What have you done to give the GOP the votes to repeal that legislation? Hmmmm?
There are not one; but two GOP Senate candidates running for office right now who support both of those things. One stands as much chance of winning as Badarnik does; but the other is actually polling slightly ahead of his competitor. Have you sent him money? Encouraged others to vote for him? Do you even know his name?
Yes, I am familiar with them, but you might find it surprising that I have not given the LP a single penny of my money. I have not given the GOP one penny either. Why would I wish to campaign for Senate candidates for whom I can not vote? Are people in those states so lazy they need others from other states to help out?
I write my rep and senators on every issue that is important to me. Not some stupid email, but either a fax or formal letter. All three of them are republicans. I do not always like their responses, but I am persistent and eloquent in addressing my concerns to them.
Speaking of stupid arguments, do you not see a connection between the two events? More than one person has suggested the NRA is deliberately tanking Second Amendment cases because they know that the result will not be favorable to an individual-rights interpretation under the current line-up of judges.
My arguments are stupid? Perhaps as moderator you could be a little more cordial. I tend to tie some level of respect with that little tag by people's handles here, but you can go ahead and start down that emotion road by calling arguments "stupid", much like liberals do when gun owners confront them with facts. Anyway....
So all of a sudden the NRA is the de-facto organization for which we all rely on some kind of political expertise? Are you for real? Need I remind everyone here again that it was because of the NRA that we now have the NFA of '34.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3653
This is part of official record. You can thank for the NRA for helping institute some of the very first, all-inclusive gun control laws in our nation.
Secondly, don't forget for a second that the NRA considers the value of money above the value of firearms these days. The NRA is NOT the organization it once was.
In fact, considering that the Supreme Court is the ONLY hope that the "I want everything and I want it right now!" crowd ever has of seeing gun rights restored at the rate you are demanding, I would think it is an argument you would have to take pretty seriously because the only other route is to get back the same way we got here - incrementalism.
I think you seem to misunderstand the arguments I've made here entirely. I'm all for incrementalism, and I think it's a great approach. So in other words, you're saying that 18 years is getting too hasty in getting the 1968 GCA off the books? Because that's exactly how long it was between 1968 and 1986. Yes, I know what the original intent of the '86 FOPA was, so don't start in on that, I know the amendment added in at the last minute was what did it, but nonetheless, it happened. So, again, 18 years....that's being too hasty? That's asking for a "we want it all right now?" What about the 30 years between the FFA of '38 and the GCA of '68? Is that too hasty also?
Do you see a trend here? Let me connect the dots for you. . . the GOP has NOT put in enough effort at all to restore the rights we citizens have LOST while on their watch.
You vote however your conscience dictates. I would not have it any other way; but as a matter of practical politics in the current system, voting Badarnik isn't going to do one damn thing to get you where you claim to want to go.
So somehow the GOP is going to do an about-face and give us everything we want now? Do you remember those general elections Hussein held back in 2003 and he (of course) won like 99% of the vote? So I guess because since he was the most likely to win everyone *should* have voted for him anyway hmm? Hmm...let's see.... Hitler (D) and Stalin (R)....gee which one should I vote for?
ProGlock, I respect your reasons for voting third party. Where we differ is I am not willing to ignore reality and vote based solely on principle when I know it will not do a single bit of good, but will actually cause us harm. Either John Kerry or George Bush are going to win this election. There are no other choices. Period.
So you have a choice to make. Help elect Kerry and lets see where he gets us in the next 4 years, especially with his supreme court nominations. Or elect Bush who although has many flaws, but is clearly better than Kerry.
When you can come up with a better argument than "A vote for anyone but Bush is a vote for Kerry", let me know.
It is one thing to be shallow, it is another thing entirely to know what you can change immediately and what you cannot. Your third party vote for President will do absolutely nothing to change this system. Supporting third party candidates locally and building your base from there will. Again, incrementalism is the key. You will never get everything you want in one big package. Even the liberals understand that. So change what you can and know the difference in what you can't. I disagree that this is a shallow take on things.
Alluding to the argument that I am shallow doesn't earn you any points of respect from me. I DO support the local candidates running on the LP ballot, and well what do you know, the LP also has a Presidential candidate running. This is not hard to understand why I am voting for him.
