Are you willing to let a Democrat win...

[Dan from MI]

I'm a card carrying Republican who is pro-2a first. Rudy SUED gun manufacturers. He's no different than Bloomberg on that issue. He did not have to sue gun manufacturers, even in NYC.

I don't forget things like that. He's worse than McCain (who I can't stand) on the 2nd Amendment who at least SOMETIMES goes our way.

 

[Deanimator]

He was the mayor of new york city. That place is so blue its ridiculous. What applies to new york doesn't apply to the US as a whole.

Schumer, McCarthy and Clinton disagree. So does Rudy, since he PUSHED FOR AN AWB.

Guliani has already started to backpedal on his earlier statements on guncontrol. He is aware that there is a sizable voting block that he would lose if he started banning guns.

Ok, to WHOM was he lying, the antis or us? He PUSHED FOR AN AWB. He's lying to US... well, ME anyway.

This isn't a sure thing by any means. However the fact remains that thre is a greater chance of having an AWB vetoed by rudy than there is hillary/obama.

No, it IS a sure thing. There is NO chance that Giuliani would veto an AWB... or a handgun ban, or confiscation, or virtually anything else. It's pretty much 100% that Giuliani is against widespread gun ownership and the rest of the Bill of Rights as well.

If Giuliani gets the nomination, they ought to change the name of the Republican Party to the United States Social Nationalist Party. If he gets elected, the Ethiopians ought to get REALLY scared.

 

[Deanimator]

Yes it does. Rudy is at least fiscally conservative, but speaking on the gun issue alone, assuming that these are the nominees, one of them will get elected whether you or I vote for them, vote 3rd party, or don't vote at all.

So then why should I vote for ANYBODY who's virtually GUARANTEED to try to take my guns?

When a restaurant asks, "Botulism or salmonella with your meal?" I don't validate that offer by choosing either one.

 

[STAGE 2]

No, it IS a sure thing. There is NO chance that Giuliani would veto an AWB... or a handgun ban, or confiscation, or virtually anything else. It's pretty much 100% that Giuliani is against widespread gun ownership and the rest of the Bill of Rights as well.

Yes there is. The republican party is more diverse than people realize. To win this election against either of 2 very strong Democrats, Rudy is going to need all the votes that he can get. People who push for bans are probably not going to vote for rudy. People who oppose them either generally vote republican or 3rd party. He's not going to shoot himself in the foot at the starting gate.

If conservatives can mount enough pressure to get a president to change his mind on a judicial nominee to the supreme court, they can get rudy to think twice before signing a ban.

Hillary wont.

 

[STAGE 2]

When a restaurant asks, "Botulism or salmonella with your meal?" I don't validate that offer by choosing either one.

You may reconsider when they are going to hold you down and feed it to you regardless.

 

[The_Shootist]

Nope

The stated aim of the Democartic party is to disarm the masses. As Diane Feinswine said (regarding handguns prior to the AWB of '94) "If I had had the votes I would have said, ok people, turn them in...".

As for the Bush critcisms - tough. With the left-wing media hysteria 77% of the time reporting anti-Republican items in the news I would say criticism of GWB is well overblown by the hostile left and eventually it permeates everyones thinking.

I don't care if Bush wore a pink suit and walked down Pennsylvania Ave saying he's coming out. When he was Governor in Texas, he freed the slaves - by signing into law Texas CHL. For the first time in 120 years, law abiding Texans could walk the streets as free men.

Thats something that verminous left wing Democrat Queen Ann Richards wouldn't do - and was clobbered by Dubya in the next election. Hopefully she's resting in Hell, reflecting on the error of her left - lib ways, damn her.

 

[10-Ring]

I voted for a dem once...only once! IMO, w/ all their short comings, they're still better than any lib. Plus, I can't support a party that votes for everything I don't care for

 

[Prince Yamato]

Ok, so if he is willing to lie and change his stance on an issue to get elected, what makes you think he won't change back once he is elected?

It's not lying, it's just changing ones stance. Example: I used to be for abortion, now I am opposed to it. I changed my stance, am I still pro-choice? Am I a hippocrate? Was I a hippocrate the minute after I changed my opinion? No. I changed my opinion.

Politicians also have to play to a large electorate. You say different things to different groups of people. Another example: I work in the arts, it's VERY liberal. When the issue of guns comes up, I say that people have a right to protect themselves and focus on issues like violence against women and gay people. When I speak to my right-leaning friends at the gun range, I say we should own weapons also for defending ourselves against muslim radicals. Why don't I say the latter statement in the liberal setting? Because it will set off a wave of trouble. Why doesn't Rudy start spitting out how he'll allow AWs? Because he needs to sway votes from the left. Remember NYC is 32 million potential votes.

