Vote to protect the 2nd Amendment

[Spirit51]

This is not about parties or Canidates, so none will be talked about.
This is about process. To me the most important Admendment is the 2nd Admendment, without which I believe all the rest would be at risk.

I have heard people say, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him," OK "I didn't vote for anyone." WHOA.

How can any voting age American be proud of the fact that they didni't vote...for anyone??

Then I hear, "If So and So is not the canidate....I won't vote."

This is not wise. For one thing it sounds like a little kid picking up their marbles and going home cause they lost.
For another it shows a lack of concern for our form of government.

Do you remember the 90s when so many didn't vote and we had to fight tooth and nail to save our 2nd Admendment??? I sure do...it cost us money that we really couldn't spare to fight this battle....and the war is far from over. Not the one in Iraq....the one here...against our 2nd Admendment rights.

"I don't like this party" or "I don't like the canidate my party has chosen", are very lame excuses for not voting.

Voting is more than a right...it is a responsibility bought and kept for us with the blood of our forefathers. It is "WE THE PEOPLE...." not "WE THE FEW....".

Look at all the Canidate...a honest look. Look at their positions on what is important to you. Make a choice and VOTE. Don't be the little kid leaving the playground in a huff. Don't let your rights be protected by the few. Don't let them be taken by a few.
If you can't vote for someone....look at who is running against them and see if you can live with what they stand for. If you can't vote FOR someone.....Vote AGAINST the worse choice.....but VOTE. Be a part of the process not a bystander.

There is a old saying, "If you don't vote, you don't have a right to gritch about the outcome."

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[teagle]

If you can't vote for someone....look at who is running against them and see if you can live with what they stand for. If you can't vote FOR someone.....Vote AGAINST the worse choice.....but VOTE.

An excellent point and well said. People have told me they absolutely won't vote for a particular candidate because of a stand on a single issue, even if the other candidate has the same stand, and many worse ones as well.

When this next election rolls around, I may not agree with everything the candidate stands for (or has done), but I'll be voting for someone, even if just to help prevent the alternative (I think eveyone knows who that is...)

[BAC]

If you can't vote FOR someone.....Vote AGAINST the worse choice.....

Absolutely not. That's what got us into this horrible mess we're in with our government. There is nothing, not one thing, preventing you from voting who you want to vote for as long as they are eligible and have declared candidacy. If someone from your party was chosen as the primary, that has zero bearing on whether or not you choose them, since you can always write another name on the ballot.

I will not vote against someone, nor vote for the lesser of evils. If you are going to vote, vote responsibly. Futures depend on it.


-B

[dwolsten]

Absolutely not. That's what got us into this horrible mess we're in with our government. There is nothing, not one thing, preventing you from voting who you want to vote for as long as they are eligible and have declared candidacy. If someone from your party was chosen as the primary, that has zero bearing on whether or not you choose them, since you can always write another name on the ballot.

I will not vote against someone, nor vote for the lesser of evils. If you are going to vote, vote responsibly. Futures depend on it.

I agree 100%.

I've voted for the "lesser of two evils" in the past, and I"m not doing it any more. I want Ron Paul as President in '08. If he's not on the ballot, I'll write his name in. I won't vote for no one, but I'm not going to vote for a bad candidate either. If the two dominant parties give me two lousy choices, I'll make a third choice. That's the only way to get away from this lousy two-party system we have.

If the rest of you (meaning other Americans, not just forum members) vote for Hillary or Giuliani, then you'll get what you deserve by not voting for the best person.

Third-party candidates have been elected before; Jesse Ventura did it in Minnesota not that long ago. If the people finally stand up and refuse to accept the lousy candidates the two dominant parties usually serve up, they can do it here too.

[Bob The Great]

Then I hear, "If So and So is not the canidate....I won't vote."

This is not wise. For one thing it sounds like a little kid picking up their marbles and going home cause they lost.

If it were possible to actually pick up your marbles and go home, that would be a good strategy. Unfortunately, it's not. Whoever wins has authority whether you voted for him, voted against him, voted for somebody else, or didn't vote at all.

