS, National Registration for Gun Buyers.

As long as Bush can count on your support while still going along and trading gun rights with Democrats, he will continue to do so.

People say a libertarian can't win-- a self fulfilling prophecy. If everyone voted their principles, the libertarians would be the undisputed winningest party.

As long as you sell out your principles and vote for Bush, without regard to how much he violates your principles, you will get people like Bush.

Bush has violated the constitution in just about every way one CAN violate it. Not just on gun rights (with his new ban) not just free speech (With the RAVE act) not just the fourth ammendment (With the TSA), etc. etc. etc.

You guys are sending him the message loud and clear that he can get away with it because he can count on your vote.

His democratic opposition has you quaking in your boots, don't it?

Well, we'll see what happens with the AWB next year. I expect he'll sign it and you'll be telling us just how much worse it would have been if Gore had signed it.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

The libertarian philosophy is a wonderful thing. It has a few problems, but overall it does address some large issues.

There is more to life than drugs and guns. 9/11 showed me that security is not a "free-market" thing that can be wished away. Borders can not be open, because the people on the other side of the border may not have libertarian ideals, nor will the persons wishing to crash planes into buildings question the act's constitutionality.

Yes, we need less government. Yes, we need to honor the constitution. Self-reliance needs to be the rule rather than the exception. It will come in time. Be vigilant.

[geegee]

I expect he'll sign it and you'll be telling us just how much worse it would have been if Gore had signed it.
I think to see our victories and losses in this "war of values" (which I believe is at the heart of this struggle) only in this context is to miss the larger point, one which has already been pointed out: who will be appointiing those three Supreme Court Judges?

Whether or not it could be Bush or Gore or Hillary who signs the AWB, years later it will be the work of those justices which will affect our gun rights (and our children's and grandchildren's rights) long after those folks are out of office. Looking only to that one issue and saying "told ya so!" if not satisfied with the outcome, and then voting Democrat or Libertarian (either will get us closer to a Demo in the White House), will assure us a Supreme Court that will provide a greater threat to our gun rights than Pakistani's in blue helmets.

I'm not willing to cut off my nose to spite my face, but that's what some of you are suggesting if Bush doesn't deliver for us. geegee

[oldfart]

ok Auschip, one more time and I'll try to go slowly this time.

CCW does not-- except in a few states-- register guns. So you're right in that respect. But it does register gun owners. So do 4473s. So do any records kept by gun stores, gun smiths, etc.

Remember my little story about the Pakistani soldiers? Put yourself in the place of that squad leader. You've been ordered to find all the guns in town and some guy is trying to convince you that his wife just got her CCW because she might want to get a gun someday. Are you going to believe him? Would you bet your life he was telling the truth? Think about the problems our soldiers are having in Iraq right now. Do you think they believe every Iraqi that tells them they have no guns?

Someone has pointed out that it would more likely be the local sheriff who'd be confiscating the guns. Maybe, but in the long run, what difference does it make who does the field work? You'll still either be defenseless or dead and your family-- if they're still alive-- will be homeless.

Right off the bat, I know someone is saying something like 'he's just paranoid' or 'it won't happen here' or 'we won't let that happen.' Well, except for the difference in language the same things were said in Russia, Germany, Cambodia and a host of other countries. Look what happened to them-- even the ones who wrote to their legislators.

[Lone_Gunman]

Oldfart,

While a CCW does not further the right to bear arms, neither does carrying illegally.

I agree with you that the scenario you describe one day may happen. But, when I am faced with the option of legally carrying a concealed gun by permit, or breaking the law and running the risk of going to jail, losing my right to own guns, and basically ruining my life with a criminal record, I am going to get the permit and stay legal.

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Don Galt:
If everyone voted their principles, the libertarians would be the undisputed winningest party.

Libertarians love to throw out this claim, one that as far as I can determine is totally unsubstantiated. Do you have any polling data to back up this claim?

I would hazard to guess that 90% of the American people support at least one of the Libertarian positions, but that is a far cry from the majority, or even a plurality, of people supporting the entire Libertarian position in principle OR actuality.

I know alot of liberals, alot of conservatives and alot of moderates. But I know very few Libertarians. Sorry Don, but most people vote Democrat or Republican not because they are afraid to vote Libertarian, but because they support the positions of those parties.

It's simply arrogant and condecending to assume that ONLY Libertarians vote their principles.

[Cactus]

Originally posted by oldfart:
CCW does not-- except in a few states-- register guns. So you're right in that respect. But it does register gun owners. So do 4473s. So do any records kept by gun stores, gun smiths, etc.

So does membership in the NRA, GOA, your local gun club, a subscription to Guns and Ammo, etc.

[Lone_Gunman]

If everyone voted their principles, the libertarians would be the undisputed winningest party.

I'll second the request for someone to back that up with data.

I would say that a majority of Americans would support some libertarian ideas, but not all, and not enough to actually be willing to vote libertarian.

I support them on a lot of things, but the things I don't support them on are major disagreements that would prevent me from ever being able to vote for them.

[jfh]

1. What I see reflected in the posts so far suggests that the following groups of THR members have formed up

a. Absolutists about 2nd A issues, and will vote from a "purity" viewpoint. Example: vote Libertarian.

b. People who are weighing multiple issues--e.g., abortion rights, BOR issues like the Patriot Act, etc.

c. Party Loyalists, either Democrats or Republicans, who see the world through that particular perspective.

d. Political Pragmatists--e.g., the incrementialists who point out we lost our complete 2nd A rights a step at a time, and it will take similar steps to win them back.