I honestly believe some of you need a class not only in basic political maneuvering, but general socialization as well. It's bad enough that we gun owners are stereotyped as anti-social wackos. And to top it all off, some of you act like stubborn children- when the game isn't going your way, you refuse to play and walk away.

 

[maasenstodt]

You may reconsider when they are going to hold you down and feed it to you regardless.

Given the choice between lapping up a tyrant's poison and resisting it even to my own death, even as common and imperfect a man as I could not and would not go quietly.

If we must die, let it not be like hogs
Hunted and penned in an inglorious spot,
While round us bark the mad and hungry dogs,
Making their mock at our accursed lot.
If we must die, O let us nobly die,
So that our precious blood may not be shed
In vain; then even the monsters we defy
Shall be constrained to honor us though dead!
O kinsmen we must meet the common foe!
Though far outnumbered let us show us brave,
And for their thousand blows deal one deathblow!
What though before us lies the open grave?
Like men we'll face the murderous, cowardly pack,
Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!

I'll do my utmost to withhold contempt for those who feel otherwise, but should that day come, I'll proudly stand beside what brothers, what patriots refuse to go gently.

 

[Deanimator]

To win this election against either of 2 very strong Democrats, Rudy is going to need all the votes that he can get.

And he thinks (and has thought in the past) that he's going to get those votes from anti-gunners.

Giuliani NOT being an anti-gunner is wildest fantasy.

 

[Deanimator]

You may reconsider when they are going to hold you down and feed it to you regardless.

So let me get this straight, when somebody's trying to murder you, you should just stop fighting and give in?

As somebody once said in a movie, if somebody tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back.

As I said, I will NEVER vote for Giuliani, EVER.

I will NEVER be complicit in the destruction of my own rights.

 

[chas_martel]

A poster above said, and I paraphrase, "Why vote for someone I know
will vote against guns - a Dem - when I can vote for someone that might
not vote agains guns - a Rep?"

The biggest reason is that we will eventually lose going down either road
presented to us at the present. One just gets there faster. There is
a third option, push the Repubs out of office and take a chance that a new
party, or a reformed Republican party, will arise to counter the Dems.

I know it is scary to think of abandoning the Repubs but the writting is
on the wall, the party we knew as the Republican party is dead. Once
it started lying to me it was dead as far as I am concerned. And lie
it has done in bucket loads the previous few decades.

Ann Coulter recognizes the other component which sickens me, Repubs are appeasers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20070307/cm_ucac/shootingelephantsinabarrel

I ask why side with appeasers and liars?

PS: Deanimator, movie? You sure you not talking about the
Bible? The old testament says "If someone comes in the night to kill you, arise quickly and kill them before they can kill you."
At least my Jewish version puts it that way.

 

[maasenstodt]

...some of you act like stubborn children- when the game isn't going your way, you refuse to play and walk away.

Would you have said the same to those who conceived of and stood behind the Declaration of Independence?

 

[Deanimator]

Why doesn't Rudy start spitting out how he'll allow AWs?

For the same reason that Nathan Lane isn't always going on about how he wants to sleep with Pamela Anderson. It wouldn't be true.

If you vote for Giuliani, you might as well vote for Schumer.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I think the surest way to get a new AWB is to elect Giuliani.

Hillary, if elected, would cause money to flow in the NRA like nothing we have ever seen. NRA membership would surge. Huge amounts of money would then be spent to influence Congress to not pass an AWB for her to sign. The more she ranted about how much we needed an AWB, the more scared people would become of her, and the more support she would lose. Remember Hillary is more popular when she isn't talking. She will also be the greatest fund raiser the NRA has ever had.

Giuliani would be different. Since he is a Republican, gun owners and the NRA are going to be more naturally lenient on him on the gun issue, and more likely to slip up and let an AWB get passed by Congress. After all, he is a Republican, so he would never sign something like that; at least thats what people will subconsciously be thinking. He will not inspire the same sense of doom to gun owners. There will be less pressure on Congress to kill the AWB, and it would be more likely to pass.

Then, the only thing standing between me and an AWB is Giuliani. He very well may have another change of heart, and sign it.

 

[Titan6]

Opinion vs fact

Stage 2 said: This isn't a sure thing by any means. However the fact remains that thre is a greater chance of having an AWB vetoed by rudy than there is hillary/obama.

- Are we going down the road where you start pushing your opinions as facts again? Because the fact is that this is still intellectually dishonest....

Stage2 said: Yes it does. Rudy is at least fiscally conservative, but speaking on the gun issue alone, assuming that these are the nominees, one of them will get elected whether you or I vote for them, vote 3rd party, or don't vote at all. Since this is going to play out, I'm going to try and steer it towards the least damaging candidate.

