NIGHTWATCH
Member
The Art of Deception
Its all a front. The AWB will die.
Its all a front. The AWB will die.
USA: "In surprise move, Bush backs renewal of assault weapons ban "
- Thread starter cuchulainn
- Start date
- Status
twoblink
Member
Read between the lines people. "I'll sign it... IF it passes". That's the "hint hint, nudge nudge"..
IF it passes. The ban is gonna die. We just gotta make sure we drone our congress critters about it.
IF it passes. The ban is gonna die. We just gotta make sure we drone our congress critters about it.
dustind
Member
Boats, and some of the other Libertarian bashers, which direction do you want this country to move a few inches? A little more towards socialism, a police state, anti constitution, less individual freedom, less privacy, etc. Or... a few inches closer to individual freedom, a smaller gov, maybe a few constitutional rights restored (wouldn't hold my breath, but hopefully we wouldn't see any more gone) etc.
I don't think electing a Libertarian president would turn the USA into anarchy(nor do i think they're anarcists). I dont think libertarians can win this year, but if everyone wasn't afraid to vote for whom they truly wanted in office, I bet they would have a chance against the other two jokers. If they do get votes, maybe the other parties will adopt some of their ideas?? I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. (and being 20 I've only voted twice) If the libertarians can run a good candidate, i will vote for him. What would i be telling Bush if i vote for him again after he stole my constitutional rights. The fact that he doesn't actively grab guns isn't good enough for me when the rest of my rights fall left and right.
To stay somewhat on topic, i think we will win the AW war, but we should all right or call our reps, and Bush, every three months to make sure. I think Bush would sign it, but hopes and will push behind the scenes for it to never leave committee. That is the best move for him vote wise, and lets him do the right thing/what he wants to do.
Me, I am a "small l" libertarian, the closer we get to true libertarianism the less I and others will push their ideas, or care which direction we move, and be likely to vote them in. The further we get, the harder people will push. I think everyone will agree we need to be less authoritarian, and more libertarian.
I don't think electing a Libertarian president would turn the USA into anarchy(nor do i think they're anarcists). I dont think libertarians can win this year, but if everyone wasn't afraid to vote for whom they truly wanted in office, I bet they would have a chance against the other two jokers. If they do get votes, maybe the other parties will adopt some of their ideas?? I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. (and being 20 I've only voted twice) If the libertarians can run a good candidate, i will vote for him. What would i be telling Bush if i vote for him again after he stole my constitutional rights. The fact that he doesn't actively grab guns isn't good enough for me when the rest of my rights fall left and right.
To stay somewhat on topic, i think we will win the AW war, but we should all right or call our reps, and Bush, every three months to make sure. I think Bush would sign it, but hopes and will push behind the scenes for it to never leave committee. That is the best move for him vote wise, and lets him do the right thing/what he wants to do.
Me, I am a "small l" libertarian, the closer we get to true libertarianism the less I and others will push their ideas, or care which direction we move, and be likely to vote them in. The further we get, the harder people will push. I think everyone will agree we need to be less authoritarian, and more libertarian.
dog3
Member
I am one of those folks who is trying his best to
not become more of a cynic than I already am.
That said, I am among the rank and file of those
who feel that my vote doesn't really matter.
With that in mind, I vote libertarian.
Why? Because I strongly feel that there isn't
any difference at all between the two major
parties on any issue that matters. Therefore
I vote libertarian.
Maybe if the libertarians mattered, I would
feel differently. But right now they don't.
All those folks pulling the republican lever
because they want to protect their rights keep
the libertarians from mattering.
Vote libertarian, for a CHANGE.
Bush is anti-gun. Don't kid yourself.
not become more of a cynic than I already am.
That said, I am among the rank and file of those
who feel that my vote doesn't really matter.
With that in mind, I vote libertarian.
Why? Because I strongly feel that there isn't
any difference at all between the two major
parties on any issue that matters. Therefore
I vote libertarian.
Maybe if the libertarians mattered, I would
feel differently. But right now they don't.
All those folks pulling the republican lever
because they want to protect their rights keep
the libertarians from mattering.
Vote libertarian, for a CHANGE.
Bush is anti-gun. Don't kid yourself.
