An Interview With Duncan Hunter

[jrosto]

This evening I was able to post a short interview with presidential candidate Duncan Hunter. The interview covered his views on gun rights and general second amendment issues.

The first question from the interview:

1. Please state, in your own words, what the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States means to you. Do you understand the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual or a collective right?

“The right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right of Americans to protect their families and their communities and their nation with firearms. In this age of post-911, Americans, I believe are comforted by the fact that our ability to resist terrorism is not limited to law enforcement or defense agencies but is also within the ability of all gun-owning Americans.”

The rest of the interview is posted here

Thought y'all might find it interesting.

 

[Sistema1927]

From the interview:

“Gun control laws directed at law-abiding citizens are not a crime deterrent. In fact, studies show that private ownership of firearms by Americans reduces crime. You and I both know that the one thing criminals prefer more than any other is unarmed victims.”

Right on!

 

[Sistema1927]

And, from his website:

It seems every election year, some liberal politician dons an NRA cap and grabs a shotgun for a hunting photo-op, as if that means they support our right as Americans to keep and bear arms. I, myself, thoroughly enjoy hunting, having just recently spent a great weekend hunting elk in Arizona. But, the second amendment is not about hunting. It is about the right of you and me to be secure in our homes. We must vigorously defend against all attempts to chip away at the Second Amendment. You know as well as I do that there is one thing criminals prefer over any other: unarmed victims.

Wow! Give me a ballot.

 

[johnster999]

He also has a real chance to win the nomination. Gonna need to raise some money though.

 

[The-Fly]

I like his 2A stance, but he's way too much of a bible nazi for me to willingly vote for him. Of course if its him vs Hillary.......

Ugh I don't even want to think about that.

 

[Professor K]

It seems good, but almost too good. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he means it, but he seemed to kinda copy a lot of stuff word for word from pro-RKBA sites. He probably means it, but I wouldnt put it past any politician to turn on something.

Imagine if the interview was with an anti, would he say the same?

 

[NickEllis]

Thompson/Hunter:

Take it to the ballot box.

 

[tmajors]

Fred Thompson/Hunter

Just so there isn't any confusion with the other Thompson that may be jumping in.

 

[davec]

Now if he only could shed the xenophobia and bible thumping.

 

[NickEllis]

I think more properly, "harnessing the xenophobia and bible thumping" would be necessary. Hunter's conservative values are one of his strengths, and conservative christianity will get you a long way so long as it doesn't try to regulate morals through legislation. I've never found a sound moral compass to be a bad thing in a politician (just incredibly rare).

 

[xd9fan]

Ron Paul just has a better around understanding of Liberty vs Govt.

 

[Colt]

I like his 2A stance, but he's way too much of a bible nazi

What a "High Road" thing to say. Could you be any more insulting?

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

It is about the right of you and me to be secure in our homes.

No, that's not what it's about. If he thinks it's about that in anything but the most abstract sense, he's got it wrong and is no better than someone who thinks it's about hunting. It's about keeping power in the hands of the people and as a hedge against unopposed government and military power. There's NOTHING in the 2nd A about a "right" to be secure. In fact, if anything, it's the opposite. It says WE have the right and the responsibility to take and exercise power as citizens.

Remember what Ben Franklin said.

 

[JohnL2]

It seems Duncan Hunter definitely leans more right than most conservatives.
In certain regions I'd say his views are the norm. Liberal Democrats would consider him a nightmare.
I'd say there's Mike Huckabee, then the more potent form of conservatism - Duncan Hunter. Pick your strength.
I don't know a lot about Fred Thompson but he does strike me as a good man. And the fact that he can work in show business and be successful as a Republican from Tennessee is rather amazing to me.

Almighty, just checked the DH website and he has the support of none other than one of my personal heroes. Chuck Yeager.
Hmmmm.

 

[SWMAN]

He's not a collectivist like the rest of them running for the Pres. nomination. He'll never make it to the WH in 2008.

 

[armedandsafe]

I liked Duncan when he was a client, many years ago. I liked him when we worked together at RKBA grassroots. I liked him when I worked on one of his campaigns. I don't see that he has changed since then. What he says he backs up with his actions. I'll vote for him. I'll support his campaign with cash. I'll campaign for him.

Pops

 

[jrosto]

The main issue hampering Duncan Hunter is name recognition. Very few people that I have spoken with even know who he is.

 

[ebd10]

The Fly sez:

I like his 2A stance, but he's way too much of a bible nazi for me to willingly vote for him. Of course if its him vs Hillary.......

Ugh I don't even want to think about that.

Well, the choice would be between someone that believes in The Bible vs. someone that believes in nothing.

 

[scurtis_34471]

I have no problem with voting for a man of faith, so long as he also understands the 1st Amendment and recognizing that it is not the government's job to legislate religious morality.

Strong faith, in and of itself, is a great asset. There is a saying I like that states, "If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything." Whether it is religious faith or something else, it is important that a person have a strong set of foundational principals on which to plant their feet.

 

[nico]

No, that's not what it's about. If he thinks it's about that in anything but the most abstract sense, he's got it wrong and is no better than someone who thinks it's about hunting. It's about keeping power in the hands of the people and as a hedge against unopposed government and military power. There's NOTHING in the 2nd A about a "right" to be secure. In fact, if anything, it's the opposite. It says WE have the right and the responsibility to take and exercise power as citizens.

Remember what Ben Franklin said.

you're exaggerating, especially in the part I bolded. The argument could easily be made that defending the community during riots, after natural disasters, during foreign invasion, etc. and safeguarding against tyranny all contribute to making people secure in their homes, which is something the founders did support.

In his statements, Hunter has said that he believes that the Second Amendment is about providing for self and common defense; to nitpick one line and say it makes him no better than someone who thinks the 2A lets him shoot deer is just ridiculous.