Second Amendment Purists

Status
Not open for further replies.
So all the Bush apologists have forgotten Bork? The senate has some say about whether Hillary and/or Chuckie will be on the supremes. If the republicans allow it it would only prove that they are weenies. Is the Republican congress full of weenies? Should we vote for the weenie party?

This is a hoot.

With a republican congress and a Socialist Prez. We will end up with gridlock.

If the president is so powerful to give us all these awful laws you talk about, why couldn't W repeal all the nasty bills that Clinton gave us.

You are trying to make us think that as pres. Bush is a weak link and as pres. Kerry will be king.

Gridlock is our only hope. Vote for Badnarik.
 
With a republican congress and a Socialist Prez. We will end up with gridlock.
Click to expand...
What if we end up with a 50/50 senate and Edwards with the deciding vote?

Not quite so rosy then. Still have the House, but that could change.

- Gabe
 
a 50/50 senate is gridlock. It takes 2/3 to confirm a supreme. It takes 60 to shut off debate.

fearmongering.

A solid republican house is not going to let Kerry do all the awful stuff you predict.

One cannot protect liberty from socialism by voting for fascism.
 
Here's one long time Libertarian that's voting Bush this year. I am extremely disappointed in Badnarick, and even though it's a long shot, Jersey could actually go Bush this time around.
 
If there were an FBI or NSA analyst reviewing these forums and threads (there are others with the same rhetoric) for "the pulse of the gun 'nuts'", I wonder just what he/she would report and just how would the "contestants" react.

In any case, I'd bet they'd be number-crunching... and they'd find that - for sure - we just are as split as a lightening-whacked pine tree.

No cohesion in Gunland USA.

No wonder we are always scratching for existence.

I'm tired - goin to bed. Have a great night.
:confused:
-Andy
 
If you treaure your freedom, your life, and your guns . . . you have no excuse not to join the NRA and vote for George Bush.
Click to expand...

It's precisely because I do treasure those things that I find Bush (and Kerry, for that matter) to be abhorrent. Bush is not a friend of our liberties, but rather has proved himself their enemy.
 
Unfortunatey, politicians today (except for a handful) feel the need to play both sides of the litmus test issues. A real politician, IMHO, embraces their core values while respecting the opinions of others. This demostrates integrity.
So... I'll be voting for Republicans because the Democrats are way out of control and the third party candidates have no chance. President Bush, for example, plays both sides of the AWB issue, but has stated in the third debate that the problem is criminals, not law-abiding citizens with firearms (or something like that). Our local US Congress candidate spoke out against the expiration of the AWB, but has an "A" rating from the NRA. I almost feel bad about returning his lawn sign, but I'm a purist so maybe I'm not wrong (even though I've probably alienated some local Republicans).
Our job is to vote for the lesser of the talking heads and stand watch letting them know how we feel , publicly or privately, whenever they stray too far. That's our responsibility and that's not changing anytime soon.
 
ShadowOne
Sometimes you have to be willing to lose a finger in order to save the hand. Only a utopian with no sense of reality doesn't understand that practicality is more effective than idealism.
Click to expand...
We've already lost a couple fingers, what use is the hand when they're all gone?
 
One can certainly be a second amendment purist at heart, and still understand, accept and engage in a fight based on political reality and the incremental nature of the issue.
Click to expand...

Very well stated.
 
I think he's quite sincere about it. Unlike Kerry, he doesn't want to take gun control to extremes, but he does want to moderately infringe on our rights. Because the Bill of Rights is just this list of suggestions, and if you've got a good reason, you don't have to follow them.
Click to expand...

Your right....but at this point you are going to have Bush or Kerry as your next president. Which one do you want? As I have said before, Bush has wrankled a few feathers on me also, but there is no way outside of a primary, that I'm going to do something that would allow someone like Kerry to be the next President. Lessors of two evils? Darn right....but IMHO Bush is a LOT less evil.....and a LOT more honorable.
 
Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil. Keep voting for evil. You'll get it. Congratulations.
Click to expand...

Make that three evils, including the LP, which is no panacea, especially with a marginally qualified candidate and looney platform.

Make that four, if you want to consider the Constitution Party, about as close to outright theocrats as you'll find. There are no panaceas, only fashionable doctrine surrounding less than ideal candidates.

To those who believe they are among the intelligentsia, vote your conscience, blah-blah, I say phooey. One does not have to be particularly bright to know that Kerry must be defeated. Compared to potential harm Kerry could do to things I care about, George Bush looks pretty darned good, certainly entitled to another four years, probably then far more productive and open without reelection as a concern.

To those who continually condemn Bush for the Patriot Act, let me offer that the lesson has been learned. The Homeland Security Act is full of concerns and oversight re civil rights, and Patriot Act II will be under a microscope. The problem is that the degree of liberty we have in the US made 9/11 possible. This close examination of the impact on liberties will go on for years to come. "Compelling government interest" is going to make some inroads on our liberties. Got better ideas? Speak up.

One thing that would help and that is not being considered is more armed citizens.

Personally, I think immigration and foreign visitor controls should be severe, every bit as much as inspection of foreign cargo. Giving the fox a pass to the hen house is not my idea of security.
 
If I were to "vote my conscience", I'd vote for myself. I'm exactly right on all the issues, and my chances of winning are as good as Bednarik's.
 
What can we do with the choice in front of us? Well, since Bush, all told, isn't "lesser" enough for me to stomach voting for, I'm casting my vote for Badnarik, just so nobody mistakes my not voting for either Dumb or Dumber as apathy. I've thought about voting for Bush, but they might make me clean up the mess after I vomit all over the voting machine. :barf:

What we do, is make damned sure we're not trapped into such a lousy choice next time. We've got to stop taking whatever garbage they decide to send our way, and get involved in picking the candidates themselves. We DO have enough votes to play kingmaker in the primaries, if we buckle down and set out to do it. Few people vote in primaries, and fewer still in the caucuses. We should start looking for somebody, right after the election, and start grooming them for 2007.

Any nominations?
 
What we do, is make damned sure we're not trapped into such a lousy choice next time.
Click to expand...

If there is a next time. If Kerry is elected because of thinking such as yours, who knows what he is capable of doing to this country. Most certainly it will be FAR worse than Klinton....heck it will probably make many long for the good old days of the Klinton Presidency.
 
We DO have enough votes to play kingmaker in the primaries, if we buckle down and set out to do it.
Click to expand...

I confess, I bristled at this. We are demonstrating now that we don't vote strategically as a block, so what makes you think we would do it later. Your statement means nothing unless you can personally decide who we should vote for. I think NRA has it right, endorsing Bush.

Liberal moles couldn't have done a better job of fragmenting the gun vote. Thankfully, I believe it is still overwhelmingly for Bush...not that everyone feels swell about it, but it just is such an obvious choice to keep Kerry out of the picture. Also, third party votes, Libertarian specifically, are such a tiny fraction, mostly keyboard commandos, anarchists, and marijuana smokers, that there won't actually be that much damage done. I believe NRA and GOA members will vote overwhelmingly for Bush.

I do actually agree that there should be a strong statement for 2008 that the GOP better serve our interests or see a mass exodus of votes, although I am not sure to where. Like the man said, "who are they going to vote for...the Democrat?" For me, it will not be LP, certainly not Constitution Party. I am not at all pleased with just token mention of gun owners in the GOP platform and doublespeak on the actual issues.

Just remember that third party votes will contribute nothing positive to selection of any new Supreme Court justices...where the rubber meets the road. With all due respect, finding a candidate who actually has a chance of being elected dog catcher or something is where those 3rd party votes belong IMHO. The liberal agenda will quickly overwhelm any idealists who imagine that they can carve out a specialized niche in sharp contrast.

