How Quickly They Forget - Anti-Gun GOP Candidates


PDA






MikeHaas
January 22, 2008, 04:11 PM
Not too many gun-owners seem suprised when informed of Rudy Guliani's anti-gun record...

"...Giuliani sued gun makers and distributors, backed a federal assault weapons ban and once described the NRA as extremist..."
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/giuliani_ap_interview/2007/09/25/35598.html

It raises a few more eyebrows to learn that just a few years ago (2004), Mitt Romney signed an "Assault Weapons Ban" in Massachusetts.
http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=14812

But what does seem to surprise many, perhaps because of his reputation as a "War Hero", is how Arizona Senator John McCain has been one of the Second Amendment's most active enemies and worst threats. For example, he was NRA's nemisis as recent as 2001, pushing "Gun Show Loophole" (sic) legislation that would have ended gun shows in America.
http://nrawinningteam.com/0102/gunshowbill.html

1999: McCain on Guns
http://nrawinningteam.com/mccain1.html

2000: McCain-Lautenberg?
http://nrawinningteam.com/0010/mccain.html

2001: Senator McCain On The Big Screen
http://nrawinningteam.com/0105/mccain.html

If you enjoyed reading about "How Quickly They Forget - Anti-Gun GOP Candidates" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Quigley
January 22, 2008, 04:32 PM
I think they need to expand straight ticket voting to include not just Republican or Democrat but also include a straight ticket Pro-Gun..

Old Fuff
January 22, 2008, 04:47 PM
McCain's record should not come as a suprise to those that live in Arizona. We know that our Senator often says whatever is popular at the moment. :barf:

ApexinM3
January 22, 2008, 05:09 PM
Having been at Navy Football games & tossed footballs with McCain, I am embarrassed to have associated with him (in my defense, I was 4 or 5 years old at the time). My father was USNA graduate from 1958, and all but a very few members of his class have pretty much nothing to do with him anymore. Sad, he is definitely a "politicians" politician.

McCain is no friend of the 2nd Amendment, as McCain-Feingold has trampled the 1st Amendment rights.

Autolycus
January 22, 2008, 06:22 PM
Where does Ron Paul stand on the 2nd Amendment?

ReadyontheRight
January 22, 2008, 06:34 PM
Please e-mail all the remaining candidates and urge them to support the Second Amendment.

One of these critters is going to be our next President. NOW is the time they are forming their stump speeches and promises. The more we can get them to respond to grass-roots efforts to support RKBA, the better.

cmidkiff
January 22, 2008, 06:44 PM
Huckabee claims to be pro2a... but then again, he claims to be all kinds of conservative... his record doesn't back him up.

McCain, Giuliani, and Romney... It's not just their anti-2a position (though that's important)... they're anti-justabouteverythingI'mfor! McCain should be strung up for McCain/Feingold and the 'gang of 14' garbage. Giuliani and Romney are both typical Rockefeller Republicans.

Stock up on AR mags, and if you were wanting anything on the latest ban lists... nows the time!

alsaqr
January 22, 2008, 06:55 PM
I'm a very long time Republican and I am livid that the RNC could not find a viable pro-gun candidate for the office of POTUS. Just wrote the scumbags at the RNC a letter and told them to not expect any campaign donations this year or ever. Money budgeted for the Republican party will go to Make-A-Wish.

Ain't drinking the Kool Aid any more. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I gotta puke.

Gun Wielding Maniac
January 22, 2008, 07:01 PM
I'm a very long time Republican and I am livid that the RNC could not find a viable pro-gun candidate for the office of POTUS. Just wrote the scumbags at the RNC a letter and told them to not expect any campaign donations this year or ever. Money budgeted for the Republican party will go to Make-A-Wish.


Ron Paul: 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.

Geister
January 22, 2008, 07:39 PM
If Paul doesn't get in, I'm not voting for Guiliani/Romney/Huckabee over Barack Hussein Obama/Clinton. They are all the same to me.

azredhawk44
January 22, 2008, 07:45 PM
Geister's got it 100%.

Obama/Clinton will be better for gun rights than a "Rudy McRomney" administration because the Repubs will at least be energized to put on a show opposing Democrat legislation; they will rubber stamp new legislation from a neoCon New England blue-blood "Republican."

