With Fred out, a new strategy

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the end it seems to always boil down to the contemplation to vote for a freak or a wierdo.

:)
 
I look at it this way if Hilary gets in then 2A rights will be out the door with in the first 100 days. However, if we get Giuliani we will have 3 or 4 years before he gets around to 2A rights. So do you wont 4 year to say goodbye to your 2A rights or 100 days? I will vote for a Republican if thats Giuliani then that’s who I will vote for
 
Might want to brush on Huck's 2 Amendment background and credentials. Fred "I won't tell what guns I own" Thompson is a gun liberal compared to Huck!
Click to expand...

You might want to do the same. I don't remember Huckabee writing an article about Virginia Tech and advocating CC. Thompson did.
 
It's going to be President Hillary. The Powers That Be had that figured out long ago. Get involved in local politics, or some educational group, and quit wasting your time pretending that you can affect the Presidential race.

(Not that I didn't give to the Paul campaign, but national politics is a rigged game and we're not the riggers...)
 
joemerchant24,

I think you're overreacting a little bit. The GOP actually has some viable candidates who want to defend the 2nd Amendment. Huckabee is right on. McCain is opposed to gun control, including assault weapons bans. Romney supports background checks and restrictions on machine guns, but has recently stated that he doesn't support bans on semi-autos.

Here are some good links to some of their statements on the 2nd Amendment:

McCain:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/77636553-6337-4ecd-b170-49e1c07d2fbd.htm

Huckabee:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=18

Romney:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press...cond_Amendment

I couldn't find anything on Giuliani's site in my brief search. We all know he has a terrible record of gun control in New York. But in an interview with Hannity he at least recognized that gun laws should be left up to local government, and tried to distance himself from a national gun control agenda. That suggests to me that he isn't determined to seek gun control laws. But still, if the ban hits his desk, my best guess based on his past is that he'll sign it.
 
Shooters,

I am a supporter of the whole Constitution, including the Amendments and of course the 2d Amendment. The 2A is our insurance policy on all of the rest. That said, for those of you anxious to vote for your dog catcher or some non-starter third way candidate, you may be shooting yourself and the rest of us in the collective foot (feet).

IMHO, the way we protect our constitution is first through the Supreme Court. I look at the positions and records of the Candidates and try to figure out who represents as much of my values and hopes for the country. A key question is what kind of justices would he appoint to the Supreme Court (I already know what kind she would appoint). Another consideration is can he beat the Socialist or the Marxist.

So far any of the leading Republicans would be geometrically better than the Socialist (Obama) or the Marxist (Clinton). Now none happen to meet all of my druthers. But so far in my life as a voter, only Ron Reagan came really close.

Once we have one of these guys sworn in on 20 Jan 2009 I say keep your powder dry. Remember how ordinary folks rose up and defeated the Bush-McCain-Kennedy’s Amnesty Bill? We now know we can punish Congressmen and make them fear for that which many hold most dear: their power and prestige.

If you plan to do anything with your vote that lets the country slide further to the left then I say get out your Glock, take careful aim at your foot and blast away. You may also want to cut off your nose to spite your face for good measure. Having gotten over your orneriness and irritation with the imperfect situation, please heal, limp to the voting booth and vote for the best bet for the country and my Grandchildren, given the alternatives. Unless something very dramatic happens it will be the Republican.

IMHO, Thanks for listening
 
Before the thread gets locked, a thought: a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. And I'm not voting for evil.
 
RON PAUL!!!!!!
We had a money bomb yesterday, he's got about $3,300,000.00 this quarter.
Romney is broke, Giulianin is broke, McCain is broke! Economy is bad, so Paul's ideas and strengths are more appropriate than ever!! He got 2nd in NV, should do well in Florida and unlike other candidates, his campaign is growing on it's own, despite media ignorance. He's the most conservative and with libertarian and constitutionalist ideals, he's just what we need now!
I don't want to try to convince those who are behind someone other than Paul, but I hope they'll at least visit www.ronpaul2008.com and read and watch the video network. He has a real chance if you support him.
 
