Bush supports gun rights..........Debate Thread

[El Rojo]

There's a very serious pesonal moral question at stake: do you sell out or compromise your principles (like the politicians casually do) and vote on purely pragmatist grounds (the lesser of two evils), or do you vote your conscience?

The real question is, if you vote for a third party candidate, knowing that if you didn't you would vote for the more conservative guy, and you know that your voting for this third party candidate is going to take a vote away from the lessor of two evils, aren't you really voting for the worst case scenario? Look at Bush I in 1992 with Ross Perot and look at Gore in 2000 with Ralph Nader, in both of these cases the third party candidate helped cost the other guy the election.

So if you know that your third party vote is going to hurt us and help get the worst case scenario elected, are you really voting principle and conscience? Yes, I guess you are. You are voting for the worst case scenario. Just be sure you understand that. I don't have a problem with some of you voting third party and helping get Kerry elected, just don't try to hide it behind "voting your conscience" when you know exactly what the result of your "principle" vote is. A vote for anyone other than Bush is a vote for Kerry. Don't try and argue that it isn't. If there were no third party and you had to vote and you had to choose one or the other, who would you choose?

 

[CannibalCrowley]

buzz_knox

But the feeling I get is that it's more about "I hate Bush" than anything.

No, it's about voting for a candidate that one can be proud of and respect. In fact, many of the people voting for Bush are part of the "anyone but Kerry" crowd. They don't believe in Bush's agenda, they simply want to keep Kerry out of office. Of course while doing this they criticize the "anyone but Bush" crowd for doing the same thing.

El Rojo

Look at Bush I in 1992 with Ross Perot and look at Gore in 2000 with Ralph Nader, in both of these cases the third party candidate helped cost the other guy the election.

Perot and Nader are not responsible for Bush 1 and Gore not getting elected. The lack of appeal of the candidates is the reason that they weren't elected. If they were good candidates, then Perot and Nader wouldn't have gotten those votes. Besides, many people were going to vote for Perot/Nader or no one at all. Bush 1 slit his own throat with "read my lips", you can't blame that on Perot or even Clinton.

A vote for anyone other than Bush is a vote for Kerry. Don't try and argue that it isn't. If there were no third party and you had to vote and you had to choose one or the other, who would you choose?

That's incorrect on multiple levels. For many of us it's a "second party" candidate or nobody at all. If Bush was a good candidate, then people wouldn't want to vote for anyone else. If my choices were either Bush or Kerry, I wouldn't vote. I voted for Bush the first time and I refuse to let him fool me twice.

 

[riverdog]

I voted for Ross Perot in '92 and to this day I regret having helped Clinton get into office.

I'm voting FOR Bush because he's the best guy to have in the White House during this ramp up in the war on terror.

I'm voting against Kerry because he shouldn't be in the Senate, let alone the White House. The man should have "felon" attached to his bio.

 

[El Rojo]

So just admit it then CannibalCrowley, you want Kerry to win. That is all we are asking for, is a little honesty. Take responsiblity for your vote.

 

[Zrex]

So just admit it then CannibalCrowley, you want Kerry to win. That is all we are asking for, is a little honesty. Take responsiblity for your vote.

You are like a medieval peasant asking the first agnostic whether he worships God or the Devil. (thanks R.A.W.)

 

[Intune]

For many of us it's a "second party" candidate or nobody at all. If Bush was a good candidate, then people wouldn't want to vote for anyone else. If my choices were either Bush or Kerry, I wouldn't vote. I voted for Bush the first time and I refuse to let him fool me twice.

There are two options. Vote for Kerry or vote for Bush. Period. IF you think that Bush let you down (how?) then vote for Kerry, vote 3rd party or don't vote at all. EACH of these options in my book is a vote against Bush. We're in a battle here folks and the gunnie side needs some help so there will be at least four more years until the real poopoo hits the political scene.

 

[Zrex]

We're in a battle here folks and the gunnie side needs some help so there will be at least four more years until the real poopoo hits the political scene.

Do you really think a republican congress is going to start willy-nilly passing gun control legislation if Kerry gets elected?


By the same token, if a democratic congress is elected, what makes you think Bush will veto gun control legislation he already promised to pass?

 

[Roon]

Things are still unsettled over in the senate races... no automatic certainty.

I play the odds in politics, not the words or what they might have done. You want to keep a pol honest? Hold the fire to his feet every damn day... and make noise - a lot of noise!

 

[Roon]

I just saw the latest Swiftie ad, over at this thread . If you've got any doubts about voting against Kerry, you owe it to yourself to see this.

