Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Michael Bane on January 23, 2008, 11:18:45 AM
Title: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Michael Bane on January 23, 2008, 11:18:45 AM
I'm turning to you guys for advice, because over the last year I have seen more intelligent commentary on these Forums than anywhere else on the Internet.
Here, simply, is my question:
Should I throw my support, such as it is, to John McCain?
Fred is out; Romney and Giuliani are active enemies of the Second Amendment; I cannot support Huckabee for reasons I've enumerated before. We all understand that Paul is closest to our collective philosophy but who realistically has no chance. From and RKBA standpoint, I have huge problems with McCain on "gunshow loopholes" and the campaign finance. Here's what David Kopel says over at the Volokh Conspiracy legal blog last year:
Quote
Mixed: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)(mostly positive record, except for lead sponsorship of two terrible bills: McCain-Lieberman, a badly-written bill which would have given the BATFE the authority to administratively eliminate any or all gun shows, and McCain-Feingold, the campaign speech restriction law which significantly affects right-to-arms groups).
Both Paul and Huckabee have perfect RKBA records.
What should I do?
Michael B
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: DonWorsham on January 23, 2008, 11:54:08 AM
MB,
Read my post on John McCain.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: joemerchant24 on January 23, 2008, 12:19:00 PM
Then read my post reply on Becoming an Undercount.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: joemerchant24 on January 23, 2008, 12:22:47 PM
This may be hard for a lot of us to swallow.... but as gun owners we've already lost this election.
Our only mainstream options are to decide what party we want the gun banner to be.
Years of being taken for granted as a voting bloc has finally bitten us in the arse.
I've said it many times since Fred dropped out yesterday, so I apologize for repeating myself.
We must all vote third party as a protest. Sitting at home does nothing. Heck, if you're not voting FOR a politician, they want you to stay at home.
I'm not pushing Ron Paul, either. Vote for whatever third party your little heart desires.
The key is that we as a voting bloc HAVE to let the national GOP (and Democrat) leaders know they've lost our automatic support. If they want the gunnie vote, they damn well had better listen to our needs.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: joemerchant24 on January 23, 2008, 12:29:02 PM
The GOA on McCain's evolution from gun-rights to anti-gun:
http://gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: DDMac on January 23, 2008, 01:54:06 PM
I say Ron Paul. If a miracle occurred, Congress would offset the wacko influence on him and a Presidential veto would defeat pending Anti legislation. AND, I'm really liking the FairTax. org information. Perhaps the GOP would notice what happened.
Total agreement on the quality of thought shared by the members. Holy Capoly, there are brilliant, seasoned minds here, and I love to learn from them.. Mac.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: MikeBjerum on January 23, 2008, 02:00:17 PM
Michael, Michael, Michael!!!
I come here to find little tid bits to help me dig deeper and find my way. Now you come up with this question.
Let's look a whole new way. I know it is only nine months, and it will be hard hard fast fight.
I'm thinkin a Bane/Scoutten ticket.
Just think of it ... Massad could handle Secret Service; Marshal could be in charge of information, but we will put Marshal'ette in front of the camera; and I know you guy's are all capable of speaking your own mind, but how about Richard Young as Press Secretary (I'd just love to hear and read every media outlet quoting Tequila daily). Also, could we get Squibby involved without getting in trouble?
That is as serious as I can get right now. The more I research the more confused I get.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Bill Stryker on January 23, 2008, 02:18:29 PM
MB,
If you look at the GOA web as Joe suggests, it appears to me that the only candidate you could support is Romney. McCain in my view and the view of GOA is a bad anti. McCain is a RINO too often carrying water for the left.
I do not support the idea of voting for a third party. I think that is a wasted vote and only supports the worst candidate.
In my view the most important vote this year is for your Representative and Senators, because whoever is at the top of either ticket will be tainted in our 2A view of the country.
All the best to you as you try to decide.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Rastus on January 23, 2008, 02:40:37 PM
I'm turning to you guys for advice, because over the last year I have seen more intelligent commentary on these Forums than anywhere else on the Internet. Here, simply, is my question: <snip>......................... Both Paul and Huckabee have perfect RKBA records. What should I do?
Michael B
Pick one. Which will impose that which you do not like on you? Who will impose, who will allow freedom and which will stand and be effective. Being pushed from any side...is being pushed. Push comes to shove. Stong opinion is fine, yet we don't want a dictatorial stance either. We are supposed to be a republic...but hey that doesn't appear to be working too well right now anyway.
I'm in for Huckabee. Failing that....I need a scarier candidate than the Dems are running right now to make me vote for a "Dem-Lite" (Republican). If not Huck, then for me to pull Republican, or basically care about any other current candidate, the Dems would have to run Joseph Stalin for prez.
This having been said, cheer up. It isn't over until November...or actually until the Electoral College votes. A lot of scandal, illness, misfortune, history, international crisis, monetary crisis, etc. can come out and wreck a frontrunner(s) over the next few months. Maybe Newt will make a run at the convention. Only God knows the answer.
Bottom line. Support of an individual is likely not the most important thing to be involved with now. Concentrate not on the candidates but on the principles. Getting the word out about our 2nd Ammendment challenges (D.C. vs. Heller Amicus Brief, candidate stance, etc.) to the gun public and the general public will probably have a greater influence on who is actually president than supporting a man (or woman). At least...that's how it worked out the last couple of times....
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Hazcat on January 23, 2008, 02:52:58 PM
MB,
McCain has already taken the first amendment away (McCain Feingold act). He is also pro amnesty. He backs the AWB.
My big question.... Why would you even consider him (or any of the others for that matter).
We have been hung out to dry because they (RLC) believe we haven't got any where else to go (Think Blacks and the DLC). If we do not stand up now then we can look forward to an end of the 2A in a very few years.
Let's look at the track record.
Every four years we get some lip service then we get'
1968 Gun contol act
1972 ATF created
1984 closure of MG list
1990s more than I can count
Then we elected a Pres that said he WOULD sign a reauthorization of the AWB. Luckily it never reached his desk BUT he also did absolutely NOTHING to ease firearms laws either. Nor did a Republican controled congress and last time I looked the BATFE is still out of control.
When will we learn??
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Hazcat on January 23, 2008, 02:54:40 PM
Romney signed a PERMANENT AWB while governer!
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Hazcat on January 23, 2008, 02:56:25 PM
Huckabee - so you want to be overrun by illegal aliens?
