POLL: 65% of Gun Owners Say They Won’t Vote for Pres. Trump Over “Red Flags”

[shakey1]

65% of Gun Owners Say They Won’t Vote for Pres. Trump Over “Red Flags”

Would you???

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Republicans...aren't NAZIs

And the Dems aren't bolsheviks, but in any terminal crisis, both will have further radicalized.

That's a recipe for being exterminated if the left wins and for being rejected and not listened to if conservatives win. not participating in a war between two leftist groups

That's the idea.

 

[shakey1]

Would you???

Perhaps a poll is in order.

 

[Swordsmyth]

And the Dems aren't bolsheviks, but in any terminal crisis, both will have further radicalized.

They are already bolsheviks and Republicans aren't going to turn into NAZIs.

That's the idea.

It's obvious you want us exterminated if the left wins and rejected and not listened to if conservatives win.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

They are already bolsheviks and Republicans aren't going to turn into NAZIs.

It's obvious you want us exterminated if the left wins and for being rejected and not listened to if conservatives win.

Whatever you say

 

[Occam's Banana]

People who can't be bothered to spend five minutes voting for liberty won't be risking life and limb for it.

This isn't about people who never vote, it is about people who regularly vote but won't vote for someone who is [...]

Voting is utterly irrelevant. Liberty has never been won by sticking marked-up pieces of paper into boxes - and it never will be.

There won't be any libertarian "revolution" (peaceful or otherwise) as long as people continue to play by the system's rules - for example, by voting for "liberty" (or for the right "someone," or for whatever) while continuing to comply with and submit to the system and the operation of its various cooptive, dissent-neutralizing and/or pressure-relieving "safety valves" (such as elections).

There won't be any libertarian "revolution" (peaceful or otherwise) unless and until enough people start refusing to submit and become willing to engage in active non-compliance against the system (instead of trying to play to it) - that is, unless and until people start "throwing the tea overboard" instead of continuing to pay for and drink it ...

Barring that condition, vote all you like, for whomever or whatever - but it will make absolutely no difference in any substantially libertarian sense.[1] It may produce some amount of social and political upheaval and chaos. It can (and demonstrably does) produce quite a bit of populist demagoguery (and anti-populist counter-demagoguery). It might even produce some degree of "shooting disturbance," so to speak. But irrespective of the outcomes of any elections, as long as enough people continue to accept and respect their product, they will not result in any meaningfully libertarian "revolution" ...



[1] Once possessed of it, states do not willingly relinquish any substantial amount of power (no matter how civilly they may be asked to do so by people who politely and compliantly mark up special pieces of paper designed for that purpose).

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Voting is utterly irrelevant. Liberty has never been won by sticking marked-up pieces of paper into boxes - and it never will be.

There won't be any libertarian "revolution" (peaceful or otherwise) as long as people continue to play by the system's rules - for example, by voting for "liberty" (or for the right "someone," or for whatever) while continuing to comply with and submit to the system and the operation of its various cooptive, dissent-neutralizing and/or pressure-relieving "safety valves" (such as elections).

There won't be any libertarian "revolution" (peaceful or otherwise) unless and until enough people start refusing to submit and become willing to engage in active non-compliance against the system (instead of trying to play to it) - that is, unless and until people start "throwing the tea overboard" instead of continuing to pay for and drink it ...

Barring that condition, vote all you like, for whomever or whatever - but it will make absolutely no difference in any substantially libertarian sense.[1] It may produce some amount of social and political upheaval and chaos. It can (and demonstrably does) produce quite a bit of populist demagoguery (and anti-populist counter-demagoguery). It might even produce some degree of "shooting disturbance," so to speak. But irrespective of the outcomes of any elections, as long as enough people continue to accept and respect their product, they will not result in any meaningfully libertarian "revolution" ...

[1] Once possessed of it, states do not willingly relinquish any substantial amount of power (no matter how civilly they may be asked to do so by people who politely and compliantly mark up special pieces of paper designed for that purpose).

There will be no meaningful and lasting change (for the better) through either voting or revolution, I agree.

But there will also be no such change through mass non-compliance.

