Know Where Your Candidate Stands (on the 2nd Amendment)

Status
Not open for further replies.

ExSoldier

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
246
Location
Miami, FL
NRA ^ | 1/1/8 | Frank Miniter

The scene was common enough in American politics: 500 people seated in a ballroom at the Capital Hilton in Washington, D.C., television cameras glaring at a podium, and a full cast of 2008 presidential candidates set to speak. Only the event wasn’t common at all. The candidates came to a first-ever symposium where they would affirm their support for the Second Amendment of the Constitution before a crowd of National Rifle Association members. Just a few election cycles ago political pundits might have deemed the event poor presidential politics. Or so Vice President Al Gore thought. In 2000, Gore licked his index finger, held it in the political winds, and decided being anti-gun was smart national politics. He thought a post-Columbine nation was poised to pass sweeping gun control. He was sure the Million Mom March was pure populist genius. Then America’s 80 million gun owners taught him a hard lesson: Americans cherish their constitutional rights. In fact, the NRA-inspired rebuke of Gore’s anti-Second Amendment stance cost him his home state of Tennessee. As a result, in 2004, Senator John Kerry tried a more deceptive strategy. He went hunting. But, thanks to the NRA, no one was fooled. Kerry had received a 100-percent rating from the anti-hunting Humane Society of the United States and had backed legislation that would have banned the firearms and ammunition most hunters use. Thanks in part to the nation’s gun owners going to the polls armed with all that information, Kerry became a victim of his own hypocrisy. Because of the experiences of Gore and Kerry, the 2008 presidential candidates know that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is as mainstream as baseball in America and so, unless they have something to hide, they’d be wise to make their positions clear. To give them a forum to do so, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox hosted “A Celebration of American Values” on September 21-22, 2007, the first event in what will be a national tour. The results were clarifying. Politicians spelled out their views on the Second Amendment before the primaries and caucuses take place, thereby allowing voters to pick their party’s candidates effectively. And the crowd was animated. Print and television reporters gave the event unprecedented ink and airtime. C-SPAN aired the event live—and has rerun it several times since. A New York Sun op-ed by Kenneth Blackwell accurately summed up the importance of the event: “In each of the last four even-year general elections gun owners have had a massive impact. And the National Rifle Association has proven to everyone that if you want to win the presidency, earning the support of gun owners and Second Amendment defenders might be the deciding factor. … The NRA is in a stronger position than ever to influence the 2008 elections. ”

NRA President John Sigler Click on photo for video

With that goal in mind, ILA Executive Director Chris Cox said, "This forum was not intended to serve as the springboard for an NRA endorsement in the presidential campaign. As we have historically done, we will carefully weigh every candidates past actions and future commitments on all issues affecting the Second Amendment before making an endorsement decision." NRA members came to hear and question Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), former Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee; in fact, before the end of the Conference, they heard from Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Representative John Dingell (D-Mich.), former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Senator John Thune (R-S.D.), former Representative Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.), and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. And there were taped messages from California Rep. Duncan Hunter, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. By the end of the day America’s gun owners found out if their candidates believe that the Second Amendment, as former Governor Mike Huckabee declared, “means what it says and says what it means,” or if their candidates would work to take away Americans’ unique Right to Keep and Bear Arms under the guise of some historically twisted, collective-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. The event received phenomenal media attention because the presidential race is already in full swing; in fact, the race could be solidified with primaries this winter and gun rights could be a defining issue. As a result, the NRA is moving fast to make sure NRA members have the information they need to choose candidates who will respect the Second Amendment. But the NRA can’t succeed without its members’ support. To make this point clear, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre urged NRA members to make sure their friends, neighbors, or spouses who believe in a true reading of the Bill of Rights become NRA members and register to vote. To be sure America’s gun owners are not caught snoozing, the NRA has launched an ambitious membership drive in cooperation with hundreds of businesses small and large to recruit new NRA members. In a major announcement at the event, Mike Golden, CEO of Smith & Wesson, explained that because of this new industry initiative “all America’s gun owners should wake up, look around and see they must join the NRA, the civil-liberties organization defending their Second Amendment rights.” Doug Painter, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told readers of SHOT Business, whose primary audience is firearm industry retailers and wholesalers, “We should never underestimate the bedrock value of the voting bloc represented by our customers, the millions of gun owners across the country who place a high political value on their firearm freedoms.” In that same article, former NRA President Sandy Froman said, “We must start building the NRA membership immediately, so that we have a large grassroots army trained and in place for the next election cycle.” (Logon to www.insureyourgunrights.com to see what you can do to help.)

