So now what for Colorado?

[Cylinder Head]

Barack's hopes and dreams of a disarmed society are quickly fading and leaving Hick, Morse, DeGette and Rap Sheet Fields out in the cold. Colorado was supposed to be their beachhead and now there are no reinforcements coming. Bloomberg's promises will ring hollow and the blame game has begun.

We can't rest, we need to keep pushing, but what do we do?

[losttrail]

Since the Colorado laws are already signed and set to take effect July 1, the possibility of getting any repeal effort through the state legislature is nil, the possibility of addressing these laws through the state courts is questionable at best, it seems to me that we must use the Liberals tactics of incrementalism to our benefit.

Although, in our case we must make incrementalism happen in years not decades.

Recall movements need to advance. We need to get the most offensive of these state legislators out of office as soon as possible.

Then we need to get pro-Constitution voters involved, registered and out for every local and state election.

We need to support, finaicially and through our efforts, Constitutional candidates that truly will support and defend our rights and freedom.

Longer term, after hopefully giving the Democrats the boot from both houses and the governors mansion, we could look at repealing these anti-American laws. But we will need a strong or super majority in both houses to have any hope.

[KAPA]

Barack's hopes and dreams of a disarmed society are quickly fading and leaving Hick, Morse, DeGette and Rap Sheet Fields out in the cold. Colorado was supposed to be their beachhead and now there are no reinforcements coming. Bloomberg's promises will ring hollow and the blame game has begun.

We can't rest, we need to keep pushing, but what do we do?

VOTE!

[jhirsh5280]

Have a neighbor who has liberal views but is also a hunter and gun owner and he told me a few nights ago he will absolutely not vote for any democrats in the next election. I honestly dont think he's a true liberal but he did vote for the current mess we have here at home and in Washington.

[Hound]

Have a neighbor who has liberal views but is also a hunter and gun owner and he told me a few nights ago he will absolutely not vote for any democrats in the next election. I honestly dont think he's a true liberal but he did vote for the current mess we have here at home and in Washington.

This is not as unusual as many on this forum would like to believe. Democrats do own guns and many hate what has happened. I think 2014 will be very interesting IF the right does not push ANYBODY away, we could have a repeat of 1994. They do of course have to put up a reasonable candidate though. Put up a "women like rape" or "can control pregnancy" buffoon and it will be their own foot they are shooting.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

the possibility of addressing these laws through the state courts is questionable at best

Why? (Sincerely)
I personally feel like it is our best bet. HB1224 was a total over-reach and so poorly written as to be basically unenforceable.
I'm extremely hopeful a judge agrees.

[Ronin13]

VOTE!
And when that fails, either by the overwhelming "I want gimme gimme" people or the lack of conservatives/libertarians getting off their asses and getting to the voting booths, or both, then what?

[Clint45]

I know a LOT of Liberals who feel that Obama has sold them out by failing to keep various promises he made prior to his first election. If he wanted to, he could use his power of Executive Order towards a number of fairly harmless goals that would appease many of his constituents: legalizing gay marriage and preventing discrimination, decriminalizing personal use and possession of marijuana, permitting defaulted student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy, and creating a federal CCW permit allowing citizens to CCW in all 50 states. He obviously has no intention of doing any of that.

[roberth]

This is not as unusual as many on this forum would like to believe. Democrats do own guns and many hate what has happened. I think 2014 will be very interesting IF the right does not push ANYBODY away, we could have a repeat of 1994. They do of course have to put up a reasonable candidate though. Put up a "women like rape" or "can control pregnancy" buffoon and it will be their own foot they are shooting.

I don't find it unusual at all. The thing I cannot fathom is that they can vote for socialism and continue to think they can keep their guns.

[KAPA]

And when that fails, either by the overwhelming "I want gimme gimme" people or the lack of conservatives/libertarians getting off their asses and getting to the voting booths, or both, then what?

