Which Candidate to Support?

[arcsound]

I'm trying to determine which Republican candidate has a supportable position and history supporting my 2nd amendment rights. Here is what I have learned:

1. Mitt Romney is a "no go" wrt supporting gun owners, based on his supporting the "assault rifle ban" as governor of MA. I understand that he was presiding in a very liberal state and he was probably under significant pressure to sign the bill, but that doesn't excuse his bad judgement. He hasn't, to my knowledge, disavowed this decision, and, I believe has stated that he would sign a national ban as president, if congress put the bill on his desk, I'd love to ask him: "what about the millions of legal, law-abiding citizens across the free states that use ARs? Are you disagreeing with all of these folks, and their state legislatures, which allow ARs? Do you really know better what's best for us? Should all those owners be required to turn in their ARs for destruction?" Talk about inciting civil disobedience and potentially, unrest, I imagine his legacy would assured if he did.

2. Rick Santorum supported the anti 2nd amendment A. Spector, over the pro 2nd amendment P. Toomey, which ultimately led to the support of the Lautenberg Gun Ban, with its overreaching misdemeanor domestic violence conviction gun ban.

Are there any candidates worthy of our support, based on their proven support of 2nd amendment issues? In the end, it will be ABO, and I will vote for whomever is the Republican candidate (voting 3rd party is like voting for BHO, and would be fatal mistake for this nation), but I'd prefer not to need a clothespin when I pull the lever.

 

[Robert]

Be very very careful that this stays 2A related. Lose sight of that and it will get locked in a heartbeat. General politics are not allowed. But keep it 2A and you might be ok.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I believe has stated that he would sign a national ban as president, if congress put the bill on his desk

Use caution trying to read too much into that statement.

Bush said the same thing.

To me it says that the candidate intends to be passive regarding gun control, which is what I want from a President. You're not going to get a President who is pro gun openly. No candidate is going to state he's ready to reverse Hughes etc, we're just not there yet, so a candidate who puts the onus back on Congress is, for better or worse, about as good as you may get.

There may be other things to look for in a candidate but that statement alone doesn't seem to say very much regarding their position.

What I want is a President who will appoint people who believe in the Constitution to department heads and judge benches.

Presidents just don't tend to be "pro 2A". In recent memory many would say that Reagan was "pro 2A" yet he signed FOPA into law with Hughes attached. There's only so much the President can do.

I'm OK with a President who is no worse than neutral on the topic. Post-Heller this should all play out in the courts rather than the Legislature anyway, if we do it right.

We need to be more concerned with Congressional elections for the most part, the Presidential race only seems important to me when you have a candidate who is openly anti, such as the one we have today.

So, given all that, this forum is more oriented towards DOING something. What action should we take to let candidates know how we feel? Just sitting and watching doesn't seem to be a very good plan.

Personally I tend to use NRA-ILA for my "action plan" stuff, but there are lots of things that can be done.

 

[highlander 5]

The office of president is not the big worry it's the congress. The president can propose a bill it's the congress that hashes out the details. The president can veto a bill but congress can override that veto if they have enough votes. And IIRC both Harry Reid and Boehner have stated that any anti gun bills will not make it to the floor of congress.

 

[Sky]

It is hard to know the truth about any one's position with all the mud slinging innuendo that accompanies elections. Past actions and records are an indicator but not always proof positive of a future action by a candidate. Seems like now the more a candidate puffs up and talks about how tough they are and how willing they are to bomb someone the more the crowd cheers!

Voter fraud has already raised it's ugly head and the process has just started not to mention the blatant bias some networks demonstrate for their chosen anointed one.

There is only one candidate that says what he means and does what he says for the last 30 years in congress IMO..

The next President will probably be nominating a Supreme Court Justice or two; let us hope it is a justice that understands the Constitution as it was written and does not wish to revise the meaning.

If they can hold off a full blown shooting war until around October 2012 and then let the dogs of war lose....... you have to ask yourself how many presidents have been voted out of office in a time of full blown war?

China is saying they are backing Iran and we are sending troops to Israel as I type this for the largest joint war game ever done in that region.

Guys I am a vet...I believed in my great patriotic war and I do thank God I came back with my important pieces still hanging on. War is not a football game; it can get serious in ways that make grown hardcore men cry for their Momma. Some are thinking "not me" then you are delusional and have never been tortured .

I have changed over the years with my view on interventions and what can be called the good war. There are reasons to fight and defend which very few would disagree IMO ( although I have known a few!!). But war should always be the last resort and not taken lightly.

So the original question was who to support...If you want more of the same then you can probably vote for any of them; if you want change then there is only one choice.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28465 is an interesting take on the media and why we fight wars.

