PDA

View Full Version : As 2nd Amendment supporters, who do we want to win the presidency?


SteveInKA
09-18-2007, 12:31 AM
Hey guys,
I haven't really been paying attention to the presidential race for 08's election. I've watched a few debates but i'm not really informed in regards to which candidates are supportive of our 2nd amnd rights and which are not. Of the candidates in the running right now, who if any have voiced their support for the 2nd? More importantly, have any candidates been outspoken about supporting and submitting new anti-gun ownership legislation? I want to make sure they don't get my vote.

DedEye
09-18-2007, 12:51 AM
Bill Richardson or Ron Paul.

ZapThyCat
09-18-2007, 1:00 AM
Ron Paul, and only Ron Paul. Everyone else is Anti-2A.

VegasND
09-18-2007, 3:41 AM
I'm pretty sure we won't want whoever the Reps and Dems actually run.

simonov
09-18-2007, 6:20 AM
Richardson.

If he can get the nomination (after Clinton and Obama insult each other to death), we will enjoy the rare spectacle of the NRA endorsing a Dem candidate.

SemiAutoSam
09-18-2007, 6:32 AM
RON PAUL.

And he also is the only candidate that is not a TLC, CFR Member.

That might not mean a lot to a majority of you but there are a lot of people that know what those organisations stand for that would really appreciate this.

Please keep your Tin Foil comments to yourself.

eta34
09-18-2007, 7:02 AM
I honestly don't think Ron Paul can beat whoever the Dems throw out. He isn't "mainstream" enough. I think Fred Thompson has the best chance.

Corbin Dallas
09-18-2007, 7:16 AM
Ron Paul, and only Ron Paul. Everyone else is Anti-2A.

Except the fact that Ron will eliminate your right to choose and reverse the roe v. wade case.

dfletcher
09-18-2007, 7:54 AM
Bill Richardson, Ron Paul and Fred Thompson may each be equally progun. Let's for the sake of discussion say each is very good on the 2nd Amendment. The problem with Richardson is that he is beholden to the Democrat Party, he will be obliged to bring on board other Democrats and will be influenced by the Democratic Party leadership. The President is not only the Chief Executive Officer of the United States, he is his party's leader.

The Schumers, McCarthys and Pelosis, etc are not going to stop going after guns - will they find an eaier route to the White House with a Democrat in charge?

Also, who will be appointed by a Democrat to all those government positions that can in one way or another influence gun ownership?

ca_bubba11
09-18-2007, 7:54 AM
Except the fact that Ron will eliminate your right to choose and reverse the roe v. wade case.

"Hay guys as long as we can keep teh guns everything else will be alright." You forgot that most gun owners are conservatives. They want this.

Among other things, he also does not believe in the separation of church and state.

http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/ron-paul-is-not-a-great-candidate-were-just-so-in-love-with-him-that-were-not-paying-attention

But wait, I'm just a commie. Are you a commie too ? They are evil. Baad. Nine Elevan, Freedumbs, Muslams, gay guys and Mexicans destroy our countray, Amerika, 111one. Iz okay with lezbians -- hot girl on girl action, want.

The Democrats don't represent anything liberal anymore either.

So I guess I'd rather keep my guns and watch the country go to ****, than lose my guns and watch the country go to ****. I'd be okay with Paul.

carsonwales
09-18-2007, 8:01 AM
Ron Paul, and only Ron Paul. Everyone else is Anti-2A.

Ron Bot ?

(hint) Ron Paul won't even get 3% of the vote....and is not the only PRO 2a candidate....

http://www.fred08.com/images/fdtfeatured.jpg

Interview with Chris Wallace: [Chris] Wallace posed the question of gun control and again Thompson made his position extremely clear. Reflecting on the recent federal court ruling striking down the DC gun ban, Thompson said he agreed with the court. The right to own guns IS an individual right, that is what the Constitution says and Thompson agrees with the Constitution!” Source (http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7568_0_1_0_M)

WALLACE: Gun control.

THOMPSON: Well, I’m against gun control generally. You know, you check my record. You’ll find I’m pretty consistent on that issue.

WALLACE: So this federal court — appeals court ruling this last week, I guess Friday, in the case of D.C. — you’d be perfectly happy to have people have handguns in their homes?

