http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUO0uQAp2D4
If you’re carrying a gun for self-defense, good for you! Good for society! Good for business! If you’re not, why not? I’m thinking it may have something to do with geography. Gun owners living in states where the government thinks “shall not be infringed” means “shall infringe” have little luck tooling-up. Those governments are, almost invariably, Democrat controlled. Yes I know: Republicans have voted for gun control. Blue Dog Democrats are pro-gun. But if you have to pick a party to protect your pistol packing proclivities—and you do—it’s the pachyderm party. Remember: you can’t have a defensive gun use without a gun. And you can’t have a gun if politicians remove your right to keep and bear arms. So hold your nose if you have to and vote Republican. Right?
Don’t vote for John McCain the Biggest liberal and anti-American in the Senate!
True, this is one Arizonan that is not voting for McCain next time around. I voted for him last time, never again.
Need to throw Flake in there also!…
I didn’t want to vote for him last election but the powers within the party are determined to make him the only choice.
Then start working at the local and state level to run the RINOs out of the party. Take over! Get with like-minded people and just start working within the ranks. Most people in political parties are not there to work, but to party. Often, you’ll get advanced and given responsibility just ’cause you’re the one who showed up! I’m a conservative /libertarian, but the Repubs will let me play with them. The Dems won’t. And the libertarians will not achieve national success in our lifetimes. The Repubs already have the organization in place , Constitutionalists just need to take command of it!
+ 1
The enemies of the Constitution are the politicians in our capitols and Capital… Regardless of political party affiliation.
I’ve always identified myself as a shameless “Flaming Conservative.” And the more time I spend getting frustrated at the issues, the more I see it as simply “Us vs. Them.”
If you want to protect all of your constitutionally protected rights, not just 2A – you may want to look at the Libertarian party.
Thank you John Mackay.
Except for the most part Libertarian polices are very the ones who create members of the Democratic Party coalition. Basically the drug addled and single mothers.
You’re gonna have to help me a little with that one, tdiinva. How do Libertarian policies create single mothers and drug addicts?
Let’s legalize drugs. Both the dollar price and social cost of drugs drops. This both shifts the demand curve to the right and moves down the slope. Basic economics says there will be more use. Since drugs are potentially debilitating there will now be more people rendered nonfunctional and dependent on the government.
“Get the government out of marriage” i.e., abolish the institution. Marriage is only defined by secular law because it entails rights and obligations that only the government can enforce. If there is no legal advantage to marriage then few will marry and society will look like more and more like America’s inner cities — single women on welfare having multiple children with multiple men. Single women on welfare, and even those who work, vote Democratic.
Libertarians, just like their brothers the Progressives, are exclusively first order thinkers. You gotta think beyond the immediate effect of a policy action.
That analysis ignores the economic side of Libertarianism, which would disincent single motherhood. It’s not so attractive to have 5 baby daddies if the state doesn’t make them pay you 50% of their income in child support. And single momma is going to have to get a job, because there wouldn’t be welfare for the able bodied either.
Libertarianism has its’ own problems, as does every ideology. But it’s foundation is personal responsibility rather than a nanny state.
Except in a Libertarian system, there wouldn’t be any welfare for those single moms to be on.
There also probably wouldn’t be child support – which just makes one parent the indentured servant of the other. Take the financial incentives involved with custody out, and the parent more concerned with the child winds up raising the child.
So, explain to me why there would be more single moms in a system that removes all the financial incentives to being a single parent? The reason we have so many single moms now is because those moms can make more by applying for welfare and collecting child support than working. And the Republicans are doing nothing about fixing the broken family law system that makes that happen.
Clearly the “single mom that is poor but having more babies” is a result of the welfare rules put in place by dems in the 60’s, against Moynihan’s advice. The more recent phenomena of unmarried parents (esp. in Northern Europe) is a result of marriage property laws. In the US we do not enforce a father’s obligation to support his children very well, but we do still award much of a spouse’s capital to the other spouse when they file for divorce. This is backward. We also provide benefits to marriage partners without regard to child rearing, but only with regard to years lived together (10 or 15 depending on the benefit). This is silly. If a spouse does not stay out of work to raise children, why should they gain some special SS or property benefit? No reason. Now, back to firearms issues.
a vote for a third party is a vote against your most preferable candidate with an actual chance of winning.
+1
On the topic of third-party validity… 20 years ago I was the “token gun-nut neo-Goldwaterite” (honestly, they called me that in print) on the staff of a ferociously independent free weekly. The publisher, who was basically a lefty, was big on endorsement editorials. One election he was mad at both parties (over campaign finance reform, lack thereof) and urged the readers to vote for every Libertarian, Green, and Social Worker on the ballot with the immortal words “It’s not throwing away your vote; it’s a protest vote and a protest is damn well called for!”
See, here is the dilemma. You have to be able to get a majority to vote for Libertarian candidates so you can abolish welfare. The question is how do you get the demographic that needs their welfare checks and government subsidies to vote for you? How likely do you think that is? They already have access to drugs and sex. That’s all you have to offer them. You have just demonstrated how Libertarians live in a fantasy world.
What you Libertarians fail recognize is that the society you envision already exists in the inner cities. Look past the police presence and the government handouts. Inner city residents actually live with little interference from the government. Don’t become a nuisance and you never have to encounter the law or city hall. What many people don’t understand is that the violence we see as crime is effectively a private enforcement of cultural norms. What we often see as crime, within the context of the inner city culture, is justice being meted out. The inner city is the Libertarian “paradise” in action. Utopias always look more like hell then heaven.
RD:
The effective abolition of marriage in Europe has much different consequences than it does here. It’s called cultural extinction. Native European populations are going to face an implosion in the next 50 years. Western civilization advanced because single monogomous partnering became the norm. It is the most conducive family structure to build a civil society. Societies built on polygomy are very unstable because of the large number of unpartnered males who have no way to spread their genetic heritage. The termination of an institution after 3000 years success will doom western civilization. We are seeing it unravel before our very eyes.
“Since drugs are potentially debilitating there will now be more people rendered nonfunctional and dependent on the government.”
I would much rather be paying welfare to a drug user than to be stuck with the paychecks and pensions of the army of government thugs that the drug war needs.
The average citizen is in more danger from the cops than they are from druggies and terrorists.
Do it for the children!
Just vote Gun Rights.
This – the whole Vote Republican to save your guns is bullshit. I live in Kentucky and aside from the urban centers, our Democratic legislators are about as pro-gun as it gets. My representative is a pretty dyed-in-the-wool D when it comes to most social issues – except guns. He has sponsored every major gun bill the state has adopted in the last 15 years. So do your research and don’t be swayed by the whole us vs them side-show that pervades national politics. The real action is in the states and if your vote at the ballot box isn’t getting it done, vote with your feet.
I’m sure there are many West Virginians that were voting pro gun rights when they voted for blue dog dem Joe Manchin twice for Governor and then for Senate. He was supposedly pro gun but when push came to shove he toed the anti gun democrat party line.
Agree. “Inform yourself and actually get your keester to the polls.” Even the lesser of two evils is still, well, the lesser evil. Sounds like a deal to me.
Even the lesser of two evils is still evil. Just because your not as bad as the other guy that doesn’t make you good
The Congress is organized by party. Federal law supersedes state law. Democrats in Congress vote to place anti-gun people in leadership positions, such as Nancy Pelosi.
Keep an eye on the Republicans, but don’t forget that at the national level Democrats are not the friends of gun owners, any gun owners.
Exactly!
Consider other issues, but voting for politicians who support gun rights should trump all.
Besides, if voting to protect your RKBA, a politician with that stance will generally meet your other preferences.
Now if only some pro gun politicos would surface in CA politics. Last Assembly choices I had ONLY included two Dems and one Independent no-name newbie. And of course, NONE of them mentioned their stance on gun rights. Pretty much says it all: they’ll go the way the wind blows on RKBA.
It’s truly a sad state of affairs in CA.
BTW Robert Farago, CCW for most of CA, what’s that?
I have heard it said that you should vote the party, regardless of individual senators/reps.