 

[buzz_knox]

I realized what I find most interesting about this whole argument is the following:

For the last 4 years, people have said that they would base their vote largely on how Bush handled the AWB issue. Well, now that the AWB is dead (and those who don't give credit to Bush on this issue are being disingenuous), many are saying "I still don't like him, so screw him." Too many people changed the target on this issue.

 

[Zrex]

Roon:


According to electoral-vote.com Bush is leading Kerry 52% to 45% in North Carolina.

If this holds until election day, Bush will win NC. If voter turn out is like 2000, thats pretty close to a 200K vote margin.

Now, do you really think that it would matter one way or another for whom you vote? You could just as easily vote 3rd party, send a message to the Republicans that you are serious about freedom enough to vote 3rd party AND still have a Bush win.

 

[buzz_knox]

Now, do you really think that it would matter one way or another for whom you vote? You could just as easily vote 3rd party, send a message to the Republicans that you are serious about freedom enough to vote 3rd party AND still have a Bush win.

I know many people who said the same thing in '92. I'm going to send Bush a message because I can rely upon the country not to elect a draft dodging, drug using liar who went to Moscow to protest America.

How exactly does Bush know that your vote for a third party is pro-freedom? How does he not know that you're just peeved at him for some reason, but hate Kerry just as much?

A reasonsed principled vote for a 3rd party is one thing, if you are willing to acknowledge the responsibility that comes with any negative consequences that result therefrom. But sending a message? Please, send a letter and don't risk the whole thing.

 

[Roon]

You're right Zrex, I could do that. But even though there are a ton of things I think Bush has dropped the ball, especially on health care and the environment, I support him on the Iraq invasion, and don't want to turn over that mess to anyone else. So, I'm giving him a confidence vote...

and I'm supporting swing state gunners groups to action, as well.

 

[Zrex]

You're right Zrex, I could do that. But even though there are a ton of things I think Bush has dropped the ball, especially on health care and the environment, I support him on the Iraq invasion, and don't want to turn over that mess to anyone else. So, I'm giving him a confidence vote...

I respect your decision.

 

[OF]

Please, send a letter and don't risk the whole thing.

Seriously. There can be no worse nightmare for 2nd Amendment advocates or freedom loving Americans than a Kerry administration. That reality must be taken into account in a voting decisions you make.

- Gabe

 

[one45auto]

A little reality check for the third party voters.


One person voting for a third party candidate in a close race will not sway the election one way or another. We'll grant you that. The problem, however, is that you have hundreds of thousands of people who each think the same thing. They each think that they're the only one doing it, that thier vote won't count anyway, and pad thier conscience with the mistaken assumption that enough people will turn out for Bush in order to save them from the consequences of thier folly. Think about it. They're counting on someone else to step up to the plate and secure a victory for Bush so that they can rest easy, safe in the knowledge that they "voted thier conscience." They're willing to risk the safety and security of our nation, not to mention the future of our Constitutional Rights, all for the sake of having the ability to proudly say that they didn't vote for either candidate. I'm sorry, but that's what my grandmother would have called "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

Maryland is an overwhemingly Democratic state. The voter registration here is two-to-one in favor of the Democrats. Yet each election year I faithfully trudge off the polls because it's my duty as a citizen. Maybe Bush won't win my state. Maybe there won't be enough registered Democrats swayed by Bush to give him our electoral votes, but I'm not going to waste my ballot on a third party candidate who won't win or sit on my behind at home hoping and praying that someone else will take my place. If nothing else, should Kerry win (God forbid) I'll at least have the satisfaction of knowing that I did all I could to oppose him.

Moral of the story? Don't count on someone else to do what you should be doing, because they might be counting on you.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

one45auto

They're counting on someone else to step up to the plate and secure a victory for Bush so that they can rest easy, safe in the knowledge that they "voted thier conscience."

Nope. We're screwed no matter which candidate from the first party is elected.

They're willing to risk the safety and security of our nation, not to mention the future of our Constitutional Rights, all for the sake of having the ability to proudly say that they didn't vote for either candidate.

Both candidates are a danger to our Constitutional rights, they're just dangerous concerning different ones and in different ways.

GRD

There can be no worse nightmare for 2nd Amendment advocates or freedom loving Americans than a Kerry administration.

You have a point about the 2A advocates, but not the "freedom loving Americans" part. Many would argue that Bush could very well be worse for those who values their freedom. His track record hasn't been too good so far, and he intends to make it worse.