- Again your opinion. My opinion is there is RG is the most damaging candidate. And you can't prove otherwise because it is opinion. RG went to war with the gun industry in a much more personal way than the Hillary or obama. He tried to destroy the entire industry not just legislate it away. That isn't an opinion though it is a fact, a fact he stated over and over again.

 

[GunNut]

There is not a chance in HXXL that i will vote for a Democrat just to show the republicans.

This is a very important election for all gun owners, we could be on our way to becoming Australia or England if the dems are in control totally.

 

[Titan6]

'This is a very important election for all gun owners'

I agree completely. But when the dem running is more friendly to 2A than the RINO who are you going to vote for?

Examine the evidence and make an informed decision. Voting party line without looking at the candidate's real stance (actions and votes) on the issues is foolish.

 

[GunNut]

But when the dem running is more friendly to 2A than the RINO who are you going to vote for?

I agree totally, but it's also much easier to for a President of the same party to vote party lines even if he/she doesn't completely agree with the rest.

Trust me I vote with the issues that mean the most to me.

Then again i'm in Washington state, and the presidential election is already decided by the time my vote is even counted.

 

[denfoote]

Seeing that there is no difference between the RINOs running and the Democrats, I think it makes no difference who gets elected!!

The Republicans, and I use the term loosely, have no balls, no base, no courage, and no character.

When the Clinton/Obama ticket gains the White House, the RINOs are going to scratch their collective head in wonderment as to why they lost again!!

They will have gotten what they deserve!!!

 

[gc70]

The focus on the Presidency is putting all of your eggs in one basket. I would rather see the House or Senate solidly on our side. At least in Congress you can play the numbers game rather than depending on the good will of one person.

 

[Titan6]

gc 70 - agree

denfoote - Really Agree

gunnut - I am in Texas so my vote means even less than yours...

I would like nothing better than for the republican party to return to it's long lost roots. Everything that they once stood for was what I believed.

Somewhere along the way repubs began accepting the ilk of Lincoln Chaffee and Rudy and lost their soul. These same people are now pushing Rudy and Romney as republicans at any cost. Why should real republicans vote for them? No reason, no reason at all. IMHO The loss of the congress had a lot less to do with the war and bush being unpopular than not having candidates that stood for conservative issues.

 

[STAGE 2]

Are we going down the road where you start pushing your opinions as facts again? Because the fact is that this is still intellectually dishonest....

Who is pushing opinions? On one hand there is Hillary who's husband signed the AWB, which she has fully supported in the past, and who has been consistent in her anti stance. On the other hand there is rudy, who has certianly not been a friend to gun owners, but who is also on record as saying that he believes gun control should not be a federal matter, rather left up to the states.

Given this, and given the fact that he needs conservaitve support, there is less of a chance that he'll sign a ban than Hillary. This is hardly a fleeting opinion.

Again your opinion. My opinion is there is RG is the most damaging candidate. And you can't prove otherwise because it is opinion. RG went to war with the gun industry in a much more personal way than the Hillary or obama. He tried to destroy the entire industry not just legislate it away. That isn't an opinion though it is a fact, a fact he stated over and over again.

Whether rudy is the most damaging candidate is irrelevant. It is a fact that either Hillary or Obama will win the democratic nomination. Its also a fact that rudy is most likely to win the republican nomination. If not him than mccain or newt if he decides to run.

Whatever combination of these people that you want to create, the fact remains that the Democrat will be more damaging to gun rights than the republican. The Democrat will definately be damaging on issues such as taxes and judicial nominees.

Do you really want hillary to send another Ginsberg to the court? A vote for the president is a vote for both branches of government.

 

[bogie]

Oh, some of this makes PERFECT sense...

Yeah, let's vote for a representative of a party that is against us 95% of the time because we're pissed that the other party is _only_ for us 95% of the time.

What have some of you people been smoking?

And gun folks - Please keep in mind that not every member of this forum has the best interests of the second amendment in mind... There are folks posting here who want your guns gone. And they're trying to talk you into doing it yourself.

 

[Prince Yamato]

My opinion is there is RG is the most damaging candidate. And you can't prove otherwise because it is opinion.

Bill Clinton SIGNED the first AWB. Hillary is his wife. Hillary said that she WILL sign it as president. Giuliani fluffs around the issue. That's a fact. Who is the more damaging candidate? Which Democrats are so prominently 2A that you'd vote for them over republicans, please, name these people. Richardson? He's the inverse of Giuliani. Richardson is pro-2A because it gets him votes in the pro-2A state of New Mexico. "But he's got his CCW"... so does Feinstein... John Kerry owns a machinegun... what's your point... Richardson will tow party line if elected president.

When the Clinton/Obama ticket gains the White House, the RINOs are going to scratch their collective head in wonderment as to why they lost again!!

They will have gotten what they deserve!!!

Yeah, and we'll lose our guns. Great thinking.