Xrlq: Your words seem to describe the founding fathers as criminals unworthy of office. Is this something you were trying to say? Would you follow this law as well: kill your first-born son? It’s was a law once too. Because someones principle’s cause them to draw the line before you do, (or possible ever would), does not mean they are unfit for anything. In many ways, the uncompromising person is BETTER fit for office, (they don’t get blown around with the wind).

But really, what about those unfit criminal founding fathers?

I disagree, as this would imply he’s bothered to expend time thinking about the issue. I don’t think he CARES one way or the other.

I personally think you should vote – regardless. I’m for W myself…gun issue nonwithstanding. Better a Bush who will ignore the gun issue than a Kerry who will have Boxer/Shumer/Feinstein wispering in his ear.

Having said that, would it be such a bad thing for the country if Kerry won? Think about it, it would force the libs to deal with the post 9/11 world as it truly is…not how they think it is in their pot fueled 60’s dreams. Exposing the dims to reality could only be a good thing for the country long term…although there might be some problems in the short run. We need (at least) two viable parties again…parties with different ideas working toward the same goal.

Hillary is already positioning herself to the right of Bush…maybe she gets it. She is becoming Attila the Hen.

The danger if Kerry wins is the extreme left wing taking over (hey, centrist, we helped elect you, give us something)…and eventually the choice between European-type social democracy or the second American Revolution.

I probably owe more taxes every year than Badnarik does. I can make just as good a case to show that my taxes are unjust as he can for his. But guess what? Until the law changes, I still pay them. You assume without evidence that I am a criminal; I’d invite you to specify which criminal statutes you think I violate. I will plead guilty as hell to violating speed laws all the time, and sometimes making illegal u-turns when no one is coming. Those are infractions, not crimes. I don’t care if any political candidates speed, assuming they don’t do so to the extreme levels that do constitute crimes (e.g., 100 mph on a residential street).

Does it piss you off that Badnarik & others choose to ignore laws they feel unjust instead of paying someone like yourself to be their mouthpiece & beg for permission to do something they feel they don’t need permission to do (or not do as the case may be).

No, but it does make me chuckle to hear you say something that stupid. for one thing, I’m an in-house counsel, so I’m not in the market for new clients. For another, my area of practice is not tax, nor anything related (I prefer not to say what it is – it’s enough to know it’s irrelevant to this discussion or any other I’ve had on this blog). More importantly, both of the crimes I addressed are crimes the average joe knows are crimes. I don’t need a tax lawyer to show me the part of the Internal Revenue Code that requires me to pay taxes on my income. Neither should Badnarik, but if he does, let him hire one. The notion that he should be personally exempt from income tax unless/until the IRS provides him with free legal advice is insane.

As for the criminal thing – you’re a lawyer Xrlq. Look through the u.s. code, the federal regs, then your state, county & city laws. Tell me you’re not a cirminal as well.
Does it piss you off that Badnarik & others choose to ignore laws they feel unjust instead of paying someone like yourself to be their mouthpiece & beg for permission to do something they feel they don’t need permission to do (or not do as the case may be).

I’m a criminal Xrlq. There are laws I don’t obey & hopefully never will obey. That makes me no more unfit for office than your profession makes you unfit for
social functions.

Some laws should be obeyed. Some shouldn’t. I cannot fault a person for disobeying a law when his/her actions do not impose on the Rights or lives of others. I can fault a person for decrying such actions on a warped view of the rule of law. (Granted, a common view, but imnsho warped.)

But if you wish to play that way, Bush, Kerry & all othe rpolitical candidates are criminals. Hell, look up howmany congressment & senators use congressional immunity to escape DUI’s each year. Will you withold your vote form them as well? Or is it just criminals acting on principles that you fel are unworthy to hold office?

But Bush – he’s a friend of the Fuddite, not the gun owner. I’m sure he’d draw the line at confiscating the registered & licensed single barral shotguns, but he’d pave the way for the next guy in office to do just that.

Acting on principles is often frowned upon by those without them. So be it. On the Right to Arms I’m not comfortable compromising, but Bush apperently is. Therefore he won’t get my vote. & if the Right to Arms is a high priority (or limited government, or anti-socialism) then Bush shouldn’t get your vote either. I’ll post something soon that elaborates on the reasons to shun Bush at the polls.

One last thing – I’ll grant most people supported the awb, but their support was mainly due to their misunderstanding what the awb did & didn’t do. Bush could have very concisely explained what the AWB actually did & didn’t do, & then opposed it. He didn’t, not because he felt that public opinion couldn’t be swayed, but because like his father before him he thinks that proscribing a certain type of firearm is within the limits of the 2nd amendment.

Whether Bush did or didn’t try cocaine is dubious at best. Yes, he did have a DUI, barely. No, he doesn’t drive drunk now, hasn’t for decades, and certainly doesn’t encourage others to do so. “Come on now” is right.

(S/U: I posted this under your Buchanan post but seemed more appropriate in this discussion)

Bush’s stance is based on which viewpoint will earn him the most votes in November. Whether the AWB was effective or right is completely irrelevant. All that matters is that most people were for it so he’s for it.

If you live in a state that one side has thoroughly tied up already, vote for a third party. DON’T boycott the election – that just gets you counted with the 50% that apparently don’t care, and it might stop you from voting for a better congressman or local official.

If, like me, you’re in a state that’s fairly well balanced between Repugnants and Demoncrats, I think it’s time to hold your nose and vote for Bush. Or see if you can find a Kerry voter who’s uncomfortable about the Traitor/Shyster ticket and make a deal – you both vote for third parties. That is, if there are any Demoncratic voters left that are honest enough trust on an unverifiable deal.

Luckily im in georgia; I think ill write myself in.

I agree with Cramer that Kerry would be the worst possible thing for gun rights.

Then you should vote for Kerry not to be President. And the only way to do that is to vote for Bush.

He would push for new laws, including a more restrictive ban. I won’t vote for Kerry. At the same time, Bush supports the ban.

Do you realize how silly that sounds? OK, so maybe Candidate A is an axe murderer, but then again, Candidate B once stole an apple from a supermarket. Tomato, tomahto. What to do? Aw, hell, let’s just cast a half a vote for each of them.