Is the pro-2nd Amendment Vote Taken for Granted?

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by 45Auto, Mar 12, 2012.

  1. 45Auto

    45Auto Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,255
    From the above posts, I see 2nd Amendment voters and pragmatists.

    The pragmatic view is to vote for a Republican, even one with an anti-gun record, because an anti-gun Republican is better than Obama. But the trouble with being a pragmatist these days is the inability to trust the data needed to make a pragmatic decision. If the NRA informs us that Mitt Romney is pro-gun while Obama has a "secret conspiracy" to take our guns away, then the choice is simple. But the facts are not that simple: Mitt Romney signed a permanent assault weapon ban in Mass, and Obama signed legislation to permit CCW in Federal Parks. Thus, our 2nd Amendment choices are not simple.

    If enough angry 2nd Amendment voters refused to vote for Mitt it would send a valuable lesson to the GOP.
  2. pickenup

    pickenup Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    Messages:
    6,858
    Location:
    Colorado Rocky Mountains
    What ANTI-gun legislation has our current president passed?
  3. Double D

    Double D Administrator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    10,662
    Location:
    North Florida
    :banghead::banghead::banghead:
  4. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,443
    Location:
    Indiana
    Dan, I know that you see Obama as the worst president we've ever had (and I definitely put him in the top three). And I know that you believe that he needs to go, no matter who else goes in.

    I just happen to see Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich all being potentially much worse than Obama.
  5. al45lc

    al45lc New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,124
    Location:
    colorful colorado
    Campingjosh, I see your point, but as a minority you seem unable to come to terms with the true reality of U.S. demographics.
    You will NEVER be on a winning side with a third party that caters to Christians or other Conservative LEANING people's, for they will take from the Republican vote and THAT does indeed end up being a vote for the Demmies, because they will win. There are few, if any lefties working for a alternative party, and that is their strengh.
    You may not be a conservative, but you won't be a winner either, and you will HAVE TO live in their world or leave and find your own.
    Past elections not withstanding, that world is gone, and a more 'moderate' one is at hand. Even 'conservatives' are now more willing to accept gay unions, certain social programs, amnesty for illegals, and so on.
    The question really is one of whether your willing to compromise, and if so, which party is asking the least in that question.
    The Democrats offer no compromise, only Big Brothers way.
    You act as though you have a choice other than the two evils. You don't.
    Whether you vote or not, one or the other will be thrust upon you, and if that be the case, wouldn't you rather have it be the lesser?
  6. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,443
    Location:
    Indiana
    If I see a chance to kill one of the two evils so that it will be replaced with something good, why wouldn't I choose that?

    Political parties die when they become ineffective. They become ineffective when they quit winning elections. We can cut the head off of the beast, and you're asking me to pretend that's not an option because because it doesn't take effect during this next election cycle. Too bad. That's what I mean when I say "I will not take the short term view."

    I am in favor of destroying the Republican Party. At this point, I have no confidence that it can be returned to representing freedom. I'm not even sure I'm even convinced the Rs are the lesser of the two evils anymore. You know, spit out the lukewarm.
  7. gcalloway

    gcalloway New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    Atlanta
    I do not believe the 2nd Amendment granted any rights. Those rights are mine for the simple reason I was born a free man and the 2nd Amendment only acknowledged that those rights exist. As far as the choices for President, I am growing ever more weary of not having someone to vote for, but only someone to vote againist. I consider myself a conservative with conservative values, but do not think gay's getting married would in any way affect my well being or change the way I live. The women's rights issues on contraception and abortion are just that women's rights issue. I do not personally believe abortion is the answer, but that is an issue for the women not old fat men like me. That said I would vote for a rusty tomatato can before I would vote for Obama.
  8. BlackEagle

    BlackEagle Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,322
    Location:
    UK
    This last election in the UK, I was given a ballot paper. The paper had the symbols of all the parties who had candidates for the House of Commons running in my area. There were about 8 different parties. The list of parties included Labour, Conservative (Tory), Liberal Democrat, Scottish National Party, Socialist, Communist, Greens, United Kingdom Independance Party, a Christian party, and a few others. You vote for a party in this country, not the candidate. The party that gets the most people elected to the House of Commons elects the Prime Minister from their number. This last election no one party had a clear majority so a coalition government has been set up between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. We now have two horses pulling the wagon, but often trying to pull in different directions. I cast my vote for one of the minor parties that didn't stand a chance of winning but which I agreed with most.

