Who gets your vote in '08?

[MT GUNNY]

gunowners.org has a (pres canidate 2008) section it shows fred's about 50% anti gun , However ron paul creds. I think are better

 

[Regolith]

Can we resurrect Jefferson? Does the constitutional prohibition against running for more than two terms count if you've been reanimated?

Seriously, the choices for presidential candidates seem to get worse and worse every year.

Personally, I'd vote for Ron Paul if he ever made it past the primaries, but I seriously doubt he will. So I will either end up voting for Thompson, if he makes it, or whoever the Libertarians field.

 

[SkiLune]

I didn't know how to answer, since there are no nominees yet. I put down Thompson for now, but my real answer would be ANYBODY but Julie Annie.

 

[helpless]

I'm going to blindfold myself, stick my fingers in my ears, and run around in a circle loudly yelling "la la la la la la la la la la", until the election is over.

I see no one on the radar I'm really interested in. Most scare me to death.

Smoke

How does Ron Paul Scare you to death?

 

[GoSlash27]

Marshall,

You gotta be sittin purdy damn tall in the saddle to see tomorrows horizon.

Nope. Just gauging public opinion and followin' trends. It's not hard to do if you're not blinded by your own kool-aid.
I'm just lettin you know that if you think Thompson's novelty is enough to win him the general election, you've got another think comin'. He's really just a more-polished Dubya and in case you haven't noticed, the electorate doesn't think highly of neo-conservatism. Hillary will rip him to shreds.
Unless you've got a candidate who can pull support from the left, I think you've already seen the precursor of the whuppin' that will be bestowed.

 

[longhorngunman]

"Hillary will rip him to shreds" Ha! That's a good one. Have you ever watched Hillary debate or try to do her talking points? There's a good, good, reason she hitched on to Bill "Slick" Clinton years ago. Fred will toy with her like a mouse before the kill. I pray for Hillary to be the Dem's nominee. Easiest for the GOP to beat. Most Democrats don't even like her.

 

[slimslam]

There is only one candidate qualified to lead this country...and it ain't Fred Thompson. I cannot believe he is leading this forum's poll. Too many TV-influenced watchers out there....

 

[mmafan]

"Hillary will rip him to shreds" Ha! That's a good one. Have you ever watched Hillary debate or try to do her talking points? There's a good, good, reason she hitched on to Bill "Slick" Clinton years ago. Fred will toy with her like a mouse before the kill. I pray for Hillary to be the Dem's nominee. Easiest for the GOP to beat. Most Democrats don't even like her.

I dont know where you are getting your information, but as far as I know Hillary has won every democratic presidential debate so far.

Do not underestimate her, despite what you think of her politics, she is extremely intelligent and politically savy.

How many people went through the **** she went through with her husband and then win a senate seat in a state she is not even from, despite never holding any office beforehand.

Not to mention quite possibly the slickest politician of recent American history is her husband. The didnt call him "slick willy" for nothing.

She has been named as one of the most influential lawyers in the country several times and was on the board of directors for numerous large corporations, including Wal-mart.

If you think Thompson is going to just smirk his way through a debate with Hillary, the way Bush did with Kerry, you are sadly mistaken. Hillary would chew both Bush and Kerry up for breakfest in a debate.

Now I think Thompson is an intelligent man and can hold his own against her, but in no way will it be a cake walk.

She is owning Obama in the debates despite his seemingly rock star status.

The worst thing anyone who wants to preserve their 2nd ammendment rights could do is underestimate Hillary Clinton

 

[71Commander]

I'd be interested to know why there are so many Ron Paul supporters, seeing as he voted against protecting gun manufacturers from fraudulent law suits.

I would guess a lot of them are DUmpmonkeys trying to split the Republican vote so Osama can get elected.:banghead:

 

[TrybalRage]

I would guess a lot of them are DUmpmonkeys trying to split the Republican vote so Osama can get elected.

Or you could understand what 'limits on Federal power' really means, even when you don't like it. You can't support limiting the Fed only when it runs against your personal interests.

