I live in DC, so I eagerly await the fleshing out of the nutjob section* of the presidential ballot. It may already be fleshed out; I haven’t checked.
*some may argue that’s the whole list this time
“The unthinkable” referring to “the election to the Presidency of the Libertarian Party candidate,” one presumes.
Of course. You never know, his polling says 11%, which means he could get into the debates, and if he got into the debates against two such unappealing candidates… What’s one more big shock in this election season?
When I read the OP last night, I was trying to think of any of my possessions (and I like my possessions) that I care about like the OP cares about his guns. Maybe a Presidential candidate would suggest doing away with private ownership of cars, or propose tearing down all homes within 50 feet of the coast line. I don’t want to turn this thread into a gun control debate, but reasonable restrictions on guns, even if Hillary Clinton made it a priority, isn’t likely to get done in any dramatic way. Maybe a little bit better background checking, or perhaps a few models might be harder to get in the future. Hardly earth shattering, even for people who enjoy gun ownership.
For me there are more serious issues in her background that give me pause, such as supporting a prohibition on marijuana, flirting with making flag burning illegal (at least she opposed the proposed Constitutional amendment). I would guess in every election I have supported a candidate that I passionately disagreed with on one issue or another, starting with Carter and his support for Selective Service.
I may buy a gun some day. If I decide to do it, I certainly wouldn’t want the “government” to say I can’t. Nonetheless, I have absolutely no concern that my vote for the next President Clinton will come back to haunt me in that regard.
I share many, though not all, of MacTechs views. Limited government, atheist, gun owner… We disagree a bit about health care. Society does have a right to force people to purchase health insurance as if they don’t have it and need emergency care, the rest of us have to pay for it.
Anyway, we agree on more than we disagree.
So here’s my take. Maybe it will help MacTech, maybe not.
I was hoping for a sensible republican candidate. Someone who didn’t push the religious agenda and focused on small goverment and personal liberty (the real version, not what Cruz means when he says “liberty”).
Alas, that didn’t happen. One rep candidate is more insane than the next.
Then on the Dem side things aren’t much better. A Scandinavian style social democrat (A system I loathe, having grown up in it). And Hillary, which I find very unlikable, arrogant and selfish.
That said, I will vote dem in November. Why? Because a president’s powers are limited, and the way congress looks lets a dem president do much less damage than a rep. A Cruz president could drum up enough congress votes to pass hate laws (calling them “liberty laws”, of course). But Bernie could never get congress to pass big tax increases or socialize health care.
Hillary won’t do any of the stuff Bernie wants. She’s in it for herself. She’ll make sure money keeps flowing to her biddies. But policy-vise she won’t be too bad.
So with no enthusiasm whatsoever I’ll be voting dem.
I get it. The motive for stockpiling guns — sure, the government may not want to take them away now, but the idea is to arm yourself so fully that if they ever do try to come take them, it’ll be… a minor inconvenience. May even need some kind of van.
My father gave me sage advice on elections years ago. “Your only choice is the least worse.”
This year follows that point, as all elections do.
The bigger danger with Cruz is that there will likely be 2-3 SCOTUS vacancies in the next 4-8 years.
Very true! Last thing we need are 3 Scalia clones on SCOTUS.
But that is a mixed bag for op expressed perspective. Sure it would codify hate laws as legal and move the country more to being a Christian theocracy … but a heavily Right tilted SCOTUS would assure that current restrictions on guns are reversed, eliminating state ability to require waiting periods (including ones to complete a background check), eliminating state ability to regulate magazine capacity, likely ruling that restrictions on certain guns that do exist (such as “machine guns”) are unconstitutional. That’s all win for the op.
It might be a reason for him to vote Cruz if completely unfettered unrestricted gun ownership is his number one issue over issues of hate, theocracy, and safety with the nuclear football.
Now if it was a nuclear Frisbee having Cooper there could scare me.
I wonder what his nuclear codes would be. Roll over, beg, stand on hind legs, bark.
