Why does McCain have a C+ from the NRA?

[TexasSkyhawk]

What if that 3rd party best represents your views? Wouldnt it make sense to vote for that then?

Well, just prior to posting this, you also said you'd "vote Libertarian, Green or Democrat before voting for McCain."

Two of those "third" parties have pretty opposing views--which view of yours do they represent?

If your intent is to keep McCain out of the Oval Office, then it probably doesn't matter who you vote for.

Just don't be too upset when you get what you voted for--and a helluva lot more.

Remember what Perot did . . .

I would love to see a viable, electable third-party candidate--but it just ain't gonna happen in MY lifetime. Not with the media establishment we have firmly entrenched.

And typically and historically, the Republicans have been better able to reign in loose/liberal members on liberal issues FAR better than Democrats. The more liberal, the more Democrat it typically is and the Democrat president can't sign it fast enough.

Jeff

 

[Ed Ames]

Your vote is your one means of telling the nation, in a real and concrete way, which direction you want this great ship to sail. Your input is limited to the choice of crew. That's the only real and direct voice you have.

If you vote for someone you disagree with, even if they are the "lesser evil", you are not only throwing your vote away you are lying to the system. You are deliberately telling the nation you want to go one way when you really want to go another. At best that's no different than getting into a cab and saying "take me to the airport" when you really want to go to the train station. You can justify it however you want... you can say the cab driver is more likely to know where the airport is... that trains are losing to planes so you might as well just go with the winner... say whatever you want you still won't get where you wanted to go. Why? You deliberately told the driver a lie. You'll miss your train and you'll have nobody to blame but yourself. Of course a nation isn't a cab. The worst that can happen with a cab is that you end up at the wrong destination. When you lie to your nation you actually cause harm to the system. To tell them that they have permission -- a mandate even -- to steer this nation towards what you consider to be dangerous waters. By supporting a candidate you don't agree with you risk validating a set of political parties that are actively attacking the ideals of the nation you claim to love.

The best possible spin is that it's short term thinking. Too much concentration on this election and no attention to the general course our nation takes. At worst it's just idiocy.

I have nothing but disgust for people who lie to their nation, who waste their votes on short term thinking, who vote for "lesser evils" and "electable candidates" when those candidates don't represent their views.

The only reason you have a vote is to communicate your desires for the course of this nation. Use your vote properly... vote for the people who truly represent you regardless of how "electable" or mainstream you think they are. Is the only way we're going to win in the long term.

 

[Autolycus]

Well my main issue is the war right now. I am a Libertarian at heart. They are who I would vote for in any national elections. On a local level there are more Green party members than Libertarians so I would vote for them.

For example, I am voting for Jason Wallace for House of Represenatives. He is a local Illinois State Student that seems to be doing well. However I do doubt he will win the election, but I spoke with him personally and I think he will what he thinks is best for us. I would rather have an honest socialist than a fascist masquerading as a Republican.

 

[bogie]

So it's okay to NOT vote against Obama or Hillary?

Every time gun people start bitching about the current crop of Republicans, the Democrats' political advisors chuckle knowingly...

In a close race... Well, let's look at a small town with 100 voters...

45 of them are going to vote Democrat.
45 of them are going to vote Republican

and 10 of them still haven't made up their minds...

Now, if the Democrats can convince a Republican to either not vote or join the 10 independents...

45 Democrat
44 Republican

Well, that's an edge for the Democrats.

Now, if they manage to get 'em to hate Republicans so much that they'll vote Democrat, you get...

46 Democrat
44 Republican

Still an edge.

And the 10-11 votes hanging off on the fringes will go unnoticed. Either way.

 

[TexasSkyhawk]

Your vote is your one means of telling the nation, in a real and concrete way, which direction you want this great ship to sail. Your input is limited to the choice of crew. That's the only real and direct voice you have.

Disagree.

Your POCKETBOOK speaks volumes louder than your individual vote.

You get the opportunity to vote in national elections only once every two years. You get the opportunity to vote with your pocketbook as often as you wish.

Remember the idiotic "luxury tax" the Dems drooled over while passing? Americans who would be affected by it voted with their pocketbooks by NOT buying airplanes, boats, etc. That part of the economic machine took a huge butt kicking.

And save your "disgust." Many folks feel the same way about people who wish to "change the world" by voting for unelectable candidates/parties. A lot of us remember what Perot's candidacy gave us.

By the way, what "change" did his candidacy bring about in the System? I sure haven't seen one. Only taught the media to be dang sure and ignore fringe parties/candidates and taught McCain & Co to pass a law raping the First Amendment in order to further marginalize such candidates/parties.

