Are you willing to let a Democrat win...

[Titan6]

'Who is pushing opinions?'

---That would be you....

'On one hand there is Hillary who's husband signed the AWB, which she has fully supported in the past'

--- Finnally a fact Horah for small victories!!! And now that we have one at last let us examine it. Hillary is anti no doubt about it but more than that she is a pol. If you are trying to equate hill to bill than do so I fully agree. However bill was nothing but a poll follower and hill likely will be as well. The people got what the majority wanted every single time. She will indeed sign it if the majority say yes but likely will not if they say no. Rudy, he is a man of principal he will sign it regardless of polls....

'On the other hand there is rudy, who has certianly not been a friend to gun owners, but who is also on record as saying that he believes gun control should not be a federal matter, rather left up to the states.'

--- I don't care what empty campaign line he is putting out now his actions are all that matter. He crossed state lines to try to sue American gun makers out of business.

'Given this, and given the fact that he needs conservaitve support, there is less of a chance that he'll sign a ban than Hillary. This is hardly a fleeting opinion.'

--- Fleeting or not it is still opinion that you keep dishonestly presenting as fact. This is what keeps annoying people. And has little basis in reality as well. Bush gave up the whole congress....

'Whatever combination of these people that you want to create, the fact remains that the Democrat will be more damaging to gun rights than the republican. The Democrat will definately be damaging on issues such as taxes and judicial nominees.'

--- More opinion stated as 'fact'. And IMHO very wrong also. On gun control I already stated why previously. A democratic tax policy on the other hand may possibly be damaging to you and is I suspect is probably more of the reasoning behind your posts than gun control, just a suspicion though. Follow the money I say...

'Do you really want hillary to send another Ginsberg to the court?'

--- Human cloning!? Can't be. But still opinion as all your posts....

'A vote for the president is a vote for both branches of government.'

--- Okay, first off I count at least three branches of government not two. Secondly they still have to go through Congress. Presidents rarely get who they want if the justice is not what the people want. See the recent Bush debacle for notes on that.

'And gun folks - Please keep in mind that not every member of this forum has the best interests of the second amendment in mind... There are folks posting here who want your guns gone. And they're trying to talk you into doing it yourself.'

--- Fully agree. IMHO Anyone who is stumping for Rudy or Romney wants your guns taken away as soon as possible....

 

[Prince Yamato]

Rudy, he is a man of principal he will sign it regardless of polls....

Hillary is a woman of no principles and will sign whatever the leftists want... namely gun control. Nobody of sane mind would honestly believe that a Democrat would be better for gun owners than a republican. Again, this is a game of numbers. Most Democrats (except where politically convinient) vote FOR gun control. Most republicans vote against it. Both parties demand towing of party line. This means that centrists in both parties get pulled more right or left respectively. Rudy would HAVE to change his tune to get the presidential nomination in the primary. Rudy would then move more to the right. I'll take Rudy over Hillary any day. There, I said it. Boogie Boogie Boogie. Frankly, I'm sick of the anti-Rudy diatribe. Yep, he's not perfect. No Romney isn't perfect either. But if I had to bank on which party to trust with the presidency, and their stance on all issues (gun control and others), the LAST people I would trust it to, would be the Democrats.

 

[LAK]

Are you willing to let a Democratic President or Congressperson win an election, in order to "send a message to" or "fire" disappointing Republicans?

It is not a matter of "dissappointing republicans", it is a matter of a party that is simply mock opposition to another party that calls itself the "democratic party". They are both steering us down the road to being just another plot on the global plantation and need to have the political rug yanked out from under their feet.

----------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[localFFL]

Hmm, another poll I can't vote in out of principle because the question is so flawed. First problem is mixing presidential elections with congressional. It stopped mattering WHO became the script reader in-chief the minute F.D.R. overthrew the constitution. Bush has done more damage to this nation and our liberties than klinton could have ever dreamed of. The so called "patriot" act is 1000 X worse than the AW ban because it creates a legal black hole where the constitution just doesn't exist, and yes it applies to U.S. citizens as well as boogie man "terrorists."

