Ammo For Sale

« « Canada’s pit bull ban | Home | A sure sign » »

Call me a purist

With Bush getting the NRA endorsement, The Geek reports that the NRA lobbed some softballs at Bush. So does Jed. I do applaud the Bush administration’s recognition of the second amendment as an individual right. However, their actions speak louder than words. Support of the assault weapons ban is an affront to gun rights. For that, Bush lost my vote.

Why didn’t the NRA explain in the interview what the ban actually did?

Clayton Cramer tells me that I’m crazy or maybe my type are lefty trolls trying to get votes for Kerry. He also throws out the word purist as though it were an insult:

There is a slightly better than even chance right now that we can re-elect a guy who tells the soccer moms what they want to hear–but who lifted not one finger to get the assault weapon ban renewed–or we can elect Kerry and Edwards, who interrupted their campaigning to show up in the Senate, for the first time in many months, to vote for renewing the ban–and who would, if they could, replace it with a far more severe assault weapons ban.

I know that there are pro-gunners who are so focused on purity that they are going to vote for someone other than Bush. And what are they going to say next year, when President Kerry is pushing hard for a new, much tougher assault weapon ban, and gun registration, and support for lawsuits against gun makers again?

“I was pure!”

Great. That and 75 cents will buy you a cup of coffee. This is not a game. We are engaged in a struggle for not only our gun rights, but the survival of Western civilization. I can’t tell you what John Kerry will do as commander in chief, because he has given so many conflicting messages, many of which indicate that he will not take this war against Islamofascism seriously. I suspect that some of the “purer than thou” posters are actually anti-gunners trying to lower Bush’s vote totals

Then he warns not to buy into this nonsense, vote for Bush, and rails further against Kerry. I agree with Cramer that Kerry would be the worst possible thing for gun rights. 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.

This amazes me. I assume that Bush and Kerry are not stupid people. Therefore, I am absolutely befuddled that Bush would support the ban because all the ban did was ban cosmetic features rifles can have. It was a ban on guns that look like military guns and that is all. Bush doesn’t have the decency to do his homework and actually look at what the ban did. Or he doesn’t care. He’s catering to soccer moms, who also don’t know what the ban did. Bush says he wants it but he didn’t push for it, likely because it could only cost him votes. Gun controllers will vote for Kerry. The anti-gun groups have already endorsed Kerry.

I am also amused that Kerry would support the ban, though it does fit his pattern that any gun control is good. I would think (assuming Kerry actually knows what the ban did) that he wouldn’t think it went far enough.

Neither man can talk honestly about the ban. The fact is, they are both wrong. Both are liars. And neither deserves my vote (or yours for that matter).

And even if it were only the ban, I can’t support Bush due to some civil liberties issues, big government, huge amounts of spending, and a few other things. He gets taxes and the war right. So, on election day, I’ll either not vote for president, vote third party (dunno which, yet), or write in my own name for a laugh.

The fact is, I live in a Bush state. He will handily win Tennessee. I may have a different opinion if I were actually in a state where the vote was close.

21 Responses to “Call me a purist”

  1. Thibodeaux Says:

    Don’t you hate those purists who stand on their so-called “principles?” Buncha damn looneytarians.

  2. Les Jones Says:

    The “I’m voting for a liberal to get a better conservative next time” double-reverse psychology stuff makes my head hurt.

  3. Xrlq Says:

    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.

  4. MWN Says:

    I feel the same way uncle. I dont think i will be able to pull that lever for Bush .
    No way in hell i want Kerry in there though.

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

  5. karlicko Says:

    Bush also signed BCRA, which is a fundamental betrayal of the First Amendment. Just read Thomas’ or Scalia’s dissent in that case. Hell, read the NRA’s original complaint.

  6. markm Says:

    Bush bad, Kerry worse. Much worse…

    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.

  7. Ill Bill Says:


  8. Xrlq Says:

    Badnarik is a criminal. What on earth kind of message does it send to vote for him?

  9. Ill Bill Says:

    for real? i mean, i haven’t done my home work on him or are you just talking about the debate fiasco?

  10. Stormy Dragon Says:

    I think your befuddlement with Bush arises from the faulty assumption that his position on any particular issue (especially a domestic issue) is the result of careful consideration of the facts of the matter leading to a coherent viewpoint.

    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.

  11. Xrlq Says:

    Yes, for real. Badnarik is an admitted tax protestor, which is another way of saying “unrepentant tax evader.” He also drives without a license. In fact, he’s quite proud of both of his crimes; the only part he won’t admit is the fact that they are crimes.

  12. Xrlq Says:

    SD, I think your theory has an element of truth, in that Bush recognizes that most Americans favor the AW ban, and he also recognizes that it’s a silly, petty issue not worth spending political capital on. Bush has no problem going against public opinion for a cause that he strongly believes in. My guess is that he would be strongly opposed to a federal gun law that actually did anything.

  13. neoconsunite Says:

    both of those “crimes” are part of platforms of the libertaian party, things mr.Bad wants to change.. civil disobedience (?) not a criminal though.
    bush did cocaine… he’s a criminal.
    drove drunk… a criminal
    come on now

  14. karlicko Says:

    Check out their sneak preview endorsement issue (rt hd column). Buchanan & Co. run through all the choices possible for principled conservatives.

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

  15. Xrlq Says:

    Civil disobedience is indeed a crime. It’s one thing to make principled arguments for changing a law you believe to be unjust. It’s quite another to break the law in the meantime.

    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.

  16. Publicola Says:

    Bush supports gun control. Not just for political expediency. In addition to the awb he wants to stop private transactions of firearms (gun show loophole). I won’t get into it but on the laws that are on the books Bush supports every friggin unconstitutional one of them, & wants to add at least a few more. Bush is not pro-gun, he just seems not as anti-gun as Kerry.

    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.

  17. Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys. Says:

    Morning Reads.
    Let’s start with a picture. Of a bunch of dicks. Marines from Bravo Battery, Battalion Landing Team 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines, stand by the 155 mm Howitzer they used to assist the BLTís Alpha Company Oct. 4 in south-central Iraq….

  18. Xrlq Says:

    Sorry, Publicola, but with an attitude like that you are indeed unfit for office. Laws are for everyone. I expect loony libs to follow laws they don’t like, so who am I not to follow the ones I don’t like?

    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 donít 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.

  19. bjbarron Says:


    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.

  20. Stormy Dragon Says:

    > [Bush] also recognizes that itís a
    > silly, petty issue not worth
    > spending political capital on.

    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.

  21. jason Says:

    “Laws are for everyone.”

    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?