If the AWB is renewed, for whom will you vote?

[glocksman]

A female poster on another board I frequent is a hardcore Libertarian, and here's what she had to say on the subject:


The Dutchess of Zeon wrote:

If Bush signs away assault weapons? Absolutely. Better to take one of those bastard Democrats now and awaken the people to their true intentions all at once than have the Republicans penny-packet us. I'd rather take it in the gut with a Democratic administration for four years by spoiling Bush's reelection now than have Republicans feel safe in bartering away our firearms rights for political advantage. It would teach them that firearms are non-negotiable and if they want the votes to get elected they'd need to have an uncompromising stand on it. And I'd vote libertarian to do just that if Bush signed the AWB.

Eloquent, isn't she?


And as for myself, I'm a fairly low wage union member. The only reasons I vote Republican are guns and fiscal discipline.

Over the last few years the Republicans have proven themselves to have all the fiscal discipline of a drunken sailor at the Mustang Ranch after 4 years at sea. Sign the AWB, and I might as well vote Democrat.

 

[Silver Bullet]

I might as well vote Democrat

You might as well vote Lib if you're not voting Republican. If you vote Democrat you're sending a message (correctly or not) that you approve of gun control.

 

[glocksman]

If GWB signed the AWB, I'd vote for Howard Dean before I'd vote Libertarian.


However, if any of the 9 dwarves had the Dem. nomination, then I'd vote Libertarian.

And since my Democratic Senator backs S.659 (the gun industry lawsuit bill), I plan on voting for him unless he votes for AWB renewal.

My Republican Senator voted for the original AWB and is silent on S.659, so I plan on voting either for his Democratic opponent (if he's pro 2A) or Libertarian.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Better to take one of those bastard Democrats now and awaken the people to their true intentions all at once than have the Republicans penny-packet us. I'd rather take it in the gut with a Democratic administration for four years...

How would 2004-2008 be different and "awaken the people" more than 1992-2000 did? It seems to me that the Republicans now must crawl back up the slippery slope on things like the AWB.

For example, pictures like this during 1992-2000 failed to wake up 99% of the sheeple:

 

[Smoke]

I said: <sarcasm> Lets put a Democrat in office; that'll teach 'em!" <sarcasm>


Weimadog said:

Yes, it will. Political critters who support my rights get my vote. I vote against those who thwart those rights.

So you beleive Democrats support your rights?

Just trying to be informed.

Smoke

 

[HankB]

AWB renewal would be a "doomsday" scenario for the GOP, as too many of us - me included - are virtually "single issue" voters. (Not really, but how often is someone who's pro-gun really wrong on the other issues? Once in a while, maybe, but not often.)

If the AWB is renewed, it will be because of a GOP house, a GOP senate, and a GOP President. At which point, I'll be d@***d if I'll vote for a Republican at ANY level, even if it's third assistant dog catcher. Better a declared enemy (as are most Democrats) than a backstabbing "friend."

I've written and told my congresscritters that . . . albeit more diplomatically.

Remember the old saying "With friends like these, who needs enemies?"

Over the last few years the Republicans have proven themselves to have all the fiscal discipline of a drunken sailor at the Mustang Ranch after 4 years at sea

Great comment - I think I'm going to shamelessly steal it, and use it next time budget issues come up as a discussion topic at our table in the lunchroom at work.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

The poll should be worded:

If the AWB is renewed, for whom do you vote in Nov, 2008?

Does anyone seriously think they are going pass a new AWB before the election?

 

[Ironbarr]

The CNN crawler at the screen bottom just passed with this...
"the last two presidential elections were won with less than 50% of the (registered) voters participating".

'nuff said.

Participate!

 

[jfh]

passing a new AWB

I have NO trouble seeing a scenario in which:

1) current polls show a very close race.

2) the Demorat antigunners--with or without the imprimateur of the DNC / wonks / money-controllers--start extreme confiscation rhetoric to rally a couple percent of votes off the Greens / whoever--and the polls show an impact after they do that. (Any odds on it happening to here? Personally, I'll bet on this one.)

3) the press pumps up a firearms incident--let's say it's three killings in twelve hours in Cleveland (Cocinich crowd), or a MacDonald's freezer in Brooklyn. Simultaneously, they ignore four good defensive shoots.

4) The polls ten days later show a 5% tilt (e.g., beyond the margin of error)--and that weekend, another chopper goes down in Iraq.

5) And the antigunners now scream about the bottled-up AWB ban.

6) Now, what are the odds on the GOP leadership in either the House or the Senate let the AWB out to move to a vote? I will NOT bet on this one--I think it's a sure thing.

 

[SC_shooter]

If Bush signs the AWB, how is he any better than Clinton (Bill or Hillary)? Because he's a "Republican"? Would the AWB be more palatable just because a Republican signed it?

Paul

 

[Justin]

ReadyontheRight sez:

The 1992 election that delivered us the Clintons and convinced the Democrats they could further assault the Constitution:

Cute pie chart.

Wanna hazard a guess at just how many electoral votes ol' Ross won?