I vote libertarian for president out of principle, and because I live in a brain dead state that is full of government loyalists who only vote socialist party "A" (i.e. republican). Since bush would have signed the renewal of the AW ban, I wanted Kerry and Gore to win because they were a KNOWN quantity, and would have given the congressional cowards a reason to at least PRETEND to care about the constitution. Also, Democrat presidents tend to direct the out of control federal spending TOWARDS AMERICA instead of quagmires.

 

[Robert Hairless]

bowline:

Robert, thats' really some cutting edge, analytical thinking.

Many thanks! I'm blushing. But I really do appreciate your compliment.

Are you talking about Rudolf Giulani and New York City when you describe "a man who de facto destroyed the Second in his city?" If so, you might not be aware that New York City has had some of the most restrictive gun laws in this country since 1912. Giulani was born in 1940.

If what you mean is that you think Giulani is not an avid supporter of the Second Amendment, I don't disagree. Nor do I disagree with statements that there are none amongst potential candidates who have a chance of winning the 2008 Presidential election.

I admit that it's possible we can turn the situation around by voting for a candidate who doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning the election. But I'd done a little homework and discovered that all of the third party Presidential candidates together have won about 1% of the popular vote in preceding elections. So I figure that if every gun owner in this country could agree to vote for the same third party Presidential candidate in this next election we could have the most triumphant loss in the history of American politics. Maybe our candidate would even get a dizzying 5% or 6% of the popular vote. Depending on how it was spread, we could rise from 0 electoral votes to not quite 1 electoral vote. Then the last two surviving gun owners can turn to the other, claim to have been right, and walk away blaming the NRA for sending them videos.

My old math might be wrong, but I think that its direction is correct. As I look around this country I see population shifts from large cities to areas that had been less populated until now. Those city dwellers tend to bring with them their city attitudes, and--alas--many people who live in big cities tend to be anti-gun. We--very cleverly, I must say--like to scare them. Open carry, for example, is a great way to stand up for your principles. But it scares people, and that's great fun. Where we are now, I think, is that we can still shift a close election but we can't carry one. It doesn't matter anyway: gun owners of America couldn't even get general agreement on how to clean a gun.

Read this thread for an example of what I mean. There is absolutely, positively no way we gentle folk will cooperate on anything even if our lives depended on it. We had one effective national organization--the NRA--and we did (and continue to do with increasing fervor) everything conceivable to destroy its effectiveness. We have principles, by golly, and we won't stoop to anything practical. Practicality and princples are natural enemies for gun owners.

I've wondered how we got into this pickle and who put us here. Sometimes I've thought it could be because we've managed to make fewer and fewer people like us and trust us, and more and more voters fear us and mistrust us. Nah, we wouldn't be that stupid, but then I read the messages that proclaim "The Second Amendment is all we need," and I scratch my head about the stupidity thing. Could it be that we've voted out of office most of the politicians who gave us a little, and we've allowed--or encouraged--their replacement with politicians who want us dead and gone? Nah, only committed losers would be dumb enough to think that it's possible to get everything they want when a large, powerful enemy wants the opposite. Seems to me, when I read other threads in this message section, there are a lot of proposed bans being introduced into various state legislatures and in the Congress too. Does it seem as if the tide turned after the last election? Looks that way to me too.

But then I realize that you're almost certainly correct about the wisdom of refusing to compromise and I must acknowledge that during the very last Republican administration in my lifetime--the two terms of that gun hating, ammo loathing reprobate George W. Bush--we have suffered one harsh gun control measure after another until the situation became intolerable and we voted out of office the Republican majority that allowed him to force those repressive laws upon us. Whatever they were. I forget. Ah, yes. George W. Bush (who some people here refer to as "Shrub," which certainly is amusing) said he would sign an extension of the Assault Weapons Ban if it reached his desk. I gather that it did reach his desk and he did sign it. But even if that didn't happen he doesn't deserve our respect: it might have happened, and that justifies attacks on him. See, gun owners know how to win friends and influence people: shoot them until they like you. Read the message immediately above this one for some background to what I've been saying. We gots principles we do.

