Romney On The 2nd Amendment?


PDA






Air,Land&Sea
December 12, 2007, 09:46 AM
Anyone know Gov. Romney's position on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?
Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Romney On The 2nd Amendment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Deanimator
December 12, 2007, 09:48 AM
Slightly better than Giuliani, but he still doesn't appear to "get it". His knowledge of gun RIGHTS issues seems superficial at best.

He probably wouldn't PUSH gun confiscation the way Giuliani would, but don't count on him to resist it either.

Air,Land&Sea
December 12, 2007, 09:55 AM
That's what I thought. Thanks.

Heavy Metal Hero
December 12, 2007, 10:06 AM
Romney is your typical two faced politician.

kludge
December 12, 2007, 10:09 AM
from wikipedia: (emphasis mine)

Gun control
See also: Governorship of Mitt Romney#Other issues
Romney has said "I support the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution",[53] though in past campaigns he has described himself as a proponent of moderate gun control, supporting a ban on semi-automatic firearms, which he still supports.[54] However, it is further reported that "Romney had taken steps to support gun rights as governor, including his signing of an NRA-backed bill last year[...]."[55][54]

For Romney's 1994 US Senate campaign, he supported the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on particular semi-automatic rifles.[54] In a 2002 debate during Romney's campaign for governor of Massachusetts, Romney said: "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."[56] As governor, Romney signed a 2004 measure instituting a permanent Massachusetts ban on semi-automatics, to take the place of a Federal ban, which was then about to expire. The bill made Massachusetts the first state to enact its own such ban on semi-automatics, and Romney supported the law with the comment: "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."[57] As Governor Romney extended the term of firearm licenses from four to six years, reinstated a 90-day grace period for citizens renewing their gun licenses, and signed a law providing free replacement licenses.[citation needed]

When he supported the Brady Bill in 1994, Romney said, "That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA. I don't line up with the NRA." [56] Just before declaring his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination for president, Romney joined the National Rifle Association (NRA).[58][55][54] In 2005, Romney declared the 31st anniversary of the Gun Owners' Action League "Right to Bear Arms Day" [59]

Romney said in his 2008 campaign:

"I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms. In our state... there are a series of laws restricting gun ownership in various ways. Over the past four years, I've worked very closely with the Gun Owners' Action League here, which is an affiliate of the NRA, and we've made some changes which I think they feel have been positive steps. And so you are going to see that, I think, hopefully, in other states as well, as they make progress, perhaps further than Massachusetts has."[56]

"So I'm a hunter and believe in Second Amendment rights, but I also believe that assault weapons are not needed in the public population."[60]

Romney later clarified that he did not 'own' a gun and said that one of his sons keeps two guns at the family vacation home in Utah; presumably those he 'has' and uses when hunting.[55]

I will not vote for Romney in the primary... and I'm a Mormon.

He just doesn't "get it." Typical East Coast Politican in my book.

trueblue1776
December 12, 2007, 10:12 AM
IMO, from the GOP he may be as good as it gets this election, too bad he stained by Massachusetts style politics.

He shows a bit more principle than some of his opponents, a la NPR interview last week, he outright refused to incorporate his faith into his politics, I was impressed. If Dr. Ron was his VP I'd vote for him :D:D:D:D:D

GunTech
December 12, 2007, 10:27 AM
I wouldn't vote for a big time, east coast liberal RINO like Romney under any circumstance. He only became 'pro gun' when you decided to run for president and knew his long time anti-gun stance was a loser. Another lying weasel politician.

BHPshooter
December 12, 2007, 10:31 AM
I will not vote for Romney in the primary... and I'm a Mormon.

I am too, and I won't vote for Romney PERIOD, Primary, or otherwise.

