>>23
Most of the gun control we have was only recently enacted, aside from the gun control act back in the 30's, and the gun control act of 68. The gun control act of 68 was based on a Nazi weapons law, and gun control is, imo, one of the legacies Hitler left us with. It is a Nazi cancer and needs to be stalled, then removed. A shift within the democratic party to oppose any further federal level gun control would be a damn nice thing to see - since the conservatives are already pro-gun. What does this mean? It means if the democrats change, there won't be a single anti-gun main party with a chance of winning in the near future left. Furthermore, many of the smaller 3rd parties are pro-gun as well. If the dems change, the future for gun owners and their freedoms is very likely very bright. Since Howard Dean is pushing to bring about this change, he more than deserves my vote in 08, if he runs.
>>22
Certainly your choice, and I agree the libertarians are a superior party. The reason I would cross party lines to support Dean is because then dems might see that there are votes to be had in the area of -gun rights-, and the significance of this is that gun control would be pretty much dead as an issue, since after this, no major party would support it. I strongly sympathize with the libertarian party, though it is necessary for the sake of the 2nd amendment and constitution to show the dems that there is strong support of pro-gun candidates so that they will change in the future.