Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

PART 3

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Vern Humphrey, Feb 5, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,513
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    I'm going to get into this debate -- many of us have railed at the original poster, but there are several points we need to make:

    1. The election of 2006 was a defeat for us. You can paint it any way you want, but the most liberal anti-gunners now hold the committee chairmanships in Congress. They may bide their time a bit, but be sure they haven't put aside their anti-gun policies.

    2. We -- conservatives in general and gun-owners in particular -- don't work to further our policies. How many here are members of their local Democratic or Republican Committees? How many work to raise money for pro-gun candidates? How many are willing to run for office themselves, or serve on the campaigns of those who will?

    3. We wrangle too much amongst ourselves -- we want to fight or kick out politicians who are our allies, but not "perfect." We don't pull together to seek and support the best candidates we can get -- even if they aren't "perfect."

    4. We need a new strategy at the top level -- and like it or not, that's the NRA. It's a different world politically since last November, and we need to adapt to that world so we don't go down in total defeat.
     
  2. Lucky

    Lucky Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,919
    Location:
    Calgary, near Rocky Mountains - Canada
    If you have two mainstream politicians who are both legitimately harmful to your cause, but one is simply less harmful, why would you not support a third-party candidate? It's like having a choice between Cyanide, arsenic, and coffee.

    "Dude, arsenic isn't that bad, do you want to get stuck with cyanide????!!!111 No-one else will ever pick coffee, you're the only one, so be a team player and pick arsenic with the rest of us..."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_5Ek5BfDu4
     
  3. Smurfslayer

    Smurfslayer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,296
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
    I probably shouldn't...

    As I said in another posting, in a thread far, far away...

    William Jefferson Clinton:
    The best thing that ever happened to the Republican party.


    We specifically did not lose ( that's lose, not loose btw ), we were collateral damage suffered by various advocacy constituencies affected by the unpopular war in Iraq. It is unfortunate that the Bill of Rights is affected this way, but it is the nature of our republic. Think of it kind of like white water rafting, you can be going along fine, next thing you know you're being pummelled by rocks and your boat is bottom up. Once you're in the water, you don't give up, you fight that much harder.

    With all due respect, based on some of the responses to OP's somewhat controversial post, we wouldn't be well served by some of the respondents in that thread running for office; me included. Your points are just a few ways that people can contribute but the list is not exclusive. We can easily work within the existing framework by emailing, calling and faxing Congress directly. Those of us local can engage them in person and many of us have. Not as many as I'd like, but more than just me for sure.

    Let's fully discuss 'perfect' as opposed to 'best candidates we can get'. If the best 'pro gun' candidate is Giuliani, I'm writing in Ted Nugent. Absolutely no way I vote for "America's Thug". Nobody can even intelligently argue that Giuliani has done anything but <deleted by Smurfslayer due to questionable content> on the Constitution and the 2A in particular. The other "annointed" front runners haven't shown tremendous respect for us either. The question becomes do we support a candidate in the primary with a lesser chance of prevailing who is best aligned with our position or the one who is not aligned with our position but "polls higher" ? Maybe it's my upbringing but I think it's unethical to vote for someone whom I have a fundamental disagreement with over something as important as 2A. Of course, that is my value which I am entitled to. I am not entitled to enforce it upon anyone else.

    I disagree wholeheartedly, and rebut this presumption as follows.

    NRA-ILA is not, nor can it ever be the end all, be all of 2A support. There is a fundamental disconnect between constitutional rights, and the ILA campaign of "permitted carry". The latter is a state granted privilege for which there are many requirements and it can be revoked on a whim. ILA, while effective, has cast it's broad appeal to the sportsmen crowd, which demographically is the largest contingent of active gun owners. More than a few things get left by the wayside - Open Carry - which ironically is more accurately described as "right to carry" is totally unsupported by ILA. NFA ownership, assistance and legislation just to name 2. ILA has repeatedly been asked to help out with getting the Parks ban repeal and the list goes on. However, their resources are not limitless so we cannot reasonably expect them to be everything to everyone. That is where grassroots and more focused advocacy groups come in to the picture. But for these more focused groups a great deal of legislation would look a lot worse than it came out in law. Say what you will, but ILA is successful in getting candidates elected, getting legislation through - even if it is to the benefit of the industry, and not the members, and getting membership. There is an ebb and flow in politics. NRA-ILA has simply been caught up in that ebb and flow. I am not saying that ILA is not in need of new direction, fresh blood, etc. just that it is not so important that everyone must drop what they are doing to correct it. Once a few other 2A/RKBA advocacy groups gain more recognition and success, it will help correct any issues left with ILA.

    As for adapting, many of us have been doing that since before 11/06. If we all focused on the Congressional reciprocity bills for example, do you really think that we would be ignored entirely? But we all do not support the current bills for a variety of reasons. The thing to do is to get idea, support and someone to introduce a bill. Then we need to follow through and put pressure on to pass it. NRA-ILA isn't the only group capable of getting a bill submitted. With enough pressure a Rep or Senator will introduce a bill for you, but it's up to the constituency to keep the heat on.
     
