rugerman07
Member
According to GOA, Fred Thompson voted in favor of the Lautenberg Amendment. http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm
Fred Thompson Supports Lautenberg Amendment
- Thread starter rugerman07
- Start date
- Status
Lone_Gunman
Member
He also voted for:
Campaign Finance Reform, which limited the first amendment.
Patriot Act, which massively expanded federal bureaucracy, and made government larger and more intrusive.
Medicare Reform, which was the largest single increase in welfare programs since LBJ.
I am still trying to figure out why people think he is a conservative. He is just another big government authoritarian.
Campaign Finance Reform, which limited the first amendment.
Patriot Act, which massively expanded federal bureaucracy, and made government larger and more intrusive.
Medicare Reform, which was the largest single increase in welfare programs since LBJ.
I am still trying to figure out why people think he is a conservative. He is just another big government authoritarian.
Zundfolge
Member
Compared to the rest of the GOP field he is the closest thing to a genuine conservative that has half a chance of beating any of the DNC candidates.
The main reason conservatives are so excited about Fred is that before he showed up, we were going to be stuck with Gulliani or McCain ... all of which would be worse for RKBA and freedom in general than Thompson.
The main reason conservatives are so excited about Fred is that before he showed up, we were going to be stuck with Gulliani or McCain ... all of which would be worse for RKBA and freedom in general than Thompson.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
The real question is: does he still support it or has he seen the light and would now support repealing it?
ServiceSoon
Member
Another real question: Is he just going to use his talents of performing arts and preach a lie that we will swallow so he can get elected?
Edit: It appears to me we have Fred-Bots.
Sam Adams
Member
That is, indeed, the real question. My opinion is that Thompson is a very bright guy who legitimately believes in smaller government, though with an emphasis on security (which many times mitigates against smallness). The fact that he has stated that he was mistaken on McStain-Feingold is, for me, extremely encouraging. Its not just that issue (which is important enough by itself), but the fact that he can be educated, can learn and IS WILLING TO LEARN AND ADMIT MISTAKES. How many pols have done that lately?
We gun people can certainly educated Thompson as to the abuses and overreaching of governmental authority that have taken place under Lautenberg. That should be enough, given his recent past, to get him behind a repeal. I think that such a repeal ought to be coupled with many other changes in gun laws - let's fight one pretty big battle if we've got a working majority in Congress in '09 - kind of like another FOPA, just 23 years later.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Given that you appear to be "anti-Fred," whom do you support as a more pro-2A candidate with a ghost of a chance of winning?
rugerman07
Member
So, what your saying is, Fred Thompson is the lessor of 3 evils?
I cannot understand why Ron Paul doesn't have the support he needs in getting elected. WAKE UP AMERICA! This is the presidential candidate we've all been waitng for.
You may think, yeah, I like a lot of what Ron Paul is saying, but he don't stand a chance in getting elected, so I'm not going to waste my vote on him. That's exactly what the Democrats and republicans want you to think. Ron Paul is running on the republican ticket, but he's a true libertarian at heart. Ron Paul himself said, no third party can compete with a two-party system, that's why he's running on the republican ticket.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm going to waste my vote on Ron Paul.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Rule Number 1 of the Republican party handbook:
When you can't convince people that your candidate is best, simply scare them into voting for you with the old lesser of two evils argument.
It worked well both times Bush used it, but sooner or later its going to get old.
ArcherandShooter
Member
Yes, you will.
I'll be voting for RP. Any vote that I or any other American casts is not wasted unless you consider the blood that 1000s upon 1000s of Americans have shed across the world has been wasted so We The People could cast that vote.
To intimate otherwise gives me a moby case of the ass.
Biker
To intimate otherwise gives me a moby case of the ass.
Biker
GTSteve03
Member
Oh, don't be such a martyr already. It's only July of '07, there's over a year left to try and get some of the people to open their eyes and realize that there's really only their own insecurities about freedom that is holding them back from voting for Ron.
Not everyone feels comfortable out of the womb of big government, and it frightens them. Eventually we can get enough of them to realize that it's not so bad but you have to take baby steps.
I'll be right there with you voting for Paul.
Sindawe
Member
Better to "waste" one's vote on a candidate who's ideology most closely matches your own than "waste" it on a candidate you disagree with on most of the issues.
Sam Adams
Member
...
and thereby make it more likely that the most evil of all of the candidates (i.e. the Dem nominee, likely to be Hillary, but assuredly a fervant anti-gunner) will win the election.
Honestly, didn't we learn ANYthing from the '92 election? If disaffected Republicans (myself included) had voted for Bush 41 instead of staying home/Perot/some other 3rd party, then maybe (probably) Clinton would have lost. Had that happened, Hillary would just be another crooked, fat-calved, divorced female lawyer. Lots better than Senator and candidate for President, no?
Mr Weebles
Member
People need to remember that the Lautenberg Amendment was buried in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997. It made up about one fourth of one page of over 700-odd pages of the bill. Barely any politician read the entire thing, and if they didn't sign it they would have lost some federal funding for their state.
Saying Thompson "voted for the Lautenberg Amendment" is disingenious.
Saying Thompson "voted for the Lautenberg Amendment" is disingenious.
Daniel T
Member
This statement makes it look like you're waiting for others to tell you how to vote, or that you want to vote based on who's the most popular...and I don't think either of those two things is correct, so why say it?
GTSteve03
Member
Why do you think some people put so much more faith in "polls" than on the actual candidate's positions?
Lone_Gunman
Member
Sam,
How does voting for Ron Paul (or any other candidate) in the Republican Primary make it more likely for Hillary to win in the general election. Your statements sound like you are talking about a general election, where people who would usually vote Republican end up voting for a third party candidate (eg, Ross Perot). I think the discussion at hand is about the Republican primary.
The primary is the correct place to vote for you ideal candidate, and voting for him doesn't pull votes away from anyone else in the general election.
...or it could be that you'd like a candidate who wants to deal with the world circa 2007 as opposed to the world circa 1950. Who at least has some passing awareness with political reality, versus bold statements that have as much of a chance of happening as Osama bin Laden has of becoming the Pope.
And I love the Ron-bot persuasion method; if you don't agree with us then you're an idiot/insecure/evil. That's gotta' work.
Titan6
member
Kind of the same as the FT method. If you don't agree with us you're are an idiot/looney/fool.
TrybalRage
Member
I think it's funny that people here don't think Paul has a chance.
Fred will be slaughtered in a run-off against Obama or Hillary. Slaughtered.
Another warhawk big-business lobbyist with Bush people in his circle? The public will never go for it.
Fred will be slaughtered in a run-off against Obama or Hillary. Slaughtered.
Another warhawk big-business lobbyist with Bush people in his circle? The public will never go for it.
- Status