Wars = guns no?

 

[Tcruse]

Based on his actions here in Texas, Rick Perry may lead the pack. I would think that the NRA would exercise enough pressure to keep most of the candidates from being open about restrictive gun laws.

 

[Hoppes Love Potion]

I think the real threat to 2A rights is already built into the anti-terror legislation passed since 9/11.

The President can institute Martial Law at his discretion. In such a case, the Bill of Rights does not apply.

The President can also suspend the rights of any citizen or group of citizens if he deems they are a terrorist threat.

 

[Kevin5098]

I don't think you will find any candidate more pro 2A than Ron Paul. Unfortunately he does not seem to be a viable choice for defeating Obama.

 

[Nullcone]

I'm finding it difficult to compose an on topic post, mostly because I think being single issue focused is foolish... even if the issue is an important one like 2A infringement.

Both sides can, have, and will throw us under the bus in a heartbeat. Take a look at who has signed what and you'll not find a lot of difference in performance, just rhetoric.

Take a look at local laws vs. federal ones and understand how little who is president matters regarding 2A rights. We need to get some (more) solid court victories and keep advancing on that front... just to make up lost ground.

Will anyone other than hardcore firearms enthusiasts ("us") give a crap about 2A rights if 75% of the population is working for substandard wages and/or on food stamps and other government assistance programs? Or if we're involved in half a dozen wars? Excuse me... "foreign military interventions"; Congress hasn't declared/not declared war since... when?

[End Rant/Hyperbole]

FWIW, I'm leaning towards Ron Paul as the choice most likely to benefit "us" as a whole. I'm tired of voting for the least bad lizard.

^ obscure Doug Adams reference

Anyone else?

 

[BellyUpFish]

I hope Ron Paul makes it. He has my vote.

 

[cbrgator]

The office of president is not the big worry it's the congress. The president can propose a bill it's the congress that hashes out the details.

The President also nominates justices to the Supreme Court. That's where our movement will be won or lost.

 

[ShawnC]

It's tough. On strictly 2A I have to give it to Paul, but on other big issues I just can't back him. On the economy I give it to Romney, but on gun issues, I'm skeptical. I'd settle for a guy who was neutral on 2A, which may be Romney. I don't think he would appoint activist liberal judges, but who knows? We all want a guy that will overturn Lautenberg, bring back legal full auto machine guns, abolish the ATF and institute constitutional carry throughout the country. If we had such a wonderful President, he/she would not have time for all the other problems with this country.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I'm finding it difficult to compose an on topic post, mostly because I think being single issue focused is foolish

I agree with this. I will say that I will not vote for a president solely on his pro 2A policy, but I will damn sure vote against one solely because of an anti 2A policy.

 

[Dr.Mall Ninja]

The last debate they asked the canidates if they weren't running for president what would they be doing on a saturday night.
Rick Perry's answer was that he would be at the gun range.
The lib moderators seemed to scoff at him.

 

[OldMac]

R0N Paul has been clear on his stand for the entire constituti0n including the 2A. For those that only like the 2a and would like to pick and choose which other parts the want, then R0N seams too pro C0Nstitution. Personally, I prefer the 2nd with all the other rights included. What good is having a right to defend yourself if the pres can spy on or nab you without cause or due process. R0N Paul is your only serious 2A and change candidate. That is why your bankers and media fear him and black him out. Vote R0N.

 

[hso]

We have individual threads on almost all of the primary candidates so I don't know what purpose this thread has, but I suggest reading the individual candidate threads to help inform yourself before posting in this one.

 

[BeerSleeper]

I don't think you will find any candidate more pro 2A than Ron Paul. Unfortunately he does not seem to be a viable choice for defeating Obama.

Why not? Did you pay any attention to Iowa last week? The top two candidates were within 8 votes of each other, with 24% of the vote, and Ron Paul was in third place, with 22% of the vote. That's within 2% of the winner, early in the primary season. Not only that, but look at the trend. His support has been growing, and growing, for a long time now. His campaign has momentum.

All he's got to do is win the primary. Obama's a defeatable candidate, the other primary candidates...they're dangerous. If one of them wins it, then our choice will be limited to bad or worse.

Paul's not just Pro-2A, he's pro-Constitution. He's everything this country needs.

 

[45bthompson]

Paul has the swing vote and the youth vote for sure. He most definitely can beat the current president. He is adamantly pro constitution. While I would have trouble trusting any politician at least he has a long record of votes trying to limit the power of the federal government. I think that is in tune with our fore fathers reasoning for including the 2A.

I kind of like Rick Perry. He reminds me of the funny things I liked about George Jr. I think he would protect our 2A.