My own position is that I distrust both Parties on this issue, and GWB is no lover of firearms rights. However, ANYONE who believes the Democrats are not going to pursue a national agenda of increased gun control, no matter how illogical, had better check what they've been smoking.

Howard Dean's statements on GC are absolutely consistent with 1) his past performance as a state Governor and say NOTHING what agenda he will pursue as a President. If he's going to be the titular leader of the Democrats, he's gotta spread himself over the Schumers, Boxers, et.al. as well.

Regardless of who you think "really" won the last election, it would appear that it is sinking in to the Democrat strategists that gun control is not the issue to win campaigns on--at least directly--because of how Gore apparently lost the election.

This election will probably be like the last, unless GWB shoots himself in the foot some more--like he has on Iraq/you pick a topic.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE FIGHT IS FOR THE UNDECIDED. If the Democrats can fool even 2% of the non-political gunnies into being comfortable with voting for Howard Dean, then they can win and GC will be a big payback to the gun-hater's fringe groups, for keeping their troops in line--particularly if they manage to win the Presidency.

This issue is almost a problem for me, for my third concern, after 2nd A and 1st A are the pro-choice issues. But, ever since sick Willy turned loose the GC nuts, I have resolved to be a one-issue voter.

ANYTHING BUT A VOTE FOR DUBYA CREATES UNDUE RISK FOR NEW INCREASED FEDERAL GC.

And let's start a lottery--barring another Columbine that might force the Congress to at least let GC bills come forward, my bet is that the AWB sunsets--and the Dems will try to make hay out of it--and there's that swing voter again, coming into play.

This election is too risky to vote for anyone but the one who will do the least damage--and it sure ain't Dean, or ANY Democrat, and voting your beliefs, while ethically desirable, may make your vote pointless in the GC debate. You'll feel good, though--and I hope that good feeling continues when you apply for your new permit for your new two-shot pump shotgun, and sell your existing semiautos at a reduced price. As for me, I'd rather keeping shooting my M1 Super 90.

[mattd]

Bush is also against people under 21 owning a pistol. I'm sure you don't care if you are 21 or over tho.

[ReadyontheRight]

If everyone voted their principles, the libertarians would be the undisputed winningest party.

If the Libertarian party ever becomes powerful, I'd like to know how it will keep from splintering over issues like legalization of drugs, open borders, free trade -- and especially abortion.

http://www.lp.org/quiz/

Many people have "principals" that include telling other people how they should live their lives.

The grass is always greener in Utopia (n :an IMAGINARY PLACE considered to be perfect or ideal.).

[jfh]

I do care about handgun age restrictions. I spent three summers working at a boy's camp in NW Wisconsin as the Director of the Marksmanship program and running the rifle range.

I addition to the NRA 50' program, I instituted firearms familiarization events, ranging from 'different kinds of (rifle) actions' through to 'handgun' familiarization. (It was a good excuse to expand the rimfire collections.)

The camp (historically) was a Jewish boy's camp, and its base rested in the MW, Eastern MW and East Coast Jewish Communities, with a strong culture of Liberalism / nominal Socialism. The current camp owners were MW educator / SW types who, despite their own liberal orientation, were committed to education and generally backed me on this.

You can only imagine what these kids knew about guns, period, not to mention handguns.

[ReadyontheRight]

As far as voting for a Democrat to protest Bush's view on gun control, that would be like bombing England because the Germans pushed them out of Dunkirk early in WW2.

[Don Galt]

Look at the "Worlds Smallest Political Quiz" thread. Go take the quiz. See if the quiz says your a libertarian, or a republican or a democrat.

The funny thing is, most of the people in this forum came out libertarian. Including the republicans.

But if you go do the same thing with democrats, it will turn out the same-- most of them are libertarians.

The reality is MOST AMERICANS SUPPORT LIBERTY. They support economic liberty and they support social liberty.

Most americans oppose Authoritarianism.

The Democrats oppose economic liberty. The republicans oppose social liberty. In this, they split the vote.

As long as people think they have to choose from those two parties, their vote is split. But if they all voted their principles, the libertarians would win every time.

The demographics of this country are that %70 of the populace is anti-authoritarian. If you take the religious wackos (christian, muslim and jew), the hard core communists (CP members) and the outright fascists-- they all make up about %30 of the populace when combined.

As to someone saying Libertarianism is a fantasy, you're mistaken. Its not an unreal thing that never existed--- its the society that this country was originally meant to be, and was to a greater or lesser extent until the civil war. Libertarian principles are not pie in the sky dreaming-- they are the philosophy that fits with the pragmatic reality of how economics works.

You subsidize corruption or poverty and you will get them. If you understand economics and you're not a fascist, you have to recognize that capitalism works. Capitalism works everywhere, and consistently. Capitalism is not a fantasy that people think they can just claim will work--- you can look at the countries in the world and line them up by their degree of adopting capitalist ideals and you'll see their standard of living is consistent with how well they adopted capitalist ideals.

Capitalism is not a fantasy. Libertarianism, is really another way of saying capitalism. Capitalism lets people decie where they want to do business and what they want to buy.

The opposition to capitalism is socialism-- which wants to control what people buy and who they associate with. Both the republicans and the democrats are fundamentally socialist parties.

The reason they are socialist parties is it gives them more control over the populace. They are able to criminalize drug ownership, gun ownership. They are able to criminalize even the act of your doctor proscribing a ligitimate medicine to you that is FDA approved for other uses.