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: DDMac on January 23, 2008, 03:08:08 PM
A Republican front runner vote is clearly doing the same thing over again, but expecting a different outcome. Is the GOP leadership correct? Are we in their pocket? If so, we truly are on the slow boat together. A third party vote may lose a battle, albeit a big one. But a large third party vote is clear proof to the Democrat party that they have a lot of VERY serious opponents, no longer the crackpot fringe they stereotype in strategy sessions. To the Republican leadership, a refusal to accept their scraps on issues of vital importance to us, especially at the cost of a Presidency, will open eyes and ears long closed to the patriots cries of alarm. Respectfully, Mac.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Hazcat on January 23, 2008, 03:17:29 PM
I agree Mac. And (don't pass out) I would even vote for RP if he was on the Libiartian ticket as I think we should just choose that party to recieve our votes regardless of who is their nominee. I say this because I think it would make a bigger 'spalsh'.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: DDMac on January 23, 2008, 03:20:17 PM
That's what I'm talking about. Mac.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: DonWorsham on January 23, 2008, 06:30:32 PM
Just think of it ... Massad could handle Secret Service; Marshal could be in charge of information, but we will put Marshal'ette in front of the camera; and I know you guy's are all capable of speaking your own mind, but how about Richard Young as Press Secretary (I'd just love to hear and read every media outlet quoting Tequila daily). Also, could we get Squibby involved without getting in trouble?
That is as serious as I can get right now.
I like that, especially the Scoutten part...you know...all that hair and the voice! ;D
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: 2HOW on January 23, 2008, 06:39:36 PM
Were Doomed,Doomed I tell Ya. liberal republicans in the white house, dogs and cats living together. What are we to do? I have no idea who I will vote for. ???
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Pathfinder on January 23, 2008, 07:03:08 PM
Michael -
A number of comments have been made on this site regarding the focus of our wrath and how best to display that. I admit the idea has been growing on me. I especially like the part where we all, holding our nose or otherwise, vote for a single candidate from the Libertarians or as a write-in - one candidate only, Vasily. (apologies to Clancy and Hunt for Red October, but I like that line).
We cannot win, but we can send a message, loud and clear, that even the craven, wasteful, immoral and asinine mopes in Congress will get if we vote as a block. We need you to help us get the word out not only to the other 2A and manufacturers' groups about this mobilization, but also to the candidates. Point out that this gun-owners' mobilization is not good for them, and they must do something about it. Make us their problem, and if they want us to vote for them, they must put it in writing.
Of course, none of us will trust them, and we'll still vote as a block to make the point that we will not be ignored or walked on or assumed to be in anyone's pocket.
We must also vote our rights for Congress, state and local politicians as well, down to and including dog catcher.
IMHO . . .
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: ncrguy on January 23, 2008, 08:00:50 PM
I agree with Pathfinder, we are going to show the pols via numbers because that is all they understand, we need to back the Libertarians or whoever and show them the size of our faction, the problem is rallying all the troops and hoping all the 2A supporters join us. The NRA probably will not endorse a third party. In CA when NRA sends out their recommendations on who to vote for a lot of times it will say "no recommendation" as they know Feinstein will never lose an election, ( she must have learned how to lock a state from Ted Kennedy), we can only hope NRA would put that out as having no recommendation for president and see the RNC reaction. The system is broken. I hate to be cynical but I am starting to believe the slogan " If voting worked it would be illegal."
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Michael Bane on January 23, 2008, 08:15:17 PM
I have asked the McCain campaign to respond to the "Litmus Test" I wrote at the beginning of the campaign:
1) Do you agree to oppose, up to and including a Presidential veto, a ban on any class of firearms and accessories, including so-called "assault weapons" and magazines of greater than 10-round capacity that are currently unregulated for U.. citizens?
2) Do you agree to oppose, up to and including a Presidential veto, any and all legislation aimed at crippling, harming or in any way damaging the firearms industry.
3) Do you agree to support nationwide reciprocity for civilian concealed carry permits, including in areas where firearms are unconstitutionally banned?
We'll see...
Michael B
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: clayflingythingy on January 23, 2008, 09:36:46 PM
Romney has stated he will sign a new AWB. He's out.
Guiliani we would have to take on trust. He claims now to be a 2A supporter. Would he grow more conservative in the WH? (algore became more liberal as VP so maybe Guiliani could govern as a conservative?) I dunno.
McCain I BELIEVE voted against the AWB both times? Am I correct on this? Yes, he authored McCain/Feingold. The Supremes have held it constitutional. Get over it. McAmnesty? Get over it. McCain has an 80+% American Conservative Union rating so he is not the flaming liberal some make him out to be. In truth, Fred's failure as a candidate shows that the voting public doesn't want "a real conservative". Hell, there's only been one R. Reagan in my lifetime. The year before I was born Goldwater went down in a smashing defeat. Ike beat Bob Taft. Nixon wasn't a "real conservative". In truth, the hardcore conservatives are a minority. We in the gun culture had better wake up and realize that. In McCain we have an 80% friend. That beats hell out of an 100% enemy.
In truth I see 2008 as a Dem year unless things change (and that is certainly possible).
But as I pointed out in another thread, the Supremes could turn things upside down. If the Supremes rule agianst individual rights for the 2A our gun rights are doomed anyway.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: clayflingythingy on January 23, 2008, 09:46:14 PM
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/01/23/six_big_lies_about_john_mccain Food for thought.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Pathfinder on January 23, 2008, 10:37:01 PM
On the Issues / On The Issues / Issues / Home Protecting Second Amendment Rights
John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.
Gun Manufacturer Liability
John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry.
"Neither justice nor domestic peace are served by holding the innocent responsible for the acts of the criminal." -Senator John McCain
Assault Weapons
John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans. Most recently he opposed an amendment to extend a ban on 19 specific firearms, and others with similar characteristics.
Importation of High Capacity Magazines
John McCain opposes bans on the importation of certain types of ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations.
Gun Locks
John McCain believes that every firearms owner has a responsibility to learn how to safely use and store the firearm they have chosen, whether for target shooting, hunting, or personal protection. He has supported legislation requiring gun manufacturers to include gun safety devices such as trigger locks in product packaging.
Banning Ammunition
John McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing."
DC Personal Protection
As part of John McCain's defense of Second Amendment rights, he cosponsored legislation to lift a ban on the law abiding citizens of the District of Columbia from exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms.
Criminal Background Checks
John McCain supports instant criminal background checks to help prohibit criminals from buying firearms and has voted to ensure they are conducted thoroughly, efficiently, and without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.
Background Checks at Gun Shows
At a time when some were trying to shut down gun shows in the name of fighting crime, John McCain tried to preserve gun shows by standardizing sales procedures. Federal law requires licensed firearm sellers at gun shows to do an instant criminal background check on purchasers while private firearm sellers at gun shows do not have to conduct such a check. John McCain introduced legislation that would require an instant criminal background check for all sales at gun shows and believes that such checks must be conducted quickly to ensure that unnecessary delays do not effectively block transactions.
The Firearm Purchase Waiting Period
John McCain has opposed "waiting periods" for law abiding citizen's purchase of firearms.
