Does Anyone Think Dem's Have Forsaken Gun Control?

[Robert J McElwain]

Got any viable third partys?

Consider the Libertarian Party. It's for government at it's least.

Bob

 

[RealGun]

I started from the position of rejecting that idea. Can't we please get past it? The LP ain't it. I don't want a revolution. I just want reform. Starting with integrity would fix many things. You can fine tune it later.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

W is worse than Clinton?

Yes, I think he is, when you look at what the long term effects of his administration. Clinton was a bad president, no doubt, but he really didnt accomplish much, and in 50 yrs will be remembered only for the fact that he had oral sex while on duty. He did some bad things from an executive standpoint, but none really changed the world. The assault weapons ban expired and is now a moot point. NAFTA was bad also, but Bush's expansion of free trade pales NAFTA. His failures in Somalia and Bosnia were important at the time, but in the grand scheme of things will not be remembered.

Bush has a done a lot of things that are permanent. The Medicare Reform, Campaign Finance Reform, Patriot Act, and the Perpetual War on Terror. He has set the tone for government expansion and intrusion, that I think will be carried forth by future presidents. I don't think Bush is a totalitarian, but I think he has laid the foundation that future presidents will use to destroy the Republic in the name of public safety and the War on Terror.

 

[Herself]

I started from the position of rejecting that idea. Can't we please get past it? The LP ain't it. I don't want a revolution.

Why do you believe the Libertarian Party espouses "a revolution?" In fact, LP members generally pledge to refrain from initiating force; that would quite preclude a revolt.

Too, may people forget than even if the LP did better in elections, the other two main parties (and all the others) aren't going away; getting some LP types in there to mix it up with them pretty much ensures reform but not revolution.

In politics, you get compromise no matter what you're after. It's like bargaining at a gun show. That means your first offer had better be pretty far out there, 'cos you are for sure going to meet the other side somewhere in the middle if you meet at all.

I just want reform. Starting with integrity would fix many things. You can fine tune it later.

...That's what FDR said, too. Look where it got us!
"Integrity," very few politicians have it. Ron Paul of TX does, but he's a rarity. It is difficult to even find politcos that will stay bought, who will "dance with the one that brung 'em."

However, it's the newcomers who are often the most honest and the least inclined to trade away their promises. If you can do nothing else, at least don't vote for incumbents and Party flacks, vote for outsiders!

--Herself

 

[ElTacoGrande]

Yes, I think he is, when you look at what the long term effects of his administration.

I agree. I think W's biggest long-term contribution to the US will be pushing the FedGovt nearly into bankruptcy. Now that actually might not be a bad thing. Look at what happened when the Soviet govt went into bankruptcy: a lot of good things. But I would prefer to have our system fixed in a deliberate way, not through someone accidentally causing a disaster.

The other thing bad that W has done is started this "war on terror". There is no terrorism threat. There's no provision in the Constitution for a "war on terror". There are provisions for a criminal justice system, and any fight against terrorists should happen within that system. W is trying to make the war on terror something special, like they sort of did with the war on drugs, and look at what we have gotten out of that.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I've done a great deal of reading on the war by conservative and military commentators and one must sadly come to the conclusion that Bush and his crew were tragically unable to understand the situation or fix it. That will sink the RKBA.

I've been saying this for months. I'm genuinely worried. In Minnesota we are going to be sending some radical anti-gun Democrats to congress this year to replace Marty Sabo and Mark Dayton. Not that these two were worth a pile of dung for anything, especially gun rights, but the blissninnies stepping up to fill those seats are far, far worse. Amy Kloubachar, should that abomination be elected, will make Boxer, Feinstein, and Kennedy look like conservative reactionaries. This woman is a menace and right now I see very little chance of her being defeated. And whatever slime that oozes to the top of the Fifth District to replace Sabo will likely be even worse.

 

[LAK]

Bartholomew Roberts

He is blocking an international treaty of the type you seem to fear by stating that the U.S. will not go along with it; just the same as predecessor

I'm impressed. But it is not a treaty; it is an incremental program. It is not so much a matter of fearing anything; rather recognizing an old and familiar m.o. already decades in progress.

Although Bolton may be genuine and sincere in his efforts, ultimately this country will not be able to isolate itself in regards to this issue. Just as the term "isolationism" has been used to dissolve resistance to some other items on the global agenda. The veto power has been and remains the subject of elimination and is not going to last much longer.