But they have americans caught up in this false perception of a two party system to the point that they will sell out their principles REALLY CHEAP in order to avoid the possibility that they might loose the particular right that the party they are afraid of (in this forums case, democrats) will take away.

You know, if you really believe in gun rights, you recognize them as god given, and you recognize that the democrats (nor the republicans who also want to take them away) can ever take them away.

They can only convince you that you don't have them. But in reality they are inalienable.

There are pro-life libertarians. There are pro-choice libertarians. (I'm bringing this up not to start an abortion debate, but because someone asked why the libertarian parrty would not be destryoed by this issue, and this is the most divisive issue in the libertarian party.) With Drugs, Taxes, guns, free association, capitalism, and all that--- you can't really be a libertarian and fundamentally disagree with liberty on these points. On abortion, however, libertarian principles do not make the answer a cut and dried one. (Well, they do for me, but not for all libertarians.) But this problem, which has existed in the party since the 70s, is not realy a problem. They argue, and really don't agree on whether abortion is moral or not. But they recognize that the federal government doesn't have the right to criminalize it. In a libertarian society, there would be a state where abortion is illegal and one where it is legal. (EG: each state would pick its own outcome there, as it should be, as our founderrs intended!)

But, I was talking about the 70/30 split before. If you look at national polling, the percentage of americans who oppose federal laws banning abortions is %70. Right along with the libertarian / authoritarian split.

Most americans, if they understood the issues, and voted purely on their principles, would vote libertarian. Most americans, after all, think the consittution is a document to be upheld.

But since we the republcians and democrats (Which are really two wings of a SINGLE SOCIALIST party, the Boot On Your Neck party) do not allow fair elections in this countr,y the populace thinks they have to choose from only the two wings of the BOYN party.

Furthermore, the BOYN party regularly lies about the posititions they take. Bush claims he passed a taxcut! An absurd lie to anyone who understands economics because he has turned up the printing machines from %7 per year inflation to %10 per year inflation. This devalues the dollars in everyone's pocket and is an effective TAX HIKE much bigger than the clinton ever passed.

This level of deception keeps mainstream republicans confused about the reality of their party-- they think they are for liberty and small government and lower taxes, when in reality, they want the opposite-- socialism. Its just that the republicans are claiming to be the opposite of what they are, and keeping you fooled. While the democrats porclaim all the benefits of socialism and keep their constitutents fooled. Both parties are socialist. Go read Marx. Look at the planks required for a socialist party, and then look at the platforms of the two wings of BOYN. Both of them have most of the socialist ideals as goals, and the others are just too early to advocate.

But I don't think this post will cause people to go read Marx. And frankly, the vast majority of americans are eithe too stupid or too uneducated to see the blatent and absurd lies and logical fallacies broadcast every night for what they are. And I'm not talking about just the news-- with FOX and CNN duking it out for who can cram the most logical fallacies in a single hour. I'm talking about the government propaganda shows like The West Wing, ER, Law and Order, and all that. People know these shows aren't real, but they still think they are realistic. And they condition people --- the cops on Law and Order naturally assume that every gun has been registered, and that ballistic fingreprinting actually works, etc. etc.

Americans don't know Law and Order is a disgusting avocation of socialism. They haven't been educated enough or given the tools to know.

And so, despite having a majority, despite having historical proof that capitalism is superior to socialism, and despite a rapidly increasing general awareness of the libertarian party and libertarian principles (thanks to the internet) the libertarian party is not going to be able to save your bacon. Too many in this country are too ignorant of economics, history. Too many have not been equipped with good reasoning skills-- something you can learn yourself, but can be helped by decent education-- something the socialist governmetn schools know all too well.

And so, in my opinion, things are going to get worse at an increasingly fast rate. The federal government is already falling apart-- they can't even protect us, one of the few really legitimate arguments for having a federal government, and in response to their failure they've embarked on an warmongering adventurism that is only going to give millions more people a *legitimate* reason to hate the US. (Or do you not hate people who come to your country and kill thousands of innocent civilians? 9/11 was designed to do that, our wars, though we only target military, still do it anyway due to errrors, arelessness, and the nature of warfare. A father doesn't care that his daughter worked in the pentagon and that the people who killed her consider it a "legitimate military target". Neither does a father who's daughter was in an apartment near where we "suspected Saddam Hussien was.") And the really sad thing is, if we'd just gone after the terrorists, instead of this bull???? we're doing now in the name of going after them, we would have likely gotten them.

But I digress. Unless americans wake up to socialism's impact and hold on this country very quickly, the feds are going to start falling apart even more dramatically than they have recently. They are going to get very desperate, and start doing things like banning the exchange of money from one currency to another (to fight terrorism, of course!) Which, despite its goal will not shore up the US dollar. WE already went off of the gold standard, so they can't try that trick again.

And to anyone who's read this far, you have my respect. You probably continued even though I challenged your core beliefs. Even this long posting is far too short to provide quality defenses of all of my positions. But if you just give the idea a chance an do your own investigation and still disagree, I'd VERY much like to hear why. I could be wrong, after all. (www.mises.org is a good place to start, with lots of free books by Murry Rothbard, one of the founders of libertarianism in its modern form.)

[Lone_Gunman]

Don, I must be looking at something wrong, because that web site indicates that only 34.76% of the 2.2 million people who have taken the poll are "libertarian".

34.76 % is a minority.

[Cactus]

With a test developed by Libertarians they can't even come up with a majority. A test that short can be made to come up with pretty much anything the sponsor desires. Political beliefs rarely fall into such neat little generalized catagories.