This is because you don’t know what games they play behind the scenes. Say the dems know they have enough votes to handily pass a gun control measure. They may say to the Kentucky rep, go ahead and vote against this one because we still have enough votes. You think he’s fighting the good fight but you lose nonetheless. This is politics we are talking about — these types of games are the default.
Dear Farago,
You’ve jumped the shark. The idea that those moronic elephants give a damn about individual rights in general and gun rights in particular is laughable. 99% of them will roll you under the bus if it would keep them in office.
In short, stop being a shill.
QFT
Robert you’ve got a very funny way of spelling libertarian
+1
If more people stopped to realize there’s more than 2 parties and considered Libertarian maybe the “nose holding” wouldn’t be necessary
And in the current political reality, without a single libertarian holding a major political office without support from a national level party… It’s fine to vote in a libertarian in the party primary. However, at the end of the day, I will choose the party that (in theory) wants to reduce the power and reach of government over the latest incarnation of the National Socialist American Workers Party.
I voted for Gary Johnson in the last presedential election… not because I agree with him on every issue, or that I thought he had even a remote chance of actually winning, but simply because he was the only one on the ballot I could vote for with a clean conscience.
I’ve been paying attention to the Libertarian Party for over 20 years. In that time I’ve seen many Libertarians run for office, many of them admittedly not intending to win, but rather to “inform” the electorate.
The goal, I was informed two decades ago was to gradually increase the number of Libertarian voters to the point where they would start winning meaningful elections (i.e. state-level or national offices). Since 1972 the Libertarian candidate for president has gotten more than 1% of the votes cast only once, in 1980. This last time Johnson received just a bit less than 1%.
There are no Libertarians in any state legislature that I know of. They definitely don’t control any. There are no Libertarians in Congress. And their results at the presidential level are meaningless.
Many Libertarian whine that the system is stacked against them. It may be (although if you look at electoral history, the US has always been basically a two party nation), but so what?
Offering a set of policies that has something for everyone, but which also has something to turn everyone off isn’t a winning strategy.
Voting for candidates that have no chance of winning is also not a winning strategy. All that does is make it easier for the candidate from the major parties that you like less to win.
“Voting for candidates that have no chance of winning is also not a winning strategy.”
In general, I agree with you. But I happened to move from Ohio to South Carolina in between the ’08 and ’12 elections, so I went from a state where every vote actually matters to a state where the Republicans basically phone it in every 4 years.
There was really no chance that the SC electoral votes would go to anyone other than the guy with the “R” next to his name on the ballot, whoever that guy happened to be, so I was able to vote my conscience without having to worry about the broader political implications of my wasted vote.
It would be better if I was able to vote for someone I agree with who also had a chance of winning a national election, but I honestly don’t expect that to happen in my lifetime.
+1
You know, I like the Libertarian stance, but so far that party does not have the horse power, the draw or the candidates to capture main line conservatives and be viable. Nice pipe dream, but splitting the conservative vote does little more than keep Democrats in office – in perpetuity.
But it’s exactly that attitude: “better the lesser of two evils” that has led to the system we have now of exchanging one form of statism for the other every election.
I suppose if gun rights is the only issue you care about than voting republican is a safe-ish decision, but if you care about things like bodily autonomy, free speech, etc than neither party is remotely acceptable. And through their combined “good intentions” you will be left with no freedom
That’s exactly how John Morse got elected to the Colorado Senate, which gave him a platform for driving through the silly laws that just took effect. A third part candidate siphoned off enough votes to make the difference.
I lean libertarian, but I vote gun rights.
The Libertarian strategy is two fold. Run as a weak third party to elimiante the Republicans and then take over the position of the “other party.” Democrats welcome this strategy because while the Libertarians destroy the opposition they will use their monopoly on power to shape the electorate to insure that they have perpetual power. The Libertarians get to play at being the opposition to make it look like we live in Republic. Since the only thing that Liberatrians really disagree with the Democrats on is market economics they will offer no meaningful alterntive to a majority dependent population. Libertarian success ensure the end of the Republic.
I concur. Libertarians believe, like many college graduates today, they can start out in management on day one. I will start voting for libertarians when they start earning it. That means building the party from the lowest positions. First get a county populated by elected libertarians, then get a state a controling number of libertarians. After that I will consider you a viable run for the President. Otherwise you are asking the population to take a bet on the dark horse, 00 in Roulette, or that the coin will land on its edge after it has been flipped. Without a solid base, the libertarian party is just a pleasant idea with no representation.
Quit your whining, would you rather have the Dems in office again?
Fallacy of False Alternatives.
Care to try again?
Not really a fallacy if it is the extremely probable alternative.
Truth of bad alternatives.
False alternatives? When was the last time you saw someone that was “other than” Dem. or Rep. as the POTUS?
Choose one, the one that you think best fits the agenda for our country. One of them is going in the office, not too sure if you’ve figured that out yet.
Ted Cruz / Rand Paul 2016
+1
I could live with that, though I’d want some suitable replacements for them in the senate.
Jeb Bush and his v/p choice – 2016.
NO. WAY.
The Judge for the Zimmerman case – you know, the biased, highly liberal disgrace to the courts impartiality and legitimacy – was a JEB BUSH appointee. If that’s the kind of people we can expect from him, no way I’d vote for him.
What in the unholy hell are you smoking?
“Debra Steinberg Nelson is a Seminole County judge of the 18th Judicial Circuit Court in Florida. She was appointed by then-Governor Jeb Bush in May of 1999 (effective in June). Her current term expires in January of 2019”
She was highly partisan in that trial, in case you didn’t follow it. That Jeb Bush appointed someone of her ilk says something about the kind of appointments he’ll make if he gets a higher office.
Rand Paul / Ted Cruz 2016 – I fixed that for ya 😉
I’ve admired and supported Rand’s dad for over 20 years, and think that aside from one-term-and-done Sen. James Webb (Navy Cross, two Purple Hearts, three tattoos) Ron Paul was the only honest man in DC. However, Satan (in the person of Karl Rove) came calling with a bucket of cash the minute it looked like Rand might win, and Rand sold his soul on the spot. The Tedster, of course, is just a puppet for the Koch Brothers and all the other corporate Satans whose only goal is quarterly profits and no accountability. But boy, Ted and Rand’s handlers sure come up with some one-liners that sound good to those whose politics fit on a bumper sticker.
Better idea: use your brain and actually learn about a candidate beyond what logo and letter they slap on the side of their taxpayer funded party bus BEFORE you vote for them.
heres a fact: there are more politicians that will sell you out for the vote than will actually do what they promise. Hell I have a radio ad from the first obama campaign swearing up and down that he is pro gun (hilarious, I know). The party is irrelevent. Vote for a person, not a mascot.
+Infinity
+Infinity x Infinity
Don’t vote by party. Actually look at what the candidate’s stance is and their voting history.
+1
I hope your ego feels great from wasting your vote on 3rd party.
It saddens me that this is the choice I have to make. I’m generally a small-government fiscal conservative, but I lean “liberal” on some social issues (gay marriage, abortion law, the belief that religious doctrine of any faith shouldn’t be a basis for laws). I end up having to pinch my nose and vote for a homophobic theocrat in order to get gun laws or lower taxes.
I currently live in Virginia, and the governor’s race is between a hoplophobe who might try to jail me for what’s my gun safe, and a nutjob who might try to jail me for what I do in the bedroom.
Sucky choices. In the same boat here in Oregon. We have an MD for a governor who has cancelled the death penalty, yet passed a death by dignity act.
So we can’t put a serial killer to death, yet I can help my mom commit suicide. WTF?
I feel your pain and am torn myself. My consolations are thus:
1. The HoD is likely to remain gun friendly regardless of who wins, so that provides a little buffer.
2. If Cuccinelli loses it might wake the GOP up a bit about avoiding the crazy social issues.
3. If he wins it might wake the Dems up that gun control is still a bear trap best avoided.
In 2013 in the US, you aren’t going to be jailed for consenting sexual conduct between adults, so long as no one is getting paid for it. Look beyond the rhetoric to what can actually be achieved.
