Jon Huntsman on guns


PDA






Neverwinter
December 8, 2011, 12:02 AM
When it come to the 2012 nominees, we're finding that the most popular ones are the most lacking when it come to solid principles. The Ron Paul thread has inspired me to start this one on Jon Huntsman, another of the candidates who "has no chance of winning" despite his better stance on aspects of public policy(eg. environment, civil unions, energy).

OnTheIssues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Jon_Huntsman.htm) had these two points for Huntsman on gun control:


Conservative line on gun control. (May 2009)
Absolutely veto a ban on assault weapons. (Jun 2011)


Has anyone heard anything else about him?

If you enjoyed reading about "Jon Huntsman on guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GEM
December 17, 2011, 11:35 AM
Too smart and rational to be nominated.

Actually knows where other countries are.

Understands science.

No chance - :(

801sureshot
December 17, 2011, 12:03 PM
As a registered libertarian I voted for huntsman twice for governor of Utah. He was a great leader for our state and would make an exceptional president. Utah has great gun laws. He has been criticized for been to centrist but I think that might be a good thing. His campaign might build steam ya never know.

jackpinesavages
January 8, 2012, 03:32 PM
He's the only nominee with children(2) in the military. That's good enough for me.

mljdeckard
January 8, 2012, 07:17 PM
When he was Utah's governor, he held a carry permit. (I have no idea if he still does.) And had a great record for supporting positive gun laws. (Much more so than his successor has.)

Diggers
January 8, 2012, 07:39 PM
Sounds like he is good with the 2A issues.

What GEM said is true. I don't know what the Republicans are doing/ thinking with the people they seem interested in. It really seems like fanatics have taken over that party.

Huntsman is such the obvious choice by far there shouldn't even be a debate about it. Yet he is totally ignored.

It truly is scary to me when a man with huge qualifications who is obviously intelligent and is informed on and understands the world AND China specifically (which will be more and more important in the future.) was not even in the running against people like Paul, Perry and Bachmann and the others.

What does that say about the Republican Party?

TT
January 9, 2012, 02:28 PM
Huntsman is such the obvious choice by far there shouldn't even be a debate about it.
As a Republican, why would I want to vote for someone who felt comfortable enough with Obama’s politics to work for him?

GEM
January 9, 2012, 09:30 PM
If you thought you could aid the country by being the best person for the job, shouldn't you step up?

So if you didn't like FDR - stay home and let the Nazis win?

Rather have a crappy ambassador to an important country just so you can have ideological purity?

The country is more important than one party or party tribalism.

Arkansas Paul
January 9, 2012, 10:34 PM
Nicely said GEM.
If you think you can make a positive difference, you do it.

TT
January 10, 2012, 02:08 AM
The country is more important than one party or party tribalism.

Unless one party stands opposed to the concept of limited government that this country was founded on. No libertarian should ever work with any communitarian; one who does is suspect.

mljdeckard
January 10, 2012, 02:22 AM
When he resigned his governor's job here in Utah for the ambassador job, we talked a lot about it. It was pretty obvious that it was mostly to take Huntsman out of action for this election. And it may have worked. Look at it this way: If Huntsman was now running for president as governor of Utah, instead of former China Ambassador, would you have any reason to complain about him?

I think it was a calculated gamble on Huntsman's part, to accept the ambassador job, and plan on resigning to run for president later. But in doing so, he made two mistakes: 1. He thought he could enter the race late and it would make a big enough splash to come in on top. It didn't work. 2. He hasn't denounced the Obama administration in any way. Not even to say; "Yeah, I worked for him, but I don't like him." He didn't even need to go way dirty, spilling facts and missteps in how the administration dealt with China, nothing like that. His failure to distance himself from the administration leaves him suspect, and he has done little if anything to reverse it.

Infringed
January 10, 2012, 04:28 PM
Huntsman hasn't completed the GOA candidate questionnaire, along with Romney. (http://gunowners.org/a010912.htm) Gingrich, Paul and Santorum have completed this.

hso
January 10, 2012, 06:35 PM
It doesn't follow that a candidate that doesn't fill in GOA's questionnaire is suspect on RKBA.

Infringed
January 10, 2012, 07:29 PM
hso, that's true. Of course, if he is pro 2A, why hasn't his campaign filled it out to give gun owners some comfort? Gun owners aren't exactly a tiny, insignificant percentage of voters, and one would think that his campaign would want to court us, if indeed, his views line up with ours on 2A. I'm not saying he is anti 2A, just confused on the non-response. With Romney, who also hasn't responded to GOA, I'm not confused or surprised, given his actions in office and his comments related to 2A.

Neverwinter
January 11, 2012, 08:15 PM
Sounds like he is good with the 2A issues.

What GEM said is true. I don't know what the Republicans are doing/ thinking with the people they seem interested in. It really seems like fanatics have taken over that party.

Huntsman is such the obvious choice by far there shouldn't even be a debate about it. Yet he is totally ignored.

It truly is scary to me when a man with huge qualifications who is obviously intelligent and is informed on and understands the world AND China specifically (which will be more and more important in the future.) was not even in the running against people like Paul, Perry and Bachmann and the others.

