Does gun owner automatically mean Bush supporter?

[Guest]

In most gun stores I've been in, it seems to.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Of course it does.

[txgho1911]

Gun owners support Bush beer. Bush racing series. Sometimes it Bush Gardens in one of the seaworld parks or other venues.
I have leaned on a bush before.

Seriously though I will admit I voted for GWB. If it was a choice of him and any of the other Hillory McCain or Kennedy kind like Kerry was I would have done it again. Not that he's doing such a wonderfull fornicating job of the office he was elected to. He has made mistakes and continues to repeat them and worse.

DNC and the RNC are picking the candidates who they would approve of getting name recognition and face time in the media. I do believe there is a whole lot of money coming from way to few individuals and some companys who are driving the agenda in these and other political orgs.

Repeated from another thread:

Also as far as choices may go. The one vote election system works against the public. There are smarter ways that would allow for the election of the best choice. Approval voting method would allow for a vote of confidence for those candidates you could stand to make it into office. Just don't vote for those candidates you do not like for the office.
This would do away with the primary and likely open the door to any and every thirdparty and independant candidate for jurisdictions using it.
http://approvalvoting.org/

[wingnutx]

Just because I am a war-mongering gun nut does not mean that I have any affection for Bush in particular.

I'm waiting for Zombie-Goldwater to run for president, with Zombie-Heinlein as veep.

[tyme]

txgho1911,

Approval voting is one of the worse multiple-vote systems.

The better Condorcet variants have very nice properties that encourage honest voting

The concern that voters won't be able to figure out how to rank candidates on a ballot is not a problem with condorcet, it's a problem with implementation.  IRV, which is terrible but which also uses ranked ballots, has been implemented in several countries, demonstrating that it's not too difficult for people to understand.  If there are people too dumb to be able to rank candidates, as far as I'm concerned they have no cause to complain.  The country is better off having their real preferences counted incorrectly (their "incorrect" votes counted correctly).

[mfree]

No; but it doesn't take a moron to figure out that that pesky other party is full of people who'd rather see my collection of C&R rifles melted into slag than appreciating value in my nice safe..er...safe.

Party A says "vote for me and everything will be fine"

Party B says "vote for me and everything will be fine, right after I sock you in the face"

Guess who I'm voting for?

[Standing Wolf]

This gun owner voted for Bush in 2000 as the lesser of two evils. He may well have been the lesser of two evils, but by 2004, I couldn't bring myself to vote for evil again, lesser, greater, or any other kind.

I voted libertarian.

[Twycross]

I'm no fan of the Bush administration, but there were only two viable choices and Kerry wouldn't have been any better.

BTW, I wasn't old enough to vote in the '04 election, so I didn't have make the choice of who to vote for.

[Bogie]

Better than the opposition. Doesn't say much, but hey.
 
Now, the opposition just wants you to vote against whatever republican. They don't care who you vote for - they just want you to vote against.
 
And it's working.

[gunsmith]

Bush gave lip service to the OLD awb which had little chance
of being renewed.
The AWB not being renewed or a newer worse one like the one KERRY VOTED FOR
was a great victory.

Every person in America who buys or has bought an AR recently
should send a letter of thanks to the RNC and Karl Rove and GW.

His lack of action on immigration sucks.

but the dems would have been equally sucky!

very few dems are not after our guns, this coming pres election looks grim
for us though
guilianni, mclibby, are the top R runners and suck when it comes to guns
I will never vote for a RINO gun grabber.
and you cant trust a dem

grim very grim

[HankB]

Choosing between Bush and Kerry was a lot like choosing between a bad case of the flu and Ebola.

Choosing the flu doesn't mean you're actually a flu supporter.

Given the caliber of the people the democRATS keep trying to send to the White House, a lot of people hold their noses, suppress their gag reflexes, and cast GOP ballots. But as the GOP keeps moving left, it's getting harder and harder to do that . . .

[Perd Hapley]

This is really funny.  Firstly, it's an old subject that's been talked to death.  Secondly, everybody's apologizing for voting for Bush.  Why?  We beat back the disastrous possibility of the John French Kerry presidency.  

And if you voted for Bad-what's-his-name, you get to feel smugly superior.

Everybody wins.  

[txgho1911]

Tyme

I am sure we are all to some degree on the same page about the voting systems. They are broken. They protect the incumbents and a two party system. Any change to the system in the right direction would be an improvement.

[Jamisjockey]

I know real true liberals that own guns.  One is damn proud of his VEPR AK.  Supports social programs, higher taxes on the rich, etc.  
I voted for Bush the first time around.  Voted libertarian in the last election (I'm in Utah, it was a way for me to vote against Bush without voting Dem.....this state is 80% republican).
Being a gun owner usually just makes one aware of the fact that some politicians want to remove constitutional and human rights.

[cordex]

I've come to the conclusion that we should never have a Republican President when we have a Republican controlled Congress.  As bad as he is, Kerry would have been kept in check by our current Congress in just the manner that Bush has not been.  It goes the other way around, too.  A strong Republican President should only be allowed when the Democrats control Congress.