THOMPSON: Yes. Absolutely. The court basically said the Constitution means what it says, and I agree with that. Source (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258222,00.html)
From his site on the issues:I strongly support the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is touted as a major crime-control measure. But some of the places with the strictest gun-control laws also have high violent-crime rates. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not prevent crime. The answer to violent crime is smart, effective, and aggressive law enforcement. The real effect of these gun-control measures is to place onerous restrictions on law-abiding citizens who use firearms for such legal activities as self-defense, sport-shooting, hunting, and collecting. I am committed to:


Strictly enforcing existing laws and severely punishing violent criminals.
Protecting the rights individual Americans enjoy under the Second Amendment. National Review Editorial by Thompson V-Tech Shootings:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTIwYzMyZmQ1YzQ1MDNmZTMyYzQ1Y2U3YTU4YzNmNGE=


New York Times Article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/us/politics/22rudy.html?ex=1190260800&en=a3ca54fa653fcc70&ei=5070


Miami Herald article on Thompson and Gun Control:

http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/237555.html

Jawa Report on Thompson and Gun Control:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/187517.php

On The Issues on Thompson and Gun Control:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Fred_Thompson_Gun_Control.htm

Front Sight Press on Thompson and Gun Control:

http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/news/fred-thompson-on-gun-control/

http://www.fred08.com/images/fdt150x41.jpg

CitaDeL
09-18-2007, 8:14 AM
The only single determining issue for my selection of a candidate is how they view the United States Constitution.

If they think that the Consitution is a 'living document' intended to 'change with the times', they can pretty much go self-fornicate.

The Constitution was ratified by the people to entrust government with limited and delegated powers. Taking any measure of those limitations away means the people and their unenumerated rights are in peril of abuse.

I do not trust the superficiality of Fred Thompsons statements. I'd rather hear him declare his unwavering loyalty to the form and intent of the Constitution, but being a centrist not unlike Guiliani, its doubtful we will ever hear it.

Ron Paul - 2008

simonov
09-18-2007, 9:00 AM
Bill Richardson, Ron Paul and Fred Thompson may each be equally progun. Let's for the sake of discussion say each is very good on the 2nd Amendment. The problem with Richardson is that he is beholden to the Democrat Party, he will be obliged to bring on board other Democrats and will be influenced by the Democratic Party leadership. The President is not only the Chief Executive Officer of the United States, he is his party's leader.

All the more reason that we ensure the party leader of the country's largest party is pro-gun, no?

proraptor
09-18-2007, 9:20 AM
ron paul....even if he doesn't win I'm still going to vote for him...then I can get one of those don't blame me I voted for ron paul stickers ha ha

eta34
09-18-2007, 9:27 AM
Let's assume he (Ron Paul) doesn't win the Republican primary....what then?

CCWFacts
09-18-2007, 9:35 AM
I would vote for Ron Paul or Bill Richardson. I'm toying with the idea of voting in the Dem primary this time, just so I can vote for Richardson.

Other than those two (who are not viable first-tier candidates)... who knows. All the other Dems are solidly anti-RKBA. The Repubs are pro-RKBA to varying degrees, except for Rudy.

bwiese
09-18-2007, 9:40 AM
It's a bit early to speculate before primaries, huh?

Several things, though:


(1) Ron Paul has ZERO chance of a primary showing or winning in general election. Anyone believing otherwise is smoking crack.

If Ron Paul makes a really good showing in primaries he'll get a few token %.
If for some (impossible) miracle Ron Paul were to run against Hillary Clinton as R nominee he'll lose in a landslide.

Hilary has such negatives that I think that a decent moderate non-evangelican Republican could beat her - except Ron Paul.

If the R's manage to put up a religious-right Republican (Brownback, etc.), they self-destruct and give the election to Hilary.

If the Dems put up Hilary against any R except a Religious Right republican or Ron Paul, they will lose.


(2) If Ron Paul splits off and runs as a Libertarian, he'll get more than the usual libertarian vote, maybe a couple of extra percent or so. Kinda like Ralph Nader a few years ago for the Democrats.

If this is the case, Ron Paul will pull a Perot and help elect a Clinton.


(3) Bill Richardson may be pro-gun, but his party is antigun. The party's moneymaking centers are the folks leading urban poor/labor/nutjobs by the nose doling out free cookies from Big Mama. It will do nothing to re-shape overall Democrat party: the pro-gun Dems will still be pro-gun and the antis will still be anti. Sure, having Bill R in there instead of Hilary would be helpful but it appears he doesn't have the money or traction to beat Hilary.