The confiscation of firearms after an emergency
John McCain opposes the confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency. He voted in favor of an amendment sponsored by Senator David Vitter prohibiting such confiscation.
Stiffer Penalties for Criminals who use a Firearm in the Commission of a Crime
John McCain believes in strict, mandatory penalties for criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a crime or illegally possess a firearm. Enforcing the current laws on the books is the best way to deter crime.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Teresa Heilevang on January 24, 2008, 12:00:27 AM
Sorry guys.. I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, but to vote 3rd party is a wasted vote.. Not that it doesn't sound great.. In fact it sounds fantastic! BUT.. This isn't a time for Pollyanna fantasies. There is nothing I would like better than to make a "statement".. but there is nothing the Democrats would like better than to have us make that 'statement' so that they will have less votes to tally for the running Republican candidate either..
I'm with Clayflingythingy.. 80% is one hell of a lot better than O%..and that is just what our shiny asses will have if we cut off our nose to spite our face.
A vote for a write in or a 3rd party might make you feel smug and satisfied when you walk out of the voting booth.... but how smug are you going to feel when Hillery is announced to be the President of our country?
I understand ..( and I DO understand, cause I am one of you) that we are desperately trying to hang on to and keep our rights .. but not backing someone on the Republican ticket is a definite suicide! We HAVE to vote where our vote will count .. Where it will best count to keep our guns.. We can rally up and join forces with the NRA to make our statements AFTER a Republican is in office and put the squeeze on.. but for the love of pete.. we first have to get the damned Republican in there!
Just as sure as shit stinks.. this will be who we have to fight if we don't get our heads out and think common sense.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: gringle84 on January 24, 2008, 12:28:25 AM
Everyone please keep in mind that whatever Mitt, Rudy and John say regarding the "Second Amendment" is just ALL TALK/LIP SERVICE so that they can win and will throw the gun owners in front of the bus the first chance they have. Bush 1, Bush 2 etc...have all said and done the gun owners wrong and these three moderate/liberals can not be trusted!!!
I was thinking that if Fred Thompson doesn't endorse anyone I would write his name in during the general election.
Mitt is a rich liberal trying to buy his way in and act a conservative...but it's only an act!!!
Rudy has always been a liberal.
John is a real RINO and can never be trusted with power!
Huckabee is good on 2A but very bad on other stuff.
Ron Paul is good here at home but his foreign policy could be very very bad.
This is a very bad time for American Freedom, but if the DC/Heller case works out for 2A rights, it won't matter who wins the Whitehouse.
However things go, the firearm owners of America need to show a united front and if the firearm business will stand with the citizens, that much better for all. We know that the Demolibs will push hard for registration of one type or the other before they can start a confiscation scheme if they win power.
I know for me, I can not vote Mitt, Rudy or John, I do not trust anything they say about how they support the Second Amendment.
God help us all and America!
Robert
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: gunman42782 on January 24, 2008, 04:53:23 AM
I heard last night that even Rush Limbaugh said he might not support the eventual Republican nominee. Now if even my main man Rush won't support them, why should I? Why should I give my vote to someone that does not represent my views? If that is throwing away my vote, so be it. If everyone would stop feeling this way and vote 3rd Party, it wouldn't be throwing it away, now would it? A vote for McCain, Rudy, or Romney is no different than a vote for Hillary or Obama, IMHO. They result would be the same for gun owners. NONE of them are friendly to our cause, their protestations to the contrary be damned.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: DDMac on January 24, 2008, 06:51:24 AM
Who among them are actors? All but one. A forlorn, ridiculed, not-a-prayer of election Constitutionalist. Ron Paul. Mac
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: wrhall on January 24, 2008, 09:53:25 AM
All of us are ,at least for now,still allowed to give our opinions & cast our votes so FWIW here goes. IMO an anti-2A serving Repub is more dangerous to 2A rights than an anti-2A serving Dem.THINK about every issue that is voted PARTYLINE & I'll bet the farm Pres Mitt or Rudy is more dangerous to us than Pres Hill-Bill or Osamma-Obamma.Also,IMO, all third-party votes are NOT wasted.Politicians only understand unempolyment when it is THEM.GWB the First backstab on taxes & guns cost him a second term & put Bill in office which gave us the AWB which was QUICKLY followed by the first Repub House & Senate takeover in 40 years.History is very likely repeating iitself & it looks like it is WOODSHED TIME again.IF Johm Mac picks up the nomination & gives us a good VP (Fred comes quickly to mind) & a promised cabinet of people with the RIGHT STUFF I MIGHT vote for him but any other Repub choice or John Mac misstep & I'll vote Libertarian.The best choice is to stay VOCAL with your Rep & Senators & stay INFORMED about each proposed anti2A attack.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: WymoreWrangler on January 24, 2008, 09:57:26 AM
Why the presidental election isn't the brightest for us, I agree with Pathfinder, we need to focus on the Congressional elections, those that put up the bills for the president to sign, and we need to unseat as many anti gunners and return as many pro gunners as we can...
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Bill Stryker on January 24, 2008, 10:22:07 AM
Marshal'ette,
Your are right on. Well said as you always do. Not to vote or to vote 3d party will help put Clinton in office with a Dim Congress. Heaven help us.
The heck with the Bane/Schouten ticket. Let's have it be Marshal'ette/Bane. ;D
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: ratcatcher55 on January 24, 2008, 10:46:58 AM
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: joemerchant24 on January 24, 2008, 11:00:10 AM
Marshal'ette;
I must respectfully disagree.
On the gun issue, how are any of the remaining candidates different? All will ban guns.
Your statement that any gunnie vote that isn't GOP is a wasted vote is the exact attitude that has gotten us in this situation. The Republican leadership knows that as long as their candidate is .00000000000001% better on guns than the Democrat, we will vote GOP.
Blindly supporting the GOP because they aren't Democrat only promises that we'll get more of the same next time. it will filter down to congressional races. Then, when that succeeds the gubernatorial and local leadership races will see more of the same.
As a bloc, we gun people MUST show that we are not a guaranteed GOP vote.
You can call me Pollyanna or any other name you want, but the fact remains.. when you blindly follow you will be taken advantage of.
Folks, no one wants to admit this, but as gunowners we've already lost the 2008 presidential race. Not one mainstream candidate is good on guns. This is the result of "always vote Republican--no matter what."
But, that's the beauty of the American form of government. You vote the way you feel is best. The other beauty, is that we can try to convince each other that our position is best.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Wray Finney on January 24, 2008, 11:09:09 AM
Who would have the bucks to go third party? Bloomberg/Boren? Good Gawd. Depending on the outcome of Scotus. Congress may be the only hope. The faceless buracrats run this country. Forest Gump could be president and this country would still function. O yea we had W. Proved that. I never heard of the Solicitor General till the other day. We need to be electing Pro 2nd Adm. people to Congress. So no bill will ever get to the desk of the White House. Regards
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Marshal Halloway on January 24, 2008, 12:00:54 PM
I know I shouldn't do this...... I don't even have the time to do it. I don't even have any good answers !!!