Senator John McCain Arizona Senator John McCain has been widely criticized for fighting for and passing the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a law that prohibits organizations, such as the NRA, from running issue ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election. The NRA was in the forefront in its opposition to the law’s free-speech ban. McCain addressed such disagreements in his speech by saying, “Over the years, we’ve not agreed on every issue. We had differences over my efforts to standardize sales procedures at gun shows and to clean up our campaign finance system. I understand and respect your position.”

Throughout his address McCain won applause with declarations such as, “The Second Amendment is unique in the world and at the core of our constitutional freedoms. It guarantees an individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. To argue anything else is to reject the clear meaning of our Founding Fathers.” He also said, “I oppose devious efforts to use lawsuits to bankrupt our firearms manufacturers.” Later in his speech McCain announced, “The citizens of the nation’s capital do not enjoy the Right to Keep and Bear arms. That’s why I’ve co-sponsored legislation repealing the ban on firearms possession for law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia. The Second Amendment is not just for rural Arizona; it’s for all of America.” McCain also feinted at Senator John Kerry’s attempts to overshadow his anti-gun legislation by going hunting, pointing out that there’s a hunting myth in national politics: “If you show your bona fides by hunting ducks or varmints or quail, it makes up for support of gun control. This myth overlooks a fundamental truth: The Second Amendment is not about hunting, it’s about freedom.”

Senator Fred Thompson Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson was the next high-profile candidate to address the audience. He did so after a video on his accomplishments titled “The Hunt for Red November” aired. He won the crowd with: “I do remember a relationship from way back, from the time that Charlton Heston came to Tennessee in 1994, and I formed a friendship with that great American and watched him hobble across the state with me on a bad hip and go through pain to help me win my first election in the United States Senate.” Then Sen. Thompson got to the basis of his philosophy by saying, “I never subscribed to the notion that it made our country safer by infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. I think back to the ‘A’ rating I got from this organization and the endorsements that I was proud to receive. So it’s not just a matter of promises made, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a matter of commitments that have been kept.” Later he pointed out, “My philosophy does not depend on my geography.” And he told the assembly, “I never subscribed to the notion that it made our country safer by infringing on the Second Amendment.” In answer to a question on the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, Thompson said, “…the Constitution does mean what is says and is not restricted to protection of militias.”

Governor Mitt Romney Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s taped speech was played on screens in which he said, “Let me speak very directly and candidly about where I stand. I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American. It's essential to our functioning as a free society, as are all the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I’ve been proud to have the support of pro-Second Amendment and sportsman’s groups in my previous runs for public office. I’d be proud to have your support again as I campaign for president.” Then he commented, “I’ll ask Congress to repeal the McCain-Feingold law which sought to impose restrictions on the First Amendment rights of groups like the NRA to advocate for issues we care about.”

Mayor Rudy Giuliani The next speaker was former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a national spokesman who advocated for passage of the Clinton semi-auto ban and supported passage of federal gun-owner licensing. As gun owners know, he also championed lawsuits to hold legal firearms manufacturers responsible for criminals who use firearms to commit violent crime. Prohibiting these lawsuits resulted in a hard-fought battle led by NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action that ended with the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush.

