If the AWB sunsets, why not vote for Bush?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dateline: Early 2006

"Good evening, I'm Diane Perky for American News Network. A shocking story today: a protest at the State Capitol building by a group of radical gun nuts, aparrently upset about President Bush's decision to sign the most sweeping anti-gun legislation ever seen in America. Under the new laws, all guns must be stored at the nearest police station unless checked out by the legal, registered owner who must provide a retinal scan; DNA sample; blood, breath and urine samples and a psychological evaluation before the gun leaves police custody. The owner has two hours to return the weapon from the time of checkout. As provided under PATRIOT III, all fifty protestors were arrested. Executions will take place tomorrow.
"In other news, violent crime nationwide has risen 700%..."

"Dammit, Bob!! I can't believe this! Why did we vote for this maniac again??"

"Whaddaya mean? Hell, if that Kerry sumb-tch had gotten in, we wouldn't be able to have guns at all!"

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

And so it continues...a once-proud, self-reliant, masterless nation now hanging by a thread. Not voting their conciences, or standing up for their principles...but just hoping whoever gets into the office of Chief Lord and Master won't butt-rape us as bad as the Other Guy.
:rolleyes:
If "They" were planning to pull the old divide-and-conquer routine, there must be an orgy of high-fives and back-slapping going on at World Domination HQ.

Oh, well...screw it. I've got my Reality TV and X-Box...what do I care? :barf:
 
Wanna feel like Lucy snatched the football away from you.....

Vote for Kerry...or someone else...which is essentially the same thing
 
If a group cannot come right out and endorse a candidate by name, then their speech is limited.
Click to expand...

Yes their speech is limited, and I agree with you that it is limited in an unreasonable way.

The reason that I think that free speech gained something from the law is that it increased the amount of money individuals can donate to a candidate. That gives individuals a little more ability to help a candidate they believe in get out their message.

Yes I realize that I'm looking for something good out of a bad law, but sometimes you have to take what you can get.

I guess I see the Bill of Rights as something more important to protect than a political party. Personally it doesnt matter to me which party tramples on my rights. I don't feel better because it was a Republican instead of a Democrat.
Click to expand...

I happen to believe that Bush will protect my rights and protect our country better than Gore would have, or than Kerry will. Therefore I accept him as the best of the choices available.

I'd love to see a government that respected the Constitution and didn't pass laws they know are unconstitutional for political reasons.

I'd love to see a judiciary that didn't reinterpret the Constitution whenever it doesn't match their views.

However I don't see a direct path to that from the mess have now. That doesn't appear to be one of the choices available to me.
 
What if I just stay home instead of voting at all, does that help the Democrats?

So if I vote for Gary Nolan instead of staying home then I'm somehow helping the Democrats?:rolleyes:
 
YES on both counts, Glock Glocker.....

"What if I just stay home instead of voting at all, does that help the Democrats?

So if I vote for Gary Nolan instead of staying home then I'm somehow helping the Democrats?"
************************************************************

IF you could have voted for Bush in either case,

that would have assisted in defeating the Democrats.:D
 
Not voting for Bush either by staying home or voting for another candidate only hurts Bush if you live in a swing state that could go either way.

I live in GA, which will go about 60% Bush and 40% Kerry, so it doesnt really matter.
 
Ballot box power

Gun rights advocates have no power if they can't vote as a block in "the best interests of" their issues. Independence, although clearly a right, is not useful for a special interest. Fearing our potential or block voting by any special interest is exactly what McCain-Feingold is trying to address.

The concept of a perfect candidate is wishful thinking. Why should the essentially unknown quantity be the most appealing? We've heard "read my lips" before. It's clear enough that Republicans are more gun-friendly. Our issues with that support should be reflected most in how we influence the GOP platform. That gives us something to which Republicans can be held accountable one individual office holder at a time.

While the balance in the Senate may ultimately control what happens, rest assured that a party victory in a Presidential election is very empowering. Don't count on Presidential vetoes, because the President's relationship with Congress is too important to invoke that power lightly. I am not necessarily critical of a failure to veto. While the AWB issue may be critical, it is not the be all and end all of gun rights. If it were to sunset, would the fight be over? Heck no! If it were made permanent would there still be an RKBA? You bet.

Not only that, but there would be a stronger case to test the AWB before the Supreme Court. Right now all anyone has to do is sit back and hope it will sunset.
 
Bush is not a "Perfect" candidate, and I have my own reservations about him, but I don't think there is a question that Kerry would be against much,much, more, that I am for.
A vote to "make a statement" could very well cause the "better" candidate to lose in a close election.
It is an unfortunate fact of life. You pick the ELECTABLE candidate that best idealizes your positions, hold your nose and vote!
Just my 2 cents worth.
 