My vote goes to Dr. Paul.

camacho
January 22, 2008, 07:53 PM
Huckabee claims to be pro2a... but then again, he claims to be all kinds of conservative... his record doesn't back him up.

Really:confused: Would you mind backing with facts how Huck's record on Second Amendment does not back his stated views on the subject?

He's an NRA member, concealed carry license holder, life-long hunter, one of the 25 most influential outdoorsmen (according to Outdoor Life), and the only one I know who for sure owns firearms.

scout26
January 22, 2008, 08:59 PM
Where does Ron Paul stand on the 2nd Amendment?

I think your wookie mask is on a little tight......:neener:

Robert Hairless
January 23, 2008, 03:15 AM
Obama/Clinton will be better for gun rights than a "Rudy McRomney" administration because the Repubs will at least be energized to put on a show opposing Democrat legislation; they will rubber stamp new legislation from a neoCon New England blue-blood "Republican."

Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are committed to removing firearms from individual owners.

With a Democrat-controlled Congress they should have no trouble in doing so. With an NRA weakened by attacks here and elsewhere from many gun owners and so-called "no compromise" gun rights groups there will be little effective resistance to that effort.

When gun owners withdraw support from the Republican Party, that party would have to be dominated by fools and morons if it showed any consideration at all for gun owners. An unpredictable constituency is no constituency at all.

After Clinton, Obama, or Edwards becomes our next President your only hope as a gun owner will be if you get a big ball of twine for each gun you own, tie one end to the trigger guard, and play out the twine while the gun goes to the smelter. If you're very fast you might be able to jerk it back before it's melted. Keep pulling on the twine and maybe you can jiggle the gun back along the highway to your home.

This election is not like playing Go Fish with mom and dad. It is for keeps. You don't get your cookies back when the game is over. And you don't get to play "double or nothing" until you win. This particular game is one in which the losers lose everything after they count themselves out.

Message threads like these came fast and furious before the last election too. A lot of gun owners said the same things then that are being said now. And some of us who witnessed it with horror then said the same things I am saying now. It was to no avail then and, sadly, it is likely to be to now avail now.

When gun owners desert the Republican Party to teach it a lesson, or for any other reason, they wind up losing. One of the ways they lose is the way they have already lost and will continue to lose.

Those gun owners have helped create a situation in which there is no advantage to the Republican Party to develop strongly pro gun candidates. The reason is that gun owners have taken themselves out of the power base. Continuing to withdraw from it will cause more damage, not less.

You don't get to play after you leave the game.

Gun Wielding Maniac
January 23, 2008, 09:42 AM
When gun owners withdraw support from the Republican Party, that party would have to be dominated by fools and morons if it showed any consideration at all for gun owners. An unpredictable constituency is no constituency at all.
What? When the gun owners give the Republicans a blank check, regardless of what they do... they STILL lose.

If I'm going to lose no matter what I do, then I intend to at least have some dignity left intact.

MrRezister
January 24, 2008, 12:00 PM
I think your wookie mask is on a little tight......

Woah, that was close! We almost engaged in a serious policy discussion without insulting Paul supporters! Thanks for stepping up, dude.

Back to the topic, I actually trust Huckabee when it comes to the 2A specifically, but while governor, he helped push through some of the "health initiatives like the smoking ban in restaurants and the schools keeping track of how fat our kids are. That's the kind of nanny-statism that I'm not too interested in from my candidate. I wish Paul was doing better, I would love to see someone who means it when he says "smaller government" actually make it through the primaries. But I guess our choices this time are "more of the same" or "worse".

romma
January 24, 2008, 12:26 PM
I don't agree with everything Mike Huckabee stands for, but here is his statement on the 2nd:

2nd Amendment RightsSend to a friend
The Second Amendment is primarily about tyranny and self-defense, not hunting. The Founding Fathers wanted us to be
able to defend ourselves from our own government, if need be, and from all threats to our lives and property.
Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. I oppose gun control based on geography.
I consistently opposed banning assault weapons and opposed the Brady Bill.
As Governor, I protected gun manufacturers from frivolous law suits.
I was the first Governor in the country to have a concealed handgun license.

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.