Then the people have spoken and it is time to join the "Gimmie Gimmie" crowd. I just hope they don't run out by then.

[KAPA]

They do of course have to put up a reasonable candidate though. Put up a "women like rape" or "can control pregnancy" buffoon and it will be their own foot they are shooting.

This is the big thing. The Repubs need to lose some religion and move a bit closer to the middle for this to work. No matter the party, it seems the longer they are in power the farther they slide away from the middle.

[RblDiver]

This is the big thing. The Repubs need to lose some religion and move a bit closer to the middle for this to work. No matter the party, it seems the longer they are in power the farther they slide away from the middle.

I disagree. Quite frankly, the squishiness is turning me off of them.

Call me naive, but I wish that politicians would state unequivocally what they believe and stand by it, not just saying what they think will get them re-elected.

[Dave_L]

I know more than a few people that won't vote repub because of the religious thing. It's a big deal to some folk out there.

[Epyon]

This is the big thing. The Repubs need to lose some religion and move a bit closer to the middle for this to work. No matter the party, it seems the longer they are in power the farther they slide away from the middle.

YUP! If you continue to push religion into politics you're only going to isolate others who could potentially join your political party. Get the religious extremists and the racist people out and you might win over more people if you go back to being the party of Eisenhower.

[losttrail]

Why? (Sincerely)
I personally feel like it is our best bet. HB1224 was a total over-reach and so poorly written as to be basically unenforceable.
I'm extremely hopeful a judge agrees.

The makeup of the state supreme court is somewhat left-leaning from what I have seen. Now 1224 could be possibly overturned due to the vague, confused, idiotic language. Time will tell.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

The makeup of the state supreme court is somewhat left-leaning from what I have seen. Now 1224 could be possibly overturned due to the vague, confused, idiotic language. Time will tell.

Yeah, left-leaning is my understanding as well - but correct - that was my hope. How do you even enforce it as written?
No matter what your political philosophy, only the deepest of ideologues (like our governor and reps!) will ignore all of these sheriffs' problems with what the law actually means.

[losttrail]

Yeah, left-leaning is my understanding as well - but correct - that was my hope. How do you even enforce it as written?
No matter what your political philosophy, only the deepest of ideologues (like our governor and reps!) will ignore all of these sheriffs' problems with what the law actually means.

That's the point that 62 sheriff's and thinking people tried to make in Denver during the (rigged) committee hearings. But the Democrats (Marxists) have their agenda and truth, logic, freedom, the Constitution have nothing to do with their agenda.

That's why we have heard from El Paso County sehriff Teryy Makita and others that these laws are unenforcible.

[davsel]

YUP! If you continue to push religion into politics you're only going to isolate others who could potentially join your political party. Get the religious extremists and the racist people out and you might win over more people if you go back to being the party of Eisenhower.

Interesting use of "...your political party."
I take it you are not speaking of your own party here.

I might share your views on 2A (doubt it), but that's as far as I go.
How bout you concern yourself with your own party and stop trying to turn a somewhat "conservative" party into a bunch of Nancy boys.

If the Republican party would grow a pair and tell it like it is, they would increase membership and participation.
Republicans need to stop worrying about catering to the progressive queers and welfare scum and stand for something.

[-DJ-]

A major step would be to unite under the Republican party, and cast off third party candidates that steal votes in close elections. Morse getting elected because of third party votes is an excellent example of this.

Party trumps person, Democrat or Republican, pick the one that represents your views the closest.

[sabot_round]

Party trumps person, Democrat or Republican, pick the one that represents your views the closest.

That is exactly what got us in this mess in the first place. People voted for the one that represented their views the closest and we ended up with the DEMOCRAPS!!

[avandelay]

A major step would be to unite under the Republican party, and cast off third party candidates that steal votes in close elections. Morse getting elected because of third party votes is an excellent example of this.

Party trumps person, Democrat or Republican, pick the one that represents your views the closest.

