Not a big name Candidate for 08'......

Maybe, but he's a neocon. Use federal power, it'll always make things right.

The old skool R's are bailing out on the party and voting for a libertarian in republican clothing this time around.

(Look him up, and don't listen to the closet Democrats saying he can't win.)

Except for the fact that he misspells "The Second Amendment," on his website.~

Duncan Hunter is one of the most pro-gun Reps in the House.

He's from around here.

I'd vote for him. He's not full of crap.

He and I may not agree on everything, but he's not full of crap like most of the candidates, including all the big names on both sides.

He's not an ideological Libertarian. He doesn't believe in unilateral free trade. I'm not a protectionist, but neither is he. His reasoning is more pragmatic, from what I've heard in interviews. I can't disagree with what he has said.

He's into border enforcement. I can't disagree with that, either, at least as long as we have our current systems in place.

He is the sort of Conservative I can accept, though.

Welcome to THR I will assume SANman is San Diego? This would make sense as Hunter is from around there. Hunter is strong pro 2A which is good:

It seems every election year, some liberal politician dons an NRA cap and grabs a shotgun for a hunting photo-op, as if that means they support our right as Americans to keep and bear arms. I, myself, thoroughly enjoy hunting, having just recently spent a great weekend hunting elk in Arizona. But, the second amendment is not about hunting. It is about the right of you and me to be secure in our homes. We must vigorously defend against all attempts to chip away at the Second Amendment. You know as well as I do that there is one thing criminals prefer over any other: unarmed victims.

Click to expand...

Although I don't know if he thinks the 2A is about Self Defense or not. That is not real clear. Also I do not think it is currently Elk season in Arizona even though this statement was put on his site quite recently. Since there is no attribution date it is hard to say when he said it. But still saying you are a hunter of Elk and not "small vermin and rabbits" is a little refreshing.

His record on freedom is very spotty though, supporting the Patriot Act and various other bills that back his right wing social agenda and are anti-freedom and bill of rights.

Of course on taxes he is near the bottom of all Repubs running..... But I would favor higher taxes if they would lower spending.

His record on freedom is very spotty though, supporting the Patriot Act and various other bills that back his right wing social agenda and are anti-freedom and bill of rights.

Click to expand...

That's where I'm a pragmatist.

If he might want to sign bills he'll never see on his desk, it's no problem.

The next AWB probably WILL get to the President. He would veto it. He actually is a hunter, and not a rabbit 50 years ago either. And he does see guns as self defense.

If Ron Paul has a chance in hell, I'll vote for him whenever, wherever. But I'd much rather have Hunter than Guiliani, to say nothing of any Democrat unless a dark horse pops up -- still a possibility.

And he does see guns as self defense.

Click to expand...

Well that could be an ugly problem then. I would like to see him address that first before I would consider voting for him. Still it could be worse.

He HAS addressed that, over and over.

I've heard him on the radio recently, and that's what he said. He's been a rep from this area for 27 years, and has earned an A+ from the NRA for his record.

His statement from his Presidential campaign site: "But, the second amendment is not about hunting. It is about the right of you and me to be secure in our homes. We must vigorously defend against all attempts to chip away at the Second Amendment. You know as well as I do that there is one thing criminals prefer over any other: unarmed victims."

There is nothing in his record that contradicts this. He has been pro-2A as long as he's been on-record.

I guess I read something different in the Second Ammendment. I didn't see a word in there about self defense. Anyway like I said, it could be worse....

But, the second amendment is not about hunting. It is about the right of you and me to be secure in our homes. We must vigorously defend against all attempts to chip away at the Second Amendment. You know as well as I do that there is one thing criminals prefer over any other: unarmed victims

Click to expand...

If that is how he feels, then he really doesn't understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It is true that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. But it not about self-defense from criminals either.

I guess thinking the 2nd Amendment is about self defense is better than thinking its about hunting, but he is still missing the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.

I cut and pasted that from his campaign website.

I agree that the 2nd Amendment has another purpose: we have the right to fight back against tyranny. I don't think a Presidential candidate other than a Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate would put those words on his website. And neither party has a snowflake's chance in hell of winning this election; last time at least one Libertarian candidate openly supported the Clinton Gun Ban.

Bottom line: Hunter's 100% pro-gun. It's his other issues that I will look at, because that ones' settled.

You think he would promise to repeal the full auto ban? Even if he did not put out anything different than the standard party line that is kind of my litmus test.

You think he would promise to repeal the full auto ban? Even if he did not put out anything different than the standard party line that is kind of my litmus test.

Click to expand...

The only candidates who put that sort of promise on their websites at this stage in the game won't be in DC come January 2009.

Like I said, I'm a pragmatist. It's a game of yards, and we either gain yardage or we lose it.

And in the game of Liberty, you can lose it all a lot faster than gain it. My parents were both alive, living in Austria in 1938. It took mere hours for one of the most advanced civilizations in world history to turn into a Nazi dictatorship. Therefore, that's a lesson I won't ever forget.