Don, is everyone who goes to church a "religious wacko"?

[Don Galt]

Great way to knock down a strawman. In fact, if you'd bothered to read what I actually wrote, the poll shouldn't have come out %70 libertarian.

But its much easier to drive by with a snide remark.

[fallingblock]

"Is he the best we have that has a chance of winning?"
************************************************************

Yes, Bush is.:D

Would Gore have been worse?:eek:

Yep.

While speculation is great fun, and flights of Libertarian fantasy invigorate,
the reality is that Bush is the candidate who is most likely to help us with Second Amendment causes.;)

And, no, "Dubya" isn't another "TR".:mad:

[Cactus]

What "straw man" Don? You used the phrase "religious wackos" in your post. I'm curious as to what constitutes a "religious wacko" in your views. Is that such a difficult question to answer? Why should you avoid clarifying your own claims?

You seem to be under the belief that anyone who is not a "religious wacko", a "hard core communist" or an "outright fascist", is an anti-authoritarian and therefore a Libertarian. Yet the very test you cite, a test devised by Libertarians to elicit a result favorable to them, can only come up with approximately 35% of people being Libertarians.

Some of your claims are absurd. You claim that President Bush has raised the inflation rate from 7% to 10%. Where in the world did you get that figure? The current inflation rate is only around 2%. He has raised the amount of government spending by approximately 10% which is unrelated to the rate of inflation. That spending rate is also unrelated to any tax cuts (yes they are real). Apparently it is YOU that does not understand economics!

You state that that 70% of Americans oppose federal laws banning abortion. All of the polls I have seen, not commissioned by NARL, show that Americans are split evenly on this issue. And polls on partial birth abortion show that over 80% of Americans feel that it should be outlawed. So, are 80% of Americans now "authoritarian"?

The most valid poll of the number of Libertarians in America is the poll taken every four years. This poll contantly shows that around 0.5% of Americans support the Libertarian ideals. And don't blame it on "unfair elections" (that sounds like Al Gore). The Libertarian Party is on every ballot and has the same oportunity to purchase campaign ads on the radio and TV as every other party does in order to get their message across. The problem is that the vast majority of Americans reject that message and therefore give no money for the Libertarians to purchase those ads.

This constant Libertarian whining of "Americans don't understand us or they would elect us" is getting tiring. Basically, that is insinuating that Americans are just too dumb to appreciate how the Libertarian Party just wants to set them free. How condesending! Maybe Libertarians should consider that Americans DO understand the message and simply choose to reject it!

[mattd]

Polls are different every place you go. 0.5% is still alot of people.

Its not about ads on tv its about how much the news reports on you. Look at Dean he use to be in the news more than anyone and now he is the leader in the polls.

[gilles3297]

I voted for bush because I thought that he would protect my second amendment rights, His statestment about willing to sign a bill that he new would not reach his desk is pure political... playing both sides of the street. My concern is that he has acted to destroy to many other areas of the bill of rights. I,E, the patroit act and homeland security.

[Cactus]

Originally posted by mattd:
Polls are different every place you go. 0.5% is still alot of people.

Fine, show me just one non-partisan poll that shows 35% of the people consider themselves Libertarians as their little political quiz claims. Just one!

In 1996, the Libertarian candidate got a total of 485,798 votes out of a total of 96,277,223 votes cast. That is less than Richard Nixon's victory margin in the closely contested race of 1968, or roughly equal to the entire population of Wyoming. Alot of people? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by mattd:
Its not about ads on tv its about how much the news reports on you. Look at Dean he use to be in the news more than anyone and now he is the leader in the polls.

And guess what? The news is not going to report on anyone that is not raising money or that hasn't a groundswell of people talking about them. Who is even running for the Libertarian party nomination? Where are the large rallies of people supporting him, her or them? Who exactly is the media supposed to report on? You don't get media attention by sitting home and writing articles on Libertarian websites. You get media attention by going out and ATTRACTING it!

For all of this Libertarian talk about independance, not needing anyones help and self-initiative, they sure whine alot about nobody helping them.:confused:

[Justin]

What "straw man" Don? You used the phrase "religious wackos" in your post. I'm curious as to what constitutes a "religious wacko" in your views. Is that such a difficult question to answer? Why should you avoid clarifying your own claims? I'm not Don, but how about this for an answer: A religious wacko is anyone who would violate the principle of non-agression in the name of a deity or deities. In other words, someone who would happily push you around because God told them it's ok.

[Cactus]

Using your definition, in this nation that number would be even less than the number of Libertarian voters.

Now, how about letting Don answer for himself. He's a big boy!

[gilles3297]

As a Lib I can only agree that there ain't many of us and issues or no issues, not many people see the Libs as an answer. The question is then with the Dems and Reps re-election rate at like 97% how do we stop them from voting themselves more power over our lives each day? Most of the sheeple will continue to ignore the loss of rights as long as there is sufficient grass in front of their noses. They either don't care or don't know were the road is leading.

[Moparmike]

I would like anyone to tell me why I should vote for Dubbya WITHOUT using any form of a "lesser of two evils" arguement. Just because he was pro-ccw in Texas doesnt mean squat when both his words (saying he will sign the AWB2) and his actions (read: NONE/APATHY) lean much more towards anti than pro.

Like I said before, if he signs it my vote for him is TOAST. If he doesnt sign it and campaigns against it, well, he will have a leg-up over the LP candidate. I will still consider both candidates for my vote.