I think you are way over-estimating the number of libertarians out there. Even if you were to add every single republican that would vote libertarian if he didn’t otherwise think his vote would be “wastedâ€, I would be very shocked if you were even able to come close to winning a national level election. It is perhaps unfortunate, but the fact of the matter is that libertarians are too small a minority to matter even if several tens of thousands of republicans suddenly voted for them. This is why I say that for better or worse, a libertarian candidate will never be a part of the solution to our problems. Its just the way things are.
I beg to differ. And I could point you to quite a few things that he has done that agree with me.
seeker_two
Member
Two things that haven't been discussed yet...
ONE: No one has talked about the Republican PRIMARIES. This is the election that a candidate MUST WIN to run for the Presidency. This is a much better opportunity to show disaffectation than voting against the candidate in the general election (i.e. Dole spent nearly ALL his war chest just to win the primary--leaving little to combat the Clinton onslaught of spin & lies). If we make it clear to Bush (& any pro-2A candidates) that he will not get our votes in the primary if he signs AWBII, it may cause a pause & reconsideration of his stance (& bring those pro-2A's into the campaign).
TWO: We're discussing what Bush MAY be planning, not what he has already done. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until he actually TAKES ACTION (although the Patriot Act & amnesty for illegals causes ME pause). Three things could occur in this situation, & I'll respond to each accordingly...
That's my plan. What's yours?...
ONE: No one has talked about the Republican PRIMARIES. This is the election that a candidate MUST WIN to run for the Presidency. This is a much better opportunity to show disaffectation than voting against the candidate in the general election (i.e. Dole spent nearly ALL his war chest just to win the primary--leaving little to combat the Clinton onslaught of spin & lies). If we make it clear to Bush (& any pro-2A candidates) that he will not get our votes in the primary if he signs AWBII, it may cause a pause & reconsideration of his stance (& bring those pro-2A's into the campaign).
TWO: We're discussing what Bush MAY be planning, not what he has already done. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until he actually TAKES ACTION (although the Patriot Act & amnesty for illegals causes ME pause). Three things could occur in this situation, & I'll respond to each accordingly...
- PLAN A: Congress kills AWBII before it reaches Bush's desk. RESPONSE: I end up voting for Bush in primaries & general election.
- PLAN B: AWBII reaches Bush's desk. Bush flip-flops & doesn't sign into law. RESPONSE: I end up voting for Bush in primaries & general election AND volunteer to campaign for him.
- PLAN C: AWBII reaches Bush's desk. Bush signs into law. RESPONSE: I campaign & vote for another pro-2A in the primaries & the general election. If Bush wins primaries, I campaign & vote for a third-party pro-2A candidate. If none available, I don't vote for President BUT vote in as many pro-2A representatives as I can.
That's my plan. What's yours?...
publius
Member
Yep.
I have a question for some of you:
On the ballot in your Congressional race you find a gun-grabbing Republican, a Democrat, a Green, and a Libertarian (no such thing as a gun-grabbing one of those).
What do you do?
Silver Bullet
Member
The suggestions about grassroots activities and involvement in the primaries are the best ways to attack this problem, and are in fact the solution to probably every RKBA issue. They both involve the people getting control from the bottom up, which is (or should be) the real power base in this country.
UnknownSailor
Member
On the libertarian thing, I have come to believe that if all those declared small "L" libertarians out there were to infiltrate their local Republican parties, and try to influence things from within, they might be more successfull. As an example, I give you Ron Paul, Republican from Texas, who is Libertarian in all but name.
As to renewing the AWB, 1994 has shown what a looser gun control is. The typical gun-grabber mouthpieces will make lots of news confrences (Feinstein, Schumer, Brady, et. al), and the media will do their typical half-truth/out right lying reporting, but nothing much will get done.
A renewal bill might make it out of the Senate, but will be DOA in the House. However, I don't plan on slacking off out of any percieved aura of safety that the current make up of the House may offer. I plan on making my opinion known loudly, and often, lest my Congressman loose his mind. Even if deployed.
As to renewing the AWB, 1994 has shown what a looser gun control is. The typical gun-grabber mouthpieces will make lots of news confrences (Feinstein, Schumer, Brady, et. al), and the media will do their typical half-truth/out right lying reporting, but nothing much will get done.