And they can even be paid for it, as long as it’s being filmed 🙂
They’re being paid for their spoken lines. The sex is just a freebie.
While fundamentalist religion shouldn’t be the basis for laws, you cannot divorce the fact that the system the founders of our country set in motion was filtered through jeudo-Christian values. Unalienable rights come from the fact that we as humans have God given rights and any government that infringes on those is not valid. That why Obama is all government centric–government gives and it can take away.
I’m not negating your point, but just be mindful that the right to self-defense is a God given or human right that government cannot legitimately take away.
Yes but even if their is no god you can argue it from the point of your humanity. Even the judge (napolitano) has said you can make that argument( look it up). So either way, both work.
I agree that’s why I said or human right. But I think there is a little hole when we rest the authority on humanity. Again if humans say there is a human right then humans can take it away. This is why all dictators try to abolish religion. At the same time religion can be used to justify tyranny. That’s why you need a civil educated society that understands the difference. That’s why all out democracy building in the Middle East is all bs. They do not have a civil society there no matter how much democracy you have.
“Natural Rights” are not a Judeo-Christian value but rather a Greco-Roman value. The obvious filters, if you read the Founders’ writings, were predominantly Greek ethics and Roman law. “Roman law” denotes the legal system applied in most of Western Europe until the end of the 18th century. In Germany, Roman law practice remained in place longer under the Holy Roman Empire (963–1806). Roman law thus served as a basis for legal practice throughout Western continental Europe, as well as in most former colonies of these European nations.” Wiki extract.
My texts called the foundation of our Anglo-American culture “Greco-Roman.” The increasing use of “Judeo-Christian” as describing the source of our civilization’s historical base is a 20th Century innovation, an illigitimate one I would claim.
Seeing as a lot of the New Testament was written by a Greek by a Greek author that grew up and around the Roman Empire there is no doubt that these jeudeo- Christian values were heavily influences by Greek ideas. That still does not change that jeudo-Christian values filtered the founders view. They reference “Creator.” Yes I know most of the founding fathers were deist. That still does not change it. So you can call it Greco roman and ill call it Christian. I don’t really care. The point is that there is something bigger than just us and therefore “us humans” cannot take away these rights.
I have a strong preference for divorcing politics and laws from religion. Since the historical facts support the opinion that Greco-Roman antiquity played a larger role than Judeo-Christian antiquity in structuring our government and educating its founders, I’m a cheerleader for acknowledging the fact.
There is a big difference in using law and politics to push religion on someone and acknowledge religious values can play a role in shaping the two. While the federal government did not “establish” a religion, much of the states had an official religion until around 1900. So just attributing the founding to Greco-Roman law is definitely part of the values that informed the founders it is not a complete picture of the birth of this nation. The nations history is tied closely to religion. Sorry, but it is. And as a religion Christianity has taken an incorporated many of these ideas. For instance after the crusades Aristotle was introduced into the west and introduce many democratic ideas. But all those ideas were again filtered through a religious context. Again no matter how much you try you cannot completely take religion out of the philosophical underpinnings of the founding of the nation. It does not mean that it was the only one. So I guess we will have to agre to disagree and still can go to the range and enjoy.
@Roping
That’s a very astute observation.
I have a book called “The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States” first published in… 1864.
So… yeah… You’ve been duped by historical revisionists. It’s available to read through Google books, for free. Since it’s 150 years old, it’s no longer protected by copyright. Please go read it.
The Author specifies that he is writing the book to refute revisionists who were trying to downplay the role that Christianity played in the founding of the country.
Matt, might I suggest that you re-examine the two candidates, at least as far as the two statements you made. In other words, I suspect that one actually would want to put you in jail, while the other opposes something but isn’t trying to criminalize it.
Cuccinelli wants an anti-sodomy law “for the children.”
McCauliffe wants an assault weapon ban “for the children.”
A dumb idea is a dumb idea, regardless of whether it’s “liberal” or “conservative.”
Sounds like we’re screwed either way.
You do have another option. There is another candidate on the ballot.
A lady and a MK19. Wow.
Republicans are by far the best for gun rights, or at least they feel that gets them the most votes. But sadly on many other issues they are by far the worst party. At least, that’s what I feel.
They haven’t gotten over the culture war stuff, and it makes them look like a bunch of dinosaurs. Most aren’t even that great on fiscal issues, and that’s the only reason I would vote for them.
When it comes down to the lesser of two evils, I always vote for less evil.
When one is faced with a choice between two evils, the only moral choice is neither.
When playing “Devils Advocate”, you are still advocating the Devil…
Abdicating your responsibility is not a choice. It’s running away from reality. Pretending that we are not a solidly entrenched two party system is ridiculous. Vote Libertarian in the primary, but at the end of the day, we know which party actually stands on the side of freedom.
There is no abdication of responsibility by leading your own life. You cannot choose a leader for me, nor I for you, without consent. I do not consent. Please go peddle your political snake oil to the those who wish to be ruled.
“neither” will get you Hillary in 2016 and you can kiss what’s left of your 2a rights goodbye.
@Rev Pompitous:
if Hillary gets elected, a Democrat will be exchanged for another Democrat. The House will likely remain Republican-controlled as will the Supreme Court.
And again…even if the Democrats do manage to take the White House, the House of Representatives, maintain control of the Senate, and appoint anti-gun justices to the SCOTUS, the feds will still have to enforce any civilian disarmament measures they may take up. Resistance will simply move to the states and will only feed the burgeoning nullification movement.
Obama is a SOCK PUPPET and does NOT “run the show”.
If Hillary were President — she would be the NEXT Sock Puppet — who did NOT run the show.
If Jeb Bush were elected — he would crown Gen. Alexander as Emperor — and go play golf in FL.
Civilian disarmament has a broad base among those for whom it is a culture war issue and among the insiders for whom it is a pro-Police State issue.
The 2A community needs to stop preaching to the converted!!!!
Re-frame the debate and get some new support!!! This could be a great moment for the 2A movement to ally with the 4A movement (re: NSA). Much like the LEFT/RIGHT synthesis that started the Libertarian Party in the 1970s (I was there).
Please read my article (hyperlinked to my pseudonym) which is about re-framing the debate.
In order to prevail — we need (CITIZEN) converts — they *can* be had if the issues are re-presented in a different framework against a different background.
2A must be seen as a “Police State” issue…
@Chris, the only hope is in the states. That’s where the 2a is being protected. I think I’m agreeing with you.
Nullification is good.
Resistance with force does not seem like much of a plan when resistance by vote is an option. Resistance by force lacks legitimacy if you fail to vote and support local candidates: It seems to me that gun ownership is neither a legitimate nor sensible excuse to withdraw from politics. It amounts to saying “I only vote with my gun.” The polls using a gun as a voting machine do not exist. If you don’t like the Republican platform, seek to influence it. Please vote.
All the “vote from the rooftops” stuff is melodramatic and doesn’t help.
Henry, you are going to have politicians making your laws, and their appointees enforcing them. “Evil” in the context of politics is simply a polemical term. Real people are not angels. If you need a different phrase, vote for the politician who is, in your view, “not the least good of the two.”
No. Political power produces actual evil effects. Most politicians are psycopaths/sociopaths who are driven by a lust for power and a desire to rule other people’s lives. They are then given charge of the most powerful organization of institutionalized violence in the world. The voters who put them there are at least partially morally culpable for the crimes of government. No, thank you… I want no part of that.
When faced with a choice between two evils, there is not ‘neither’ choice.
If you don’t choose the lesser evil, and the greater evil wins, you’re complicit.
Being offered two evils is a false choice. There is no complicity is refusing to support evil. The people who chose evil are the complicit ones, not those who refrain.
And you thereby help the one that wins. So the moral choice is to do nothing and let other people choose an extremely bad decision for you when there is an alternative that is not as bad? Hope you like what other people think is the best alternative between the two bad alternatives. But good for you for letting other people choose the extremely bad path because your conscience is clear. “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.”