I shouldn't even discuss freakin' politics or even think about it. I have been involved in gun politics (in 2 continents) so long that it makes me sick. I have been the buffer between politics and bureaucrats. I have been a punch ball between shooting organizations and bureaucrats. I have faced media when things went wrong and they all blamed us for the wrong doings of criminals.
Now I stand in the legal line to become a US citizen. A part of me hope it won't happen until after the election, so I don't have to cast a vote in a state of mind where I ask myself: What the hell am I doing ?
Many of us feel the same way. That's why this thread is running right now.
We are living in a world where US sovereignty has been "posted on eBay" for a long time. International trade and treaties, multinational organizations, the international oil industry, everything is mixed together in a stew called Money and Power.
Politics is no longer about "we the people". It is not about democracy. The movers and shakers in national and international politics don't care about "the people". They have invested too much in their own interests.
To invest in "the people", to restore the foundation that made this country is not even on the list of priorities. All of that is now pickup lines to draw attention from "the people" to make them feel good and riled up.
The puppeteers of the world.... like George Soros and you find them in both camps (liberals and conservatives) are working backstage to finance and control the puppets called career politicians. They are so powerful and influential that crooks like the Clintons can commit fraud after fraud and still be respected among their blind followers.
Throughout the years, "we the people" have gone blind while money and power puppeteers have created a group we can call the untouchables, people that can make mistake after mistake with a carte blanche amnesty attached to it. These untouchables are career politicians and bureaucrats financed by corporations and organizations with multinational interests.
We have come to a point where we feel we cannot trust anyone anymore. The last stunt by the Bush administration (The Bush Sell-Out) is just another example of how fast they can forget "the people" that trusted them.
Then you have the media also owned by these puppeteers. Media controls the priorities, as in what what we should focus on. In between breaking news about Britney Spears we are forced to focus on politicians who create the best ratings. The message, the news are not important, it is all about the definition of what is considered good tv and how "the people" can be manipulated.
Fred Thompson went down the drain and not because he was a bad candidate, but because he did not create good ratings in the media. He was also a threat to the puppeteers and the untouchables. He was not lazy ! He worked as hard as any other candidate, but his message was so boring that the media "decided" to forget him. And "we the people" agreed, at least in the early states which also influence "we the people" in other states on how to vote.
Yeah, I know.... it sounds like I am about to jump off the porch to kill myself in a confused state of mind.... ;D
We are in a situation where we are standing in front of a line of slot machines. Which one should we pick to be able to feel good and as long as we can until we are asked to put more money through the slot?
The Ron Paul Outsider Machine with all the bells and whistles ? The Huckabee Machine with Chuck Norris bonus rounds? Or the old John McCain quarter machine where you know for sure you will lose some and win some.
No matter what, you know for sure you have to play and you know you'll lose.
This is what we are up against and I warned you! I don't have any good answers.
But I do know this. Doing nothing or staying home is the wrong message. It is a victory for the puppeteers who want "the people" to do just that - staying home. If we do, they can keep on manipulating with an an outcome that is all about money and power, all about interests that has nothing to do with US sovereignty.
These puppeteers don't really care who wins, democrats or republicans. They do know that "we the people" on the left side is a whole lot easier to manipulate than those on the right. And if the right side stays home.....
Wow! That would be awesome !!!! The herd of sheep on the left is so much easier to move around.
The puppeteers, the programmers of political slot machines will lean back and say..... Damn, we are good. Let's move on and conquer the world called United Nations.
I know, I should have kept my mouth shut.....
Sorry....
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: ismram on January 24, 2008, 12:17:55 PM
I was in the middle of writing a reply, when a message popped up that said someone else put up a post on this subject. After reading Marshal's post, what I had to say doesn't matter! WOW!!
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: jaybet on January 24, 2008, 12:19:00 PM
Marshall, you are not alone...we are all dismayed about how things are going, but unless each one of us can get together, we can't fight it. If ALL gun owners got together, there might be a chance.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Teresa Heilevang on January 24, 2008, 12:22:03 PM
Yep.. I had some comments I also wanted to add.. but.... what can you say after THAT?
Dang.. ! And to think he can write something so profound.. but couldn't rinse the sink out this morning after he shaved... Hmmmmmm... (http://www.cascity.com/howard/animations/grind.gif)
Excellent Marshal... Does this mean I am off the ballot? ;D
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Hazcat on January 24, 2008, 12:43:38 PM
Sorry all but I see it this way.
As long as we vote for them they will ignore us and take us for granted.
A third party vote does NOT help put a Dem in office. The Rs are doing that all by themselves. They back stab us and give us candidates that are hostile to us.
I am tired of voting against the other guy or voting for the lesser evil. The Rs need to give me a reason to vote for them.
They have not so I will not.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Bill Stryker on January 24, 2008, 12:56:23 PM
Marshal'ette,
You are still on the ballot. You are on top of it to me. ;D
Marshal's great post not withstanding. He cannot run. He was not born in the United States.
I wonder how McCain is getting around that one. He was born in Panama. ???
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Hazcat on January 24, 2008, 02:14:47 PM
You are still on the ballot. You are on top of it to me. ;D
Marshal's great post not withstanding. He cannot run. He was not born in the United States.
I wonder how McCain is getting around that one. He was born in Panama. ???
I am going to assume that McCain was a military brat so it wouldn't matter where he was born. His parent(s) were stationed there so he is a "natual born" citizen.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: gringle84 on January 24, 2008, 02:27:21 PM
After reading Philip W. Morrow "Independent" for 2008 POTUS website a few posts back, I do like his stance on the issues.
If the firearm owners could do a "Zumbo" with force this election and be behind a good 2A candidate, win or lose, that would be a shot across the bow or heard around the world?
Mr. Morrow sounds good, are there any others that we could support? Gun owners shouldn't split the vote, just one candidate that we can rally behind and spread the word that this Nov., gun owners vote this one man!
Vote I will, but it will not be for Mitt, Rudy or John........