(4) Except for Supreme Ct nominations, with the current composition of Congress the Presidency will be relatively irrelevant for gun issues.


(5) The perfect is the enemy of the good. Supreme Court will have openings in future. The most significant thing Bush II did for gun rights was to appoint Alito and Roberts to the Supremes, and signing the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. His dance around the Fed AWB ban renewal was graceful.

Given (4) the main thing for pro-gun status is Supreme Ct appointments, and I think Our Man Fred will have that under control nicely.

Soldier415
09-18-2007, 9:45 AM
Fred Thompson

He is sweeping the polls this week, and will mop the floor with Shrillary in a debate.

Liberty1
09-18-2007, 9:49 AM
HMMMM.......Let me think.........








































Oh Ya! I remember....

simonov
09-18-2007, 9:50 AM
I would vote for Ron Paul or Bill Richardson. I'm toying with the idea of voting in the Dem primary this time, just so I can vote for Richardson.

Last primary I voted in was a Republican primary because the Dem primary was closed and the Repub primary was open. But that was for state office and I'm not sure whether they have open or closed primaries for the president.

simonov
09-18-2007, 9:53 AM
(4) Except for Supreme Ct nominations, with the current composition of Congress the Presidency will be relatively irrelevant for gun issues.

President is in charge of the BATFE. For example, if our current president was actually as pro-gun as people pretend, the BATFE wouldn't now be running rampant all over the country, hassling FFLs and shutting them down, to say nothing of the lame import restrictions (with which Congress has given them a pretty free hand, so they could actually choose to liberalize things, again if we actually had a pro-gun Administration).

tombinghamthegreat
09-18-2007, 10:15 AM
Ron Paul I hope becomes president and I am huge fan! Fred Thompson would be a 2nd choice only because he is pro gun.

bwiese
09-18-2007, 10:28 AM
President is in charge of the BATFE. For example, if our current president was actually as pro-gun as people pretend, the BATFE wouldn't now be running rampant all over the country, hassling FFLs and shutting them down, to say nothing of the lame import restrictions (with which Congress has given them a pretty free hand, so they could actually choose to liberalize things, again if we actually had a pro-gun Administration).

That is true.

However on the scale of things trying to compete for a president's attention, the BATFE is pretty low on totem pole.

buff_01
09-18-2007, 10:40 AM
There is only one answer: RON PAUL. He is probably the only one who has read the Bill of Rights since grade school--> I'm not joking.

Fred Thompson is a flip flopper, and is not conservative. He is a NEOCON just like Bush, and will sell your rights to the highest lobbyist bidder in a second.

Ron Paul is also the only candidate that has a chance against HillariBama. No pro-war candidate has a chance of being elected in the general election.

buff_01
09-18-2007, 10:44 AM
Except the fact that Ron will eliminate your right to choose

Wrong. He wants to leave it to the individual states to decide. The constitution does not give the fed gov the right to police this, anyway. Roe V Wade is the essence of "legislating from the bench".

buff_01
09-18-2007, 10:47 AM
Fred Thompson’s Anti-Gun Senate Record

1. Anti-gun terror bill (S. 735 )

On June 7, 1995, the Senate passed an anti-gun terror bill (S. 735) by a vote of 91-8. This version of the terror bill included: a BATF pay increase of $100 million; a provision authorizing “roving wiretaps” allowing government officials to wiretap one’s home if a person under investigation visits the home — even if one had no knowledge the person was a suspect; a weakening of the Posse Commitatus law to give the military more authority to get involved in law enforcement in certain circumstances; a grant of power to the FBI to conduct “fishing expeditions” and secure one’s financial and travel records in certain circumstances without any evidence one has committed a crime; and finally, the “Randy Weaver entrapment provision” which extends the statute of limitations for violations under the National Firearms Act of 1934 from three to five years. Thompson voted in favor of the bill.

2. Anti-gun terror bill — final passage

On April 17, 1996, the Senate passed the conference version of the anti-terrorism bill by a vote of 91-8. The final version of the bill (S. 735) contained several problems, including ones that will: order an “anti-hunter” rifle and ammo study; authorize a $40 million pay increase for the BATF (through the Treasury Department); potentially punish gun dealers (and individuals) for selling ammunition to someone they should have known would commit a violent crime; federalize many state crimes, thus tremendously increasing the scope and jurisdiction of the BATF; restrict the right of habeas corpus in such a way as to severely damage the ability of the courts to rescue honest gun owners who are unjustly incarcerated; allow the government to use “secret evidence” against certain individuals; remove protections against wiretapping wireless data; and require banks to freeze the assets of domestic groups in certain situations. Thompson once again voted in favor of the bill.