I have no faith in the American people as whole anymore, which means I have no faith in the System either. Best I can do is work to keep the worst of the worst out of power.

Jeff

 

[ozwyn]

I am still hoping Heller makes this who argument irrelevant, because the candidates that support gun rights, have supporting gun rights for a long time, and yet are electable seem to be a rare breed.

and even when we do vote them in, they make a habit of ignoring their constituents. Dunno about the rest of you, but its awfully annoying to know the gun rights vote got someone elected and they sit on their hands for terms ignoring gun rights unless they can use the threat of its loss to get more votes.

damned annoying says I.

 

[riverdog]

Quote:
I'd take McCain over the NYC Mayor...
Yes.

Quote:
...or the MA governor. . .
No....

orionengnr,
What about Romney and gun control is better than McCain? He's still on record as wanting the AWB. Not about religion, but I would think a Mormon would be for gun ownership and preparedness in general. The Mormons I know are all gunowners with mindsets similar to my own. Romney is just an anti-gun governor from a liberal state. Somebody correct my view and tell me why Romney will be a friend of the gun owner. Will The Real Romney Please Stand Up? McCain and Romney look fairly similar, they both take whichever view works best in the moment.

If the SCOTUS comes through with DC v. Heller it may not matter much, but with this list of "conservatives" cough cough I realize just how screwed we are.

 

[krahling]

The Democrat straphangers, donors, and lackeys appointed to political positions throughout the next administration will certainly be more hostile to the rights of gun owners than the republican straphangers, donors, and lackeys would be.

 

[k_dawg]

McCain seems to be one who believes the "second amendment" is about hunting.. So he is not as radical as "ban everything".. but is open to many restrictions.. since one can still hunt under certain circumstances.

 

[delta53]

To much

I would never vote for him, years of water boarding can't be be good for you.

 

[MiddleAgedKen]

Better pray that Heller is a bigger slam-dunk than it is likely to be, because there is a nonzero probability that any of the three (Giuliani, Romney, McCain) would sign an AWB with no grandfather clause and no sunset provision (Romney because he's a true believer in citizen disarmament, Hizzoner because it would be a "lawn ordure" thing to do, and McCain because he'd get approving op-eds in the New York Times).

Then we'd all be treated to the spectacle of a Republican president sending in the government agents to enforce an unjust law against the people who helped put him in office.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

If the SCOTUS comes through with DC v. Heller it may not matter much, but with this list of "conservatives" cough cough I realize just how screwed we are.

It could still matter. Look at what the folks in Washington did with the gun free schools act. The USSC threw it out on constitutional grounds saying it did not comply with the intent of the commerce clause. So did that stop congress? Nosiree. They went right ahead and passed a new law and got it signed. You can look into the details of that whole issue, but the main point is that a USSC ruling doesn't always affect how congress conducts its business in grabbing more power at the detriment to our liberties and rights.

 

[Augustwest]

Remember what Perot did . . .

Perot didn't do it, the GOP did - by abandoning the core principles of limited government and respect for the Constitution.

Had it come back to those principles, we wouldn't be having discussions about whether or not it's appropriate to vote for the lesser of two evils. If anything, the GOP has strayed further.

How long til the RNC gets the message? I'll be sending one come November.

 

[riverdog]

A lot of us are sending the message now by supporting Ron Paul -- Pro Gun, Pro Constitution, Pro Limited Government.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Guys, when it gets down to it, the WORST republican is likely to be better than the best Democrat.

However, their strategy for the past few years (or longer...) has been "vote anyone but a Bush crony," or "vote anyone but a republican." And it has worked to a very great deal.

Unfortunately, for the past several years, the Republican strategy has been "the WORST republican is likely to be better than the best Democrat."

The Replublicans with Bush(43) controlled the White House, Senate and Congress. What did they do for gun owners? The best they can claim is they didn't renew the AW ban. We lost more ground in the four years of Bush(41) than we did with eight years of Clinton(1). All Clinton accomplished was an AW ban with a built in time limit. Bush(41)'s import ban is still going strong.

 

[bailer]

McCain would be great to have for 4 years to reign in spending. He's not my favorite on most other issues, but I'll take him over Mitt/Rudy just for the spending.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

One other factor to keep in mind is what types of federal judges and how many will be appointed and approved by the next Prez and his/her congresses. There are some old farts on the USSC who will probably retire soon. Will they be replaced with strict constitutionalists, muddy water moderates, or liberals like Ginsburg and Breyer? How many other federal judges on lower courts will be appointed? The lower courts cannot be taken too lightly in all of this. Judge appointments are an issue that needs to be factored into the equation. Vote how you will, but make sure you study ALL of the variables involved, not just one or two of the "pet" ones. That's my own advice. Soak it in salt brine and smoke it to enhance the flavor, if you wish.

