The Back Door To Gun Control

[RAnderson]

The American People Need To Wake Up And Realize That Our Elected Officials Are Not Protecting And Preserving Our Rights And Freedoms. They Are On The Payroll Of The Liberal Elite. They Are Quietly, Under The Cover Of The "War On Terror" Taking Our Freedoms Away. At This Rate, Within 4 Years, If You Own A Firearm You Will Be Confronted And Possibly Convicted For It. All Freedom Loving-Constitutional Loving Americans Need To Unite And Send A Clear Message To D.C. That We Are Not Going Let Their Agenda Snuff Out Our Freedoms!

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/gun_control_165.html

 

[4sarge]

The American People Need To Wake Up And Realize That Our Elected Officials Are Not Protecting And Preserving Our Rights And Freedoms. They Are On The Payroll Of The Liberal Elite. They Are Quietly, Under The Cover Of The "War On Terror" Taking Our Freedoms Away. At This Rate, Within 4 Years, If You Own A Firearm You Will Be Confronted And Possibly Convicted For It. All Freedom Loving-Constitutional Loving Americans Need To Unite And Send A Clear Message To D.C. That We Are Not Going Let Their Agenda Snuff Out Our Freedoms!

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/gun_control_165.html

Agreed on the need to Wake Up and loudly proclaim our belief in the 2nd Amendment. Term Limits, Stop the Earmarks, Flat Tax and abolish the Property Tax and let a man own his property free and clear. Unfortunately, a message was sent by some gun owners, continue to divide us and we will vote 3rd party and guarantee a Gun Grabbers Tax Raising Socialist Win

 

[96harley]

Amen to both post. This communist sypathizer is going to work fast. He's already attacking free speech and plain ole citizens.

 

[jsgolfman]

You are right, it's all the fault of those darn third party voters. All ~1.5 million of them. I am sure if they voted for McCain he wouldhave won. Oh, wait, I forgot. Obama won by 8 million votes. If I recall correctly, and I know I do, third party voters accounted for 1 percent of the vote, mccain 46 percent and obama 53 percent.

Please stop beating that dead third party horse. If you really want to blame someone, blame the women. They voted for him overwhelmingly. A a matter of fact, the split of women for obama and mccain is exactly the same as the overall percentage, 53-46.

 

[4sarge]

You are right, it's all the fault of those darn third party voters. All ~1.5 million of them. I am sure if they voted for McCain he wouldhave won. Oh, wait, I forgot. Obama won by 8 million votes. If I recall correctly, and I know I do, third party voters accounted for 1 percent of the vote, mccain 46 percent and obama 53 percent.

Please stop beating that dead third party horse. If you really want to blame someone, blame the women. They voted for him overwhelmingly. A a matter of fact, the split of women for obama and mccain is exactly the same as the overall percentage, 53-46.

Dead Horse huh....

An Appeal to Third Party Voters

By Tom Hayden
October 15, 2008

Progressives for Obama


Make the Difference for Obama
Progressive voters leaning towards Ralph Nader or other third party candidates could make the difference between Barack Obama winning or losing the presidency.

Being marginal myself, I am very aware of how decisive third-party voters can be. I won the Democratic nomination to the California senate by less than one-percent in 1992. In the final two weeks, I mailed out an appeal to Green Party voters in my district, urging them to switch parties in order to vote for me. The mailer included cards to re-register from Green to Democrat for the primary, and another card to register again as a Green once the primary was over. Those hundreds of votes made the difference.

Late in 2000, I found myself enmeshed in torrid conversations between the Gore and Nader campaigns. The process wasn’t good. The Democrats were trying to push Nader off the ballot anywhere they could, thus refusing to recognize his core interest in establishing a new party. The Nader people refused to acknowledge that there was any difference between Gore and Bush, and denied that their votes could affect the outcome. My “Gore-Nader” proposal – that Nader endorse Gore in Florida and other close states, and become our most important progressive advocate in Washington after a Gore victory – went nowhere because Nader would have none of it.

So much was at stake in 2000 that, to this day, the wounds then inflicted have not healed. One side [in the tens of millions] believes that Iraq and the Alito Court would have been avoided and the first environmental presidency would have been launched. The other side [a few thousand] denies that the Nader vote caused Gore to lose Florida.

Rather than scrape those scabs one more time, my proposal is that progressives thinking of voting third party this time consider the historic chance to elect Barack Obama president. Such an open gesture would be enormously important to the people who most fervently favor Obama – young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and labor for example – and go a long way to heal and unify the progressive movement this time around.

