That’s what you get when you voted Nader in 2000…

Via Waylon Lewis
on Jun 27, 2008
get elephant's newsletter

…well, to be fair, VP Al Gore wasn’t an enthusiastic campaigner. In any case, thanks to those who voted for big “W” in ‘oo and, more remarkably, again in ’04…and particularly thanks to those who don’t bother to vote at all, we got ourselves a newly conservative Supreme Court. And now they’ve given us a new Constitutional right!

Though the Constitution itself links the right to bear arms to service in a militia, we now have the expanded…Right to Keep & Bear Deadly Assault Weapons in the Home, or on the streets! For a nation still reeling from Columbine, or Virginia Tech or the hundred other such in the last three years alone, this is a deadly gift—and another reminder of the vital importance of bothering to vote for “the lesser of two evils” every four years. 


About Waylon Lewis

Waylon Lewis, founder of elephant magazine, now & host of Walk the Talk Show with Waylon Lewis, is a 1st generation American Buddhist “Dharma Brat." Voted #1 in U.S. on twitter for #green two years running, Changemaker & Eco Ambassador by Treehugger, Green Hero by Discovery’s Planet Green, Best (!) Shameless Self-Promoter at Westword's Web Awards, Prominent Buddhist by Shambhala Sun, & 100 Most Influential People in Health & Fitness 2011 by "Greatist", Waylon is a mediocre climber, lazy yogi, 365-day bicycle commuter & best friend to Redford (his rescue hound). His aim: to bring the good news re: "the mindful life" beyond the choir & to all those who didn't know they gave a care. | His first book, Things I would like to do with You, is now available.


8 Responses to “That’s what you get when you voted Nader in 2000…”

  1. Third Pillar says:

    Hey, I like elephant, but this kind of headline is a turn off. Vote for the candidate you think best, be it Nader or W, or Gore. Real change only happens when people vote their conscience. Maybe if more people had voted Nader, or other 3rd party candidate through the years we’d be on a new course and not have to think about “the lesser of two evils”. True change takes time, not four years! Look beyond the next election and the election after that. Where do you really want to be headed?

  2. […] They would appoint judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade, which after 8 years of George ‘Same as Gore, said Naderites” Bush is already hanging by a thread. McCain’s voted against the Equal Pay amendment, […]

  3. […] than Bush—and Nader, who’s as old as McCain, is not gonna win. This is about idealism vs. reality. Support Nader if you want to up to the last day, then vote reality. You have 364 other days to […]

  4. […] it’s those votes for Nader that, had they gone for Gore, would have put a Nobel-prize-winning Green Hero in the Oval Office. Where he would have […]

  5. DCHRDept says:

    Keep in mind, when you look to the national government to control anything in a way you like, you give it the ability to control it in a way you do not. For every Al Gore, there will be another George W, and for every Ronald Reagan, there will be another Jimmy Carter, depending on which side you sit. Freedom can only come from being free, not from controlling others.

  6. DCHRDept says:

    But please consider the Constitution as the contract between the states that it was. The use of the phrase, "well regulated militia" would need to be replaced with a phrase similar to, "a group of non-military people, called together in crisis when the military is not available, who know intimately how to care for and operate their personally owned, functional weapons", in order to explain the intent of the signatories to the contract. There is no link between weapon ownership, a federal ability to regulate weapons, and service in the military in the Constitution. It takes the ignoring of what militia means in the context of the Constitution to draw the conclusion the author has concerning the intent of the states who formed the Federal Government.

  7. DCHRDept says:

    Also, a 243 semi-auto "hunting style rifle" is no less deadly than an AR-15 "Assault style rifle" which uses the same ammunition in the same way. The term "assault weapon" is as meaningless as the term "sports car" or "sport utility vehicle". All are arbitrary classifications of vehicles based on their appearance with the assumption that the owner somehow matches it perceived function to their actual use. Banning assault rifles will have the same affect on gun related deaths as banning the term sport utility vehicle would have on vehicle rollovers. A machine's use is the responsibility of the user, not the community. To assert otherwise excuses the careless and malicious alike.
    Diatribes like this one mask the true problems under the cloak of perception stated with conviction as truth. The idea that regulation by uninformed politicians can replace an informed populace is much more dangerous than any rifle, regardless of the handles it is held by.

  8. DCHRDept says:

    Further, if rights can be given by the Supreme Court, then we have them at their pleasure.