cthulu23

This coutry will always be stuck with the two party system as long as people believe that it is the only alternative. This is a classic example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course, the Dems and Repubs will do all that they can to push the smaller parties into the shadows (the end of equal access under Reagan, the exclusion of small parties from the debates, etc).

Stompy

I'm unaware of the differences between t he other parties.

I'm used to the "line" test... democrats = left, republicans = right. Based on what you believe in, you fall between those two points.

What do the other parties believe in that would make them say "We're not democratic OR republican"?

__________________
I love lamp.

kutulu

Sure, it's notable but what happens when you vote Nader instead of Kerry and Bush ends up winning by a slim enough margin that Kerry could have won if not for Nader. In the end you get stuck with the worst case scenario instead of a guy that represents maybe half of what you believe in. Do you end up being better off that way?

pocon1

His speech was not bad, at least he can speak more than five words at a time without having to stop to read the teleprompter. I got tired of his constant references to his time in Vietnam. He has been a congressman for a long time. What did he do in office? That being said, I will vote for him. Not because I particularly like him, but because he is not Bush. But he better not try to mess with my guns.

scout

Thinking Kerry and his liberal friends aren't going to mess with your guns is wishful thinking at best. The only reason they don't want it to be an issue this election is because there's no doubt it cost them the last election. To be honest it's probably one of the few reasons I will vote Republican this election. If you remember back in '92 gun control wasn't an issue until Clinton got into office. To take a chance that it won't become an issue after the election is a risk I don't want to take.

__________________
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Thomas Jefferson

cthulu23

Never mind. Please erase

Journeyman

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/comm...ties_plan.html

I'm not fond of it, but it doesn't throw me off enough to not vote for him (like wanting to ban all semi-automatics would.)

balderdash111

So you're a one-issue voter over gun control??? Ok, maybe I haven't been around guns enough to get this, but that seems a very odd choice as your personal prerequisite for presidency.

In all seriousness, can you elaborate? What is so important about gun control that it overwhelms other considerations?

james t kirk

I remember Bush's daddy saying in his speech, "we kicked some Iraqi butt"

God, how I hope Shrub jr does the same thing.

Boo

snip
Once taken away, freedoms rarely return.

__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.

DelayedReaction

I speak only for myself, but I think a lot of people view gun control as a watermark for how the country acts. The Right to Bear Arms is specifically laid out in the Constitution, and many people view gun control as a form of violating that Constitutional right. If the government is willing to restrict our rights to much over something that is specifically protected by the Constitution, how long is it until they revoke the other Freedoms as well? Most oppresive regimes have strict gun control to ensure the citizens are unable to defend themselves against unlawful activity from any party. The Founders wisely decided that, in order to ensure this could not happen in America, our citizens would have the right to defend themselves. Whether or not that is now true is irrelevant; the Right to Bear Arms is still a Constitutionally-given freedom that must not be violated.

Although I disagree with his views on the Assault Weapons Ban, I'm inclined to agree with John Kerry when it comes to our current federal laws. The NFA of 1934 (which bans fully automatic weapons, and other milspec weaponry) covers most of our needs, and more legislation is unnecessary. Americans should not have unlimited access to fully automatic weapons, but everyone deserves the right to defend themselves in the matter that they choose.

The speech was very impressive, although I only read it and did not see him speak. Obviously opponents will argue that it lacks substance, but for the audience and situation it was perfect,

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

hammer4all

Somehow I don't think the framers of the constitution had AK-47's and nuclear weapons in mind when they spoke of the "right to bear arms."

SecretMethod70

There are two factors that go against this assessment. The first, and foremost, is that even in this election the majority of people who care enough to wish to acn vote 3rd party with no expectation of ill side-effects. As an example, I live in Illinois. If I preferred Bush out of the two major candidates, it wouldn't matter if I voted for him or not - Illinois has a fairly strong recent history of leaning toward the Democrats. If I preferred Kerry over Bush, voting 3rd party would not put his chances at risk. The majority of states are in such a position, one way or the other, that the grassroots people that care enough to look at 3rd parties risk nothing by voting for them other than helping their preferred party get the spotlight it deserves in future elections.

The second factor is precisely what was mentioned earlier. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Republicans and Democrats as we know them today were not always the major parties, but each election has almost always had a decidedly two-party bent. What does that mean? It has worked in the past that grassroots movements help launch parties into the national spotlight, and it can work again. You're right - most people don't care enough to elect a 3rd party candidate as a winner yet. The fact is, this is no different than it has always been. Politics has always been a select group of people fighting for what they believe, looknig closely at the issues, and a larger group of people who vote based on a few issues and based on what they hear from their friends and family. This large group will not take a 3rd party seriously until enough of the smaller group cares enough to make them take notice - by speaking with their votes.

There's one thing the RepubliCrats agree on and that is that they like to stay in power. Neither does anything to help 3rd parties in any significant matter, and, in fact, they do their best to hurt them. For example, changing the rules for national presidential debates to make it harder for 3rd parties to participate.

Real politics is not 2 dimensional. It is 3 dimensional like real life. Many people now understand that there is the economic spectrum and the social spectrum and they are not one in the same. Libertarians, for example, can be somewhat accurately defined as fiscally conservative yet socially liberal. In the modern political spectrum, there is room for at least 4 parties. But, again, it is up to those who genuinely care about politics to push the evolution forward - the general public will not do it themselves. It is up to the handful of us who are capable of moving beyond "Mass Media Mind Control" as Art likes to call it, and puting our votes where our real thought are, not where we're told is our only viable option.

Actually, while they may not have foreseen those weapons, I think they did have that general idea in mind. A "well regulated militia" (part of the reason citizens have the right to bear arms but not all of it) must be capable of taking on the governmental army, or else it is pointless and ineffective against a possible dictator.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

hammer4all

Don't you think it's a little unrealistic that a group of private citizens could oppose a government that controls the full power of the U.S. Armed Forces?

I just think citizen pressure through non-violent protest and civil disobedience is much more effective (and less bloody) tool in changing government policy.

hannukah harry

while i think it's off topic and worthy of another thread (if there isn't one already), since the 2nd amendment has been broiught up.... i think it's all a matter of interpretation... i mean... i'm not a part of a militia, so if you read the 2nd amendment, i don't have the right to bear arms... i think you can all see where i could go with this, but this isn't the thread for it...

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

SecretMethod70

Yeah, it works really well in Cuba. If someone were to successfully seize a dictatorial control of the government, civil disobedience is meaningless. Civil disobedience means you're dead, and no one can vote the person out of power.

Anyway, there are plenty of 2nd amendment related threads to discuss this, as has been pointed out. If you'd like to discuss it further we can resurrect one of those.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Seaver

Somehow I think the framers intended the right to bear arms DID intend for weapons such as AKs. The right was so that the citizens could resist government encroachment. If the government has full-auto then why would the citizenry be held to bolt action? Cant resist very well can you?

Cuba was already stated. Russia the majority of the army and navy sided with the revolutionists. France the entire army sided with the revolutionists.

It IS the best way, as long as the government is only semi-rough with them. Because you know, it worked so well against China//Algeria/etc when the government wasnt quite so friendly.

cthulu23

Can we refrain from making at least one thread into an anti/pro gun argument, please?

hammer4all

I disagree; I think if enough people rose up in Cuba against the government, Castro would be outta there. Currently, however, people there seem content enough--whether it's because of their advanced healthcare and education programs or not I don't know--that they haven't yet overthrown him.

So then these are examples of what people-pressure can do.

I think it is quite amazing what people can do non-violently. Look at what happened recently in Venezuela.