The U.N. and it's agenda was conceived, organized and implemented by the likeminded political lineage of George W and Herbert Walker Bush and their European cronies. They might pay lipservice to our status as an independent nation, but these people have made it very clear by their actions and inactions over the last 65 years where their loyalties really lie.

Look at the Korean war. Prior to that conflict, the Soviet Union decided the UN was just a tool for the imperialists and so they bycotted it and refused to participate. As a result, there was no one to veto the security council resolution against North Korea and the entire UN came in on the side of the United States.

Right. And just what did "the United States" do - or should I say, not do? It failed to push home what should have run right through Red China. That would have precluded what we now have lurking in the form of North Korea, and ended what has been a brutally murderous regime and remaining threat of current China.

What do you think the status of firearms law would be in the rest of the world if neither the US or the NRA stood up to IANSA in the UN?

The rest of the world? I have spent roughly twenty-five years living in the rest of the world. I have not and do not see anything to connect your assertion here with reality in any other country I have lived in or visited.

The NRA has a history of "opposing" legislation, then five years down the road saying what a good thing it is. The controlling oligarchy in this country and Europe have even more obvious inclinations and support towards the criminal history of their cronies within the U.N. None of which has been completely swept under the rug, but lays there putrifiying in the background. No indictments, no trials - except the show trials of people like Slobodan Milosevic whose greatest crime seems to have been snubbing the "global community" and it's plantation agenda.

The bringers of bad news will probably be rudely awakening some people, while George is probably coming out out of the closet like his father, telling everyone how his fraternal elder brother John Kerry is really not such a bad guy afterall.
------------------------------------------------

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

 

[Kim]

I will say it one more time. Libertarians need to learn how politics work if they ever want any power. Purity and third party talk will get you NO WHERE. If you really want some things to change instead of ranting on the internet you need to take look at what the radical left (The SDS and Michael Harrington decided to do) run as a Republician to change the party from within. How do you think the Democratic Party has become so lefty nutty since the 1970's. That is how it is done. To win at politics one must first be in the game.

 

[Herself]

Kim, I have explained elsewhere that the Democrat Party became "lefty nutty" after the Socialists plus other communist-type parties picked up a sizable chunk of the vote in the 1928 elections.

When FDR came in, we got Social Security, the National Recovery Act (at least that bit of central control got slapped down in court), WPA, CCC and similar Left-wing programs.

...Of course earlier Democrats were no picnic, either; consider the odious Woodrow Wilson, who segregated the Federal government! But the big swing leftward for that party came after '28.

Republicans have had their ups and downs; they do their best work when they're not in power. I do think Republicans are more likely to stay bought -- it's just that most of them are for sale only to the most wealthy.

Libertarians confuse people used to the way the two big parties do things. I'm reminded of Will Rogers' comment about the Democrats of his day: "I'm not a member of an organized political party -- I'm a Democrat." That's pretty much how the LP works, too. It is not a top-down, neatly planned, tightly controlled political organization; it's a bunch of folks with similar ideas, a few of whom are optimistic enough to make a run for office.

As for "purity and third party talk," it's not just talk. Third parties have done very well in the States -- one even supplanted one of the two main parties! "Purity," well now, you're actually talking about what once were known as "principles." Vote for unprinicipled Party hacks if you wish, but me, I'm going with candidates who've got a spine!

Vote for whoever you like. I'm bettin' we'll see at least one of the Big Two split or crumble in the near future, unless something convenient happens to keep panic levels high.

--Herself

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I consider myself a Libertarian, but this fall I will vote Republican for our Representative and Senator. It will probably be as futile as voting Libertarian, but we will have some of the worst leftist blissninnies running on the Democratic ticket since Tom Hayden and Jerry Brown.

 

[1911JMB]

The Libertarian party's problem is that it's honest and uncorruptable. Behind closed doors, politicians will tell 3rd party leaders that they are absolutely right, but it will get them nowhere because without the funding from greedy special interests, you can't get any real political power. Thats why Jesse Ventura got out of politics. Its a hopeless situation if you are an honest person.

 

[Robert J McElwain]

The Libertarian party's problem is that it's honest and uncorruptable. Behind closed doors, politicians will tell 3rd party leaders that they are absolutely right, but it will get them nowhere because without the funding from greedy special interests, you can't get any real political power. Thats why Jesse Ventura got out of politics. Its a hopeless situation if you are an honest person.

Which is why it's time to change some rules. Term limits and government funding of election campaigns. Take the money issues away from the deep pockets.

Bob