The old skool R's are bailing out on the party and voting for a libertarian in republican clothing this time around.

Click to expand...

Yep. That's a good way to marginalize all those votes while leaving them smug in the choice. A day after the election they might as well have not voted at all in real terms.

The right way for an interest group to be influential is to make some attempt to agree on the best bet when the time comes and then line up behind that candidate. Glorifying individual choice is a great way to not have any real special interest group, all talk and no payoff. At best, you would then only get token attention from candidates.

"Want me to sponsor a pro-gun bill? Hmmm? What have you done for me lately?"

"Want me to sponsor a pro-gun bill? Hmmm? What have you done for me lately?"

Click to expand...

Gun owners lined up behind every Republican candidate since 1980, and they really haven't gotten much in return.

Gun owners lined up behind every Republican candidate since 1980, and they really haven't gotten much in return.

Click to expand...

If having trouble making much of list or if having high expectations, how about including anti-gun bills that were defeated, some not even allowed out of committee?

Demanding complete and unvarying ideological purity is a great way to lose everything and still feel smug about it. I'm not going to vote for someone I totally disagree with, but I also realize that the only person who agrees with me on every issue is me.

how about including anti-gun bills that were defeated, some not even allowed out of committee?

Click to expand...

It is very important for bills to never leave committee. But since taking power this year, the Democrats haven't let any new anti-gun bills out either.

It appears the Democrats might have finally learned what the Republicans have learned: Don't try to pass new gun legislation. Thats good, but rolling back bad gun laws is even better.

Demanding complete and unvarying ideological purity is a great way to lose everything and still feel smug about it.

Click to expand...

I don't expect a candidate who is a carbon copy of my political beliefs but hitting the half-way mark would be nice.

I voted in favor of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005, which increases the penalties for violations by television and radio broadcasters who transmit obscene, indecent, and profane material on public airwaves.

Click to expand...

I firmly believe that marriage is one of the most important social institutions we have and that it is central to promoting family values and raising children in a healthy environment. It is for this reason that I cosponsored and voted in favor of H.J. Res. 88 (Musgrave-CO), which proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. I firmly believe that children need the unique influence offered by both a father and a mother.

Click to expand...

I believe gambling is a serious problem in today’s society, every much as addictive and destructive as alcohol and illegal drugs. As a result, this problem is equally deserving of as much attention in terms of federal policy. Unfortunately, those individuals who spend most of their money gambling are the ones who have the least amount to lose, often choosing to gamble instead of taking care of their families.

I also believe Internet gambling has become a problem as serious as traditional casino gambling. Law enforcement agencies have indicated that this activity serves as a vehicle for money laundering activities that can be exploited by terrorists and organized crime. It is for this reason that I cosponsored H.R. 4777 (Goodlatte-VA) which will amend federal law and bring the current prohibition against wireline interstate gambling up to date with the Internet and other new technologies. At the same time, the bill will provide additional tools to law enforcement to combat illegal gambling.

Click to expand...

I won't vote for him.

I don't expect a candidate who is a carbon copy of my political beliefs but hitting the half-way mark would be nice.

Click to expand...

That was my whole point. That is why I don't plan to vote for Giuliani, for instance. On the other hand, for some people 85-90% isn't adequate. It has to be 100% or nothing.

I won't vote for him.

Click to expand...

If he stays in the race and has a chance to win, I reckon we'll just cancel each other out, then

Combat-wombat:

I agree with you regarding his social conservatism.

However, as President, he can only sign or veto bills that reach his desk.

So, as a pragmatist, I would rather see someone as President who would veto another gun ban. The likelihood of our needing this veto: HIGH.

He would sign bills that restrict gambling (stupid), define marriage in the Constitution (as inappropriate as Prohibition), and enforce "decency" on the airwaves (wrong). The likelihood of his getting these bills on his desk? LOW. The likelihood of an Amendment dealing with marriage? ZERO. An Amendment requires a "yes" vote from 2/3 of all the states.

I don't hope to agree with a candidate all the time. Hell, the fact that someone wants to be President tends to disqualify him/her in my mind. You either get a narcissist who desparately wants power and approval at any cost (Gore, Kerry, Clinton), or someone too well connected to the in-crowd of the power structure (Bush, Bush, Nixon). I tend to think that Kennedy and Reagan really wanted to be good Presidents; I didn't agree with either of them all the time, either.

So what it comes down to for me is this: which candidate's victory will push the US in the direction I'd like, given all factors I can see at the time?

I can't see that in any of the "major" candidates right now. Thompson, Richardson, Hunter, and Paul all interest me. Paul at the top of the list. I see McCain, Guiliani, Clinton and Obama, however, as having strong potential for really bad results for the country. As a grownup, I won't throw my vote away on a symbol. Too much damage can be done in 4 years.