After his speech, in answer to the question, “do you still believe that the American gun companies should be held liable for the unforeseeable criminal misuse of their products?” Giuliani replied, “I did initiate that lawsuit back in 2000. Since then, I think that lawsuit has taken several turns and several twists that I don’t agree with. I also think that there have been subsequent intervening events—September 11—which cast somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment and Second Amendment rights. Doesn’t change the fundamental rights, but maybe it highlights the necessity for them more. So I think that lawsuit has gone in a direction that I probably don’t agree with at this point.” In his speech Giuliani stressed his law enforcement credentials saying that when he took over as Mayor of New York City crime was out of control. Giuliani said he reduced the murder rate by 66 percent by holding people responsible for their actions and that he’d do the same as president. He later summed up his point by saying, “The bottom line is we need to step up enforcement against gun crimes and leave law-abiding citizens alone.” Giuliani explained that he read and analyzed the Parker v. The District of Columbia decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a ruling that overturned the D.C. gun ban, a three-decade old prohibition on the possession of firearms within D.C. Giuliani deemed the Parker decision “an excellent example of strict constructionism.” In Parker, Senior Judge Lawrence H. Silberman, joined by Judge Thomas B. Griffith, concluded that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.” The decision has since been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and Giuliani concluded that “the Parker decision should be upheld … to underscore the Castle Doctrine.” Giuliani’s views on gun control garnered most of the newscasters’ attention. In fact, later that evening CNN reporter Carol Costello asked LaPierre: “So, Rudy Giuliani stood up there and he said, ‘I know you're not going to agree with some of what I have to say, but you can believe this, that I will put into place the plan that I have.’ How did that go over with the NRA?” LaPierre responded that, “this whole forum today was the first step in a process of our involvement in the presidential race. We're going to send this out to our members. We're going to listen to what they have to say about all the candidates. And then we are going to do what's right to defend the Second Amendment.”

Governor Mike Huckabee When addressing the United Nations’ attempts to disarm law-abiding Americans, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said, “International law doesn’t have an application in the appellate process or the adjudication process in an American court.” And he later commented that, “Frankly, if the United Nations continues to come at us with such outrageous things, then we should not be too disappointed if the whole thing were to break off and float away in the East River, never to be seen or heard from again.” Huckabee boasted that he was the first sitting governor of Arkansas to receive a permit to carry a concealed handgun and criticized some other candidates by declaring, “I didn’t just join the NRA last year.”

On the Second Amendment, Huckabee expounded, “I sometimes marvel that there are people in our country who will proliferously defend the importance, the primacy and the value of the First Amendment—our freedoms to speak, to assemble, to worship, the freedom of the press—and somehow act as if the Second Amendment is of lesser importance to our freedom than the first.” He also said, “We have a constitutional right granted to us, in the wisdom of our forefathers, to protect our families, to protect them from criminals, to protect them from whatever might harm them. And it is as much of a constitutional right as it is the right to speak out against our government ... . And let me be very clear: I do not believe the Second Amendment has any geographical boundaries. It does not apply differently on the East Coast than it does in the South.”
 
What about Ron Paul? Its hard to argue against him as he is the best candidate for gun rights in the Congress.

Link to Following Article

Restore the Second Amendment

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, January 9, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I rise to restore the right the founding fathers saw as the guarantee of every other right by introducing the Second Amendment Protection Act. This legislation reverses the steady erosion of the right to keep and bear arms by repealing unconstitutional laws that allow power-hungry federal bureaucrats to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Specifically, my legislation repeals the five-day waiting period and the "instant" background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America. My legislation also repeals the misnamed ban on "semi-automatic" weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime. Finally, my bill amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 by deleting the "sporting purposes" test, which allows the Treasury Secretary to infringe on second amendment rights by classifying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) as a "destructive device" simply because the Secretary believes the gun to be "non-sporting."

Thomas Jefferson said "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms. I hope my colleagues will join me in upholding the Founders' vision for a free society by cosponsoring the Second Amendment Restoration Act.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

From Ron Paul's Campaign website.

I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.

I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:

H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.
H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.
H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.
H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.

In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “assault weapons” ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it.

I also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun.

You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment.


He actually introduces bills to reappeal anti-Constitutional laws. Did McCain and Thompson do that while in the senate?
 
I just wonder where the Paul supporters will land when he doesn't get the nomination...

I think he'll gleefully allow himself to be drafted to run as an independent.

And we'll have a case where you've got 48% of the vote for the Democrat, 42% of the vote for the republican, and 10% off in conscience-land... I'm not voting -for- a candidate. I'm voting to do my best to ensure that a particular candidate does not end up in office. If Paul could ensure that wouldn't happen in a general election, he'd have my vote. He'll get it in the primary. But if he runs 3rd party, forget it...

Heck, I'll vote for McCain over Hillary. I'll vote for RUDY over Hillary.
 
And we'll have a case where you've got 48% of the vote for the Democrat, 42% of the vote for the republican, and 10% off in conscience-land... I'm not voting -for- a candidate. I'm voting to do my best to ensure that a particular candidate does not end up in office. If Paul could ensure that wouldn't happen in a general election, he'd have my vote. He'll get it in the primary. But if he runs 3rd party, forget it...

