NRA Endorses Bush, Badnarik Not Surprised

[NIGHTWATCH]

=========================
For Immediate Release
October 17, 2004
Contact: Stephen P. Gordon
521-637-6867
[email protected]
BADNARIK/CAMPAGNA 2004
=========================

With Friends Like This …
NRA endorses Bush; Badnarik “not surprisedâ€

Phoenix, AZ - On Wednesday, the National Rifle Association shed its alleged neutrality and endorsed President George W. Bush for re-election despite his exceptionally poor record on gun rights issues. Few, least of all Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik, expressed surprise.

“No, I’m not a bit surprised,†said Badnarik on Sunday as he was traveling to the battleground state of Oregon for three days of campaign events. “It’s par for the course.â€

“There’s a reason author L. Neil Smith, a friend of mine, calls the NRA ‘the nation’s oldest, largest gun control organization,’†said Badnarik. “These are the people who wrote the 1968 Gun Control Act ’so it wouldn’t be worse.’ They’ve never met a victim disarmament law they weren’t willing to capitulate to, accommodate and eventually defend.â€

Bush was elected in 2000 on a platform that included renewal of the 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban.†The renewal failed in Congress despite his continued support.

“Republicans, including now-Attorney General John Ashcroft, have become progressively more anti-gun since becoming a majority in Congress,†says Thomas Knapp, Badnarik’s media coordinator. “Under Ashcroft, the Department of Justice has aggressively expanded the enforcement of Clinton-era anti-gun laws, while Ashcroft himself has pushed to expand the jurisdiction of those laws into gun shows and other areas not previously covered by them.â€

So why would the NRA endorse Bush, instead of a candidate who, like Badnarik, advocates repeal of the more than 20,000 unconstitutional federal gun laws?

“If you have to ask why,†says Badnarik, “the answer is usually ‘money.’ The NRA’s agenda isn’t about protecting gun owners’ rights. It’s about getting into gun owners’ wallets. And what they sell those gun owners is not real change, but the nebulous concept of ‘access’ to politicians already in power.â€

The NRA expects to spend $20 million promoting its anti-gun presidential candidate. But gun owners in 48 states and the District of Columbia will have the opportunity to vote for a pro-gun candidate, Michael Badnarik, and for other pro-gun Libertarian candidates, on November 2nd.


http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1419

 

[Warbow]

So why would the NRA endorse Bush, instead of a candidate who, like Badnarik, advocates repeal of the more than 20,000 unconstitutional federal gun laws?

Uh, maybe because Badnarik has a snowball's chance in hell of winning and this is a close election with the most anti-gun candidate ever as a contender?

 

[NIGHTWATCH]

And Bush & Kerry will be one-term presidents until both parties give us the respect we deserve.

 

[buzz_knox]

And Bush & Kerry will be one-term presidents until both parties give us the respect we deserve.

People said the same thing about Clinton. Oh, as for being one term, the Brady Bill and the AWB were both enacted in Clinton's first term. We can't afford more hits like that just to gain a little perceived respect.

 

[Diesle]

Uh, maybe because Badnarik has a snowball's chance in hell of winning and this is a close election with the most anti-gun candidate ever as a contender?

Ding ding ding.... we have a winner........


Diesle

 

[utvols]

I'm very pro-gun, I'm also conservative. Libertarians tend to be very "liberal" on most issues. Besides, no body can "smoke out" terrorist like Bush.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Yeah, Badnarik is showing a bit too much spite here. Then again, I won’t be giving any more money to the NRA until after the election.

~G. Fink

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I've been studying for some standardized tests recently. Let's see if I've mastered those "word association" type questions:


ROSS PEROT is to BILL CLINTON as
MICHAEL BADNARIK is to _________
a) Mighty Mouse
b) Albert Einstein
c) Britney Spears
d) John Kerry



It might just be that the reason the NRA endorsed Bush over Badnarik is that some of us don't want to see a repeat of past mistakes.

 

[MrAcheson]

ROSS PEROT is to BILL CLINTON as
MICHAEL BADNARIK is to _________

Frankly, Badnarik is no Ross Perot. He's not even Ralph Nader. The only Libertarians I know who support Badnarik are the party faithful, which among Libertarians is an especially small number. The rest are all voting for Bush.

 

[buzz_knox]

Yeah, Badnarik is showing a bit too much spite here. Then again, I won’t be giving any more money to the NRA until after the election.