Robert
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Long Armed Devil on January 24, 2008, 03:22:00 PM
Found this site that gives some of their voting records..www.ontheissues.org (http://www.ontheissues.org) May be of some help to some. I live in AZ. and the day after I sent in my early ballot by mail Fred withdrew. :'(
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: SlideRacker on January 24, 2008, 11:58:51 PM
I have said it in other posts, and I'll say it again...Huck can't come up with enough money to win, but if it comes down to the party switch I'll vote for him. The only wrinkle in his 2A armor that I am aware of is the fact that he is for geographic gun control. I am from Arkansas, and I have delt with this fella for years. I know what he ment by this, and I do not agree with it. He wants to put the gun control problem in the hands of the local governers and mayors and out of the fed's hands. This idea is crazy to me. If I have a real constitution which gives me a right, how can I allow a dimwitt mayor limit it. I know this was an attempt by him to do one of the things he does well, and that is move control out of the fed's hands. All in all, Huck is a gun owner, hunter, sport shooter, and CCW holder. He did a great job for us here in Arkansas when the gun grabbers came calling. We had a school shooting here while he was in office. The gun grabbers were here in force in less than a week. Huck first tried to be nice, listen, and reason. When that didn't work he basicly told them to read the constitution, and remember what state they were in. He made a good showing of his record to uphold the 2A, and advised our legislature to keep that in mind as well. I'll damn sure throw my vote away on him before I give it to Hitlery or Obama Winfery.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: tombogan03884 on January 25, 2008, 01:16:05 AM
Robert, Again Ron Paul seems to be the best choice (despite what Hazcat will have to say) With all the collage students who are supporting him he has a better chance to at least make the "major" parties think than if we put our wait behind "a gun guy" of our own.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Long Armed Devil on January 25, 2008, 01:45:35 PM
In the end you must look at who you think will go to bat for your issues. For me that is someone who will uphold the 2A. I would much rather have someone who is a 2A person and disagree with them on a host of other issues. For me the most important thing is my and our gun rights. The 1st step to taking away freedoms is not to control the press or the ability to have free speach but, is to take away the people's ability to defend themselves. You see it all the time in other countries.
So if they don't line up with me on abortion, imigration, drug policies...ect but were proven 2A defenders I would vote for them and try to fight those other battles later. I might lose those battles but if I do I"ll still have my 2A rights and my guns and my ability to defend my family.
What happend during Katrina sickend me on many levels but the worst thing was the disarming of law abiding citizens. Those poor souls were being set up to be to be victimized.
The worst thing you can do is NOT to VOTE.
Stand Up and be Counted.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: dgray64 on January 25, 2008, 04:36:33 PM
Please don't, Michael. That was the question I asked myself as well so I went to McCain's site and read what he said about the 2nd Amendment which was impressive and had me going until I remember that he has been known for saying one thing and doing another. He is also famous for the McCain\Finegold (mess).
I went to Mit Romneys site and there was no info on his stance so I wrote him an email trying my best to word it as a neutral so that he might not know if I were pro or con and make his answer accordingly. He answered the following"
Dear David: Thank you for contacting me about the important issue of gun ownership and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I appreciate your interest in my campaign for President and would like to extend my sincere gratitude for taking the time to share your views with me.
I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American. It’s essential to our functioning as a free society, as are all the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I am proud to be among the many decent, law-abiding men and women who safely use firearms.
I firmly believe in the importance of responsible gun ownership and sales. I recognize there are people in this country who want to remove all guns in our society and I think they’re wrong. Washington needs to distinguish between law-abiding gun owners and criminals who use guns. Those who use a firearm during the commission of crime must be punished severely. The key is to provide law enforcement with the resources they need and punish criminals, not burden lawful gun owners.
As Governor of one of the most liberal states in the country, I stood up for the rights of gun owners and sportsmen over burdensome bureaucratic regulation. I advanced legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners in my state and I’ve been proud to have the support of pro-Second Amendment and sportsmen’s groups in my previous runs for public office. I also designated May 7 as “The Right to Bear Arms Day” in Massachusetts to honor “the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms in defense of their families, persons, and property and for all lawful purposes, including the common defense.”
One of the most active fronts in the fight to preserve our Second Amendment rights today is being waged in the courts. As President, I’ll appoint strict constructionist judges who will follow the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. I’ll also fight to repeal the McCain-Feingold law, which sought to impose restrictions on the First Amendment rights of groups like the National Rifle Association, to advocate for issues we care about.
I am running for President because I fervently believe that I have the experience and vision to address the issues facing our country. Throughout my years in both the private and public sectors, I have been successful by pursuing innovation and transformation. If there ever was a time when innovation and transformation were needed in government, it is now.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to visit my website at www.MittRomney.com for updated information on Second Amendment rights and other issues that may be of interest to you. I look forward to hearing from you in the future, and earning your support.
Sincerely,
Mitt Romney Signature
So...at this point I'm going to have to go for Romney as he has a business and leader background. McCain has never had any business interests that we know of and he has become more and more liberal over the years. Besides, the national media has pushed his campaign so hard that you know that they will cut him to pieces for Hillery as soon as feasible. I hope I'm right!
Dave ??? :P ;D
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: clayflingythingy on January 25, 2008, 06:03:48 PM
dgray,
What part of "Mitt Romney will SIGN an AWB" do you not understand?
Any new AWB out of a Dem congress will likely be worse than the one that expired. Are you jonesing for a six round limit on magazines? Do you want to see AR's, AK's, Mini 14's and all other "military style" autos banned from sale?
What part of "Mitt Romney will SIGN an AWB" do you not understand?
McCain has voted against the AWB. There is at least the expectation he will veto an AWB. With Romney there isn't even that. If Romney is the nominee I will join some of the others on this board and vote 3rd party.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Teresa Heilevang on January 25, 2008, 07:53:00 PM
If Romney is the nominee I will join some of the others on this board and vote 3rd party.
Afraid I have to second that 8) Mitt is a sell out already. He supported Bush in selling us out.. Thought it was a GREAT move.. >:( Nope .. Mitt is OUT! *just my opinion , of course* :-\
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Hazcat on January 25, 2008, 08:11:43 PM
Mitt on 2A
MR. ROMNEY: I do support the Second Amendment, and I believe that this is an individual right of citizens and not a right of government. And I hope the Supreme Court reaches that same conclusion.
I also, like the president, would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state. It was a bill worked out, by the way, between pro-gun lobby and anti-guy lobby individuals. Both sides of the issue came together and found a way to provide relaxation in licensing requirements and allow more people to — to have guns for their own legal purposes. And so we signed that in Massachusetts, and I said I’d — I would would support that at the federal level, just as the president said he would. It did not pass at the federal level.
I do not believe we need new legislation.
I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that, if they’re implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reasons. That’s the right that people have.
So he did sign a permanent AWB in his state and would sign a national AWB but he doen't think new laws are needed (right now).
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: tombogan03884 on January 25, 2008, 09:40:59 PM
Hazcat you beat me to it. Mitt the sh*t ALREADY signed one of the most restrictive AWB bills in the country. A few months ago he was Bragging that he supported the 2A , was a life long NRA member and was elected gov with NRA support. NRA replied that He became an NRA Life member in 2006 and that they had not endorsed ANYONE in that particular election
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: jamaro on January 28, 2008, 04:43:36 PM
As a bloc, we gun people MUST show that we are not a guaranteed GOP vote.