God forbid we vote with our "conscience". I know that it a tough idea to grasp but maybe that is why our country is being FedEx'd to hell, because we vote for one to stop the other when in actuality they both suck. One just happens to suck a little less. I seriously hope that if Ron Paul does not get the nod, he will run as an independent just to split the vote. The country needs a catastrophe like Hillary or Obama to wake it up and realize the path to implosion that we are on. :banghead:

Oh yeah, to keep this on topic...I like guns.
 
The words coming out of McCain's mouth are great, but there is no way in hell that he believes any of it. I would have more respect for these slimeballs if they had the spine to speak their minds.
 
From the CNN page:

Mitt Romney
As governor, signed into law a permanent ban on assault weapons. Supported the 1994 federal assault weapons ban. Supported the Brady Bill requiring waiting periods for handgun purchases, but says it is no longer needed due to instantaneous background checks. Joined the NRA as a lifetime member in 2006.

Ron Paul
Opposed 3-day gun show background check requirement in favor of a 24-hour check. Has a B rating from the NRA.

Mike Huckabee
Opposes reauthorization of the assault weapons ban. Opposes mandatory trigger locks for handguns. Opposes waiting periods for gun purchases. Owns a variety of firearms. NRA member. Has a concealed carry permit.

- I wonder if Huckabee carries during the debates "just in case"
 
Its a good article, but I don't like how it glosses over Mitt Romney's anti-gun record. He is the only candidate that has signed a permanent Assault Weapons Ban. And he says he'll sign one as President.
 
Keep in mind too that a LARGE part of the Democrats' strategy to this point has been "vote for anyone but one of those conservative people." That's going to change somewhat, but not a lot. It's working.

Remember - they don't need to convince you to vote for Hillary. They just need to convince you to not vote against her...

Actually, between Obama and Hillary, with no other choices, I'd probably go wtih Hillary - She's political, and she KNOWS how much the gun issue hurt in the past. I think she'll be a bit more pragmatic. With Obama, however, I get the feeling that he'll push it all, and he'll push it hard - he's too used to Chicago politics...
 
Hillary was first lady when most of these crazy gun laws were either initiated or approved by her husband. She's too socialist and pro gov for me. I just wouldn't vote democratic at this point.
Ron Paul is the way to go right now, I wish people would do themselves a favor and take some time to see what he's about. He's logical, intelligent, honest and sincerely cares about this country and it's people.
Here's one of the better videos of him I've seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

If you don't already know, he's run in the past as a libertarian, he's in the republican platform now and is a constitutionalist. He seems to know his history, policy and constitution as good as or better than anyone else running.
He served 10 terms in congress and has been a doctor for about 40 years.
He wants to stop govt spending and start strengthening the economy by paying of the debt and getting rid of programs that are proven not to work. He'll shut down IRS, Dept Education, homeland security and many others.
You'll keep the money you earn ( why does that sound crazy, but shouldn't!!) The government will stop interfering in our lives, focus on issues at home, trade, be friends and communicate world wide, but adopt a policy of non-intervention. We don't need to be and shouldn't be the "world police". Our debt is 8.8 trillion, this war is about to surpass 2 trillion! Gov keeps printing money and borrowing 500 million from china, we suffer the inflation!
Ron Paul has over 70% of the troops supporting him, which confuses the hell of out of the pro war guys. No one should be pro war, too late for that now anyway, but we need a president that tries harder to avoid and resolve wars rather than capitalizing on them!
Anyway.... I can only say so much, I just hope people check him out and keep an open mind.
 
BOGIE: "I just wonder where the Paul supporters will land when he doesn't get the nomination"
I still can't believe that people find a candidate they believe in, but will vote for another because it looks as though that candidate can't win. Primaries ultimately shouldn't matter. They are tests only.
Ron Paul not getting Iowa or NH doesn't make him less of a good choice to me, so far I'll be voting for him no matter what. I won't let other people form opinions for me, or make up my mind. He could lose every primary and come November, still win. I won't be shocked really, it's clear to me that he's one of the best people that have ever run for president.
Please watch at least 20 minutes of that video I posted, I bet anyone in this group would like him enough to vote for him!
 
I would think the members of this forum would know by now
where their candidate stands on the issue.

I listen to talk radio all the time and I cringe when ever I hear "so-called" conservatives praise Rudy and Romney.:barf:

Bill Bennot
Hugh Hewitt

Personally I don't think a few of them care, but oh well.
 
