Don't know his gun views, but ...

[alpineman]

I noticed Bill Frist has come out in support of stem-cell research, which he formerly opposed. Speculation is that he's "reaching out" across the aisle for support for the possibility of a Presidential run. Makes me wonder .... of the currently gun-friendly individuals that might run for President next time around, do you think he (or she - Condi??) might roll over and oppose any element of RKBA in order to garner support?

More specifically - For those of you who are familiar with Senator Frist's voting record (I'm not)- if it looked like he could get the Republican party's nod to run for President, do you think he'd allow more infringements on the 2nd Amendment if it bettered his chance of getting elected? (I ask that assuming he generally supports the RKBA...)

 

[rick_reno]

Some history...

Frist Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence - this was the last attempt to pass this bill, and was the one loaded down with amendments.

Voted NO on background checks at gun shows.

Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. S254

Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows.

Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks.

 

[GEM]

Stem cell research and the RKBA are not correlated except in the minds of those who demand conservative purity in all things.

There are conservative senators who are progun and pro stem cell research.

Bush's views on stem cells are as illogical as his views on the RKBA - but I don't want to hijack the thread or continue to express my disdain for GWB on some issues. I've been clear on that.

The best strategy is to keep the RKBA issue away from demanding ideological purity on social conservative issues.

 

[Chipperman]

^
l
l
l______ +1 What he said.

 

[Kurush]

Frist reminds me of Gerald Ford a little bit. He has that same goofy awkwardness and less-than-total composure. The GOP has a large pool of potentially strong cantidates for 2008, so I doubt Frist will get anywhere.

 

[Dan from MI]

Stem Cell and RKBA have nothing to do with each other on views. The only possible coorleation is that conservatives are more apt to be RKBA than liberals. Libertarians are usually more pro-2a than conservatives for that matter. (My own views are a mix of conservatism and libertarianism)

 

[alpineman]

Some clarification...

I'm not trying to equate the stem-cell issue with RKBA. My question is addressing the fact that he changed his view on stem cell research, supposedly to win support for a presidential run.

I'm asking if any of you think he might do the same on gun rights issues (or any other currently pro-gun potential candidate, for that matter) if it meant potentially getting elected.

Again, I know the issues aren't related. I want to know if any of you think he'd roll over when it comes to RKBA if he thought it would get him elected.

 

[Kurush]

From what I've seen of him he would come out in favor of eating babies if he believed doing so would get him the White House.

 

[GEM]

Put a baby on the barbie!! You are so right!

Might he have changed his view as he finally came to his senses and as a doctor realized that?

 

[Rebar]

First off, there is NO ban on any stem cell research, that's a rank piece of liberal/left propaganda.

There IS a ban on federally funding SOME stem cell research, the least favorable lines.

What is happening is, the big drug companies don't want to pony up the cash to investigate these lines, so they're pushing for the taxpayer to pay for it, then they can swoop in, patent any discoveries, then make big bucks without the risk. The Democrats, supposedly against "big greedy corporations", are carrying the water for them because they think it makes republicans look like greedy scrooges.

Frist is making a mistake, he's playing into the liberal/left hands, and they'll use it to hurt him and the republicans as a whole.

 

[Kurush]

There IS a ban on federally funding SOME stem cell research, the least favorable lines.

The problem is that bans like this, in effect, mean that any institution that accepts any federal money, directly or indirectly, can't do whatever is banned. Virtually every university in the US gets federal money, so to do the banned research you actually have to form a "clean room" company with private money from sources that have no link to federal money. Needless to say it's very very hard to do that, especially considering that there's no obvious potential payoff for the investors.

 

[Rebar]

Needless to say it's very very hard to do that, especially considering that there's no obvious potential payoff for the investors.

Well then too bad. Why does the taxpayer have to pay the freight to admittedly tiny chances at anything remotely useful? What happened to "no corporate welfare", because that is exactly what it is.

 

[rick_reno]

From what I've seen of him he would come out in favor of eating babies if he believed doing so would get him the White House.

