What will happen to gun rights if Gary Johnson is elected?

[gehrheart]

I was actually worked security at the Pierce county convention. It was ridiculously packed, we had a hard time getting everyone in on time. I also went to the state convention as a delegate from oly where I got a chance to witness Kirby seat the illegally elected King county delegation. Makes me sick thinking about it.

I was a delegate at state as well... and watched as well, it was sickening..
Helped out in Whatcom as well..

 

[HardyMacia]

Just look at Johnson's record to see if he is the "real deal"...and compare it to Romney.

Johnson - Vetoed a trigger lock bill. He signed into law a conceal carry bill. He has a 100% gun rights record.

Romney - signed an assault weapons ban and increased gun permit fees by 400% when he was Governor of MA. (boo, hiss)

Johnson's veto of the trigger lock bill wasn't unique. He vetoed 750 bills as governor both republican and democratic bills, and thousands of line item vetos. Only 2 vetoes were ever overridden.

You can't say Romney had to do it either since he was in Massachusetts because Johnson was governor in NM which was also had a heavily democratic legislature (2-1 democrat).

So if Guns is your #1 issue, then Johnson is your ONLY choice.

Guns Must NEVER Be Up For Grabs.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

As I have mentioned on another thread here. I respect and understand why someone would support a third party candidate.
But the reality is that a vote for this Johnson candidate is a direct vote for Obama.
I for one could not live with having done that. Our best hope is in an incremental step in the right direction. Holding your nose and voting for Romney is really
our best option right now. And besides, Ryan is a pretty decent candidate I think. He would be a better step in the right direction in the future.

 

[gehrheart]

Funny, If I check mark Johnson I dont see that check mark moving. Im sure it will stay right there next to Johnson.

Romney approves of issues and even claims he would have signed them on some issues that I really take issue with, such as the NDAA. I want the FED to end ( or at least a audit.) A vote for Romney or Obama is a vote for more of what I don't want.. How about the Republican party allow for some real conservatives to run for change. Back to the values of the party?
Nope cant for for gun control, warmonger big government anti liberty..

But that is a great thing here, we can all have our opinions.

..and Ryan?.. well he is pro gun as well as pro tarp and pro NDAA..

 

[SBC97281]

I will likely be voing Johnson. The rest of Oregon is blue and will send out electoral votes to the worst possible outcome--reelecting Obama. But, a vote for qualified Libertarians says yes to the need for a real third party option. -s

 

[Toxic6]

Fine.
Then be prepared to live with the decisions that (possibly) only 34% of voters voted for.

I don't know about your world, but 34% doesn't make a majority in any math I was ever taught.
I see it as a recipe for social unrest and fiscal disaster.

So instead we force the "majority" to side with one of two pre-determined candidates, chosen by.....who? the primaries, where the minority decided who would represent the majorities?

I say bubblegume-can the electoral college, bubblegume-can the use of taxpayer funds to help the major party candidates stand above the "independent" candidates, and truly let the people decide......not let the government decide what the peoples decision is lol.

 

[Toxic6]

But to the op, I think gun rights will be least affected by this candidate over romney or obama. I am starting to really worry that romney may play out as worse then obama from a 2a standpoint (yes, the liberal bastards have made some convincing arguments based off past performance), and yet obama holds some serious potential to wreak havoc on that playground if he gets a second term. It's getting to where it seems like it isn't even the lesser of two evils we vote for lol.

"what do you do?"

 

[AlphaCoyote]

How would Gary Johnson affect my gun rights if elected? Well, because he has as much chance as a blueberry muffin, I don't think about it much. "What would that squirrel in the tree do if elected president?" "What would the effect on my gun rights be if that bird in my yard became president?"

I don't spend a lot of time on such things.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

Those who voted for Perrot brought us the assault weapons ban.
Best chance of avoiding that again?
I can guarantee you a second Obama term is far more likely to do something like that than a Romney admin.
And more GOP votes in Oregon will encourage more and more conservative candidates to run IMHO. It is a dismal situation for sure, but we have do deal with the circumstances and cards we are dealt. Voting 3rd party in a presidential election today will make it harder to get the kinds of candidates you want in the future.

 

[ArgyleAdams]

Those who voted for Perrot brought us the assault weapons ban...

Please elaborate?

...And more GOP votes in Oregon will encourage more and more conservative candidates to run IMHO. It is a dismal situation for sure, but we have do deal with the circumstances and cards we are dealt. Voting 3rd party in a presidential election today will make it harder to get the kinds of candidates you want in the future.

If more votes for Republicans will cause more conservative candidates to run won't more votes for Libertarians cause more libertarians to run? Libertarians are exactly the kind of candidates I (and I think many who say they want conservative candidates) want in the future, so voting "third-party" should make it easier to get the kinds of candidates I want in the future, not harder.

 

[AlphaCoyote]

I think WhyteCheddar means Ross Perot took enough votes away from Bush in 1992 to throw the election to Clinton, who became president and signed the AWB in 1994. But exit polls showed that 38% of Perot voters would otherwise have voted for Bush; 38% otherwise would have voted for Clinton, and the rest would not have voted.