3. Taggants in gunpowder

On September 12, 1996, the Senate voted (57-42) to keep an anti-gun amendment off of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Kerry amendment — which Thompson voted for– would have made funds available for a study of tagging explosive materials, including black and smokeless powders (thus setting the stage for registering ammunition). The amendment also sought to further demonize firearms by selectively examining the misuse of firearms by criminals. The study would not examine the number of times firearms are used to save the lives of decent citizens.

4. Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation gun ban

On September 12, 1996, the Senate passed the Lautenberg gun ban as an amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation Gun Ban disarms gun owners for small (misdemeanor) offenses in the home — “offenses” as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse. This lifetime ban, in certain cases, can even be imposed without a trial by jury. It is also retroactive, so it does not matter if the offense occurred 20 years ago. Thompson voted in favor of the amendment.

5. Free Speech restrictions

On October 7, 1997, the Senate defeated an “Incumbent Protection Bill” (S. 25) which would have resulted in the government regulation of GOA’s newsletters and other communications with its members, while expanding the relative political power of the liberal media and other anti-gun forces. Senators failed in their effort, 53 to 47, to shut down a filibuster of the bill that was ostensibly aimed at reforming campaign finance laws.

6. Smith “Anti-Brady” Amendment

On July 21, 1998, pro-gun Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduced an “Anti-Brady” amendment that passed by a vote of 69-31. The Smith amendment would prohibit the FBI from using Brady background checks to tax or register gun owners. Further, the amendment requires the “immediate destruction of all [gun buyer] information, in any form whatsoever.” Finally, if the FBI disregards this latter provision, the Smith language will allow private citizens to sue the agency and collect monetary damages, including attorney’s fees. Thompson, in keeping with his tendency to usually vote for expanded federal police power, voted against this limitation of FBI registration of gun owners.

7. Anti-gun Clinton judge appointment

On February 11, 1998, the Senate voted 67-28 to confirm Margaret Morrow to the Federal bench. GOA vigorously opposed this Clinton-appointed judge, as she has not only taken strident anti-gun positions, she has showed herself to be a gun control activist.

8. Anti-gun Surgeon General

Having nominated anti-gun David Satcher for Surgeon General, President Bill Clinton was forced to wait several months as debate raged over his controversial pick. But on February 10, 1998, the President finally realized victory. By a vote of 75-23, anti-gun Republicans teamed up with the Democrats to kill the filibuster over the Satcher nomination. Mr. Satcher was later confirmed by a vote of 63-35. Since the key vote was to end the filibuster, that is the one that was rated by GOA.

9. Ending the filibuster of a major anti-gun crime bill

On July 28, 1999, the Senate ended a filibuster led by Senator Bob Smith (I-NH) — a filibuster intended to keep anti-gun crime legislation from progressing any further. After the 77-22 vote, the Senate moved to send the language of the anti-gun Senate crime bill (S. 254) to a House-Senate conference committee. Thompson voted to break the pro-gun filibuster.

10. Young adult gun ban

The young adult gun ban could severely punish parents who allow their kids to even touch a so-called semi-automatic “assault weapon.” While the amendment allows for certain exemptions, there are some imponderable questions which NO senator could answer, but which a parent would have to answer in order to avoid incarceration. For example: What is a “semiautomatic assault weapon”? The definition, plus exemptions, takes up six pages of fine print in the U.S. Code. Second, a child can handle a banned semi-auto if he is in the “immediate and supervisory presence” of a parent or if he possess a written permission slip from the parent. But what happens when, during a target practice session, the parent walks to the car to retrieve his lunch and the juvenile is no longer in the parents “immediate” presence and does not have a permission slip? A parent can receive jail time for this infraction. The provision passed the Senate on May 13, 1999, with Thompson voting in the majority.

11. Adopting the “Gun Control Lite” strategy

On May 13, 1999, a majority of Senators — including Thompson — defeated a motion to table (or kill) an anti-gun amendment introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Larry Craig (R-WY). This amendment was offered as an alternative to gun control proposals being pushed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

12. McCain’s Incumbent Protection (2000 version)

By 59 to 41, the Senate passed S. 27, to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to include Incumbent Protection provisions. The bill severely curtails the ability of outside groups such as GOA to communicate the actions of incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.