Since we all know Paul isn't going to get the nomination, and I am not saying this because I don't support his views. Looks like our best choice is going to be Huckabee. I personnaly will be going for the candidate who has the best chance of winning and it looks to be Huckabee at the moment.
 
That's the thing, we're talking about the president here. We can't settle for someone who's honest "most of the time" or " we think we can trust" or, " seems like he/she cares".... Guiliani is good...as a mayor. that's it, I don't think he'd be good one bit as a president. He has capitalized on 9/11, lied repeatedly about numbers/statistics, covered up issues, spent money wrongfully.... Hey, as a mayor, no big deal.
I'm looking for the person with the cleanest record, who's straight talking, honest, non calculating, caring, intelligent, open minded, fair and knows policy, politics and what this country needs if it's not to collapse.
I don't care who raises the most money, who has the nicest suit, who is most articulate in public speech, who is tougher.... I care about who will take action, look out for this country ( that's should be the primary job, but it never has been!!! ) and start doing some positive things to rebuild and fix this growing disaster! We don't need more welfare, more low income housing, we need more jobs!! We don't need more military, more troops, we need to stop spreading them thin and get out of others affiars. We don't need more socialized heathcare, we need preventative healthcare and a healthy place to live!
 
jlday70 , I don't know that he won't get the nomination. You might be surprised. He has over 70% of the troops support, he's drawing from Republicans, independents and libertarians. He's raised over $20,000,000!!! He wins every online poll!!!! The primaries may give a false sense of who will win and then we've not voted for Ron Paul and have made a mistake!
I really think he can and will win. I've gone from being around people that never heard of him, to seeing his signs everywhere, being told about him everywhere I go. He's really just taking off.
 
If Ron Paul gets the nomination- I'll sure as He__ vote for him.

If Guliani or Romney gets the nomination- I'll vote for Mr Paul.

If Huckabee gets the nomination - Sorry, I like Huckabee and he'll get my vote.
 
Ron Paul's great on RKBA, but his foreign policy sounds more like Moveon.org drivel. It's basically pull out of the Middle East and Europe and hope that makes the Islamo-nuts happy. If not we'll try to buy their friendship.
 
Duncan Hunter is great on 2nd Amendment as well as all other features. Gets an A rating from GOA. He's the best guy running but can't get traction. In any case, I will vote against Hillary or Obama in this election, even if it means I have to vote for Romney. Why? With Hillary or Obama we WILL get an AWB II, and that sequal will be, as is usual, much, much worse. I won't waste my vote and, in doing so, guarantee that AWB. It's just too darn important. My guy won't get the nomination even though he is great on everything. Ron Paul is good on 2nd Amendment and so can be spoken positively here, but his stance on several other issues like finance and the economy is pretty bad, as well as foreign policy. But, in any case, since my guy Duncan isn't getting it, my vote will still count for something. Only a fool would vote independent, or a guy who likes chopping his nose of despite his face.

Ash
 
fellas...and...fella-ettes...

I hope you can all agree with me on one thing...
if and when you candidate of choice loses, that will not be the time to pick up your vote and go home. Personally, I'm With Fred. BUT.
If someone else gets the nod, I WILL support them. Perhaps not out of any great love for them, but out of fear for what Edwards, Obama, or Rodham would do to this country if elected.
Yes, maybe Romney doesn't have a sterling record when it comes to firearms.
Do you think Obama or Rodham are going to be nicer? Not even.
My fear is that when someone's favorite drops out, or loses, or has no chance, their voters will just go home and NOT participate in the General election. To do so would be to vote for Rodham, or Obama. You may not like a given candidate. But you might like their stance on one or more issues BETTER then the liberal alternative. Especially so-called Gun Control issues.
My other fear is that some folks are into their pipe dream of their candidate they will never acknowledge any other. Attitudes like this will NOT help our cause of the RTKBA, and (since we are not single-issue voters), it will not help the party who supports us or the other issues we believe in.
I may not love Giuli, I have issues with Huck, Mitt may not be friendliest to firearms, BUT they are better then 4-8 years of some liberal president trying to take your toys, your money, and your sanity, are they not?