What does that say about the Republican Party?
He hasn't denounced the Obama administration in any way. Not even to say; "Yeah, I worked for him, but I don't like him." He didn't even need to go way dirty, spilling facts and missteps in how the administration dealt with China, nothing like that. His failure to distance himself from the administration leaves him suspect, and he has done little if anything to reverse it.
It's rather odd that the very qualities which would make him strong with moderate fence sitters(intelligent, informed, and capable of reaching across the aisle) are the very things dooming him in the primary.


Sent using Tapatalk

TT
January 11, 2012, 10:52 PM
‘Capable of reaching across the aisle’ is a weasel way of saying ‘willing to compromise with communitarians’. When a libertarian compromises with a communitarian, the libertarian loses and the communitarian wins. I’m not interested in supporting anyone who will advance the communitarian cause, no matter how intelligent and informed ‘moderate fence sitters’ think he is.

Neverwinter
January 11, 2012, 11:31 PM
‘Capable of reaching across the aisle’ is a weasel way of saying ‘willing to compromise with communitarians’. When a libertarian compromises with a communitarian, the libertarian loses and the communitarian wins. I’m not interested in supporting anyone who will advance the communitarian cause, no matter how intelligent and informed ‘moderate fence sitters’ think he is.
You can't discount the moderate fence sitters without committing voter fraud on a massive scale.

I'm so glad the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists took that no-compromise approach to ratification of the Constitution. :uhoh:

Sky
January 11, 2012, 11:38 PM
Too smart and rational to be nominated.

Actually knows where other countries are.

Understands science.

No chance

GEM that was really good!! I like Huntsman for many of the reasons you stated. He does not have the big money of Mitt or the many small money donations of Paul. Still early and maybe he will get some traction.

Tiberius67
January 12, 2012, 12:02 AM
‘Capable of reaching across the aisle’ is a weasel way of saying ‘willing to compromise with communitarians’. When a libertarian compromises with a communitarian, the libertarian loses and the communitarian wins. I’m not interested in supporting anyone who will advance the communitarian cause, no matter how intelligent and informed ‘moderate fence sitters’ think he is.

There is also the fact that the same people gushing about how wonderful he supposedly is today will be railing against him as a baby-eating monster who also wants to repeal the 13th Amendment the moment he became the nominee....just like they did with McCain. He's pretty much McCain without the war record, right down the the election strategy of getting Dems and 'Independants' to switch to the GOP long enough to vote for him in the Primary.

TT
January 12, 2012, 10:40 AM
I'm so glad the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists took that no-compromise approach to ratification of the Constitution.

The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists differed in the details of the practical application of limited government, they were not philosophical opposites. Communitarians and libertarians share no significant common ground, compromise between the two groups is neither possible, nor desirable for the libertarian side (again, compromising on limited government is always a win for the communitarian side and a loss for libertarians).

Neverwinter
January 12, 2012, 09:38 PM
The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists differed in the details of the practical application of limited government, they were not philosophical opposites. Communitarians and libertarians share no significant common ground, compromise between the two groups is neither possible, nor desirable for the libertarian side (again, compromising on limited government is always a win for the communitarian side and a loss for libertarians).
They were on different positions of the spectrum between the concentration of power in the state vs federal government. Just because they do not fall on the absolute ends of the spectrum doesn't mean that they were not diametrically opposed to each other.

The idea that positions are black or white is an oversimplified model which is incapable of understanding things like the opposition between the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists.

If we were to go with the assumption that a libertarian is only a person on the absolute edge of the spectrum, then Huntsman has never claimed to be one nor indicated a desire to be one.

TT
January 13, 2012, 12:39 AM
Libertarianism is a very unforgiving doctrine- if you favor limited government in some places and communitarianism in others, you are a communitarian.

GEM
January 13, 2012, 11:37 AM
Too many other causes in history have abandoned critical thinking and were sure their cause was the only one truth. They would bring down their civilization for purity.

Great plan.

A minor RKBA example. We prefer not to have a shall issue law because the 2nd Amend. is all we need. Thus, we will try to sabotage the shall issue law in our state.

Seen it happen three times. Luckily the purists could only delay the law in some cases and we now have 40 ish states with such laws. To the great benefit of the citizens of those states.

Waywatcher
January 13, 2012, 11:59 AM
Too smart and rational to be nominated.

Actually knows where other countries are.

Understands science.

No chance -

Yep. No chance of being nominated, but if he somehow was, he would stand a very, very good chance of beating Obama.

TT
January 14, 2012, 01:18 PM
GEM: Too many other causes in […] great benefit of the citizens of those states.

I’m not sure what you are trying to get at here, since requiring a permit to CCW is not necessarily a violation of libertarian principles. Certainly two libertarians may differ in good faith about the appropriateness of a particular use of State power; that seems self-evident to me, but if it would please you to see me state it, you have been so accommodated. If you are trying to argue that it is possible to espouse communitarian principles and still be a libertarian, I stand on my original statement.

With regard to Huntsman, there is no realistic dispute that Obama is a communitarian, and yet Huntsman chose to work for him. As a Republican I am not interested in candidates that are willing to compromise with my political enemies.