It is during periods of intractability that the fewest laws are passed and the government moves the slowest.  That's a good thing.

[Perd Hapley]

It is during periods of intractability that the fewest laws are passed and the government moves the slowest.  That's a good thing.

During our current confrontation with terrorism?  Not at all.

[cordex]

During our current confrontation with terrorism?  Not at all.

An interesting notion.

I propose that many of the things being done by our legislators in the name of fighting terrorism are - at best - weakly connected to said fight.  The fight against terror is the means, not the end.  If we "won" the so-called War on Terror tomorrow - if terrorists around the globe unilaterally set down their weapons, surrendered and began instructing their children that blowing up innocent people is a Bad Thing and not socially accepted - would the various and sundry laws that have been passed supposedly to fight this most recent conflict be repealed?  Somehow I doubt it, as those who benefit from the increase in power will find it too valuable to give up.  The focus would turn to whatever the new big fear is because fear is the quickest means to tease liberty from a people.  

Before the War on Terror, it was the War on Gangs and the War on Drugs.  We've had wars on alcohol and wars on poverty.  Wars on religious constructs and wars on secular ideas.  The current War on Terror is simply an extension of those previous wars when it comes to Congress' role.  Indeed, the PATRIOT Act contains many anti-drug provisions including strong anti-Methamphetamine laws.  The excuse is, of course, that drugs finance terror, but while I've seen some strong connections between Afghani opium trafficking and terror, it's a stretch to believe that meth is putting cash in Osama's pockets.  As I said, the War on Terror's purpose when it comes to the Legislative branch is to provide a convenient excuse for passing laws that have little or nothing to do with actually fighting terror.

Further, I contend that a Republican or Democratic majority combined with the same party holding Presidential office leads to groupthink which completely bypasses the benefits of partisan bickering; namely, that such bickering automatically brings out the devil's advocate in both sides.  I'm not saying that if we had dissimilar parties in control of our Legislative and Executive branches things would be perfect, but I do think we'd see fewer bad laws passed without as negative an effect on the legitmate fight against terrorists as you seem to think.

Given my choice, during times of military conflict we'd have a Republican President and a mildly Democratic Congress.  During times of peace we'd have a strongly Republican Congress and a Democratic President.  Well, as long as I'm listing my wishes, I'd probably go for either party in some distant idealized concept of themselves.  Imagine if Conservatives actually stood for lower taxes, fiscal responsibility and - funniest yet - small government!  Imagine if Liberals actually wanted individual freedom!

[Perd Hapley]

You're mixing a lot of issues there.  All I'm saying is that governments must act decisively in time of war, rather than having Congress second-guess the President and the military at every step.  That is what we currently have.  The solution is not to limit a bad President with a bad Congress, but to elect Presidents better than Bush and clear the Kennedies and Schumers from the Congress.

And of course, Congress will be prevented from passing bad law when they know this will keep them from re-election.  And that's up to us.  I would also support a scheme that will force Congress to re-enact old laws after a certain time period.

[Felonious Monk/Fignozzle]

We've discussed this to death.

As much as we would ALL like it to be otherwise, it is a TWO party system.

In modern times, the closest anyone's EVER gotten (or GOING to get, IMO) to a successful 3rd party candidacy was Ross Perot and United We Stand.  He garnered 21% of the popular vote in his first run.

That fizzled after he went off the deep end, and hasn't been even a blip on the radar since.

Vote the closest of the two major parties to your convictions in presidential politics, and vote Libertarian in local and grassroots elections.

[cordex]

You're mixing a lot of issues there.

Sure I am, but it's not exactly a simple, homogenous situation.

All I'm saying is that governments must act decisively in time of war, rather than having Congress second-guess the President and the military at every step.

So long as the government's decisive actions are reasonable in support of that war, that's true.  Fighting a war - even on an idea - does not (or rather, should not) give a government carte blanche to permanently seize additional power.

That is what we currently have.  The solution is not to limit a bad President with a bad Congress, but to elect Presidents better than Bush and clear the Kennedies and Schumers from the Congress.

And of course, Congress will be prevented from passing bad law when they know this will keep them from re-election.  And that's up to us.

That's obviously a fantastic idea, but if wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak.  Realisitically we have about as much of a chance to get enough good Republicans or Democrats elected as the Libertarian or Constitution parties have to seize control of any branch of government.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to get the right people elected, but it does mean that in the meantime we've got a bunch of crappy politicians holding power and my point is that things work out better in general when crappy politicians are too busy grappling with each other to pass bad laws.

I would also support a scheme that will force Congress to re-enact old laws after a certain time period.

I would absolutely love an automatic sunset provision, but I imagine it would quickly turn into an automatic rubber-stamping process and possibly allow subtle and nefarious evolution of laws each time they are reintroduced.

Felonious Fig,

As much as we would ALL like it to be otherwise, it is a TWO party system.

Exactly.  And like it or not, those two parties are both pretty awful in their modern iterations.  Thus, the best solution in my opinion is to make them fight against each other to pass their bad laws.  Sure, it makes things harder to pass the rare good law, but I think the overall outcome is positive.

[The Rabbi]

Cordex, you seem to know an awful lot about what would happen in hypothetical situations. And you have amazing knowledge of what it is in every politician's mind.  But I can't help thinking that you are just projecting your world-view, that politicians' main goal in life is to deny you personally your liberties, onto the situation.
There have been emergency measures enacted for probably every major war we have fought.  All or most of them were repealed afterwards.  Why will this be different?

[Perd Hapley]

So long as the government's decisive actions are reasonable in support of that war, that's true.  Fighting a war - even on an idea - does not (or rather, should not) give a government carte blanche to permanently seize additional power.

That's what I mean about mixing issues.  In recognizing that war-time administrations must be able to act decisively, I am in no way gainsaying the general principle that government should have limited powers.  I'm only recognizing what's necessary for military success.  Another issue you're mixing in here is your apparent problem with the phrase "war on terror."  It's only a short-hand way of saying that we're fighting terrorist organizations and their supporters and sympathizers.  

things work out better in general when crappy politicians are too busy grappling with each other to pass bad laws.

How about when they're too busy grappling with each other to fight a war properly?  Then we get an Iraq or a VietNam.  The country is very divided, and the Republican Party is certainly not ruling Congress with an iron fist.  Yet I am willing to bet you can give me a long list of the bad laws that have been passed recently.

[cordex]

Rabbi,

Cordex, you seem to know an awful lot about what would happen in hypothetical situations. And you have amazing knowledge of what it is in every politician's mind.

Why thank you.

But I can't help thinking that you are just projecting your world-view, that politicians' main goal in life is to deny you personally your liberties, onto the situation.

Of course theft of my personal liberty is not their main goal, but neither is protecting that liberty.  I'm sure some of them are even sincere in believing they are working for the good of the nation and their constituents.  That said, I do not see things trending towards increased personal liberty on a Federal level.  Whether it bothers you or not, do you?

There have been emergency measures enacted for probably every major war we have fought.  All or most of them were repealed afterwards.  Why will this be different?

For two reasons.  

First, I don't believe the War on Terror is a war that can be won in the conventional sense.  Like the War on Drugs, or the War on Crime it is a war that is not fought against a finite number of defeatable enemies.  Of course that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be fought, simply that laws passed in support of such a War are likely going to be around for a very, very long time.

Second, few of these laws are being sold to us as temporary measures - even "for the duration".  Rather they're being billed as provisions necessary for the survival of our nation in modern times.

Additionally, I'm not so proud of all of the temporary emergency measures passed during previous major wars.

It is entirely possible that I'm wrong.  If terrorists were somehow defeated, perhaps existing laws would be repealed.  Then again, we've still got laws on the books intended to combat Prohibition-era mafia violence that were considered too valuable for the government to give up.

Where I have a problem with the laws being passed are where they have little to nothing to do with the war effort or undermine the freedom of law-abiding members of our society.  I do not believe that all the laws passed in the name of the War on Terror are useful, sufficiently related, necessary or appropriate.  If we disagree on this, your opinion of the state of things with regards to a single party controlling the Legislative and Executive branches would, of course, be different.


Fistful,

That's what I mean about mixing issues.  In recognizing that war-time administrations must be able to act decisively, I am in no way gainsaying the general principle that government should have limited powers. I'm only recognizing what's necessary for military success.

Fair enough.  However, the same structure that allows for decisive military action also allows for significant abuse.  Additionally, while the military aspect is vital, it is not the only concern.

Another issue you're mixing in here is your apparent problem with the phrase "war on terror."  It's only a short-hand way of saying that we're fighting terrorist organizations and their supporters and sympathizers.

I understand that.  But even utter elimination of existing terrorist organizations, supporters and sympathizers (something we are not going to do militarily) does not eliminate Terror.  I don't have a problem with calling it a War on Terror, but chances are good that because of the nature of the fight, laws passed in support of that war are going to stick around - whether they be good or bad.

How about when they're too busy grappling with each other to fight a war properly?  Then we get an Iraq or a VietNam.  The country is very divided, and the Republican Party is certainly not ruling Congress with an iron fist.  Yet I am willing to bet you can give me a long list of the bad laws that have been passed recently.

I'm not convinced that the problems in Iraq are caused entirely by domestic squabbles.  

Fistful, the Republican party is not pure evil in my book.  Their current direction is just ... a bit different, shall we say, from their traditional platform.  Indeed, it seemed to me that as soon as they no longer had to worry about a Democrat in the Presidency, their objections to spending money willy nilly on a Federal level and big, bloated government just disappeared.

[atek3]

no.  I'm a libertarian that really doesn't like bush.

I think that gives me an edge recruiting new shooters, republicans like the fact that I know guns, democrats like the fact that I don't like bush.

atek3

[richyoung]

With Republicans, my beef is that they don't act like conservative republicans in too many cases - but are RINOs...

With the DEMs, my beef is that they DO act just like they say they will - and I don't like it!

Can there be a "pro-gun democrat"? Sure...but NOT if 2nd A rights are the PRIMARY concern of the politico in question...just as I'm sure there is a Republican or two somewhere in favor of Socialism - but they are BOTH in the wrong party.