GP
 
Yeah, let's be active and not passive. Let us NOT flush our RIGHTS down the TOILET because our PICK doesn't get the nomination. Urging our fellow members to vote to preserve our rights, in what ways possible, is not politics. My guy Duncan is just as 2nd Amendment as Paul. Neither is going to be nominated. Regardless of 3rd or 4th parties, depending if Paul throws a fit and jumps in as an independent and Bloomberg jumps in, too, I will vote to preserve my rights as best as I can. Allowing Hillary or Obama to win is suicide and cutting our collective noses from our faces IN SO MANY WAYS including nominating justices on the Supreme Court.

Urging our fellow members not to take their votes home, urging members not to waste votes when the real enemy should be fought, reminding each other that the truism "United we stand, divided we fall," remains as true today as ever, is activism. So, I urge the Ron Paul supporters here to not provide support to a united Obama or Hillary candidacy by wasting their votes as with Ross Perot. That brought us the first AWB. Are we, who discuss tactics and strategy, so foolish and blind to have forgotten that???

Ash
 
There may be a possibility of a Huckabee/Paul ticket. This would have a lot of draw for both conservative and libertarian peoples.

If Paul runs third party, it might be for the Libertarian Party. If that's the case, let's hope that Bloomberg enters the race, too. He should draw a lot of votes from the Dems as Paul draws from the Republicans. Could be a four way race with a winner that doesn't even pick up 40% of the vote.
 
We all know which candidates are . . .

1. Against the right to bear arms . . . which ones are:

2. Historically against the right to bear arms but suddenly kissin' butt to get our votes, and . . . which ones are:

3. Solidly in the camp that supports the right to bear arms.


Camp #1 candidates won't get my vote!


Camp #2 candidates ESPECIALLY sure as hell won't get my vote either!!! I hate two-faced butt kissers.


Camp #3 is our only choice! Let's look at the "Camp 3" wannabees . . .


Within Camp #3 are candidates that are unelectable. One of 'em may be next year's spoiler like Ralph Nader was for Al Gore . . . pulling enough votes from Gore to allow GW to get elected. This candidate is from Texas . . . and he could assure us an anti-gun president.

If Paul is willing to see the things he claims to stand for go down the tubes simply for his own ego, then, IMHO, he is no better than one of those "Camp 2" type politicians. On many other issues, I can't support him either.


Another one has a first name that rhymes with Dead . . . but he's laying low and hoping the ones taking the heat will "shoot themselves in the foot." He seems to be waiting for "Super Tuesday" time and then have some of the deep pocket, big bucks spenders help him sweep into position. He looks older than even most of the current crop of tired old Republicans, and he's done nothing to inspire me to vote for him. I'm not alone in this feeling either!!!

The two politicians from New York also seem to be waiting for the political machines in their respective parties to buy them victories on Super Tuesday. The one that rhymes with Dead doesn't have that deep of pockets or entrenched highpower support within the "machine." He should be out there NOW, swinging for the fences if he expects to win the nomination!

Nawwww . . . I'm afraid the Texan, AND the one whose first name rhymes with Dead will not be cutting the mustard.

Of the potentially electable "Camp 3" guys, Huckabee stands our best chance of keeping the Dems and the two major RHINOs out of the White House.

Just being pragmatic here!

T.
 
And if he does not get the nomination, will you say to heck with it and sit back to watch Obama/Clinton take the White House and appoint judges? You see, the guy who gets the Republican Nomination might be like a cup of warm spit, but he's still better than a load of manure on the other side. We cannot allow ourselves to become divided, and divided means not voting, too. It is just too darn important.

For me, I don't like Romney, Rudy, or Huckabee for various reasons. I am turned way off by Ron Paul because to me, he's a nut. BUT, I would vote for Paul without question before I voted for Hillary. I might hold my nose for Rudy, but I would do it to keep Obama out. Romney will get my vote, Paul, any of them. Heck, I would vote for McCain and his track record is terrible. We cannot allow ourselves to be divided at this point. We just can't. We HAVE to draw a line and look at the real enemy. The real enemy isn't Romney or Rudy. We know this to be true. While Romney or Rudy could stab us in the back with a ban (should have voted better in that last election), we know for a fact Hillary will stab us in the front.

Now, if it's close, I might abandon Hunter to help my second choice squeek by. As it stands, he gets my vote, which of course throws it away in the primary. If the primaries are close, I will even rethink it then.

And that is the point. I, personally, like my nose just where it is and am not going to cut it off.

Ash
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top