 

[Occam's Banana]

But there will also be no such change through mass non-compliance.

By itself, no, there won't be. Non-compliance is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

I think the GOA is all we got left.
https://gunowners.org/category/press-center/

Don't forget the NAGR and The Second Amendment Foundation

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

By itself, no, there won't be. Non-compliance is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.

I think this needs elaboration. Just what exactly needs to happen?

 

[Occam's Banana]

I think this needs elaboration. Just what exactly needs to happen?

More non-compliance, for one thing.

But this isn't math. There is no "exactly."

Things are too contingent for anything but general prescriptions. For example, note that I said, "There won't be any libertarian 'revolution' (peaceful or otherwise) unless and until enough people start [blah-blah-blah-ing]" [emphasis added]. I can't even tell you how many people will be "enough." No one can. There are too many other particulars that can and will vary from one time and/or place to another. Under one set of circumstances, even a majority might not be adequate, if it is too slight. But under other circumstances, less than a plurality might suffice. Hell, even just a relatively very few people might be "enough," if they are in the right positions at the right time and act in concert. It all depends ...

But playing the system's game by the system's rules (e.g., by voting) and then compliantly accepting and respecting the results will certainly fail to accomplish any substantial change of a libertarian nature ...

 

[Swordsmyth]

More non-compliance, for one thing.

But this isn't math. There is no "exactly."

Things are too contingent for anything but general prescriptions. For example, note that I said, "There won't be any libertarian 'revolution' (peaceful or otherwise) unless and until enough people start [blah-blah-blah-ing]" [emphasis added]. I can't even tell you how many people will be "enough." No one can. There are too many other particulars that can and will vary from one time and/or place to another. Under one set of circumstances, even a majority might not be adequate, if it is too slight. But under other circumstances, less than a plurality might suffice. Hell, even just a relatively very few people might be "enough," if they are in the right positions at the right time and act in concert. It all depends ...

But playing the system's game by the system's rules (e.g., by voting) and then compliantly accepting and respecting the results will certainly fail to accomplish any substantial change of a libertarian nature ...

But voting can still be part of the solution, it can make the difference between the different sets of circumstances.

 

[Occam's Banana]

But voting can still be part of the solution, it can make the difference between the different sets of circumstances.

Not in any sufficiently reliable way that would allow for an endorsement of voting as an effective strategy.

Probabilities (of either occurrence or success) are not evenly distributed over the range of "sets of circumstances." For example, consider the last of the few "sets of circumstances" I briefly enumerated in my previous post. I was not suggesting that it was particularly likely. I was merely illustrating the fact that active non-compliance need not be "mass" in nature in order to be effective. Now, it could be that one or more of those persons "in the right positions at the right time" are in those positions at that time because some of them were elected. But it could also be because they were appointed after their predecessors were assassinated. But this would not serve as an endorsement of assassination as a general strategy. Likewise for endorsements of voting vis-à-vis the former scenario. And even apart from that, the scenario seems to warrant a general endorsement of voting no more than the possibility that one might strike it rich warrants a general endorsement of playing slot machines ...

 

[kahless]

We need this poll number to go higher so old man Trump shits his pants and backs off.

I already can't get past the bump stock ban but would have still voted for him to stop a further slide of our rights considering how bad the Democrats are. But if he does this or anything else on guns then no point voting for him. A safer bet would be for MAGA to support the break-up of the US rather than support Trump. Let the Democrats crucify Trump and his family. We will just sit by and laugh because he betrayed us, his base.

Trump should know we have families and we put our families first before his daughters feelings or his feeling good from virtue signalling to his enemies.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Not in any sufficiently reliable way that would allow for an endorsement of voting as an effective strategy.

Probabilities (of either occurrence or success) are not evenly distributed over the range of "sets of circumstances." For example, consider the last of the few "sets of circumstances" I briefly enumerated in my previous post. I was not suggesting that it was particularly likely. I was merely illustrating the fact that active non-compliance need not be "mass" in nature in order to be effective. Now, it could be that one or more of those persons "in the right positions at the right time" are in those positions at that time because some of them were elected. But it could also be because they were appointed after their predecessors were assassinated. But this would not serve as an endorsement of assassination as a general strategy. Likewise for endorsements of voting vis-à-vis the former scenario. And even apart from that, the scenario seems to warrant a general endorsement of voting no more than the possibility that one might strike it rich warrants a general endorsement of playing slot machines ...