Fortunately or unfortunately (you decide) RKBA is not the only issue we face as a nation. To vote on only this issue is a mistake. Take a step back and try to look at the big picture. (smoking a cigar will help!)
Click to expand...

You're blowing smoke. Yours is an extremely narrow and shortsighted vision that ignores a developing crisis and will only increase it. Here is a partial outline of the big picture that you seem unable to see past your smoke.

  1. The U.S. is becoming increasingly urbanized. Urban population centers tend to be anti-gun.
  2. Both houses of the Congress are controlled by the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party tends to be anti gun.
  3. The economic base of this country has shifted from small family-run businesses to large corporations that are increasingly absorbed into multinational corporations. Multinational corporations tend to be anti gun.
  4. The United Nations and the European Union have increasing power which extends into this country, including influence on politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Supreme Court Justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The UN and the EU tend to be anti gun.
  5. The United States is one of the few remaining countries in which individuals are allowed to own firearms and carry them for the defense of their own lives and that of their families, but it is under increasing pressure from within as well as without to abolish that situation.
  6. In other countries the firearms owned by individuals have been seized and destroyed, sometimes under the guise of gun "buybacks," as in Australia. Similar events take place in the United States often enough to be reported in messages by forum members, and those events are documented in newspaper reports they provide. The most notable of such events took place in New Orleans in 2005.
  7. Gun registration, ballistic fingerprinting, and similar schemes are increasingly promoted in the United States. All such schemes have the same inevitable result: gun confiscation.
  8. In England and other countries the parallel movement to anti-gun schemes is the discouragement and disparagement of self defense. That same movement is rampant in the United States and it underlies the drive to discourage individual ownership of the means for self defense: firearms.
  9. In many institutions--schools, colleges, universities, airports, places of entertainment, and other public arenas--even pictures, photos, drawings, and symbols of firearms are banned and anyone who displays even a toy gun is subject to arrest.
  10. The media--nearly all of it--is anti gun and anti self defense.
  11. When a firearm is destroyed or confiscated it is gone forever, never to be recovered by its owner.
  12. When gun owners are deprived of their firearms they are gun owners no longer. They are former gun owners who have no political power as a group whatsoever and will never have any ever again.

The rabidly anti gun forces know all that and count on it. It's a disservice to gun owners to tell them to look at some other picture when this one is real and its consequences are always imminent.

It's also especially dimwitted to argue that gun owners waste their votes on ideal Presidential candidates who have no chance of winning, or to "send messages," or to vote for other than the Republican Presidential candidate in this coming election. It makes no difference who he is. The alternatives--Clinton, Obama, and Edwards--all are adamantly and avowedly anti gun, and all have committed themselves to disarming every individual in the United States.

This election is for keeps. The one major element missing from the above dismal mix is a Democratic President. When that element is in place, not all of the gun forums in the universe will have any possible effect on the eventual outcome.

What makes this situation even worse is the repeated attacks on the NRA by some gun owners and so-called "gun rights" organizations. Imperfect as the NRA is, it is the only power base available to gun owners. Weakening the NRA, voting for third party candidates who have no chance, sending "messages," looking for illusory "big pictures," and all such childish pseudosophisticated nonsense are what will end individual firearms ownership in this country, and with it the right to self defense.

This is what happened in other countries and this is what will happen here if gun owners allow themselves to be deluded or self deluded. In the grand political picture every person who reads this message is no more or less than one vote. When they use it to "send a message," that message goes to the dead letter office.
 
Ron Paul has been my Congressional hero since I found out about him in 1984. His record of upholding and defending the Constitution is unmatched by any of the other candidates. He has actually introduced legislation to repeal most, if not all, of the current Federal gun-control laws. Finally, I will not have to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. I will vote for him even if I have to write him in.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

http://freedomjoyadventure.blogspot.com
 
Fred lacked any real zeal. Being a guy who's been in front of the camera for a living for a long time, he should have known better.


BTW - ever notice how all the anti-gun politicians have armed bodyguards....hmmm



Ron Paul, as whacky as he may come across to the brainwashed masses, is the only man running for President that has showed any real loyalty to the people and the founding documents of this country. The rest of them are OWNED by special interests. And those interests are all notably anti-gun.
 
