Second Amendment Stance of 2016 Presidential Candidates

Status
Not open for further replies.
chipcom said:
Let's begin by understanding that the NRA's rating of any candidate means squat because the NRA's agenda is first and foremost about perpetuating the NRA and not about protecting the god-given rights of its members or of citizens in general.

The NRA grades based on the number of graded votes per session. If you vote 100% with the NRA, you get an "A". If you vote 100% with the NRA and sponsor NRA-supported legislation, you get an "A+". Just like the stock market though, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. Neither NRA or GOA have a crystal ball to know the future (GOA A+ Senator Tom Coburn worked with Chucky Schumer on background checks and proposed his own, even wider set of UBCs in 2013.).

If you feel GOA grades are more representative, I'm sure we'd all love to know what they are.
 
LemmyCaution said:
Bernie Sanders has never been governor of Vermont

Thanks for the correction. Sanders was a U.S. House Representative for Vermont prior to becoming a Senator. Maybe one of the mods can edit the post to reflect that?
 
I'm on a company device right now and can't access a link associated with Facebook so I can't watch the video. I suppose we are supposed to believe his views have evolved since the pre-Presidential run interview he had with Glen Beck?
 
I'm on a company device right now and can't access a link associated with Facebook so I can't watch the video. I suppose we are supposed to believe his views have evolved since the pre-Presidential run interview he had with Glen Beck?
I'm not in a position to tell anyone what they are supposed to believe in comparison to any previous interviews he has given, But since Dr. Carson is presently running high in the polls, you might find it worth the time when you can view it yourself.
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/ben-carson-defends-comments-on-oregon-mass-shooting-gun-control/

Jbar. I didn't find this but was impressed when it was posted on another thread. You are correct that he is learning and has changed his speaking points. This visit to the morning show makes it clear that he is listening to someone that has advised him of the unabashed truth. This is better than others that are wrong and cannot be swayed to the truth. A+ for listening to adviser and having the temerity to repeat it in front of those three antis. The look on their faces when he calmly stifled them was priceless.
 
Old Mac,

Thanks for that link. It sounds to me like Dr. Carson gets it.

Or he's smart enough to make an effort to sound like he gets it!
 
Last edited:
I think Dr. Carson could be a very strong pro-gun candidate in this election. I'm happy enough to accept his current explanation of his views on the 2nd Amendment. Some politicians give quick lip service to the idea that "I support 2nd Amendment rights to hunt" (which we all know is B.S.). Carson at least took the time to say that he understands the real reasons for the 2nd Amendment, which is something most candidates won't do. He further admitted that he has seen people do bad things with guns, but recognizes that the greater risk to our freedom comes from disarming our citizens.

Dr. Carson has been a tough guy for the liberals to break down, and can probably do well in the general election. In typical liberal fashion I've seen a few articles questioning whether or not Dr. Carson is smart enough to be president… the fact that he was a neurosurgeon sort of beats down that argument. I've also seen a lot of the social left talking about how we need a minority candidate, and Dr. Carson also checks that box.
 
So, has he retracted his statement about guns not being suited to dense urban areas (where you would actually need them, most likely)?

TCB
 
Well, it sure sounds like it based on that interview. I mean, I can't say for sure, but his heart sounds like it is in the right place now. For that matter, it isn't as if Trump has always been Mr. Pro-Gun either.

I think Carson has a really good chance of winning if he gets the Republican nod in the primary, especially if his competition is going to be Hitlary or Socialist Sanders.
 
Back to the subject of the thread...bottom line, I'll make up my own mind concerning candidates...I don't care what the NRA or anyone else "grades" them. I would hope everyone else does the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. Trump, yes or no, should someone on the terror watch list be allowed to buy a gun?

TRUMP: If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it's an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely

BTW, being merely charged, then acquitted/dismissed of terrorism charges is enough to get on the list, so one can infer the statement to mean that those persons charged with terror crimes --no matter how baseless, so long as they make it to a judge-- should be debarred their second amendment rights. Also anyone who is a close acquaintance of someone on the list (regardless of how they got on it) can be put on the list. I think he said he also wants to interr everyone on the list & expropriate their stuff during the interview, also :confused:

So...Kevin Bacon could theoretically be debarred the RKBA after less than seven iterations.

That Smith article is good, TRX, though laden with Star Trek references. I arrived at roughly the same conclusion as far as gun issues as an acid test for public policy.
 
I guess too easy is, well, too easy. In the singular issue consistent with this board, firearms related postitions and the high road we take thereon, there is only one viable candidate leading the pack. At this point the others outside ''the big four'' ,although several being 2A qualified, aren't going anywhere with their respective campaigns.
I am not voting in primaries for a candidate that has a hope-so, wish I didn't say that, ''looky, over here he/she is getting it'' ; all the while if there is in fact, a leading candidate with a defacto pro-firearms, pro-2A position...with a voting record to back it.