Tiberius67
January 15, 2012, 01:54 PM
If you thought you could aid the country by being the best person for the job, shouldn't you step up?

So if you didn't like FDR - stay home and let the Nazis win?

Rather have a crappy ambassador to an important country just so you can have ideological purity?

The country is more important than one party or party tribalism.

Ambassador postings, especially for places like China, Japan or Western Europe, are normally reserved...by both parties to be fair...for people who helped the POTUS get elected. Crappy Third World countries no-one wants to go to are the domain of career Foggy Bottom apparatchiks. They can do this because ever since the telegraph, wireless radio, ect decreased the time for Ambassadors in the field to contact Foggy Bottom, the posting has become less and less critical. Occasionally, such as the time FDR's man in London, nazi sympathizer and bootlegger Joseph Kennedy, publicly called on the US to abandon the Brits to thier fate even as FDR was desperately trying to provoke the Germans into declaring war on the US, it can blow up in the Administrations face...normally the State Department apparatchiks around said ambassador keep them from doing anything stupid. There are plenty of Democrats who could have done the job adequately or even well and had even fronted the necessary cash to Barry. ....why Huntsman? Barry would only pass over deserving members of the Party and offer something like that to the Enemy if it benefited the Party to do so. The fact that he didn't see that...or didn't care, doesn't speak well of him.

But to me, the really deal killer is the way his supporters him talk about the man. The sneering contempt he and his followers openly display for the "rabble" says all I really need to know about him. In 2008 we nominated a man who never had a unkind word for a Democrat...but plenty for fellow Republicans...and had carried Democrat water for years, he got curb-stomped. If Hunstman somehow got nominated, I have little doubt he'd be crushed even easier.

I'm not especially fond of Romney, but at least he, unlike McCain, seems to be hungry enough for the job to actually fight for it. Like it or not, he's the best chance the GOP has of stopping Barry before he can replace Kennedy or one of the four conservative SCOTUS justices with another closet Bolshevik and re-write the Constitution by judicial fiat. The polls show that more and more Primary voters are seeing this too.

Neverwinter
January 15, 2012, 02:22 PM
There are plenty of Democrats who could have done the job adequately or even well and had even fronted the necessary cash to Barry. ....why Huntsman? Barry would only pass over deserving members of the Party and offer something like that to the Enemy if it benefited the Party to do so. The fact that he didn't see that...or didn't care, doesn't speak well of him.
It doesn't benefit the administration to have a man who has experience in relations with the East(specifically heavily Chinese countries) from two administrations?
As to the purely partisan motivations for his appointment: they have been already mentioned in the thread.

It was pretty obvious that it was mostly to take Huntsman out of action for this election. And it may have worked. Look at it this way: If Huntsman was now running for president as governor of Utah, instead of former China Ambassador, would you have any reason to complain about him?

If Huntsman had remained out of the administration, then he could be facing a Governor from a southwestern state who actually can steal support from independents and democratic voters unsatisfied with the current administration. I'm still shaking my head at the idea at having served as a China ambassador is a liability, given the significant role that China is playing in the world stage.

Like it or not, he's the best chance the GOP has of stopping Barry before he can replace Kennedy or one of the four conservative SCOTUS justices with another closet Bolshevik and re-write the Constitution by judicial fiat.Yeah, if we don't stop Obama, he could install another liberal justice like the communists who appointed Souter (http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/souter.html).

GEM
January 15, 2012, 06:15 PM
No, I don't play in your self-defined dichotomous universe. If you do, that is fine.

What I am saying, is that a competent person should aid his country if he has the ability.

If you see the world as so black and white that doing a good job for the country is not as important as your dichotomy - that is your business if you get the opportunity to aid the country when you don't like the administration.

Fleet
January 15, 2012, 08:01 PM
I’m not sure what you are trying to get at here, since requiring a permit to CCW is not necessarily a violation of libertarian principles. Certainly two libertarians may differ in good faith about the appropriateness of a particular use of State power; that seems self-evident to me, but if it would please you to see me state it, you have been so accommodated. If you are trying to argue that it is possible to espouse communitarian principles and still be a libertarian, I stand on my original statement.

With regard to Huntsman, there is no realistic dispute that Obama is a communitarian, and yet Huntsman chose to work for him. As a Republican I am not interested in candidates that are willing to compromise with my political enemies.
If you're a republican, you may be many things, but Libertarian is NOT one of them.

mljdeckard
January 15, 2012, 08:54 PM
I never said it was a CORRECT perception that his taking the ambassador job made him a liability. But it was a perception nonetheless.

Dr.Mall Ninja
January 15, 2012, 11:32 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/huntsman-to-drop-out-of-gop-race

Well guys Huntsman is out and endorsing Romney. Everybody who was following him for his 2A views need to look for a new canidate I guess.

Lunie
January 16, 2012, 12:17 AM
I'd say the real shame is that he chose to endorse Romney.

A bit odd, too. I didn't think he would drop until after South Carolina.

If you enjoyed reading about "Jon Huntsman on guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!