 

[Zrex]

People learn best from their mistakes. If George Bush looses this election because all of the libertarian leaning Republicans voting 3rd party, do you think the Republican Party will learn from this? Yes. The Democrats learned what happens when you vote for the AWB in 1994.

If GWB looses this election because of a strong 3rd party turnout, I guarantee that the Republican Party will gradually start adopting Libertarian philosophies. If GWB wins this election because all the libertarians vote for him, then what does he learn from this? He learns that he can keep promising gun control, he can keep introducing hugely expensive social welfare programs, and keep taking away our 4th, 5th, & 1st amendment rights in the name of Homeland Defense.

A GWB win may be a short term victory at the expense of a long term loss.



Here is a way to think about it. You have two choices :

1.) Take a job at a WalMart making 7 bucks an hour. Over the next four years, you will make $58,240.

2.) Go to college & get a degree in electrical engineering. Over the next four years you will "loose" $80,000.

In the short term you will be ahead by $138,240 if you work for WalMart! In the long run, the Engineer has a much higher lifetime earning potential. Short term sacrifice for long term gain at its finest.

Would you take a Kerry presidency for 4 years if it meant that in 2008 the Republicans were seriously PRO-gun, PRO-freedom, and PRO-constitution instead of just being NOT ANTI?

 

[Zrex]

Oops. Ok, I forgot about the potential openings on the supreme court. That is a big deal. Of course, if the Senate Dems are willing to fillibuster non Supreme Court judicial nominations, what are the chances they will do this to a SC nominee?

 

[MP5]

We're in a battle here folks and the gunnie side needs some help so there will be at least four more years until the real poopoo hits the political scene.

For my part, I don't reduce politics to a simple, binaristic question of pro/anti-RKBA. I love my guns and my right to keep and bear them, but there are many other major issues that impact me, my family, and the world at large.

He learns that he can keep promising gun control, he can keep introducing hugely expensive social welfare programs, and keep taking away our 4th, 5th, & 1st amendment rights in the name of Homeland Defense.

Exactly. A vote for Bush is just as clearly a vote against Constitutional liberties as a vote for Kerry is. As CannibalCrowley noted, it's just a question of which liberties you're willing to have axed. For me, the entire Bill of Rights is vitally important, and the amendments work in concert. Start chipping away at any one of them, and the whole edifice of liberty is in danger of crumbling down.

Would you take a Kerry presidency for 4 years if it meant that in 2008 the Republicans were seriously PRO-gun, PRO-freedom, and PRO-constitution instead of just being NOT ANTI?

In a heartbeat.

 

[buzz_knox]

In the short term you will be ahead by $138,240 if you work for WalMart! In the long run, the Engineer has a much higher lifetime earning potential. Short term sacrifice for long term gain at its finest.

That's a false analogy. What if during the period you are going for short term sacrifice, they make the long term gain illegal? That's what we are facing. You want a short term action that will have lasting, negative effects.

Yes, the Democrats learned their lesson. More specifically, they learned to stay quiet and bide their time, waiting for the gun rights movement to fragment. That long term strategy is about to pay off big.

As for SCOTUS nominees, yes the Dems will filibuster Bush's nominees if they are in the minority. But there is a strong argument against such filibusters, and it's been gaining ground. The Senate is supposed to advise and consent on nominees, not stand as an impediment to qualified individuals due to Senator's individual litmus test. If Kerry wins, you'll see the Dems adopt this position wholesale. If they are in the minority, the Repubs will look like the bad actors when the ABA (which will support any Kerry nominee) and the Dems work together to paint any judicial candidate (even Clinton or Shumer) as a moderate. If the Dems are in the majority, the effect will be even more intense.

Yes, Bush isn't what we all hoped he would be. But he is the only viable alternative to loosing this war here and now. This election will, if it goes to Kerry, reshape the legal and political movement for decades. What use will the LP or Badnarik be when Kerry signs, and a Dem Senate ratifies, the UN arms treaty or a "watered down" version? What use will they be if Kerry signs the treaty and even though it's not ratified, it's considered customary international law and we are held to it anyway (yes, this is a real possibility)?

 

[El Rojo]

If GWB looses this election because of a strong 3rd party turnout, I guarantee that the Republican Party will gradually start adopting Libertarian philosophies.

Would you support this statement by outlining the the adaptations that that the Republican Party made after their loss to Clinton in 1992 and how George Bush II is the new more "libertarian" candidate that was a result of this lesson that you claim will happen. Wait, if you are not happy with Bush II, then obviously the party didn't learn anything when the third party taught them a lesson in 1992. Your theory won't work.