I will say this.. if you honestly think that one candidate is no better than another, go ahead and write in "Mickey Mouse" (not that I'm equating Dr. Paul to Mickey Mouse). But, we are not there yet, IMO. A good candidate who wins is a better choice than a great candidate who loses in the same way that a .22 that you keep in your pocket all the time is a better choice than a .44 that never leaves your closet. When we run out of good candidates, I'll be right there in the voting booth with my pen.

[rabywk]

It use to be you voted for the best person for the office, now you vote for who you think will do the least amount of damage. It has gotten really sad.

[swift]

It makes no more sense to write in a name than it does to not vote at all as never in US history has a written in Presidential candidate taken more than one quarter of one percent of the vote. Vote for the best person on the ballot, otherwise the worst person might win, and can you imagine waking up to Bill Clinton as the first lady? Talk about a nightmare.

[sailormnop]

I agree 100%.

I've voted for the "lesser of two evils" in the past, and I"m not doing it any more. I want Ron Paul as President in '08. If he's not on the ballot, I'll write his name in. I won't vote for no one, but I'm not going to vote for a bad candidate either. If the two dominant parties give me two lousy choices, I'll make a third choice. That's the only way to get away from this lousy two-party system we have.

If the rest of you morons (meaning other Americans, not just forum members) vote for Hillary or Giuliani, then you'll get what you deserve by not voting for the best person.

Third-party candidates have been elected before; Jesse Ventura did it in Minnesota not that long ago. If the people finally stand up and refuse to accept the lousy candidates the two dominant parties usually serve up, they can do it here too.

I agree with you 100%! Unfortunately, our two-party system is a direct and inevitable result of the voting system we use. Because we can only vote for one candidate on the ballot, voting for a third party becomes effectively a vote for whichever of the two main candidates is least like him. A vote for Ron Paul (the only candidate whose proposals obey the Constitution and therefore are not Treason) is, unfortunately, a vote for Hillary Clinton.

Check out Instant Runoff Voting. In this system, you simply rate the candidates in order of your preference. If your first choice is in last place or otherwise not close to top, your vote goes to next person in your list of preference. For instance, you could place Ron Paul as you first choice, Fred Thompson 2nd, etc, etc until you get to the last place on the list, which would be Hillary. That way, your vote would count for somebody you could support at least to some extent. Of course, it would also tell everyone how many people really want to vote for Ron Paul (or any other underdog candidate). We might be surprised.

It's the only way to get everyone to vote for who they really want.

[PaulG]

I've heard gun people talk about defending themselves by saying that since they are not in good shape, they would just have to create distance and shoot the bad guy instead of using hand to hand on the bad guy.

To my way of thinking, that is like saying that we will require the guy to announce his intentions at 30 feet away so we can fight the way we want to instead of the way the bad guy will force us to fight.

It's the same with voting.

I'm all for honor and principles and voting for the best guy but the sad fact of the matter is that after the '08 elections, either a Republican or a Democrat will be in the White House.

We can pontificate all we want but these are the facts.

You can fight within either major party to get the most progun candidate nominated as the party candidate. Then in the general election, you can try to get the best (or lesser of two evils) candidate elected.

But write-in votes, only take away votes from one of the two major candidates. . . . and most likely a write-in vote from a pro-gun voter will only hurt the least anti-gun major candidate.

Just my sad 2 cents!

[Pro2A]

I agree with you 100%! Unfortunately, our two-party system is a direct and inevitable result of the voting system we use. Because we can only vote for one candidate on the ballot, voting for a third party becomes effectively a vote for whichever of the two main candidates is least like him. A vote for Ron Paul (the only candidate whose proposals obey the Constitution and therefore are not Treason) is, unfortunately, a vote for Hillary Clinton.

Check out Instant Runoff Voting. In this system, you simply rate the candidates in order of your preference. If your first choice is in last place or otherwise not close to top, your vote goes to next person in your list of preference. For instance, you could place Ron Paul as you first choice, Fred Thompson 2nd, etc, etc until you get to the last place on the list, which would be Hillary. That way, your vote would count for somebody you could support at least to some extent. Of course, it would also tell everyone how many people really want to vote for Ron Paul (or any other underdog candidate). We might be surprised.