  4. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,513
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Because no matter how much you want Coffee, Cyanide or Arsenic will win.

    Who will not vote for the lesser of two evils votes for the greater of those two evils.
     
  5. FeebMaster

    FeebMaster Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    275
    The only thing saving you guys is that the anti-gunners are at least as incompetent as the pro-gunners and generally more ignorant.
     
  6. Lucky

    Lucky Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,919
    Location:
    Calgary, near Rocky Mountains - Canada
    It'd be better to be forced to eat cyanide against your will than to voluntarily ingest arsenic. The end result is the same, the time frame is slightly quicker, but at least you stood your ground.
     
  7. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,513
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    That's like saying the bullet that hit us didn't have our name and address engraved on it. But it hit us, just the same.

    And if we don't wake up and smell the coffee, we won't have any gun rights in a few years.
     
  8. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,513
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    In Gallic Wars, Ceasar points out that many Gallic tribes had a custom to never quit the battlefield. As a result, when they lost a battle to the more efficient Romans, they stayed around and were butchered. Eventually, they woke up and smelled the coffee and learned to live to fight another day -- but by then their tribes had lost so many men they had no chance.

    Suicide is not a winning strategy. Saving as much as you can when the dice go against you is much more intelligent.

    Vote for the lesser of two evils, and survive to fight again in the next election.
     
  9. Lucky

    Lucky Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,919
    Location:
    Calgary, near Rocky Mountains - Canada
    You definitely make some good points, I'm swayed, but torn.
     
  10. average_shooter

    average_shooter Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,269
    Location:
    mn
    Well then, we're screwed anyway, so why bother fighting at all? You just die tired...
     
  11. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,513
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    One of the reasons we're losing is because our opponents understand politics much better than we do. They understand that merely wanting something is not enough -- we must work for what we want.

    They also understand this is a long struggle -- and there will be setbacks as well as victories. They understand they cannot win all they want in a single election.

    They would never say, "Well then, we're screwed anyway, so why bother fighting at all?" Instead, they would say, "We'll take what we can get. If we lose, we work to minimize our losses, if we win, we capitalize on victory."

    Right now, we're in a minimizing our losses mode, and planning the next battle in '08.
     
  12. average_shooter

    average_shooter Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,269
    Location:
    mn
    So why not work for a third party candidate? I really don't understand this "lesser of two evils" "throwing away the vote on third parties" thing. The lesser of two evils, or as many evils as you wish to compare, is still evil. Sorry, this just makes me very :cuss: :fire:

    All too often I see the argument that third parties never get anywhere. But they can't get anywhere because of all the people who say they can't without giving them a shot. We need to be working for more people like Ron Paul, and a lot of people like him are third party candidates.
     
  13. Selfdfenz

    Selfdfenz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,955
    Location:
    Small-sky country, again
    Vern my man.....:confused:
    Me thinks perhaps you torture logic...
    TC
    S-
     
  14. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,513
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Because our system of government, with its separation of powers means there can only be two parties. The only time a Third Party has won is when one of the two major parties collapsed (as in the election of 1860.) And, of course, that meant there were still only two parties.

    In a parliamentary system, where the majority party selects the head of state (the prime minister), then a small party can have clout -- by combining with other parties to form a majority coalition. In the US, that doesn't work.

    Even if a Third Party candidate wins, what can he do? He has no allies in the Congress to help him put his agenda in place -- so you see that where Third party Candidates are elected, they have to join either the Republican or Democrat caucuses -- and automatically become Republicans or Democrats, despite what they call themselves. And they have to pay a price for joining those caucuses -- which is to support the party they have joined.
     
  15. bogie

    bogie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,569
    Location:
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    Guys.

    You're missing something.

    The Democratic Underground wants us to vote 3rd party. It wants the shooting community to work their asses off for 3rd party candidates.

    That's all fine and dandy for local elections. Run for mayor, or encourage someone else to. Even try for state elections.

    But for national elections, where the winner gets to promote their agenda for national policy, it's generally best to vote AGAINST candidates who you don't wish to have in office. This occasionally requires the holding of one's nose while inside the polling facility, but hey.

    Here's how it works:

    A major vote will probably hit Congress next year. This year, you've got three candidates for Congresscritter:

    Steve 49%
    Allen 49%
    Mark 1%
    Undecided 1%

    One of the three is going to be elected. You're Undecided.

    Now, Mark's a great guy, would probably be a great congresscritter, but he didn't have any budget for advertising, and his people didn't really get his name out there. He's who you _want_ to vote for, but he has zero chance of getting elected... You vote for him anyway.

    So there we have...

    Steve 49%
    Allen 49%
    Mark 2%

    And it gets into recount area. There's a chance you won't like the end result.