Wes

Air,Land&Sea
December 12, 2007, 10:45 AM
My favorite right now is Duncan Hunter, but no one but me has ever heard of him. At least we have a few months to figure it out.

pbearperry
December 12, 2007, 10:49 AM
Being a voter from Massachusetts I know a lot about Romney.He does like to flip flop.However,from my standpoint,who else can I vote for?Forget about any Demmies.Guiliani is a typical NYC anti gun nut,McCaine has voted for a few anti gun bills,and Thompson cannot win.That being,I will vote for Romney even if he is a phony,he has publicly joined the NRA. If anyone has a better idea please let me know.

jlbraun
December 12, 2007, 10:54 AM
Being a voter from Massachusetts I know a lot about Romney.He does like to flip flop.However,from my standpoint,who else can I vote for?Forget about any Demmies.Guiliani is a typical NYC anti gun nut,McCaine has voted for a few anti gun bills,and Thompson cannot win.That being,I will vote for Romney even if he is a phony,he has publicly joined the NRA. If anyone has a better idea please let me know.

Ron Paul?
ronpaul2008.com/gunowners

As a United States Congressman, I have:

- Led the fight to restore the Second Amendment rights to all Americans, without infringement, that have been stripped away;

- Introduced legislation to repeal the so-called "Gun Free Zone" victim disarmament law of 1990;

- Introduced legislation to repeal the 1993 National "Instant Background Check" gun registration bill;

- Authored legislation to stop taxpayer funds from going to the anti-gun United Nations;

- Opposed all gun control schemes that would register ALL private sales and mandate government "Lock-up Your Safety" devices;

- Introduced legislation to protect American citizens' freedom to carry in our national parks.

- Publicly Opposed legislation just this year that would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome from EVER owning a gun.

If you want a 100 percenter on gun rights, Paul's your man.

Air,Land&Sea
December 12, 2007, 11:01 AM
Everytime I hear Congressman Paul speak I'm encouraged that there is, in fact, intelligent life on earth. But then he goes off about the war which, IMHO, disqualifies him.

GunTech
December 12, 2007, 11:01 AM
jlbraun is right. RP has a perfect record, and can actually pull dem and independent voters. He's also pulling in lots of money. The big media just needs to wake up.

Right now, it's looking like we won't have a clear front runner until the convention, so it's likely to be a brokered convention. I wouldn't count out anyone right now. Giuliani, Romney and now Huckabee all look like they'd lose against any dem.

igpoobah
December 12, 2007, 11:12 AM
If you want a candidate that is solidly pro 2A and has a chance to get elected, huckabee is your guy...Emphasis is mine

No candidate has a stronger, more consistent record on Second Amendment rights than I do. Our Founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and that's why they gave us the Second Amendment. They knew that a government facing an armed populace was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn't have much hope. As Ronald Reagan reminded us, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." Without our Second Amendment rights, all of our other rights aren't inalienable, they're just "on loan" from the government.

Other candidates say gun control doesn't affect hunting. Now I'm a very avid hunter, but the Second Amendment isn't really about hunting. It's about tyranny and self-defense. The Founding Fathers weren't worried about our being able to bag a duck or a deer, they were worried about our keeping our fundamental freedoms.

I once saw a bumper sticker that said, "Criminals prefer unarmed victims." Criminals will always find a way to get guns. By disarming our law-abiding citizens, we take away the strongest deterrent to violent criminals - the uncertainty that they don't know who is helpless and who is armed. Our law enforcement officials can't be everywhere, all the time. Lawfully-armed citizens back them up and prevent robberies, rapes, and the murder of innocents. Right after Katrina, with law enforcement non-existent, many victims were able to protect their lives, their homes, and their precious supplies of food and water only because they were armed.

Other candidates believe gun control should be determined geographically, but Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. Your Second Amendment rights don't change when you change your address.

Other candidates filed frivolous law suits against gun manufacturers. When I was Governor, I protected gun manufacturers from exactly those types of suits. I allowed former law enforcement officials to carry concealed handguns and removed restrictions on concealed handgun permit holders. I was the first Governor in the country to have a concealed handgun license, and of course I'm a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association..

Other candidates have supported banning assault weapons. When the federal ban on assault weapons expired in 2004, I said, "May it rest in peace." It won't be returning in the Huckabee Administration.

