Posse member Jeff Soyer over at Alphecca still hasn't decided to vote for George W. Bush, so we at the Posse are going to help remind him what is at stake.
Many gun rights advocates have made the mistake of making the perfect the enemy of the good.
That is to say, they refuse to vote for a moderate gun rights supporter against a gun control zealot because they feel doing so validates and encourages more moderates. They reserve their support for a "true believer" in strong gun rights.
The idea is that by not electing a moderate gun rights supporter, the resulting defeat will encourage more true believers to come forward.
Alternately, the defeat may result in more gun control, but this will help fuel a backlash against gun control and in the end result in a more pro-gun society.
This is absolute and utter crap.
The Posse isn't sure where this mentality originated, but it belongs in a psychiatric hospital.
When voting on a single issue, one should always choose the better candidate. The only exception to this is when one is voting strategically.
For example, a pro-gun voter may vote for an anti-gun legislator if it means that this will help pro-gun supporters retain overall control of the Legislature.
In less abstract terms, an anti-gun Republican is in many cases better than a pro-gun Democrat becasue the Republican leadership will support gun rights and the Democrats won't.
That particular legislator may not, but that lost vote will be offset by Dems crossing over.
We have digressed slightly, but now let us apply this to the presidential race.
George W. Bush has not been the strongest gun rights advocate, but he has helped our cause considerably during his political career. Never forget that as governor of Texas he signed concealed carry legislation making it possible for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.
For that alone, he deserves the support of every right-thinking gun rights supporter.
He has done nothing since to repudiate that act. He has never apologized or hidden from it.
So before we get carried away on how he failed to waste political capital on the now-dead "Assault Weapons" Ban, let us recall his track record.
Or compare it with John Kerry. Here is a man who hates guns. He has a track record of unblemished support for gun confiscation. Even worse, he lacks the basic honesty to admit it.
Kerry's gun flip-flops have been well-documented here at the Posse.
Indeed, we could have subcontracted this blog to doing nothing other than tracking Kerry's shifting stories of gun control advocacy and subsequent changes of position.
To put it another way, John Kerry has held every position on guns except supporting the right to self-defense and concealed carry. Bush signed concealed carry into state law.There is your contrast.
Voting for Kerry won't punish Bush for being percieved as weak; it will be read as vindicating Kerry's anti-gun stance.
If you carry nothing away, understand that when a gun-controller beats a moderate gun rights supporter, that will always be how it is viewed.
We will venture one further observation: heed the example of the UK.
Gun control was not an instant process, it took decades. First guns had to be demonized, and ownership gradually whittled down to lower resistance. This is exactly what we see in California: using the law to harass gun owners so they eventually give up and sell their guns.
Voting to punish Bush will result in another cycle of painful gun regulation, further eroding our gun rights.
Yes, this could set up a backlach - or out could eventually break the back of our movement.
Libertarians especially need to understand this. When you strip votes away from a good candidate in favor of your "perfect" one, you effectively aid the worst one.
The end result is less liberty overall.
Some may argue that this produces a backlash. It can, but more often it simply produces a more docile and state-dependent population. Over decades you get Euro-statism, where everything is heavily regulated and there are no parties of individual liberty because the notion has finally died out.
We hope this helps Alphecca clear his mind and keep his priorities straight. If it doesn't, we will remind him that Kerry-appointed judges aren't likely to look at the Second Amendment as an individual right, nor will a Kerry attorney general show much interest in helping gun rights.
If you thought Janet Reno was fun, wait till you see what a Massachusetts liberal can come up with.
Comments