Which Candidate to Support?


PDA






arcsound
January 7, 2012, 01:36 PM
I'm trying to determine which Republican candidate has a supportable position and history supporting my 2nd amendment rights. Here is what I have learned:

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

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

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

If you enjoyed reading about "Which Candidate to Support?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Robert
January 7, 2012, 01:40 PM
Be very very careful that this stays 2A related. Lose sight of that and it will get locked in a heartbeat. General politics are not allowed. But keep it 2A and you might be ok.

TexasRifleman
January 7, 2012, 02:00 PM
I believe has stated that he would sign a national ban as president, if congress put the bill on his desk

Use caution trying to read too much into that statement.

Bush said the same thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

highlander 5
January 7, 2012, 02:14 PM
The office of president is not the big worry it's the congress. The president can propose a bill it's the congress that hashes out the details. The president can veto a bill but congress can override that veto if they have enough votes. And IIRC both Harry Reid and Boehner have stated that any anti gun bills will not make it to the floor of congress.

Sky
January 7, 2012, 03:17 PM
It is hard to know the truth about any one's position with all the mud slinging innuendo that accompanies elections. Past actions and records are an indicator but not always proof positive of a future action by a candidate. Seems like now the more a candidate puffs up and talks about how tough they are and how willing they are to bomb someone the more the crowd cheers!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wars = guns no?

Tcruse
January 7, 2012, 03:18 PM
Based on his actions here in Texas, Rick Perry may lead the pack. I would think that the NRA would exercise enough pressure to keep most of the candidates from being open about restrictive gun laws.

Hoppes Love Potion
January 7, 2012, 03:24 PM
I think the real threat to 2A rights is already built into the anti-terror legislation passed since 9/11.

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

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

Kevin5098
January 7, 2012, 03:52 PM
I don't think you will find any candidate more pro 2A than Ron Paul. Unfortunately he does not seem to be a viable choice for defeating Obama.

Nullcone
January 7, 2012, 04:33 PM
I'm finding it difficult to compose an on topic post, mostly because I think being single issue focused is foolish... even if the issue is an important one like 2A infringement.

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

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

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

[End Rant/Hyperbole]

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

^ obscure Doug Adams reference

Anyone else?

BellyUpFish
January 7, 2012, 04:39 PM
I hope Ron Paul makes it. He has my vote.

cbrgator
January 7, 2012, 04:59 PM
The office of president is not the big worry it's the congress. The president can propose a bill it's the congress that hashes out the details.

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

ShawnC
January 8, 2012, 04:51 AM
It's tough. On strictly 2A I have to give it to Paul, but on other big issues I just can't back him. On the economy I give it to Romney, but on gun issues, I'm skeptical. I'd settle for a guy who was neutral on 2A, which may be Romney. I don't think he would appoint activist liberal judges, but who knows? We all want a guy that will overturn Lautenberg, bring back legal full auto machine guns, abolish the ATF and institute constitutional carry throughout the country. If we had such a wonderful President, he/she would not have time for all the other problems with this country.

Arkansas Paul
January 8, 2012, 05:07 AM
I'm finding it difficult to compose an on topic post, mostly because I think being single issue focused is foolish


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

Dr.Mall Ninja
January 8, 2012, 05:18 AM
The last debate they asked the canidates if they weren't running for president what would they be doing on a saturday night.
Rick Perry's answer was that he would be at the gun range.
The lib moderators seemed to scoff at him.

OldMac
January 8, 2012, 09:30 AM
R0N Paul has been clear on his stand for the entire constituti0n including the 2A. For those that only like the 2a and would like to pick and choose which other parts the want, then R0N seams too pro C0Nstitution. Personally, I prefer the 2nd with all the other rights included. What good is having a right to defend yourself if the pres can spy on or nab you without cause or due process. R0N Paul is your only serious 2A and change candidate. That is why your bankers and media fear him and black him out. Vote R0N.

hso
January 8, 2012, 11:04 AM
We have individual threads on almost all of the primary candidates so I don't know what purpose this thread has, but I suggest reading the individual candidate threads to help inform yourself before posting in this one.

BeerSleeper
January 8, 2012, 11:09 AM
I don't think you will find any candidate more pro 2A than Ron Paul. Unfortunately he does not seem to be a viable choice for defeating Obama.

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

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

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

45bthompson
January 8, 2012, 12:31 PM
Paul has the swing vote and the youth vote for sure. He most definitely can beat the current president. He is adamantly pro constitution. While I would have trouble trusting any politician at least he has a long record of votes trying to limit the power of the federal government. I think that is in tune with our fore fathers reasoning for including the 2A.

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

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

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

TT
January 8, 2012, 12:31 PM
...but I'd prefer not to need a clothespin when I pull the lever.

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

Lou McGopher
January 8, 2012, 01:04 PM
Ron Paul is without a doubt the most pro-2A candidate. You can bet he'd sign a bill to reverse Hughes and the GCA68, because of his views on the Constitution, and because he isn't known for buckling to political pressure on any issue. If the 2A and self defense are at the top of your list of important issues, Ron Paul should be your guy.
Don't treat the ballot box like a game of Family Feud, trying to pick the same answer as everyone else. If the rights protected by the 2A are important to you, vote that way.
Ron Paul gets enough support among independents and disaffected Democrats that he certainly could beat Obama. The question is if Paul can beat the Romney campaign. If a candidate has a proven record of inconsistency, does it really matter what they say their position is on the 2A? If Romney says he'll support the 2A, can you trust him to do it?