Zealously protecting your Second Amendment rights is another way that I will lift all law-abiding Americans up, by consistently championing your right to defend yourself.

Heavy Metal Hero
December 12, 2007, 11:21 AM
My biggest beef with Huckabee is that he doesn't recognize seperation of church and state. Granted, a lot of other candidates do not either, it just makes it especially worse because he is a pastor.

alsaqr
December 12, 2007, 11:31 AM
"I wouldn't vote for a big time, east coast liberal RINO like Romney under any circumstance. He only became 'pro gun' when you decided to run for president and knew his long time anti-gun stance was a loser. Another lying weasel politician."

Bingo. Romney is the only anti-gun presidential candidate who ever signed anti-gun legislation into law.

ilbob
December 12, 2007, 11:32 AM
warning. this thread will be locked as soon as a moderator sees it.

:)

Politics is now off topic, even gun politics.

My take is that most politicians do not care about much of anything but getting elected. They say what it takes to get enough people to vote for them. I would not be all that worried that he is not a Ron Paul kind of 2A hardliner. Very few people will find any candidate that they agree with 100%. That means most of us have to make a choice between candidates that you may have issues with in one or more areas.

igpoobah
December 12, 2007, 11:36 AM
I could have sworn I saw somewhere that discussion of specific 2A agendas with candidates was allowed.

If not, I'm sorry.

Im283
December 12, 2007, 11:52 AM
I go hunting myself.

Romney just does not get it. Pisses me off when candidates throw out the hunting thing to show they are pro 2A.

Huckabee gets my vote if the election was today. Maybe somone else will step forward that is more worthy by the actual election day. At least Huckabee gets what 2A is all about

Air,Land&Sea
December 12, 2007, 12:06 PM
I have heard Romney admit he was wrong in the past. Might be irrelevent to the discussion, but worth keeping tucked away for upcoming debates.

ilbob
December 12, 2007, 12:15 PM
I don't see anything wrong with being a hunter. Or being a politician that supports hunting. It just has nothing to do with the 2A, and only indirectly with guns at all.

My guess is he is a John Kerry type hunter. Go shoot at a few ducks using someone else's dogs, guns and equipment, carry some dead ducks around that you may or may not have personally shot so your handpicked media can take some photos, then hand off the dead birds to someone else to deal with, and not go hunting again until the next election cycle.

The fact that a lot of candidates are afraid of the "gun lobby" (thats us, in case you did not realize it) is a good thing.

mljdeckard
December 12, 2007, 12:19 PM
Romney gave a description, it was almost painful, about how someone in his family back in Utah, has a Glock or something, and he likes to use it when he is there.

A lot of people in Utah will vote for any Mormon who can fog a mirror.

MiddleAgedKen
December 12, 2007, 12:58 PM
The answer Fred! gave at one of the recent debates (paraphrased):

"I have a few guns, but I'm not going to tell you what they are or where they are."

shows me he gets it very clearly indeed, without having to advertise.

BigG
December 12, 2007, 01:05 PM
Huckleberry looks like the clear winner to me, at least regarding 2A which is about all I care about passionately.

Crow1108
December 12, 2007, 01:32 PM
Unfortunately it doesn't look like Ron Paul has a chance. Some of his ideas are a bit too radical for most Americans to swallow. I'd like to see him win, but it doesn't look like it will happen. That being said, even though Romney's a mormon, and I live in Utah, for every Mitt Romney sticker I see on a car, I see ten Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee stickers.

Huckabee's stance on the 2A is pretty strong, and he has a bit more of a chance. He's got my vote.

GunTech
December 12, 2007, 03:55 PM
I think it's too early to write of any candidate. We won;t know anything until the first real primary. The problem I see is that nominating a candidate that pull in the republican hard core but can't win the general election is just a vote for Hillary, Obama, etc.

Vote your conscience, not who you think will win.