Great strategy if you just want to sit in your easy chair and complain about the world, feeling superior in your purity. Terrible strategy for pretty much everything else. The world is a messy place and you are a participant in it no matter what you do (or don’t do, as the case may be).
The policital process is the Matrix… and it has you. Please don’t confuse “refrusing to choose evil” with “doing nothing.” There are plenty of alternatives to the false political choices that the tax farmers put in front of you. It’s just a matter of deciding where to focus your efforts. I’d rather do something with a chance of success than to keep throwing my money away on a rigged carnival game.
NEVER vote for the incumbent, regardless of party. Of course we cannot vote in anyone for the IRS, NSA, CIA, DOD, DHS, FBI, EPA, DOE, or SSA. That is where the true power lies.
But it will sow discord among the elected if they only have one term to line their pockets. Who ever heard of a politician that gets elected going bankrupt.
That is why we have to get after our Senators to block the appointment of gun banners to these agencies. Contact your Senators and object to the nomination of B. Todd Jones who is for gun ban. He is another Holder type.
I agree terms should be limited. However, the lobbyists gain power when terms are too short because they end up having more experience accomplishing their goals than the elected officials. My home state of California is my case in point.
I don’t see how it’s possible for lobbyists to gain more power in D.C. than they already have. It seems they pretty much run the entire show already…
Not just the lobbyists, but also the unelected staff of the elected office holders.
But Republicans are all misogynist racists!
guilt by association.
True, don’t forget homophobic, islamophopic, earth raping, big business loving, baby killing, imigrant hating, knuckle draggers.
I idolize those guys.
We forgot xenophobic.
An Indian woman could never be elected to a statewide office by Republicans.
Or an Indian man!
How true! The Repugs just want to keep the Indian women on the technical assistance help desk plantation.
certainly not with an indian name.
Especially not SOUTHERN Republicans.
Voting for party and not principle is not the solution. Frankly, voting isn’t the solution no matter what. Changing the window dressing doesn’t do much to impact the institutional inertia of a beast 99.999% of which is comprised of unelected bureaucrats (like me).
I’m holding my nose at this defeatist drivel, RF. Sorry, but it is impossible for anyone (politician or otherwise) to remove a natural right. Every human has the right to property regardless of what any “law” says.
The political process is not the answer… it is the problem!
So Mao and Stalin couldn’t affect people’s natural rights, huh? News to me and news to millions upon millions of dead people. The strength of any right is entirely dependent upon its enforcement. It’s not much of a right if other people do not have to respect it.
I think you’re confusing “violating” someone’s rights, with “removing” someone’s rights.
I’ve been holding back Henry, but this is a bridge too far. It most certainly does matter what the law says regardless of what is morally right. Furthermore the political process exists to provide a peaceful means of negotiating the conditions of government and avoid the need for violence when there is disagreement. To say otherwise is a demonstration of having failed to understand the system that you would condemn.
Going back up a short way; ‘most’ politicians are certainly not psychopaths nor sociopaths. Those sorts of disorders are rare and usually preclude the skill sets necessary to achieve high office. Many politicians may be morally ambivalent, but are not suffering from psychosis.
As for the electorate being responsible for the ‘sins’ of government; None could be more culpable than one who had the opportunity to change that government and did nothing (ie you, by refusing to vote).
Going even further up; ‘We’ most certainly can choose an elected leader for you whether you consent or not. For however long a majority of us consent to the rule of the government you lack any individual option save self exile or else some symbolic, hysteric act of defiance that can end only in your imprisonment or death.
Finally, the only defeatist I’ve seen so far is the one who wont participate in the system. Before you pour vitriol all over a bunch of patriots attempting to find solutions, first exhaust all options available to you. However if the option you choose is to withdraw from the process and spout useless and inflammatory rhetoric, please don’t go about thinking it somehow makes you better than the people working for a solution.
+1 Ardent and more eloquent than I could ever hope to express the same sentiments.
“the political process exists to provide a peaceful means of negotiating the conditions of government”
You are the one who seems to misunderstand the system. Government is the institutionalization of violence. There is no “peaceful means of negotiating the conditions” of violence. It’s an oxymoron.
As to your other points, they are all based on the false premise that a group of people (government, society, the “majority”) can dictate how others live their lives and then enforce those dictates through brutal violence. That, in itself, is psychotic.
America’s two party system is tearing it apart. Why should people have to pick between hoplophobe Democrats or conservative Republicans?
If the Republicans would run the neocons, the moralizing religious fanatics, the Federal Reserve supporters, and the pro-police state authoritarians out of the party, I will consider voting for them.
The gun issue is, of course, important to me. But, at the end of the day, Washington is quite far from where I live and regardless what legislation Congress and the President come up with and how the federal courts feel about the natural right of armed self-defense, the feds are still going to have to enforce those laws. With 300,000,000 guns in this country, that is going to be hard to do.
Chris, it’s easy for them to enforce the unjust laws. They just wait until you use an illegal firearm in what they term an illegal way, such as self defense, then they drop the weight of the government on you. They don’t worry about 300+ million guns. They just worry about the 1 you have.
Spot on JWM, and to Chris: If you’re liberty means anything to you, get off the high horse and actually vote for what matters. If you honestly think the rest of us are going to rise to arms because you’ve been arrested for having the wrong gun I regret to inform you that we wont even notice, nor remember you, nor help in any way. You’ll simply, quietly go to prison, never to be heard from by anyone not on your approved mail list.
Anyone who is awaiting a violent revolution to act can just go ahead and opt out. It’s an absolute last resort, and there won’t be much sympathy in the mud and the blood for people who didn’t have the wherewithal to even vote to stop it.
How about this instead: Become active in the local branch of the party of your choice. Tend to be more socially liberal/ok with more government intervention in the economy? Cool, attend the local Dem meetings, bring your friends, and make it known you support the RKBA for all the good reasons Dems should (helps the poor/women/minorities protect themselves etc.)
Socially conservative? Same deal with the GOP.
Explicitly tying the RKBA to one party is dangerous since votes against that party on other issues (e.g. gay marriage) count as votes against the RKBA even if that isn’t what the voter was thinking. The modern GOP is in danger of going the way of the Whigs, it would be a shame for RKBA support to go with it.
Agree.
That’s just way too rational.
Very well put Brian, and with insight bordering on genius.
There is an old but still very helpful book by Heinlein titled “Take Back Your Government: A Practical Handbook for the Private Citizen Who Wants Democracy to Work”. It describes how exactly you, as a private citizen, can get into party politics on the local level and start influencing it – and how surprisingly high you can reach that way (with the corresponding increase in influence) with just a little time and determination.
The problems we have were created by Republicans and Democrats. Anybody who thinks that a Republican or a Democrat will get us out of these problems is dreaming.
It’s a demonstrable fact that Republicans are the only reason gun rights haven’t been completely hollowed out in this country. Love them or hate them, there’s no getting around that. I defy anyone here to show how that isn’t the case, other than to point to a few isolated particulars that break with the larger trend. I’m no fan of Republican Party politics, but I also get tired of Dem gun owners trying to pretend this isn’t the case.
That doesn’t answer the current problem. If not enough people are going to vote GOP for the GOP to win, and the Democratic party can win with people who dislike guns and people who don’t care but won’t vote GOP for other reasons then RKBA loses. The GOP either needs to figure out a way to consistently win, which in the current climate will require changes on some of their social and economic policies OR the Dems need to have an essential base of members that will stay home (if not vote GOP) if the Dems assault the RKBA.
Republicans are tripping over theirselves to change their social stances and economic polices. Immigration, gay marriage, and taxes. Where is that getting them=nowhere. What they need to do is to stop being cowards and stand up for what they believe in and then articulate it to the American people. The last president that did that pull us out of a deep recession and won the Cold War. The Republican Party as it is today should die. It’s full of cowards save for a few. The way for republicans to win isn’t to be more like the democrats. That’s silly.
Point me to this tripping over themselves. On some issues there are signs of change, but that comes slowly. On others they are doubling down because sections of their base are fixated.
Also Reagan isn’t a great model here because:
1. It isn’t 1980 anymore, the country and the world as way different.
2. Reagan himself didn’t live up to the hype after his death (and he wasn’t great in RKBA). He compromised (1986 immigration reform, tax hikes etc.).