Right there he plainly says it isn't about hunting! It's about tyranny and self-defense!!!

ilbob
January 24, 2008, 12:57 PM
Its tough to get a candidate to make any kind of statement about any issue as clear and unequivical as Huckabee and RP have about the 2A.

One thing I deeply respect about RP is his willingness to stick to his principles and not bend them to suit the current audience.

Huckabee has not wavered to my knowledge on his 2A support, nor has RP. The remaining democratic candidates are all anti-2A, and the republicans are only somewhat better with the possible exception of Romney. I suspect he is like many politicians from very liberal states. You have to live in the environment you have, not the one you would like to have. MA is a very liberal and somewhat anti-gun state. In politics you have to pick your fights. It does no good to have your veto overridden by an 80-20% margin everytime, so you must deal with that problem in a realistic way, and get the best deal you can from a given situation.

I seriously doubt he is in favor of gay marriage either. But it is not as if he could do anything about it in MA. Its just the character of the state, and you have to deal with it or move elsewhere.

I don't think Guiliani is as virulently anti-gun as some think either, despite some of the things he has said in the past.

My guess is none of the other republican candidates actually really care all that much about guns at all. Its an issue they have to deal with so they deal with it in ways they think will harm them the least. We can make it more important to them by making it quite clear that it is important to a lot of voters. Shrill diatribe and hatred won't do that.

alsaqr
January 24, 2008, 01:39 PM
"I don't think Guiliani is as virulently anti-gun as some think either, despite some of the things he has said in the past."

Does the fact that Rudy Baby sued US gun makers for the acts of violent criminals bother you?

zxcvbob
January 24, 2008, 02:02 PM
With a Democrat-controlled Congress they should have no trouble in doing so. With an NRA weakened by attacks here and elsewhere from many gun owners and so-called "no compromise" gun rights groups there will be little effective resistance to that effort.


Not as long as Republicans and/or pro-gunners hold on to 41 Senate seats. (that's why I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Norm Coleman)

ilbob
January 24, 2008, 02:06 PM
"I don't think Guiliani is as virulently anti-gun as some think either, despite some of the things he has said in the past."

Does the fact that Rudy Baby sued US gun makers for the acts of violent criminals bother you?
Of course it bothers me. I just don't see him caring a whole lot about his anti-2A stance. It just does not seem to be a big part of his persona.

CBS220
January 24, 2008, 04:08 PM
He actively pursued gun makers instead of criminals. He didn't just sign some laws that showed up on his desk- he went out of his way to damage lawful gun owners and manufacturers.

jjduller1946
January 24, 2008, 06:16 PM
McCain's record should not come as a suprise to those that live in Arizona. We know that our Senator often says whatever is popular at the moment.

Not a surprise to hear.

I believe in all of the Amendments and having sworn to defend the Constitution like many of you and having been shot at and hit in the process, I used to look at McCain and find much to admire. Anyone who sat for 5 1/2 years in the Hanoi Hilton hell hole gets a big stack of benefit of the doubt from me.

However, McCain has burned all of my goodwill over the years. The first was his angry resistance to the Bush Tax Cuts. He now claims he just wanted to cut spending. At the time he claimed it was just for the country club fat cats.

McCain could be the darling of the NRA and pack heat in the Senate and I would not want him leading the charge against a Barack Hussein Obama - Hillary Clinton ticket. He is way wrong on too many of the other things I care about.

Anyone who is the darling of the New York Times bears considerable watching! The libs love him as long as he is tripping up the Republicans and taking heroic stands on global warming, drilling in Alaska, waterboarding, legal representation of terrorists, etc. But against Obama or Hillary they would suddenly realize that he is too old, too ill, too angry, too unstable, too corrupt, too much of a flip-flopper on illegal immigration and tax cuts and of course his newfound affection for the religious right would be a show stopper!

Having said this I will vote for him big time over the socialist or the Marxist or both. I am not into shooting myself and my grandchildren in the foot to teach anyone a lesson.

Alex45ACP
January 24, 2008, 06:41 PM
Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are the only non-3rd party candidates who are not gun grabbers.

jjduller1946
January 24, 2008, 07:03 PM
Vote for Ron Paul or stop complaining.