I agree... Bush I and Bush II didn't really do anything for us and our cause, they only courted us when they wanted our money and votes.... Other than that they could give a damn.... If they want our vote they need to earn it. I just wish Bill Richardson was still running... He packs a Glock at all times and has the experience. I am hoping someone picks him up as VP...
Jason
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Jkwas on January 29, 2008, 09:55:45 AM
Quote
I have asked the McCain campaign to respond to the "Litmus Test" I wrote at the beginning of the campaign:
Michael, have you heard back from these guys? ???
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Michael Bane on January 29, 2008, 10:41:57 AM
Not a word...and it was hinted to me that I wouldn't hear a word, despite the fact that the campaign has hired some heavyweight pro-gun media spinners. James Baker was advising McCain, and Baker is probably the best gun lobbyist we've ever had.
Michael B
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: DDMac on January 29, 2008, 12:17:10 PM
Received the below yesterday. I keep hearing Ron Paul is a nut. Would cut and run in Iraq, which is not rational without a plan to close the door behind us.. I don't think that is all so clear. Anyway, this below does not sound so crazy to me. Mac.
January 28, 2008
When I started this campaign more than a year ago, I was a somewhat reluctant candidate. I knew our message of freedom, peace, and prosperity was the right one for our country, but frankly, I didn't know how many people today would have ears to hear it.
Well, did I learn a lesson! Millions of Americans understand what ails our country, and what is needed to fix it. So, with you at my side, I am in this effort to win. Not only by building the ideas of liberty, but by getting the nomination. Our opponents would call that nuts -- you know, the advocates of more inflation, more spending, more taxes, more war. But let me explain why they are, as usual, all wet.
For one thing, for the first time since 1952, we are headed towards a brokered convention. Instead of a coronation of one of the establishment candidates, the delegates, influenced by the people, will decide. And I am afraid that this will take place in a time of heightened economic crisis. That means even more Americans will be ready to hear our message. But it also means I am really going to need your help.
One would never know this from the mainstream media, but we've only had a few primaries and caucuses, and even after the extremely important date of February 5th, we will still have more than half to go. And the Republican nominee will not be decided by the popular vote among the "leading candidates" in a few states also handpicked by the media. The nominee will be decided by the delegates. So let me tell you a little about our "under-the-radar" strategy to get those delegates.
On "Super Tuesday," February 5th, there will be 22 primaries and caucuses. I have a hunch that we're going to do very well. But, of course, the media and the rest of the establishment refuse to recognize that. It's the attitude of the small child who covers his eyes to make something scary go away. But we are not going away.
While the media focus on the couple of states they claim are important, we're competing everywhere. And the reason that we're able to do that is because of your grassroots support. You all are an asset that no other campaign has: donors, and activists who want no special deals from the government, just the Constitution.
We're competing very strongly in all the caucus states, and in all other states where delegates are up for grabs. And we're going to keep picking up delegates. Our strategy's already working.
And we're committed to winning states. I have little doubt that if we can double our efforts in this coming week, we're going to grab many delegates from other candidates. Then we'll start getting ready for the biggest moment of all - the convention in September.
The path to the convention is twisty, however. When we were in Iowa, we got 10% of the vote. But no delegates were awarded that night. That's because voters didn't directly choose national convention delegates; they selected the county and state delegates who will make that decision. And if another candidate like Mike Huckabee is no longer in the race at the time of the state convention in June, his delegates are free to support whomever they want. If we work extra hard, we can convert them into delegates for our campaign!
A similar thing happened in Nevada. We won 14% of the straw poll vote that the media reported on, but what they didn't tell you was that we may have gotten up to a third of Nevada's delegates to their county conventions! I always laughed when I heard some people say Nevada didn't matter. Nevada chooses more delegates to the national convention than South Carolina.
So, while the media will focus on the results from Florida, and probably take down the campaign of my friend Rudy in the process, those results are less important to you and me. Let them fight in Florida while we bring our message to Americans in other areas, like the economically hard-hit state of Maine.
We want to win as many delegates to the Republican National Convention as possible, even if other campaigns don't see some areas of the country as "important. But in this work, I need your help. Help me get many, many delegates to this historic convention, by these three methods.
1. Donate. Your generous contributions are essential if we're going to keep going until September. We need, frankly $5 million by February 5 to run more TV and radio ads in the Super Tuesday states. Your help means everything: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate.
2. Canvass. You can help us identify those who support our message in your precinct. You can help us to convert others, too. After all, your neighbors pay attention to you. I am going to visit as much of the country as I can, but I need you as my partner in your area: https://voters.ronpaul2008.com.
3. ASK others to sign-up on our website. I meet so many people on the campaign trail who don't even receive my letters! I've told my campaign to make communication with you, the engine of all this, much better. But if people don't sign up for my e-mails, that won't happen. If you could just get one extra person to sign-up, that would be great. More would be tremendous.
Help me by forwarding this e-mail to every other Ron Paul supporter you know, and urging them to join our efforts! https://www.ronpaul2008.com/join.
We've come so far, but now the fun is really starting! I have a feeling the mainstream media will move from ignoring us to attacking us. But that will be a sign of our success. Join me as we continue this great movement into year two, and to a hot convention in Minneapolis-Saint Paul. We can do it!
Sincerely,
Ron (Paul)
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: 3 gun on January 30, 2008, 04:52:40 AM
You are kidding right?
The guy who's never met an amendment that he could support or understand!
Honestly you would do best in this cycle to face the fact no one left, who has a chance to win, deserves our support.
I'll either write in Fred or vote for Paul if he runs as a 3rd party. We need to suck it up and stop throwing away our vote with the "at least it isn't a vote for X".
As long as we vote for the crap the GOP puts in front of us because it's not "as bad" a choice as the other guy means we NEVER get someone who doesn't blur or cross party lines.
At least if Ron Paul won he couldn't get enough support to act on some of his more "out there" ideas. I have a hard time finding fault with most of his ideas on taxes, the borders and the Constitution.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: DDMac on January 30, 2008, 05:52:13 AM
I guess I'm confused. I thought what I said is what you just agreed with? Anyway, threaten my 2A rights and lose my vote Mr. Candidate. Mac.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: clayflingythingy on January 30, 2008, 07:35:34 AM
As long as we vote for the crap the GOP puts in front of us because it's not "as bad" a choice as the other guy means we NEVER get someone who doesn't blur or cross party lines.
The GOP doesn't put this "crap in front of us" if you are referring to prez candadites. At least the RNC, if that is who you were referring to. Prez candidates aren't picked by the RNC and told to go run. They jump in on their own. Fred jumped in because of the huge internet wave launched by the blogs. Like our other internet prez, Howard Dean, his campaign crashed when it was decided by voters and not bloggers.