Ron Paul has a rating of "A" from the NRA. He is the only candidate in this race to get an "A+" from the GOA, just as he was in 2008, and one of only 6 currently in Congress to have that rating. The GOA rates Perry an A, Santorum a B-, Gingrich a C, and Romney a D-.
A + Pro-Gun Leader: introduces pro-gun legislation.
A & A- Pro-Gun Voter: philosophically sound.
B & B- Pro-Gun Compromiser: generally leans our way.
C & C- Leans Our Way: occasionally.
D & D- Leans Anti-Gun: usually against us.
F Anti-Gun Voter: a philosophically committed anti-gunner.
F- Anti-Gun Leader: outspoken anti-gun advocate who carries anti-gun legislation.
NR Not rated: Refused to answer his or her questionnaire; no track record.http://gunowners.org/2012presidential.htm
http://gunowners.org/112hrat.htm

hso
January 8, 2012, 01:58 PM
The only primary candidates that are completely trustworthy on 2A are probably Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul. It would be impossible for any candidate to be stronger on the 2A than Ron Paul, but Perry and Huntsman are expected to be solid on RKBA and protecting the individual interpretation of the 2A across the board.

toejamm
January 8, 2012, 02:07 PM
Re: the OP,

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

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

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

TexasRifleman
January 8, 2012, 02:26 PM
Based on his actions here in Texas, Rick Perry may lead the pack.

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

Neutral is as good as we will get.

baylorattorney
January 9, 2012, 02:30 AM
I remind myself that what candidates promise and what presidents deliver are seldom one in the same.

mljdeckard
January 9, 2012, 03:52 AM
Based on their actions as governor, I would put Huntsman over Perry. (Although Huntsman was never lucky enough to be chased by a coyote while jogging and carrying.)

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

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

Infringed
January 9, 2012, 11:24 AM
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-UQG7k1uX0&feature=related) (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.

Jim NE
January 9, 2012, 12:13 PM
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.


I agree very much with these two statements.

mljdeckard
January 9, 2012, 02:04 PM
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.)

Greenmachin3
January 9, 2012, 02:05 PM
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.

Infringed
January 9, 2012, 02:57 PM
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.)
Where did I say Romney would make the same SCOTUS nominations as Obama?

This is what I said about Romney:
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.

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.

mljdeckard
January 9, 2012, 02:58 PM
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.

mljdeckard
January 9, 2012, 03:00 PM
Infringed, here, where we discuss 2-a issues, you said that you don't think his nominations would be less liberal on 2-a issues than Obama's. (If you must infuriatingly nit-pick.) Upon what do you base this?

Infringed
January 9, 2012, 03:02 PM
mljdeckard, please see post #30

mljdeckard
January 9, 2012, 03:39 PM
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?

benEzra
January 9, 2012, 04:38 PM
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?
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.

XD 45acp
January 9, 2012, 05:05 PM
If I remember correctly, Newt tried to undo the Clinton gun ban in '95. As memory serves me Bob Barr was supposed to head up the arrangements. I did find this..

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2825436/posts

rajb123
January 9, 2012, 05:07 PM
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?

xXxplosive
January 9, 2012, 05:17 PM
Ron paul or Rick Perry.........Pro 2A......IMO.
I know Perry CC's............

XD 45acp
January 9, 2012, 05:20 PM
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.


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.

BobTheTomato
January 9, 2012, 05:54 PM
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.

Infringed
January 9, 2012, 07:07 PM
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?

Infringed
January 9, 2012, 07:44 PM
Romney and Huntsman continue to ignore requests from gun owners that he return the GOA candidate questionnaire. (http://gunowners.org/a010912.htm)

"Romney’s stonewalling is no surprise. After all, he is on record supporting a semi-auto ban and waiting periods for gun purchases. Still, he has the audacity to travel around the country claiming to be a supporter of the Second Amendment.

If he truly has “changed his spots,” then why not commit in writing to support specific Second Amendment issues?"

Dr.Mall Ninja
January 9, 2012, 08:02 PM
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.

telomerase
January 9, 2012, 08:20 PM
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.

Bobson
January 9, 2012, 09:16 PM
Seriously, ANY of the republican candidates would be better than the current administration
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.

Dr.Mall Ninja
January 9, 2012, 09:38 PM
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)

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.

langenc
January 9, 2012, 10:21 PM
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.

Iramo94
January 9, 2012, 10:55 PM
-Deleted-

Sorry, I missed a couple of posts.
My question was already answered.

mljdeckard
January 10, 2012, 02:44 AM
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.

quartermaster
January 10, 2012, 09:02 AM
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

Infringed
January 10, 2012, 10:00 AM
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.I agree. But I also think continuation of the establishment agenda, be it through Obama or most of the GOP candidates, represents a grave threat to our liberty.

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.I'd guess the DNC would put a lot of pressure on him to not set up the party and the 2016 nominee (Hillary Clinton?) for a backlash.


Hopefully, seats may change in the Senate. That may be more important. It is very critical that we all cast our voteYes, let's all vote and be aware of where our senators and congressmen stand on 2A.

FIVETWOSEVEN
January 10, 2012, 01:26 PM
Presidents just don't tend to be "pro 2A". In recent memory many would say that Reagan was "pro 2A" yet he signed FOPA into law with Hughes attached. There's only so much the President can do.

I'm joining this thread late but Reagan is not to blame for that signing but the NRA. Reagan asked the NRA what to do about it and they said to sign it on the premise that the NRA will challenge Hughes later.

From what I've heard, Rick Santorum is Pro Gun. I think he even hunts.

hso
January 10, 2012, 01:35 PM
From what I've heard,

We see this a lot, but this question is too important to just work off of hearsay. Everyone should check multiple sources themselves to actually see what a politician's words and actions have been and not what someone thinks they heard about them.

zxcvbob
January 10, 2012, 01:42 PM
You're all forgetting -- the president sets the agenda for the executive branch and what laws he wants enforced and which ones let's say "are not a priority." I think Ron Paul would effectively shut down the BATF without any need for any legislative action.

rm23
January 10, 2012, 02:34 PM
If all the people who said, "I really like Ron Paul, but he can't win" would support him, he'd beat Romney and Santorum by 25%. Your vote is worth as much as anyone's. Pick the guy you want to be president and stop picking the guy you think is going to win.

FIVETWOSEVEN
January 10, 2012, 03:13 PM
We see this a lot, but this question is too important to just work off of hearsay. Everyone should check multiple sources themselves to actually see what a politician's words and actions have been and not what someone thinks they heard about them.