    A multiplicity of parties has its own set of problems.
  9. whirley

    whirley Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    542
    Voting for Obama is just voting for an eventual dictatorship and the death of our Constitution. He and his supporters already have stated they will bypass or ignore our Constitution and the laws based on it. If you beleive that Obama and his ilk are going to protect your/our rights, take another puff on that hop pipe you're smoking. If Obama et al have the best interests of the country in mind, WHY did they spend 18 months forcing through a health care bill no one wanted instead of working to get over 10% of the population back to work?
  10. BlackEagle

    BlackEagle Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,322
    Location:
    UK
    Electing the president is one thing. The members of the houses of congress balance his power, so even if the president doesn't fit the bill perfectly, any legislation he proposes needs to go through Congress. So the congressional elections will also be important. Replacing senators such as Lugar and other RINO's needs to be a focus also.

    Unless he plays dirty and uses agencies to make regulations do what he can't get passed as laws legally, as the current administration is doing, along with other nasty appointment tricks.
  11. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,443
    Location:
    Indiana
    I'm under no delusion that Obama is on my side. But I have no delusion that Mitt, Newt, or Rick would be on my side either.
  12. al45lc

    al45lc New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,124
    Location:
    colorful colorado
    I'm not asking you to pretend anything, there is no Head of the Beast to cut off. That "Beast" you speak of are the PEOPLE, they may not be YOUR kind of people, but they are the voting block you must deal with.
    You seem obsessed with restoring some view of the Country you have as you think it once was, that never really existed. The New Deal showed us that in desperate times, many will go with the flow. And views today are far more liberal than in that time.
    True, we once were far more Christian and Conservative in views, but that's gone, and it won't be coming back soon. And not without a fight.
    Too many have bought into the Big Brother scheme, now the best you can hope for is that they will see the damage being done and turn back, or as I believe to be the case, delay that scheme for as long as possible.
    Destruction of the Republican party will leave a void that will not be filled soon, and not by the Libertarians, they simply don't appeal to the swing voters.
    Meanwhile, the Demmies will further garner and consolidate their power base, until they will be so strong as to be undefeatable without major bloodshed.
    Perhaps this is the prophecy of Jefferson's "Tree of Liberty" remark.
    Fact is, you may win one battle in the destruction of the Repubs, but you will lose the war.
  13. al45lc

    al45lc New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,124
    Location:
    colorful colorado
    BlackEagle's points are valid, and why I'm dead set against a third party.
    When a third party becomes viable, conservatives will be split and alienated from the swing voters, and we will perpetually lose all elections.
    Better to have a platform in power that you can associate and deal with, than one that you at at odds with in all repects.
    They will ignore us, and leave us out in the cold. If not outright squelch us.
  14. graehaven

    graehaven Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,955
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    You are conveniently forgetting the damage perpetrated by the Republicans on this country for the last decade. They are two sides of the same coin (save a select few) who constantly sell out the conservative voter. The republicans share equal blame.

    They are quietly voting us toward a dictatorship, regardless of party. It will be a dictator in the WH with either an R or a D next to their name. The party names are meaningless now - they are both moving in the same direction.
  15. pickenup

    pickenup Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    Messages:
    6,858
    Location:
    Colorado Rocky Mountains
    ^^^This^^^
  16. al45lc

    al45lc New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,124
    Location:
    colorful colorado
    While this discussion is all well and good, I've yet to see a single viable suggestion for how we get back on track in America by going any other party than the republicans.
    The fact is that any third party or independent candidate doesn't stand a chance to win in this political environment, and the demmies would do away with our guns (among other things) in a heartbeat if they could.
    If you wish to argue that, fine. But the recent polls show that Paul hasn't a chance, just as I predicted. The writing was on the wall, with the swing voters.
    So what's the answer for our immediate future, and most importantly, our childrens and grand-childrens future?
    This, I think, is the REAL kettle of fish.
    Do we try to bring back what once was with an established party that has a power base, or chuck it all in and go rogue?
    Many here speak to the inevitability of our degradation into socialism, yet seem willing to 'throw out the baby with the bathwater' in regards to the only party that has a chance.
    Time now to think of the future generations, as opposed to our own personal objections to the way things are.
  17. raven818

    raven818 Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    7,167
    Location:
    Jax, Fl.
    Let us not forget, the dems had total control of congress for the last two years Bush was president. And, the dems have had control of the senate, and the presidency, for the last three years.

