we're freaking out over nothing?

we're freaking out over nothing?

This is a discussion on we're freaking out over nothing? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/0...-changed-much/ After reading the article the "term limits" head has appeared once again. If we're going to be sold out because someone might lose their ...

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22
Like Tree32Likes

Thread: we're freaking out over nothing?

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array NECCdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    1,670

    we're freaking out over nothing?

    https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/0...-changed-much/

    After reading the article the "term limits" head has appeared once again. If we're going to be sold out because someone might lose their seat over 2A issues then we need term limits in Congress. If they're not going to uphold the Constitution as they promised then what good are they?
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    Member NRA, SAF, GOA, NFOA, USCCA

    Microwave radio technicians are fully deviated.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Array DaGunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,117
    Contrary to popular beliefs, Congressional terms limits require a Constitutional Amendment or the convening of a Constitutional Convention. Term limits can, however, be obtained through the ballot box by voting for someone else.
    KNOWLEDGE: A tomato is a fruit.
    WISDOM: Not putting a tomato in a fruit salad.
    .

  3. #3
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,550
    Anyone legislatively supporting red flag laws, licensing, registration, AWBs, mag limits or similar measures will not be receiving my vote, regardless of the party they are associated with. Those opposing such measures will receive my full support.
    G26Raven, M1911A1, Havok and 2 others like this.
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    Anyone legislatively supporting red flag laws, licensing, registration, AWBs, mag limits or similar measures will not be receiving my vote, regardless of the party they are associated with. Those opposing such measures will receive my full support.
    What if one side is supporting one or two of those but the other side is supporting all of them, and no third party has a chance? Because that is the real situation for a lot of people. Will you just not vote?
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,550
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    What if one side is supporting one or two of those but the other side is supporting all of them, and no third party has a chance? Because that is the real situation for a lot of people. Will you just not vote?
    When we get to the point that both choices represent the anti-2A stance, yes, I'll stay home and leave my check book in the desk.
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    When we get to the point that both choices represent the anti-2A stance, yes, I'll stay home and leave my check book in the desk.
    So you would not go with the lesser of two evils, thus allowing the greater of the two evils to prevail? Where does that lead us?
    retired badge 1 likes this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,386
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    What if one side is supporting one or two of those but the other side is supporting all of them, and no third party has a chance? Because that is the real situation for a lot of people. Will you just not vote?
    I canít speak for mike here, but just my personal opinion, Iíll still take my chance with the third party. If someone support gun control, theyre done to me. If politicians want to win elections, maybe they should consider that before they decide to support something.
    Mike1956 likes this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  9. #8
    Member Array retired badge 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    So you would not go with the lesser of two evils, thus allowing the greater of the two evils to prevail? Where does that lead us?
    I have voted in every election since 1972. Never once have I been offered a candidate or party platform that I could truly support whole-heartedly. It has always been a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils.

    Ross Perot's candidacy is the perfect example of what happens when a third party enters the election cycle. The only result is splitting the vote on one side of the scales and electing the candidate on the other side of the scales. The only one who truly benefited from Mr. Perot's efforts was William J. Clinton.
    jmf552, msgt/ret and airslot like this.

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    I canít speak for mike here, but just my personal opinion, Iíll still take my chance with the third party. If someone support gun control, theyre done to me. If politicians want to win elections, maybe they should consider that before they decide to support something.
    Your choice, of course, but with respect you have to know that it would only be symbolic vote and might help result in a worse candidate getting in over just a not-so-good candidate. I hate the choices we have too, but if I have to lose ground, I want to lose as little of it as possible. I don't think any candidate is squeaky clean anyway, even third party candidates.
    airslot likes this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  11. #10
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,550
    Quote Originally Posted by retired badge 1 View Post
    I have voted in every election since 1972. Never once have I been offered a candidate or party platform that I could truly support whole-heartedly. It has always been a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils.

    Ross Perot's candidacy is the perfect example of what happens when a third party enters the election cycle. The only result is splitting the vote on one side of the scales and electing the candidate on the other side of the scales. The only one who truly benefited from Mr. Perot's efforts was William J. Clinton.
    Other than the 1912 presidential election, I don't believe it can be demonstrated that a third party candidate has ever caused a candidate to win who otherwise would have lost.
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

  12. #11
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,550
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    So you would not go with the lesser of two evils, thus allowing the greater of the two evils to prevail? Where does that lead us?
    The lesser of two evils isn't always discernable. Hitler, or Stalin?
    Havok likes this.
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    The lesser of two evils isn't always discernable. Hitler, or Stalin?
    Apples, or Oranges? Not really a relevant comparison, IMHO. And show me any candidate you can 100% depend on being pro-2A all the time, forever. I don't think there is one.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,386
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    Your choice, of course, but with respect you have to know that it would only be symbolic vote and might help result in a worse candidate getting in over just a not-so-good candidate. I hate the choices we have too, but if I have to lose ground, I want to lose as little of it as possible. I don't think any candidate is squeaky clean anyway, even third party candidates.
    Youíre right. Sometimes battles are lost but wars are still won. Focusing on the short game isnít working.
    We get the government we deserve.

  15. #14
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,550
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    Apples, or Oranges? Not really a relevant comparison, IMHO. And show me any candidate you can 100% depend on being pro-2A all the time, forever. I don't think there is one.
    I can show you many who are 100% anti-2A all the time.
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    I can show you many who are 100% anti-2A all the time.
    Exactly. That is why when one of them is running, I vote for whoever is running against them, even if that opponent is not perfect.
    airslot likes this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •