[sandmanbr]

"Well, this is one area where I don't like Bush, but it won't stop me from voting from him by itself,

Well it'll stop me from voting for him. If all candidates are anti-constitution I just won't vote because ultimately we're screwed anyway.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I think that's a big mistake. The reason we don't have any candidates openly supporting full adherence to the Constitution is that all parties know that such a candidate would be totally unelectable at this time (at least for President). The only way to change that is to vote for the electable candidates who support the most adherence to the Constitution, as compared to other candidates. When elected, they will push as best they can. This is the only way to gradually move public opinion to the point where a full-adherence-to-the-Constitution candidate could actually get elected.

[Movemout]

"Well it'll stop me from voting for him. If all candidates are anti-constitution I just won't vote because ultimately we're screwed anyway. "

I don't mean to offend you but this is the kind of thinking that defeated Bush the Elder and brought us the Klintoon. Name one dimocrapic candidate who would advance the cause of 2nd Amendment rights. I think Bush is being politic about this issue. His AG has articulated the position that the RKBA applies to individuals and not collective groups. Do you think that Ashcroft issued this opinion without the blessing of his boss?