Air,Land&Sea
December 12, 2007, 04:24 PM
I strongly feel that the mistake that Republicans have been making in recent years is being moderate on most everything therefore standing for nothing. Much of those who don't even vote would be energized by someone who stands very strongly on the issues. I'm going out on a limb by saying that the "empty suit syndrome" era is drawing near to an end.
People wish to see two opposing viewpoints fighting it out in the arena of ideas. That's the only way for the right answer to consistently emerge.

jlbraun
December 12, 2007, 04:27 PM
The problem I see is that nominating a candidate that pull in the republican hard core but can't win the general election is just a vote for Hillary, Obama, etc.

Therefore we need Paul. Ever see any strongly pro-life, pro-gun Republican pull so many Democrats ever?

I think that the Clinton-Paul debates are going to have a place in history alongside the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Air,Land&Sea
December 12, 2007, 04:36 PM
You very, very well might be right (and we'll find out sooner than later).

Gunnerpalace
December 12, 2007, 04:39 PM
Huckabee or Paul for me. (I'd prefer Paul though).

Wow in before lock!

Air,Land&Sea
December 12, 2007, 04:43 PM
One last thing if no one minds; if gun owners can't discuss politics in an adult manner then we're all sunk. OK, no more responses from me.

benEzra
December 12, 2007, 04:54 PM
I'm not a repub, but I will say that from what I've read and what the candidates have said, Romney would be even worse than Guliani on the gun issue, and Guliani would be plenty bad.

Ash
December 12, 2007, 05:22 PM
Paul also wants to put us back on the Gold standard, not bad in theory but impossible to prevent inflation or depressions that way. He also wants to cut and run in Iraq. Whether or not folks think invasion was wise, we are there and certainly don't want to give it to Iran, who caused the bulk of US casualties there (which is still less than on D-Day). Paul has some good ideas, but some very bad ones, too.

Ash

jlbraun
December 12, 2007, 05:33 PM
He also wants to cut and run in Iraq.

The Iraq War is destroying our currency, and by extension our gun rights.

texas bulldog
December 12, 2007, 05:40 PM
i think dismissing paul as "having no chance" is misguided. he is having quite a bit of fundraising success and i talk to LOTS of people who love him. in fact, one thing i notice about him is that his supporters defy the normal stereotypes. i meet people that i have seemingly nothing in common with who support him just as strongly as i do. never before have my neighbor and i agreed on anything political.

JMHO

mgregg85
December 12, 2007, 06:09 PM
Romney seems to be the worst liar about his feelings on 2A rights. He claims to be a lifelong hunter yet he has never purchased a hunting liscense.

I believe he was quoted as saying that he used to hunt with a .12 caliber shotgun.

Wolfgang2000
December 12, 2007, 06:30 PM
I must say that I still haven't made up my mind yet. I like a lot of what Paul states. The big thing is is pull out at all cost. Yes it is costing a lot. But EVERY WAR does. Except for NAFTA this economic time reminds me a lot of the late 70's and early 80's.

If he (Paul) does get elected how does he deal with the congress and the house? They will be full of the same old chaff.

Ash
December 12, 2007, 06:41 PM
"The Iraq War is destroying our currency"

No, financial markets aren't worried about Iraq. The credit issues here have damaged our currency - loans to those who should not receive loans. It's not a whole lot different than what happened in Japan in the 90's. Bad loans, not Iraq. Unless, of course, you see us as being in a currency war. If that is the case, then there is even more reason to not cut and run.

Ash

cdcmj
December 12, 2007, 07:09 PM
We are doomed if Guliani or Clinton are elected. IMO, they are the most politician-esque stereotypical candidates running. Both like to pick there stances after they have seen the polls. Disgusting.

igpoobah
December 12, 2007, 07:12 PM
Since this topic hasn't closed yet, I'm assuming it's OK to discuss 2A related topics regarding condidates.

If we'd like this thread to STAY open, I suggest we stick to the 2A aspect...

Air,Land&Sea
December 12, 2007, 08:17 PM
It's probably safe to say that Romney and Giuliani fail the 2nd Amendment issue. The others seem very strong on that and, of course, a Democrat must not win.

