Which Candidate to Support?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of the GOP candidates, it should be clear to everyone that Ron Paul is the most pro 2A, the most pro Constitution, and the most trustworthy on both. The man has been saying the same things for 3 decades.

As for Romney, let's not forget that he didn't sign a temporary AWB like Clinton did, he signed a PERMANENT AWB. I have zero confidence that Romney won't trade 2A rights for something he actually cares about. And while I don't see him appointing a more liberal justice overall to SCOTUS than Obama would, I certainly don't feel secure that a Romney appointee would be less liberal on 2A than an Obama appointee. The reality is that Romney doesn't care about 2A or understand why it is there. He believes it is an anachronistic provision. See this video (skip to about 1:30). Also, from seeing him talk about 'hunting', it sure seems that if citizens were only allowed to own .22lr rifles to hunt 'small varmints', that would suit him just fine.

A vote for Paul, assuming he is on a third party ticket, is NOT a vote for Obama. A vote for Obama gives Obama a greater mandate. A vote for a third party does not do that. On the other hand, a vote for Romney is a clear message to the GOP to keep giving us candidates like him, and we'll continue to alternate between establishment candidates every 4 or 8 years. Remember this is an establishment that wants to strip citizens of their rights, including their 2A rights, and has been doing so under the watch of both parties - Patriot Act, DHS, NDAA, continued extension of emergency rule, etc.

For those worried about some of Paul's polices, please keep in mind that he will be constrained by a Congress that is full of establishment lackeys from both parties. But you can count on him appointing only justices that are conservative Constitutionalists and shrinking the executive branch of the federal government.

No matter how you vote for President, be sure to check NRA, GOA, etc., for Senate and Congressional candidates' records on 2A.
 
Last edited:
Hoppes Love Potion said:
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.



and Kevin5098 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree very much with these two statements.
 
I think there is very little difference between what Romney WOULD do when in office, and what Paul would do when constrained by political reality.

Infringed -It's not like Ron Paul can just put anyone he wants to in the Supreme Court. His nominations are subject to senate confirmation. What is it about Romney's record that makes you think he would make the same nominations as Obama? (Just the fact that you don't like him doesn't make this true.)
 
I can't help but agree with both above posts.

The more I see of him, the more I agree with Ron Paul. I find the other republican candidates are either way too compromising (in a bad way) or way too corrupt. I think Romney and Huntsman are too compromising and Gingrich and Santorum are too corrupt.

Ron Paul is certainly the most 2a now that I think about it.

But I agree, however, that he doesn't have a shot at beating Obama. The main reason is the 55+ voting age group. No offense if you are 55 or older, as this may not apply to you but the longer I live the more I find that this age group tends to vote strictly along party lines regardless of how good or bad a candidate may be or they vote with their hearts and not their heads. Because this age demographic voter turnout is huge by comparison to others, it can lead to huge swings in elections. I think Santorum's rise in popularity in Iowa in the last week of the caucus demonstrated this very well.

On one hand the fundamentals of the Obama administration is a neo-con's wet dream. Re-signed the patriot act, huge neocon-eque spending the likes of which haven't been seen since the Reagan administration. Then on the other hand, there are things like national health, economic regulation, and now proposed internet censorship.

Whatever happened to proper conservatism? That, in a nutshell, is why I like Ron Paul. Hes the most traditional conservative in the field, the kind that made the US great in my opinion.

If McCain can get the Republican nomination with 13% in the Iowa caucus, then certainly Ron Paul can with 22%.

I'm so very tired of voting for a "politician as usual".

mljdeckard,

Watch Ron Paul's interview on the tonight show. The difference is that he would veto. His favorite president was Grover Cleveland, who loved to veto bills. Paul would veto the crap out of junk legislation, I think, especially legislation that infringes on our civil liberties and rights, such as 2a.

