Gary Johnson position of the 2A

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am voting for Johnson. I am sick of choosing between a criminal and a sleaze.

Yep.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

And in 1860, the Republicans were the 3rd party. Worked out pretty good that time. You know, when people wasted their vote.
 
gary represents my ideas n i think he'd make the best prez.
trump lost the election when he lost the women's vote.
libertarians will not allow dealing only with ffls n other infringements on our rights.
 
To me, he appears to be a good possible alternative...
I'm just as good an alternative as he is--in fact, my stance on the 2nd is even better than his. Write me in. It's the same thing for all practical purposes--neither of us is going to win.
...if you think Trump best represents you and your values...
Out of the two ACTUAL candidates--the two that actually have any chance of winning, there's a clear choice from the 2nd Amendment perspective.
If, on the other hand, Johnson or even whoever is on the green ticket better represents you, you are not only defaulting on your duty to society, you are compromizing your personal integrity by lying to your country.
My duty to society can be fulfilled by voting for someone who can't win? Wow, that opens up a LOT of options.

Here I was thinking my duty to society was to try to prevent a clearly anti-2nd amendment candidate from appointing a swing judge to the supreme court. Dopey me...
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
If you REALLY want to vote for the person who best represents your views, you are 'compromizing' your personal integrity and "defaulting on your duty to society" by not writing yourself in as a candidate. Who can represent you better than yourself? No one!

See, it gets a lot easier when you don't have to concern yourself about who actually ends up in office...
And in 1860, the Republicans were the 3rd party.
In 1860, the U.S. was months away from civil war. But even if you believe that had no effect, don't you think it might be significant that you have to go back over 150 years to find the last time a third party candidate won? Maybe just a little significant?

By the way, do you know the main reason why the Republican party candidate won in 1860? The Democratic party split its votes. They would have won the popular vote by a huge margin had they not done that. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned there too?
 
Last edited:
This never was intended into a "wasted vote vs. holding your nose" discussion, but it is devolving into that. The original point was what was Johnson's 2A stance. He is and strong and has always been strong on the 2A. He is and has been stronger on 2A than the D & R candidates.

Whether he is, or should be, a viable candidate in the General election is what the discussion has become and that's a much more difficult question because we've never had a third party candidate polling close to 15% in recent memory that it would make a difference in the election. If Johnson was able to make the debates the numbers might change up or down for support and we'd have a better idea if he was actually a threat to either candidate (and the left if having these same discussions about Johnson spoiling the D vote by pulling voters from Clinton just as we are). The challenge then is our crystal balls aren't very effective in predicting who he'd pull votes from and what that outcome might be.
 
Whether he is, or should be, a viable candidate in the General election is what the discussion has become and that's a much more difficult question because we've never had a third party candidate polling close to 15% in recent memory that it would make a difference in the election. If Johnson was able to make the debates the numbers might change up or down for support and we'd have a better idea if he was actually a threat to either candidate (and the left if having these same discussions about Johnson spoiling the D vote by pulling voters from Clinton just as we are). The challenge then is our crystal balls aren't very effective in predicting who he'd pull votes from and what that outcome might be.

He's polling at around 15% now and no one knows who he is. With the other two choices, I don't see going from 15% to 34% a very big stretch if he can get out there and get some name recognition and get on the debate floor. I really doubt that the other two will garner more than 30% support if there is a viable option.
 
Johnson's "libertarian" stance* might have had an impact if there were any down ballot associates, but there aren't, so he'd be alone with no one to support his agenda at odds with (somewhat) both parties. The only thing more pointless than a vote for him would be his election.

Out of the two ACTUAL candidates--the two that actually have any chance of winning, there's a clear choice from the 2nd Amendment perspective.
Yup, having exhausted every other conceivable option, a recently converted and wholly unproven NYC former gun control supporter & endorser is the best we can do. Sucks, but...well mostly it just sucks. I sure hope the nation learned its lesson about voting "strategically" vs. their true feelings/beliefs regarding governance, since neither candidate would be before us, and the two would actually stand in stark relief. When you let your enemy define your course of action, you make yourself vulnerable (and now the only question is whether Hillary or Donald supporters are weakened more by their respective fears)

TCB

*Recent events have shown he tracks far more closely with Democrats this cycle than Libertarians. A VP that thinks assault weapons are weapons of mass destruction, a prez who thinks religous freedom is destructive. I personally think he is trying to act as a spoiler for Trump, so Clinton is not elected, which is ironic.
 
Last edited:
...I just wonder if the best thing to do is convince liberal or (D) friends to vote Gary. There is a very large section of Dems who are totally disgusted with their anointed candidate. So probably the only way supporting GJ could actually help the cause of 2A; pull (D)'s away from She, DT gets in, fills SCOTUS with pro-2A justices, etc.
What an election:barf: cycle when flushing my vote is stupid; getting others to do so is wise.
 