Many of those Obama supporters share the criticisms of Obama made by the third party advocates – that he needs more pressure on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, domestic spying, trade. But there is no sympathy, no comprehension, only something between irritation and rage, towards the third-party view that it doesn’t matter if John McCain wins and Barack Obama loses.

It is hard for many to grasp that an infintesimal fraction of voters could deny progressive hope and revive the failing fortunes of the neo-conservatives and the right-wing evangelicals. It is possible that Obama, fueled by the Wall Street economic scandal, will pull away, in which case everyone can vote their first preference.

But with 29 days left before the election, it is crystal clear that racism and other forms of submerged resistance are blocking an Obama runaway victory.

If this race is like 2004, here are some reminders of how close it will be. Democrats lost Iowa by 10,059 votes, or .67%. Democrats won Wisconsin by 11,384 votes, or .38%, and New Hampshire with 9, 274 votes, just 1.37%.

Now look at today’s electoral map, as detailed by RealClearPolitics.com. Obama leads by six percent, 49.3-43.3 in a national average, by four percent in the ABC-Washington Post calculations, and only three percent in the Democracy Corps poll. When you include and Nader and Bob Barr in the count, Obama’s six-point lead is cut by nearly one-third, to 4.2 % [47.5% over McCain’s 43.3, with Nader at 2.5% and Barr at 1.5%.] Cynthia McKinney and others are not included.

These projections cannot estimate the numbers of new voters or the turnout of African-Americans who will offset Obama’s losses among some conservative Democrats. But neither can they fathom whether six percent of white voters who say they are voting for Obama will wind up secretly voting for the white man, which is the historic pattern.

That means that the national numbers, for now, are dead even. If that pattern holds, the third-party left can make a big difference in ensuring a majority vote for Obama by increasing their support in safe states like California and New York.

When we get down into the key electoral college states, it doesn’t matter if solid red state voters drift from McCain to Nader or others. Where it matters decisively is in states like Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and North Carolina, where there are crucial progressive pockets.

At this point, the map shows these states too close to call:
- Ohio, Obama by 3%.
- Wisconsin, Obama by 5%.
- Virginia, Obama by 4.9%
- Florida, Obama by 3%.
- Colorado, Obama by 3%.
- Nevada, Obama by 1.8%
- Indiana, McCain by 2.2%
- North Carolina, Obama by 0.5%

Perhaps these states will turn decisively to Obama. We may know in ten days. But at this moment, the Obama movement needs all the votes at the margin.

Third party voters should watch the polls very carefully, and think long and hard about the choice presenting itself.

In the face of McCain-Palin, is it possible to argue that there is no difference between the candidates this time? Is it really credible to argue that voting for Nader individually doesn’t matter because it doesn’t matter to the outcome, which seems to be Nader’s argument for the 2000 Florida result?

In addition to voting for Obama, third party activists can make a huge local difference in fighting to see that every vote counts in states with unreliable registrars, histories of stolen elections, and long cold lines on election nights. This will be a street battle for democracy that citizens of every persuasion should engage in.

In the end, the only question in November is the basic question of which side you are on, a question that goes back decades and centuries and which this generation has the historic opportunity to answer

 

[jsgolfman]

Ohio - obama won by ~300,000 votes, total 3rd party vote was <100,000
Wisc - obama won by >500,000 votes, total 3rd party vote was <44,000
Virg - obama won by >200,000 votes, total 3rd party vote was <40,000
FLA - obama won by >200,000 votes, total 3rd party vote was <65,000
COL - obama won by >200,000 votes, total 3rd party vote was <40,000
NEV - obama won by >100,000 votes, total 3rd party vote was <25,000
IND - obama won by ~29,000 votes, total 3rd party vote was ~31,300
NC - ibama won by ~14,000 votes, total 3rd party vote was <40,000

These are just the ones I see listed in your article.

Assuming ALL 3rd party voters in all states would have voted for mccain, the states of Indiana and North carolina would have went for Mccain. Those are the only two states obama won where the difference between the two was less than the total number of 3rd party votes. So, let's go ahead and switch those 26 electoral votes.

That gives us a new total of McCain - 189, Obama - 339

This is assuming that everyone who voted third party was a disgruntled republican.

Explain to me again how 3rd party voters lost the election for McCain?

 

[4sarge]

This is assuming that everyone who voted third party was a disgruntled republican.

Explain to me again how 3rd party voters lost the election for McCain

Unfortunately, I cannot credit the entire Obama Victory to the disgruntled 3rd Party Voters; ACORN and the voters who simply did not exercise their right to freedom by not voting insured an Obama Presidency but we reap what we sow and I'm very afraid that a grim harvest is upon the USA.