Well that settles it for me. No complaining.

Ron Paul strikes me a guy who is strongly convinced that he is right because he likes the sound of his strident voice. And I know he strikes a chord in many anti-establishment folks. Frankly I think he is a nut-case. Who but a nut would say with a straight face that he sponsored a number of ear marks for his district but voted against all of the bills?

I also recognize that 'Huckabee-Paul for President/VP' has a nice ring. And yes, he has managed to attract many from the religious right.

However his positions and makes him like a Jimmy Carter in Republican / preachers robes. I think he is a nanny state reformed fat guy who wants to jam his great ideas down my throat. No more Cool Whip (trans fats) and cigars (nicotine) with this guy. And all his Johnny come lately to the immigration issue after welcoming them to his state and offering College tuition makes me irritable. And with his liberal instincts I would not trust him on 2A...

IMHO, But with no complaints from this shooter!

Daemon688
January 25, 2008, 01:24 AM
I'm assuming you all saw the debates tonight. During part of the debate, candidates were able to ask each other questions. Well, Huckabee asked Romney a question regarding the AWB and the Brady Bill.

I was absolutely floored to Romney's response, that man never ceases to amaze me. In short his answer was something along the lines of:

I support the second amendment, I believe it is an individual right and not for the government. I hope that the supreme court comes to the decision that it is an individual right. As governor, I worked with democrats so gun laws would work with our state. I supported and signed the assault weapons ban and like George Bush, I would sign it if it came to my desk. I do however believe our laws are fine now and we do not need new legislation but rather to enforce the laws we have now.

I just wish Huckabee would have confronted him and asked: So what is it? Do you support it or do you not?

bogie
January 25, 2008, 02:00 AM
Dear Voters,

Please vote for anyone but one of the Republicans.

Thank you,

The Democratic National Committee

JCT
January 25, 2008, 02:26 AM
Ironically, Ron Paul in many ways is now doing the best! 2nd in Nevada, 2nd, possibly 1st in Louisiana. He beat Giuliani and Thompson about every time and 98%+ of Thompsons supporters have gotten behind Paul already!
All this and the fact that Paul has the most money left ( aside from Romneys personal collection...) . Paul's campaign is growing rapidly on it's own despite media avoidance. He's won polling for every debate so far from the channels owns polls! I say we all get behind him and make it happen. He's the most conservative, most pro gun, most freedom/liberty advocating and in my opinion, the most intellectual and most clear on real resolutions to all these issues that past administrations haven't done a thing for!
Here's last nights debate results: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22830366/

Diamondback6
January 25, 2008, 02:52 AM
Threadlock in 5... 4... 3...

WRONGO! Many of us Fredheads have gone over to Romney, others are mulling over a write-in. As I WILL have a delegate seat from Precinct (Feb 9) to County, I plan to go Uncommitted and make my call on-the-spot based on how I see things shaking out. I was rather offended by some Paul supporters not allowing us our "day of mourning" before rather obnoxiously invading our guy's blog...

Either way, my agenda is to scuttle the Manchurian Candidate, and if possible Il Duce Secundo alongside him.

JCT
January 25, 2008, 03:00 AM
Well, Fred's own campaign site forum says different! 99% say they'll support their second choice, Ron Paul. I'm sorry he dropped out, I can imagine that's tough for his supporters, he would have been my 2nd choice, but now it's crucial that they get behind their 2nd choice asap, whether Paul, Romney, Huckabee or McCain.
I'll attach the screenshot of that thread:

JCT
January 25, 2008, 03:04 AM
png file not uploading! Here's the page:
http://fredthompsonforum.com/showthread.php?t=3694
Plenty of other sources discussing this too. The majority of Thompsons supporters got behind Paul.

Diamondback6
January 25, 2008, 03:12 AM
That ASSUMES Paul wins the nomination. Read THIS one: http://fredthompsonforum.com/showthread.php?t=2690 And bear in mind, Fred never had an official forum, but draftfredthompson.com came first.

Autolycus
January 25, 2008, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by Scout26: I think your wookie mask is on a little tight...... I am sorry you were unable to take the high road and wish to engauge in a flamefest between forums.

Maybe it is my proper Christian upbringing but I will not personally attack other members. It shows not only a lack of character but a lack of intelligence when the only answer you have for a tough question is a personal attack.

Autolycus
January 25, 2008, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by jjduller1946: I believe in all of the Amendments and having sworn to defend the Constitution like many of you and having been shot at and hit in the process, I used to look at McCain and find much to admire. Anyone who sat for 5 1/2 years in the Hanoi Hilton hell hole gets a big stack of benefit of the doubt from me.

However, McCain has burned all of my goodwill over the years. The first was his angry resistance to the Bush Tax Cuts. He now claims he just wanted to cut spending. At the time he claimed it was just for the country club fat cats.

McCain could be the darling of the NRA and pack heat in the Senate and I would not want him leading the charge against a Barack Hussein Obama - Hillary Clinton ticket. He is way wrong on too many of the other things I care about.
Can I ask a question? Why do you only include Obama's full name? Why not put McCains first, middle, and last name as well. the same for Clinton?

ilbob
January 25, 2008, 10:39 AM
Can I ask a question? Why do you only include Obama's full name? Why not put McCains first, middle, and last name as well. the same for Clinton?

What difference does it make? Is he afraid to admit to his Muslim heritage? Is that perhaps a relevant issue, even if it is not PC?

ilbob
January 25, 2008, 10:43 AM
I bet most of Fred's guys do go to Mitt. RP is just too far out there right now.

For some of you RP fans, instead of Internet vitriol, perhaps you should get off your dead a$$ and volunteer to help the campaign out. That would speak a lot louder than Internet posturing. Grass roots politics is where the real difference is made. Its actual work though. You probably can't do much this year, but next election you could make the difference. RP is not the only liberty leaning candidate out there.

I am unimpressed with any of the candidates running right now from either party. But, as I have said before, there are only so many Ronald Reagans and Teddy Roosevelts around. Most of the time you are forced to select someone lesser.

Deanimator
January 25, 2008, 11:47 AM
Quote:
"I don't think Guiliani is as virulently anti-gun as some think either, despite some of the things he has said in the past."

Does the fact that Rudy Baby sued US gun makers for the acts of violent criminals bother you?

Of course it bothers me. I just don't see him caring a whole lot about his anti-2A stance. It just does not seem to be a big part of his persona.
Gun control and unchecked police power are two of Giuliani's core values. They don't change. They don't EVER change, even when he tries to change the subject.

You've got a guy who believes that by definition, anything which the police do is right and proper, and who thinks that the 2nd Amendment means different things in different places (and if the 2nd, why not the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 13th???) and you want to give HIM the BATFE?

I'm not registering anything, nor am I turning anything in. Why then should I vote for somebody likely to send people to my house to kill me and take my guns? It makes as much sense as a Jew voting for the head of the White Aryan Resistance.

ilbob
January 25, 2008, 11:55 AM
Gun control and unchecked police power are two of Giuliani's core values. They don't change. They don't EVER change, even when he tries to change the subject.

I would suggest most politicians are interested in exercising power and anything that gets in their way is tossed aside once they attain the ability to do so. Does not just apply to Rudy.

Us voters are what has to keep the politicians in check. The constitution is just a piece of paper. What makes it work is when the voters hold the politicians feet to the fire. We stopped doing that for the most part a long while ago when the majority of the population accepted the idea of trading liberties for freebies from uncle feel good. That was the choice that was made.

If you want your liberty back, you have to get rid of the freebies. Are you willing to get rid of SS? How about medicare? Or federally subsidized loans of all types? You can't have the freebies and your liberties at the same time.

jjduller1946
January 25, 2008, 12:29 PM
Quote:
Can I ask a question? Why do you only include Obama's full name? Why not put McCains first, middle, and last name as well. the same for Clinton?

What difference does it make? Is he afraid to admit to his Muslim heritage? Is that perhaps a relevant issue, even if it is not PC?

tecumseh,

I was responding to the Clinton Machine's and others who have raised the fact that his middle name is Hussain. I have never hear the middle name of any of the other Candidates except Hillary's Rodham, which is her maiden name. But I do not care what his name is as long as it is not predede by 'President'. And that is becase of his past positions and proposals for the country. Not his color, not his name, not his religion.