And if I read it once I read it a hundred times "Fred will win because he's the only real conservative in the race". Some of you need to learn some more about the political process.
Truth is, neither the GOP or the Amercian people are as conservative as some of you like to believe. Goldwater went down in flames in 1964. Reagan won in 1980 against an imcompetent Smiling Jimmy while the economy was in the tank and the U.S. was humiliated by Iran holding our hostages. Those are the only TWO conservatives to win the nomination in the post WWII era. A farmer in the heartland may denouce welfare queens and other governement handouts but will tell you he damn well deserves HIS subsidy! He votes Rep but anyone who threatens to cut off HIS welfare is a damn commie or something as he feels ENTITLED to his payment. Americans are ready for a national health care plan. Americans want and expect governement handouts. Look at the senior drug coverage. Look at seniors who shelter their money so if they have to go to a nursing home the government has to pick up the tab.
The GOP under Reagan was a "big tent". Reagan held together a diverse coalition of groups thru his personality. Those of you who are complaining the GOP "has left you" or some such nonsense need to realize the GOP was never the party you fantasize it to be.
One more thing, it should be painfully obvious THAT SINGLE ISSUE 2A VOTERS CAN'T PICK A NOMINEE. Fred sure didn't do well and he had the support of members of every gun forum I visited. So why wasn't Fred elected in a landslide? It appears single issue 2A voters can make the difference in a close race but there aren't enuff to choose who will lead the party. That is a lesson we need to learn from folks.
McCain won last nite in a closed primary. Super Tuesday and the March primaries will likely make him the nominee. He only loses now if he stumbles badly. I have called McCain an 80% friend. Of course, like 1992, you can vote 3rd party and help elect a 100% enemy. Your choice. Your decision.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Bill Stryker on January 30, 2008, 10:00:37 AM
Clayflingythingy,
Well said. You are right on.
It is starting to look like a McCain v. Clinton race. I will vote! and I will not vote for gun grabbing Hillary or Hussain Obama. A vote for a 3d party is a vote for Clinton. Like it or not.
At least McCain says he will appoint conservative judges. I would feel better with Mitt however.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: jaybet on January 30, 2008, 10:37:41 AM
It is starting to look like a McCain v. Clinton race. I will vote! and I will not vote for gun grabbing Hillary or Hussain Obama. A vote for a 3d party is a vote for Clinton. Like it or not.
I have to agree with both of you. A candidate from either the FAR left (Mondale) or the FAR right (Goldwater or George Wallace) can never win because there are too many Americans who are not on the extreme edges of thought. The middling types always get to run and generally win.
So all of the alarmist screeching about issues will not make them stand up for us. We have to protect our rights through education and intelligent conversation. We have to CONVINCE people that the 2nd amendment is the gateway to all of the other rights we hold dear.
Yelling about the revolution and how much ammo we have stored up in our bunkers only aggravates the impression that we are gun "nuts", not responsible gun "owners".
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Hazcat on January 30, 2008, 10:49:55 AM
Well, I'm just glad to see that at least 90,000 conservatives in FL stood their ground and voted "Other" (FT, RP, DH etc)
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: tombogan03884 on January 30, 2008, 11:29:36 AM
A vote for Romney is DUMB vote for the enemy. Look at the PERMANANT AWB he signed as Gov. of Mass
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Outlaw on February 01, 2008, 10:12:09 AM
Hi MB, McCain seems to vote the way it would do him most good. He went from Pro to Anti-gun overnight. That kind of swaying is not impressive. He does the same kind of stuff as our past Colorado Gov. Owens. Owens was pro-gun, pro Amendment 2 and we voted for him, then we had the Dillon/Klebold school shooting at Columbine H.S. and he radically changed his position on gun rights, totally turning his back on us. Obama is known for his "Present" votes. I don't know a lot about Romney other than he is rich. Billary scares me to death. Having a wife/husband team running the country sounds a little too much like a Monarchy to me. I agree with not wasting votes on 3rd party. That just don't leave a lot out there to choose from.
MB, I think your time would be best spent trying to organize all the pro-gun/Amendment 2 websites/organizations/members and lobbyists into one voice. I believe then we would be in sufficient numbers to get whomever is elected to listen to us. I may be wrong but It seems to me as though we're not as united as we should be in our cause. There appears to be bickering among the organizations. Lots of folks are thinking the NRA compromises too much and should take a solid uncompromising stance. Why can't we all just get along? At the rate the gun grabbers are working against us, I feel the only way we can survive is by uniting into one voice. But then, that's just me.
Correct me if I'm wrong....
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Hazcat on February 01, 2008, 10:39:12 AM
If the NRA would have gotten off their behind and endorsed FT it would have helped a lot.
Now who will they endorse? Gun Grabber McCain or Gun Grabber Romney? It won't sway me in any case now. I will vote "none of the above", as 90,000 plus of us did here in FL this week.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Outlaw on February 01, 2008, 10:46:47 AM
Kudos Marshall, well said!!!!
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: david86440 on February 02, 2008, 12:29:27 AM
It seems to me that with this election there really isn't anyone to vote "for" other than Ron Paul and I really doubt he will be a choice in Nov so it is a matter of voting "against" the one on the ballot that you would not want to see elected.
That said, I think McCain would have to be my choice as I can't see any democrat being on our side. McCain would just be the lesser of two evils. In the past I was a staunch supporter of McCain, but in the last election got turned off by him when he started following the advice of his handlers and didn't stay true to his beliefs.
Romney has waffled on way too much and has been caught in some pretty good lies regarding his hunting experiences, illegal landscapers, seeing his father walk with MLKing and more.
Oh, by the way, this is my first post as i just joined this forum tonight.
I can tell you one thing, I really miss living in AZ where I could go in, buy what I want and walk out with a gun. Now I'm living in the joyous state of Calicrappy!
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Pathfinder on February 02, 2008, 06:28:19 AM
The reality is that McCain or Romney will sell us out in a heartbeat- they have done it before, they will do it again. Even if they came out and said they were 100% for the individual right per the 2A, you cannot believe them - at all! Under any circumstances! Even if they were to select Ron Paul or Fred Thompson as VP, we cannot trust McCain or Romney under any circumstances - ever, for any reason.