Based on your posts, why would you even conceive of giving money to the NRA? They "collaborate" too much, they don't support a total and instant repeal of all gun bans (preferring the incremental step approach), etc.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Frankly, Badnarik is no Ross Perot. He's not even Ralph Nader. The only Libertarians I know who support Badnarik are the party faithful, which among Libertarians is an especially small number. The rest are all voting for Bush.

That's true. But this election is so close that it won't take nearly as many votes to accomplish the same thing.

I guess my point (which admitedly wasn't very clear) is that Badnarik can do nothing but harm in this election. He'll never win, and he may just cost the second best man to lose to the worst.

Bush represents the status quo, which is only mediocre. The only other viable option, however, is Kerry. If you value freedom at all you'll oppose Kerry at all costs, even if it means enduring the status quo for another 4 years.

 

[bogie]

My father, a hard core libertarian, is voting Bush. Why?

Because he's voting _against_ Kerry, and Bush is the best chance of making sure that he doesn't achieve the presidency, where he'll be able to do a LOT of damage.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Based on your posts, why would you even conceive of giving money to the NRA? They “collaborate†too much, they don’t support a total and instant repeal of all gun bans (preferring the incremental step approach), etc.

I don’t think I’ve ever posted something like that. If I have, cite it, and I will humbly retract such an egregious statement. Surely, the NRA has its faults, but it’s still the best game in town.

Hmm … Didn’t my previous post fault Badnarik for his imprudent remarks on the NRA?

~G. Fink

 

[buzz_knox]

Surely, the NRA has its faults, but it’s still the best game in town.

You reject this argument when it comes to Bush (he's the best option to a Kerry president) yet accept it for the NRA.

To be consistent, you really should reject the NRA and go for one of the other games in town, such as GOA or JPFO.

 

[MrAcheson]

That's true. But this election is so close that it won't take nearly as many votes to accomplish the same thing.

Not so sure about that myself. It depends where those votes are and such.

 

[flatrock]

Badnarik is a lunatic. Just because I happen to share a couple of his views doesn't mean I'd vote for that nut.

His policy on Iraq alone is enough for me to be disgusted with him.

I can agree with him on some econimic issues and on civil rights (including gun rights).

However, on many subjects he shows that he's putting forth unimplementable ideas. He seems to be blinded by his convictions to the point where he simply isn't qualified to run the country.

The only reason I might vote for him is that I'd be worried that Kerry would be worse than the gridlock there would be in congress if he were somehow miraculously elected.

About all he would be able to do on his own is remove the import restrictions on a variety of guns that were banned by executive order.

He could also veto a lot of useless legislation.

However, he's not someone I could vote for while we are at war in Iraq.

I've followed the reasoning for why we are in Iraq including the mistakes that were made in both intelligence gathering before the war, and the mistakes that were made in persuing the war.

After looking at the whole picture, I think Bush has done a pretty good job with the hand he was dealt. He hasn't done everything perfectly, but he's done what he's done for the right reasons, and hasn't been deceptive as Badnarik accuses.

The war in Iraq is extremely important for the future credibility of the US. If we back out and leave a mess there that costs millions of lives, we will show the world that the US cannot be trusted to follow through on things and show leadership.

Turning out back on the Iraqi people and letting the terrorists set up a puppet government there would show the terrorists that the US still has a glass jaw. Hit us hard and we'll crumble.

If we turn our tails in Iraq we're no better than the corrupt Europeans who aren't willing to take a stand on anything.

 

[NIGHTWATCH]

Badnarik is a lunatic. Just because I happen to share a couple of his views doesn't mean I'd vote for that nut.

Im sure some colonial once shared the same view on Jefferson.

The war in Iraq is extremely important for the future credibility of the US. If we back out and leave a mess there that costs millions of lives, we will show the world that the US cannot be trusted to follow through on things and show leadership.

Turning out back on the Iraqi people and letting the terrorists set up a puppet government there would show the terrorists that the US still has a glass jaw. Hit us hard and we'll crumble.

Our (the government) credibility was lost the first time we aligned ourselves militarily with other nations and broke from constitutional doctrine. And according to recent info, the world already does not trust us. This "pre-emptive" foreign policy is only going to expediate nuclear proliferation. It will only create more fear and resolve to destroy us.

Turning our back on the Iragi people, a people that are not exactly sure if they want freedom on our terms, resulting as an inability or unwillingness to fight. The blood of our troops are too precious for the Iraqi people or an ungrateful and unworthy world. Let them fight for their freedom and pay the price. Lets bring our people home for good.