[Lone_Gunman]

Bush gave you and income tax refund.

He stood up to the UN and world opinion (for better or worse, but the fact is, no other major candidate would have even considered it).

He signed the partial birth abortion ban (I think), which I guess you might not like if you think killing babies is ok.

[jfh]

I don't think there is a good answer that does not use the 'lesser of two evils,' Mike. The analyses we (all of us individually) use to understand our behavior are complex, and sometimes they are not the ones we find ourselves most rationally comfortable with.

If this election shapes up like the last one in its closing weeks--and I suspect it will--then clearly the damage done by voting for the least-damaging approach to full 2nd restoration has, IMHO, the greatest merit.

And I have NO trouble imagining this scenario--that, triggered by some 'external' issue (two of them: "another Columbine," and "behind in the polls" showing a GC resonance in undecided voters) Congress does serve up the new AWB bill / extension, and GWB signs it.

What will I do then? Well, I don't know, to be honest.

[Moparmike]

Well jfh, at least you are honest about it.

Lone_Gunman, standing up to the UN is most certainly commendable, which says something about the sorry state our nation is in when someone having the testicular fortitude to stand up to the UN of all people is commendable.

"Killing babies" is inflamatory language and you know it. It gets arguements started and threads shut down. Lets not go there, shall we? (And BTW, I do agree with banning PARTIAL-BIRTH type abortions. They are abhorrent. But I thought Clinton did that in his last term?:confused: )

He did not give "me" a tax cut. I am still consdidered a dependent, and dont make enough. However, I still dont get all of my taxes back.:confused:

[Don Galt]

Cactus-- You're eather deliberately ignoring, did not read, or did not comprehend my long post that you're replying to. That's the strawman. I will not answer for claims you say I made that I did not made, or your (deliberate?) misrepresentations of what I said.

Inflation has been well above %5 for quite a long time. It is not %2. The figure that the NEWS MEDIA calls inflation is the CPI-- the consumer price index. The CPI is issued by the Federal Reserve (the chief crooks in the operation of inflation to begin with) and is manipulated by changing the items in the basket of goods to keep the percieved inflation low.

The reality is that inflation-- by definition the devaluing of the currency-- is the rate at which the M3 moeny supply is growing. For a good economic education on currency matters, I suggest the www.mises.org website.

Snow, who is in the Bush administration, has publically pledged a weak dollar policy. This has resulted already in an increase in the inflation rate, and at the current rates is close to %10 IIRC. You can get monethly M3 data from the Federal Reserve.

Assuming you don't know-- the government is running a massive deficit right now, which has grown at the requests and desire of Bush. There are only three ways to fund deficits-- raid savings, issue money or bonds and raise taxes. Well, the government has no savings, and bush has made a public (though negligble) "tax cut". So all that's left is to issue money and bonds. Since bonds are actually only promises to print more money later (Rather than print the money now, but with interest) the economic effecct of printing money, and printing bonds is pretty similar. And thuse we see the deficit spending program our country is on resulting in massive increase of M3.

By the way, I don't need to explain how an increase in supply lowers costs, do I? OR that money is a commodity and that adding more money to the market lowers the value of each dollar?

[Don Galt]

By the way, part of my point which seems to have been missed by everybody is, that if you believe in the constitution, your answer to all the questions in the smallest quiz would be %100 libertarian.

The people who vote for republicans or democrats do so only because they either have no principles or think that they have to vote against the guy from the other party.

There is no principled argument for voting for any of the parties presidential candidates...

Bush stood up to the UN, but he has done a hundred things that violate the constitution (not the least of which is going to war unconstitutionally).

You may like that he banned abortion (and the onyl difference between partial birth and abortion is the name-- its pure marketing to make people repulsed. I've yet to see a republican who supported it who could articulate the difference) but he opposed the constitution.

He supports the AWB, and in doing so, he opposes the constitution.

You can't have your Assault Weapons Ban and the constitution both-- they are in conflict.

And while in office Bush has already endorsed new gun bans the ATF unconstitutionally, and without congressional action, enacted.

The only thing keeping all these people voting republican (or democrat) is either self delusion, ignorance or lack of principles.

You can't pick and choose a few legal (but uninspired) actions and ignore all the criminal acctions and say "see this guy is principled".

Yes, Libertarians get a small amount of the vote-- I love how Republicans who claim to be constitutionalists always point at that with glee. Do you realzie that, unconstitutionally, the Republicans along with the Democrats prevent Libertarians from running for office? They practically have to run write in campaigns.

Yeah, our one party system is successful at holding onto the one party system.

And you're GLAD? :barf:


But, don't EVER make the mistake of confusing the LP membership, the LP votes, with the libertarian movement. The LP is the small tip of the iceburg, and in reality, if you believed what you say you believe, you'd be a libertarian as well. Hell there shouldn't be a need for an LP if the republicans or the democrats were the least bit honest.

But they've got you fooled. Just don't be so proud of your foolishness.

[mattd]

The news job is to report the news, not make it. Maybe they can't raise brainwashing funds because the news doesn't even report that the guy is running? Like the Terminator, you couldn't go 10 minutes without hearing that the Terminator was running for governor of California. What if the news never reported on him like the 180 other? When he got elected he thanked God and the Media , because (he said this) without their HELP he wouldn't of won.

Unless you live in a key state like Iowa, the ideal of wasting your vote on a libertarian shouldn't even enter the brain. I never voted but when I do it will be for who I want, and not the lesser of 2 evils aka Bush

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Don Galt:
If you take the religious wackos (christian, muslim and jew), the hard core communists (CP members) and the outright fascists-- they all make up about %30 of the populace when combined.