Leaves us in quite a quandary come November. And quite bluntly, I don't have any answers. I am, however, leaning towards a vote by the entire 2A community to one candidate. We just need to identify that candidate. Maybe the Libertarian? No idea who that is, but we need to focus on one candidate.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Rastus on February 02, 2008, 06:38:16 AM
...............Truth is, neither the GOP or the Amercian people are as conservative as some of you like to believe. Goldwater went down in flames in 1964. Reagan won in 1980 against an imcompetent Smiling Jimmy while the economy was in the tank and the U.S. was humiliated by Iran holding our hostages. Those are the only TWO conservatives to win the nomination in the post WWII era. A farmer in the heartland may denouce welfare queens and other governement handouts but will tell you he damn well deserves HIS subsidy! He votes Rep but anyone who threatens to cut off HIS welfare is a damn commie or something as he feels ENTITLED to his payment. Americans are ready for a national health care plan. Americans want and expect governement handouts. Look at the senior drug coverage. Look at seniors who shelter their money so if they have to go to a nursing home the government has to pick up the tab. ............
This is the "ultimate" truth..."everyone" with their hand out.
VERY WELL SAID.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: TAB on February 02, 2008, 06:56:48 AM
I think McCain and Rommey are about the same with it comes to AWB...They will both do what ever gives them the most pollitical leverage... where I see a diffrece in the two is immagration.
You know its funny this tues CA has its primary... since I'm registerd as an Indy, I can only vote for a party that lets me vote on thier ticket. Which means democrat or AI( still can't figure out why the GOP won't). I'm really thinking about voting for obama in just so Clinton might go away. What scares me is It looks like who ever gets the nod, the other will be VP, atleast from the way it looks like now.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: jpr9954 on February 02, 2008, 07:52:25 AM
I am going to assume that McCain was a military brat so it wouldn't matter where he was born. His parent(s) were stationed there so he is a "natual born" citizen.
Good assumption given that both his father and grandfather rose to full Admirals in the US Navy.
As to who is worse and who is better between McCain and Romney, I just keep going back and forth. I look at McCain's record and see some good gun votes but then note that they were early in his career and not later. I look at Mitt and see he approved restrictive crap in Mass but now he says he won't. Given that North Carolina's primary is in May and this will probably be wrapped up by then, I'll just vote for Fred in the primary. Then I have the whole summer and fall to figure out what the heck to do. As Scarlett said, "For tomorrow is another day".
John
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: mnshooter on February 02, 2008, 09:37:12 AM
Regretably, to paraphrase Jeff Cooper, we will have to choose between a third rate firefighter and a first rate arsonist. McCain doesn't offer much, but not being a Clinton or Obama is probably the best we are going to be able to choose from. The fight for our gun rights is always going to start with our representatives, even though some of them don't know the meaning of the word. Any bill has to get passed before it gets to the oval pen. We've been enjoying these three years of full capacity mags and flash hiders, but too many shooters/hunters never even knew they were banned. How many remember that from 1968 to 1986 you had to register the purchase of every round of ammunition, loading components, etc.? There are some gun shows in this area that allow tables with stacks of new in the box Hi-Point-type-low-end-(cheap) pistols beside "private sale-cash only" signs. These people are nearly as much our enemies as the clintobamschumerfeinstein candidates. We need to involve everyone who can possibly be enlightened to vote with us.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: DDMac on February 03, 2008, 09:30:27 AM
Our local newspaper, while simply euphoric with every detail of Clinton/Obama activities, is actually publishing pro-McCain editorial opinion. "Front runner, obvious nominee, clear choice" etc.. They are wetting themselves with excitement that, in the worst case scenario of liberalism, the election of a Republican president, they get John McCain. And they are doing all they can to embed that idea in the voter's brain. We'll soon see. We have no vote in NC until May. Mac.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: airdrop on February 03, 2008, 09:32:40 AM
We're in deep trouble and who knows what will happen but voting for any of them is nuts. I for one will write in Freds name this tuesdays Oklahoma primary, maybe if we all did it on the big day he just might get in , :) . God help us because it maybe to late to pull our fat out of the fire. Heard the other day that a local gun shop is selling AR15's so fast at $1500 you wouldn't believe it but if the AWB goes into effect what does it prove. John Mccain will be selling us down the river just like the rest of them , I hate voting for the lesser of two evils and getting the shaft at the end of the day. Michael you have a hard chose as we all do but I for one may write in my chose in this election, if I can. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: jpr9954 on February 03, 2008, 11:50:29 AM
Glenn Reynolds, The Instapundit, had Romney on his podcast, The Glenn and Helen Show. They've posted it on their website this morning. http://glennandhelenshow.com/
The second question he was asked was on gun control. Dr. Helen asked him specifically would he veto any new gun control legislation and he said yes. She followed up with did he think the 2nd A. guaranteed an individiual right and he said it did.
The rest of the podcast was about the economy and Super Tuesday. Reynolds was, I think from his comments, an undeclared Fred supporter. He had been talking about Fred since long before he came upon the national radar.
I keep going back and forth between the rock and the hard place, McCain and Romney, and still don't know where I personally stand. Likewise, I'm still trying to figure out which of the Dems would be the tougher candidate to beat and am coming close to thinking it is Obama.
John in WNC
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: gringle84 on February 04, 2008, 09:41:09 PM
Romney will say and do whatever he can to win, but his past is full of liberal leanings and only a short time ago did he start trying to talk the Conservative talk and only for the run up to this election.
I do not trust anything he says or will say, he is just trying to buy his way into the Whitehouse and will govern like a liberal on all issues I hold dear, same thing with McCain, both are RINO's period!
The true Conservatives are screwed this election in every direction unless things change at the convention which I doubt they will. I will not fall in lock step and vote for a RINO again if my choices are either McCain or Romney. I will write in Fred or vote for Ron Paul and let the chips fall where ever they may, even if it means the DemoLibs win.
After the Republican party loss and if they can't get back onto a Conservative agenda and stop supporting and start shunning these RINO's, I'll re-register as an Independent and be done with the "Party that was...."
Robert
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: ga41 on February 06, 2008, 09:40:08 AM
McCain's support of immigration will guarantee the election of liberals in the future, so while we may be ok with his election over the democratic candidate, the end result will be the same. Furthermore as most of see it (not a slam on those who disagree) any candidate who can support attacks on the 1st amendment probably can find a way in their thinking to attack other rights if the means justified the end result. And no I did not vote for Romney yesterday as I feel that Huckabee was the lesser of the evils.
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: god45644 on February 07, 2008, 02:48:49 PM
Has anybody noticed the irony of the Google Ad "Vote for McCain" on this site. Who are they kidding?
Title: Re: Michael's Hard Question...
Post by: Grimjack on June 08, 2008, 10:15:17 AM
No matter how you feel you really have to support McCain as the alternative is Obama no matter who else you vote for (Paul or Barr). I don't think McCain will take our guns away or do anything totally stupid like Hussein will (especially with a super majority backing him up). McCain seems to have a good position on SCOTUS nominations (which I think was one of the best parts of GWB presidency). I would like to see McCain try to get the FairTax through, he is enough of a maverick centrist to possibly get that to happen. And before you go nuts about the FairTax please read both of Neil Boortz's books on the subject instead of getting your knowledge from those that are against it.