That's why I didn't say it as fact. ;)

Infringed
January 10, 2012, 04:46 PM
If all the people who said, "I really like Ron Paul, but he can't win" would support him, he'd beat Romney and Santorum by 25%. Your vote is worth as much as anyone's. Pick the guy you want to be president and stop picking the guy you think is going to win.Indeed. In the Drudge 'primary' (http://drudgereport.com/), Paul is leading Romney. And actual polling as of yesterday shows both Paul and Romney would tie Obama in the general.

If everyone who likes Paul's constitutional stand would stop listening to the establishment media and vote for Paul, we wouldn't have to be fretting about what the next President will do to 2A, who he will appoint to SCOTUS, whether BATFE is conjuring some scheme to turn public opinion against guns or some backdoor gun registration scheme, whether DHS (supported by everyone but Paul) will target preppers or those with 'assault rifles', etc.

Dr.Mall Ninja
January 10, 2012, 07:01 PM
That's why I didn't say it as fact.

Its fact.

http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee424/lucasadam87/RTR2VNEO.jpg

hso
January 10, 2012, 07:14 PM
Note the professional photographer wearing black in the right background. A photo op doesn't make a body of practice.

It is also a sad fact that not all "hunters" are 2A supporters. Remember Kerry's background as a hunter?

Lunie
January 10, 2012, 07:15 PM
Ok, he hunts. And it's a fact that being a "hunter" is all but meaningless when it comes to supporting the RTKBA (for anyone else but themselves). Even the most ardent anti-gun zealots are sometimes found either owning guns, or under the protection of armed goons.

Dr.Mall Ninja
January 10, 2012, 07:19 PM
It is also a sad fact that not all "hunters" are 2A supporters. Remember Kerry's background as a hunter?
Kerry did not have an A rating from the NRA.

I dont understand why people just because they support Ron Paul have to demonize other canidates.

I support Newt, but I understand that other guys have strengths too.

hso
January 10, 2012, 07:27 PM
DMJ,

The point being made is that you have to take the whole body of personal and political positions with respect to RKBA and not just bits. A hunter doesn't by definition have to support RKBA. Heck, even "supporters" of RKBA may not be actual supporters of RKBA when it comes to the thorny infringements that people call "reasonable gun control".

Look at the details for each and every candidate in the primary and then make a decision based on an in-depth look.

Dr.Mall Ninja
January 10, 2012, 07:39 PM
HSO,

I understand exactly what your saying, about not just taking someones word that they are pro gun. If I recall correctly Obama has even said that he supports the 2A, which of course he does not.

In Santorums case though he clearly does.

He [Rick Santorum] was the most effective advocate of bringing it [legislation to protect gun companies from frivolous lawsuits] to the floor and getting a vote scheduled. He used his influence to get it to the floor. Without that, we would have lost every American gun company.”
– Wayne LaPierre, CEO – National Rifle Association, October 25, 2006

Also he was against the AWB.

Yes he did support Arlen Specter, but is that really enough to call him anti gun??
The guy is clearly on our side.

As far as me taking in-depth look, I have watched every single debate, if I cant see them live, I record them on my DVR. I also have done my own research on every person running. I dont take my vote lightly.

hso
January 10, 2012, 07:59 PM
Excellent and the type of work we all need to do.

Sky
January 10, 2012, 09:17 PM
Wow a Political discussion that has remained less heated or argumentative than most AR threads!!!!

Salute and way to go THR!!!!

It might have been brought up already but everything I have read says Ron Paul is one of the few candidates that the Independents and even Democrats will vote for. That is why some polls show him either head to head or winning during the presidential campaign.

Just depends on whose agenda and worked poll numbers you are looking at?

Will he get the nomination and if he does will he survive the first year in office; only time will tell but we will never know unless those who agree with him about freedom, the Constitution, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with personal responsibility quit listening to the talking heads and vote with your heart and who you believe will protect your constitutional rights.

Young Turks on the Iowa caucus bring up how the system has an agenda. Just their opinion but interesting. My question is how can any talking head say regardless of your vote Ron Paul will not get the nomination? IMO It is not supposed to work that way in America and is a very effective Psyop with the use of language. Repeat any lie long enough and watch the believers grow.

Even with all the demonetization before Iowa Dr. Paul came in 3rd and will probably come in 2d in New Hampshire....It is a long hard road to the nomination and anything can happen; let us hope the best man for the job ends up on top regardless of our favorites and the process works as it should.

http://youtu.be/3C8PE1W5cKA

Armed012002
January 10, 2012, 10:10 PM
Ron Paul is the obvious pro 2A choice as well as the pro conservative choice.

Unfortunately, people are voting for Romney because he's "electable".

In other words, people are not voting FOR Romney, but rather voting against Obama.

Romney is McCain 2.0

What does Romney have to offer conservatives? Not much.

As much as I hate to see it, another 4 years of Obama is guaranteed.

Armed012002
January 10, 2012, 10:17 PM
If all the people who said, "I really like Ron Paul, but he can't win" would support him, he'd beat Romney and Santorum by 25%. Your vote is worth as much as anyone's. Pick the guy you want to be president and stop picking the guy you think is going to win.

Excellent post.

Lunie
January 10, 2012, 10:47 PM
If you stand for the RTKBA, then the candidate to choose has always been Dr. Ron Paul. The guy who continues to climb no matter how much he gets talked into the ground.

I can only hope that agencies like the ATF are shaking in their boots at his rise. Be even better if they had a nickname for him like "Wrecking-Ball Paul". :D

Dr.Mall Ninja
January 10, 2012, 11:57 PM
If all the people who said, "I really like Ron Paul, but he can't win" would support him, he'd beat Romney and Santorum by 25%
Really?
Romney has 25% of the vote give or a take a couple points.
So what your telling me is that he would have 50% of the vote? that seems a little bit of a strech...

I can only hope that agencies like the ATF are shaking in their boots at his rise. Be even better if they had a nickname for him like "Wrecking-Ball Paul".