HankB
December 12, 2007, 08:21 PM
I saw Romney address this on TV . . . as near as I can recall, his words were "I believe in the Second Amendment and a ban on assault weapons."

Sort of like saying "I believe in racial equality and separate drinking fountains for darkies." :barf:

BobbyQuickdraw
December 12, 2007, 08:38 PM
Giuliani is a gun grabber and Romney is a gun grabber at heart, but the mask he wears now says he isn't. But you can see from his quotes he doesn't fully support the 2nd Amendment. It's not about "varmint hunting" but about the right to keep and bear arms for freedom, not hunting.

Ron Paul gets it, but he is too crazy elsewheres.

I support Mike Huckabee (see my sig) and he is very strong on the Second Amendment and a REAL hunter, someone who hunted before he sought election.

And in regards to someone who said he doesn't separate church and state - of course he does. Just being pious doesn't mean that he's going to turn the US into a Church Run Institution. Did Arkansas turn into a holy land?

Everyone is lead by their beliefs- his beliefs are those of the Bible. Others may be Jewish beliefs, or Mormon, or something else. Even atheists have beliefs and would run a nation according to those beliefs. I'm not overly religious but someone running the country who believes in "Though shall do no murder" and other basic Christian tenants isn't a bad guy.

If you support Huckabee or want to know more, please visit his website. I'm one of "Huckabee's Rangers," a volunteer to help in the fundraising effort. If you do support Huckabee politically, please consider also doing so financially. Please follow the link in my signature and use the code provided to donate to Mike's campaign through the Ranger Fund.

Air,Land&Sea
December 12, 2007, 09:25 PM
Seems like Huckabee has a history of taxing and spending. Is that pretty much yesterday's news and not at all indicative of his potential as a true Conservative President? He seems pretty squared away on all other issues.

skinewmexico
December 12, 2007, 09:37 PM
Duncan Hunter. I found out about him in a twisted way. Hunter used to spend summers in Texas with his grandmother, who lived next door to the guy who lives next door now to my college roommate. Good man though. Won as a Republican in a Democratic precinct. In California, of all things.

BobbyQuickdraw
December 12, 2007, 09:53 PM
Huckabee's tax record and spending record can look "liberal" on the surface. If you read the explanations (or I suppose some may try to call them excuses) they are all legit.

Namely a law was passed that said that Arkansas had to spend millions more on its schools - millions it didn't have. So a new tax was proposed and VOTED on. Voted on by the people. They approved it. They also approved a tax to fix the roads, which were in disrepair.

There is a video of him talking about "acceptable taxes" that his opponents show that is supposed to mean he's pro-taxes. What he was really doing was listing the options they had to come up with more money.

Plain and simple, Arkansas grew economically faster than the national average under Mike Huckabee. He has also signed the pledge to make no new taxes - and if you can't trust the word of a God fearing man, who can you trust? (Someone on the wrong end of a gun, but thats another thread!)

And again, if you like Mike, please use the link below to donate.

novaDAK
December 12, 2007, 09:56 PM
Hopefully this thread isn't locked before I can post this...

I'd support either Huckabee or Paul given the chance on the ballot. They seem to be the only two who "get" the 2nd Amendment from what I've seen/heard/read.

trueblue1776
December 12, 2007, 09:57 PM
and if you can't trust the word of a God fearing man, who can you trust?

Ossama fears god... right? :confused:

Publicly outspoken religious people trip my crazy alarm.

skarpenz
December 12, 2007, 10:11 PM
Ron Paul has a crappy foreign policy, no way around that. I love his view on 2A issues and whatnot though. Giuliani just doesn't get it. I lost a lot of respect for Huckabee here this week after what he said about Romney. Just goes to show that he will say absolutely anything to get elected, not my kind of guy. Thompson is un-electable for president I think as well, so that is sort of a no-go for me. Romney seems to be a good guy IMO. He knows how to run sh*t, and thats the kind of guy I want in office. He is the best we have so far I think, unless someone here knows of someone else? (Even if there was someone else, he is so obscure that he has no chance.)