Here is a direct quote of what you said, Don. How is my question a misrepresentation of ANYTHING you have said? It is a simple question; hat constitutes a "religious wacko" in your view? Why are you dodging a simple question? You love to throw around that term, so clarify it. You consider yourself a man of such principle, why not answer my question?

Originally posted by Don Galt:
The figure that the NEWS MEDIA calls inflation is the CPI-- the consumer price index.

The CPI has ALWAYS been used as the measure of inflation. Just because YOU don't like the data used doesn't make it invalid. I can also find "wacko" websites that will tell you that the US economy has gone to h*ll since we went off the gold standard. It's irrelevant if the value of the currency is lessening if the costs of goods and services is lessening as well.

Originally posted by Don Galt:
The only thing keeping all these people voting republican (or democrat) is either self delusion, ignorance or lack of principles.

What arrogance to simply dismiss those who disagree with your political views as delusional, ignorant or unprincipled. Which one am I?

The view must be grand from that self-rightious pedestal you've placed yourself upon!

Originally posted by Don Galt:
The LP is the small tip of the iceburg, and in reality, if you believed what you say you believe, you'd be a libertarian as well.

How dare you question the sincerity of my beliefs! A person that feels they have the franchise on the truth is called a fanatic, Don. That's not company anyone should be proud to share. Apparently Libertarians DO share traits from both the GOP and the Democrats; the intolerance of the hard right and the arrogance of the far left.

The Constitution is not the sole property of the Libertarians and Don Galt to interpret. We have courts for when people disagree. I have yet to see the Libertarian Party challange the constitutionallity of thing they disagree with. They just sit around and pout like a child about how unfair it is and how the system is rigged against them. I can at least admire the ACLU for having the courage to challange things THEY disagree with.

Originally posted by Don Galt:
Do you realzie that, unconstitutionally, the Republicans along with the Democrats prevent Libertarians from running for office? They practically have to run write in campaigns.

The Libertarians always brag about how they are on virtually every ballot in every state. Now you say they are being prevented from running for office by the big bad Republicrats. Which one is it, Don? Typical whining!

[Cactus]

Originally posted by mattd:
The news job is to report the news, not make it. Maybe they can't raise brainwashing funds because the news doesn't even report that the guy is running?

Fine mattd! Why don't you tell us who the Libertarian Party candidate for President is! What's the guys name? Who does the media start reporting about? As Sinatra sang; "Start spreading the news".

[Don Galt]

Cactus--

All you want to do is attack me personally, and ignore my positions. Selective quoting is not really making your case either-- as you are confused about what I said because you did not read the whole posting, or didn't understand it.

There is some percentage of the population that is completely irrational-- they are totalitarian or anti-liberty for reasons that are not based on reason. They make up %30 of the population. Religious Fundamentalists are a good example.

You concede my point by admitting that even getting on the ballot is difficult for Libertarians-- they often have to sue to have the right to be on the ballot. And so they trumpet it. And you use that excuse to claim that there is no ballot exclusion? Silly!

No arrogance at all, I was simply stating a fact. The majority of americans are simply ignorant of the issues, and would be libertarians if they weren't. They believe what they are told to believe, and never do any investigation. Look at how many democrats who oppose tax cuts, thinking they only go to the rich.

Your ignorance of inflation is a good example. I am not telling you something that is ideological, and you're disagreeing on ideology. No, I'm telling you a fact, a scientific, objective fact. When you increase the supply of something in an economy, you decrease its price, assuming demand is equal. And yet you disagree with me because you have been told by the nightly news that the CPI is "inflation" and you would rather believe that (hell, you may not even really believe it, but are believing it for convenience) than look at the argument I just made and comprehend it and make a counter argument if you think it is wrong.

Instead you just assert that CPI is inflation and call me a liar. I would rather not have this thread locked because of name calling.

Please, feel free to make a counter argument. But I suggest you read my long post, as your responses indicate that you have not understood the argument I'm making there.

[Don Galt]

OH, and Cactus, you're wrong. The constitution is not something that is designed to be interpreted and re-interpreted to suit the goal of convenience.

The constituition was designed to be clear, and free of the need to interpret.

When I Talk about what the constitution says, I'm talking about what it literally says.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Mr. Galt.

I apologize for my delay. I had to go for a long run to air out my head.

You argue well. You make your points and I believe that most of them have some vailidity or could be proven with the right set of facts. I flirted with libertarianism from 1996 until 2001. I am still a core libertarian with a pragmatic side.

However....and I can not believe that I have to argue this side of things....

Pull up the blinds, open the window, take off the tin hat......and look around.

WE the people of the USA have participated in things called ELECTIONS. Those elections, operating in accordance with the constitution, have sent legislators to Washington DC and state houses. They deliberate and make laws. The Executive branch carries out those laws. The Judicial branch interprets those laws. Do I need to cite my sources?

Then we have more elections. And more elections. And so on.

I have yet to find that special commission that directs the electorate, or look behind the curtain to find the Wizard of DC.

We have arrived to where we are because this is what WE have decided that WE want. It may not be what I want and it may not be what YOU want, but it is what it is.

The libertarian ideal, which is great on paper, total freedom and all of that, fails because of PEOPLE. Not allpeople are responsible or self-reliant. Not all people love freedom. Not all people want freedom.

