pacodelahoya
Member
Ok, I thought it was us Ron Paul supporters here you were talking about.
Carry on...
Carry on...
For those who say Fred Thompson is anti-gun
- Thread starter Redneck with a 40
- Start date
- Status
71Commander
Member
3/4 of these Ron Paul supporters.
I shoot USPSA matches every Sunday from April until November. I shoot in Mi, Oh, In and Tn and have yet to meet any die hard Paul supporters.
Are all of the Paul supporters on this board and not out shooting? Some don't even post or very little postings in the different gun sections on this forum. It's mostly in L&P. Do you own any guns?
jerkface11
Member
If you guys are going to support an actor at least make it the right one.
pcosmar
member
TennTucker, I have no guns. That Is Why I Am A Ron Paul Supporter.
There are no others offering any hope.
JohnBT
Member
"Presidential candidate Ron Paul today won the Coalition for New Hampshire Taxpayers (CNHT) straw poll at their annual picnic"
A picnic?
That's it, a picnic?
Gallup has to go to picnics to do polls?
John
A picnic?
That's it, a picnic?
Gallup has to go to picnics to do polls?
John
R127
Member
My friend and I just got done taking our wives on a double date to the shooting range, rifle and pistol.
Thompson is another case of all hat and no cowboy. Even his supporters will tell you he's a good speaker, in fact that is one of his primary selling points in their minds. Unfortunately it is all talk. He's an unabashed globalist that has shown by his voting record that he is fine with insourcing more foreign labor and outsourcing more American jobs, even in hard times like his vote to increase the H1B quotas during the tech crash, an industry which has historically employed a sizeable chunk of the nation's H1B's. His CFR membership allies him strongly with those who want to see America, Canada and Mexico merged into one giant mess. I've never met a globalist who wasn't, in the end, a gun banner.
It doesn't matter anyway, Fred Thompson is completely unelectable. He is wrong on all the same issues the Bush administration is hated for. He can never win any centrist or Democrat votes with his hardline neo-con position and with most of the nation leaning center or left of center that means a nomination for Fred Thompson equals a Republican loss of the presidential election. Even ignoring all this, the man is riddled with cancer. He simply will not stand a chance of election when the general public see him running against a younger, healthier Democrat candidate.
This is probably why FT still isn't running.
With Paul it's a whole nother story. A good way to put it would be "one down, two to go." Paul gets the anti-war vote, he gets the pro-gun vote, he gets the secure-the-borders vote, the anti-police-state vote, the hunt-down-the-terrorists vote, the fiscal-responsibility vote, etc.
... and nobody will be voting for gun-banner Giuliani. Two down, one to go?
Thompson is another case of all hat and no cowboy. Even his supporters will tell you he's a good speaker, in fact that is one of his primary selling points in their minds. Unfortunately it is all talk. He's an unabashed globalist that has shown by his voting record that he is fine with insourcing more foreign labor and outsourcing more American jobs, even in hard times like his vote to increase the H1B quotas during the tech crash, an industry which has historically employed a sizeable chunk of the nation's H1B's. His CFR membership allies him strongly with those who want to see America, Canada and Mexico merged into one giant mess. I've never met a globalist who wasn't, in the end, a gun banner.
It doesn't matter anyway, Fred Thompson is completely unelectable. He is wrong on all the same issues the Bush administration is hated for. He can never win any centrist or Democrat votes with his hardline neo-con position and with most of the nation leaning center or left of center that means a nomination for Fred Thompson equals a Republican loss of the presidential election. Even ignoring all this, the man is riddled with cancer. He simply will not stand a chance of election when the general public see him running against a younger, healthier Democrat candidate.
This is probably why FT still isn't running.
With Paul it's a whole nother story. A good way to put it would be "one down, two to go." Paul gets the anti-war vote, he gets the pro-gun vote, he gets the secure-the-borders vote, the anti-police-state vote, the hunt-down-the-terrorists vote, the fiscal-responsibility vote, etc.
... and nobody will be voting for gun-banner Giuliani. Two down, one to go?
samtechlan
Member
Well I don't own ENOUGH guns. Let's see now a Glock 19, S&W 686 2.5 inch barrel with Performance Center action job, S&W Model 19 with 4 inch barrel built in 1969 (pinned barrel), S&W 637 airweight with std stocs and a 642 with CT grips (carry guns). Bushmaster Shorty AR-15, Arsenal SAM-7 carbine AK clone, Arsenal Slr-101 AK clone, Arsenal Slr 105 AK clone in 5.45 (current Russian military caliber).
I REALLY need a steel J frame without the Clinton lock, a model 65 in .357 (the stainless steel version of the old fbi revolver) with a 3 inch barrel and definitely an M4 clone. Plus many, many more revolvers.
Thanks for asking.
Almost forgot I just recently sold a Sig 225 and I have been kicking myself ever since.
_________________________________________________________
www.ronpaul2008.com
Two fantastic Austrian weapons:
One is mechanical: http://www.glock.com/
The other is intellectual: Austrian Economics www.mises.org
pcosmar
member
JohnBT asks.
It is called a campaign, where the candidates meet and speak to the voters. Then the people vote.