I think you've stumbled on to the answer to conservatives trying to bring their liberal gun loving friends (talk about 1 percenters) into the fold. Convince them to throw their vote 3rd party and everybody wins.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
I'm just as good an alternative as he is--in fact, my stance on the 2nd is even better than his.

If you honestly believe you are your own best representative, write yourself in. If you believe you would be the best representative for others, run for office. If you don't, go back and re-read what I said about lying to the republic. Maybe add a "...fool for a lawyer" joke about self representation.

Out of the two ACTUAL candidates--the two that actually have any chance of winning, there's a clear choice from the 2nd Amendment perspective.

Yes, and that's Johnson.

Oh, you meant Trump? Trump has zero chance of winning, and it isn't clear that he is actually a candidate, and it is less clear he has anything but a New Jersey elitist view of gun rights. He is a reality tv actor and looks an awful lot like a Steven Colbert style false flag agitator.

Here's the reality: if we want someone who has a consistent record on 2a rights, who will not be trying to use the bully pulpit, executive order, or creative reinterpretation of laws and words to infringe upon our rights and harass us for our choice to be gun owners, you have exactly one path to victory: figure out how to get Johnson elected. Saying "that's too hard, lets try to do this instead..." Only works if your alternative has a real shot, which Trump doesn't.

If your issue is 2A rights you have a choice... Figure out how to get Johnson elected, or lose.
 
He is and has been stronger on 2A than the D & R candidates.
I dunno 'bout that - if you read Trump's statement on his site, you'd think it came from the NRA, which it may have. His sons are long time shooters, hunters, and I know one of them has been a reloader for quite some time (and I doubt he's doing it to save money).

It's reported that his sons were being attacked for hunting by some group(s) when Trump came to their defense. At that time, his sons took him aside and schooled him on gun rights and the 2nd Amendment.

I have a feeling his stance on guns as reflected on his site probably came from his sons.

If your issue is 2A rights you have a choice... Figure out how to get Johnson elected, or lose
I have voted 3rd party in the past in order to send an (ignored) signal, but I knew I was throwing my vote away - the stakes of having one of the two parties I didn't vote for win weren't as dire as they are this time.

Being a pragmatist, and using my head instead of my emotions, as a gun owner I see only one choice this time.

Back when I voted 3rd party, I could afford to throw my vote away.
Not this time...
 
To me, he appears to be a good possible alternative

I don't see him as an alternative.

al ter·na·tive
ôlˈtərnədiv/
adjective
1.
(of one or more things) available as another possibility.

Any reasonable person would acknowledge that his winning the election as not possible at this point.

His polling has been flat, even against the two most disapproved candidates. He needs 15% to get on the stage. Even then he would just ensure Clinton as POTUS the same as Ross Perot did getting 19% in 1992 putting the first Clinton in the White House.
 
don't you think it might be significant that you have to go back over 150 years to find the last time a third party candidate won? Maybe just a little significant?

Oh yes, that is very significant. No doubt about it.
It means that we have had the current 2 party system in place for over 150 years and in that time it has become a two headed monster that needs to be ended.
The fact that it has been over 150 years is the entire problem.

By the way, do you know the main reason why the Republican party candidate won in 1860? The Democratic party split its votes. They would have won the popular vote by a huge margin had they not done that. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned there too?

Yep there is a lesson to be learned there too.
A large percentage of Dems and Reps are dissatisfied with their party.
If we could get them to both split their votes like the Dems did in 1860, it could happen again.

I refuse to be trapped in the mire of "well, I hate the system but it is what it is, so I'll continue to participate in it."
No. That is the problem. People are not happy with the main 2 choices but yet they continue to vote for them. If everybody who said, "I would vote for the Libertarian candidate but I don't want to waste my vote" would actually do it, he would have a real chance. I will vote for the candidate to best represents my beliefs/views, regardless of party affiliation. Most often that is the Republican candidate because of my hard line 2A stance. Not always but the majority of the time anyway. There are some Southern Democrats (local election stuff) down here who are staunch 2A supporters.
Gary Johnson is the closest to my viewpoint on many, many issues, not only 2nd Amendment stuff.
There is not one who does on 100% of the issues, but I will choose the candidate who most closely mirrors them.
 
Last edited:
As I understand it he has to reach a 15% average in five specific polls to be included in the debates, he is currently just below 9% (average) in those five polls.. Personally I'd like to see the 15% requirement lowered to 10%, because double digits is BIG for any third party, but my opinion is totally irrelevant.

That is far from being ignored for a third party candidate. There is little doubt he is the best pro 2A candidate of the top three parties. Again my personal (and irrelevant) position is a vote for the best candidate is a perfectly fine way to vote.