 

[Smoke]

If Bush signs the AWB, how is he any better than Clinton (Bill or Hillary)? Because he's a "Republican"? Would the AWB be more palatable just because a Republican signed it?

You're missing the bigger picture. Lets say Bush does sign the renewal of the AWB in its present form and ahead of the election. (lots of big IFs there)

And all the shooters in the USA vote Dem or Libertarian out of protest.


What happens now. You have a Democrat in office for the next for years. He's probably rabid anti-gun and appoints justices that share his views. He now wants more legislation on guns and guess what ....he gets it.

If Bush signs the AWB he's an S.O.B. But that will probably be the only gun laws that are signed. It won't be with the Dems.

Smoke.

 

[cordex]

If Bush signs the AWB he's an S.O.B. But that will probably be the only gun laws that are signed. It won't be with the Dems.

The way I see it, an enemy in front of you is easier to fight than a traitor behind.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Voting for a Democrat would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

So what would voting for a Republican after they passed key elements of the Democrat party platform on guns with a Republican House, Senate and White House be like?

Republicans received $1.4 million in PAC contributions from pro-gun rights groups during the 2000 election cycle (compared to $12,000 given to Republicans by gun control orgs). They received another $1 million in soft money in 2000 from gun-rights groups (compared to $0 from gun control groups). Throw in another $1.3 million since the 2000 elections from PAC contributions.

The Republicans now hold the Senate, House and White House. This may come as a shock to some; but if they aren't going to help us now when it is easy and we are giving them millions of dollars per election cycle, exactly when will it be convenient for them to help us that I should continue to vote for them?

I can't say who I will vote for; but if the AWB is renewed, it will absolutely not be Bush.

P.S. Want a depressing factoid? Unrealistically assuming no overhead costs, if each NRA member had donated just $3 to the NRA PAC in 2000, the NRA would have had more money than ALL other PACs (not just gun rights PACs - all of them) combined in the 2000 election. By my reckoning, the NRA raked in an astonishing $0.38 per member in 2000 for its PAC.

By the way, if you hate the NRA and prefer a "no compromise" approach, all it takes is for every GOA member to donate $40 to GOA to reach the same goal (assuming a 300,000 membership per GOA). In the 2000 election cycle, GOA stalwarts donated enough to put the NRA to shame with a massive $0.57 per member for PAC donations.

 

[P12]

I'll do a write in for "Bugs Bunny"

 

[CZ52GUY]

I voted other

I found Bush's pre-emptive statement that he would sign a strait AWBAN renewal (pending results of study) baffling.

A guy over on another forum expressed his concern to the White House and received a letter recently confirming the Presidents willingness to sign a strait renewal (even after the study in question provided less than ideal findings for the other side).

Doing some research a few weeks ago, I was surprised to find out that the AWBAN can really be traced in part to William Bennett and Bush the Elder. To be sure, Klinton and the Dem's pushed it through in greater force in 1994 (to their political detriment), but this is something that both major parties (especially so-called moderate Republikrats in the Senate) have been willing to embrace in the past.

I won't vote Libertarian because I disagree that the contracted killing of an unborn human being is a matter of "personal privacy". Similarly, the idea of harvesting their genetic material and having Lou Dobbs or Neil Cavuto reporting on Stem Cell futures is something I find nauseating. No, a pro-gun Lib' won't be getting my vote either.

Finally, I won't vote for a Jack-??? running for dog catcher, never mind president of the free world. Dean is reading the tea leaves and claims he supports the extension of the bogus Ban.

Given the choice of a compromising Republican, a murder supporting Libertarian, or an overt gun-grabbing, Al-Quaeda appeasing, wealth redistributing, murder is just proclaiming Democrat...and a Bogus ban having been extended, made worse, or permanent, I'd be inclined to write in "From My Cold Dead Hands" because at that point the Tree of Liberty may require refreshing.

CZ52'

 

[Calmwater]

If Bush were to sign an AWB renewal, I would find it hard to put faith in the possibility that he will seek to nominate SC Justices that have any better grasp of the USC than himself.

 

[w4rma]

For all the talk around here that folks give about civil rights, why hasn't anyone brought up the Patriot Act drafted, supported and signed into law by the Bush misadministration and the Patriot Act II that is currently being passed in pieces hidden in huge spending bills?

Do some folks here not care that the government can, via the Patriot Act, hire someone to pick the lock on your door, take things out of your home and never tell you about this? Do some folks here not care that the government now has access to your bank account records and can watch your transactions without you ever knowing about this?

 

[mantispid]

Look, the more statists we can vote into office, the faster we can start over. Putting in the neocons and other pseudo-limited government types only prolongs the pain.

I prefer getting the pain over with quickly.


But from a practical standpoint, if the AWB is renewed, I think I'll have to find some BM friends. Remember, there is no ethical obligation to follow unethical laws.


In truth though, I vote Libertarian in the desperate hope that people will eventually see the light. But, as time goes on, things are looking more and more bleak.. and I'm thinking Jefferson's views on patriots and tyrants are becoming more of a reality every year.