When it comes down to it, I'm voting republican, regardless of the candidate. No libs for president.

EDIT

By the way, the 2nd amendment is not the only issue I'm looking at here for a president. There are a lot of big issues this election and they all need to be addressed, not just guns. Just thought I'd make that clear.

EDIT AGAIN

In regards to Huckabee speaking of Romney: I know all politicians say stuff to get elected, but I think saying one man is not christian enough, or less christian than someone else is stepping a bit far. Its liberal speak, sort-of. Like black leaders calling Osama "not black enough" or "too white." Thats just stupid, leave that stuff for the liberals.

gego
December 12, 2007, 10:51 PM
He did say that there was a gun in his home, but it belonged to his son, not to him.

That should tell you a lot. Hell, my dad was as anti gun as someone could get, but I like guns and like the idea that they are a great tool to defend myself against freelance criminals and organized criminals (government). So what does straight thinking by Romney's kid have to do with his own views.

If he understood the purpose of being armed, then he would be armed.

I think you can be near certain that he is on the Brady side of the understanding of guns and the 2nd amendment. Otherwise he would not try to give the impression via his clearer thinking son, that he liked guns.

Don't you yet recognize the tricks of the political scam artist?

PvtPyle
December 12, 2007, 11:01 PM
I am sorry, but who care what his stance on guns is? Anyone who can get re-elected in Massachusets after an initial term is no friend of freedom in this country. And who cares what his religion is? His voting record about the issues in the country is much more important to me...

Robert Hairless
December 12, 2007, 11:41 PM
I hate to seem forward but if you examine the record you will agree that I am the only viable candidate for gun owners in the next Presidential election.

Don't vote for any of the other guys. Some of them think the way you do on some issues but not on others. I am your ideal candidate. Whatever you think is what I think too, about everything.

I won't compromise about anything.

If OPEC says it will cut off oil supplies to this country unless I come to the negotiating table, I will let this country go without fuel for heating, cooking, industry, or transportation and never budge not even if everybody starves in the streets.

If the Democrat-controlled congress offers to abolish the Brady Act and the Gun Control Act I will spurn them and hold fast until they offer to give machine guns to everyone. For free!

I have principles. My first official act after I am elected will be to demand a raise in salary.

So vote Hairless for President in 2008. I am also running for every other elective office everywhere in the country in that election. Please write me in. None of the political parties respond to my e-mails.

Deanimator
December 13, 2007, 10:13 AM
There are a lot of big issues this election and they all need to be addressed, not just guns.
I've got news for you; if you're a gun owner, NO other issue is going to bite you harder than gun control if Giuliani or any of the Democrats besides Richardson gets into the White House.

If you don't think the BATFE coming to your house to get your guns, willing to KILL you if you don't give them up isn't important, just sell them to me for $1.00 a piece. You can join the Million Mom March and the problem will be mine to deal with.

Deanimator
December 13, 2007, 10:14 AM
So vote Hairless for President in 2008. I am also running for every other elective office everywhere in the country in that election. Please write me in. None of the political parties respond to my e-mails.
If it's a Clinton-Giuliani race, you've got my vote sewn up.

ssr
December 13, 2007, 11:26 AM
Romney has said his position and platform is that "assault weapons " should be banned. There is not way I could ever vote for him. He would force me to vote third party (which I will certainly enthusiastically do if the third party candidate is Ron Paul).

Vote for Romney with this congress and this environment and we will hear nonstop about "assault weapons" and don't be surprised if we get a reinstated ban.

I do not understand what people see in this Romney guy.

camacho
December 13, 2007, 12:08 PM
Plain and simple, Arkansas grew economically faster than the national average under Mike Huckabee. He has also signed the pledge to make no new taxes - and if you can't trust the word of a God fearing man, who can you trust? (Someone on the wrong end of a gun, but thats another thread!)