If candidates cannot put their money where their mouth is on 2A they're really crowing from another roof. I've been voting 4 decades now and strangely, if a candidate is crowing from one roof they might crow from another, later.

If any further clarification is needed, it's post #28 re:article from post #26 ; comment on post #34, authorship of :) post #42 , and of course, this post.
 
Let's stay on the topic of the POTUS candidates and not hare off on other topics just because we've talked this one out.
 
I think we need to update this thread. No posts since Dec on a issue this critical to gun owners?
I did my part. I voted for Cruz in the Alaskan caucus, and convinced others to do the same.
I don't trust Trump on guns.
 
I don't believe any of the 4 would do much, if anything, to the 2A. Both Trump and Cruz want to return power to the states. And both have made some pretty impressive promises. both have made promises about the 2A. And both have a lot to live up to if they don't want to be one term presidents. Everyone on that stage wants to talk about RR. But the only person on that stage that actually acts like RR is Gov. John Kasich. Unfortunately his campaign never caught traction. But he will be in the cabinet somewhere, if not VP. This cabinet will be one of the most qualified cabinets in history. And I just don't believe, if we beat Billary Clinton, that our 2A rights are in danger......as long as we get a good Justice to replace Scalia.
 
No posts since Dec on a issue this critical to gun owners?
To be honest, I was quite certain this thread was locked. I suspect everyone else did, too (seriously, how did this not end up locked? :confused: :p)

"I don't believe any of the 4 would do much, if anything, to the 2A"
Pretty much this. At least we've got them all saying the right things, now, including the anti's who have finally dropped the mask about consfication/etc. To be frank, I'm of the opinion the office of the the president is inherently in opposition to civil liberties and we'd be fools to look to that office to lead us out of this present place. To be less frank, guns ranks so far down the wish list of priorities (let's be honest, America has always been about butter over guns) for any elected official that them doing their job is simply getting out of the way of legislation we get shoved through the system; I have no expectation of them to spearhead the effort. And past that, even a guy like Cruz with a longer history on our side of the issue than the other candidates likely has no inkling of the kinds of practical issues we face; carry laws, import bans, interstate travel, ATF regulations, ammo rules, Bureau abuse of authority, conflicting/badly written laws, the technology & precedents involved in it --none of this is on the RADAR of anyone important, probably even within the NRA/GOA to a large extent.

Best we can hope for is qty (1) encouraging if vague/vacuous speech on qty (1) of these areas in advance of a legislative push (to be brutally honest, that's more or less all Obama was able to do on the issue, either :p)

TCB
 
updates? Yes. I will update my post #65...

''At this point the others outside ''the big four'' ,although several being 2A qualified, aren't going anywhere...''

update ''big four'' to ''big two''

A simple re-read will suffice outside that change. Theses two candidate's positions and more importantly experiences, haven't changed.

Anything further should be reflected to this portion...

If candidates cannot put their money where their mouth is on 2A they're really crowing from another roof. I've been voting 4 decades now and strangely, if a candidate is crowing from one roof they might crow from another, later.

i.e. a deal maker will do something like this, I want funding for a wall, you want an Assault Weapons Ban or Import ban. To that real possibility as from their own mouths (on making deals) , I say BUYER BEWARE
 
If a certain female candidate gets into office as POTUS she will go after gun rights
Her husband did.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
 
The candidates haven't change their positions on the broad 2A issues, but as pointed out there are more subtle points than a policy statement of support for the 2A. What is their position on the 2A and the terror watch list? What is their position on restoration of rights? What is their position on NICS information upgrades? What is their position on interstate reciprocity? What is their position on changing the status of suppressors?

https://www.johnkasich.com/secondamendment/
https://marcorubio.com/policy-for-you/marco-rubio-gun-owners-second-amendment/
https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/second-amendment-rights/
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights
 
Those are very interesting links. I really mean that.

The problem is that they are politicians. A politician will say anything to get into office, especially for the POTUS. Their positions are can change in a second once they are in office.
You are listing all four, my belief is that only two have a chance at the nomination. Cruz even stated that. If it was a horse race the first two are scratches.

Then you have the Democrats. As much as I hate even typing this, there is a good chance that one of those two could be the next POTUS. I know if it's HC, it is going to be pretty bad for gun rights and America in general. BS is also going to be a PITA. I would actually like to see how he intends to fund free college for all kids.
While you have links to the Republican policies as of now, those can change in a minute depending on future circumstances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top