@Nick:
I agree. There are basically two choices for the Republican Party if it is remain relevant:
1) Become the party of white America in much the same way that the Democrats have become the party of brown and black America. There is much gnashing of the teeth among Republicans about capturing more of the minority vote. Well…that is not going to happen. Latinos and blacks are not going to vote for Republicans in significant numbers. Instead, if the Republicans simply focus on keeping the white people who currently vote solidly Republican and get a greater percentage of whites who either aren’t voting at all or are voting Democratic to support traditional “white” issues and values, the Republicans can survive. Hell…Romney won almost 60% of the white vote. Just 20 years ago, that would have resulted in a landslide Republican victory. If the Republicans can increase their share of the white vote by just a few percentage points, they will remain viable. The likelihood of increasing votes among whites is much greater than increasing votes among Latinos and blacks.
2) Embrace libertarian principles. Reject the neocons in the party who continue to support disastrous foreign military adventuring, ignore the religious crazies and the self-appointed morality police, embrace support for drug legalization, and strongly support political and economic liberty.
The first option would only buy the Republicans a few decades…demography is destiny. As the percentage of whites decrease and the percentage of minorities increase, it will be increasingly difficult to win elections with only white voters.
The libertarian strategy is a much more permanent solution because it will appeal to a whole generation of younger voters and the legions of us who are fed up with the federal government.
I am hoping for the Republicans to embrace Option #2 but I won’t hold my breath…
1. The senate immigration bill. Which treats illegal immigrants better than American citizens. How? Well an illegal immigrant can commit 2 passport forgeries but not 3 – just to name one. Instead of just saying no – most republicans are trying to find ways to implement it piece meal.
2. Right now the republicans are in talks with Obama about raising taxes.
3. If republicans really want to stop Obama care defund it. Instead they pass stupid repeal bills that do nothing.
4. All the republicans coming out for gay marriage. I forget their names but a simple google search will show you.
5. The gun control bill was written by a supposedly tea party conservative.
Yes they are tripping over themselves. It gets them nowhere.
You’re right 1980 was worse and Regean was burnt on immigration. Has Obamas policies worked? He has gotten everything he wants. Stimulus shovel ready jobs. Higher taxes. Environmental regulation. No it hasn’t worked. This country is dying. 1 percent growth. Laughable.
Immigration – the House GOP is trying for a piecemeal immigration bill, not necessarily 1 for 1 with the Senate bill. Why? Because people want it. Lots of people don’t but lots also do, and some aspects (DREAM act type stuff) more than others.
Raising taxes – “in talks” means what? Getting rid of deductions? Broadening the base? I need more specifics. Our tax code is a mess of confusion and special interest handouts, reform, even if it included an increase in certain rates could be a net positive for fairness and growth, depending on specifics which you haven’t given me.
Gay Marriage – good. There is no issue more off-putting for young people and I at least don’t see a compelling reason to exclude gay people from civil marriage. If the GOP was smart they would turn into the wave and pass laws allowing gay marriage but explicitly excluding churches and vendors from having to participate (there is probably already a 1st Amendment exclusion, at least for the churches, but better to have it explicit.) This takes care of the more legitimate concern that people who oppose gay marriage on religious ground will have to participate in some way.
Obamacare – The GOP has to consider whether defunding Obamacare turns into another 1990s government shutdown that costs them electorally. Do you want a heroic last stand followed by years of darkness or a strategic fight?
Toomey – that was one guy, and maybe he felt he was doing his best in a bad situation, or maybe he thinks it was good policy (which the SAF seemed to agree with), but it didn’t seem to do him any favors.
Face it, there are lots of other people in this country who disagree with your policies. You can try to brute force them all (and lose) or convince where you can and compromise where you must to preserve and extend your preferences, but if you look even on TTAG you see lots of folks turned off by the more “extreme” policies put forward by the GOP, especially on social issues, and if those folks are a little wobbly think about the people who don’t care one way or the other about guns.
1. I hate to tell you but just because the president says most people want the immigration bill doesn’t make it so. You perhaps missed the point of my original post–the Republicans are going along with the democrat agenda and are not articulating an agenda of their own. They are always on defense. Regean articulated an agenda and presented to the people and he won in landslides. The republicans do whatever the democrats want and just say they can do it in a better way.
2. Raising taxes. Tax tax tax. Someone please tell me how taking money from the private sector to redistribute and make everything “fair” works? Where has it ever worked? What works is giving people the liberty to invest in where they want – maybe they fail but the country as a whole doesn’t. When you turn it over to the government and it fails the whole country is hurt. I’m sorry I do know work to take care of someone else. I work to take care of family and donate to places that I know make a difference. I don’t need the government taking more and more of my money and deciding who the winners and losers are. We are all equal but are not guaranteed equal outcomes.
You say churches have some 1st amendment protection. Well why are churches having to pay for abortion under Obama care. Rights are being chipped away piece by piece. It’s both parties republican and democrats. Again back to my original point is that no matter how much republicans try to be more like democrats it is t going to help them.
Obamacare. When something is going to take over 1/6 of our economy and is a disaster you better believe I want then to make a stand. We have gotten into this mess because republicans have just went along to get along. You have to stand for something. Something that is as bad as obamacare should be that stand. Again though the republicans don’t articulate why it’s so bad a sell their case. It’s all mush.
Toomey is one guy, but there are many guys just like him. Rubio. McCain. Graham. Boehner. Cantor. So and and so on.
Face it. There are people who disagree with your policies too. And just because we do it does t make us racist sexist homophobes. Facts are facts and this economy is horrible and it isn’t because of tea party conservatives. They have no power in the national government. While our economy is crumbling we have been focused on free contraception a and gun controls and some case in Florida that happens every day. Again Obama is great at campaigning against what he’s created. But seriously he has gotten everything he wants and we are in a sinkhole. The whole point of the media and the washington establisment which incluses republicans is to divide us as a country and not look at the man behind the curtain.
Both parties expend most of their resources in getting elected. Neither are adept at actually governing. They are united in preventing the rise of a third or fourth party. Gun rights is just a shuttlecock both sides are happy to volley with.
In general I try to vote Libertarian Republican, generic Republican(very reluctantly), No party(if progun),Democrat (only if pro gun), write in (such as Jenny down the local grocery store), or don’t vote at all. Never just all out democrat, since sometimes can’t write in another option and there are only democrats on ballot .
The huge issue I have with much of the generic Republican candidates are that they often come with baggage. They nitpick on what rights they endorse and as mentioned not all are pro 2nd amendment, or only partially so. Too many seem eager to make the U.S. into a theocracy(including cherry picking biblical laws to implement), put non-science into public schools, and in some cases endorsing the unconstitutional parts of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act and similar bills.
Sad truth is there is no safe haven. Even if you research the person for who you vote, they could very well be lying, or have a change of position. The only real option is if enough people become outraged and start ousting those who double cross the constitution and put them on trial for treason.
I can’t be the only one who’s heard of boiling a frog to death in hot water. Raise the temperature gradually, the frog won’t mind, and it will stay there until it dies. Raise the temperature suddenly, and the frog will REALIZE that it’s about to die and it will hop out.
I would rather see the Democrats in control and forcing their radical agenda down the throats of the nation at large, to the point where people realize how many rights they are taking away, and how much of their paycheck the government is stealing. Turning up the heat suddenly.
Voting for Republicans like Kristie, McCain, and (God help us, the until recently-RINO Arlen Specter) doesn’t help us one whit. We’ll still be boiling to death.
Even if America doesn’t wake up, I’d rather see us go out with a bang vs. a whimper. Either the Republican establishment can start giving us decent candidates or they can go the way of the Dodo and the Teaparty can carry on without the Republicans.
I think the better way to explain it is the blame game. Each term and all throughout the parties blame each other. Each has their own biases that allow the reelection of ineffective monsters.