The Dems have been caught tossing financial support to the third party candidates to keep them in the fight to split votes.

[buffalobo]

There were two races in the state legislature where third party candidates made any difference in the outcome. Third party is a lame excuse for poor Republican candidates.

[centrarchidae]

There were two races in the state legislature where third party candidates made any difference in the outcome. Third party is a lame excuse for poor Republican candidates.

Those two races were the difference between HB13-1224 passing the Senate, and HB13-1224 not passing the Senate with a good chance of the other bills not coming up for a Senate vote, and for the Senate not changing its rules in mid-session to ramrod the bills through.

[losttrail]

That is exactly what got us in this mess in the first place. People voted for the one that represented their views the closest and we ended up with the DEMOCRAPS!!

Yep, voting for the party over what's right and best for the people.

BTW - I love your APFSDS pic.

[Epyon]

Interesting use of "...your political party."
I take it you are not speaking of your own party here.

I might share your views on 2A (doubt it), but that's as far as I go.
How bout you concern yourself with your own party and stop trying to turn a somewhat "conservative" party into a bunch of Nancy boys.

If the Republican party would grow a pair and tell it like it is, they would increase membership and participation.
Republicans need to stop worrying about catering to the progressive queers and welfare scum and stand for something.

If you're assuming I'm a democrat you're mistaken, they're just as idiotic as the hard right. You can keep ignoring the gay republicans in your party too and keep pounding that theocracy if you think that'll get things back into gear again while watching your beloved party falter. One CAN be a conservative and not a douche.

[-DJ-]

That is exactly what got us in this mess in the first place. People voted for the one that represented their views the closest and we ended up with the DEMOCRAPS!!

While I am a Republican party line voter, you do realize that there are others that are Democrats--right?

I am saying that gun owners need to unite under the Republican flag, because while it's not perfect, it's the only way to side step getting Democrats in office because of a split Conservative vote.

My deeper point was that there are, and will only ever be, two parties. Democrat or Republican...that's all you get. Regardless of the political agenda, a vote for any candidate outside of these parties is wasted and turns into a vote for the other side.

[Ronin13]

If you're assuming I'm a democrat you're mistaken, they're just as idiotic as the hard right. You can keep ignoring the gay republicans in your party too and keep pounding that theocracy if you think that'll get things back into gear again while watching your beloved party falter. One CAN be a conservative and not a douche.
Amen! I agree... I almost want to ask davsel how that taking a hardline approach and further alienating potential supporters is working out so far? Look at '12, I think we (we as in conservatives) lost because either by the fault of reporting or the fault of those with microphones in their faces, I'm not going to point fingers, too many believed that the right wanted to take away their rights to choose what to do with their bodies, and tell women what to do. The issue is not so much abortion, many I've talked with (women who voted for Obama) say they don't really care about abortion, it's the fact that they have some old white men in D.C. trying to tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies. They obviously aren't very smart considering Bloomberg is doing that to EVERYONE in NYC... But regardless, my point is that the Republican Party shouldn't have even touched the subject. "How do you feel about abortion?" "Next question." We would be so much better off if they just let it be.

[mountainjenny]

The republican party would gain voters if they dropped the religion and legislating of morality. Abortion is a single issue vote for many people and they will not even consider voting for a republican as long as it is a part of their platform. Same with gay marriage. I view gay marriage as an equal rights issue and I cannot believe our government has the power to discriminate against a portion of the citizens. If I were gay, I could see this being a single issue vote for me. The republican party is losing voters on issues that are private matters that government should not be involved in. Take these off the table and people will have more reason to look deeper into the issues.