So I come back to the only other reason I can think of to account for this pickle. It must be the fault of those damned videos the NRA sends out with requests for money to defend individual ownership of firearms. If they would just stop asking us for money we wouldn't be in this awful situation.

Carry on as usual. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. If you don't got 'em, smoke anything in sight. Enjoy yourselves and try not to hurt anyone too much while you do. It's a good way to pass the time.

In conclusion I ask once again that you vote for me as President in the next election. I promise to give you everything you want, everything you've ever dreamed of having, all you could possibly imagine and more. I guarantee it.

If you are the one person in this country that I haven't yet offended, give me your vote. With two votes as President I can have as many electoral votes as all the other third party candidates in this next election. Pick up your crayon and put me on the ballot as your write-in choice. Remember: "Under the Top with Hairless." (It's kind of catchy, isn't it?)

 

[gc70]

But I'd done a little homework and discovered that all of the third party Presidential candidates together have won about 1% of the popular vote in preceding elections.

1992 - Ross Perot - 19%.

 

[pacodelahoya]

I'm not sure I am getting some of ya'lls argument.

I understand that politicians have to appeal to as many people as possible to win votes. Even if they have to lie to do it. Just politics right?

If I don't want to vote for them because they are liars, or would appear to be because they have changed position only at the exact moment when it would gain them the most votes, then I am being childish?

If I vote my principles, because that is truly what I would like to have the USA be, then I am voting for a losing cause even if it is one I believe in.

By that reasoning, I might as well vote for Hilary because imo she is gonna be the next prez. At least the person I voted for won, and that makes me a winner.

p.s. The second ammendment is there for a reason, even if it is scary.

 

[chas_martel]

Prince Yamato said "we'll lose our guns."

Yep, he is right and all because most of use act like Republicans.

99% of gun owners don't deserve to own guns. Yamato's comment
just reflects that most gun owners don't believe it is a right. People
have been brainwashed into thinking they need permission.

Let me ask this, what if our leaders decided one day owning blacks was
now OK? What if they decided women could no longer vote? Do you
think Blacks and women would just shrug their shoulders and say
well they voted on it and so I guess I just gotta go along.

Yep, gun owners will just take the high road.......................


Excuse me while I go puke!

 

[Titan6]

Look Hairless-

You have already been told who to vote for. The repubs will make sure your guns are taken in an orderly fashion and not all at once like the dems, just like your civil rights. Stop all this third party nonsense.

These imaginary third party candidates you keep making up that have no chance of influencing the process or winning anything because they never electoral votes....

Like that guy who was once considered a progressive liberal on race. The one time seventh most admired man in America ahead of the pope. Whose "outsider" status was once popular with voters, particularly in the rural South, where his strident racism elicited support from white voters. He WON five Southern states, coming fairly close to receiving enough electoral votes to throw the election to the House of Representatives, and making him the last person to win electoral votes who was not the nominee of one of the two major parties and the first since Harry F. Byrd, an independent segregationist candidate.

So it is amazing that a strident racist like George Wallace can come within a few votes of threating the two party system but those in love with liberty and freedom are doomed to failure because we are told over and over again that there is no chance in voting your concious. Perhaps if we had a group that we could target to marginalize and disenfranchise a third party would once again have a chance. Lets see... who is unpopular these days......

 

[Robert Hairless]

Titan6:

You have already been told who to vote for.

And you mean it. Got it.

I won't be concerned any longer. Those anti-gun people have no idea what is in store for them in the next election.

 

[Charles Martel]

He has made two appointments that seem like good choices. Time will tell if Roberts and Alito are good or not. If they become more liberal over time, I would not be surprised.

The fact that Bush nominated them makes me view them with suspicion given Bush's liberal policies and his disregard for the Constitution.

Remember, Bush WANTED Miers and Gonzalez. We have Roberts and Alito because of pressure put on him by conservatives.

You've hit the nail on the head. Couldn't agree more.

