But his comparison still shows that the debate has been moved to far to the left. He's afraid of liberals who will enact more freedom eroding gun laws, but it's considered a victory for a Republican merely to hold the status quo. Doesn't some positive progress have to be made as a floodwall against future liberal governments? Maybe even some legislative roadblocks/time bombs left for them to make enactment of their anti freedom agenda difficult. Because if the liberals do damage every time they're in power and the best the conservatives can hope for is to prevent additional damage, the trend is still only going in one direction, albeit more slowly.
The first obvious objection to my question is the sunset of the AWB, but that one was an exception in that it came with an expiration built in. Most freedom grabbing laws do not.
Absolutely. But how, pray tell, is a Kerry Presidency going to accomplish that? (And by voting "L" that is precisely what the practical result of your voting will be). Best to let the GOP "hold the status quo" while citizen-patriots actively attempt to move the debate away from its current (far left) position on the politcal spectrum. Politicians themselves are rarely (if ever) able to move that debate, only grassroots efforts and unforeseen events (like 9/11) can.
Former (big L) Libertarian Ron Paul eventually realized the futility of remaining on that sinking ship and is now a Republican. .......and he didn't have to change his views one iota to do it. Libertarians would be wise to follow his lead.