 

[seeker_two]

I will vote for the PERSON who's actions have shown that they best represent my views and desires--regardless of party, gender, race, or the threat of "the boogie-woman" getting into office....

Bush ain't that person right now.

Hopefully, a good candidate will make a showing in the GOP primaries & give him a run for the money. If not, :banghead: ...

 

[CZ52GUY]

re: Patriot Act

Can someone please describe to me within the Patriot Act proper (beyond the numerous chicken little claims posted on forums like these) Constitutional inconsistencies with the 4th which demands probable cause and a warrant?

Why is there among some this suicide pact with so-called civil liberties which insist on bringing back the Church era which made 911 so much easier for Atta and the other 18?

The founders recognized the need to protect against tyranny at home and abroad.

Why is it such a mutually exclusive proposition to so many?

BTW, a vote for Dean is as much a vote for the AWBAN as any of the others. He claims to support it.

So...if Bush doesn't sign it, then the new Dean administration is likely to have coat-tails in the Senate and perhaps even within the house to ensure that a promise to sign it (which may be an ill advised political gambit) is used by the foolish to ensure that it is enacted...probably with more onerous provisions.

A pre-emptive declaration of support for Dean, a wallet robbing panderer to each and every constituency he can find is naive at best, and complicit to 2nd Amendment adversaries at worse.

His support of Civil Unions in VT if taken to the White House will give us a repeat of Bill's first 100 day priority of Don't Ask Don't Tell, except with the added bonus that we can continue the lunging embrace of anything and everything that will contribute to the continued moral decay of our nation. For those that are ambivolent from a moral standpoint, the financial implications will be tangible and consequential.

His insistence on perpetuating the "cut and run" image of America within the Jihadist world will ensure more 911's, not prevent them.

Our best bet is to pray that Bush is suffering from a regretable case of Rovism (something similar to his nonsensical rantings about the peaceful tenets if Islam and the entitlement of the candy throwing 911 celebrating Palestinians to their own country).

We can make a difference. The time to stop the anti's is now. My state is green, how's yours?

www.awbansunset.com

CZ52'

 

[Ryder]

My patience has worn thin

I don't need one more vote to make such a decision.

Actions speak louder than words. He has passed up the opportunity to improve our situation and wants to pursue further oppressive legislation. He has appeased the dems at every turn. I'll put my vote where my mouth is from now on and vote Libertarian.

If that means a dem gets in office I am unconcerned. Liberty can't be permanantly stifled. Let them accellerate this slow boil into a raging cauldron.

 

[mantispid]

The founders recognized the need to protect against tyranny at home and abroad.

Why is it such a mutually exclusive proposition to so many?

Well, from my point of view, it's because a country that no longer respects freedoms (willing to sacrifice them for security), isn't worth protecting.

Liberty or Death, IMHO..

Terrorists ain't nearly as much a threat to my quality of life as politicians are.

 

[CZ52GUY]

Such foolish idealism...

Well, from my point of view, it's because a country that no longer respects freedoms (willing to sacrifice them for security), isn't worth protecting.

Do you travel at all for your vocation?

I could have easily been on any of those 4 flights, I happened to be on vacation 9/11/2001. The drive home was surreal to say the least.

When essential liberties (like the 2nd) are sacrificed based on imagined security (we're doing it for the children), then your point is well taken.

When imagined threats to liberties (like the chicken little claims about the Patriot Act which NO ONE can come up with section & paragraph indicating that probable cause and warrant stipulations from the 4th has been legisltated away) are used to ensure credible threats to security (show me the skyscraper full of people that the pol's have brought down and I'll concede your point) then we have an ackbassward view of the world.

Rent "In Memoriam" sometime. Listen to the thuds of the 4 jumpers whose only crime was going to work that day.

The threat of Jihadism is real. The threat of the Patriot Act is an imagined one used by the Left to pull the Libertarians to their side.

There is a sincere but naive part of our populace who insists on being duped into stupidity. Don't join them. If you are already among them, get help.

The Patriot Act, like the AWBAN is set to expire, as it should once the threat is sufficiently diminished.

Like the AWBAN, should the Patriot Act be inappropriately brought up for extension, we can fight, and I'll join you (assuming we finish the job with the Jihadists).

To suggest that the Patriot Act represents a greater tangible threat than Jihadism is to follow the same path that made 911 a reality. As long as we continue the policy of cut and run, pursue a suicide pact with so-called civil liberties, and ignore the blood and ashes from that horrible day, then the Jihadists will continue their quest.

Show me One Incident of where the Patriot Act has provided a tangible injury which exceeds the benefit of overturning the Church Doctrine?

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011025_hr3162_usa_patriot_bill.html

CZ52'

 

[Silver Bullet]

If Bush were to sign an AWB renewal, I would find it hard to put faith in the possibility that he will seek to nominate SC Justices that have any better grasp of the USC than himself.

I'm more concerned about how he will get congress to approve his choices. Look at how the Dems are stonewalling his choices for Federal judges now.