I’m not a fan of the tea party but I tolerate them more than I do 99% of the democrats. I do agree about decent candidates. Sadly though, I don’t see our society offering a spot for a decent one. The true people to blame for our current state is the American people. It’s as if the cancer cells outnumber the good ones. Too many either only care about their interest and not the freedom for all, and too many others behave like oversized stereotypical teens. They go wild wild, pretending they are free, doing as they please, then putting out their hand for their allowance from dear Uncle Sam. Neither show much interest till the things they hold dear are in danger,and suddenly everyone is expected to hop to their defense. My comments are independent of skin color btw, as I’ve seen all shades of people act like that.
Sadly the best option is the Howard Beale approach – youtube video /watch?v=WINDtlPXmmE
Agreed. I vote Republican since it the lesser of two evils.
For example, here in NC we have a bill headed to our Governor for signature which will expand C.C. to be allowed in parks and wherever alcohol is served (if the restaurant or bar wants to allow it).
Without having both houses controlled by Republicans and a sitting Rep. Gov. this bill would never have had a chance of passing.
Penn Jillette “Remember, the lesser of two evils is still evil, and the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.”
Good point. Unfortunately, we don’t have any Libertarians currently running for office in N.C.
Doesn’t have to be libertarian but one thing for sure we need an organized demand for better options. I wonder how quickly could the NFA be revoked if all umpteen million gun owners demanded that.
ATM I think the anti-freedom people have more hired thugs to fight than we have pro-freedom willing or able to. Partly because of lack of organization and I’d think largely to the aversion of bloodshed.
voting for the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of social insanity.
The issue is really support for the Incrementalist Police State. The so-called conservatives created the War on Drugs — and the War on Guns is built on the chassis, running gear and steering components of the WOD. The so-called conservatives are also behind the trends of zero-tolerance, mandatory minimums, everything is a felony (get tough!) etc. Any member of either party who is defending the NSA now is outing themselves as a Police State thug. They may “posture” to get the gun-owner vote and NRA $$$ — but ultimately the constitution is not multiple choice and we can only really hope to trust someone who supports individual rights VERY BROADLY. See also:
http://vtdigger.org/2013/05/19/jaffe-stop-the-war-on-guns/
In Connecticut, my state representative was a pro-gun Democrat. I voted for him in the last 2 elections. He carried an “A” rating from the NRA and was a former combat vet. He’s also a fellow gun owner. However, he unapologetically joined his party in voting to restrict CT citizens’ RKBA. Had he been a Republican, I’m sure he would’ve voted the other way. Remember, there’s no such thing as a pro-gun Dem in a blue state.
Politicians suck. But what is one to do? I used to identify as a Republican, but I can no longer tolerate the RINO’s and appeasers in that party anymore. I consider myself Libertarian and could get behind Libertarian candidates but the way the system is it seems impossible for a third party candidate to really have much of a chance. The big money donors and powers that be in both parties do a fine job of keeping viable third party types out of the running. The average voter is too gullible and easily swayed by promises and slick snake oil salesmen. Libertarians don’t have enough “‘gibs me dat” to sway low income Democrat votes or big money Republicans. Sadly, the thought of “what can I get from this candidate” seems to motivate the vast voting majority.
Look at our history. Even before the ‘big money’ we were a two-party nation, it’s an inherent artifact of our electoral process.
Look around the world, in those nations where any groups of people can form a ‘successful’ political party, governments are often more dysfunctional than ours.
At a national level the Republican Party (mostly) defends our RTKBA…but the idiots keep trying to elect people like Mitt Romney and Chris Christy who have not so good records on 2A issues.
On the other hand at the national level the Democratic party is full on committed to full civilian disarmament and criminilization of self defense ala the UK.
The lesser or two evils is obvious.
At the local level its much more difficult; in Illinois we have many pro gun Democrats; we have some Democrats who are pro 2A on some things like carry but anti 2A on others like Assault Weapons Bans. Same goes for Republicans.
Its not just a black and white issue but one party has a better recent track record on the issue than the other; still we shouldn’t forget who signed to Mulford Act in California…hint he is a former President and a Republican “hero”.
Labeles of ideological stereotypes only serve to propogate a dissention of unanimity in a common social structure:
United we Stand,
Divided we Fall
I have a confession to make: I did vote for Democrat in 2012. I thought, in general, Democrat was more friendly toward minorities and immigrants. Now I kind of regret it. I do love my guns more. I will vote for Republican next time.
The two party system becomes flawed when neither party represents the interests of the average citizen. I’ve come to feel that a black, a white and a Hispanic who each have a household income of $50,000/year have far more interests in common with each other than with either of the political parties.
Both parties actively use wedge issues like race and class envy to divide the electorate while using their power once elected to bestow political favors on preferred groups. Both parties expect Congress to be exempted from laws they pass that they don’t like. Neither party has been fiscally responsible (take a look at the Bush budgets if you disagree). One party wants to drive over the cliff at 100mph, the other party thinks 55mph is a safer speed. They are both still heading for the cliff.
The only effective thing the electorate can do to stem the tide is to vote for the candidate, not the D or R. Saying “vote for this party because they agree with you on this issue” is destructive if along with the issue you agree on you’re enabling a bunch of other destructive policies.
I’m hoping the Republican party will split and a viable third party will be the result. It would be painful for a few election cycles, but the Republicans just lose in national elections anyway. It would be nice to have a presidential race that wasn’t a “biggest loser” contest between a centrist liberal and a left wing liberal.
Didn’t see this prior to my post. Well said.
Any gun owner here that voted for Obama or wasted their vote on Ron Paul/3rd party should be the first to turn in their guns as they can’t be trusted. Don’t get too mad when you read this as you should know its true.
+1
As the sun now stands the Republican party is your only hope. You can lie to yourself and say “there both the same” but in truth they are not. Gun Rights are a plank of the Republicans and Gun Control is a plank of the Dems.
It is what it is.
Need I remind you all of the folks right here on the TTAG that said: “Obama is not coming for your guns.”
Well he was and still is. Don’t vote to elect people that will give him or Hillary the numbers needed to take your rights away.
Sorry, but as a resident of CT I am calling bullshit. The Republicans might not be “as bad” but if you are willing to stake your rights on party line politics you are at best a fool.
“Gun Rights are a plank of the Republicans and Gun Control is a plank of the Dems”.
This may be true NOMINALLY.
However, this country is run — to great extent — by the “Permanent Gov” like Gen Keith Alexander, etal.
Dems & GOPers who support, are supported by and connected to the intelligence / mil axis that really runs the show and believes in expanding the Police State — THOSE politicians (perhaps a majority) have allied with people who are REALLY at the core of the civilian disarmament agenda.
Those folks that ordered a billion+ rounds of ammo for Federal agencies — could not possibly want us civilians to be able to match that.
Armed civilians are a bulwark against Fascism and a Police State. Americans are the only major civilian population that could not be ruled by force. THINK ABOUT THAT! (and let’s keep it that way).
As opposed to noted champion of the 2nd Amendment Mitt Romney? No thanks. I feel completely comfortable with my vote for a true RKBA guy, if for no other reason than its signalling effect on the GOP.
Brian’s post is a good example of the ignorance we see when it comes to Mitt Romney’s gun record. Little do the Obama voting gun owners realize that Romney was endorsed by the NRA whereas Obama was not.
Really, like the 2004 AWB he signed into law, or raising the gun license fee by 4x? (I get the NRA endorsed him, big whoop. Would he be better than Obama, yes marginally, but I doubt his judges would be good on the 2A and the GOP in the Senate wouldn’t push at the confirmation hearings because they belonged to their guy. If the GOP thinks they can win by going AWB squishy what good are they?
So I guess voting for Obama was a better bet? You can cry all you want about what Romney might have done but we KNOW what Obama has done and still wants to do.
If 2012 was the last election we were ever going to have I could see your point, but since we plan on having them again part of the value of voting is telling the parties where your walk-away point is.
Besides, I wouldn’t be surprised if, had Romney been elected, after Newtown we didn’t end up with something like Manchin-Toomey or a rehash of the Mass AWB that Romney voted for. Why? Because the GOP would have more trouble uniting against it since their guy would have proposed it and Romney, wanting to appear moderate (and being no friend to the 2A) would want to do “something”.
