Gary Johnson Makes It Official

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,633
    149
    Thats like me saying, "What good is it to vote D or R, you'll get the same thing." You couldnt pay me enough to vote for Mitt or Obama. You want to vote for someone thats pro gun control, obamacare etc etc. Go right ahead but my name will not be tied into that again
    If I had to choose someone that I felt for sure would push a pro gun control agenda and Obamacare it would be Obama himself. Seems to me IMO taking the approach you advocate is limited to an Obama re-election giving a nod to the sure thing.

    I have stated that if Ron Paul gets the nomination I will be voting for him but if he does'nt i'm not just automatically willing to give Obama the keys for another 4 years.
     
    Last edited:

    CulpeperMM

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 3, 2009
    1,530
    36
    Fort Wayne
    Gingrich Stabs Gun Owners in the Back
    Newt Gingrich Stabs Gun Owners in the Back - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine
    Katherine Mangu-Ward | December 5, 2011
    In my inbox today, a message from Georgia Gun Owners who are grumpy about GOP darling of the day Newt Gingrich's record on gun control. They note his support for restrictions on the gun rights of people involved in misdemeanor domestic violence charges and the fact that he played nice with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on gun-free school zone legislation.
    "But the biggest knife that Newt plunged into the back of all Americans and gun owners who wish to defend themselves and their families, was his coming out in support of a national thumbprint database for gun owners," said [D.R. Leonard, Political Director of Georgia Gun Owners].
    Hey, at least his choice of weapons is ideologically consistent!
     

    CulpeperMM

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 3, 2009
    1,530
    36
    Fort Wayne
    Newt Gingrich on Gun Control

    Newt Gingrich on Gun Control »


    Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America. But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.
    The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban. And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”
    His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped to well below the “C-level.” In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal. Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.
    Gingrich and Romney will be no different than Obama on one issue that i think we all can agree upon: citizen's right to bear arms.
     

    IndyBeerman

    Was a real life Beerman.....
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jun 2, 2008
    7,700
    113
    Plainfield
    Assuming of course that the majority of the 3rd party voters would have in fact voted Repub and not dem.

    As stated earlier, Ross Perot seemed to have more dem issues he was running under than republican issues. i find it hard to believe righties would have voted for him at all with a few of his stances, and think he took more votes from Dems than he did from Repubs

    I can tell you this, I know a ton of people that was republicans that voted for Perot (I was one and I regret voting for him because it started a 8 year run of Slick Willie), I know of no Demo's that did.

    As I've gotten older and seen things without rose colored glasses on (achmmm), I will never vote 3rd party because it will only lead to a Demo candidate winning.

    Face the facts people, as a third party going into the election if you don't poll towards at least 50% then all you are is a election spoiler and vote canceler.

    4 people vote....

    1 votes Republican
    1 votes for a right leaning Libetarian
    2 votes for a Democrat

    viola we get a democratic president elected.

    Personally if I was in this situation, I'd bow out and put my full support towards the person more closely to my stance. Instead of sucking the life out of a election and suffering 4 years of a liberal left leaning President that has a socialist concept in his brain.
     

    88GT

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 29, 2010
    16,643
    83
    Familyfriendlyville
    Actually, it would appear not so much.

    Using the handy search feature in my browser, I've only found one instance where the word "conservative" was (and this implicitly) equated with the "R" word.

    While the word hasn't been defined for the purpose of this discussion, it has, generally been used in a manner consistent with what I believe you understand it to mean.

    While it is true that words have meanings, many words have multiple meanings, depending on context.

    The words "conservative" and "liberal" are so widely used with so many different meanings that, in my opinion, it would behoove speakers and writers to set out a definition of terms...this almost never happens, however, because many such speakers/writers rarely find it in the interest of their argument or its appeal to have such a fence around their use of the term; it necessarily narrows the segment of the audience that will side with them.

    For the purposes of this discussion and most others on here, the term "conservative" as it is used by L/libertarians and Paul supporters is almost ALWAYS used as a synonym for Republican. But that wasn't my point. My point was that many are basing a conclusion on a flawed premise. It looks something like this.

    "Conservative" with respect to American politics is usually understood to be related to smaller government and greater individual liberty.

    The party with individuals who champion that platform has historically been the Republican party of Lincoln (as opposed to the republican party of Jefferson in our earliest days). This by no means guaranteed that Republicans were conservative, only that if one were looking for conservatives, you'd find a greater concentration of them in the R party than the other parties.

    Someone, let's call him Smythe, in the R party decides to co-opt the label "conservative" to help his chances even though he isn't by any stretch of the imagination.

    And there's where the problem is born. At this point, people with poor logical reasoning skills will point out that conservatives are bad because Smythe says he's a conservative and he does all these non-conservative things. They are creating a new definition of conservative based on the usurpation of a label that has been disingenuously applied for the purpose of self-promotion and betterment.