    Steve is a politician. He's 90% going to vote in a way you won't like.

    Allen is a politician. He's 10% going to vote in a way you won't like.

    They're both slimy. You stay home.

    Steve 49%
    Allen 49%
    Mark 1%

    Same result.

    But if you vote for Allen, you've got a 90% chance of coming out ahead when he votes.

    Steve 49%
    Allen 50%
    Mark 1%

    That's better than NO chance.

    The undecided votes are swing votes. And "stolen" votes count double. Work for Allen. Let him know WHY you are working for him. This may increase his voting in your issue's favor to 95%. That's a good thing. And every vote you can "steal" from the other side is a vote less for Steve.

    Steve 48%
    Allen 51%
    Mark 1%
     
  16. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,513
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    No, methinks I have worked in our political system long enough to understand how it functions. Read Bogie's post above, he has hit the nail on the head.
     
  17. HiroProX

    HiroProX Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    546
    Lucky, I rarely sig statements by other posters, but "cyanide, arsenic, and coffee" is made of 100% pure win.
     
  18. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,105
    Location:
    Idaho
    Vern...

    Unfortunately, your argument is based on the assumption that everyone believes that the 2ndA is the most important of all. I no longer believe that. The 1st and 4th are under serious assault and are right up there along with other issues such as border security, IMO.
    I don't much care for cyanide or arsenic. Either way, you get dead.

    Biker
     
  19. wizard of oz

    wizard of oz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    128
    Location:
    the lucky country
    I would say that the best way to protect firearms rights is to exercise them - that means buying or collecting, hunting, using ranges etc. and encouarging others to do the same. Putting money into that part of the economy.

    Politically, in my state of NSW (Aust), the shooters party (http://www.shootersparty.org.au/) holds one seat in the upper house.
    "It is the only political party in the world with an elected representative in any parliament, with the basic platform of representing and defending shooter interests" A great achievement I think. Of course, no chance of winning a seat in the lower house against either of the major parties.

    The US Constitution protects human rights in a way that the Australian constitution does not - so we are largely at the mercy of our legislature here.
    With the Second Amendment in place, it seems to me that the US is in a very good situation. The Fifth Amendment "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." should be a great incentive to spend money on firearms also. We were saved to some degree here by the fact that it cost the state a lot to "buy back" :barf: our possessions.
     
  20. MrDig

    MrDig Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,662
    Location:
    Where all the women are strong, the men are good l
    A third party could work if 50% of the voting population voted for it. A good Middle of the Road Candidate could effectively leave only 25% left wing and 25% right wing. I know it's utopian but hey it's the way things should work.
    I used this argument in another thread but, Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
    If we stopped voting Democrat or Republican do you think they would get it?
    The problem is not one or the other it is both.
     
  21. oldfart

    oldfart Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    767
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    I tried working "within" the system once. The results were inconclusive but if others had done the same thing it might have made a difference.
    I was registered as a Democrat (still am, though I vote somewhat to the right of Attilla the Hun.) I managed to get elected to a very minor position in my precinct. Some of the higher precinct Democrats asked me to distribute about sixty pounds of handbills for some of their candidates. I was supposed to hang them on gateposts, doorknobs, whatever. Instead, I took the whole load to a local recycler.
    Now, I don't know if my tactic had anything to do with the outcome of the election, but if every other precinct had experienced something similar I think the results would have been obvious.
    By the way, I wasn't re-elected. Oh well...:evil:
    That is the sort of activism required to make a difference though. When some college kid comes through your neighborhood distributing propaganda think about doing your civic duty and following behind him, cleaning up the neighborhood. Does some candidate for office want to outlaw guns? Pick up all of his campaign signs and toss 'em in a dumpster. Is that illegal? Well, so is infringing on the Second Amendment. By the way, the plastic election signs make great backing for targets.
    Instead of saying (begin Girly-man voice) "Oh, we don't want people to think we're law-breakers," (resume normal voice) remember that some of the founders actually killed people they disagreed with. Now, don't go out and kill those anti-gun candidates (that would create a mess) just use your imaginations and kill their campaigns.
     
  22. Alan Fud

    Alan Fud Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,444
    Location:
    Sol-III
    Truer words have never been spoken!
     
  23. lamazza

    lamazza Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,081
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    There is no more lesser!
    McCain
    Hillary
    Giuliani
    Obama


    Ron Paul

    pick one!
     
  24. bogie

    bogie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,569
    Location:
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    Pick a lesser, that has a chance, and let them know, in no uncertain terms, why you are working for and voting for them.

    And how you expect them to vote.

    Enough people do that, and it makes a difference.
     
  25. antsi

    antsi Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,398
    ------quote-------
    It's like having a choice between Cyanide, arsenic, and coffee.
    ------------------

    Except that coffee isn't really a choice. You can vote "coffee" all you want, but what that choice really gets you is cyanide.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page