[Cylinder Head]

The republican party would gain voters if they dropped the religion and legislating of morality. Abortion is a single issue vote for many people and they will not even consider voting for a republican as long as it is a part of their platform. Same with gay marriage. I view gay marriage as an equal rights issue and I cannot believe our government has the power to discriminate against a portion of the citizens. If I were gay, I could see this being a single issue vote for me. The republican party is losing voters on issues that are private matters that government should not be involved in. Take these off the table and people will have more reason to look deeper into the issues.

I agree.

[roberth]

The republican party would gain voters if they dropped the religion and legislating of morality. Abortion is a single issue vote for many people and they will not even consider voting for a republican as long as it is a part of their platform. Same with gay marriage. I view gay marriage as an equal rights issue and I cannot believe our government has the power to discriminate against a portion of the citizens. If I were gay, I could see this being a single issue vote for me. The republican party is losing voters on issues that are private matters that government should not be involved in. Take these off the table and people will have more reason to look deeper into the issues.

I agree.

I think homosexuality is a natural human condition, just like heterosexuality. The (R) needs to let it go and let them be. I don't see why homosexuals can't be wed either.

As to religion, there are 6.5 billion people on the planet and God made each one an individual. Each one of those individuals probably has a different idea of God even if they claim a religion. The only common religion I'm personally intolerant of is Islam, I don't care the the "submit or die" routine or Islam's utter intolerance of other beliefs.

Most abortions are murder. Abortion is also the law of the land. I'd love to see abortion made illegal except in specific cases. Abortion is one of those things that we have to make sure the timing is exactly correct to get it off the books, I don't see that time coming for a long while to come. As long as people think abortion is a form a birth control we won't be able to get rid of it.

There are a great many things the government shouldn't be involved in. Morality, finance, manufacturing, science, education, healthcare, and charity are just a few that come to mind.

[polski]

The tipping point has been reached and it's not gun control. Ain't no way Repubes are going to beat Santa Claus.

[Epyon]

If the Republican party wants to prove it's the party of personal liberties as it was back in the day, they have to let go of non-issues such as gay rights and stop discriminating a population just because they don't agree with them. Much how the democrats kept the black community down in the past. As far as abortion goes, if anything at the very minimum the men of the Republican party need to stop making laws about women's choices. The right to worship doesn't mean show favoritism to one religion through legislation, and that's a personal matter anyway. You have a right to your beliefs, you don't have a right to tell me I can't buy alcohol on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.

[buffalobo]

Those two races were the difference between HB13-1224 passing the Senate, and HB13-1224 not passing the Senate with a good chance of the other bills not coming up for a Senate vote, and for the Senate not changing its rules in mid-session to ramrod the bills through.


BS. Gonna have to explain that one. Seeing as how only one of those was senate race and Dems had 5 vote advantage.

[centrarchidae]

BS. Gonna have to explain that one. Seeing as how only one of those was senate race and Dems had 5 vote advantage.

Senator Hudak won by fewer votes than the L took from (R) Lang Sias. Senator Morse won by fewer votes than the L took from (R) Owen Hill. In both cases, the Dem margin of victory was roughly a quarter of the votes taken by the L candidate.

Or I'm smoking crack and only one of those two is a senator.

And one Democrat (Tochtrop, SD24) who voted against 1224 anyway.

Flip two votes besides Tochtrop and 1224 would have failed by one.

And Morse wouldn't be in a position to set the state senate's agenda and change the hearing rules if he had been defeated.

[Shiro]

The best thing I think you can do, take a friend who is not a gun owner and introduce them to the joy of firearms. In my experience there are many reasonable people who simply do not gravitate to a thing because they have no (as in zero) exposure to a thing. If you don't own a gun, and you never see yourself owning a gun, why would you possibly care about the loss or rights associated with it. In a way, the current drought is a good thing, as I know a number of people who have become 1st time gun buyers. That's really important, as you probably don't need to change the mind of your buddy who has a dozen firearms. Worst case is they get a taste, and don't like them any more than they used to. Best case, they convert.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

The republican party would gain voters if they dropped the religion and legislating of morality. Abortion is a single issue vote for many people and they will not even consider voting for a republican as long as it is a part of their platform. Same with gay marriage. I view gay marriage as an equal rights issue and I cannot believe our government has the power to discriminate against a portion of the citizens. If I were gay, I could see this being a single issue vote for me. The republican party is losing voters on issues that are private matters that government should not be involved in. Take these off the table and people will have more reason to look deeper into the issues.