13. Incumbent Protection (2002 failed filibuster)

This was the key vote in the Senate regarding the odious Incumbent Protection bill in 2002 (H.R. 2356). The legislation finally became law that year. As he had on previous occasions, Thompson voted in favor of the bill.

SOURCE: http://conservativesagainstfred.wordpress.com/

Soldier415
09-18-2007, 10:54 AM
Fred Thompson’s Anti-Gun Senate Record

1. Anti-gun terror bill (S. 735 )

On June 7, 1995, the Senate passed an anti-gun terror bill (S. 735) by a vote of 91-8. This version of the terror bill included: a BATF pay increase of $100 million; a provision authorizing “roving wiretaps” allowing government officials to wiretap one’s home if a person under investigation visits the home — even if one had no knowledge the person was a suspect; a weakening of the Posse Commitatus law to give the military more authority to get involved in law enforcement in certain circumstances; a grant of power to the FBI to conduct “fishing expeditions” and secure one’s financial and travel records in certain circumstances without any evidence one has committed a crime; and finally, the “Randy Weaver entrapment provision” which extends the statute of limitations for violations under the National Firearms Act of 1934 from three to five years. Thompson voted in favor of the bill.

2. Anti-gun terror bill — final passage

On April 17, 1996, the Senate passed the conference version of the anti-terrorism bill by a vote of 91-8. The final version of the bill (S. 735) contained several problems, including ones that will: order an “anti-hunter” rifle and ammo study; authorize a $40 million pay increase for the BATF (through the Treasury Department); potentially punish gun dealers (and individuals) for selling ammunition to someone they should have known would commit a violent crime; federalize many state crimes, thus tremendously increasing the scope and jurisdiction of the BATF; restrict the right of habeas corpus in such a way as to severely damage the ability of the courts to rescue honest gun owners who are unjustly incarcerated; allow the government to use “secret evidence” against certain individuals; remove protections against wiretapping wireless data; and require banks to freeze the assets of domestic groups in certain situations. Thompson once again voted in favor of the bill.


5. Free Speech restrictions

On October 7, 1997, the Senate defeated an “Incumbent Protection Bill” (S. 25) which would have resulted in the government regulation of GOA’s newsletters and other communications with its members, while expanding the relative political power of the liberal media and other anti-gun forces. Senators failed in their effort, 53 to 47, to shut down a filibuster of the bill that was ostensibly aimed at reforming campaign finance laws.


7. Anti-gun Clinton judge appointment

On February 11, 1998, the Senate voted 67-28 to confirm Margaret Morrow to the Federal bench. GOA vigorously opposed this Clinton-appointed judge, as she has not only taken strident anti-gun positions, she has showed herself to be a gun control activist.

8. Anti-gun Surgeon General

Having nominated anti-gun David Satcher for Surgeon General, President Bill Clinton was forced to wait several months as debate raged over his controversial pick. But on February 10, 1998, the President finally realized victory. By a vote of 75-23, anti-gun Republicans teamed up with the Democrats to kill the filibuster over the Satcher nomination. Mr. Satcher was later confirmed by a vote of 63-35. Since the key vote was to end the filibuster, that is the one that was rated by GOA.



12. McCain’s Incumbent Protection (2000 version)

By 59 to 41, the Senate passed S. 27, to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to include Incumbent Protection provisions. The bill severely curtails the ability of outside groups such as GOA to communicate the actions of incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.

13. Incumbent Protection (2002 failed filibuster)

This was the key vote in the Senate regarding the odious Incumbent Protection bill in 2002 (H.R. 2356). The legislation finally became law that year. As he had on previous occasions, Thompson voted in favor of the bill.

SOURCE: http://conservativesagainstfred.wordpress.com/


Come on now, thats a stretch. These have no direct application to 2a rights

buff_01
09-18-2007, 10:58 AM
Come on now, thats a stretch. These have no direct application to 2a rights

How can you even consider someone with as checkered a voting record as this guy? He is NOT Reagan II. He does NOT care about your constitutional rights.

Voting for someone who will do harm to your rights is truly throwing your vote away.

dfletcher
09-18-2007, 10:58 AM
The only situation in which I see myself voting for a pro - gun Democrat as President is if the alternative is an anti - gun Republican. In any other situation the risk of who that Democrat will bring with him as co - workers is simply too great.