Ron Paul is not running for King of the United States, he wont be able to do even half of what you guys think he will!
He is outside the mainstream, therfore anything that most of his pro 2a ideas would be shutdown.
In order to have the repeal of Hughes,Lautenberg, national open carry and everything else, we would need clones of Ron Paul making up most of the house,senate and Supreme court.
I am glad that this is not going to be the case due to some of his ideas which are insane, but i'm not going to go into them due to the forum rules.

Lunie
January 11, 2012, 12:33 AM
Ron Paul is not running for King of the United States, he wont be able to do even half of what you guys think he will!
He is outside the mainstream, therfore anything that most of his pro 2a ideas would be shutdown.
In order to have the repeal of Hughes,Lautenberg, national open carry and everything else, we would need clones of Ron Paul making up most of the house,senate and Supreme court.
I am glad that this is not going to be the case due to some of his ideas which are insane, but i'm not going to go into them due to the forum rules.

A great part of his appeal is that he isn't running for King. :evil:

One of the great specters of an Obama term 2 is the appointment of "anti's" in positions of power. What is something positive that can come from a Paul Presidency? Good nominations and appointments that can lead to better conditions for those of us who value our right to bear arms. He can veto unconstitutional legislation, finally acting as a legitimate check on Congress.

Is he a messiah? A savior? Of course not. But he would be the first small step in a real positive direction. Is someone like Romney even that? I don't believe so. :banghead:

I'm asking for a lot. I'm asking for a person who believes that the Constitution is the ball and chain that restrains the Federal (and State) Government(s) from trampling on the Liberties of the People. I'm asking for the person who believes most firmly that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's the Law of the Land, but in name only today. I want to see that at least challenged in my lifetime. Electing Romneys, Gingrichs, and others pushes me farther from that goal.

parsimonious_instead
January 11, 2012, 12:38 AM
I always interpreted my right to vote as my opportunity to "vote for the person I want to see holding that office" - not "the guy most likely to win" "the one that will do less damage" or "the lesser of two evils." In that latter case, you're still voting for evil.

Dr.Mall Ninja
January 11, 2012, 02:26 AM
Lunie, I respect what your saying but I still disagree, when you say that Ron Paul is the only choice to advance RBKA.

Good nominations and appointments that can lead to better conditions for those of us who value our right to bear arms.
If Ron Paul were to nominate or appoint someone who is a true liberation then the congress would never approve them.

Ron Paul's philosphy is most aligned with us, but as president with regards to RBKA we would feel no difference between him and Santorum or Perry.


The same bills would show up on any of these guys desk, and I think that all 3 of them would make the right descions.

Ron Paul is just so extreme on every issue, that I doubt anything he wants would get done.

Paul sponsored 620 bills as a Congressman from Texas and only four made it to a vote, and out of those only one passed..

Is he a messiah? A savior? Of course not. But he would be the first small step in a real positive direction At the rate he gets things done, they wouldnt just be small steps, they would be baby turtle steps.

Now if we elected a guy like Gingrich who has a history of getting things done we might be able to get somewhere.

I'm not saying that Ron Paul wouldn't be great for the 2A, all I'm trying to say is that he is not the only answer.

mark1616
January 11, 2012, 02:39 AM
Don't ask me who to support, my candidates keep dropping out.

Lunie
January 11, 2012, 02:44 PM
1) Lunie, I respect what your saying but I still disagree, when you say that Ron Paul is the only choice to advance RBKA.

2) Ron Paul is just so extreme on every issue, that I doubt anything he wants would get done.

3) Now if we elected a guy like Gingrich who has a history of getting things done we might be able to get somewhere.

4) I'm not saying that Ron Paul wouldn't be great for the 2A, all I'm trying to say is that he is not the only answer.

DMN, my apologies for snipping your quote up, but I wanted to answer some of your points specifically.

1) I respect your opinion, even though it differs from mine. I don't think I've said that Paul is the only acceptable choice, but only that he is our best choice. There are others who occupy a second or third place in my mind. Paul is my first choice for a number of reasons, but for THR purposes, because he is the strongest RKBA supporter. If I have the choice, I want the best. I'm gonna pick the one who I want, regardless of anything else. Later on this year, if I have to make a different choice, I'll reevaluate who that "best" choice will be.

2) I don't know where this notion of "extreme" really comes from. And if you doubt that anything he wants would really get done, then you have nothing to lose if he is elected. ;)

3) I cringe when people mention the name "Gingrich". He is incredibly low on my list (Just above Romney). In theory, he would be THE man of the Republican party, but he isn't. I can't find many things I like about him as a candidate, and apparently, neither can most other people (so far).

4) Again, I would agree with you that he is not the ONLY choice. But he is the best choice, and I refuse to throw away my Primary vote on someone who I don't want.

One other thing I would like to point out... Of the current field of candidates, no one else poses such a significant danger to the Republican party. Why? Because no one else has such a (large, and growing) loyal base of supporters. Supporters who may well not be there for [insert name] when the time comes around. I don't think any other candidate poses such a risk to the party. I guess if you want to beat Obama, you better make sure Paul, and the votes that will follow him, are on the Republican ticket. ;)

Lunie
January 11, 2012, 03:34 PM
Interesting tidbit:

http://www.revolutionpac.com/2012/01/ron-paul-a-national-candidate-one-of-only-two-republicans-on-all-state-ballots/

I knew some of the other candidates were not on all ballots, I didn't realize that only Paul and Romney are serious enough to take care of something so basic.

Infringed
January 11, 2012, 04:13 PM
One other thing I would like to point out... Of the current field of candidates, no one else poses such a significant danger to the Republican party. Why? Because no one else has such a (large, and growing) loyal base of supporters. Supporters who may well not be there for [insert name] when the time comes around. I don't think any other candidate poses such a risk to the party. I guess if you want to beat Obama, you better make sure Paul, and the votes that will follow him, are on the Republican ticket. I think the GOP underestimates the degree to which Paul supporters are in the 'Paul or bust' mindset. No other GOP candidate has that kind of loyalty, as near as I can tell. This is not 2008, when conservatives were largely able to rally around McCain once he was the nominee.

