Jorg:
I expect one if the Dems win in 2008. If the American people are really as stupid and blind as they were in the last Congressional election, then we may be in for a really long, crappy time until 2012. Vote Republican or Libertarian!! Anything but Democrat!!
All of the independent parties
together get just 1% of the vote in Presidential elections.
That leaves a possible 99% of votes to split among the two major candidates: Republican and Democrat.
If enough voters followed your advice and voted Libertarian, it might boost the
total percentage of independant votes to 2%--or maybe even 3%, 4%, or 5%.
How could such a vote possibly help defeat the Democratic candidate for President? My assumption, of course, is that the largest number of independant voters will be drawn from those who might otherwise vote Republican. Do you have a different insight?
As to the question that started this thread .... Nancy Pelosi has been quoted as saying that she expects to have strict gun control laws beginning the end of this year. The Democratic Party leadership wants it and so do many influential mayors. The United Nations wants "small arms" control. The U.S. is one of the few remaining major countries in which individuals can buy and own semi-automatic guns and guns that shoot military ammunition. For that reason it is looked upon as uncivilized by many civilized people throughout the world. Many people in the U.S. don't understand why anyone but a nut would want to own or use a firearm, and they are frightened by guns and the people who own them. When the last Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to sunset, anti-gun forces expressed anger about having been tricked by its sunset provision: they believed, when the 1994 ban was passed, that their politicians would be strong enough not only to renew it but also to strengthen it into a complete ban on ownership. Now their politicians are strong enough.
Of course it is
possible that there won't be a complete ban on the ownership of so-called "assault weapons," that it won't include all semi-automatic firearms, that it won't ban ownership as well as sale of ammunition and magazines, and that it won't require owners to surrender all firearms in their possession. All that is
possible because
anything is possible. It's even
possible that Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Schumer, and the Democratic Party will join with the Brady Campaign in giving all Americans tax credits for buying guns and ammunition. I wouldn't bet on that though. New anti-gun bills were introduced in both the House and Senate on the first day they convened this year: January 4, 2007. I expect that more--and much harsher--bills will follow throughout this year and that at least some of them will pass. Others will follow throughout 2008 and will be passed too.
The last election demonstrated that gun owners do not support the NRA en masse: the anti-gun forces, including the president of the Brady Campaign, have already said that politicians need not fear the NRA any longer. I think that they are correct. Read the messages in this forum and other gun forums from gun owners who reject the NRA for one reason or another, including the powerful reason that the NRA sends them videos to raise money to defend their gun rights. When logic such as that gets support on these gun forums, the Brady Campaign is right to think that there's nothing to fear from organized gun owners.
I know something that most people seem not to know, and I'll share it with you. When guns are confiscated, the legislators who passed such laws need not be concerned about the anger of gun owners. The reason is simple: When there are no guns legally in private hands, there are
no gun owners to be concerned about. It's an easy equation and every politician with a brain understands it:
No Guns = No Gun Owners = No Gun Owner Vote