One other thing, his campaign fund raising is relatively corporation free compared to the others, so he would be in fewer company's pockets unlike the last few presidents and therefore less bending to corporate will. Obama was hugely supported by big banking, look where that's gotten us.
 
Last edited:
mljdeckard said:
What is it about Romney's record that makes you think he would make the same nominations as Obama? (Just the fact that you don't like him doesn't make this true.)
Click to expand...
Where did I say Romney would make the same SCOTUS nominations as Obama?

This is what I said about Romney:
Infringed said:
As for Romney, let's not forget that he didn't sign a temporary AWB like Clinton did, he signed a PERMANENT AWB. I have zero confidence that Romney won't trade 2A rights for something he actually cares about. And while I don't see him appointing a more liberal justice overall to SCOTUS than Obama would, I certainly don't feel secure that a Romney appointee would be less liberal on 2A than an Obama appointee. The reality is that Romney doesn't care about 2A or understand why it is there. He believes it is an anachronistic provision. See this video (skip to about 1:30). Also, from seeing him talk about 'hunting', it sure seems that if citizens were only allowed to own .22lr rifles to hunt 'small varmints', that would suit him just fine.
Click to expand...

My view is that Romney does not appreciate the importance of 2A and would be willing to horse trade infringement of those rights either legislatively or via judicial appointment to get what he wants on issues that are important to him.
 
I'll absolutely be behind if he gets the nomination. I just don't think he will be all that different than the other candidates. Look at it this way. Obama said before he ran for president that he doesn't think that people should be allowed to own guns. That doesn't mean he was able to walk into office and just ban them, no matter how badly he wants to. No matter how big Ron Paul's ideas are, it doesn't mean he can just walk into office and to anything he wants to. I think the net effect of any of the republican candidates IRT 2-a issues will be about the same.

Gingerich is making a long list of executive orders he will repeal the day he takes office. He will throw all the czars out on the sidewalk. I have more faith in Gingerich's knowledge of history and the system to be effective in implementation.
 
You never said why you think that Romney's nominations would be just as bad for 2-a as Obama's would. What is in his record that would demonstrate this, or do you think that there is a pool of potential court nominees that are conservative in every way EXCEPT 2-a rights that he is likely to nominate?
 
You never said why you think that Romney's nominations would be just as bad for 2-a as Obama's would. What is in his record that would demonstrate this, or do you think that there is a pool of potential court nominees that are conservative in every way EXCEPT 2-a rights that he is likely to nominate?
Click to expand...
I think the appointment of David Souter (former prosecutor) by George H.W. Bush is a cautionary tale. Souter was one of the most anti-2ndA justices we have ever had, methinks.

I have not gotten the impression that Romney is particularly concerned about the 2ndA or civil liberties in general. He strikes me as a very efficient manager, but unconstrained by 2ndA concerns other than sheer pragmatism.
 
I dont understand these ratings on supporting the 2nd amendment.

For example, Newt receives high marks on supporting the 2nd amendment but I thought he was House speaker when the Clintons passed gun legislation that, amoung other things, limited so-called asault rifles and cop-killer bullets.

The legislation "expired" long after Newt left Congress; right?
 
For example, Newt receives high marks on supporting the 2nd amendment but I thought he was House speaker when the Clintons passed gun legislation that, amoung other things, limited so-called asault rifles and cop-killer bullets.
Click to expand...

Newt was Georgia Dist 6... he voted NAY.... heres the vote;

http://www.votesmart.org/bill/votes/8585

Now, I will say, stuck in the Dept. of Defense Appropriations for F.Y. 1997, there was a part of it that made it so Domestic Violence Convicts were unable to buy handguns. He did vote Yea to it.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml

Newt is pretty good on the 2nd.
 