Also see the point about judges and how the GOP in the Senate would not be as able to push back on their own nominees.
In the ever popular Romney what-if game, I have to say I think Romney would have been more of a threat to 2A, for reasons mentioned here. Obama has given a lot lip service to “sensible regulation,” but he hasn’t actually accomplished anything. I think Romney, in his heart of hearts, doesn’t want the plebes running around with guns any more than most elites with private security. The Republicans function very well in their obstructionist role. If they were actually expected to do something, who knows what might happen.
I think that if anyone at this point believes that either of the two parties are in it for the rights of the individual, you’ve been refusing to review the issues and think critically.
These two parties seem divisive only to get you focused on the controversial issue that touches your nerve. Whether it’s gun rights, abortion rights, gay rights, racial issues, or political scandals, they constantly play an us vs them game that the media sells and the public buys.
It’s all done so that they can maintain their two party system, regardless of how obviously corrupt it’s become.
Republicans are a part of the machine just as much as Democrats are. And make no mistake, if the machine requires them to sell out gun owners to suit their hold on power, they’d sell us out in a heartbeat. Right now, the issue is only being used to keep us from realizing how bad the government is purposely wrecking our currency, but since big business profits off of it and big business owns the media, that story isn’t being investigated and talked about like Martin/Zimmerman, or the current celebrity baby du jour.
Don’t vote any one group. Vote an individual, make them accountable for their actions and make sure that whomever you vote for gets regular correspondence as to what you expect. And if they fail those expectations, vote them out. If over 60% of American citizens bothered to do this, our country wouldn’t be in the shape it is in now.
+1
+1 Someone is usually getting their back scratched. If you forget that and don’t look for it, you will suffer. Currently, many believe that politicians or government workers are somehow a better class of people and that they want to help others. They are not, and they do not. They are usually trying to do the best for themselves, whatever they may think that is. They need a short leash and, as the people that help put them in power, it is up to us to shorten the leash when necessary. Otherwise, their interests and our interests diverge and there will be problems.
The trick is in the primaries
We upset the applecart of the “presumptive” repulican nominee last year and got Ted Cruz.
+1
This goes for both parties. The more gun friendly Dems win in their primaries the lower the risk regardless of the outcome of the general.
I eagerly vote against progressives.
I have to hold my nose in order to vote for Republicans, but at least I get some of what I want (even if it’s not much at all) instead of nothing I want.
Blindly voting party, whether Repub or Demo, is one of the reasons why are country is such a mess. Do you like endless political gridlock, and parties stacked with candidates that only cater to the extreme fringe elements of each of their respective leanings? Just keep robotically checking R or D on your ballot without bothering to check their stances on the issues! HURRAY!
I’d prefer to evaluate each candidate, especially local ones, on where they stand on issues that are important to me (guns, education, etc.) to make a choice. Regardless of whether they’re R or D, Libertarian, Green, Constitutional, etc.
Something tells me you wasted your vote on Ron Paul. This is about gun rights, the Democrats are now fully on board against guns. Don’t give us lectures on gridlock. We want the gridlock to stop Democrats from attacking our 2A right, don’t you get it?!?
What are you talking about? Ron Paul wasn’t on the general election ballot.
@g:
Yes. I prefer gridlock. When Congress can’t get anything done, that is actually what is best.
Winning elections is the name of the game (yeah, I said that before).
Congress and state legislatures are organized by party, so the party with the most members in the body gets to decide who runs the committees and what bills even make it to a vote.
You can vote Green, Libertarian, Constitution, whatever, but they aren’t running anything, so the policies that their candidates espouse don’t mean anything.
Actually, I’m generally in favor of gridlock. The less they do, the better. Our system was originally designed to be difficult to work with, so that fads and irrelevant things would wash out. It’s the urge to “do things” that’s the root of fascism.
Whats sad is the gun owners here that voted for Obama or 3rd party can’t be trusted because in 2016 the Democrats will wave gay marriage and abortion rights again in their face and will follow the Pied Piper to the destruction of the 2A. You schmucks need to either vote for your gun rights or get out of the way.
How is my voting third party getting in your way, pray tell?
Congrats on wasting your vote. Feel better about yourself knowing that our gun rights are threatened by Obama still?
It’s not a wasted vote, because we’re gonna vote Libertarian again, unless the republicans or democrats can field a candidate who isn’t a jackass. There is a line in the sand and you think that because you have more people on your side that we should cross over. I say that all of you should cross over.
Or, barring that, you need to support a change in our voting structure to something like instant runoff (ranked choice) voting.
Until that happens, I’ll continue voting for the candidates I favor, not for the sh– sandwich everyone else is eating.
Pretty much every vote is a wasted vote. Democracy is utter baloney. It is tyranny by the majority.
Read Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed.
Read Rothbard’s For A New Liberty.
Read Caplan’s Myth of the Rational Voter.
But for what it is worth, I have run for public elective office twice (on the abolition ticket), and I am currently doing policy work for a long-serving governor in a red state. (Ron Swanson nods)
What’s sad is that Republicans can’t be trusted because in 2016 they will again say “fsck you” to anyone who cares about gay marriage and abortion rights again, and many pro-gun people will have to vote for anti-2A politicians because they don’t want the country to be run by sexually repressed bigots and religious fanatics. You schmucks need to either fix your party, or get out of the way and let Libertarians take over.
Are you really saying that Mitt “Massachusetts AWB” Romney and John “SYG has nothing to do with RKBA” McCain are positive players in the gun rights “debate?”
I voted for Gary Johnson for a reason.
There are reasons beyond gun rights to vote against the democrats controlling the cities. For example, public debt is largely driven by unfunded pensions. tax revenue goes to debt not services (like police).
This is a particularly toxic one-two punch of poor services and no access to the means necessary (firearms) to protect yourself. Baltimore is a disaster area. Cities cannot grow or tax themselves out of the public debt. Maryland’s public pensions are only 60% funded and thats using *optimistic* return on asset assumptions. Think Detroit.
If there were a libertarian minded republican who also wanted decriminalize drugs or otherwise turn back the war on drugs which contributed to the cities being war zones, I think that would be a trifectca (for me).
Most elections, you have to hold your nose and vote for the least awful candidate. Thing is, its inevitable that public debt and public pensions will need to be cut to revitalize the cities. Even the Democrats like Rawlings-Blake (Baltimore mayor) are waking up to that and enacting minor reforms. But they really are minor, and no way that the Dems undertake serious reforms and tick off their major constituency. If Blake is willing to undertake even small reforms, take seriously the urgency and necessity of far deeper reforms. Maryland’s public pensions are only 60% funded, which means you can cut them 20% and still not be funded – and Maryland is generally a high tax state. Tax revenue that goes to debt service does not go to police and schools. Why would to live or open a company in a state with poor services and high taxes?
And no gun rights to boot.
Amen. As soon as I could, I moved accross the river into VA. Northern VA is full of Lib’s but it’s got a while until it matches O’Malleyland…
There are some fools here that believe gay marriage and free birth control pills was more important than their 2A rights. That is why we’re having this discussion.
How true! Culture War issues were seen as more politically profitable than anything that involved “principles”.
I’m not an advocate for gay marriage (or for government involvement in any other marriage). I’m not for free birth control, either. I’m also not for bombing brown people, persecuting drug users, maintaining the largest prison population in the world, having militarized cops around, or… any government activity whatsoever.
Gay marriage is as much about freedom as your RKBA (and don’t give me the bullshit “it’s not in the Constitution” line – Constitution is a non-exhaustive enumeration of pre-existing rights and freedoms, see the 9th and the 10th).
So, no, it’s not more important, but it’s not less important, either. And Republicans tend to piss on far more rights and freedoms, quantitatively speaking, than Democrats, though both have bad track records on that.
Only one party has civilian disarmament as a keystone of its platform — the Democrats. Only one party has the elimination of self defense as a feature of its administration — the Democrats. Only one party provides a receptive home for Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and every other race profiteer in America — the Democrats.