I believe that one has to vote according to whatever the current make up of Congress is. Voting otherwise begs a "what have you done for me lately?" response when asking congressmen for help. Until their are a significant number of third party or independent members of Congress, I expect to continue voting Republican, when it comes to Presidential races.

Show me a party that is secular conservative and insists upon being and remaining neutral on social, religion-based issue distractions from essential government, according to the Constitution, and I'll be interested.
 
The "myoptic view" in this article is that the author is thinking inside the box. There are 3 other parties out there. The Libertarian Party is on the ballot in 49 states. I do not know about the Constitution Party, but in some states you can write in your own candidate.

A vote for Bush or Kerry is a vote for the lesser of 2 evils. They are both of the same bird.

We should also be Constitution purist as well as 2d Amendment purist. Right now the Constitution is twisting in the wind, espically after 9/11. This is all on GW's watch.
 
Go ahead and vote for your idealistic Third Party candidates. When you start squealing "sooooo-wheeee" so loud that I can hear it up here in WI, I'll plug my ears. You make your bed, you lie in it.

We have a race between a candidate who has voted for every gun-control law ever proposed, and who has sought to divide gun owners, appealing to the once-a-year hunters, and dismissing the pistol shooters, EBR shooters, competition shooters, and every other segment of the shooting community that isn't into shooting pheasants with Perazzi's. John Kerry will fulfill his obligations to the anti-gunners who are backing him now with volunteers and money.

On the other side, we have president who has advanced no anti-gun agenda whatsoever, and who has apparently decided that no gun-control bills should ever reach his desk. Under his watch, we even saw the end of one of the most twisted pieces of anti-gun legislation ever imagined, the 1994 AWB.

We endured the tenure of Bush 41, who issued an Executive Order to ban AK's, Galil's, Uzi's, and other foreign-made military-style guns. We had eight years of Bill Clinton on our backs, constantly pressing for more restrictions.

With the election of GW, we got a reprieve. A resting period. A time when we could actually go shooting instead of having to man the stations for every feel-good piece of legislation that Clinton decided would help him in the polls.

So, go ahead and vote for the Libertarian candidate, or the Constituion Party candidate, the Gerbel Party candidate, or whatever candidate from whatever unwinnable party you're panting over.

Here's the real deal, though: in 2002, we had an interim governor--Scott McCallum--who was ready to sign our concealed carry bill. We had the votes to pass the bill, but needed to out-maneuver the senate majority leader at the time, Dem. Senator Chuck Chvala. It didn't work.

The 2002 elections gave Republicans, and Democrat pro-gun legislators, the numbers to pass the bill. But a third-party candidate, Ed Thompson, took enough votes from McCallum that a former state Attorney General with a 12 year record of extreme anti-gun positions won the governor's seat. Getting concealed carry passed here under this governor will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

At the national level, the stakes are just as high.

There's idealism, there's pragmatism, and there's reality. You can choose one, or maybe two, but you won't get to choose all three.

And don't come kvetching next year if we have the new and improved Feinstein AWB bill being trumpeted by John Kerry.
 
I am a purist, but I am also a realist, and I understand that we cannot afford to allow liberal judges to be appointed during the next presidential term.
 
lesser of two evils, blah blah blah, that's the only mantra you ever hear from the third partyers.

I'm voting for Bush. To me the two evils are Kerry and the looneytarian candidate.:neener:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
For Gun Owners That Can't Quite Decide Who To Vote For Tuesday
Replies
9
Views
736
Silent-Snail
S
T
  • Locked
John F. Kerry the most anti-gun Presidential nominee Ever
Replies
7
Views
553
Roon
R
D
  • Locked
John Kerry`s Anti-Gun Record
Replies
24
Views
946
Damon
D
T
  • Locked
What gun control does John Kerry really support?
Replies
16
Views
996
GSB
G
S
  • Locked
John Kerry Wants To Ban Guns In America
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
halvey
H
Back
Top