A renewal bill might make it out of the Senate, but will be DOA in the House. However, I don't plan on slacking off out of any percieved aura of safety that the current make up of the House may offer. I plan on making my opinion known loudly, and often, lest my Congressman loose his mind. Even if deployed.
Silver Bullet
Member
Another excellent idea. I like it. In fact, I think that's the way the socialists have gained so much influence in the Democrat Party, the NEA, AARP, and some of the green groups.
Tamara
Senior Member
Boats,
"Don't vote libertarian; they don't have a chance of winning!"
From Webster's: Circular Logic: See "Logic, Circular".
"Don't vote libertarian; they don't have a chance of winning!"
From Webster's: Circular Logic: See "Logic, Circular".
Whoops! My dictionary already opened to "M," taking your advice I went flipping back to "C." Lo and behold I flipped to "critical mass," definition two: an amount necessary or sufficient to have a significant effect or to achieve a result. I seemed to have stopped right there, the lack of critical mass among the LP not being solely my fault, as they are a long way from "mass" of any description.
.
Most people who are vehemently pro GOP are that way simply to rub it in the face of the Democrats,... largely as a result of the Clinton administration. The same can be said of Democrats who still sing the praises of Clinton,.. and believe it or not, there's still quite a few of those buffoons out there.
It's all a big game to those types. Regardless of who gets put in the driver seat, both factions will thump their chests and rant about how "My guy is better than your guy". It's nothing more than an extension of "My dad can beat up your dad!"
I have no time to play such childish games. I'm looking for a leader which will restore my liberties and insure that my descendants don't exist in a nation which is even more repressive than it is right now.
I don't think that an administration which drafts the "Patriot Act" is moving in such a direction.
Bush is simply the latest elitist, big government SOB to inhabit the White House. Your freedoms mean about as much to him as that mouse that keeps chewing holes in his box of Raisen Bran. Anything he can take away from the people, without suffering political fallout, he'll take. People who support him "regardless" enable him to do exactly THAT.
Most people who are vehemently pro GOP are that way simply to rub it in the face of the Democrats,... largely as a result of the Clinton administration. The same can be said of Democrats who still sing the praises of Clinton,.. and believe it or not, there's still quite a few of those buffoons out there.
It's all a big game to those types. Regardless of who gets put in the driver seat, both factions will thump their chests and rant about how "My guy is better than your guy". It's nothing more than an extension of "My dad can beat up your dad!"
I have no time to play such childish games. I'm looking for a leader which will restore my liberties and insure that my descendants don't exist in a nation which is even more repressive than it is right now.
I don't think that an administration which drafts the "Patriot Act" is moving in such a direction.
Bush is simply the latest elitist, big government SOB to inhabit the White House. Your freedoms mean about as much to him as that mouse that keeps chewing holes in his box of Raisen Bran. Anything he can take away from the people, without suffering political fallout, he'll take. People who support him "regardless" enable him to do exactly THAT.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Is "raisen" a word?
Justin Moore
Member
You rock Tamara
Not to pick nits, but Tamara's phrase is more an example of a truism than of classical circular logic.
They're still liars, in the main, for talking about what they will do when they win--as none of them ever has before, and has never shown any signs of doing so, at least in this neck of the woods. Might as well talk about what they are going to do when the aliens land and elevate them to "the level beyond human."
They're still liars, in the main, for talking about what they will do when they win--as none of them ever has before, and has never shown any signs of doing so, at least in this neck of the woods. Might as well talk about what they are going to do when the aliens land and elevate them to "the level beyond human."
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Sorry it took so long for me to get back to this thread, I've been busy.
Again, I'll state it, if you want my vote for the Republicans, maybe they should stand up for liberty and the free market.
I'm quite aware of how much the Repubs outnumber the Dems in the current congress. What you fail to understand is that it doesn't matter because there is essentially no difference between the two. Whether it's gun control or social security, the two parties sit around and quibble about how much of it we need, rather than if we actually need it at all. Yes, I realize that's an idealistic statement, and one that's not likely to fly in the current political atmosphere. However, maybe I'd be willing to vote for Republicans if they actually stood up for liberty instead of just giving it lip service. You want me to come back to your party? Make some changes and I'll consider it.