I turned my back on Republicans a long time ago because of the party’s stance on abortion — they’re against it, I think that there should be more of it. Then it dawned on me that I was fighting a battle for people who won’t fight my battle for me. Seems kinda unfair, no?
I have a million reasons to despise Democrats, and civilian disarmament is only one of them. You can go ahead and slit your own throats by voting Democrat. Enjoy yourselves. I’m voting for the only party that supports what I care about. I’ll vote third party whenever the Republicans run a RINO.
Dang dude. You brought up abortion on a gun blog. I did that the other day and got my butt reamed. I was called all kinds of names. I hope you got thick skin.
I’m a retired lawyer. My skin is thicker than a Democrat’s head.
Hi, Ralph. Just let you know I support abortion also. Nobody should bring another life to this Earth without being financially ready. I really hate some women keep cranking out babies – hey, I didn’t mention black nor Mexican – and rely on food stamps. Those are the people should pay more instead of getting child credit on tax refund.
Thank God that I am single and have no kid. That’s why I can spend money on guns and ammos. If a man has to spend money on his wife or girlfriend, he might as well get a hooker.
I miss Tom Leykis on the radio.
>> Then it dawned on me that I was fighting a battle for people who won’t fight my battle for me. Seems kinda unfair, no?
The battle for freedom is not a battle for “someone”. It’s a battle for all of us. When you let them take away one right in exchange for other right, all you did is establish that they can take your rights away, and it’s only a matter of price for you to agree with that.
Oh well. I believe that as long as the repubs control the house, there will be no anti-2A legislation signed into law. That means it boils down to the states. And we have seen the states that have trampled on gun rights have ALL been controlled by dems. So for those of you that believe that we do not have a tw0-party system and vote libertarian because of your “principles”, fine. Be my guest. But all of you will comply with any gun control legislation in spite of your nonsensical talk of “nullification” or the infuriating keyboard commando b.s. of “Molon Labe” or “from my cold dead hands” Just my two cents boys and girls.
You do know that it isn’t the third parties that are costing the GOP elections right? They are being beaten outright but the Dems. So if RKBA is a GOP only thing we are cooked.
You do know that states with republican controlled legislatures have passed zero gun control legislation since Sandy Hook? You know that, don’t you pal? Show me a Libertarian with a chance to win with legitimate, realistic foreign policy goals and maybe I will consider. Until then, no dice.
A vote for a Democrat IS a vote for gun control.
Even a pro-gun democratic candidate helps with party numbers and what they say to you when they are running for office might not be what they do when they are working up in D.C.
Don’t believe me? Go and look at candidate Joe Manchin’s campaign ads from when he was running for office: http://youtu.be/xIJORBRpOPM
Now look at what Senator Machin is trying to do to all of us and our civil rights:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/28/joe-manchin-gun-control-fight-not-over/
A vote for a Democrat IS a vote for gun control.
The problem with that kind of thinking is that it turns gun control into a Republican issue- rather than an issue for all elected officials who come from rural areas.
Look at Teachers Unions, or African Americans, or Feminists, or really any Democratic group. Are they effective at getting their agenda through? Hell no- But pro-Gun groups like the NRA are highly effective- because they don’t care what party you are or what your other political stances are as long as you’re pro-Gun. Which means Democrats and Republicans listen to them.
Good point.
Your vote is nothing more that a communication tool.
If you don’t vote, the powers that be assume that you are satisfied with the staus quo.
If you vote for the lessor of two evils, your message is, “I’m ok with your brand of evil.”
If you vote for a third party, you’re telling the two “major” parties that you’r pissed off and you’re not gonna take it anymore!
And you’re telling the two major parties that, since you’re not voting for their opponent, they don’t need to cater to you
Unless you care about protecting yourself from intrusive government, militarization and reckless spending that is. Why vote to destroy the first amendment in order to protect the second?
Proper thread title: Self Defense Tip: Vote Third Party.
Two Words… Term Limits
The egos and lust for power these senators have is amazing. I often think the best public servant would be someone who really doesn’t want the job but has a good work ethic and puts their time in like the rest of us working stiffs.
They spend millions to get elected. That amounts to paying your employer to hire you. Let the employer (the voting public) decide who to hire (elect) on your merits not your deep pockets.
Two Words… Term Limits
The egos and lust for power these senators have is amazing. I often think the best public servant would be someone who really doesn’t want the job but has a good work ethic and puts their time in like the rest of us working stiffs.
They spend millions to get elected. That amounts to paying your employer to hire you. Let the employer (the voting public) decide who to hire (elect) on your merits not your deep pockets.
Two Words… Term Limits
The egos and lust for power these senators have is amazing.
On the national level, two-party politics is a sham at best. Culture issues are a great way to keep a certain portion of voters in line, and for anti-gun people guns are primarily a culture issue, which they try to rationalize as a health/safety issue – think Republicans trying to disguise homophobia as concern for “public health” when it comes to gay couples adopting children, etc., or “protecting” women from the harmful effects of abortion.
How many people commenting here actually live in a presidential swing state or a seriously contested House district? Very few Senate races are in play in any given cycle. Nobody can get elected to national office without being beholden to some sort of moneyed interest. Wall Street never loses an election. The uber-rich support Republicans somewhat more than Democrats, but not because they give a damn about anybody’s Constitutional rights. They just don’t want their plunder of the nations dwindling wealth to be hindered. And they support Democrats when it suits them, especially at the Senate and Presidential levels.
Regardless of party, you probably have a lot more power during the primary, and state and local politics are still alive and kicking in most states. Regardless of party, let your reps know what you think. It actually does make a difference, especially on the state level. Be rational and polite, don’t rant and call people names. If you sound like Tim McVeigh, they will likely ignore you. Don’t spam them, either. For a given issue, send maybe one or two emails, maybe make a phone call or two. Keep their numbers in your phone, so when you hear or read something, you can call while you’re still mad.
In an election where one party has a total lock, by all means go for the protest vote. If you live in Texas, voting for the Libertarian presidential candidate is probably not going to hurt the Repubs. Same logic applies in a heavily blue state.
Finally, give a damn about the entire Bill of Rights. I know most people here do, in theory, but conservatives tend to cheer or remain silent when the state abuses leftists, and some on the left do the same when the state abuses gun owners or “right wing extremists.” Give a damn about the rights of people you disagree with.
+1000
Unless enough people sane up in time to vote against either by voting Libertarian – what is it that terrifies everyone about Liberty?
Where do you stand? http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php
No, I won’t simply vote for the GOP; I am as pro-choice in terms of abortions as firearms ownership. If the GOP wants my vote, they have to show me that they are pro-choice and pro-individual; anti-choice is pro-slavery. Fact.
Anti-choice (or anti-abortion) is pro-responsibility. As a gun owner you should be able to appreciate that you have to take great pains to be safe and that you are ultimately responsible for your actions – there is no get out of jail free card with guns. Nor should there be with the unborn. Abortion is the “I’ve been irresponsible and made a mistake and now I don’t want to deal with the consequences” option.
Except, where life and death are concerned, the easy way out is usually not the responsible way. It has nothing to do with slavery. Fact.
Also; 10/10 points on the troll scale.
Here is a list of people who WILL support civilian disarmament when the time comes. Do not listen to any posturing from members of this group AT ALL. The NRA should rate everyone who voted “NOE” on defund the NSA at zero.
http://www.zerohedge.com/print/476810
No, screw that. *Any* of the duopoly shitheads will sell you out and spit on your constitutional rights if there’s money in it, look at what just happened today. Half the House GOP sided with Obama’s defense of the NSA’s activities. These subhumans we’ve elected simply don’t care.
On a personal level my state is loaded with RINO’s that voted for the SAFE Act (not all but certainly a good number of them), why vote for these losers again? Support gun rights groups and third parties, and individual pro-gun candidates WHEN/IF THEY DESERVE IT. Simply voting on the basis of party will keep the rotten status quo intact.
“…But if you have to pick a party to protect your pistol packing proclivities—and you do…”
I *do*?
I vote for candidates–not parties.
Comments are closed.