50% of the people are driving a nanny state. The other 50% are trying to stop the nanny state. Some people want no economic or personal freedom (they want absolute security) some people want absolute personal and economic freedom. There exist a whole bunch of people in the middle with differing ideas on how much of each is necessary.

What libertarianism leaves out is the HUMAN factor. There are slugs who suck from society, there are criminals who prey on society, there are deviants who prey on society, there are evil big businesses that will sell snake oil! All of these groups need some checks and balances. A total free market economy with virtually no check on liberty would....turn in to what we have now!!!!

Pick a time in history and we will roll back all of the civil laws that infringe on rights to that time. In a perfect world, we would not have a depression that gave us the misguided FDR policies. We would not have experienced 2 World Wars which ratcheted up security at the expense of freedom. Or the alcohol prohibition which led to organized crime and the National Police. We would not had a civil rights movement which advanced equal rights and then resulted in the unintended consequence of reverse discrimination. We would not have had the 60s and the drug culture leading to abuse and, therefore, regulation.

We can not laugh at F-Troop for getting everything wrong in one thread and then cower in the closet worrying about our bank records in the next.

I agree that the government has too much power. I disagree with your total libertarian solution. The FEDERAL government is limited by the constitution. Competition among states will help the cause of freedom. States can pass laws of a moral nature. Your argument is false in that you limit the Feds and then use the US constitution to limit the states. You can not have it both ways.

What you are proposing is a highway with no lines and no signs, no rules and no penalties. After a few accidents, the rules will evolve, the signs will go up, the lines will get painted, and penalties will be defined. And the state will ask you for your SSN to get a license for the priveledge of driving!!!

:neener:

In short, some order must exist for all of us to travel on the highway and get to our destination. It is getting crowded out there.

We still have free will. You exercise it very well, as do all of the members of this forum and others. We have the single most powerful weapon for change, and that is the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and ELECTIONS. ANd we have the ability to throw off tyranny with the RKBA. Over 200 million guns and growing.

I wish you success in swaying a few brain cells here and there.

[mattd]

Why don't you tell us who the Libertarian Party candidate for President is! What's the guys name?

Don't think they have one already but I was thinking about a Democrat when I wrote that.

[Cactus]

Don,

And all YOU do is ignore questions! How do you expect anyone to make a counter arguement when you refuse to clarify your position.

If you wish to argue on an even ground, you need to be reading from the same playbook. To argue that the CPI, the index that EVERY economist outside the Mises Institute uses, is not the inflation index is simply contrarian.

If you wish to debate using data, information and facts that only YOU use, have a debate with yourself. How do you expect to convince people of your views when you can't even argue using the common language that the entire world uses! If you want to debate the valuation of the currency, argue that. But don't try telling the entire world that the CPI has nothing to do with inflation, you sound like Lyndon LaRuche!

You say that the Constitution is not in need of interpretation and indesputable? Then what did the founders create the courts for? I repeat Don, no one has the franchise on the truth.

I do like some aspects of the libertarian beliefs. But the more I hear Libertarians speak and write, I pray to God they NEVER get to power.

[Cactus]

OK mattd, what Democrat won't the media report is running?

[Malone LaVeigh]

Everyone knows how I feel about Bush, so I won't bother to weigh in on this discussion, but I have to set the record straight on this from several posters:
Bush stood up to the UNBush brought a proposition to the UN, tried to bully, coerce, and bribe the Security Council into buying it, and then took his ball and went home when they refused. That's a far cry from "standing up" to the UN.

[ReadyontheRight]

The LP is the small tip of the iceburg, and in reality, if you believed what you say you believe, you'd be a libertarian as well.

I am a libertarian myself. I score 100% on their quiz -- assuming that national borders should be like state borders in the ideal world of free people, and that US drug policies are arbitrary (and should not be part of Federal law) -- otherwise coffee, chocolate, tobacco and beer would not be part of our lives.

I've voted for Libertarian candidates in the past, but I personally think my votes, arguments and volunteer efforts are better spent pushing the Republican party closer to the Constitution than working on the Libertarian Party - which I believe will splinter into nothingness with any hint of success.

I would love to be proven wrong, but I'm not going to sit through another 8 years of blatant erosion of ALL of our rights just because I voted my principals.

People are Libertarians BECAUSE they are steadfast in their principals -- that doesn't mix well with populist politics. It's a good thing we're a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy. They more people understand the difference, the better off our country will be.

[Lone_Gunman]

Malone,

I disagree. He asked for UN support, and did not get it. I didnt see anything to suggest bullying or coersion.

In the face of no support from the UN, though he went ahead with what he thought he should do. You might disagree with his decision, but at least he didn't ben to UN and worldwide opinion.

[greyhound]

He stood up to the UN and world opinion (for better or worse, but the fact is, no other major candidate would have even considered it).

This is exactly why I still might consider voting for him. Of course, I consider extracting ourselves from always following the UN mandate the main issue of the War On Terror (i.e we should still maintain our membership and try to work with them, but when push comes to shove, the UN does NOT determine US foreign policy).

In 50+ years, a majority of the US public has come to believe that UN blessing = a just cause. That may have been true up until the fall of the USSR, but since then its been UN = checking the "cowboy" US.

I may not agree with the war in Iraq, but at some point bucking the UN was the most important thing in US foreign policy, IMHO.

Problem is, there's no indication that this anything but a "one-off", especially when the Democrats get back in the White House (and let's face they will [any probably should, with hope that they will purge the leftists, to preserve the Republic]).