But voting doesn't really cost you anything, they will happily impose their will on you even if you don't do it.
It's like getting to play the slots for free.

 

[Swordsmyth]

We need this poll number to go higher so old man Trump $#@!s his pants and backs off.

I already can't get past the bump stock ban but would have still voted for him to stop a further slide of our rights considering how bad the Democrats are. But if he does this or anything else on guns then no point voting for him. A safer but would be for MAGA to support the break-up of the US rather than support Trump. Let the Democrats crucify Trump and his family. We will just sit by and laugh because he betrayed us, his base.

Trump should know we have families and we put our families first before his daughters feelings or his feeling good from virtue signalling to his enemies.

This is a red line for me too, I hope this turns out to be a lot of talk to look "reasonable" until the news cycle changes and maybe push the Demoncrats to try and go ever more extreme before the elections.

 

[kahless]

This is a red line for me too, I hope this turns out to be a lot of talk to look "reasonable" until the news cycle changes and maybe push the Demoncrats to try and go ever more extreme before the elections.

One can only hope. If it was not for the bump stock ban I would say sure he is playing the game and will back off, that we will see allot more done on what he ran on but anything more proves it is just a sham Presidency.

If it is a sham Presidency it still does not matter how I or anyone voted or even if you just simply just sat home. It makes no difference. It is like a script playing out no matter the party, with the country always moving in the same direction.

 

[PursuePeace]

This is a red line for me too, I hope this turns out to be a lot of talk to look "reasonable" until the news cycle changes and maybe push the Demoncrats to try and go ever more extreme before the elections.

My thoughts, as well.
And it's def. a red line for me.

 

[Occam's Banana]

But voting doesn't really cost you anything [...]

Not true. It costs me my time and convenience - not to mention the mental distress and spiritual anguish of having to decide which asshole's name to put a checkmark beside ...

[...] they will happily impose their will on you even if you don't do it.

Or even if you do. That is why actively non-compliant resistance is a necessary condition for change, but voting is not.

It's like getting to play the slots for free.

I have no objections to others playing the slots, if that's what they want to do. I am also not one of those who makes the absurd claim that playing the slots is an "act of aggression" and is thus some kind of NAP violation. Hell, I've even yanked on the one-armed-bandit myself - I caucused for Ron Paul. (Not because I thought there was a chance in hell I would hit the jackpot, though - I just did it for the sheer psychic gratification.[1]) But I do object to being told that I am an obstructionist if I don't play - or that I am some kind of subversive trying to lure others into defeatism by pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes (if you'll allow me to mix metaphors) ...



[1] And even that wasn't wholly untainted by the aforementioned spiritual anguish - the slate was a mix of Paul & Romney delegates ...

 

[Swordsmyth]

Not true. It costs me my time and convenience - not to mention the mental distress and spiritual anguish of having to decide which $#@!'s name to put a checkmark beside ...



Or even if you do. That is why actively non-compliant resistance is a necessary condition for change, but voting is not.



I have no objections to others playing the slots, if that's what they want to do. I am also not one of those who makes the absurd claim that playing the slots is an "act of aggression" and is thus some kind of NAP violation. Hell, I've even yanked on the one-armed-bandit myself - I caucused for Ron Paul. (Not because I thought there was a chance in hell I would hit the jackpot, though - I just did it for the sheer psychic gratification.[1]) But I do object to being told that I am an obstructionist if I don't play - or that I am some kind of subversive trying to lure others into defeatism by pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes (if you'll allow me to mix metaphors) ...



[1] And even that wasn't wholly untainted by the aforementioned spiritual anguish - the slate was a mix of Paul & Romney delegates ...

I wouldn't ever attack you for choosing not to vote even if I think it unwise, those who tell others not to are a different matter though.