-> Nobodys said anything much about it being anyone but Dole or Clinton.
-> But that doesn't mean I have to toss my hat in with what I despise
-> just because it's going to win.  I knew the terrorism bill was going
-> to become law.  I did _not_ tell me congress critter I wanted it
-> because it was going to win.  Which is really what you're saying we
-> should do here.
With respect, Nolan, that is **NOT** what I am saying.  You should have
written your congress idiot and expressed your opinion.  But now that it
has passed, you should take a hard look at both candidates for that seat
and try to judge which of them will do the LEAST damage to our RKBA.
-> I don't back whatever looks likely to win simply to claim "victory".
Nor should you, nor am I advocating that.
A realist recognizes that sometimes there are NO good choices.
Voting for Clinton is not a good choice.
Voting for Dole is not a good choice.
Voting for a third party is not a good choice.
Not voting is not a good choice.
So look at thoses four bad choices and ask yourself, "Which of those
choices would do the LEAST damage to our RKBA?"
In my never humble opinion, punishing Clinton by voting for Dole is the
best of those bad choices.  It at least sends politicians the message:
"If you really PUSH for gun control, we WILL get you."
-> JP>Plus, I continue to delude myself that Dole's Supreme Court
-> JP>nominees would be at least marginally better for us than Hilary's
-> JP>would.
-> Maybe, but since Dole's voted for whatever Clinton nominated without
-> hesitation I don't see why.  If Dole has no objections to the type of
-> people Clinton nominates why on earth would Doles nominations be any
-> different?
My take on that is this:  Dole is an old fashioned politician.  He
believes that a President has the right to appoint just about anybody he
wants to the bench.  As long as they are not OBVIOUSLY unqualified or
corrupt, Dole would not vote against them.  That doesn't prove that he
would have appointed them had he been President.
To use an obvious example:  Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe
has been touted by many Democrats as a potential Supreme Court nominee.
He has stated publicly, on a number of occasions, that the 2nd DOES NOT
guarantee an individual right to own guns.
I can't imagine, in my wildest dreams, Bob Dole appointing him to the
Supreme Court.  I can easily see Bill Clinton doing so.  And if Clinton
appoints him, he'll be causing us problems for the rest of his life.
-> Keeping a pro 2nd majority?  I don't think we've gotten one yet.
The last Congress was better than the one before it.  The new freshmen
Republicans at least had the balls to put it on the line and vote for
the repeal of the AW Ban.  They're gonna take a lot of heat over it, and
we need to back them to the hilt.
Obviously, the Senate still needs to have some dead wood culled.  Yet I
found the election of Trent Lott to majority leader to be a hopeful
sign.  I would submit that we would be infinitely better off with the
Republicans in control of both houses than with the Democrats in
control.
-> If the lying bastard doesn't deserve it, why are you going to give
-> it to him?
To screw Clinton, of course.
-> I don't deserve your guns either, but why not give them to me
-> instead of him?  I'll at least take better care of them then he will.
I've got a custom slicked, magna-ported .357 I call Fluffy.  I will
sleep better knowing you will give Fluffy a good home. 
Regards
John
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------