 

[velojym]

Methinks this crap is all for show now, anyway. Here we have two powerful groups of people, with many other powerful groups of people wishing to hold the puppet strings, and we peons are expected to choose one or the other.
Who'll you vote for? Giant ****** or Turd Sandwich?

If anyone represents my views, I'll vote for 'em...

McCain not only is a squishy little worm on the 2nd Amendment, he's also a proven enemy of the 1st.
I can't trust him, and I wonder if maybe a swing to the left would wake more people up... naw, most will just believe whatever they're told by the media.

 

[harbinger_j]

The secret is to vote in the primaries!!!

Look at what happens when people who care vote in primaries!
The media would have already elected guliani, or romney.
But Huckabee wins Iowa and turns some heads, and Ron Paul gets 10% so they can't shut him out of the debate.
I don't like Ron Paul but the fact that he draws support is something the media and other candidates and party leaders have to pay attention to (and whether they admit it or not they are).

The secret is to vote in the primaries!!!

 

[Augustwest]

A lot of us are sending the message now by supporting Ron Paul -- Pro Gun, Pro Constitution, Pro Limited Government.

As am I. And I will continue to send the message in the General Election.

 

[Ed Ames]

You know... some people say that money talks. Some people say that the avergage citizen can vote with his pocketbook. Frankly I don't see how your pocketbook vote makes a bit of difference to any important issue.

How do you pocketbook vote on gun issues? "They wanna infringe on my 2a rights, I'll show 'em by buying *more* guns!" You know what that "vote" says? That anti-gun laws are OK for business because they don't harm legitimate gun manufacturers. Or maybe "they wanna infringe on my 2a rights, I'll show 'em by boycotting the gun industry." You know what that "vote" says? That the anti-gun laws are working because they reduce the number of guns sold.

So how about voting by donation? That's making your money talk, right? Well, you know what, that's worthless without voting too. You can give a billion dollars to a candidate and if nobody votes that person (s)he still loses. It's the votes that count and all your money does is help to sway other people's votes.

Sorry, you have one effective way to communicate your real intent to this nation. That is voting. If you lie, or throw away your vote, by voting for a candidate that doesn't support your position, you lose. You can comfort yourself with "money talks" but the truth is that money mumbles.

Vote for the people who best represent you. Anything else is worse than a waste... it's a lie.

 

[Christianninja]

EXACTLY, Ed Ames.

Why in the WORLD would you want to send an unclear message? Why would you put your name and faith and honor behind someone who doesn't truly represent you?

It's that kind of flawed thinking that has lead to the two gigantic parties leapfrogging their way toward our nation's oblivion. You think you're getting punched in the arm instead of the face but you're still getting punched. No matter where you have them hit you if you take enough blows you're going to go down.

 

[Kentucky]

Quote:
A lot of us are sending the message now by supporting Ron Paul -- Pro Gun, Pro Constitution, Pro Limited Government.
As am I. And I will continue to send the message in the General Election.

I am as well. Not only am I voting with my vote, but also with my time and donations. I am 23 years old, and my wife and I are planning on having our first child next year. If our country doesnt have a DRASTIC change of direction then it will have completely collapsed in my lifetime. 200 years ago our forefather had the moral integrity, courage, and character to fight for OUR freedom. My parents and grandparents have dropped the ball. I figure it is my turn to pick it up again. For my children if nothing else.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Your vote is your one means of telling the nation, in a real and concrete way, which direction you want this great ship to sail. Your input is limited to the choice of crew. That's the only real and direct voice you have.

I think this is only true if you live in a swing state. In the end, it is just a couple of states that decide. All of the concrete red and blue states are what they are, weather you like it or not. That is why the electoral college system is such a crime... a spawning ground for corruption to boot.

By the way, why doesn't the media cover Ron Paul? He is the only one that really stands out as "different" to me. The rest (dems and reps) are all the same old junk show.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

McCain has a C+ because he supported restrictions on private sales (mischaracterized by gun control proponents as the so-called "gun show loophole") and took over $2 million from the former HCI director's astro-turf group Americans for Gun Safety.

McCain also supported McCain-Feingold which placed a lot of restrictions on groups like the NRA; but actually made lobbying easier for groups like AGS (if you have to document every single contribution but your financing is from a single billionaire vs. millions of ordinary people sending $10, who bears more burden).

Both of those votes hurt him with the NRA even though he supported the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and opposed the renewal of the AWB in 2004.

Since the question has been answered and the thread has drifted into the exact kind of conversation that got the "P" removed from L&P, I'll go ahead and close this pending review by the Legal mods.