Vote democrat for now on

They don't?

Last I checked, both parties have done a fair share in taking our rights away.

I just don't understand people who still look at things in terms of Dems vs. Reps. Haven't we moved past that?

 

Explain the logic in that?

If I have one gun, okay I'll play by the rules, but if I have two guns they'll be afraid to put laws into place because I have two guns?

 

This.

And in order to make this third party a viable competitor, they're going to need to find a way to receive corporate-whore media's and major banks' support to bring up their status and publicity to the ranks of the dumbocrats and the republican'ts. Both those parties have so much control over the media it's no wonder people who aren't politically savvy have ever heard of the other parties. And you're gonna need a billion dollar marketing campaign to convince voters that voting outside the major parties is not a waste of a vote (like they've been propagated up to believe)

 

It will be tougher to enforce because there would be more guns to remove from the hands of citizens.

Whenever a gun control democrat gets elected, it encourages people to purchase guns. People who weren't armed before decide to arm themselves. The beauty of the second amendment is that it's a right you don't have to exercise if you don't want to. But the fact that a household could own a gun is a deterrent against criminals.

 

I'm a gun owner, but neither of those things make much sense to me.

One gun versus four guns in the same household isn't any tougher to enforce, and guns are worth a bit of money and power for criminals, and would make a house a more valuable target. Guns, electronics, jewelry, that's what burglars look for.

 

All one has to do is consider how long BOTH parties have been allowing foolishness like the "War on Drugs" to continue. They are all part of the same country club.
Jal

 

I was a member of the NRA for years and when ever a Dem was voted into the presidency they went on the offensive telling they need more money to fight because the pres. will take your gun rights away. It cause it's members to panic and buy more guns and ammo.

and I don't understand the whole nothing matters Dem/Rep matter too when all you have to do is vote for someone else. There are more than 2 people running for most major offices. I'm not waiting for American Terrorist to get on board or even you Pressed Rat. I didn't vote for the current president this time around but I did vote.
You either vote for change or pick up something and start a revolution. Not voting or fighting is just allowing them to continue.

 

What if there was an election and no one voted?

(What if there was a war and no one came...)

 

foolish thinking, someone will always vote.

 

I said 'what if' dood. It's a hypothetical question.

 

like i said foolish, a tree falling in the woods kinda thinking

 

Whatever, clod

 

Coffee

But why do you feel you need such guns? I mean what kind of guns do you want to own and for what reasons?

 

To the third party supporters

Here are examples from America past on how the power of the two could be lessened to the point where they could be broken.

Proportional Representation could change the political landscape, it did before when it was used in the US.

Here are extracts from - A Brief History of Proportional Representation in the United States, [by bold]

“The most extensive research to date has been produced by Kathleen Barber and several colleagues. Their study, Proportional Representation and Electoral Reform in Ohio, systematically analyzed the political effects of PR in five Ohio cities. In many cases their findings were also confirmed by results in other PR cities. For example, Barber found that choice voting produced fairer and more proportional representation of political parties. In particular, it eliminated the tendency of winner-take-all systems to exaggerate the seats given to the largest party and to underrepresent the smaller parties. In the election before the adoption of PR in Cincinnati, the Republicans won only 55% of the vote, but received 97% of the seats on the council. In the first PR election, the results were much more proportional, with the Republicans winning 33.3% of the seats based on 27.8% of the vote, and the rival Charter party winning 66.7% of the seats on 63.8% of the vote.

Similarly, in the last pre-PR election in New York City, the Democrats won 95.3% of the seats on the Board of Alderman with only 66.5% of the vote. During the use of PR, the Democrats still had a majority of the seats, but it was a much smaller one that reflected more accurately their strength in the electorate. In 1941, proportional representation gave the Democrats 65.5% of the seats on 64% of the vote. Moreover, it also produced representation for the Republicans and three smaller parties in proportion to their voting strength. Similar results occurred in the other PR cities, demonstrating that this system greatly improved the accuracy of partisan representation.