    The definition didn't change. Dishonest people claiming to be something they're not don't suddenly makes "conservative" something it's not.

    If Romney claimed to be libertarian in his ideology, wouldn't you have a problem with his incorrect use of the word? Wouldn't you have a problem with the logic that paints libertarians as tyrants because someone dishonestly applied the label to himself?

    If you want to argue over political party platforms, have at it. I won't disagree one bit that by and large in the big picture, there isn't much difference between the R and the D as political parties in terms of their results. But break down those organizations to their constituent members, and the evaluation doesn't hold true.

    The frustration is that some repeatedly try to use this very point to explain why Paul is so appealing to Ds/lefties. But when it comes time to apply the same logic to R/conservatives, the individual is disregarded and the characterization of the group is used to paint the entire membership.

    I don't have a problem with calling a spade a spade. I have a problem with intellectual dishonesty and hypocritical logic skills.
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,633
    149
    Newt Gingrich on Gun Control

    Newt Gingrich on Gun Control »


    Gingrich and Romney will be no different than Obama on one issue that i think we all can agree upon: citizen's right to bear arms.
    If what you are saying you believe to be true then why should the Democrats always automatically deserve to have the default position?

    Don't get me wrong I believe change should be attempted by trying to get someone like Paul elected but whenever that does'nt happen then why should the Democrats be the ones to profit from it?
     

    CulpeperMM

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 3, 2009
    1,530
    36
    Fort Wayne
    There are some out there that support Newt & Mitt because they believe they can win. I however think we should support Ron Paul because if you believe in the same principles i do, then Ron Paul should win.

    People on this board have said that we have to beat Obama. I agree whole-heartily with that sentiment (i want him out so bad it hurts, honestly. I have 2 little girls. I want to preserve America for them.). I think Obama is a Communist. If people want to go the opposite direction of Obama, then Ron Paul is that direction. Why would Newt or Mitt be more electable to the public in the general election than Ron Paul? Looks? Charisma? Please. I think Ron Paul can get people motivated by offering them LIBERTY. There is a lot of room for the executive to shut down or curtail operations of our government that suppress our liberty. I have many friends (believe it or not) and acquaintances that voted for Obama that now say they would vote for Ron Paul. (They believed his bull**** on cutting the deficit in half in the first four years.) They are still democrats on issues like abortion and some welfare issues (i disagree with them on these). Yet they think we should balance the budget and cut spending and stop the endless wars (including the war on drugs and terror). They all see TSA and Homeland Security as long term threats to individual freedom. These democrats are also sympathetic to the idea of ending the Federal Reserve.

    I think Ron Paul is our best chance at winning not just this election, but winning the survival of America. (Even if he loses in November)

    Voting for romney or gingrich is voting for more WTO, NAFTA, Agenda 21 world wide Socialism under a different flag. The "R" flag rather than the "D" flag.
     

    tr1gg3r

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 25, 2011
    252
    16
    The Fortress
    Voting for romney or gingrich is voting for more WTO, NAFTA, Agenda 21 world wide Socialism under a different flag. The "R" flag rather than the "D" flag.

    Yup. I'm done with that crap. I'll vote for the person on the ballot that has the country's best interests in mind. It wasn't McCain, and it isn't Gingrich or Romney. If I win, I win. If I don't, at least Obama will be stuck butting heads with an "opposite party" congress for the next four years. Looks to be a much better/equal option to letting a metric crap-ton of NWO legislation slide on through like laxative-laced brownies.

    Gary Johnson>Mitt Gingrich
     

    Lex Concord

    Not so well-known member
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    26   0   0
    Dec 4, 2008
    4,479
    83
    Morgan County
    For the purposes of this discussion and most others on here, the term "conservative" as it is used by L/libertarians and Paul supporters is almost ALWAYS used as a synonym for Republican. But that wasn't my point. My point was that many are basing a conclusion on a flawed premise. It looks something like this.

    "Conservative" with respect to American politics is usually understood to be related to smaller government and greater individual liberty.

    The party with individuals who champion that platform has historically been the Republican party of Lincoln (as opposed to the republican party of Jefferson in our earliest days). This by no means guaranteed that Republicans were conservative, only that if one were looking for conservatives, you'd find a greater concentration of them in the R party than the other parties.

    Someone, let's call him Smythe, in the R party decides to co-opt the label "conservative" to help his chances even though he isn't by any stretch of the imagination.

    And there's where the problem is born. At this point, people with poor logical reasoning skills will point out that conservatives are bad because Smythe says he's a conservative and he does all these non-conservative things. They are creating a new definition of conservative based on the usurpation of a label that has been disingenuously applied for the purpose of self-promotion and betterment.

    The definition didn't change. Dishonest people claiming to be something they're not don't suddenly makes "conservative" something it's not.