As I already said, Paul regularly introduces legislation to strip away gun control laws. Which of the other candidates do that? Oh, that's right... none of them.

 

[TrybalRage]

And the ankle bone's connected to the leg bone, the leg bones connected to the hip bone..........

Wow, you sure showed me with that well thought out retort. Man, your right.

You were talking 1953, remember? Russia was a whole different story than China, there was no cold war with China. There was no concern of China and Iran.

You were the one who brought up the communist demon in this argument, not me. You said

You better be glad we did get a contract for buying the oil instead of a communist takeover of the country.

I'm pointing out that we just would have traded with them, just like we do with other communist countries, when it's in our interest to do so.

Events in history have an effect on everything, one way or the other. Recognizing them and making the wrong decision is useless, which is what Ron Paul is recommending. Leaving Iraq tomorrow will not make Al Qaeda stop wanting us dead and would only make it easier for them to attack us. It would be giving them exactly what they want. What? You think Al Qaeda is going to say, "hey, the infidels left, we won. Let's stop, we'll all just get along now". Dreamland man.

How exactly would it make it easier for them? That is pure conjecture on your part. I think it would make it more difficult, because we're much further away. And no, the hardcore fundamentalists will never stop hating us, even if we 'win' in the middle east (whatever winning really is, since we are fighting an ideal - great way of fighting it is by proving them right, I guess). But what it will do is remove the support that the terrorists have from Joe Average. The only reason they have the power they have is because the people support them. Once they have no reason to hate us, the people don't want lunatics around them any more than we do.

We are fighting a war against something we can never defeat. We want to defeat 'people who hate us', we better just start nuking everyone, just to cover our bases.

You're comparing innocent casualties of war by armed forces that are doing their very best to minimize them, actually going out their way to minimize them, to terror organization that purposely target innocents, and calling us hypocrites? Dude, that fricked up big time. Perfect example of why Ron Paul stands no chance. Look at his followers beliefs and statements.

So it's ok when we completely annihilate 2 cities full of, I don't know, millions in the name of war, simply because... it's our side! Gotcha.

Justification is in the eye of the beholder. Of course it isn't justified from our point of view. And what, you want me to apologize because I point out we do just as much or even more killing of innocents in the name of our 'spread of freedom'? You think that's why Paul stands no chance? Man, you need to get out and meet some of your fellow Americans. You're living in a box.

Iraq has everything to do with 911, we're fighting the group responsible for 911, in Iraq.

Really? Bin Laden's in Iraq? Or is it just some group that just took the same name... some group that only had the opportunity to form since we have been there. Some group that has the support of the people because they (the people) see us as the enemy.

We had Iraq wrapped up.

Did we now? Just because the place lay in shambles and the people were in shock does not make it 'wrapped up'.

It's Al Qaeda that came there and started sh*t, trying to undo the good that we and the Iraqi people had done. Guess we were suppose to leave?

Where do you think they are getting their manpower? Many people were happy we took out Saddam, those same people are now part of the insurgency because we did not immediately leave. Or maybe they were lying in those interviews, what do I know.

 

[GoSlash27]

mmafan,
A huge +1. Hillary Clinton was always the brains behind the "slick Willy" operation. That woman is smart, ambitious, and dangerous. People around here would do well to not underestimate her.

The Republican party is already starting out with a huge disadvantage, and putting a new face on the same old policies will not cut it this time.

 

[Marshall]

TR,

OK, we're the bad guys, they're the good guys. Nothing we do is good and what the terrorist do is justified. We're the problem not them. Vote RP, promote this agenda.

 

[Texpatriate]

Just curious as to why there's not more support on this board for Mike Huckabee? Here's his stance on the 2nd amendment from his website:

http://www.explorehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_ID=18

2nd Amendment Rights

# The Second Amendment is primarily about tyranny and self-defense, not hunting. The Founding Fathers wanted us to be
able to defend ourselves from our own government, if need be, and from all threats to our lives and property.

# Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. I oppose gun control based on geography.


# I consistently opposed banning assault weapons and opposed the Brady Bill.

# As Governor, I protected gun manufacturers from frivolous law suits.

# I was the first Governor in the country to have a concealed handgun license.


No candidate has a stronger, more consistent record on Second Amendment rights than I do. Our Founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and that’s why they gave us the Second Amendment. They knew that a government facing an armed populace was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn’t have much hope. As Ronald Reagan reminded us, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Without our Second Amendment rights, all of our other rights aren’t inalienable, they’re just “on loan” from the government.

Other candidates say gun control doesn’t affect hunting. Now I’m a very avid hunter, but the Second Amendment isn’t really about hunting. It’s about tyranny and self-defense. The Founding Fathers weren’t worried about our being able to bag a duck or a deer, they were worried about our keeping our fundamental freedoms.

I once saw a bumper sticker that said, “Criminals prefer unarmed victims.” Criminals will always find a way to get guns. By disarming our law-abiding citizens, we take away the strongest deterrent to violent criminals – the uncertainty that they don’t know who is helpless and who is armed. Our law enforcement officials can’t be everywhere, all the time. Lawfully-armed citizens back them up and prevent robberies, rapes, and the murder of innocents. Right after Katrina, with law enforcement non-existent, many victims were able to protect their lives, their homes, and their precious supplies of food and water only because they were armed.

Other candidates believe gun control should be determined geographically, but Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. Your Second Amendment rights don't change when you change your address.

Other candidates filed frivolous law suits against gun manufacturers. When I was Governor, I protected gun manufacturers from exactly those types of suits. I allowed former law enforcement officials to carry concealed handguns and removed restrictions on concealed handgun permit holders. I was the first Governor in the country to have a concealed handgun license, and of course I’m a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association.

Other candidates have supported banning assault weapons. When the federal ban on assault weapons expired in 2004, I said, “May it rest in peace.” It won’t be returning in the Huckabee Administration.

Zealously protecting your Second Amendment rights is another way that I will lift all law-abiding Americans up, by consistently championing your right to defend yourself.

He sounds pretty solid to me. Does everybody know something about him that I don't?

 

[GoSlash27]

Marshall,
I must have missed the point where he suggested that the terrorists are the "good guys". Please show me.

 

[nvshooter]

No Democrat. Ever. Period. We know them now...

 

[slimslam]

Ron Paul....sent by our founding fathers.

 

[BobMcG]

Too early.

I'm not sure yet, and none impress me enough to claim I'll vote for them. Certainly not any of the Dems running, nor any of the RINOs running either.

On the issue of "newbies" coming on board and voting for the obvious "antis" just to screw with the poll results... make it so that no member may vote in any poll who doesn't have a certain minimum number of posts to their credit, like 50 or even a 100. That might calm that crap down a bit.

 

[ilbob]

I have no idea. It is even remotely possible that the dems could field a candidate that is not a radical socialist, although the chance of that happening seems very remote.

 

[mlandman]

Where's the Bill Richardson choice?

Source:
On The Issues

Bill Richardson on Gun Control​

​

Democratic NM Governor​

Assault weapons ban did not work; despite his vote for ban
Q: On gun control, as a congressman, you said, "I voted to repeal the assault weapons ban because I should respect the wishes of my constituents. In this case, the strong majority favor repealing the ban. That doesn't mean it's the right vote." You voted to ban assault weapons, then you voted to repeal it, because your constituents wanted it?
A: The crime bill, which put 100,000 cops on the street, took some of those initiatives. But I'm a gun owner & I'm a western governor. I believe the issue is not gun control. The issue is instant background checks.

Q: Why do hunters need Street Sweepers or Uzi machine guns?

A: The assault weapons ban did not work.

Q: As president, would you seek to ban assault weapons?

A: It didn't work. What I would do is I would focus more of our efforts on, for instance, background checks with those with criminal backgrounds and the mentally ill. We have to tighten up those background checks. The problem is the states don't have the database & the resources.

Source: Meet the Press: Meet the Candidates 2008 series May 27, 2007

Endorsed by NRA for governor; would accept endorsement again
Q: You received the endorsement of the National Rifle Association running for governor. Would you accept the endorsement of the NRA for president?
A: Yes, I would. I'm a gun owner. I am for reasonable controls --I don't want to see Uzis when you're hunting, obviously.

Q: But you wouldn't ban them.

A: I'm a western governor. It's a cultural issue. I am for strong law enforcement [but not a ban].

Q: Being the NRA's man is not going to be popular in some Democratic primaries.

A: Gun control shouldn't be a litmus test in the Democratic Party. I don't change my positions to run for president.

Q: Well, you did on assault weapons [having voted for the assault weapon ban and then later for its repeal].

A: But that was a vote as part of an overall bill that President Clinton proposed [the assault weapon ban was part of a larger crime bill].

Source: Meet the Press: Meet the Candidates 2008 series May 27, 2007

The 2nd Amendment is precious
Q: You are currently the NRA's favorite presidential candidate declared in either party, based on their rating system. Did anything about the massacre at Virginia Tech make you rethink any part of your position on guns?
A: The first point I'd want to make is my sincerest condolences to the families of those loved ones that perished. It was an unspeakable tragedy. You're right; I'm a Westerner. The 2nd Amendment is precious in the West. But I want to just state for the record, a vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding. This is an issue that deals with two fundamental problems in our system. The first is mental illness. We should ensure that all federal and state initiatives deal with making sure those with mental illnesses cannot get a gun. We should find ways to ensure that our schools get the help that they need to detect these mentally ill patients. Secondly, I'm for instant background checks. We have to make sure states are properly funded to be able to detect those problems.

Source: South Carolina 2007 Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

Endorsed by NRA; has his own concealed carry permit
The National Rifle Association lent its endorsement this week to Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat. For governor. But as he mulls a run for president, Richardson's history of close relations with the NRA could set him apart from other Democrats seeking the party's bid.
As Richardson noted, he's not the first Democrat to receive an NRA endorsement. "But there haven't been very many," he said. The NRA endorsement wasn't the first time Richardson has garnered the group's backing. "He's been a pretty solid guy on the gun issue," a member of the NRA's board of directors said.

Whether that record could woo pro-Second Amendment voters into the Democratic fold in a national election is another question. The NRA endorsement cites Richardson's support for a law that allows New Mexico residents to carry concealed handguns with a permit. Richardson said he has earned a concealed-carry permit himself.

Source: By Michael Gisick, Albuquerque Tribune Oct 3, 2006

We should ally with pro-gun recreationists in West
Richardson revels in his image as the quintessential Westerner. "You have to talk about guns in the context of lifestyle, recreation, a way of life," the Governor argues, "rather than as just a measure to prevent murders and deaths. Democrats need to move into a void in the West. The Bush Administration is scaring off recreationists, hunters and fishermen because of their extreme anti-environmental policies. It's important to build alliances with them, and not to make the gun issue a litmus test."
Source: Sasha Abramsky, in The Nation, "Democrat Killer?" Apr 18, 2005

 

[Geno]

At this time, I am leaning to Ron Paul.

 

[FeebMaster]

I believe I'll sit this one out.

 

[arcticap]

I watched Bill Richardson on Meet The Press and it really showed how sincere he is about gun rights. He's seen the light alright!
The question that remains is whether he can garner enough support to beat Hillary, or whether he can even make it to being the VP selection where he can have an impact.
As VP, at least he would have a deciding vote in the Senate.
Howard Dean holds the DNC Chair, maybe he'll have a pro-gun influence on the Dem's gun politics too.

 

[Drifter27]

I live in kansas and the electorial colleges will water down my vote anyways but Im still writing in Jesse Ventura

 

[DukeNukem]

My top 5:

Duncan Hunter
Fred Thompson
Tom Tancredo
Sam Brownback
Mitt Romney

My bottom 5:

Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Ron Paul
Barak Obama
Hillary Clinton