[CZ 75 BD]

if a renewal of AWB even gets to the President.

[STONER]

SC_shooter,

Quote:

"If Bush does sign the AWB, I will be voting for the Democrat to send a message to the Republican leadership."

Why vote for a Demonrat:banghead: Vote for one of the 3rd parties that you more closely agree with?

[Don Galt]

7.62--

Actually, I disagree. I see libertarianism is the pragmatic solution. Its clear that the alternatives have failed.

The constitution was supposed to protect the minority from the majority-- it has failed utterly.

I don't remember bringing up roads, but I am not proposing or seeing roads without rules.

I am not advocating chaos. At all.

I'm simply advocating a just society, and for justice, there must be a system of justice.

I'm not sure why you, and others, believe libertarians want to endorse chaos-- unless you see the only alterantive to tyranny being chaos. (To oversimplify.) And I don't think you do.

You cannot have justice when %51 of the people -- the ones who want authoritarianism-- are able to get it.

Working to make the republicans more libertarian is a noble goal--- frankly, I think that the republican party is going to go thru a difficult period and may well split into two groups-- the authoritarians and hte libertarians. The libertarian republicans would quickly merge with the libertarian party and gain a lot of power. This party might be called the "Libertarian" party or it might be called the "Republican" party.

But every year, more and more people get fed up with the republicans in their current form and some sort of a split, or change in focus will occur when merely saying that they want freedom and justice, while working in the opposite direcction, is not enough.

In another thread I argued that libertarianism is in a way, just another way of saying "capitalism". Capitalism has been tried for years and worked well. Communists would say "Capitalism fails because of the human factor"... but history says otherwise. Capitalism works because it takes the human factor into account.

Libertarianism is the same thing-- its really individualist capitalism.

As to elections, No election in the last 50 years has been legitimate. There ARE councils that control the elections that prevent people from running for office who are perfectly qualified and have a legal right to, under the constitution. All of our elections for at least 50 years have been unconstitutional. Yes, they DO exclude libertarian and other third party candidates from access.... and thus the libertarian party, for instance, must spend a lot of its time and energy just getting on the ballot, and that takes away from getting the message out.

This country is where it is now because the checks and balances in the constituion are being ignored. Libertarianism would increase the checks on tyrannical power by a couple orders of magnitude-- not with more laws, but with more liberty.

When you have a system that does not give a central authority authority over our lives, and restricts it to only its legitimate purposes, that central authority cannot by as tyrannical as the one we have now, where they can pass just about anything they want without it being checked-- either at election time (Because no viable alternatives are allowed on the ballot) or in the courts.

Stalin said something to the effect of "It does not matter who the people vote for, it matters who counts the votes." OR, who controls who is allowed to be on the ballot.

I am libertarian in large part because it is the only pragmatic solution to some people's desire for power over others. -- that I see anyway.

Convincing republicans that yes, less taxes, smaller federal government, and other libertarian ideas are a good idea is consistent with that.

The seemingly knee-jerk reaction that many republicans have-- that libertarianism is a pie in the sky idea-- makes me think they don't really understand it, or haven't investigated it. They are short of specific arguments in that regard, and usually just throw that out there without supporting it. Maybe you want to press the case in more detail with me, either in PM, or in another thread, or in this thread.

Don

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Good response. Thank you. Now you are getting close to home. We have two parties, one is so far left as to be embarrassing, and the "conservative" party has moved to where the social liberal party was in the 60's (ending with JFK).

We need to work within the constraints of the current system to expand choices and to break the most malleable party in two parts, if we must. There is a great deal of movement in that direction now. Witness the many comments afrom this board concerning the "If Bush does this, I will do that." And I do feel for this mentality in that we, the freedom lovers, are being abandoned to make a bigger tent.

BTW, I participated in the libertarian FEC suit with $. We need to open the field. But the LP must field a legitimate candidate. Harry Browne was OK, very bright and articulate, but very honest. Incrementalism. What is strong about the party? What sells? Bring them on one layer at a time. Start with republican light.

For example, Liberty Foundation ran some great commercials for gun rights. www.americanlibertyfoundation.com. They appealed to a great number of people. Self-relaince. End taxes as we know them. Sell federal lands to buyout and change social security (privatize). These are the things that people understand and can relate to.

However, when you also push drugs, "anywhere, anytime", conservative are going to worry on many levels. Open borders is going to cause aneurisms and strokes! Especially on the border states which deal with the influx. And that old self-reliance thing will resonate to a point. But you have to have a plan to remove all of these false securities piece-by-piece.

How do we get back to the liberty that the founding fathers envisioned? The same way we got here, one step at a time.

As socialism falters in Europe and it is no longer a platform for the socialist liberal party to embrace, and when people continue to see that the "security" that they are buying is REALLY expensive in both money and freedoms, then bigger steps can be taken.

Until then, fight the good fight. The country is snapping back to the center, and may continue rightward. And maybe northward on the graph.

I again thank you for the well reasoned response.

7.62FMJ

[Don Galt]

7.62FMJ--

I just re-read my response and wouldn't call it well-reasoned. More of a rant. But otherwise, I agree with you.

I think what I, and what other libertarians, need to do is figure out how to sell liberty.

Talking about issues, like drugs, push people off because they see drugs the way liberals see guns-- they think "drugs in society cause death!"

I should formulate an argument for the basis of human rights. Fight that battle-- not the issue battle. The LP is making this same error.

Gonna have to work on that.

Don

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I just love common ground.

[Moparmike]

Which is what The High Road is all about.:)