Several Dems I have talked to have stated they would vote for McCain if the Dem candidate were Hillary.
The election will be won because of defections by members at the middle of one party or the other (meaning "centrist" Dems and "moderate" repubs), not by voters at the fringes.
Click to expand...

Doug, I think you have brought up a very important point. I intended to vote for Thompson until he withdrew. Now, I'm trying to decide which of the candidates would do a good job of preserving my Second Amendment rights and still have a reasonable chance of getting elected this fall. I'm thinking it will either be McCain or Romney.
 
Pete, please check out www.ronpaul2008.com he's the best pro gun candidate, he's the biggest supporter of individual liberties, less government, the constitution and a conservative foreign policy that allows us to take care of our own country for once!
 
Aside from the usuals here who tend to have differing opinions, anyone else notice that increasing number of posts from the Ron Paul supporters and libertarian zealots? Gosh you guys and your principles. Now, I might even vote for him in the primaries, but if he doesn't get the nomination, I'm still voting Republican. Frankly, I only care about 2 things: 1) Gun Control and 2) low taxes. None of the Republican candidates (sans Paul) are ideal on those, bet they are better than the alternative.

I love the "send a message" crowd. Seriously, who are you people and what makes you think the Republicans will give a crap about what you people think? If they lose, they'll just pander to a broader and possibly more liberal base. "Oh, I lost the election... maybe I should tighten my stance on gun control, that way I can swing more votes from the left."

Aside from God, er I mean Ron Paul, every politician flip flops. Some just do it better than others. If you want to win, you play the game. If you want to lose, you give political speeches like Ron Paul.
 
It makes no difference who he is. The alternatives--Clinton, Obama, and Edwards--all are adamantly and avowedly anti gun, and all have committed themselves to disarming every individual in the United States.
Click to expand...


Robert, I agree with everything you said and your assessment of the "big picture" is right on target. However, if Gulliani or Romney takes the nomination, I am not sure how are they better than the Dems. For instance, I am under no illusion that should a new AWB reaches the desk of these two, they will sign it. I think our rights under President Romney or Gulliani are in grave danger. Now, I would not vote under any circumstance for a Dem, or a third party but voting for any of these two will not be easy of even possible for me.

Having said that, I do think that McCain will end taking the nomination, and he is one I can vote for. Also, there has been talk about Huck for the VP slot under McCain which will make me even less anxious.
 
I am a Ron Paul supporter as well. I even gave money and signed up for his local meet up. However it is time to step back into reality and start looking at other candidates since Ron Paul does not have a snowballs chance in hell in winning anything.

I really have low political regard for people who are one issue voters. Looking at potential candidates exclusively through the lens of the 2a, or any other issue for that matter, really is stupid. I had a pro-life friend in college who would have voted for Satan himself, as long as he was pro-life. I always thought she was a political fool.
 
Last edited:
Someday, when you're walking down the street and are asked "Papers, please." you may wonder how you should have voted. Voting for the lesser of two evils is appeasement. Voting third party is a wasted vote.

We need need to find a way to rise above our broken bipartisan system.
 
I don't think there is as much danger of that with the republicans even with Gulliani.
Click to expand...
Giuliani has been 100% consistent in his claims that the 2nd Amendment means different things in different places. There wouldn't be a dime's worth of difference between him and Clinton/Obama, and you can be sure that more than a couple of Republican legislators would go along just to follow the party line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
The (Finally) Emerging Republican Majority
Replies
1
Views
356
Standing Wolf
S
M
  • Locked
Poll: Clinton to run in 2008, but won't win
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
Ezekiel
E
R
  • Locked
CNN Poll: It'll be Hillary Clinton v. Rudy Giuliani in 2008
2 3
Replies
69
Views
2K
Silver Bullet
S
J
  • Locked
Mikey Moore on Wesley Clark
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
BenW
B
2
  • Locked
If I Ran The Circus -by L. Neil Smith
Replies
0
Views
303
2dogs
2
Back
Top