For many of us 'Paulites', 'Paultards', or, as I prefer, patriots, the differences between Obama and Romney (including on 2A) are not great enough to justify playing into the tiresome routine of voting for the lesser of two evils that has produced an ever growing federal government and ever increasing encroachment on our liberties.

That said, I would urge everyone here, despite our differences on GOP Pres candidate, to review the 2A positions of everyone up for election in your area, including senators, congressman and state legislators, with NRA, GOA, etc. Let's send a clear message to politicians nationwide that we will not tolerate encroachment of RKBA.

Dr.Mall Ninja
January 11, 2012, 04:21 PM
I think the GOP underestimates the degree to which Paul supporters are in the 'Paul or bust' mindset

Fine. If Paul is the not the nominee go ahead let Obama have a second term where he does not face reelection.
Watch him dismantle RBKA line by line, expect another AWB and DC laws becoming the norm.

If all of you Ron Paul guys stay home, I expect to read alot of threads in the future with people crying about losing their rights 2-3 years from now.

^^
If BHO wins that might be my new sig :evil:

mljdeckard
January 11, 2012, 04:28 PM
^^BHO is COUNTING on there being a perception of nobility in losing, but having voted for the 'right' candidate.

I'll say it again. In political reality, there is little difference IF ANY in the long-term picture for RKBA between what Romney will be forced to do, and what Paul will actually be ABLE to do.

Lou McGopher
January 11, 2012, 05:27 PM
At the rate [Ron Paul] gets things done, they wouldnt just be small steps, they would be baby turtle steps.The RKBA (and other rights) have been eroded with a series of baby steps. Just look at the Brady Campaign's strategy.

Take all the anti-gun legislation, bundle it all together. Would it have ever gotten passed if it were put into one bill? Heck no.

It's going to have to be taken back piece by piece, inch by inch. I think the progress made with concealed carry laws, Heller, and MacDonald have demonstrated that. There aren't going to be many homeruns hit in the battle to restore freedom. Unless someone overturns Slaughterhouse on the Privileges or Immunities clause, like Gura tried to do in MacDonald... that would be knocking one out of the park. But I think that would take at least one more Thomas on the bench.

If Ron Paul can move things in the right direction for the RKBA, even if it's only with small steps, it will still be more than any other president in living memory.

Lunie
January 11, 2012, 06:20 PM
Dr. Ron Paul more than fills the bill for the Republican base, "Anyone but Obama".

But I think many of you may be forgetting that Paul is pulling in votes from people unhappy with both parties. Those votes aren't guaranteed to anyone, let alone to the Republicans. And if those votes don't go to the (R) candidate, the only people to blame are those within the GOP.

rugerman07
January 11, 2012, 06:21 PM
Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate that fully supports our 2nd amendment rights. Can he beat Romney, can he win the GOP nomination? I think he has a better chance of beating Romney than the other's do. If he wins the nomination can he beat Obama? YES, I think he can. :)

rm23
January 11, 2012, 07:02 PM
Oh, wow. That Santorum photo is a thing of beauty. It looked like he had that sweatshirt, vest and hat ironed for it.

mac66
January 11, 2012, 08:09 PM
Personally I think gun rights is non issue amongst the republican candidates. Not one of them is stupid enough to do anything to jeopardize their base. Hell, even Obama has done anything about guns for fear of not being re-elected. We have beat the drum on that issue for the last 25 years, no candidate is stupid enough to make it an issue.

Personally, I don't really like any of the candidates. I will vote for Romney if he gets the nomination. I am not a big fan of Ron Paul but I would vote for him if he gets nominated which he won't. I would not vote for him as a third party. I voted for Ross Perot back in the day to teach the Republicans a lesson and all we ended up with was Bill Clinton for 8 frickin years.

hso
January 11, 2012, 09:17 PM
Gentlemen, let's return to the discussion instead of bickering over the ability of Ron Paul to govern.

Strykervet
January 11, 2012, 09:24 PM
Romney has two faces and two tongues, Gingrich IS the "Grinch That Stole Christmas" --'nuff said, Santorum is too religious, which isn't necessarily a problem, but that crap doesn't belong in government it belongs at home, then you got Paul. The rest don't stand a chance, and Grinch probably doesn't either, but Romney is in front --just barely.

Paul is the only one I trust. Like another fellow on here said, he's been saying the SAME THING for 30 years. This'll also be the last time he runs, he's getting too old, so if you've ever been interested in him now's the chance. 2A is just ONE of the liberties he champions.

I strongly disagree with some of the stuff he says, like doing away with Medicare and SS (which ain't happening, if he really pushed it he'd get impeached) but the rest of the stuff he DOES have power over as president, I mostly agree with. We REALLY need someone in there that won't blow the wad on bailing out banks and wars, then give us more restrictions and babysitters and mandatory crap we have to by from corporations (like insurances --not that having it is bad, but being forced to IS, and they always screw you if you NEED it). And 2A? It has been slipping for a long time, and regardless of the "Fast and Furious" scam ran by the government, they still plan on going foward with a more comprehensive ban --and Obama thinks that people should not be able to own any semi auto weapons. Period.

Paul, I think, would be for 2A even if he didn't say so just based on the other stuff he says. Everytime I hear him talk, I think "Yeah!" Well, most times. Paul basically isn't a sellout, that is VERY important to me --even if I don't agree with everything, I want the truth. No other candidate has ever been for civil liberties like this guy in my lifetime, and it is time to give him a chance. Why gamble on those other greedbags? Haven't we had enough Bush's, Clintons, Nixons and the like? I mean, really?

Romney, the guy that everyone seems to love, said on two different occasions in front of a camera in the past that "I STRONGLY support a woman's right to choose!" then he said, paraphrased, "I am against ANY legislation that would ban abortion". NOW he says he is STRONGLY against it... So which Romney are you going to vote for, or are you going to get the package deal? How's that work exactly? So with a record like that, it doesn't MATTER AT ALL what he says about 2A! If he is so two faced on abortion, which is another civil liberty, how can you trust that?

