Candidates stance on guns according to CNN

[bsf]

*** is up with the thread drift here?

I too am confused that the CNN website states Ron Paul only has a B rating from the NRA.

Holy crap Batman! I just checked the NRA PVF website, and Paul was indeed given a B rating during the 2006 elections. How can a strict constitutionalist only have a B rating? I guess if you want an in-depth analysis, you have to actually pay attention and perform it yourself. Based on that site, the uninformed may come away thinking that Paul was second rate when it came to RKBA. Considering the bills he has introduced; statements he has issued; and his voting record it appears to me he is the best candidate on this issue. I think that web page is misleading.

 

[Tyris]

I think he voted against the bill that blocks lawsuits against gun manufacturers. His viewpoint was that this was not fed-gov's business. While technically true, my take is that he missed the big picture on that one as these law suits are used as offensive weapons by sponsors of anti gun pigs in congress.

Hard to keep and bear arms if all the gun manufacturers and distributors are sued into oblivion in one big legal ejaculatory spurt.

-T

 

[bsf]

I think he voted against the bill that blocks lawsuits against gun manufacturers. His viewpoint was that this was not fed-gov's business. While technically true, my take is that he missed the big picture on that one as these law suits are used as offensive weapons by sponsors of anti gun pigs in congress.

Hard to keep and bear arms if all the gun manufacturers and distributors are sued into oblivion in one big legal ejaculatory spurt.

-T

Thanks for the info. That poses an interesting question concerning opposition of the misuse of the judicial system while adhering to a strict constitutional viewpoint, but is off topic.

 

[siglite]

What surprises me, is how many of the "leading" republicans are clearly antis.

 

[RPCVYemen]

The problem is that first part, a "present participle," does not change the meaning of the second part (" ...the right of the people ... not be infringed."). It is NOT a "justification" for the second part. I am not going to claim it's a good idea to "ignore" it, but if you did chop it off you wouldn't change the intent or meaning of the 2A one whit.

If it doesn't change the meaning, why is it there? Random text? They just had some leftover ink that day and decided to scrawl a few extra words?

What is your theory?

Mike

 

[45Badger]

Richardson and maybe McCain are ONLY ones in either group that might be in our corner on this. Clinton or Obama and a dem controlled congress and we are in for an ugly 4-8 years of restrictions. Buy everthing you can now. It won't get cheaper or easier. My $.02

 

[RPCVYemen]

What surprises me, is how many of the "leading" republicans are clearly antis.

The most depressing thing to me is the the Democrat with an "A" doesn't stand a chance, except maybe as a Veep.

Mike

 

[ArmedBear]

Richardson and maybe McCain are ONLY ones in either group that might be in our corner on this.

Thompson is squarely in our corner.

Giuliani would even be ahead of McCain in my book, though I can't tell you exactly why. Intuition, I guess. The only thing that would make McCain into a small-government conservative is if he enjoys a fight with the Democrats, not principles.

No worries; I think Giuliani will be out of the race as of tomorrow, whether he knows it or not.

Romney won't last long, either.

Huckabee, though I don't care for the guy, is pro-gun.

All of the Democrats with a chance of winning the primary are committed anti's. For those who think there's no difference between the RKBA views of the R's and the D's, no matter how imperfect the R's might be in every way, I want to try whatever it is you're smoking.

 

[illspirit]

Holy crap Batman! I just checked the NRA PVF website, and Paul was indeed given a B rating during the 2006 elections. How can a strict constitutionalist only have a B rating?

He probably lost a few points because he sometimes says that the BoR should only be a restriction on Federal power, and not give them the power to force less restrictive laws on the States. As such, I'm guessing the NRA may think this could get in the way of Federal pro-gun bills.


Does anybody have a link to legislation or a statement by Obama about that national CCW ban?

 

[bsf]

Richardson and maybe McCain are ONLY ones in either group that might be in our corner on this.

Thompson is squarely in our corner.

Giuliani would even be ahead of McCain in my book, though I can't tell you exactly why. Intuition, I guess. The only thing that would make McCain into a small-government conservative is if he enjoys a fight with the Democrats, not principles.

No worries; I think Giuliani will be out of the race as of tomorrow, whether he knows it or not.

Romney won't last long, either.

Huckabee, though I don't care for the guy, is pro-gun.

All of the Democrats with a chance of winning the primary are committed anti's. For those who think there's no difference between the RKBA views of the R's and the D's, no matter how imperfect the R's might be in every way, I want to try whatever it is you're smoking.

If by "our corner" you mean those who support the 2A, Paul has to be included. He is a strict constitutionalist, and by extension, supporter of the 2A. Of all those listed on the CNN page, I cannot believe any would have a more positive effect on the RKBA as president than Ron Paul. But, we stray off into politics. That CNN page needs to be seen for what it is. It is just a simplistic and sometimes misleading condensation of a candidate’s views. It is main stream media.

 

[ArmedBear]

I cannot believe any would have a more positive effect on the RKBA as president than Ron Paul.

A principled man, yes.

But his vote against the lawsuit bill? To have a "positive effect", one must be tactical as well as principled.