Amen! I hope everyone who bashes Mike on spending and taxes reads that. The Club for Growth nonsense that gets spread around about him, "coincidently" forgets that part. But hey, what do they care about the average Joe as long as the corporations fill in their coffers. They also support globalization which is the prelude to a totalitarian society run by people not elected by anyone.


As to Romney, his believes in the Second Amendment as much as John Kerry does. The latter can learn quite a bit about flip-flopping from Mitt.

camacho
December 13, 2007, 12:16 PM
Few of you mentioned Hunter. In the You Tube debate, Hunter responded to the question about the 2A, that he carried weapons in the Army, as well as his son who is currently in Iraq. Someone should tell Mr. Hunter that the 2A has nothing to do with the Army.

NeverAgain26
December 13, 2007, 12:29 PM
Someone told me that during Primary Races, the pols play to appeal to the extremes in their parties to get nominated (e.g. Republians play to Low Tax, 2A, Pro-Lifers and Dems play to Antis, Pro-Choice, etc) and then during the actual electioneering in the run up to the election, they tend to present themselves as more centrist to appeal to a broader base and win more of the vote.

From a practical standpoint, that makes a lot of sense for anyone wanting to win. From an ethical standpoint, it bites.:fire:

In plain English, they switch tacks once they grab the nomination so anything they present themselves as now will change.

We won't get fooled again.


Or will we?:banghead:

NA26

I guess once we see who is the nominee

BobbyQuickdraw
December 13, 2007, 03:17 PM
I'm not sure what comment you're referring to Skarpenz, but Huckabee apologized for his recent comment on Mormonism and also explained how it was taken out of context.

No one is entirely innocent of stuff like that. Romney now targets Huckabee by name in his ads. And look at Clinton vs Obama. Her campaign keeps "accidentally" saying all these negative stuff and then apologizing because it is not the "campaigns view, but the view of the person who said it."

Sort of be like going to to trial and you keep shouting all these crazy stuff and then withdrawing it - sure its not official, but now its in everyones head.

gilly05
December 13, 2007, 03:25 PM
Romney -F
Guliani -F

Unlike R. Paul (A+) who wants to lead free people, those two want to rule slaves.

mike6161
December 13, 2007, 09:53 PM
When Fred Thompson said, "I have a few guns, but I'm not going to tell you what they are or WHERE THEY ARE. That most likely means he has a CCW and carries
I would vote for him

J-NM
December 13, 2007, 10:06 PM
Of all running in both parties there was only one that almost got my vote, Fred Thompson but then he had to go and say he is against a woman having control of her own body.

So at this point I don't see any of those running worthy of my vote.

Now before you say what about Governor Richardson of New Mexico since he is a gun owner and the NRA backs him, sure, right on but he is not worthy a vote either.

Now how many of you caught that female Dem running hinting to Richardson about being her VP mate? Nothing more then trying to win votes of us who own and enjoy guns.

Please show me one honest politician, just one!

AKCOP
December 14, 2007, 01:25 PM
Their is no such animal as the perfect politician/candidate. We have a long way to go, we should not be so quick to jump or dump. It may be once again the best of two evils and if that is the best we have to pick from so be it.
We may not get exactly what we want but we must participate. The issue of guns has received a lot of attention and has given the political beast much to think about. I believe we need to keep the pressure on high for each and every candidate regarding the second amendment, do not accept vaugue answers to vaugue questions.
Personally I would like to ask each candidate when the last time they were at a range or were hunting. Which candidate would have the courage to attend a photo op taget shooting at a range with a bunch of reguklar Joe's.
The biggest reason I love Dick Cheney is the guy hunts and he is not araid to let epople know he dos it. He knows the difference between a shotgun and a rifle, he probably packs. I know I know, he shot the guy when hunting, so who hasn't had some sort of firearms related incident in their life. At least he didn't roll over and cry about it, I bet he still hunts and will continue to own guns and shoot long after he is gone from the beltway.

Mr. James
December 14, 2007, 03:37 PM
Your point about perfection in a candidate is well taken. We aren't going to get perfect.