It's the only way to get everyone to vote for who they really want.

I tend to vote right leaning Libertarian. The two party system is gutting America from within.

[LastManOut]

I hear folks say they are "voting for the lesser of two evils." WHY vote for EVIL at all.
A write in vote or a vote for your conscience is better than casting a vote for someone you only think is better than X candidate.
If this cycle a third party candidate gets 20% of the vote and the next cycle the 3rd party gets 30% the Republicrats will have to take notice and possibly reconsider their failed positions.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
www.ConstitutionParty.Com

[Bob The Great]

Check out Instant Runoff Voting

IRV would indeed be better than what we have now. Combining it with the electoral college would be tricky, but it's a move in the right direction.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Like voting for a 3rd party candidate and expecting the major parties to "wake up" and select him next time around?

[Tom G]

How can any voting age American be proud of the fact that they didni't vote...for anyone??

This comment is like saying I won't do anything which is what the opposition hopes will happen. If you do not vote you might as well give up your rights. A lot of people vote for the (Cute) canidates and don't care what the canidates true values are.

[SelfDefense]

I have read here and elsewhere many that are discontent with the two party system. The fact is that the two party system is what makes our nation great and above all others.

The Founders knew very well about the two party system. Although political parties are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the unique balance of powers and the method with which we elect the President encourages a two party system. It is part and parcel of our democratic republic.

It has been shown twice in the last two decades that a strong third party candidate will cause a more disliked candidate to win an election. This is expected. But the most important fact is that if there are more parties then more people ill dislike the winner. For example, if there were one hundred candidates, each with views that exactly match their constitutents, then 99% will dislike the winner. In a two party system, with the parties pretty much equally divided, about half the electorate does not like the winner. It encourages candidates to the middle, which necessarily causes changes to move slowly. That is a good thing for a stable society.

But even this analysis is too simplistic. A multi-party system creates a more parlimentary type of government. In order to gain power coalitions must be formed. If you think there is corruption in government now, consider the problems that would be created with those of dissimilar beliefs vying for the votes of other elected representatives by courting the [multiple] opposing parties. Further, the minority parties, those not in the ruling coalition, will simply be crushed with no voice whatsoever.

The two party system is an electoral methodology that ensures the minority will retain some power. And this nonsense of bi-partisanship is similarly misdirected. The party in power should implement their policies. A perfect example of bi-partisan failure is that 'comprehensive immigration' policy. It was created in a [smoke filled] backroom and the public was not included in the debate. The result was legislation that was despised by both parties. The liberals wanted complete open borders and the conservatives wanted border enforcement. Neither was accomplished and a grass roots effort by ALL Americans put a stop to the damaging policy.

The two party system is brilliant and effective. I don't care whether it is Federalists and Democrat-Republicans, Whigs and Democrats, Repubicans and Democrats, or the current Liberals and Republicans. The two party system forces the electorate to choose, not their own beliefs (like the Paul supporters espouse,) but those candidates that most agree with their views.

And ultimately, we the people, are the government.

[Bob The Great]

Sorry, but if the names on the ballot are Hillary and Rudy, then I fail to see the harm in writing in my preference. That's like a choice between Hitler and Stalin.

I'm almost with you on this one. When either candidate is horrible, it can honestly be argued that a write-in is preferable. But, what if it's not Rudy? What if it's someone clearly more in line with the constitution than Hillary, but perhaps not your 1st pick. Are you willing to consider your 2nd or even 3rd choice, given the alternative of a Clinton victory?

Besides, I think it'd be better to have Hillary in office than Rudy. Rudy would help the Democrats pass more and more small but restrictive measures on guns: a 50-cal ban here, an "assault weapons" ban there, slowly cooking the frog so it won't notice. Hillary, OTOH, will probably work with the Dems to suddenly pass a huge gun ban law, which will spark a revolt.

I don't know about you, but I don't want a revolt. If we do everything in our power to return to a proper government peacefully, and it doesn't work, that's one thing. Trying to engineer a revolt by arranging the election of the most power-hungry candidates? That's something else entirely.