We cannot win this cultural war as a military force. We cannot afford to pay for this war that is going to be with us forever. If capitalism and an arms race brought down the former soviet union, the war on terrorism will be our downfall. That is if we continue to police the world.

What we can do is develop missle defense systems that will give us that strategic advantage that Ronald Reagan envisioned. Restore our intelligence community and our assassin network to cut the throats of our enemies while they dream of harming us. Demand alternative fuels so that our dependence on the middle east will end. And we need to give the U.N. the boot.

I voted for Bush. I like him. And I would rather have him in office than Kerry, but we need to think about how the American people are being sold out from every side by the two-party system in place. What kind of nation will our loved ones inherit? Do we even have a future taking this path? When do we turn around and fight for truth? And change the world again by example?

 

[Selfdfenz]

Badnarik is on Art Bell this week end discussing his recent arrest in the company of the Green Party candidate for pres. Funny company is it not.

Badnarik's logic (shall we say common sense) on more than one issue was pretty goofy.

I'm sure many agree with him on every point but he is just off the scale from a logic POV on a few points, Iraq being the most extreme case. Pure isolationist. (Not throwing bombs at the many Libs here that support him that I have admiration for)

If the Libs keep picking dudes like this as their presidential noms I look for the size of the party to start decreasing in the future rather than increasing. People aren't all that comfortable with strangeness and many of his points struck me as just that.

IMO

S-

 

[goon]

I have no love for Bush either.
Still though, the fact remains that he didn't push for a renewal of the AW ban. It is small, but it is about the first pro-gun thing that anyone in the government has done in the last 20 years. He has also said publicly that he believes that a law abiding citizen should be able to own guns, and that if you want to reduce crime you need to target criminals.
That is a hell of a lot more than you are going to get out of Kerry.
Bush isn't the best man for the job, not by a long shot.
But he is the only man we have.

 

[pinblaster]

The way I see it , the smart people will vote for Bush , the not so smart people will vote for Kerry , and the tinfoil hat wearing , pie in the sky Utopianists will vote for Badnarick , Nader , Jabba the Hut , Howard Johnson , Mr. Tire .... etc.

 

[Sistema1927]

Good grief folks! WAKE UP!

Bill Clinton had almost no record on guns at the time of his election, and he turned out to be the most anti-gun, anti-freedom President ever elected.

John F'n Kerry has a 20+ year anti-gun, anti-freedom record, and if elected he will make Bill Clinton look like an amateur.

We must do everything possible to ensure that John sKerry is NOT elected President. As a result, you MUST vote for the only person who can defeat him, George W. Bush.

 

[Gordon Fink]

You reject this argument when it comes to Bush (he’s the best option to a Kerry president) yet accept it for the NRA.

To be consistent, you really should reject the NRA and go for one of the other games in town, such as GOA or JPFO.

I reject your comparison.

The NRA should be more ardent, in my opinion, but the Republican leadership is actively working toward things I disagree with and lends only lukewarm support to the RKBA.

~G. Fink

 

[The Rabbi]

Bad--who?

C'mon, of course the NRA endorsed Bush. This is not only one of the closest elections in history but also one of the most important. The two major candidates represent very different views on a lot of subjects. It is a clear choice. Life will be better under Bush and terrible under Kerry. Those who think we will only have him for 4 years are missing the point that there will be at least one and most likely 3 Supreme Court vacancies to fill in the next 4 years. Kerry's baneful influence could be felt for 20-30 YEARS. Clinton's stupid AWB made life stupid and expensive in a petty way for 10 years. Why does anyone think Kerry's "achievements" wont outlast his tenure? No one in good conscience can vote Libertarian this election. This is besides Libertarianism's immoral views, but thats another thread.

 

[Selfdfenz]

Rabbi

"No one in good conscience can vote Libertarian this election. This is besides Libertarianism's immoral views, but thats another thread."

What about Constitution Party/Peroutka if you were in TX where Bush could win an election against the Devil if it were run in ...well you know where?

>>All your electoral votes are belong to Bush in TX.<<





S-

 

[NIGHTWATCH]

District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton, a Bush appointee, tells us the Second Amendment is not an individual right , parroting the same false notions that have been debunked repeatedly, and citing grossly flawed court opinions to back his assertions. In other words, when gun rights go to court, a Bush-appointed judge gives us the same results a Clinton appointee does: lies, deceit and injustice. And we're supposed to support him again so he can appoint a Walton to the U.S. Supreme Court?

And how than are Libertarian views "immoral"? If they seek to end both liberal and conservative bigotry and defend the freedom of the individual?