    If Romney claimed to be libertarian in his ideology, wouldn't you have a problem with his incorrect use of the word? Wouldn't you have a problem with the logic that paints libertarians as tyrants because someone dishonestly applied the label to himself?

    If you want to argue over political party platforms, have at it. I won't disagree one bit that by and large in the big picture, there isn't much difference between the R and the D as political parties in terms of their results. But break down those organizations to their constituent members, and the evaluation doesn't hold true.

    The frustration is that some repeatedly try to use this very point to explain why Paul is so appealing to Ds/lefties. But when it comes time to apply the same logic to R/conservatives, the individual is disregarded and the characterization of the group is used to paint the entire membership.

    I don't have a problem with calling a spade a spade. I have a problem with intellectual dishonesty and hypocritical logic skills.

    It's not just libertarians and Paul supporters in here, it's probably more than half of the country these days that equates the words "conservative" and "Republican".

    Right or wrong, like it or not, meanings change with usage, regardless what the big dictionary has in print. Conservative and liberal are two that have been through the ringer over the years.

    Thomas Jefferson used to be a liberal; I'm sure most folks would be hard-pressed to associate him with any of the modern usages. The generally-accepted definition didn't change overnight, but it did change, and also diverged.

    No single speaker changes the word's meaning, but many misuses will push it off in a different direction. This is why you have words such as "neoconservative" and "paleoconservative". Folks that use neo want to keep the "conservative" label for themselves; folks that say paleo recognize that the word usage has changed, and want to differentiate themselves from the modern usage of "conservative". Both have recognized the change, but each has its own response.

    If Romney self-described as a libertarian, I'd simply laugh my ass off, as, I imagine, would most of the country, as that word hasn't suffered so much abuse or misuse...while not identical, most folks have a similar understanding of what libertarian means (pot-smoking, draft-dodging, home-schooling, gun-toting, basement-dwelling, free-marketers :laugh:). Mitt Romney is NONE of those things.

    I can see that it does truly frustrate you, and can understand why it does, to a point. I just think you're too hung up on the label you chose and its perception by others.

    :twocents:

    It is your time and talents at stake, however. Spend them as you will.
     
    Last edited:

    miguel

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Oct 24, 2008
    6,614
    113
    16T
    Necro bump...

    I was able to attend a small reception for Gov. Johnson tonight in Indianapolis.

    He's a fantastic conversationalist and loves freedom. Close to matching funds, so if you have some spare cash, make a donation via his website.

    It's refreshing to hear someone tell you what they think, rather than hearing canned, stale phrases meant to not offend anyone.
     

    Kagnew

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 30, 2009
    2,618
    48
    Columbus
    I can tell you this, I know a ton of people that was republicans that voted for Perot (I was one and I regret voting for him because it started a 8 year run of Slick Willie), I know of no Demo's that did.

    As I've gotten older and seen things without rose colored glasses on (achmmm), I will never vote 3rd party because it will only lead to a Demo candidate winning.

    Face the facts people, as a third party going into the election if you don't poll towards at least 50% then all you are is a election spoiler and vote canceler.

    4 people vote....

    1 votes Republican
    1 votes for a right leaning Libetarian
    2 votes for a Democrat

    viola we get a democratic president elected.

    Personally if I was in this situation, I'd bow out and put my full support towards the person more closely to my stance. Instead of sucking the life out of a election and suffering 4 years of a liberal left leaning President that has a socialist concept in his brain.

    Well said!
     

    Jake46184

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Apr 2, 2011
    750
    16
    Indianapoils
    Wow...Johnson is now the Libertarian candidate? Damn, I bet that means he's going to take all of the Republicans who were supporting his candidacy with him.

    Both of them.........
     

    Kagnew

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 30, 2009
    2,618
    48
    Columbus
    The party with individuals who champion that platform has historically been the Republican party of Lincoln

    Hmmmm, you might want to rethink Lincoln being in favor of limited government.

    Even one of the other traditional darlings of the GOP - Theodore Roosevelt - was a liberal who called himself a "progressive".

    The first true conservative to rattle Republican cages was Barry Goldwater.
     

    Cerberus

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Sep 27, 2011
    2,359
    48
    Floyd County
    Hmmmm, you might want to rethink Lincoln being in favor of limited government.

    Even one of the other traditional darlings of the GOP - Theodore Roosevelt - was a liberal who called himself a "progressive".

    The first true conservative to rattle Republican cages was Barry Goldwater.

    Better look further back to the only Republican president of the 20th century to actually reduce government spending and the size of such.
     

    mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    Gary isn't the Libertarian Party candidate yet. He's running for the nomination, along with about 5 others. He is doing very well in the straw polls and will likely make the grade. He's popular and has a great deal of appeal. He's also better than either of the remaining top gop candidates, especially when you count his record and executive experience.
     
    Top Bottom