[cnorman18]

Awhile back, when asked which candidate I supported, I remarked in passing, "Mitt's OK."

He's not. To wit,

"Gun control: [Romney] supported bans on so-called "assault weapons." He supported the Brady Bill. He spurned the National Rifle Association. As late as 2002, he still was defending Massachusetts' confiscatory gun laws. But last year, he joined the NRA and claimed to favor easing licensing requirements."

There is much more. Read Joseph Farah's complete article at Human Events (Reagan's favorite newspaper):

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22057

[A5Mag12]

You're preaching to the choir.

[allmons]

It will not work. We can look at their records and past actions. It is obvious that they are both anti-gun and don't trust ordinary citizens to run their own lives. Both of them can crawl back up North and stay there for all I care.

Poor Ron Paul is a little bit off the beam, so that leaves Huckabee or Thompson.

There are NO democrats running who believe in the Second Amendment.

[BLS33]

I stand by my support of Ron Paul. People tell me " he has no chance of winning so why support him". Well I don't subscribe to the ideology of voting for who I think can win over who I want to win.

[pioneer461]

Originally Posted by BLS33

I stand by my support of Ron Paul. People tell me " he has no chance of winning so why support him". Well I don't subscribe to the ideology of voting for who I think can win over who I want to win.

Amen. That's why the primarys are so important. In order to win the presidency, a candidate has to be nominated. In order to be nominated by their party, they have to win primarys, to "prove" their electability. What has been so frustrating for those of us who live in the west, by the time the primary here rolls around in the spring, it's already been decided in the east and many candidates have already quit.

In the last two elections, I held my nose and reluctantly voted. I wasn't so much voting FOR Bush, as I was voting AGAINST Gore & Kerry. I believe I did the right thing. If it comes down to it, I'll vote for Romney / Giuliani, versus Hillary / Obama. Romney I think can be persuaded regarding gun control. If Bill O'Reilly can be persuaded, ANYONE can. I won't be happy about it, but by not voting, the other side wins.

My preference is Fred Thompson. If he's elected I may think about re-joining the Republican Party.

[bkt]

Originally Posted by BLS33

Well I don't subscribe to the ideology of voting for who I think can win over who I want to win.

Perfectly said -- it mirrors my view.

[pioneer461]

Originally Posted by BLS33

Well I don't subscribe to the ideology of voting for who I think can win over who I want to win.

That works for a primary election, but in the general election, it often comes down to a choice of the lesser of two evils. As far as gun rights and other conservative issues, I'd rather go with a republican, than almost any democrat. At this stage of the game we all have our favorites, but reality is, they all can't run in the general election. If you decide to protest by not voting, the other side wins and the rest of us lose.

That's how we wound up with Bill Clinton. Ross Perot taking votes away, on principle.

[bkt]

Originally Posted by pioneer461

That works for a primary election, but in the general election, it often comes down to a choice of the lesser of two evils. As far as gun rights and other conservative issues, I'd rather go with a republican, than almost any democrat. At this stage of the game we all have our favorites, but reality is, they all can't run in the general election. If you decide to protest by not voting, the other side wins and the rest of us lose.

That's how we wound up with Bill Clinton. Ross Perot taking votes away, on principle.

Yeah, that's one way to look at it. Personally, I look at voting for the lesser of two evils as throwing away my vote because I'm not actually voting for the person I want.

From now on, I'll vote for the person who most closely meets my idea of the perfect candidate, even if s/he is on a third-party with no chance of winning.

[BLS33]

The whole voting system in general is flawed, with the electoral college some peoples votes carry more weight than others and swing states are far more valued.

[cnorman18]

Originally Posted by bkt

Yeah, that's one way to look at it. Personally, I look at voting for the lesser of two evils as throwing away my vote because I'm not actually voting for the person I want.

From now on, I'll vote for the person who most closely meets my idea of the perfect candidate, even if s/he is on a third-party with no chance of winning.

Some call that "throwing away your vote". I call it what it actually is--"supporting the Democrats."

Sorry, I have to disagree. The idea that "principle" trumps real-world results is more characteristic of liberals than of conservatives. I thought we were supposed to support policies that actually WORK, as opposed to policies that OUGHT to work if the world were perfect.

Vote as you choose; but if you KNOW that going 3rd-party--or not voting at all--is more likely to put a Democrat in office--well, you are still my friend, but you're no friend to the rights of gun owners. And if Ron Paul, or whoever else, runs a 3rd-party campaign and draws votes away from Republicans, neither is he.

Would you carry a gun that "OUGHT to work," but which experience has shown you will misfire or jam on every shot? My life experience has taught me, "If it works, use it; if it doesn't work, throw it out."

In the primary, we can all vote for Wile E. Coyote for all I care. But in the general, we'd all better vote Republican unless we'd rather keep our noble "principles" and give up our guns.