I think homosexuality is a natural human condition, just like heterosexuality. The (R) needs to let it go and let them be. I don't see why homosexuals can't be wed either.


Better: Why is the government involved in ANY of our marriages? Why did I need a "license" to get married, something folks have been doing since the beginning of time?
Marriage should be between you and your partner and your God/religion (if applicable). Not between you and your government. $0.02

You want the tax break - that's a tax argument.
You want the social security (or other employment/health) benefits - that's a SS argument.
You want to force a church to marry you - that's a 1A issue, and a religious issue.

Why do we allow this issue to be framed up so narrowly?



There are a great many things the government shouldn't be involved in. Morality, finance, manufacturing, science, education, healthcare, and charity are just a few that come to mind.

Marriage. :)

[Hound]

The best thing I think you can do, take a friend who is not a gun owner and introduce them to the joy of firearms. In my experience there are many reasonable people who simply do not gravitate to a thing because they have no (as in zero) exposure to a thing. If you don't own a gun, and you never see yourself owning a gun, why would you possibly care about the loss or rights associated with it. In a way, the current drought is a good thing, as I know a number of people who have become 1st time gun buyers. That's really important, as you probably don't need to change the mind of your buddy who has a dozen firearms. Worst case is they get a taste, and don't like them any more than they used to. Best case, they convert.

Well said.

[roberth]

Better: Why is the government involved in ANY of our marriages? Why did I need a "license" to get married, something folks have been doing since the beginning of time?
Marriage should be between you and your partner and your God/religion (if applicable). Not between you and your government. $0.02

You want the tax break - that's a tax argument.
You want the social security (or other employment/health) benefits - that's a SS argument.
You want to force a church to marry you - that's a 1A issue, and a religious issue.

Why do we allow this issue to be framed up so narrowly?



Marriage. :)

Exactly. $$ and power are why the government are involved in marriage, they steal a little money and get to control whether you get hitched or not. It is none of their damn business.

I'll elaborate further. Marriage is a religious institution, since the government couldn't mind its own business it should have chosen a different word.

Government shouldn't be involved in licensing anything, fishing, driving, or hunting either. ;)

I should clarify something about homosexuality. All homosexuals aren't naturally born, the ones that choose it are exercising the free will God gave them but once again just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[buffalobo]

Senator Hudak won by fewer votes than the L took from (R) Lang Sias. Senator Morse won by fewer votes than the L took from (R) Owen Hill. In both cases, the Dem margin of victory was roughly a quarter of the votes taken by the L candidate.

Or I'm smoking crack and only one of those two is a senator.

And one Democrat (Tochtrop, SD24) who voted against 1224 anyway.

Flip two votes besides Tochtrop and 1224 would have failed by one.

And Morse wouldn't be in a position to set the state senate's agenda and change the hearing rules if he had been defeated.

Apologies for calling BS.

I forgot the Dems(there were actually 2, Cheri Jahn and Lois Tochtrop) who voted against 1224. In which case only one of the the two races you reference would need to have been won.

I will not consider the Morse race as it was more than 2 yrs ago and there has been plenty of time to do something about it(as in recall). Also, Dems had majority in Senate, even if Morse had lost, a Dem would be president of Senate and rules shenanigans would be going on. The second race I was referencing was in the house.

I also question the assertion Libertarian votes are majority take aways from Repubs. I don't think data supporting such is quality data. While I rarely get to vote for Libertarians(no candidates in races in my districts), I have turned many more Dems to Libertarian than Repubs.