I can't help but see that all the apologizing and what-if-ing and lesser-of-the-two-evils thinking that permeates this thread....taken to an admitted extreme (but arrived via somewhat tortured logic and equivocation) would account for too many of my fellow THRs voting for Hitler or the Devil under the right set of circumstances.


No flame intended.

S-
 
A vote to "make a statement" could very well cause the "better" candidate to lose in a close election.
Click to expand...

Thats bull. "Making a statement" is what voting should be all about.

If a candidate wants my vote, he needs to support what I believe in, and not just be less bad than some other candidate.

If he loses the election, its his fault for having bad political views, and not my fault for failing to support bad views.

Grow a backbone, and vote your conscience, or things will never change.

Americans fought, bled, and died so you can vote for the lesser of two evils?
 
Sorry, the truth is the truth, like it or not. Reread my post. I said the better candidate could lose an election because of a vote for a candidate with little chance. Had Buchanan ran in 2000, I would bet that he would have drawn more support from Bush than Gore. Buchanan had no chance. Gore would have won. (Don't give me the BS that Gore did win. As we all know every recount had Bush the winner. Popular vote doesn't count, the Electorial College does.) What part is bull? Do you think you can find a candidate that supports All of your opinions? The likelyhood of that is remote at best. If that is not the case then you weigh the options, compromise and vote. I'll stand by my original post. Backbone intact.
 
Lone_Gunman, the corollary to....

"Grow a backbone, and vote your conscience, or things will never change."
************************************************************

Might be:

"Grow a brain, and vote in reality, or things will get worse.":D
 
Finally a mention of a "small issue"...

I'm really glad that 7.62FMJ put in that link... which is about that little thing, the fact that we are AT WAR. I'm just amazed that it didn't get mentioned until close to the end of three pages of comments!

And don't get me wrong, the RKBA is extremely important to me. It's just that to me there's no question about which candidate will keep up the heat on the jihadists, who have made it very clear that they want us all DEAD.

Personally I too am disgusted with a great many of Bush's positions, and wish that he would demonstrate some old-fashioned conservatism- like cutting spending, down-sizing gov't, VETOing bad bills, etc. But even with all his faults, he IS strongly persecuting the war on the mutants from Jihadistan.

Kerry? You've got to be kidding. That guy is even to the left of Ted Kennedy. If he gets in, expect to see the rest of the Constitution shredded. Like fallingblock said, this--

will do no good for RKBA, despite the Libertarian fantasies which seem to abount at THR.
Click to expand...

Esky
who also dreams libertarian dreams, but wakes up to reality
 
Voting in this election will be tactical. There is no candidate with a chance of winning that would be remotely strategic and there is certainly one that would be counterproductive. If not interested in "tactics", then RKBA is not a priority for you.

One thing a person interested in alternative conservative parties might want to keep in mind is that a conservative environment must be maintained for a later, better opportunity to make their big move. Seems to me that you would need to WORK AGAINST THE Democrats AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.

Republicans can't win an election unless they appear centrist, but there is little doubt that they are generally conservative at heart. A third party that was actually competitive in an election would find that they had to move to the center in order to get enough votes to win. All you're talking about is a better Republican party or one with a similar platform that does not include big business special interests.

'Seems to me that the right wing can simply work to have a stronger voice within the GOP, waiving the party platform in the face of any rogue Congressman or President accountable to that party.

If you really want to be heard, try to influence the GOP 2004 platform, that is being written as we speak. If you want to be taken seriously, don't be shrill or hysterical about it.

If you want to make a statement, have a gathering during the GOP convention. Stay out of the streets though, because you have to know that security will be serious business, more like martial law than too concerned about rights. It will very likely be held in a gun free zone, so keep that in mind too. Make an issue of that very fact and how it is possible for a city to have the option to legislate to that effect for their normal, day to day environment. I wouldn't complain about actual convention security, unless you have a better idea how to do it.

But don't wait until then. The platform is more than a piece of paper or a website. The time to be heard is right now.

See GOP 2000 Platform

Democrat Platform 2000
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
AWB: no difference between Bush and Kerry?
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Moparmike
M
S
  • Locked
Vote Bush instead of third party
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
157
Views
4K
ravinraven
R
P
  • Locked
Don't Get Happy About The AWB Sunset Yet
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Publicola
P
S
  • Locked
My Letter to President Bush
Replies
7
Views
438
bogie
B
J
  • Locked
If anyone needs proof that Kerry will restore the AWB
Replies
5
Views
458
Nightfall
N
Back
Top