To be frankly honest, and I MEAN this, if it comes down to Romney and Obama, I'll vote for Obama. For all the crap people expected from Obama, it didn't happen. But it WILL likely happen if he gets re-elected. Still, an election has so much more to do with stuff besides the 2A you cannot divorce them, so for me it like rolling dice, and I'd just rather have Obama than Romney. Now these diehard republicans want all or nothing, willing to bet the farm on this one to get the most "Reagan like conservative" --and to be honest, Reagan was a horrible president, just everyone was hopped up on cocaine and the economy was gangbusters, but you seem to forget the GCA he signed in 1986... That's in the past and those days ain't coming back folks, you live in a new era and there ain't no more Eisenhowers. And, judging JUST BY THE NUMBERS of primary voters, I can say Obama will likely murder Romney. Also, just look at Perry --the guy ISN'T Bush, but he LOOKS like him, TALKS like him, and comes from the same state, same office. The taste Bush left in our mouths was reflected in his number of voters in NH --100 something? Think about it. Republicans want another Bush, another Reagan, but the rest of the country doesn't. On election day, if you put Romney up against Obama, you are going to be sorely disappointed.

But Paul, Paul is preaching the things that Americans are most upset about --the economy and bailouts, endless wars, huge defense budgets, AND civil liberties (which I should have put in front, but it only seems to be an issue with Paul and not the others). In ten years, we've gone from a screwed up democracy to tinkering on the edge of who knows what. That "Occupy Wall Street" wasn't or isn't much different than what happened in Egypt, Libya, and now Syria, and a little more momentum and... So choose wisely, and remember Obama IS a moderate and won the last election and the taste of the public at large is towards a moderate. Perhaps that is why Romney is doing well, he was charged with being a moderate, but he may as well been graciously bestowed rather than charged considering the charge came from Gingrich and he isn't (thank God) doing so well.

Also, at what point will you all be fed up? IF Obama gets elected and bans your weapons, are REALLY going to give them up? I'll put it another way: if you were the only man holding the Bill of Rights, the real deal, would you turn THAT over? Hell no. In effect, banning of weapons is no different that banning the 2A. Plain and simple. It says "right to keep and bear arms" not hunting rifles. As I understand arms, I SHOULD be able to keep and bear whatever I like. I should be able to go to the gun shop down the street and buy automatics, suppressors, even light artillery and not be given the governemnt run around. As it stands, I CAN buy that stuff with a government run around, but only if I belong to another CLASS. Middle class cannot afford $50,000 price tags on $1000 rifles --this, this is a sign of class warfare. It is also just the beginning of a full out ban. If they keep picking at the 2A like vultures and we let them take away our parity of force, well, bye bye Constitution and I'll emigrate to Canada. I have plenty of points to get there and will be welcome. I don't want to live in a US where only the Daniel Harless' have firearms.

I'd rather die than live in a country that hands over its liberties for "royal dispensations". That just turns my stomache. You know, soldiers and politicians take the same oathe, but the difference is that when I took it, I didn't have my fingers crossed. And you know, I've already been branded a government enemy: when Napolitano got the head of Homeland Security, she said on CNN that people who are (paraphrased) "military veterans from combat arms (I'm infantry) people who like firearms (I'm NRA) and people who believe in the Bill of Rights are enemies of the state". That WAS in context as you read it, but when questioned, she refused to recant, stood by that statement, and later said it had to do with "lone wolves". Whatever. When I heard that, my heart sunk, I felt like I'd been stabbed in the back --and I have. I still haven't gotten my written apology from her yet either.

If you republican primary voters can get over the fact that Romney looks like a young Reagan and tells you to your face whatever you want to hear. I hear at churches, he IS Jesus, but at the mosque, he is all for Mohammed and religous freedom, at the abortion clinic, he's all for it, and across the street at the protest, he's for them too! And at the gun shop? You figure it out.

Please, for the sake of us all, pick Paul. I can guarantee about 10 votes for Paul, maybe more a lot of my friends and wife's friends value my opinion because I'm home a lot and watch all the debates and read through the trash, but at least 8 will go to Obama if he is pitted against Romney or another (my best buddy, he fancies himself a republican, but he's a union factory worker --they'd axe his butt in a heartbeat if they could). WA state may surprise you, folks here are FED UP with this mess and here and in Oregon, folks are VERY protective of civil liberties. Think about it. For as "liberal" as Seattle is, I can still go walk anywhere I want with my pistol on my hip, showing or not --there is a picture of an Opencarry protestor arm in arm for a picture with the DA. Obama got picked because he was the anti-Bush, supposedly, and promised us better times. But he didn't come through, however, around here he's considered a much better choice than the "perfect conservative" that the repubs want to pit agains the incumbent.

See, in urban areas, that talk of abortion bans, gay bans, real and drug war escalations, that doesn't fly like it does in backwater Kansas. So, again, choose wisely, and think, is Paul all that bad? Really? Hell, he might even get rid of the NFA if he can! It sounds like his thing.

Well, I'm done, I'll step down now. Vote Ron Paul!

PS, I voted Obama last time, but had you guys picked Paul over McCain and that crazy hooker he picked for VP, you'd likely have a republican incumbent right now. Nearly my whole family and almost all my friends voted Obama, but they would have voted Paul.

mljdeckard
January 11, 2012, 10:14 PM
I'm not sure why you think that Paul is so much MORE electable than the others. And I think you are nuts if you think four more years of Obama would hurt RKBA less than four years of Romney.

Correct does not equal electable.

Infringed
January 11, 2012, 10:33 PM
I'm not sure why you think that Paul is so much MORE electable than the others. And I think you are nuts if you think four more years of Obama would hurt RKBA less than four years of Romney.A Romney presidency will be followed by more years of establishment candidates, and all that entails. A rebellion amongst conservatives in the general election will mean 4 more years of Obama, but may change the type of candidates that come out of the GOP. The Tea Party in Congress is mostly sell-outs, but the voters can force the issue and let the GOP know that we are through with establishment stooges, and that if they want back into power, they had better change their actual platform (which is quite different from the one they give lip service to - small government, balanced budgets, etc.).