I can’t speak for MacTech, but I’m fine with the current gun laws. As a gun owner I have no problem with a background check or waiting period. Mag limits are stupid, but my state has none so for me that’s a philosophical issue. Obama cares a lot more about gun restrictions than Hillary, and he has not been able to get anything done in 8 years. Hillary will make some token efforts but she doesn’t care and nothing will change.
Worst choice of candidates in the past 16 years. Or maybe just 12. And rarely are the choices much better than this. The majority of Americans vote for the same candidate every cycle, the one they consider the lesser of two evils. So join the crowd.
The other thing to keep in mind is that Congress will likely remain in Republican control. A Republican Congress + Republican President = Disaster with respect to War. Expect an escalation of our involvement in the fighting in the Middle East. Frankly, Hillary scares me a bit in that area, too, but nowhere near Cruz.
Vote for divided government unless you think the US is suffering from too few laws.
Hillary has been campaigning on gun control. To say she either is less interested than Obama or will not be effective I think is wishful thinking.
I’m with you Mac - I will vote either libertarian, write in, or I may just pull the lever for the Republican.
One thing that hardly gets mentione is Hillary’s opposition to free speech. Way back when she tried to restrict violent video games. Whether she believed the poorly concocted evidence or was simply pandering, both are terrible. That and her stance on guns, I’m not simply opposed to her but she is my enemy.
Sanders - maybe. He’s likely to be ineffective and I’d prefer a divided government all other things being equal. If no new legislation is passed at the federal level ever that would be a win.
If it’s trump vs sanders I’d probably vote Libertarian. If it’s anyone vs Clinton I’d consider the anyone.
What sort of gun control program do you think Hillary will propose? The OP fears that his guns will be taken away. Do you believe this?
Do you oppose strengthening background checks and closing the gunshow loophole? Or do you think it’s a great idea if drunken toddlers with impulse control issues buy Berettas?
I think the worst case scenario is that high capacity rifles with certain combinations of scary looking attachments will no longer able to be sold. Bad news for a gun collecting completist. Not so much for a hunter or most firearm enthusiasts.
For lots of voters this is basically it. Which is why pushing for gun control regulation is a mug’s game. I say hand gun regulation over to scientifically oriented gun enthusiasts. But first folks with that profile have to form an organization.
The only problem is that actual libertarianism is even more unappealing then at whatever Clinton and TRUMP have to offer. Ron Paul was only popular because he ran on an anti-war, pro-privacy, and drug legalization platform-now that the leftie Millennials are backing Sanders and the /pol/ crowd has their man in Donald TRUMP, Paul is left only with the hardcore libertarians who are as overrepresented as communists and neo-Nazis on the Internet.
I personally don’t see a lot of Soviet style communists among internet commentators. No worries if that was a rhetorical flourish. I’m honestly wondering whether I’m missing something. I agree that all manner of splinter groups possess websites.
If you see no one worth voting for, is there at least someone who least needs to be voted against?
You’re *always *faced with a choice among real human beings. You’ll never find a perfect one.
That’s not what the OP said. I am already prohibited from owning and purchasing firearms I would otherwise acquire and I think it’s possible that items I own could be taken away or prohibited form possession such that I would need to dispose of them.
I really oppose the incorrect and misleading terminology that makes you think “gunshow loophole” is an actual thing. Are you still yet this misinformed? I likely oppose anything you would favor, but without details it’s hard to say. Do you oppose opening NICS to allow everyone to use it for a private party sale? I am fine with mandatory background checks if I can use NICS. Drunken toddlers - that’s from looney toons right? Drunken toddlers can’t afford Berettas.
So, banning. No more new books - but it’s okay you can read all the old ones!
In any event, Clinton has been campaigning on gun control. She wants to repeal PLCAA and eliminate gun manufacturing in this country. Whether she would be able to use the bully pulpit to do this, I don’t know. I do know she is an enemy of 2nd amendment rights and she is willing to curb free speech. I would prefer a vacant executive branch to Clinton. I would prefer Mac’s dog Cooper for president to Clinton.