Thoughts and questions from a right-leaning gun owner in the run-up to Election '08

[the pistolero]

Does anyone else here who leans to the right and the Republican Party feel like we're being discounted?
I read many conservative blogs from time to time in addition to several newspapers, and the names that keep on popping up as the best chance to get the GOP nomination in 2008 are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. McCain seems to have earned no small amount of enmity from the right due to the Gang of 14 filibuster deal, CFR, etc. So who's left? Giuliani, and we all know he's no friend of gun owners. But it seems to me that our concerns about Rudy are being marginalized in the name of the War on Islamic Extremism. Now, far be it from me to say the Islamists are not a grave existential threat or do not at least have the potential to be. I agree with the Giuliani cheerleaders that if we all die, nothing else is going to matter...but still, all the issues we had to deal with before Sept. 11 are still there on the table -- Social Security, out-of-control spending, the deficit, gun laws, etc. ...and they're all still going to have to be dealt with even as the larger threats are tackled. As far as the gun laws are concerned, we all know that once those are put in place, no matter at what level, they seem to be pretty much set in stone...NFA '34, GCA '68, the draconian D.C. gun laws, and the list goes on. It seems to me sometimes that as gun owners we are being told that our concerns don't matter, that we're basically being told to "sit down, shut up and vote for who we tell you to vote for." I said it on my blog, but I'll say it here too...I really don't think telling 60 million voting-age people that their concerns don't matter is all that sound of a political strategy. And as far as nothing else mattering if we're all dead, I keep thinking of what Winston Churchill said once upon a time, "You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Perhaps some might think that observation extreme in light of something like a Rudy Giuliani candidacy, but if we keep willing to throw freedoms on the fire that many good men and women have fought and died for, that's exactly what we'll end up being -- slaves. (After gun licenses, what next? Safe storage requirements? Registration? "Ballistic fingerprinting?" Where does it end, Rudy??? ) Call me the eternal optimist, but there has to be a better choice for us out there. There just has to be. And I for one am sick and tired of being made to think my concerns don't matter. Anyone else? Thoughts?

 

[SolaScriptura139]

I kinda feel the same way. I can say 100% that if those two are my only options for the republicans, I won't vote, at least for the republicans (never for the Democrats). I personally feel that while there is danger from the Middle East, I think it's very extreme for any politician to say that it won't matter if we're all dead. It's unlikely, from my perspective, that it will come to that, and if it does come to that kind of war, shouldn't every citizen be armed? I mean, it just makes sense. ANY politician who tells me how to think will not get my vote.

 

[beerslurpy]

Uh, the mainstream media is the one trumpeting the ascendancy of McCain and Guiliani. They want a RINO president because if they can get two one-world, nanny-state socialists to run against each other, they have basically won before the election even happens. This is the main gripe I had about the 04 election, being stuck with a choice between Kerry and Bush.

There are conservative republicans out there, I'm sure of it.

Off the top of my head...
Newt Gingrich isnt too bad as conservatives go.
Tom Tancredo is a worthy contender.
Bill Frist? He is pro-gun and also conservative.
Jeb Bush has been an awesome governor, but the stink left behind by his brother pretty much precludes him from running.

Ultimately, who is to blame if there arenty any politically prominent conservatives out there? Look in the mirror. If youre 50-70 years old, rich and conservative, you should be running for office instead of living as an ex-pat or playing golf.

 

[CarbineKid]

Guys three words for you: President Hilary Clinton. If that doesn't scare you enough to vote Republican, I don't know what will.

 

[Kim]

I agree with the above the Liberal MSM would love Gulliani on social issues. MCcain probably could win as he would be 1 million times better than a Democrat. Gulliani almost NO chance. Just wait till his personal life and his view of social issues become known. No chance. It is the elite Liberal Repubs dream and they are a small small number of people.

 

[Harry Paget Flashman]

I have voted Republican my whole life. I am leaning toward voting against incumbents in the future in order to get some fresh blood elected. The best way to make a politician listen is to vote him out of office.

 

[Kelly J]

the pistolero, This is my humble opinion but to me I really don't see a viable Candidate for 08 as yet, The issues are really inportant to us all, to ellect a man that is a known Anti Gun, person, or a man that has efectivlly destroyed our First Amendment Rights before an election which has accomplished two things, one showed us that the President signed into law, a law that is Unconstititional, and no one seems to care, two this same law muzzels the NRA and like Groups, on the Gun Issues, and just a point of FACT there is not a single law on the books that limits, restricts, or denies Gun ownership, that is not also in and of themselves a VIOLATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, and not one Supreme Court Judge has Chalenged that fack nor has there beenm any effort from anyone that I am aware of to get these laws removed from the books.

Until we as a nation return to a Republic Form of Government we are going to be in a very huge pile of you know what.

As to the 08 election if it should come to Clinton, McCain, or yes even Giuliani I truly feel that the Country looses no matter which one wins, and in this one I personally don't even see a lesser of evils to choose from.

I trully think it comes down to the old saying "things will get worse before they get better", How much worse do they need to get before the American People wake up and regain control of our Government????