 

[Deanimator]

PS: Deanimator, movie? You sure you not talking about the
Bible? The old testament says "If someone comes in the night to kill you, arise quickly and kill them before they can kill you."
At least my Jewish version puts it that way.

"Serenity", the "Firefly" movie.

 

[bogie]

Since bush would have signed the renewal of the AW ban, I wanted Kerry and Gore to win because they were a KNOWN quantity, and would have given the congressional cowards a reason to at least PRETEND to care about the constitution.

Would you guys PLEASE put this thing in the ground?

Bush had no intention of signing a renewal of the AWB. He knew it'd never make it to his desk. He made SURE it wouldn't make it to his desk.

Tell y'all what... I'll sleep with Hillary if Jessica^3 (Alba/Biel/Simpson) decide that I need to experience a near-death moment.

I think I'm safe.

I really fail to see the logic in what a lot of you guys are saying: Vote for someone who we know WILL hurt us a great deal, instead of voting against them by voting for someone who MIGHT hurt us a little.

Gun People, you need to read this. There are folks on this, and other, gun boards who are trying to further fragment our voting block. Their theory is that if they get even a small percentage of folks in the "decision" states to vote conservative/libertarian third party, they'll cinch the election.

Here's how it stacks up...

Say a state is roughly 49% Republican, 49% Democrat, and 2% third parties.

If they're able to drag one percent from the Republican side over to the third party side - 48% Republican, 49% Democrat, 3% third - they WIN. That one percent isn't sending a message. It's being USED. It's being OWNED by the Democrats. Their big strategy hasn't been based on issues - it's been "vote against the evil republicans - and we've shown you how evil they are on television." DO YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SEE ON TELEVISION?

Sheesh.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Yamato's comment
just reflects that most gun owners don't believe it is a right. People
have been brainwashed into thinking they need permission.

Yes, that's right. I'm brainwashed... gosh it's all so clear now, thank you

The RIGHT to bear arms is a RIGHT, given to us by the Constitution, which can be ammended to TAKE AWAY THAT RIGHT. One such party that wants to ammend and take away that right are the Democrats.

Also, can anyone tell me ONE way in which the Patriot Act has so negatively affected them that they couldn't go about their daily business. Also, the Patriot Act's intrusiveness is quite limited given that you can own firearms to ward off the "oppressiveness" of the "Bush Regime"...

 

[JesseL]

The RIGHT to bear arms is a RIGHT, given to us by the Constitution, which can be ammended to TAKE AWAY THAT RIGHT. One such party that wants to ammend and take away that right are the Democrats.

The right to bear arms is part of your natural (or God given) heritage as free person. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a legal codification restricting the government from infringing on your right to keep and bear arms.

No matter what the government (or anyone else) does, you will always have the right to keep and bear arms.

Rights aren't given. You're born with them. Some people may infringe on your rights and you may voluntarily give some up, but no one ever grants them. If it's been granted it's a privilege.

 

[STAGE 2]

--- Finnally a fact Horah for small victories!!! And now that we have one at last let us examine it. Hillary is anti no doubt about it but more than that she is a pol. If you are trying to equate hill to bill than do so I fully agree. However bill was nothing but a poll follower and hill likely will be as well. The people got what the majority wanted every single time. She will indeed sign it if the majority say yes but likely will not if they say no. Rudy, he is a man of principal he will sign it regardless of polls....

LOL!!! You claim that my arguments are nothing but opinion, and then sit here and tell us that Hillary might not sign it because of poll ratings. What a joke. You actually think that Hillary is going to piss off Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and the rest of the gang when they send that to their desk. You are out there. I mean out there. At least I've posted statements that support my contentions. You've got nothing. Not even logic.

--- I don't care what empty campaign line he is putting out now his actions are all that matter. He crossed state lines to try to sue American gun makers out of business.

As opposed to Hillary/Obama who have been utterly consistent with their determination to ban guns.

--- Fleeting or not it is still opinion that you keep dishonestly presenting as fact. This is what keeps annoying people. And has little basis in reality as well. Bush gave up the whole congress....

Its completely based in fact. You may disagree with it, but that doesn't change its nature. Plenty of people thought the world was flat.