    Making for a total of five years. The " recession " started taking hold in 2007, thanks to barney and franks putting a home in every pot. But there's some good news.

    DC and the banks have figured out, and put in place, a new " faster means " of getting folks out of their repossessed home. The same story said, there will be in excess of one million homes repossessed in 2012.

    2012, minus 5 years, adds up to, 2007, the beginning of total democratic control. The dems can blame what ever they choose on the evil right, but it's been their ballgame from the get-go, and they've brought us to the mess we are in now..and to add some salt to that open wound, I just heard on the news... we are looking at a 1.2 TRILLION deficit for 2012 ( per the GAO ).

    The GAO said obozo grossly understated the figures released by his people.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2012
  18. langenc

    langenc Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    702
    Location:
    Montmorency Co, MI
    He has banned the reimportation of nearly a MILLION M 1 Garands..


    The problem as I see it-I always end up voting against someone-never for someone.

    A little evil is like a little pregnant. The current crop of candidates, except one, have grown quite a lot. The news media will never allow the one (Ron Paul) to get elected. Too bad we allow them to run the elections.

    I was in Harrisburg in 94. I believe. There was a good sized rally (July 4th) and Rick Santorum was telling us all about his position on guns. He was running for the senate, the first time. I dont believe he made all his promises good!!


    From post #37 we get the following:

    DC and the banks have figured out, and put in place, a new " faster means " of getting folks out of their repossessed home. The same story said, there will be in excess of one million homes repossessed in 2012.


    I understand but remember that 800,000 of those owners (or more) should never have been allowed to buy the home. A janitor around here, even w/ union contract, cant afford a $300,000 home.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2012
  19. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,443
    Location:
    Indiana
    I don't care to "restore" the government of our country to a conservative view (again, I am not a conservative). And we agree that a "conservative" government never did exist in our country.
    The view pushed by the Republican Party now would have been viewed as wholly radical at the time Bill Clinton was President. Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum are not conservative as we understood the word fifteen years ago.

    If you really believe that the political parties are representing the people who vote for them, why are the politicians so obsessed with misleading the public? Why is the most massive government power-grab in my lifetime titled "The Patriot Act"? Because "The Cutting the Legs out from under the Fourth Amendment Act" doesn't win you re-election. But that's exactly what the act is.
    They lie about who they are. They lie about what they're doing. When I believed the Republican politicians meant what they said, I consistently voted for them, too. I was in the same place that the vast majority of our fellow citizens are. But now that I'm aware, I can't un-see the truth. And I can't act like I don't see it.

    I don't care to force people who have chosen for themselves not to be Christians to act as though they were Christians. I don't support legislating morality. I don't support drug laws. I don't support gun laws. I don't support traditional marriage laws. I don't think that our government has any role in determining how we live our private lives (and as long as it's not actually interfering with some else's life, it's private).
    I support freedom and personal accountability. Those are both views that the Rs and Ds ignore--speaking broadly, as their are individual members of each party that do not match what I'm describing--so I'm not going to support either of those parties.

    The Rs and Ds both represent their own power interests. That's it. And that's why I want to destroy the weaker party. I want to create a power vacuum so that some other party has to rise. I don't care if it's not the Libertarian Party does the job; I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party, either.
    Side Note: But I do think that--with some branding work--the Libertarian Party could easily fill the vacuum created by the implosion of the Republican Party. If they explain their views in an easy-to-understand way and stay on message, they could win elections now. How many Libertarian voters are there?

    I just want a government that leaves me alone. Romney's administration, Santorum's administration, Gingrich's administration, and Obama's administration all fail that test. And if I'm going to lose anyway, I might as well try to send the message about what I do want rather than about what I don't.

    And, historically speaking, when a major political party in the US self-destructs, the new party that rises up after it tends to have more influence in our government than did the party that was destroyed. Remember, when the Federalist Party waned, the Democratic-Republican Party split in two. I'm not afraid that the modern Democratic Party will somehow become "undefeatable."
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2012
  20. graehaven

    graehaven Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,955
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    +1 Josh!

    I want a government that follows the frickin' constitution, and doesn't seize any other powers.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum 2nd. Amendment .... Right, or Privilege May 17, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment Guards 'Right of Resistance and Self-Preservation' Apr 27, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Modify The 2nd Amendment ......... Feb 22, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum 2nd Amendment explained Feb 14, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum CA Assemblyman on the 2d Amendment Jan 28, 2014

Share This Page