 

[RaiseTheBlackFlag]

The American People Need To Wake Up And Realize That Our Elected Officials Are Not Protecting And Preserving Our Rights And Freedoms. They Are On The Payroll Of The Liberal Elite.

Not just the american people, but it seems you also need to wake up and realize that its not only the liberal elite that buy politicians. Once people realize that its our whole infrastructure that holds the problem, then the sooner they'll realize that its not a liberal or conservative thing.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Not just the american people, but it seems you also need to wake up and realize that its not only the liberal elite that buy politicians. Once people realize that its our whole infrastructure that holds the problem, then the sooner they'll realize that its not a liberal or conservative thing.

This sir, is ENTIRELY true. Look at who has banned guns in the past. Republicans are more likely to ban them then democrats. FDR and Clinton for the Dems. Clinton's had a sunset. We got those rights back. So 1 and 1/2 for the democrats. Regan and Bush for the republicans. That is 2 for the republicans.

Who will ban your guns based on history

Republicans 2
Democrats 1 1/2




This is why I am third party until they screw up.

 

[Bill of Rights]

This sir, is ENTIRELY true. Look at who has banned guns in the past. Republicans are more likely to ban them then democrats. FDR and Clinton for the Dems. Clinton's had a sunset. We got those rights back. So 1 and 1/2 for the democrats. Regan and Bush for the republicans. That is 2 for the republicans.

Who will ban your guns based on history

Republicans 2
Democrats 1 1/2




This is why I am third party until they screw up.

I am a libertarian voter. Note that that is not capitalized. I vote in the Republican primaries. Note that that is capitalized. I have found that those issues most important to me are most often addressed favorably by Libertarians. I find that among parties with some realistic chance of winning any significant elections, those issues most important to me are most often addressed favorably by Republicans.

If I ever choose to run for any major office, I will do so as a Republican who holds Libertarian principles. Why? Because the Libertarian Party, and indeed, all of the smaller parties, are so focused on their pet issues that they lose sight of the fact that you have to win the election for it to make a damn bit of difference. The two major parties, OTOH, concentrate on winning the elections, and indeed, they do so. The trick, therefore, is to get people into the running for offices who can win seats and then use those principles with which I agree to make positive changes in our government. Witness Ron Paul, who ran and lost hugely for President, then ran as a Republican for the House, and has served there for many years.

Ideals are fine, but winning candidates make policies.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[turnandshoot4]

I am a libertarian voter. Note that that is not capitalized. I vote in the Republican primaries. Note that that is capitalized. I have found that those issues most important to me are most often addressed favorably by Libertarians. I find that among parties with some realistic chance of winning any significant elections, those issues most important to me are most often addressed favorably by Republicans.

If I ever choose to run for any major office, I will do so as a Republican who holds Libertarian principles. Why? Because the Libertarian Party, and indeed, all of the smaller parties, are so focused on their pet issues that they lose sight of the fact that you have to win the election for it to make a damn bit of difference. The two major parties, OTOH, concentrate on winning the elections, and indeed, they do so. The trick, therefore, is to get people into the running for offices who can win seats and then use those principles with which I agree to make positive changes in our government. Witness Ron Paul, who ran and lost hugely for President, then ran as a Republican for the House, and has served there for many years.

Ideals are fine, but winning candidates make policies.

Blessings,
Bill

Great post Bill, I thought no one would touch this with a 10 foot pole. I have to ask, am I incorrect? How do we get republicans that DO protect our rights? And when are you running? As you have my vote.

 

[jsgolfman]

Yeah, then Ron ran for president as a republican and got treated as a step child for his policies. So, even when we do have someone running on libertarian ideas they get laughed at?

I think on a local level, you can run as a republican with libertarian principles and win but RP proved there are no principles on a national level.

 

[CarmelHP]

FDR and Clinton for the Dems. Clinton's had a sunset. We got those rights back. So 1 and 1/2 for the democrats. Regan and Bush for the republicans. That is 2 for the republicans.

Who will ban your guns based on history

Republicans 2
Democrats 1 1/2

What exactly did Reagan ban? This is the second time that I've seen you repeat this calumny in the last several days.

 

[schwaky18]

I am a libertarian voter. Note that that is not capitalized. I vote in the Republican primaries. Note that that is capitalized. I have found that those issues most important to me are most often addressed favorably by Libertarians. I find that among parties with some realistic chance of winning any significant elections, those issues most important to me are most often addressed favorably by Republicans.