--- More opinion stated as 'fact'. And IMHO very wrong also. On gun control I already stated why previously. A democratic tax policy on the other hand may possibly be damaging to you and is I suspect is probably more of the reasoning behind your posts than gun control, just a suspicion though. Follow the money I say...

Simple and direct question. On both state and federal levels, which party has done more damage to gun rights? Since youre going to hedge I'll answer it for you. California, New York, and Mass have the worst gun laws in the union. Guess what, all democratic states. The first AWB as well as the legislation passed in 68 were done by democratic presidents. A simple look at the NRA's rating of candidates places a majority of republicans in the A or B ratings and a majority of democratic candidates in the D or F ratings. I could go on but its pointless.

I was wondering why my arguments weren't getting anywhere. Its so very clear now. Anyone who challenges the fact that the dems have been worse to gun rights than repubs either has an ulterior motive or simply is off the map.

--- Human cloning!? Can't be. But still opinion as all your posts....

Again more nonsense. I'm beginning to think that you are one of those liberals secreting gun boards. You honestly believe that Hillary is going to appoint a Scalia or a Thomas. Give me a break. Her husband gave us the most liberal justice in decades and you're going to contradict this point as well. Ridiculous.

--- Okay, first off I count at least three branches of government not two. Secondly they still have to go through Congress. Presidents rarely get who they want if the justice is not what the people want. See the recent Bush debacle for notes on that.

Well, the president still gets to pick them, and we do have a democratic congress.... see where I'm going with this. As far as Presidents rarely getting what they want, once again I defer to ginsberg.

--- Fully agree. IMHO Anyone who is stumping for Rudy or Romney wants your guns taken away as soon as possible....

First no one is stumping for Romney for anything. Second, no one is stumping for Rudy in the primaries. Third, anyone who believes that Democrats aren't worse on gun rights than republicans isn't living in reality, and fourth, anyone who thinks Hillary won't appoint a liberal justice who will piss all over our rights is simply not all together here.

 

[STAGE 2]

The right to bear arms is part of your natural (or God given) heritage as free person. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a legal codification restricting the government from infringing on your right to keep and bear arms.

No matter what the government (or anyone else) does, you will always have the right to keep and bear arms.

Rights aren't given. You're born with them. Some people may infringe on your rights and you may voluntarily give some up, but no one ever grants them. If it's been granted it's a privilege.

While I agree with with everything you said, there is a practical aspect to this as well. Personally I'd rather not argue with federal agents when they come knocking door to door for a collection. My argument might be right, but they are going to win.

The idea is to not let it get to that point.

 

[mljdeckard]

A 3rd party cannot win even if they DO have the support.

Democrats don't lie to you? Are you NUTS?! ALL politicians lie to you. What country are YOU living in? Are you referring to Clinton, who can't seem to remember when, if, or how she supported the war?

Our primary objective now is to keep H.R. Clinton out of office. She will do PERMANENT damage to RKBA. I know politics suck. I know all of the repub front-runners are damaged goods. But every vote you put towards a 3rd party is another vote Clinton doesn't have to worry about.

There is no such thing as a perfect government OR candidate. WE HAVE TO PUSH FOR THE ONE THAT SUCKS THE LEAST. Our system of government is the worst there is, except for all the others.

 

[mljdeckard]

Do you guys really want Paul to do to the republican candidate what Nader did to Gore?

 

[Biker]

Yes, if that's what it takes to wake up the Pubs. No regrets...

Biker

 

[JesseL]

 

[Titan6]

'I really fail to see the logic in what a lot of you guys are saying: Vote for someone who we know WILL hurt us a great deal, instead of voting against them by voting for someone who MIGHT hurt us a little.'

--- Opinion, you do not 'know' this. I still say Rudy is worse than Hillary.

'LOL!!! You claim that my arguments are nothing but opinion, and then sit here and tell us that Hillary might not sign it because of poll ratings. What a joke. You actually think that Hillary is going to piss off Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and the rest of the gang when they send that to their desk. You are out there. I mean out there. At least I've posted statements that support my contentions. You've got nothing. Not even logic.'