I would have a hard time supporting Mitt as I feel he would do or say anything for power including turning against our bill of rights.

As for Santorum....... Google the word "Santorum" that will give you a pretty good idea how I feel about him.

 

[TT]

...but I'd prefer not to need a clothespin when I pull the lever.

I'd start shopping for that clothespin- it's probably going to be Romney and Obama, and they both hate gun owners.

 

[Lou McGopher]

Ron Paul is without a doubt the most pro-2A candidate. You can bet he'd sign a bill to reverse Hughes and the GCA68, because of his views on the Constitution, and because he isn't known for buckling to political pressure on any issue. If the 2A and self defense are at the top of your list of important issues, Ron Paul should be your guy.
Don't treat the ballot box like a game of Family Feud, trying to pick the same answer as everyone else. If the rights protected by the 2A are important to you, vote that way.
Ron Paul gets enough support among independents and disaffected Democrats that he certainly could beat Obama. The question is if Paul can beat the Romney campaign. If a candidate has a proven record of inconsistency, does it really matter what they say their position is on the 2A? If Romney says he'll support the 2A, can you trust him to do it?

Ron Paul has a rating of "A" from the NRA. He is the only candidate in this race to get an "A+" from the GOA, just as he was in 2008, and one of only 6 currently in Congress to have that rating. The GOA rates Perry an A, Santorum a B-, Gingrich a C, and Romney a D-.

A + Pro-Gun Leader: introduces pro-gun legislation.
A & A- Pro-Gun Voter: philosophically sound.
B & B- Pro-Gun Compromiser: generally leans our way.
C & C- Leans Our Way: occasionally.
D & D- Leans Anti-Gun: usually against us.
F Anti-Gun Voter: a philosophically committed anti-gunner.
F- Anti-Gun Leader: outspoken anti-gun advocate who carries anti-gun legislation.
NR Not rated: Refused to answer his or her questionnaire; no track record.

[noparse]http://gunowners.org/2012presidential.htm
http://gunowners.org/112hrat.htm[/noparse]

 

[hso]

The only primary candidates that are completely trustworthy on 2A are probably [Strike]Rick Perry[/Strike], Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul. It would be impossible for any candidate to be stronger on the 2A than Ron Paul, but Perry and Huntsman are expected to be solid on RKBA and protecting the individual interpretation of the 2A across the board.

 

[toejamm]

Re: the OP,

Being from Western PA and following Santorum since his first term as my representative to the US Congress, I can not remember him ever saying anything anti-2A.

Yes he always had Specter's back. Why is something only he can answer, but it always drove me nuts.

geniusiknowit - Has a nice table above. Good to refer to, Thanks!

 

[TexasRifleman]

Based on his actions here in Texas, Rick Perry may lead the pack.

Rick Perry promised to veto any open carry legislation, so again it's hard to say he is "pro 2A".

Neutral is as good as we will get.

 

[baylorattorney]

I remind myself that what candidates promise and what presidents deliver are seldom one in the same.

 

[mljdeckard]

Based on their actions as governor, I would put Huntsman over Perry. (Although Huntsman was never lucky enough to be chased by a coyote while jogging and carrying.)

Being a strict pro-2-a supporter, the main one I would scrape right off the top is Romney, for the reasons the OP stated. There is a strong sentiment of people who love him here in Utah because he did a smashing job of turning around the 2002 Olympic committee. Having said that, I think there is a legitimate likelihood that he would be much different as president. Not only is he in a much different constituency, the problems I have with him for 2-a come from a time when just about everyone compromised in one way or another. Even Newt voted for the Lautenberg Amendment and said it was a fair law. This was the tail end of the era when candidates could squeeze out a bad vote or two in horse trading and get away with it. We didn't track them as closely as we do now. (And at the time, I was younger and stupider than I am now, I might have agreed with them.) They understand now that the climate is much less forgiving. We dragged Bennett into the town square and chopped his head off for voting for TARP. (This example has caused Orrin Hatch to become a born-again conservative, because he knows we would do the same to him in half a second, and now he is facing a stiff republican challenge for his seat.) The point is, I think that it is less likely that either anti-gun legislation will come to President Romney's desk, nor that he would sign it if he did. Obama is more of a threat because he can rebuild the administration of BATFE from within, and his choices for seats like AG and DHS director would be much more dangerous to 2-a than Romney's. (Not to mention his court nominees. The single biggest reason we must replace him at all costs is to make sure he doesn't get a chance to nominate a new SC justice and tip the balance of the court.)

Seriously, ANY of the republican candidates would be better than the current administration, and there would probably be little difference between them as far as their 2-a plans are concerned.