 

[Kelly J]

Here is an off the wall thought, How about putting Newt Gingrich on the Republican ticket for President and lets say, just for the sake of things lets put Zel Miller on the Ticket as a VP candidate. Or if you like reverse the order. eigther of these two would be better that what is being talke about.

Who do we have in the third Parties as Possible Canidadates?

 

[Robert Hairless]

Four questions.

Let's say that the people who want to own guns don't vote Republican or don't vote at all. And let's say that the people who don't want them to own guns vote Democrat.

Question 1: Under those circumstances which party--Republican or Democrat--will get more votes? Hint: If 1 person decides not to vote and 1 person votes Democrat, how many votes would there be and which party would get it?

Question 2: If the Democrats get more votes, and their policies and constituency are anti-gun, is there a chance that guns will be banned and/or confiscated? Hint: What happened in New Orleans?

Question 3. Do you think guns will be confiscated for keeps, or do you think that the guns will be stored somewhere nice with a record of their owners so they can be returned if at some time the gun owners can win a victory and make the nasty laws go away?

Question 4: If nobody can own guns, how can there be any gun owners?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I learned one thing from Bush. Never vote for the lesser of two evils.

If the House and Senate are still in Republican hands in 2008, we would be better off with a Democratic president.

Gridlock is the only thing that saves us from politicians.

 

[thunderchicken_83]

dhdsbh

 

[Robert Hairless]

If the House and Senate are still in Republican hands in 2008, we would be better off with a Democratic president.

And if the House and Senate are not still in Republican hands in 2008, maybe we would not be better off with a Democratic president.

 

[Mr.V.]

Robert Hairless--

your rhetorical questions aren't proving much of anything. Republicans against guns are FAR more dangerous than liberals against guns. Liberals mostly will be against guns, but when conservatives elect an anti-gun "conservative" it allows anti-gunners to say they have a bipartisan MANDATE against them.

So, at least to me, it's much safer having a gun-grabbing liberal in office than a gun-grabbing conservative...

Also how does your Katrina hint lead us to any conclusion that voting for Democrats would be worse? For the last 8 frickin' years we've had a Repulican house, a Republican senate, a Republican president, and a Republican judiciary. Let me ask you some questions...
Why did the national guard, led by a Republican commander-in-chief in a moderately Republican state, confiscate citizens' firearms? Where are all our gun-rights that should have been reinstated? Where are the court rulings demanding that if States are prohibited in denying citizens equal protection under the law for the 1st amendment, the same should hold true for the second?

They've had 8 years to enact policy to these ends. 8 years and they've done nothing. (I'll grant you one...they allowed the AWB to sunset by essentially doing nothing. Whoopee for states that didn't already have sucky gun-control laws.)

 

[Koobuh]

"Guys three words for you: President Hilary Clinton. If that doesn't scare you enough to vote Republican, I don't know what will."

But, that's the point we're making. All this doom-n-gloom about Hillary taking the oval office is designed to make us vote republican to avoid that outcome. Regardless of what kind of snake-in-the-grass they will try to foist on us this time around.

I am really, really getting tired of this bad argument.
I want a solid, conservative President that won't stab me and the Constitution in the face after being elected.
Damn the 'War on Terror', damn 'blasted Libs!', damn 'Christian values'. These issues don't matter to me, as they are periferals, and are not the qualifications I will be considering when I look very, very angrily at my ballot in two years.

I believe the last few years have demonstrated to full effect the folly of expecting 'our guys' to get the 'job' done if only we elect them to office and support them to the hilt.

 

[bowline]

I'm hoping Allen gets the nomination. No way I'll vote for Giuliani or McCain. Just too easy for them to stab gun owners in the back.
What really gets my goat is that, bill of rights notwithstanding, I have to be seriously concerned, every time an election rolls around, about losing a fundamental right.
We need either supreme court recognition of the second, in clear terms, or another law passed that not only upholds the bill of rights but states serious penalties for attempts to modify, undercut or destroy same under color of law.

 

[Fred Fuller]

If in the first place you are one who thinks your vote still counts for something (in spite of all the Diebold and other 'black box' voting machine stories), IF you would all vote for something OTHER THAN "the lesser of two evils," then perhaps we wouldn't all be in this handbasket we're in, smelling the smoke and fumes.

Meanwhile, doing what you've always done and expecting something different to happen is not very bright. As long as you are convinced that no one other than one or the other member of the two- party coalition can win, and you won't vote for anyone else other than the Demorat or Republicon offering, guess what?

Dunno why anyone persists in trying to talk politics on gun boards anyway, it always boils down to the same thing.

lpl/nc

 

[saltydog]

Guys three words for you: President Hilary Clinton. If that doesn't scare you enough to vote Republican, I don't know what will.

I didn't think people with the 2nd Ammendment and guns could be scared.