--- And why not? W Clinton sold the dems down the river to support the repubs with NAFTA. Why should she care what they think? She will be president all the Clinonts ever cared about was popular opinion. You have never once made an argument that I consider valid that RG will not sell out gun owners.

'As opposed to Hillary/Obama who have been utterly consistent with their determination to ban guns.'

--- Rudy has been 100% consistent with his actions. Ban guns. All guns. Destroy the gun industry. This is a stated life long mission. You keep saying he will stop. You can in no way show he will not continue. He is anti-gun. You have nothing logical to show that will change. Only your opinion based upon his words which are ambigous at best and can be construed easily as anti.

'Its completely based in fact. You may disagree with it, but that doesn't change its nature. Plenty of people thought the world was flat.'

--- Show me one fact that shows that Rudy is pro gun. One concrete action. Anything he has done that is not with the antis. If you believe that Rudy is anything but an anti maybe you do think the world is flat. It still doesn't change his nature he is still anti. And you wishing it to be true that he is not will never change it.

'Simple and direct question. On both state and federal levels, which party has done more damage to gun rights? Since youre going to hedge I'll answer it for you. California, New York, and Mass have the worst gun laws in the union. Guess what, all democratic states.'

--- Wow! Now you are just making stuff up out of thin air. Lets see California Repub gov who just went with the cali AWB. Mass that is Romney He is a repub anti also. New York gun laws under major attack from the current and former mayor both repubs.

'I could go on but its pointless.'

--- Fully agree.

 

[3fgburner]

Yes.

In general, to me, Republicans are the lesser evil. In '04, I stepped out of the voting booth, and pasted on the "I Voted" sticker. I then pinned on my "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for the B@st@rd" button. Someone looked at the button, and said,

"But, we won't know who won until tonight.".

"No," I replied. "But I DO know that the guy I voted for, won't win." I still have a Badnarik '04 sticker on my car. Next year, I'll swap it for a Paul '08.

 

[Sam Adams]

Deanimator

In a Hillary - Rudy race, there ISN'T a lesser evil. They're EQUALLY evil.

Can you explain to me WHY I'd prefer to have Rudy try to take my guns instead of Hillary?

If that's the choice, my worst nightmare is GUARANTEED, regardless of for whom I vote, or WHETHER I vote.

First of all, Gunbaniani won't be as free to do on the national level what he did in NYC. He'll probably, as an example, have to pick a pretty conservative Veep and promise to name several actually conservative cabinet members. Second, his own party won't allow crap like AWBII to come before him (and I assume that if he's elected the Senate, at least, will be Republican - and probably the House). He'll also be up for reelection in 4 years, and passage of any gun ban will make for a big challenge in the primaries in '12. Hildabeast, OTOH, will have a Dem majority in both houses of Congress if elected. As such, the worst kind of stuff on guns will come out of the Congress and - guaranteed - be signed.

But you do as so many others do - you forget other issues. What about taxes? What about the war? What about Supreme Court justices and federal court judges? What about naming the Attorney General (can you say "Attorney General Charles Schumer" under Hillary - HE'D be choosing what weapons you can legally own under AWB II). No, Rudy is not by any stretch of the imagination my ideal person to be making these choices...but he's far less bad than Hitlery.

Given that Hellishly bad choice, I'll very reluctantly pull the lever for Rudy. Note that I will fight him in the primaries - I'd like Duncan Hunter far more, or Fred Thompson (and there are now noises about him throwing his hat in the ring). Thompson might be a far better candidate, since he is far better known, and he's got Cheney-like gravitas without the baggage that Cheney's been saddled with (and none of which he deserves).

Think, man - realistically we have only 2 choices next November. You'll likely have Hillary on the Dem side - do you REALLY want THAT WOMAN residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

 

[Sam Adams]

Stage 2

Finally someone gets it. Be careful. That logic will get you labled as a troll.

Yeah, I've been sitting here for 3 years and nearly 1,500 posts to trollishly pound the table for Gunbaniani.