I think this is true about any of them. It's not about money with these people, most of them have more than they'll ever need. It's about power.

 

[Kurush]

The corporate welfare is not being removed by Bush or anyone else, if it were removed they couldn't enforce bans like this. Tiny chances? There is a great deal being learned from the little research being done here, and more being learned in South Korea and even China.

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

The best strategy is to keep the RKBA issue away from demanding ideological purity on social conservative issues.

I agree, and in fact I think that gun rights are doomed if they become the "fief" of one ideology or party. RKBA is an issue all by itself, equally at home in any party or group. I personally am all for stem cell research, the possibility of gay marriage, environmental protections, a smaller military, the status quo on the border situation, and lots of other issues that make me not a conservative. And above all those issues, I'm for RKBA, to the point that I can't possibly vote for or support a politician who isn't solid on RKBA.

 

[buzz_knox]

Virtually every university in the US gets federal money, so to do the banned research you actually have to form a "clean room" company with private money from sources that have no link to federal money. Needless to say it's very very hard to do that, especially considering that there's no obvious potential payoff for the investors.

First, it's being done. California I believe is currently trying to get the research going (although like the feds, paying for the research during a budget crisis doesn't make sense).

Second, the potential payoff is amazing. The likely payoff far less so. Stem cells aren't the panacea everyone thinks they are. That's why you aren't seeing much investment.

 

[Kurush]

First, it's being done. California I believe is currently trying to get the research going (although like the feds, paying for the research during a budget crisis doesn't make sense).

That's what I was referring to.

Second, the potential payoff is amazing. The likely payoff far less so. Stem cells aren't the panacea everyone thinks they are. That's why you aren't seeing much investment.

The payoff within the next 5 years will be very low. 15 years down the road it's likely to be a very different story. That's why it needs public investment rather than private.

 

[buzz_knox]

Too bad we don't return to the old days of pure research for research's sake. When discoveries were amazing . . . and the gov't wasn't expected to foot the bill. Companies supported the research out of a sense of largesse, publicity and for the potential profits. Of course, after a couple generations of "let the public pay for it" we're pretty much toast on that.

 

[Kurush]

I wish we could too, but some research has no short-term payoff, and can't be done without big money. Particle accelerators are an extreme example, but the same is true for many many other types of important research.

 

[buzz_knox]

Much of what you describe have military applications and thus could be funded that way. In fact, that's how a lot of funding happened. But as money got drained for research into how much methane is involved in cow farts (yes, this was a gov't funded study), we lost the ability to fund what we needed and focussed on pork.

 

[Kurush]

Why should the government only fund defense-related research? Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Anyhow, the cow flatulence research was legitimate, methane is a pollutant and given the number of cows in this country it's a serious consideration.

 

[David N]

Frist

I believe it is an acknowledged fact the Frist will run for President in '08.

He seems to be pretty solidly pro-RKBA.

I got a letter from GOA asking me to thank Frist for his efforts, which I did. I now receive Frist's newsletter.

 

[Art Eatman]

Hey, Kurush, I guess it was a Good Thing that we got rid of all those bison, huh?

, Art

 

[longrifleman]

Dang it Art, you beat me to it. Now I have to go take some super duper extra high methane producing mineral out to my cows. Gotta do my part to destroy the earth.


A question. Where exactly does the moral authority come from to confiscate wealth from some people at gun point to fund this research? If the knowledge gained is valuable and produces new wealth for the companies that do the research, where's my royalty check? I helped pay for it.

 

[Kurush]

Art: There are way more cows in the US than there have ever been bison. Also, just because they have been polluting for a long time, that doesn't mean we shouldn't reduce it, especially if it's easy to do so (which it may be).

longrifleman: That's a good question. The research needs to be done though, and I don't see any other way to pay for it. If you have a good idea for another mechanism to get basic research done other than confiscatory taxation I'd love to hear it. Personally I think libertarians (including myself) have much bigger fish to fry than the research budget.