Here is more,
http://campaignsandelections.com/NH/articles/?ID=334
kcmarine
Member
Mods? Oh, Mods?
kcmarine
Member
Titan6
member
I wouldn't really describe myself as a die hard Paul supporter. Certainly he is the best choice currently running and better than Thompson.
I don't post much in the other forums because well... the other forums are a mixed bag at times. Most of the time if I don't know the answer no one else here does either. Or it is too much of an opinion thing like which is better 10mm or .45 ACP? Also the search function works wonders.
But I own 5 hand guns, 10 Rifles, 3 shot guns, two air rifles and a BB Gun.
But what does that have to do with anything? Suppose a poster lived in DC and gun ownership was an impossibilty? Would that make their views less valid?
I don't post much in the other forums because well... the other forums are a mixed bag at times. Most of the time if I don't know the answer no one else here does either. Or it is too much of an opinion thing like which is better 10mm or .45 ACP? Also the search function works wonders.
But I own 5 hand guns, 10 Rifles, 3 shot guns, two air rifles and a BB Gun.
But what does that have to do with anything? Suppose a poster lived in DC and gun ownership was an impossibilty? Would that make their views less valid?
samtechlan
Member
I don't think I'm a die hard Paul supporter either. Why I would vote for the Thomas Jefferson/Patrick Henry ticket over Paul in a Heartbeat.
Autolycus
Member
Your better off doing your own research. There are a lot of Ron Paul supporters on this board as well as a lot of Fred Thompson supporters. No matter what you ask for these threads will be filled with critiques of both these candidates.
Check out www.ontheissues.com and decide for yourself.
I myself will be voting for Ron Paul. I wont try to tell you why he is better than Fred in my opinion as that has been covered numerous times. I would suggest you look at the issues you feel are important and then decide for yourself.
Check out www.ontheissues.com and decide for yourself.
I myself will be voting for Ron Paul. I wont try to tell you why he is better than Fred in my opinion as that has been covered numerous times. I would suggest you look at the issues you feel are important and then decide for yourself.
samtechlan
Member
I agree with the sentiment 100%. Technically his sentence was commuted but he did not receive a full pardon, not yet anyhow.
BADUNAME13
Member
From http://conservativesagainstfred.wordpress.com/
1. Anti-gun terror bill (S. 735 )
On June 7, 1995, the Senate passed an anti-gun terror bill (S. 735) by a vote of 91-8. This version of the terror bill included: a BATF pay increase of $100 million; a provision authorizing “roving wiretaps” allowing government officials to wiretap one’s home if a person under investigation visits the home — even if one had no knowledge the person was a suspect; a weakening of the Posse Commitatus law to give the military more authority to get involved in law enforcement in certain circumstances; a grant of power to the FBI to conduct “fishing expeditions” and secure one’s financial and travel records in certain circumstances without any evidence one has committed a crime; and finally, the “Randy Weaver entrapment provision” which extends the statute of limitations for violations under the National Firearms Act of 1934 from three to five years. Thompson voted in favor of the bill.
2. Anti-gun terror bill — final passage
On April 17, 1996, the Senate passed the conference version of the anti-terrorism bill by a vote of 91-8. The final version of the bill (S. 735) contained several problems, including ones that will: order an “anti-hunter” rifle and ammo study; authorize a $40 million pay increase for the BATF (through the Treasury Department); potentially punish gun dealers (and individuals) for selling ammunition to someone they should have known would commit a violent crime; federalize many state crimes, thus tremendously increasing the scope and jurisdiction of the BATF; restrict the right of habeas corpus in such a way as to severely damage the ability of the courts to rescue honest gun owners who are unjustly incarcerated; allow the government to use “secret evidence” against certain individuals; remove protections against wiretapping wireless data; and require banks to freeze the assets of domestic groups in certain situations. Thompson once again voted in favor of the bill.
Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation gun ban
On September 12, 1996, the Senate passed the Lautenberg gun ban as an amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation Gun Ban disarms gun owners for small (misdemeanor) offenses in the home — “offenses” as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse. This lifetime ban, in certain cases, can even be imposed without a trial by jury. It is also retroactive, so it does not matter if the offense occurred 20 years ago. Thompson voted in favor of the amendment.
Smith “Anti-Brady” Amendment
On July 21, 1998, pro-gun Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduced an “Anti-Brady” amendment that passed by a vote of 69-31. The Smith amendment would prohibit the FBI from using Brady background checks to tax or register gun owners. Further, the amendment requires the “immediate destruction of all [gun buyer] information, in any form whatsoever.” Finally, if the FBI disregards this latter provision, the Smith language will allow private citizens to sue the agency and collect monetary damages, including attorney’s fees. Thompson, in keeping with his tendency to usually vote for expanded federal police power, voted against this limitation of FBI registration of gun owners.