I have no delusions about actually regaining a full-blown version of my rights. But I'd like to actually see some Republicans propose things that at least look like they're thinking about maybe taking a baby-step or two in that direction. If the AW ban didn't have a sunset clause in it, do you think that the Republican party would actually even lift a finger to repeal it?
Why is it that every time there's a thread that touches on people voting for libertarians you go off on this strange tangent where you assume that the libertarians are going to try to foment some form of armed rebellion? The real kicker is that you then always make some sort of statement about how you'd relish shooting liberty-minded folks in such a situation. Typical of a Republican, don't like what somebody else believes in, so that makes it ok to become nothing more than a two-dollar tyrant.
I find it amusing that you think an anarchist would run for political office. I mean, if you're going to fantasize about gunning down people who disagree with you, you should at least have the common courtesy to get their ideologies straight, otherwise you just look kinda silly.
What, you mean like the Republicans? Sorry, but I don't buy it. The Republicans are a party who support some of the most hideous experiments in statist oppression. Hmmm...PATRIOT ACT, Total Information Awareness, Bueler, Bueler...
Again, I'll state it, if you want my vote for the Republicans, maybe they should stand up for liberty and the free market.
Thumper
Member
UnknownSailor is right with his 'Ron Paul' scenario. That's the way to go.
If everyone with a Libertarian bent would have voted for a Libertarian candidate in the last presidential election, the ONLY effect it would have had would have been to put Al Gore in office.
Reality might suck, but it's still reality.
If everyone with a Libertarian bent would have voted for a Libertarian candidate in the last presidential election, the ONLY effect it would have had would have been to put Al Gore in office.
Reality might suck, but it's still reality.
Justin Moore
Member
And whose fault would it be? I would argue, that its the fault of the statist Republicans for not supporting liberty, not the fault of the voters. The same would apply for the Clinton/Perot scenario. Bush I is the only person to blame there.
WilderBill
Member
Right now Dubya is so popular, he could say anything and get elcted again.
My guess is that he is testing the waters with this statemant, since it wasn't released as a major policy statement.
I hope he is trying to lull the antis into thinking they don't need to puss AWB II.
Most likely it will die in committee and Dubya won't have to decide what to do next because there won't be another chapter to that story.
IF, however, we see him start leaning on his own party to roll over on us, then we've got major problems!
So far, he has outsmarted just about everybody. I hope he knows who made that tiny difference that put him in office in the first place and doesn't loss his edge by publicly turning on us!
We still need to contact our congress critters. They may be more in touch with reality, anyway. For sure, they are the ones that will decide wheather AWB II ever reaches the Pres's desk.
My guess is that he is testing the waters with this statemant, since it wasn't released as a major policy statement.
I hope he is trying to lull the antis into thinking they don't need to puss AWB II.
Most likely it will die in committee and Dubya won't have to decide what to do next because there won't be another chapter to that story.
IF, however, we see him start leaning on his own party to roll over on us, then we've got major problems!
So far, he has outsmarted just about everybody. I hope he knows who made that tiny difference that put him in office in the first place and doesn't loss his edge by publicly turning on us!
We still need to contact our congress critters. They may be more in touch with reality, anyway. For sure, they are the ones that will decide wheather AWB II ever reaches the Pres's desk.
Marko Kloos
Moderator Emeritus
His father had an 80%+ approval rating after Gulf War I, and he still lost the election a year later. The high of a won war is a cheap one, it wears off very fast and leaves a hangover. That is something the elder Bush had to learn the hard way, although his flip-flop on taxes certainly didn't help him either.
BogBabe
Member
You are almost certainly right. It just might take that kind of result to shock some sense into the GOP.
I was willing to take that risk.
UnknownSailor
Member
*blink* *blink*
*blush*
Nice to know somebody likes what I post here.
LOL
In my blog travels yesterday, I read several opinions that went pretty much along with mine, in that such a renewal bill might make it out of the Senate, but is DOA in the House.
I agree with those who say that renewal must never make it to President Bush's desk. I am not 100% sure that he wouldn't sign it, so why take the chance, if we don't have to?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked