Presidential Candidates Backgrounds ...

[Phaetos]

.... according to the GOA. I was perusing the GOA website this evening to debate my support of them and stumbled across their page for Presidential candidates. It seems that I have come across some differing information on candidates that what people seem to be saying on here. Such as Fred Thompson. People on here seem to love him as a close second to Ron Paul for nomination, but his voting stances are nearly all anti-gun. According to GOA's site, they tracked 33 gun legislations while he was in Senate, he voted as pro-gun only 19 times. He in fact voted in favor of the Lautenberg Decision, and voted against the FBI registration of gun owners. He seems more anti-gun than anything else? Link is here ... http://gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm

 

[Phaetos]

wow .. 35 views and no thoughts on this at all?

 

[pcosmar]

Ron Paul is the only choice for change. All the others are more of the same.
They all talk out of both sides of their head.

 

[Lew]

I guess it makes no difference to me. Ron Paul is the only man for the job.

 

[awkx]

Fred Thompson... his voting stances are nearly all anti-gun. According to GOA's site, they tracked 33 gun legislations while he was in Senate, he voted as pro-gun only 19 times. (Emphasis added)

OK, let's not use hyperbole against the person who is probably the 2nd best candidate. He voted pro-2A in a majority (19 out of 33) of questions.

Ron Paul is the only choice for change. All the others are more of the same.

Ron Paul is the only nearly-perfect candidate. However, a win by Hitlary (F- rating, actively proposes new gun control laws) or Rudy (supporter of the onerous gun control laws in the People's Republik Of New York) would be far, far worse than a win by Fred Thompson (who reluctantly voted for some gun control after the Columbine tragedy).