If I ever choose to run for any major office, I will do so as a Republican who holds Libertarian principles. Why? Because the Libertarian Party, and indeed, all of the smaller parties, are so focused on their pet issues that they lose sight of the fact that you have to win the election for it to make a damn bit of difference. The two major parties, OTOH, concentrate on winning the elections, and indeed, they do so. The trick, therefore, is to get people into the running for offices who can win seats and then use those principles with which I agree to make positive changes in our government. Witness Ron Paul, who ran and lost hugely for President, then ran as a Republican for the House, and has served there for many years.

Ideals are fine, but winning candidates make policies.

Blessings,
Bill

+1 couldn't agree more.

Howwever, what if all the people that want 3rd parties actually voted for them? I have never voted anything but Republican in my life but I am 100% Libertarian. Not saying it would matter, but what if everyone like me who wants Libertarian voted for them? Seems to me they would have a huge following since most Republican hold Libertarian values.

Then again it could just results in them Dems winning is a landslide. Wait, didn't that pretty much happen.

Don't get me wrong though, I cussed at 3rd party voters this election because I knew they didn't have a chance.

 

[turnandshoot4]

What exactly did Reagan ban? This is the second time that I've seen you repeat this calumny in the last several days.

We can thank him for the 86 NFA laws

 

[CarmelHP]

We can thank him for the 86 NFA laws

Really? How's that? It wasn't a "ban" and he offered to veto the bill after the DEMOCRATS added the MG freeze (so thank Charlie Rangel and the House Democrats). All the big gun rights outfits, even GOA, though they now deny it, urged him to sign FOPA, even with the freeze, saying they would work to get it taken out later. Now, what would we have without Reagan and/or FOPA:

-Signing for every box of ammo just like pre-'86
-Needing an FFL to even ship a single cartridge case
-No interstate sale of long guns
-Unlimited, unwarranted ATF compliance checks of FFLs
-No safe transit for transporting your guns
-No gun shows (delaers able to sell at other than primary location)
-No tons of cheap surplus guns and ammo coming in expanding the ranks of the gun owning public by millions or tens of millions new shooters

The last fact alone is what has given gun owners enough political power to keep our guns even this long. In the late '70's the anti-gunners were predicting complete and total bans within a decade, and the political landscape made it look as if they were right. They don't even talk about it as possible now. The explosion of "shall issue" carry laws across came after Reagan showed support for gun ownership and the 1987 Florida carry law.Reagan reinvigorated the gun rights movement and stopped the anti-gunners momentum dead in its tracks. I know that absolute uncompromising defeat is preferable to an incremental mixed victory to some. The freeze was a dark cloud, but Reagan gave us a lot and I don't like that record slandered.

 

[turnandshoot4]

I am currently working on a response but the republicans just scored another goal. Making republicans twice as likely to ban guns than democrats. Nixon in 68.

Republicans 3
Democrats 1 1/2

 

[turnandshoot4]

I was not old enough to remember what life was like pre 86 so I have to use history as my guide.

1. I have not seen any laws that required people to sign for a box of ammo pre 86.
2. I have not seen any laws that required an ffl to ship a single cartridge case.
3. From what I read the laws of 68 stopped the sale of out of state guns. (Ok not Regan, but Nixon)
4., 5., 6. I cannot fina ANY laws regarding these. Do you mean that these were stopped?
7. This wasn't Regan, it was BUSH. Another republican.


All this talk how Regan helped us with the 87 carry laws and stopped the anti-gunners in their tracks. We can NEVER have a new machine gun again. It is much harder to reverse a law then it is to stop it in it's tracks.

I am not slandering his record here. His DID ban machine guns. DID. He took that right away from us forever.

My question is what would you say if he was a democrat? Far worse I am sure. Everyone hates Obama because he WILL ban guns. Well Regan DID ban guns. So did Nixon, and Bush. Everyone wants to talk about Clinton, but we got those rights back. We never will with Regan.

No slander here. Just the cold hard truth. Republicans might say it, but their record says otherwise.

 

[turnandshoot4]

To answer the OP's question:

It won't be the democrats that ban the guns, it'll be the republicans that stand by to let it happen.

Or the republicans that say they are for gun rights and vote another way.

 

[dburkhead]

I was not old enough to remember what life was like pre 86 so I have to use history as my guide.

1. I have not seen any laws that required people to sign for a box of ammo pre 86.

I do, however, require my mother having to both show ID and sign for a box of .22 ammo for me to take to Scout Camp sometime around '75.