Young adult gun ban
The young adult gun ban could severely punish parents who allow their kids to even touch a so-called semi-automatic “assault weapon.” While the amendment allows for certain exemptions, there are some imponderable questions which NO senator could answer, but which a parent would have to answer in order to avoid incarceration. For example: What is a “semiautomatic assault weapon”? The definition, plus exemptions, takes up six pages of fine print in the U.S. Code. Second, a child can handle a banned semi-auto if he is in the “immediate and supervisory presence” of a parent or if he possess a written permission slip from the parent. But what happens when, during a target practice session, the parent walks to the car to retrieve his lunch and the juvenile is no longer in the parents “immediate” presence and does not have a permission slip? A parent can receive jail time for this infraction. The provision passed the Senate on May 13, 1999, with Thompson voting in the majority.
1. Anti-gun terror bill (S. 735 )
On June 7, 1995, the Senate passed an anti-gun terror bill (S. 735) by a vote of 91-8. This version of the terror bill included: a BATF pay increase of $100 million; a provision authorizing “roving wiretaps” allowing government officials to wiretap one’s home if a person under investigation visits the home — even if one had no knowledge the person was a suspect; a weakening of the Posse Commitatus law to give the military more authority to get involved in law enforcement in certain circumstances; a grant of power to the FBI to conduct “fishing expeditions” and secure one’s financial and travel records in certain circumstances without any evidence one has committed a crime; and finally, the “Randy Weaver entrapment provision” which extends the statute of limitations for violations under the National Firearms Act of 1934 from three to five years. Thompson voted in favor of the bill.
2. Anti-gun terror bill — final passage
On April 17, 1996, the Senate passed the conference version of the anti-terrorism bill by a vote of 91-8. The final version of the bill (S. 735) contained several problems, including ones that will: order an “anti-hunter” rifle and ammo study; authorize a $40 million pay increase for the BATF (through the Treasury Department); potentially punish gun dealers (and individuals) for selling ammunition to someone they should have known would commit a violent crime; federalize many state crimes, thus tremendously increasing the scope and jurisdiction of the BATF; restrict the right of habeas corpus in such a way as to severely damage the ability of the courts to rescue honest gun owners who are unjustly incarcerated; allow the government to use “secret evidence” against certain individuals; remove protections against wiretapping wireless data; and require banks to freeze the assets of domestic groups in certain situations. Thompson once again voted in favor of the bill.
Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation gun ban
On September 12, 1996, the Senate passed the Lautenberg gun ban as an amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation Gun Ban disarms gun owners for small (misdemeanor) offenses in the home — “offenses” as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse. This lifetime ban, in certain cases, can even be imposed without a trial by jury. It is also retroactive, so it does not matter if the offense occurred 20 years ago. Thompson voted in favor of the amendment.
Smith “Anti-Brady” Amendment
On July 21, 1998, pro-gun Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduced an “Anti-Brady” amendment that passed by a vote of 69-31. The Smith amendment would prohibit the FBI from using Brady background checks to tax or register gun owners. Further, the amendment requires the “immediate destruction of all [gun buyer] information, in any form whatsoever.” Finally, if the FBI disregards this latter provision, the Smith language will allow private citizens to sue the agency and collect monetary damages, including attorney’s fees. Thompson, in keeping with his tendency to usually vote for expanded federal police power, voted against this limitation of FBI registration of gun owners.
Young adult gun ban
The young adult gun ban could severely punish parents who allow their kids to even touch a so-called semi-automatic “assault weapon.” While the amendment allows for certain exemptions, there are some imponderable questions which NO senator could answer, but which a parent would have to answer in order to avoid incarceration. For example: What is a “semiautomatic assault weapon”? The definition, plus exemptions, takes up six pages of fine print in the U.S. Code. Second, a child can handle a banned semi-auto if he is in the “immediate and supervisory presence” of a parent or if he possess a written permission slip from the parent. But what happens when, during a target practice session, the parent walks to the car to retrieve his lunch and the juvenile is no longer in the parents “immediate” presence and does not have a permission slip? A parent can receive jail time for this infraction. The provision passed the Senate on May 13, 1999, with Thompson voting in the majority.
jerkface,
I likes!
JohnBT,
Ya can't hardly expect the mainstream poll results to reflect the support when the MSM has gone to such lengths to suppress his coverage. The RP supporters don't use landlines, primarily get their news from the internet, and most wouldn't be classified as "likely Republican primary voters" anyway.
Nevertheless, he's finally getting some media exposure because he's got more cash on hand than McCain. Look for his numbers to go up in those polls too.
I likes!
JohnBT,
Ya can't hardly expect the mainstream poll results to reflect the support when the MSM has gone to such lengths to suppress his coverage. The RP supporters don't use landlines, primarily get their news from the internet, and most wouldn't be classified as "likely Republican primary voters" anyway.
Nevertheless, he's finally getting some media exposure because he's got more cash on hand than McCain. Look for his numbers to go up in those polls too.
Michigander
Member
My choice is Ron Paul. If Ron Paul does not make it past the primaries, then I will be voting for the Libertarian Party candidate.
cbsbyte
Member
Wasn't Fred suppose to announce himself as a candidate this past week? Well he might be rethinking his run. Hopefully he will not run at all since he has little chance of staying in the lead as the Republican party candidate, and would loose to Hillary.
Michigander
Member
And operatives against Ron Paul have to dig much, much deeper.
- Status