And the main reason this theory of punishing them won't work is because elections are not won on the poles. That is the hard core individuals on the edges aren't big enough to worry about. Who is big enough to try and get their vote? THE MIDDLE! Yes, it is those undecided middle voters that win and lose elections. How do I know? I was a freaking Political Science Major and I studied this crap. The middle wins elections. Now there is an exception when you get enough people to leave the party they usually would associate with and they vote for a third party. Perot in 1992 was an excellent example. Some might say Bush wasn't electable and that is why he lost. Fair enough. What was the end result? Bill Clinton. Everyone raise your hand if you enjoyed Bill Clinton's 8 years in office?

The Republican Party isn't going to learn a darn thing if they lose this election because Badarnick or whatever his name is got 3% of the popular vote. You can look forward to Kerry ruling the roost for four years and you can look forward to at the very least an AWB II. If you think some RINOs in the house aren't going to give Kerry AWBII in exchange for some pork in their district, you are kidding yourself. We don't need to discuss the Senate because they already had enough to put AWB extended on the liability bill. Bush isn't going to fight for AWBII, he is done with new guns laws. There is a big difference between not doing anything and actively seeking to get something passed when you are the President. He isn't called he most powerful person in the world for nothing.

This is a dead horse, but lets beat it some more. If you want to reform the Republican Party, you are going to have to get off your lazy butt and do it where it matters the most, on your local level. You won't be able to do it by casting your vote for a 3rd party in the Presidential election. However, your ineffective means of sending a message to the Republican Party unfortunately can cost us all in the long run. 4 years of Kerry should be something that appalls everyone on this board.

But heck, why do I care? Why am I wasting my time trying to help out free America? Bring on AWBII, I doubt it will be any worse than SB23 here in the PRK. So vote third party! join California in our quest to reach the dream of a peaceful utopia where big brother knows best. Yes, free America, join us! Join your comrades in the PRK.

 

[buzz_knox]

This is a dead horse, but lets beat it some more. If you want to reform the Republican Party, you are going to have to get off your lazy butt and do it where it matters the most, on your local level. You won't be able to do it by casting your vote for a 3rd party in the Presidential election. However, your ineffective means of sending a message to the Republican Party unfortunately can cost us all in the long run. 4 years of Kerry should be something that appalls everyone on this board

Agreed.

You know, I'm through with this discussion. I'm leaving it with this final point. In view of the nihilistic tendencies displayed by the LP, I will personally not vote for any libertarian candidate nor or for the foreseeable future. I just can't take the idea of supporting a group that is so dedicated to the ideals of freedom, that they throw away opportunities to preserve and protect that freedom, and regain lost freedoms. I believe in ideals; I just prefer to achieve them through practicalities. I will continue to work within the system, converting anti-gunners to our side, and telling the truth to Democrats with the goal of converting them (goals which I've successfully achieved). That's the method that's gotten us where we are today in terms of momentum going in favor of restoring our rights. The "throw the baby out with the bathwater" has done nothing but get us in this situation.

 

[bogie]

Oh heck. Just vote against Bush.

And in 2008, after they've taken away your "saturday night specials" and "high powered assault handguns," and "concealable death machines," and "ultra accurate sniper handguns," and "cop killer sniper rifles" with their "cop killer assault armor piercing bullets," and your "multiple projectile street sweeping assault shotguns," well...

Then you can have your revolution.

 

[Zrex]

That's a false analogy. What if during the period you are going for short term sacrifice, they make the long term gain illegal? That's what we are facing. You want a short term action that will have lasting, negative effects.

Its not a false analogy, its called risk. Those people who are risk averse will always take the small short term upside, versus the large *potential* long term upside.

If you are risk averse, that’s ok, I respect that. Not everyone has an entrepreneur’s spirit.

Would you support this statement by outlining the the adaptations that that the Republican Party made after their loss to Clinton in 1992 and how George Bush II is the new more "libertarian" candidate that was a result of this lesson that you claim will happen. Wait, if you are not happy with Bush II, then obviously the party didn't learn anything when the third party taught them a lesson in 1992. Your theory won't work.

Why on earth would GWB be more "libertarian" because of Ross Perot in 1992? That doesnt follow my logic. By my logic, the Republican Party would have adopted and embraced and started moving towards the Ross Perot Reform Party.

Could this have been the start of the Neo-Con movement? Think about that.