Correct does not equal electable.A recent poll showed that both Romney and Paul would tie Obama in the general. This 'electability' meme regarding Romney has been pushed by the media since the early days of the GOP primary process, but still Ron Paul polls just as well vs. Obama as Romney.

One can only imagine how Paul fares without the media relentlessly dismissing him as a crazy old man. Just yesterday, I heard Lawrence O'Donnell say that Paul doesn't count and that his second place in NH is an anomaly (in the context of a discussion of whether Huntsman did well enough to go to S.Carolina; his point was that Huntsman essentially finished 2nd because Paul doesn't count). Nice of the media to dismiss not only Paul, but all the NH voters who cast their vote for him. Similarly, I've heard Hannity saying that the only GOP candidate he couldn't back is Paul.

When the establishment media on both sides hates a candidate, the citizens might want to listen to that candidate.

Mike1234567
January 11, 2012, 10:46 PM
(partial quote): 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.

I don't care if he does run as a third party candidate. I'm voting for him anyway because I've vowed to never waste my vote on a bad choice... ever again. Plus it's darned time the we break out of this stupid corrupt two-party system. A Libertarian needs to win.

Lunie
January 11, 2012, 11:28 PM
I'm trying to determine which Republican candidate has a supportable position and history supporting my 2nd amendment rights. Here is what I have learned:

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

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

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

Back to the OP:

Who has a supportable position: That really depends on what you are willing to support. If you will only settle for the strongest 2A advocate, then Paul is almost unarguably your choice from the Republican field. If you are willing to accept something less, then a candidate like Huntsman might also be acceptable. There are threads that talk about each candidate...

I agree with your #1, and in my way of thinking, Romney is simply not a supportable 2A candidate.

2. As you mentioned, Santorum does not have the most extensive or respectable 2A position. Whether he is an acceptable candidate is up to your own judgment.

To me, there is only one best 2A candidate. Anything less is... less. I have the chance to vote for the strongest supporter of the RKBA that I have seen in my lifetime. IMO, he is the best and most supportable 2A candidate. It's why he is so strongly supported here, and why I think he needs to be OUR choice here on THR. :cool:

I want to stress that the important thing is for you to be active, to vote, and vote for the candidate YOU feel is best. Accept nothing less than what YOU want. Hopefully, no clothespin will be required.

It's your vote. No one else's. Make it, and make it count for what you want!

mljdeckard
January 11, 2012, 11:30 PM
There's a different poll by a different agency with a different result every day.

And infringed, you keep saying 'will' when I think you mean 'may' or 'could'. I have learned to be wary when people speak in absolutes.

TT
January 11, 2012, 11:43 PM
I think the GOP underestimates the degree to which Paul supporters are in the 'Paul or bust' mindset.

I think Paul supporters underestimate how many Republicans will never vote for Paul because of his ‘Blame America First’ beliefs about Islamic terrorism.

telomerase
January 11, 2012, 11:52 PM
I'm not sure why you think that Paul is so much MORE electable than the others.

Because Independents can trust him to end corporate welfare and not start wars without a Congressional declaration. No other Republican can bring in as many Independents... and no other Republican will end corporate welfare.

Owen Sparks
January 11, 2012, 11:53 PM
Ron Paul is the only candidate that has said that all federal gun laws are unconstitutional.

Infringed
January 11, 2012, 11:54 PM
I think Paul supporters underestimate how many Republicans will never vote for Paul because of his ‘Blame America First’ beliefs about Islamic terrorism.
I find it amazing how much heat Paul gets for acknowledging blowback. Just as I found it amazing that Rev. Wright (Obama's reverend) got so much flak for his "chickens coming home to roost" comment.

Do the people who are outraged by such comments think they would be quite content if Russia or China started forcibly meddling in Canada or Mexico's affairs?

News at 11: Crap you do around the world has consequences.

Neverwinter
January 12, 2012, 12:15 AM
In terms of practical effects on RKBA, Huntsman, Paul and Perry are probably not going to be significantly different. This is encouraging because it allows us to make choices based on other criteria rather than being held hostage by gun rights. I will refrain from posting which candidate(s) I have observed as having the best policy positions.



Fine. If Paul is the not the nominee go ahead let Obama have a second term where he does not face reelection.
Watch him dismantle RBKA line by line, expect another AWB and DC laws becoming the norm.

If all of you Ron Paul guys stay home, I expect to read alot of threads in the future with people crying about losing their rights 2-3 years from now.

^^
If BHO wins that might be my new sig :evil:
Do you have a hat or intend to purchase one in case your predictions do not come true by Jan 20, 2017?

I'm setting the date on my calendar now.

Sky
January 12, 2012, 12:21 AM
Personally I think gun rights is non issue amongst the republican candidates. Not one of them is stupid enough to do anything to jeopardize their base. Hell, even Obama has done anything about guns for fear of not being re-elected. We have beat the drum on that issue for the last 25 years, no candidate is stupid enough to make it an issue.


Oh, wow. That Santorum photo is a thing of beauty. It looked like he had that sweatshirt, vest and hat ironed for it hahaha you noticed too!!

When the establishment media on both sides hates a candidate, the citizens might want to listen to that candidate.
Many are waking up and saying the same thing.


Maybe you are correct no candidate will go head to head and be such a fool as to make guns an issue:

It seems like I remember an "under the radar" comment to the "B" bunch followed by a big "Fast and Furious" scandal. Some believe F&F WAS to be used against the 2d amendment but they got caught/busted so now we have the on going scandal. The real truth may never be known.

Who knows what evil lurks in the heart and mines of the super anti's? They honestly believe the world would be better if all the weapons were turned into plow shares... People in Russia. China, Cambodia, and many others lost the weapons and their lives and the only thing the plow was used for was to turn them under forever..

Dirty tricks, innuendo, and out right lies seem to be a staple of some campaigns however it is getting harder to hide from those who wish to do some investigating on their own and try and learn what really went down on a particular subject; or at least get another opinionated opinion.

There are several videos of various candidates showing what they promised or said and then what they did once elected. Up to each of us to try, in our own way, to satisfy our individual requirements with our next commander and chief. Maybe if we take our quest for knowledge seriously then the chosen candidate will too.

