The Importance of the Pending Elections [in regards to the future of the 2A]

How important do you think the election is, in regards to the future of the 2A?

  • Critical Importance - The Most Important in history

    Votes: 107 69.5%
  • One of the Most Important, but NOT the single-most important in history

    Votes: 32 20.8%
  • Important, but NOT critically-important

    Votes: 9 5.8%
  • NOT Very Important

    Votes: 3 1.9%
  • NOT Important At All

    Votes: 3 1.9%

  • Total voters
    154
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney, because I viewed them as lesser evils than their oponents. I cannot say the same for Trump. He will never have my vote, but neither will Hill.
Why? What has Trump done that's so unforgivable? If I remember correctly, Romney's record on gun rights was worse than many Democrats.
 
I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney, because I viewed them as lesser evils than their oponents. I cannot say the same for Trump. He will never have my vote, but neither will Hill.
If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Hillary appreciates your self righteous choice!
 
Why? What has Trump done that's so unforgivable? If I remember correctly, Romney's record on gun rights was worse than many Democrats.]

Well if we just pretend hes been consistently pro-gun. Hes a reality star, twitter loudmouth, fake businessman (look it up hes been devested from anything with his name on it for years), glorified scam artist, incapable of having any logical discussion on any issue, never has than been a more unworthy person to seek the office, He doesn't "tell it like it is" he says the words his followers want to hear which is pretty much the opposit. I won't get into non-gun issues other than to say what hes actually on recordof saying personal liberty wise other than gun rights has been pretty abhorrent.

I'm not voting for hillary by not supporting him, those who nominated him pretty much handed her the office.
 
Last edited:
Can a GOP filibuster proof Senate stall supreme court nominations for four to eight years?
Can this populace be depended upon to stay right of center for four to eight years?
Can the GOP in the House keep the majority and will the Speaker stay the anti-gun hands?
This is a critical presidential election, but not as critical as increasing the pro gun Congress members.
 
Well if we just pretend hes been consistently pro-gun. Hes a reality star, twitter loudmouth, fake businessman (look it up hes been devested from anything with his name on it for years), glorified scam artist, incapable of having any logical discussion on any issue, never has than been a more unworthy person to seek the office, He doesn't "tell it like it is" he says the words his followers want to hear which is pretty much the opposit. I won't get into non-gun issues other than to say what hes actually on recorded of saying personal liberty wise other than gun rights has been pretty abhorrent.

I'm not voting for hillary by not supporting him, those who nominated him pretty much handed her the office.
The bottom line is that you're throwing away your vote, which is a vote for Hillary. Trump has met with different conservative leaders on issues like religion and gun rights and they're satisfied that he will keep his word to them.

Here's the deal. I don't like the guy either, but at least there's a small chance that he'll do what he's said he will do. With Hillary we know exactly what we'll get, with Trump there's a chance for something much better. What more do you need to know?
 
If that's true, it's thanks to people like yourself.

I can live with that, I honestly cannot see either of them being any worse than the other. And by the way theres plenty of Hillary supporters feeding the Bernie fans the exact same line.
 
That's exactly her goal, let violence victims sue the gun industry out of business, its the only way they can potentially win. It has nothing to do with crime reduction and everything to do with putting gun makers out of business.
 
I'm still standing by for the big 80-million-gun-owner uprising that I've been repeatedly assured was going to materialize if they tried to severely restrict the 2nd amendment.:rolleyes:
Unfortunately, I know exactly how all this ultimately ends up (i.e. 'not good'), but I've had my ears boxed here and on a couple other forums, everytime I've articulated it. Not because it isn't true, but because nobody wants to hear it.
But so far, my pedictions that we go out with a whimper instead of a bang, seem to gradually be bearing out. We all see what's happening, and it's steadily escalating, but nearly everyone is loathe to admit it, and NOBODY is doing anything substantlively to affect it.
Everybody is waiting on SOMEBODY ELSE to start the big 'revolution'.
Well, you guys can beat your chests and yammer about your imagined "Red Dawn" scenarios, but when it all shakes out, we ARE going to all be emasculated and engulfed by the coming global order.
Sure, you can claim that you're going to go down fighting, surrounded by a big pile of brass, and yeah, a few of us may well do that, but that still won't alter or slow what IS coming.
GROW up, WAKE up, and deal with what is REALLY happening here, because "the times, they are a changin' ".
 
This idea that voting for a zero-chance 3rd party canidate sends some kind of "message" is so pathetically naive I don't think there's any way to rationalize around it.
I have voted for a 3rd party candidate in the past, but with what's at stake for gun owners this time (along with other issues), there is no way I'd consider voting 3rd party this time.
 
Post #40 makes a very good point, one that most people miss. The term "litmus test" has been derided in politics but there are issues that serve as a good test, if you understand the principle of an actual chemical litmus test and make the analogy to politics and other decision making.

A litmus test does not tell the complete chemical composition, reactivity or other relevant data about a specific substance. It does, however, provide a basic understanding of likely reactions with other substances.

In politics, a litmus test issue does not and can not tell you everything about a particular candidate pr party. But their reaction to a specific issue can inform your opinion and decision making regarding that candidate or party and other issues.

Thus, any candidate or party that endorses a negative view of firearms can be reasonably presumed to also take a negative view of individual liberty, responsibility and accountability.

Further, neither party is truly conservative anymore, nor have they been for a long time. John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, would be considered extreme right and un-electable in today's political arena and the Democrats are the communists Joe McCarthy tried to warn us about. I would be tickled pink to see both current parties self destruct this election, as neither represents a majority of their supposed constituencies.

It's been mentioned at least once, I'll throw in here with a comment. Talk of eventual revolution is lacking a grasp of history. The American Revolution was an anomaly. There have been many peaceful revolutions in world history, but only one successful armed revolution. Before you mention the French Revolution, remember that their armed revolt against the monarchy was immediately followed by the Reign of Terror under Robespierre and only succeeded in a stable democracy after cooler heads (weak pun) prevailed. In every other armed revolution in world history, the people came out worse than before. Peaceful revolutions, however, have some success to show. Do you really want to roll the dice again? When you beat the house once, it's time to take your chips to a new game. That new game should be more people getting involved in the political process to break up the stranglehold these two current parties have on national elections.
 
Last edited:
...

Thus, any candidate or party that endorses a negative view of firearms can be reasonably presumed to also take a negative view of individual liberty, responsibility and accountability.


...

That's got it, right there. "Palladium of liberty," and all that.
 
90% are voting for #1 or #2. That is a good sign for THR membership as a whole. The majority here do not post.

The silent majority if you will. :)
 
It's a shame to see so many seemingly well educated/well versed folks who are so ignorant to the reality of politics.

If you really believe "popular vote" matters, or that our electorates of the EC actually vote what the people say, well I've got some ocean front property in Nevada you'd probably like.

Lobbying, special interests and corruption have long ruled the day for quite some time.

But feel free to keep participating in "the show".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top