But I am not impressed that the preacher at the chuch he belongs to advocates a 'black first' kind racism philosophy. We will probably hear more about Obama's church/preacher from Bill Clinton or another surrogate if Obama continues to threaten the Clinton right to their dynasy.

So I worry about what I believe is a very corrupt Clinton machine holding any more power than the Senator from New York already has. Obama is, IMHO, a charismatic young socialist who's only known corruption record has to do with his primary supporter 'helping' him but property in Illinois. Compared to Bill and Hill, he is little league.

Thanks for listening, all, IMHO.

Bendutro
January 25, 2008, 12:40 PM
"giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
-P.J. O'Rourke

Even if you don't agree with Ron Paul on some issues, I voted for him because he's the only politician paying more than lip-service to the Constitution.

ilbob
January 25, 2008, 01:48 PM
So I worry about what I believe is a very corrupt Clinton machine holding any more power than the Senator from New York already has. Obama is, IMHO, a charismatic young socialist who's only known corruption record has to do with his primary supporter 'helping' him but property in Illinois. Compared to Bill and Hill, he is little league.
I would not be so sure. BHO has deep ties to the Daley machine in Chicago, despite everyone's best attempts to portray him otherwise. Daley may well have the most corrupt political apparatus in the US. No one tied to Daley is clean.

MiddleAgedKen
January 25, 2008, 04:15 PM
98%+ is a little over the top. That said, I plan to vote for Ron Paul in the Ohio primary. Paul and Huckabee are the strongest Republican candidates left on the Second Amendment (and I am satisfied both mean it), but Paul is less objectionable (even throwing Lew Rockwell into the mix) than Huckabee otherwise.

Rachen
January 25, 2008, 04:20 PM
Thank you for posting this! Indeed there are many wolves hiding under sheeps' skin right now.

GunTech
January 25, 2008, 05:10 PM
Some one who gets it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdxTg9x3Mbg

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-812020457128509274&q=ron+paul+2nd+amendment&total=113&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6159769455526822857&q=ron+paul+2nd+amendment&total=113&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

Gun Control

Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Support the Second Amendment . (Dec 2000)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)

TEDDY
January 25, 2008, 06:17 PM
since FRED is gone it leaves me with MITT.I know ROMNEYS record in Mass and it is NOT what posters are saying.I beleave he is perhaps luke warm on the gun issue BUT BUT he was good for the gun owners in Mass.posters from other sections of the country cannot understand the problems Mass and Calif.gun owners have with the democratic polititions in those states.if you as Gov want to get any thing done if you are republican you make consesions or sooth the enemy to sleep.look MITTS record up on GOAL or stop posting a lie.his advisors did not state the AWB properly.the law was on books in 1994 and did not sunset.he modified it to get some fair dealings for gun owners and worked with GOAL.I talk to GOAL frequently and am aware of what goes on in Mass I also get the outdoor message from GOAL on monthly bases. Romney does not need the power or money of the office. :uhoh:---:confused:---:fire:---:banghead:---:)---:)

primer
January 25, 2008, 07:13 PM
Throughout history, our elected officials have said one thing and done another once elected. That's why it's so hard to choose. As far as I'm concerned they won't get my guns. Period. And I mean that. All gun control will do is make criminals out of normal citizens. But it can go farther than that in todays world. Anyone care to guess why it's so hard to beat people like iraqis. They have guns! If American citizens hold on to the gun rights our founding father gave us, we are peole who won't be broken. It's plain to see that the people who would protect their gun rights are the strongest. Question is, how can we send a clear unmistakable message to our leaders the we will not give up this right? Yes, voting for the person who shares our perspective is a great choice. But what if they change their mind once they are elected? Should the citizens of the United States of America vote on gun control? A vote on gun rights and only gun rights. Criminals SHOULD be restricted from having guns. That's my opinion. But not all of us are criminals! (At least, not until they try to take my guns)

ArfinGreebly
January 25, 2008, 08:27 PM
* Sigh *


* Sigh *


* Mutter *
* Mutter *
* Mutter *

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ken.mann/dlrfc/images/padlock.jpg


* Sigh *

If you enjoyed reading about "How Quickly They Forget - Anti-Gun GOP Candidates" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!