I personally do not like the course our ship of state is taking therefore I am looking for a real course correction and to me Dr. Paul is the most trust worthy of the whole bunch to fight hard for a correction. He is old and will probably only last one term and I seriously doubt he could mess stuff up any worse than it appears to be already on this course.

Mit the other night looked good in his acceptance speech; seemed sincere with body language and gestures. I keep remembering the question he was asked about the Constitution and his comment was something like he was not sure so let's ask Dr. Paul! Every last one of our elected officials swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Paul has stood before the house and has argued every bill that he felt was unconstitutional (622?? I do not know but sounds good). He has authored and argued for legislation that would repeal those he felt were unconstitutional. He has been the lone statesman on more than one occasion because he does not take money for political considerations or so I have been told. In other words he can not be bought to go against the Constitution as he understands it. Maybe all a pack of lies but for those who are willing to check he is a breath of fresh air with regards to a politician/person/man who does what he can and tries to accomplish what he says.

Maybe in a couple of more weeks the field will be narrowed down a bit more. I just hope there is not a strong third party candidate that siphons votes off !!! That we get hope and change that fits more my idea of a fair and prosperous America that holds all the Constitution in high regard and understands its' intent and purpose.

Many hate his foreign policy statements and feel he is to much an isolationist...maybe he is full of beans?? It seems to me for the last 40 years we have been at some state of war (undeclared) and it seems like we are no closer to peace...Whats the end game, take away all our rights because someone on the other side of the world wants revenge for us killing a relative, child or friend of theirs?? Maybe it is religion or a myriad of other excuses to get the masses/countries to go at each other. Looking back over my short life span do I feel safer? I do believe if we stay on this course we have set then someone is going to have the know how and determination to do something really bad to America. That does not mean we build a camp fire and join hands singing kumbaya...There are many the world over willing to die for revenge. Vigilance and Intel is paramount but it is true if you kill someones family and they are offered a way of revenge many would say "shoot me up with that deadly bio agent" and buy a one way ticket to where ever the ones who did the dirty deed lives; may they all die, etc etc ..

Right now IMO another topic is we should all be concerned with voter fraud in any election. I read an article about 900 votes in South Carolina from deceased individuals in the 2008 election. That is unsatisfactory to say the least, yet, every time someone says you have to show an ID it is discrimination against those who do not have said ID; if the showing of an ID were law the world would probably end according to a very vocal minority!.

All we can do is vote our conscience and hope it works out for the country and our collective future as a nation. I will vote no matter what and so much the better for me if it is Dr. Paul.

ShawnC
January 12, 2012, 03:04 AM
The primary vote should ideally be the most democratic vote you can cast. In theory, you vote for who you think should be the candidate, not who you think could win. When all the votes are counted, someone wins, and if the margins are close enough that winning candidates should be able to look at the numbers and see, based on who his opponents were, what the issues are that bring people to the voting booth. Again, in theory, if Romney wins, and it's close between him and Paul, he should realize the votes he could have gotten, were his views closer to his opponents, and either adopt those views to increase his popularity, or run with that candidate. In theory. Of course a win is a win and to hell with what the other candidates were strong on.

And to make this post more relevant to RKBA...Yay guns! Three cheers for 2a!

Dr.Mall Ninja
January 12, 2012, 05:33 AM
Do you have a hat or intend to purchase one in case your predictions do not come true by Jan 20, 2017?

I'm setting the date on my calendar now

I hope that i'm wrong.

30.06
January 12, 2012, 05:45 AM
Who are the biggest backers of Romney ?
Goldman Sachs ( yes the same backers of Obummer )
JP Morgan ( Also backers of Obummer )
and other Wall street banking houses .

Who are the biggest backers of Ron Paul ?
Members of the US ARMY
Members of the US AIR FORCE
Members of the US NAVY
Members of the USMC
and the little guys and gals all across the country .

'nuff said ?

wheelgunslinger
January 12, 2012, 07:11 AM
Paul is really the only clear choice.

Batty67
January 12, 2012, 11:00 AM
Interesting thought on the Ron Paul issue (read in the Wash. Post today, but still valid to consider): what happens if Paul does not win the Repub. nomination? If he starts a third-party candidacy he'd very likely assure Obama a victory, even more so than Perot did for Clinton in the 1990s. BUT...there is his son Senator Rand Paul, and starting a third-party candidacy would kill (or at least seriously hurt) his son's chance of becoming president in 2016 if he hands the Dems a victory in 2012. So, there is thought that he'll not split the party vote in 2012 to help his son's chances of becoming president.

Infringed
January 12, 2012, 11:31 AM
No doubt a Paul third party ticket would torpedo the GOP in the general election. But I think even if Paul doesn't run, Romney doesn't win - subject to the condition of the economy this autumn. He simply cannot get the conservative base energized, and once we get past the nomination, he will have to move toward the center, which will further alienate conservatives.

TT
January 12, 2012, 11:31 AM
I find it amazing how much heat Paul gets for acknowledging blowback.

Don’t be amazed when Paul doesn’t win the nomination. Apologists for al-Qaeda need to reconsider their party membership- you’re not wanted in the Republican Party.

Infringed
January 12, 2012, 11:35 AM
Don’t be amazed when Paul doesn’t win the nomination. Apologists for al-Qaeda need to reconsider their party membership- you’re not wanted in the Republican Party.Classic black or white, us vs. them, you're with us or you're a terrorist mode of thought. W would be proud of you.

Don't worry, I'm not a Republican. I'm a registered Libertarian.

Sky
January 12, 2012, 11:45 AM
Maybe it depends on where you live and what circles you travel in but most if not all the people I hear talk politics around my part of the woods would vote for anything or anyone before voting for another 4 years of our current fearless leader.

TT
January 12, 2012, 01:23 PM
W would be proud of you.

Thanks! :)

hso
January 12, 2012, 06:48 PM
The hijacking of this thread over Ron Paul secondary issues has doomed the broader discussion.

If you enjoyed reading about "Which Candidate to Support?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!