While we shouldn't require perfection, I will not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise. Most of the current field I find positively, metaphysically, diabolically evil, with the exceptions of Paul, Huckabee, Hunter, and maybe Thompson and Tancredo.

As for the various Ds, isn't a one of 'em I'd cross the street and urinate upon if (s)he was on fire.

Deanimator
December 14, 2007, 04:30 PM
While we shouldn't require perfection, I will not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
That's why I utterly reject the "You have to vote for Giuliani to defeat Hillary!" lie.

If it comes down to Clinton or Giuliani, evil is guaranteed to win. That doesn't mean I have to buy into the evil. Just because you can't stop evil from prevailing, that doesn't mean that you have to EMBRACE evil.

TwitchALot
December 14, 2007, 04:38 PM
Ron Paul has a crappy foreign policy, no way around that.

I hear this a lot, but I strongly suspect that those who believe it know little to nothing about what US foreign policy has been for the last sixty or so years. :(

willbrink
December 14, 2007, 05:20 PM
Does it matter? He's more than willing to change his position 180 if it fits his agenda. No man willing to do that can be trusted. :barf:

TrybalRage
December 14, 2007, 05:34 PM
Thompson, Huckabee and Paul seem to be the best pro-gun candidates.

Thompson I can't support because he's a former corporate lobbyist and therefore part of the problem, in my eyes.

Huckabee isn't bad but I think his current popularity is just a flash in the pan. People (not me) will have a HUGE problem with him being a pastor and his pro-war against terror stance is sure to sink him in a general election.

Paul may be too radical for some, but he's the only no-BS constitution all the way, like it or not candidate, and the only one I can support with a clear conscience.

That being said, if Huckabee made it, I wouldn't be too disappointed. But I really doubt it.

Vern Humphrey
December 14, 2007, 06:32 PM
I hear this a lot, but I strongly suspect that those who believe it know little to nothing about what US foreign policy has been for the last sixty or so years
I know how that sort of stuff -- encouraging the enemy to believe he could win in Washington what he couldn't win on the battlefield -- killed almost 60,000 of my generation of American soldiers.

I know our current enemy thrives on that stuff -- to the point of Bin Laden crowing about how we should vote for those who want to quit.

Autolycus
December 14, 2007, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by BobbQuickDraw: Everyone is lead by their beliefs- his beliefs are those of the Bible. Others may be Jewish beliefs, or Mormon, or something else. Even atheists have beliefs and would run a nation according to those beliefs. I'm not overly religious but someone running the country who believes in "Though shall do no murder" and other basic Christian tenants isn't a bad guy.

The "Though shall do no murder" part is fine but that is a pretty basic tenement in all religions. (As a side not it is "Thou Shalt not Kill".) However my fear is that he will let the first five commandmants run us. That "Thou shalt not have any god but me..." and those ones telling him that Christianity is the only religion allowed.

Sorry but I dont want to live in a Christian theocracy any more than a Jewish or Muslim one. Lets have the seperation of church and state mean something.

kart racer
December 14, 2007, 06:45 PM
I just have a problem with Huckabee wanting to give so much away to the criminals from south of the border that are living here now.

Autolycus
December 14, 2007, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by Mike6161: When Fred Thompson said, "I have a few guns, but I'm not going to tell you what they are or WHERE THEY ARE.” That most likely means he has a CCW and carries
I would vote for him


That most likely means he does not have a CCW or carries. He does not know about guns or care as he simply did not want to tell us. If he does he probably did not want to tell people they are simply sitting in his closet. This could be because he is irresponsible with them or does not want to be percieved as irresponsible with his guns.

I dont trust Fred at all.

ArfinGreebly
December 14, 2007, 06:46 PM
. . . I'm in yer forumz, readin' yer postz . . .

I believe the opening topic has been addressed.

Lots of other cool things have been addressed, too.

Some of them were even on-topic!

So, I'm happy you guys kept it civil, but we kinda hafta color within the lines.

And so, as much as I'd like to write my own opinions in this thread . . .

. . . it's closed.

If you enjoyed reading about "Romney On The 2nd Amendment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!