Last edited:
I would say Ron Paul. Don't forget there are a large number of executive orders that have been put in place in the past. Paul desires freedom above all else which means to me that he would be likely to start undoing many of these.
 
mljdeckard, I'm not saying that Romney would appoint someone more anti-2A than Obama. I'm saying that there's nothing in Romney's record or his comments related to 2A that give me any confidence that he wouldn't appoint someone anti-2A. It seems to me he doesn't care about 2A and thinks it is antiquated, and thus would be willing to yield here to get what he wants on issues he does care about. For him, that would just be pragmatic bargaining to make progress.

As for how liberal a justice he would appoint, frankly, if Obama wasn't the incumbent and Romney was a Democratic candidate, would anyone be surprised?
 
Last edited:
Any of the republican canidates would be a better choice for RBKA then BO.

I'm not a Ron Paul guy but I am even forced to agree that he is the most pro gun guy in the race; having said that do you guys think that he would actually be able to repeal Hughes?
Do you think that because Ron Paul is POTUS that all of a sudden the rest of the goverment is going to follow his lead on gun rights?

Im sorry but the answer is no, Ron Paul is not running for king and at the end of the day he is going to have just as much pro gun impact as Gingrich, Perry or Santorum.

Romney on the other hand is a little scary but still better then what we got because the judges he would nominate.
 
Last edited:
There are only two candidates with a chance in the primary tomorrow, Ron Paul and Willard "Mitt" Romney. Paul is by far the strongest supporter of the 2nd Amendment in the whole pool of candidates... for one thing, he's the only one that supports the Constitution itself.

A vote for Paul tomorrow is a vote for the 2nd Amendment.... and a vote for a Republican victory this year, as Paul draws more Independents than any of the other candidates.
 
mljdeckard said:
Seriously, ANY of the republican candidates would be better than the current administration
Click to expand...
Don't take this the wrong way, as it's a serious question, but has Obama done absolutely anything that defeated, or even hindered any pro-2A legislation?

I'm not a fan of him; I didn't vote for him in 2008; and I won't vote for him in 2012; but I don't know of any single thing he's done that was bad in regards to our second amendment rights.
 
Bobson here is Obama's record from ontheissues.org

Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Click to expand...

Not much 2a rights stuff has came on his desk since he has been elected president, but given his record I assure you that he will sign it.

Also he has appointed liberal judges and all our recent battles have taken place at the Supreme Court.
 
Who we want dont count....

Who the newsmedia allows is what counts. OR put another way-who they give us.


Posted above--

I'm not a fan of him; I didn't vote for him in 2008; and I won't vote for him in 2012; but I don't know of any single thing he's done that was bad in regards to our second amendment rights.

OBAMA has banned thousands of M! rifles and carbines from coming back from Korea to the US..That is thousands that US citizens wont own.
 
Keep in mind, Obama's court and cabinet nominations alone represent a grave risk to RTKBA. (Particularly Eric Holder and the ongoing border BATFE operations scandal, which was deliberately set up to demonize gun availability.) In addition to the list Dr. Mall Ninja posted, understand that the only reason he hasn't taken a flamethrower to the Second amendment is that he chose to use up his political capital in other places. If he got a second term, he would have no more reason to fear the consequences. Everything he has held off doing by executive order within BATFE could then be done.
 
What scares me most is that if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, he will probably run as an independant and split the conservative vote. If that is the case we may be stuck with what we have now for the next 4 years. It seems to me that this will be a distinct possibility

Hopefully, seats may change in the Senate. That may be more important. It is very critical that we all cast our vote
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Where is the Pro 2nd Amendment Candidate?
Replies
1
Views
445
TexasRifleman
T
B
  • Locked
Second Amendment Stance of 2016 Presidential Candidates
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
13K
Midwest
M
Quoheleth
  • Locked
Republican Pres. Candidates: Favorite guns
Replies
13
Views
887
TexasRifleman
T
O
  • Locked
Second Amendment Crushes Gun Control Candidates in Midterm Elections
Replies
24
Views
2K
Red Wind
Red Wind
R
  • Locked
Best Presidential candidates in 2008??
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
RealGun
RealGun
Back
Top