More on topic:
I ran across this recently, an interview with him

Q: Where do you stand on gun control?
A: I'm one of those who believe the bumper sticker: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. The first people who are going to be in line to turn in their guns are law-abiding citizens. Criminals are going to be left with guns. I believe that concealed carry is a way of reducing gun violence.
Q: Do you carry a gun?
A: I don't, and I don't own a gun, but I'd still just as soon have the concealed carry law. If the guy who is going to hold up a car knows there is the possibility of a concealed weapon, he may think twice. We don't have that law here.
Q: But the statistics show that people don't use guns to stop crime. They use them to hurt themselves or innocent people.
A: Yeah, but there is deterrence in the legality of guns. It's also part of the Constitution.
Q: The NRA disagrees with any limits. Do you?
A: I don't believe the laws regarding guns are effective. We're allowed to bear arms. It's part of a free society.

Source: David Sheff interview in Playboy Magazine , May 2, 2011
 
If we could get them to both split their votes like the Dems did in 1860, it could happen again.

Wishful thinking, "if's and could's" are how lottery ticket sales bring in over $70 billion dollars a year and your chances of being struck by lightning are better than winning the powerball.
 
I have been a die hard Libertarian since around 2004. As such, Johnson is not my ideal candidate. However, he will definitely still be getting my vote. If all I can do is spoil it for Hillary or Trump and their supporters, then it will have been worth it. LOL
 
Note that the general rule that 3rd party candidates cannot win in America is a consequence of the lack of proportional representation in Congress. First past the post, single member district structures inhibit 3rd parties, whereas proportional representation systems encourage them. You learn this stuff in the first week of a comparative political science class if you take one.

However, that general rule has no more than psychological significance in a presidential election. Unlike congresss, you're not dividing up seats. Only one person will win. The money that comes with party support is still a factor, but the rise of new media (the internet) and crowd-funding (many small donations) have actually diminished the necessity of getting numerous large donors (i.e., bribe-payers) on board. The legitimacy of a major party's approval has historically been a significant factor, but I'm not sure that's much of a selling point any more!

Can Gary Johnson win? Maybe, maybe not. But the same kind of thinking that says "no" also predicted that Trump would never be the GOP nominee. We're living in interesting times, and a lot of old rules-of-thumb don't work very well any more.
 
If anyone is dumb enough to vote for anyone other than Trump you deserve what you get with Hillary.
 
The Stupid Is Strong with Weld

Try to listen to this interview with Bill Weld (Johnson's running mate) on guns without losing a few IQ points yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnc_v9ZuEls

"The 5-shot rifle, that's a standard military rifle. The problem is if you attach a clip to it so it can fire more shells, and if you remove the pin so that it becomes an automatic weapon .. "

"You shouldn't have anybody who's on a terrorist watch list be able to buy any gun at all."

I don't buy the "2 Parties only and forever" argument, and I wanted to vote for Johnson. Gov. Weld is making me wonder if I can do that.

ETA: This was when Weld was Governor of Massachusetts:

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/01/us/in-shift-massachusetts-governor-backs-gun-law.html

Mr. Weld, a Republican who will run for re-election next year, called for a statewide ban on assault weapons -- a proposal he opposed during his 1990 campaign -- as well as a waiting period for buying handguns and a prohibition on handgun ownership by anyone under 21. His proposed legislation would also limit the number of handguns an individual could buy and would impose tough penalties for illegal gun sales and gun-related crimes.

do-you-want-to-microwave-this-baby-or-blend-it-3110576.png
 
Last edited:
Weld is the same kind of Republican as Romney, Christy, Hogan, Giuliani and Bloomberg You don't win in the places they won as a conservative.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
basicblur,

Trump may have had an honest conversion after supporting restrictions, but Johnson has been a 2A supporter much much longer.
 
Trump Gun rights

Do a quick google on Trumps property/business being gun friendly or not.
The man does not practice what he preaches.
Alongside the 2A is the issue of property. Trump has repeatedly used the court system in a attempt to use eminent domain to seize others peoples property so he can use it for his own business.
I don't want this type of person in government, let alone president.
If I have to fight sooner then later with my weapons. I'd rather vote for the best of three candidates.
We have seen Republicans pass more restrictive gun laws in Colorado and the USA.
Gary Johnson respected the 2A while governor of New Mexico.
 
Trump may have had an honest conversion after supporting restrictions, but Johnson has been a 2A supporter much much longer.
The length of time one has believed in the 2A makes no difference to me - it's whether they are a true believer or not.

Is Trump one? I dunno, but I like his published stance, and it sure sounds like his sons are, which may give us an inside track.

AFA Johnson...the more I listen to him the more unimpressed I am with him.

I think the weed may have taken a toll on him over the years?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top