No one is going to throw the election in Oregon Obama's way by voting for Gary Johnson.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

I think AlphaCoyote covered it pretty much.
Im not trying to tell you how to use your vote. Im just not seeing the logic in your reasoning.
and while its unlikely that Romney will even finish close to Obama in Oregon, I cant imagine the feeling if for some reason it did end up close and the third party voters would of made a difference.
I respect your decision. I just dont understand it.

Please elaborate?



If more votes for Republicans will cause more conservative candidates to run won't more votes for Libertarians cause more libertarians to run? Libertarians are exactly the kind of candidates I (and I think many who say they want conservative candidates) want in the future, so voting "third-party" should make it easier to get the kinds of candidates I want in the future, not harder.

 

[Modly]

As I have mentioned on another thread here. I respect and understand why someone would support a third party candidate.
But the reality is that a vote for this Johnson candidate is a direct vote for Obama.
I for one could not live with having done that. Our best hope is in an incremental step in the right direction. Holding your nose and voting for Romney is really
our best option right now. And besides, Ryan is a pretty decent candidate I think. He would be a better step in the right direction in the future.

This is a semi copy/paste from something I brought up weeks ago elsewhere.

This is based on data from a week ago (newer data was not available in a quick search), but a poll has Obama at 49%, Romney at 40%, Johnson at 6%
, Other/Will not vote/Refused answer at 5%.

Let's just assume that I am voter #100, from the "other" category, and put some math out here to shut some people up.

So, I voted Gary Johnson. Obama and Romney do not move in percents, because in this scenario, I was either an undecided voter, or would not vote for somebody I disagreed with. Johnson goes up to 7%.

Now, assume I am voter #101, with previous stats on board...
Obama is now 48.51%
Romney is now 39.60%
Johnson is now 6.93%
Other is now 4.95%
(Numbers are rounded down to second decimal place, so it doesn't add up entirely to 100%).

So, what do we see here? Nobody else gained a vote, nor a point in percent... And Romney is only .09% closer to Obama overall.

So, the initial numbers might be outdated, the the math is still correct. A vote for Johnson is a vote for.... Johnson. It does not give Obama any extra points. The only way to do that is to vote for Obama.

Personally, I'm not quite sure that Obama is the guy I need to worry about. Romney is kind of a scary bastard.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

This is a semi copy/paste from something I brought up weeks ago elsewhere.



So, the initial numbers might be outdated, the the math is still correct. A vote for Johnson is a vote for.... Johnson. It does not give Obama any extra points. The only way to do that is to vote for Obama.

Personally, I'm not quite sure that Obama is the guy I need to worry about. Romney is kind of a scary bastard.

So that makes around 12% not voting for Obama/Undecided. Those votes going to Romney make a significant difference. As long as we are making assumptions.
And if you are more frightened by Romney than Obama, well, remarkable as that is its for another thread, or forum even.

 

[Modly]

So that makes around 12% not voting for Obama/Undecided. Those votes going to Romney make a significant difference. As long as we are making assumptions.
And if you are more frightened by Romney than Obama, well, remarkable as that is its for another thread, or forum even.

Those votes don't have much of a chance of going to Romney. I don't throw away my votes by going for the guy that everybody tells me is less bad.

I vote for the guy that I want. If the republicans wanted more support, they shouldn't have been so retarded with the primaries, nor by barring Ron Paul from speaking at the convention. They lost a lot of support by just not letting a man say some words.

The fact is, the GOP has a wet turd that they are not going to polish. I wouldn't vote for Mitt, no matter what party he rolls with. I would rather vote Cthulhu if those were my options. The man will sell us out.

 

[SBC97281]

I wouldn't vote for Mitt, no matter what party he rolls with. I would rather vote Cthulhu if those were my options. The man will sell us out.

Cthulhu is a known evil.

Mitt has tried to distance himself from these statements:

 

[ocarolan]

Some responses here suggest a vote for Johnson is a wasted vote.

To paraphrase a former Libertarian candidate, not voting your conscience is a wasted vote. If you were in prison and had a 50% chance of lethal injection, a 45% chance of the electric chair, and a 5% chance to escape, which are you going to vote for?

The electric chair, because you're most likely to win?

 

[Father of four]

Fine.
Then be prepared to live with the decisions that (possibly) only 34% of voters voted for.

I don't know about your world, but 34% doesn't make a majority in any math I was ever taught.
I see it as a recipe for social unrest and fiscal disaster.

That is already here brought in by the Democrats and the Republicans.

 

[Father of four]

So instead we force the "majority" to side with one of two pre-determined candidates, chosen by.....who? the primaries, where the minority decided who would represent the majorities?

I say bubblegume-can the electoral college, bubblegume-can the use of taxpayer funds to help the major party candidates stand above the "independent" candidates, and truly let the people decide......not let the government decide what the peoples decision is lol.

Darn good post!

 

[coyote223]

I think WhyteCheddar means Ross Perot took enough votes away from Bush in 1992 to throw the election to Clinton, who became president and signed the AWB in 1994. But exit polls showed that 38% of Perot voters would otherwise have voted for Bush; 38% otherwise would have voted for Clinton, and the rest would not have voted.

No one is going to throw the election in Oregon Obama's way by voting for Gary Johnson.

That's true, mainly because Oregon always swings democrat anyway. Oregon is part of the obamanation already,,,