I think laying blame off on Libertarians is lame and hurts Republican voters(not politicos) by not holding the Colorado Republican party responsible for its very poor performance as a political party.

[Goodburbon]

I think laying blame off on Libertarians is lame and hurts Republican voters(not politicos) by not holding the Colorado Republican party responsible for its very poor performance as a political party.


Bingo. If the Republican party were actually conservative and not attempted religious authoritarian, you might stand a chance to bring people like me back in. They continue with more of the status quo, making deals, compromising my freedoms, further imposing government into my life...and I'll continue pulling that handle for anything but D or R hoping that eventually the damn thing flushes.

[-DJ-]

This quote from a RMN Editorial by Mike Rosen sums it up well for me (the Party Trumps Person piece can be found in the link below):

"That's the way the process works. Does this mean that in our two-party system it comes down to choosing between the lesser of evils? Exactly! If we had 300 million custom-tailored minor parties, everyone could find his perfect match. But that's not practical. You can be a purist and cast your vote symbolically with a fringe party, or be a player and settle for the least imperfect of the Republican or Democrat alternatives."

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/10/rosen-party-trumps-person/

[Milt]

'The lesser of two evils' is still evil; why on earth would anyone choose evil?

The 'party trumps person' idea only makes a difference if that party is guided by firmly held principles; lacking that condition, the 'right wing' Republican Party remains simply one wing of a predatory bird - and we are the prey. We need to stop cooperating with the predators' plans for our demise.

I am not about to 'settle' for more evil being rammed down my throat by a 'less imperfect' political whore. I can think of perhaps one or two politicians that I would trust to be alone in my house for five minutes - why the hell would I be stupid enough to trust any of the others to protect my Liberty?

We are losing our Liberty precisely because we accept unprincipled 'leaders' and lack the courage of our own convictions. We continue to vote for a party that has a history of 'compromise' and outright sell-out, deluding ourselves into thinking that such cowardice will make any positive difference. Hint: you only have the rights you are willing to defend, by ANY principled (zero aggression, but NOT zero force) means required. 'Compromise' is just another way to say, 'defeat.'

[-DJ-]

'The lesser of two evils' is still evil; why on earth would anyone choose evil?

The 'party trumps person' idea only makes a difference if that party is guided by firmly held principles; lacking that condition, the 'right wing' Republican Party remains simply one wing of a predatory bird - and we are the prey. We need to stop cooperating with the predators' plans for our demise.

I am not about to 'settle' for more evil being rammed down my throat by a 'less imperfect' political whore. I can think of perhaps one or two politicians that I would trust to be alone in my house for five minutes - why the hell would I be stupid enough to trust any of the others to protect my Liberty?

We are losing our Liberty precisely because we accept unprincipled 'leaders' and lack the courage of our own convictions. We continue to vote for a party that has a history of 'compromise' and outright sell-out, deluding ourselves into thinking that such cowardice will make any positive difference. Hint: you only have the rights you are willing to defend, by ANY principled (zero aggression, but NOT zero force) means required. 'Compromise' is just another way to say, 'defeat.'

Milt,

I believe you have an idealized view of how politics works in the execution of policy and legislation. Evil is not a literal word here, it just means no one of the two parties are perfect in their embodiment of ideals and values for all members. What your idea of perfect is, is most likely not what my idea of perfect is. We live in an imperfect system because it attempts to corral all views into two parties that are ideologically different.

The reality is the system works within the limits of the two parties. If you want to see an agenda advanced, the only way to do so effectively is to work within that system. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's the way it is.

I was very involved with assisting the Republicans in our legislature this year when it came to the gun bills. I left disappointed, but feeling that my party represented me and gun owning citizens in this state to the best of their numbers and ability. Had their numbers been different, the result would have been different. The way to accomplish this is to vote in to power the party that has a chance to do something. This party is the Republican party.

