Replies

I am not talking about aesthetics. I am talking about direction of travel. This is not a beauty contest.

If you are treading water in the ocean and 2 people offer to help you, one by tossing you a 5 pound weight and the other a 1 pound weight, which one helped you more? Neither. The each decreased your chances of survival.

Both the republicans and the democrats have increased gun restrictions, increased taxes, increased the size of government. Most Republicans have gone in this direction more slowly than the democrats. Some of the republicans have pushed the other way, but very few.

Like I said, if the choice is winding up with no rights in 10 years versus 50 years, I would prefer 50, but I will vote for never. Bush did reduce taxes some. He did sign the PBA. He has said he does not want the AWB, but would sign it if presented to him. This is a mixed message but overall the direction is not really changed, just slowed down a bit.

So, the emergency room doctor says, we can improve your condition concerning the knife that is stuck in you. We can limit additional penetration to a quarter inch today, and hopefully we can limit it to another quarter inch tomorrow, and if we build up enough momentum we might be able to back it out an eighth next fall.

No. Get it out now. Reverse the direction the weight of government oppression is moving now. If everyone would stop voting for the best they think they can hope for and vote for what they actually believe in we would all be much better off. Or at the very least we would have some integrity left to us.

Like I said, if the choice is winding up with no rights in 10 years versus 50 years, I would prefer 50, but I will vote for never.

Vote for never, and get 10. Not smart. These issues are not static, people's opinions can be changed. The right strategy is to convince your fellow citizens of the neccesity of the right to keep and bear arms. Then the elections will take care of themselves.

Voting for a fringe candidate is the same as giving up the fight. Get in the mainstream and fight for liberty, that is where the battle will be won or lost. What if only one or two thousand Bush voters in Florida voted for Harry Browne or Howard Philips in 2000 instead of Bush? Al Gore would be president. He would have done much more than just sign an extension of the ban, he would have made it a top priority to get it enlarged. The Clinton agreement with Smith and Wesson would still be in effect. Tens or hundreds of millions of additional tax dollars would flow to anti-gun groups.

This is an ongoing war and must be fought as such. Sometimes it is better to regroup and live to fight another day. Abandoning the battlefield to the enemy (i.e. voting for a third party candidate and giving the victory to rabid anti-gunners) is not the way to go. The battle will be won or lost one step at a time. Voting for "never" in this case is like abandoning the battlefield because someone you thought was your ally isn't fighting as strongly as you'd like. Your sometime ally will be even less likely to fight on your side, making victory all the less likely.

This from someone who voted for Andre Marrrou, Harry Browne, and Howard Philips in the last three presidential elections. No more. The terrorists would have toasted America by now if these guys were in power.

If you are treading water in the ocean and 2 people offer to help you, one by tossing you a 5 pound weight and the other a 1 pound weight, which one helped you more? Neither. The each decreased your chances of survival.

Both the republicans and the democrats have increased gun restrictions, increased taxes, increased the size of government. Most Republicans have gone in this direction more slowly than the democrats.

Good analogy. Bush's stated support of the AWB shows that regarding the Second Amendment he infringes on the right to bear arms just a little less than the Democrats. He's still moving in the opposite direction of "shall not be infringed."