Proportional representation also encouraged fairer racial and ethnic representation. It produced the first Irish Catholics elected in Ashtabula, and the first Polish-Americans elected in Toledo. In Cincinnati, Hamilton, and Toledo, African-Americans had never been able to win city office until the coming of PR. Significantly, after these cities abandoned PR, African-Americans again found it almost impossible to get elected.”

What scuppered PR movement was money and fear - doesn’t that sound familiar in todays America.

“In Cleveland, well-financed opponents sponsored five repeal referendums in the first ten years of PR, with the final one succeeding. Similarly, PR opponents in Hamilton finally won their repeal effort after four failed referendums in 12 years.

Many Americans in the early twentieth century were hostile to political and racial minorities--the very groups aided by PR... They warned whites that PR was helping to increase black power in the city and asked them whether they wanted a "Negro mayor." Their appeal to white anxieties succeeded, with whites supporting repeal by a two to one margin..

In New York City, fear of communism proved the undoing of proportional representation. Although one or two Communists had served on the PR-elected city council since 1941, it was not until the coming of the Cold War that Democratic party leaders were able to effectively exploit this issue. As historian Robert Kolesar discovered, the Democrats made every effort in their repeal campaign to link PR with Soviet Communism, describing the single transferable vote as "the political importation from the Kremlin," "the first beachhead of Communist infiltration in this country," and "an un-American practice which has helped the cause of communism and does not belong in the American way of life."(3) This "red scare" campaign resulted in the repeal of PR by an overwhelming margin.”

As the piece concludes -

“While the repeal of proportional representation in these American cities is taken by opponents as evidence that this voting system failed, proponents argue that it is more accurate to conclude that this system was rejected because it worked too well. They note that PR worked well in throwing party bosses out of government--bosses who never relented in their attempts to regain power--and it worked well in promoting the representation of racial, ethnic, and ideological minorities that were previously shut out by the winner-take-all system”

 

To me America needs more than a ‘third party’ it needs other parties, a third party of the right, helps the Democrats and a third party of the left gives victory to the Republicans.

But what if there were four parties or more covering any number of views from Christian democrats to right wing libertarians to greens to communists to...well you name it.

And once you are out of the winner takes all yoke that is possible

You’d just need to get all those that are feel unrepresented by the two major parties (from both left and right) to join together to push for the passing of proportional representation legislation.

It wouldn't happen overnight and could be started at the local level first, town, city and district before going state and eventually federal.

*

BUT if this was tried I’d imagine the full strength of the political establishment would be thrown against it and wealth would try and drown it in gold.

 

Balbus: when I go to vote I see all kinds of different parties on the ballot.
maybe about 9 or 10 parties.

There was even a anti-abortion party with a representation of a fetus on drawn right on the ballot.

Some of these parties receive matching funding from the Federal Election people.

These 3rd parties win small percentages of people/ voters.

The question is: Why don't more people vote the 3rd Parties?

 

"3rd party" is a term used to describe any party besides the Republicrats. There are many.

They aren't working because too many people buy into the "lesser of two evils" bullshit and are convinced that it would be a wasted vote. Americans want to win. Voting for some people is like placing a bet on who they think will win....not who they actually want to win.

 

I don't think people have to own guns if they don't want to. But I recommend it. Without the 2nd amendment, the rest of the constitution is unenforcable.

What kind? It depends on a persons preference. .22s are good for training since they don't have a lot of kickback and the ammo is very cheap compared to bullets of higher caliber. My purposes: target practice, hunting, defense so I can live in a rural area 1 hour away from the nearest police precinct, and defence to give me the confidence to travel through a rough neighborhood with a sense of assurance.

 

When a gun control law is proposed in legislation, it encourages people to go out and purchase them before its too late.

It's the basic prohibition principle.

 

It's more of a result of blowback from hoplophobic legislation. The whole reason why organizations like the NRA exist is to fight against tyrannical legislation.