That said, I was thinking of people who might be nominated. Richardson isn't one of those, either. Nor Kucinich or Gravel. It doesn't really matter to me what their beliefs about guns are.

And since I don't think Paul is perfect by any means (and many practical-minded libertarians do agree BTW), I am not deeply upset by the fact that I don't think he's going to be nominated. I don't think this is a conspiracy, nor do I think that it means that no good candidate can be nominated. Feel free to disagree. Note, however, that I'm not really interested in debating these points, which I've given plenty of consideration, so I'm ready to move on.

My only point is that effectiveness DOES matter. If someone gets a shot at a real pro-gun vote in Congress, with odds in its favor, and he turns his back on it for other reasons -- dubious reasons to those of us living in the real world of lawsuit abuse -- I question whether he will be a great thing for RKBA.

 

[siglite]

It is main stream media.

^^Always wise to remember.

 

[ArmedBear]

That poses an interesting question concerning opposition of the misuse of the judicial system while adhering to a strict constitutional viewpoint, but is off topic.

It's really not off topic at all.

First off, opposition to any sort of legal limits on lawsuits is not a "strict constitutional" viewpoint, it's Libertarian Party dogma.

Second, reality shows us that civil lawsuits can have a chilling effect on some of the very freedoms that libertarians cherish.

What's on topic about this? Tactics matter in the gritty world of politics. Philosophy, not backed up by effective strategy and tactics, is just coffee house chatter.

I want someone whose goals are pro-freedom. I also want someone who will actually reach some of those goals.

To put it another way: someone who is pro-gun, but chooses a de facto anti-gun position on an issue due to some other dogma, isn't really as pro-gun as someone who would put RKBA ahead of that dogma when voting. Hence the B-rating for Congressman Ron Paul.

 

[ozwyn]

Anyone who thinks that the original intent of the second amendment is somehow unknowable is either ignorant the large body of written work by the authors of the constitution, or choose to ignore suih works.

Tab, read the federalist papers. Heck, read the preamble again. Their intent is spelled out loud and clear. The mainstream media might not want you to read it, but the plain truth and sentiment of the founding fathers is well documented.

 

[romma]

Do we just toss out all the words we don't like?

No, we just cut to the quick of the part that clearly defines its intent.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Amendment II

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.

As so many people here have explained, that one sentence is clear and it's all the gun law any American needs to protect his rights.

Snip it out, print it on a slip of paper, and carry that slip of paper in your wallet at all times. Then don't bother about gun laws or concealed carry permits. If law enforcement tries to arrest you, show the officers that slip of paper and tell them to go away.

 

[#shooter]

Good post. I didn't know Obama was against CCW and wants to ban it.

 

[willbrink]

The CNN list suprised and or confirmed for me some issues. As always, I am happy with none of my choices....

 

[romma]

Snip it out, print it on a slip of paper, and carry that slip of paper in your wallet at all times. Then don't bother about gun laws or concealed carry permits. If law enforcement tries to arrest you, show the officers that slip of paper and tell them to go away.

Not that crazy Robert... I follow existing laws. CT,FL and NH permits..

 

[siglite]

Snip it out, print it on a slip of paper, and carry that slip of paper in your wallet at all times.

I carry a copy of the entire BoR printed on a wallet sized steel plate. It's loads of fun when passing metal detectors.

ETA: The BoR is printed in black with the exception of the 4th, which is printed in red. Just for giggles.

 

[the pistolero]

the 2a is not as cut and dry as some people seem to think it is

I think if one takes it and puts it in the context of what the Founding Fathers had to say about arming the people, it's a lot more cut and dried than too many people think it is.
As far as the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's opinion on what the Second Amendment permits...well, just because it's the Supreme Court doesn't mean its decisions are always right. That's just my personal opinion, but, just for an example, I would love to bring the FFs back from the dead for just a day and ask them what they thought of the reasoning that brought us Kelo v. New London.

 

[siglite]

I think if one takes it and puts it in the context of what the Founding Fathers had to say about arming the people, it's a lot more cut and dried than too many people think it is

I agree and cite Federalist Papers #46 as evidence.

 

[Vector]

Based on that article from CNN, the only Dem someone who is pro gun could vote for is Bill Richardson.

 

[RonC]

For those who posted a reply saying 'It's clear to me': TAB is saying, correctly in my opinion, whether I like it or not, that it does not matter how clear it is to you and I. What will matter is how the Supreme Court sees it. We will be left to either moan and groan and complain or to jump in joy after they make their decision.
Our interpretation of the 2nd, whether from those of us not legally astute or from experienced constitutional attorneys, has little impact on the decision makers. Our opinion of the makeup of the Supreme Court and the individuals on it will not affect the decision. In the end, the SCOTUS will have their say and that will be that until the next case on the 2nd is heard.

Ron

 

[Kind of Blued]

Does anybody know the skinny on the Crime Bill which included the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban? I'm not sure what to make of the mention that some candidates opposed the ban but later voted for the crime bill, essentially supporting the ban after their initial distaste.