Many gun owners have turned into single issue voters. That singular view means that they must vote Republican if they want to put into power the people least likely to take their rights away.

If voting L makes me feel good when I cast my ballot, but gets my guns restricted by taking votes away from a pro gun Republican; what have I accomplished?

[Milt]

"(T)he execution of policy and legislation" usually (nearly always) involves the large-scale violation of rights by those doing the execution. Naturally, being an idealistic fellow, I do not take an idealistic view of how politics 'works' - I am instead revolted by the whole corrupt process.

"Evil is not a literal word here..." Actually, the evil is literal, in my considered opinion. You are the sole owner of yourself and of the fruits of your labor/creativity. NO ONE has a legitimate claim on you or yours outside of legitimate tort (you harmed another person against their will) or voluntarily accepted contractual obligations (you received value according to a mutual agreement and are now obligated to perform your part of said agreement). To execute/enforce a claim outside of those relationships is a form of evil; we commonly call it theft or robbery. To forcibly deprive a person of the means by which they might protect themselves from 'official' thuggery or from the free-lance variety is also evil. Your precious Republicans enthusiastically participate in both of those clearly evil endeavors.

"The way to accomplish this is to vote in to power the party that has a chance to do something." Even if the Republicans were not evil, the majority of the electorate now benefits in some tangible way from government theft and transfer programs. They most assuredly will not vote themselves off the dole and dependency. The victim-disarmament stuff is simply part of the overall program of dependency. It really makes NO difference, in the long run, whether you vote D or R. Remember that your rights are inherent in your nature as a human being - they most assuredly are NOT subject to a vote.

"If voting L makes me feel good when I cast my ballot, but gets my guns restricted by taking votes away from a pro gun Republican; what have I accomplished?"

You don't, "get my guns restricted" by voting for or against any political scumbag. You allow your guns (or any other right) to be restricted/infringed by failing to defend those rights through integrity-driven action - "Come and take them." Until Liberty (the government fears the citizens) replaces tyranny (the citizens fear the government), this crap will only get worse. The people must, once again, teach our would-be masters to fear us. At this late juncture, civil disobedience (with teeth) is the only way to deliver that lesson. Unfortunately, I find that the great majority of my 'fellow travelers' lack the courage of their so-called convictions. If you are not willing to risk 'conviction', you can make no real contribution to winning this fight.

[Goodburbon]

Milt,

I believe you have an idealized view of how politics works in the execution of policy and legislation. Evil is not a literal word here, it just means no one of the two parties are perfect in their embodiment of ideals and values for all members. What your idea of perfect is, is most likely not what my idea of perfect is. We live in an imperfect system because it attempts to corral all views into two parties that are ideologically different.

The reality is the system works within the limits of the two parties. If you want to see an agenda advanced, the only way to do so effectively is to work within that system. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's the way it is.

I was very involved with assisting the Republicans in our legislature this year when it came to the gun bills. I left disappointed, but feeling that my party represented me and gun owning citizens in this state to the best of their numbers and ability. Had their numbers been different, the result would have been different. The way to accomplish this is to vote in to power the party that has a chance to do something. This party is the Republican party.

Many gun owners have turned into single issue voters. That singular view means that they must vote Republican if they want to put into power the people least likely to take their rights away.

If voting L makes me feel good when I cast my ballot, but gets my guns restricted by taking votes away from a pro gun Republican; what have I accomplished?


The problem lies in the fact that the two parties are not ideologically different. Both believe they can legislate their values onto you. They may have differing views on which value to legislate, and which way they may force the decision. i.e. gay marriage, environmental requirements for your car, guns, abortions...Make no mistake, they are two heads of the same snake, and both evil.

[Goodburbon]

People who have decided that there is no way out, that we can ONLY CHOOSE A OR B and convince all their friends of the same are why and how this system is perpetuated

There are turds in the bowl that everyone clings to because people insist that turds are the only things that float..