 

[the pistolero]

beerslurpy -- awesome list of candidates, and I was thinking of some of them myself, most notably Tom Tancredo and Newt Gingrich. As for the Hillary mention, all I could think was, there they go again, pulling out the HILLARY! boogity-boogity-boogity-man...no offense intended, Carbine, but that's exactly what the party apparatchiks pushing McCain and/or Giuliani keep trotting out in the attempt to get us gun owners in line with their agenda. And all I can say to that is, would Hillary really be all that much worse than Rudy Giuliani? Either way, we lose. If it comes down to Rudy vs. Hillary, our only hope is to maintain control of Congress, and even then it's a dicey affair, what with RINOs like Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee and Mike DeWine contaminating the Republican side of the Senate.

Republicans against guns are FAR more dangerous than liberals against guns. Liberals mostly will be against guns, but when conservatives elect an anti-gun "conservative" it allows anti-gunners to say they have a bipartisan MANDATE against them.

Interesting argument, and right on the money, too. I had never thought of it like that, but, of course, that's what certain leftist East Coast journalists are intimating with Michael Bloomberg's war on the gun industry and the new Republican president of Handgun Control -- the whole bipartisan aspect of it -- and with someone like Rudy Giuliani in the White House, we'd really be in trouble.

What really gets my goat is that, bill of rights notwithstanding, I have to be seriously concerned, every time an election rolls around, about losing a fundamental right.

The heck with you and your rights, if you die, nothing else matters.
Seriously, though, that's another observation that's just dead on the money. More often than not I wonder if the Giuliani cheerleaders have the slightest idea of what they're advocating beyond the War on Islamic Extremism -- namely, more of the same tripe we had under eight years of the Clintons. I guess it's true what they say -- love is blind -- but I really wish they'd stop and think, because it's getting tiresome. And it's still early yet! :banghead:

I am really, really getting tired of this bad (Hillary) argument.
I want a solid, conservative President that won't stab me and the Constitution in the face after being elected.

Amen, and amen.

 

[saltydog]

Here we go again with the "who's better on gun control thing". The Republicans or the Democrats. As far as PRESIDENTS go, there is no difference. Regan, Bush Sr. and Clinton are as bad as you can get. Bush jr. hasn't been put on the spot to show his true colors, which is good. Actually Clinton did less damage than the other two mentioned, at least you got your "evil features" back with a 10 year sunset clause. From the other two guys, machine guns and so called non importable assault weapons are "GONE FOREVER"!

The House and the Senate are other issues.

 

[Art Eatman]

It's way too early to have any rational clue about real-world probabilities about
the next President. It's all speculation.

We know the Senate is at best lukewarm for "our cause", now. It might go against us; I don't know.

It seems to me that the present structure of the House of Representatives is our best hope. While an anti-gun bill may pass the Senate, and be introduced in the House, we have quite reasonable odds of defeating it--which means there is nothing for a President to sign.

So, for whatever my opinion is worth, voting for a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives is in no way voting for "the lesser of two weevils".

Art

 

[longeyes]

...except the likelihood, the way it's looking right now, is that the GOP loses the House this fall. Then what?

In the end, it comes down to one thing: either we really have a Second Amendment and it means what it says, or we don't. And if we have one and it means what it says, are we willing to to make that stand against all the forces arrayed against us? "Molon labe" was, is, and will be the answer; it's not romantic, it's the only realism around.

As for '08, who know if there will even be an '08 Election? I expect major tumult on the foreign front before the Election happens and, frankly, all bets are off stateside if Congress passes an arrogantly stupid illegal immigration amnesty bill next year. The American people are going to go through shock therapy in the next two years. That should be highly interesting. Fasten your seat belts.

I don't believe we can any longer count on gridlock to save this Republic. That worked in the old days when there was some kind of connection between the will of the people and our representatives in government. No longer. The fact is a relatively small number of people run America from stem to stern. That is both an ugly truth and yet, in its own dark way, hopeful. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Brigrat]

The last four years, and the liberalization of the republican party in california was enough to convince me to register libratarian when I recently relocated to SE New Mexico!!!

Perhaps the republicans can still win my vote, but they are going to have to earn it. When a Democrat Gov in New Mexico can be more conservative and pro 2nd amendmant than a Republican Gov in California, it is time to reconsider party affiliation.

 

[SomeKid]

Bill Frist? He is pro-gun and also conservative.

Beer, he is a spineless coward. He has shifted his position with the wind on a few issues, stem-cells, border security, you get the idea. He would be no better than a Bush in the White House.

 

[Deanimator]

Guys three words for you: President Hilary Clinton. If that doesn't scare you enough to vote Republican, I don't know what will.

As a gunowner, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between her and Giuliani. And I say this as a pro-abortion liberal.

I will NEVER vote for Giuliani. I wouldn't care if he ran against a Hillary/Hugo Chavez ticket. Look at the NYPD's record under Giuliani. Do you want him in control of the BATFE?

The Republicans aren't going to run Giuliani, but if they did, that's the election I sit out.

No Wacos, no Diallos. Neither Hillary nor Giuliani.

 

[longeyes]

No Hillary, no Giuliani, no McCain?

And your plan to stop them is to not vote or just withdraw?

The point is, we all know that no candidate who cares about liberty as we understand it on this forum is going to get near the nomination of either major party, much less get elected.

And that leaves us where? After one of the anointed candidates gets elected?

As marginalized dissidents?