Bill Richardson may not be a wolf, but his party is loaded with and run by them. I don't want the wolf's pal to be the one deciding who is let into the henhouse.

eta34
09-18-2007, 11:02 AM
So I ask the question again...when/if Ron Paul loses in the primary, who do you vote for? Will you throw away your vote on a Libertarian candidate out of protest? Will you vote for the remaining Republican?

bwiese
09-18-2007, 11:10 AM
So I ask the question again...when/if Ron Paul loses in the primary, who do you vote for? Will you throw away your vote on a Libertarian candidate out of protest? Will you vote for the remaining Republican?

Eta34,

Some of these boneheads above just don't get the concept "perfect is the enemy of the good".

Reminds me of Peter O'Toole in Murphy's War when he was pinned & drowning, still yelling "I got ya, I got ya!" at the enemy. Appears these folks like to vote for losers.

Let's look at the Big Things: we should be happy Fred Thompson He has expressed overall pro-gun viewpoints. He's expressed pro-Parker/Heller sentiments, will be appointing Supreme Court justices that will help us, and won't support any AW ban.

eta34
09-18-2007, 11:12 AM
In a perfect world, NONE of these candidates expresses my views to a tee. Does that mean I should dismiss all of them and throw out a protest vote? I guess I don't see the "Ron Paul or nothing" philosophy.

Bishop
09-18-2007, 11:26 AM
Uhh, guys?

Do you really think Ron Paul supporters expect him to win the primary and destroy Hillary?

I think most Ron Paul voters aren't voting for him to win, they're voting to him to voice their disapproval of the current "Republicans".

I know I am.

I'm not going to have republicans scare me with the H word to get me to vote for someone who I don't agree with.

Japedo
09-18-2007, 11:29 AM
Ron Paul, and only Ron Paul. Everyone else is Anti-2A.

Tom Tancredo is pro 2A :rolleyes:

bwiese
09-18-2007, 11:43 AM
Tom Tancredo is pro 2A :rolleyes:

Tom Tancredo has zero money and no effective way to raise it. He's dead.

CCWFacts
09-18-2007, 11:58 AM
So I ask the question again...when/if Ron Paul loses in the primary, who do you vote for? Will you throw away your vote on a Libertarian candidate out of protest? Will you vote for the remaining Republican?

Look, in CA, any vote you make for the pres is to "send a message". It is absolutely guaranteed that all of CA's electoral votes will go to whoever is the Dem nominee. The only Dem nominee right now who is pro-RKBA is Bill Richardson and he's not going to win the primary. So the question is, which message do you want to send?

I would say that if a traditional small-government Republican wins the nominee, I want to send a message of supporting that. If a creationism-is-science bible thumper wins, I'll vote Libertarian. I don't want to send a message of wanting more bible-thumping Republicans.

buff_01
09-18-2007, 12:03 PM
So I ask the question again...when/if Ron Paul loses in the primary, who do you vote for? Will you throw away your vote on a Libertarian candidate out of protest? Will you vote for the remaining Republican?

Probably will not vote, or may write in RP. I won't help elect a criminal, whatever party he might come from.

tonb
09-18-2007, 12:09 PM
Ron Paul is America's only hope right now.

Also, I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed more, maybe everyone is trying to be too PC, but I think that generally the American people are not ready for a woman or a black president.

And let me clarify, that's just my impression of America, not necc what I personally believe.

Paratus et Vigilans
09-18-2007, 12:23 PM
Ron Paul has no reasonable chance of winning the GOP nomination. That is not a critique of him or his position. It is simply an objective statement of fact. Barring something out of the ordinary in the next few months, the nominee will either be Thompson or Giuliani. I think Thompson would be a better protector of RKBA, but I'm not sure he's got the energy or the intellect to be president. Rudy has the smarts, and the track record of being able to serve as an executive in tough conditions. He presided over major improvements to life in NYC as well as being there and acting like a mensch on 9/11. The guy could be a good president, but he's not as conservative as I'd like nor is he as strong on RKBA as I'd like. He can also duke it out with Hillary (as if anyone else has a chance at the Dem nomination?) on an intellectual level, which I don't think Fred can do as well. I like Fred better, personally, too, but right now he's not acting like he can get it done.

In summary, I think we're looking at Rudy whether we like it or not, and we're going to like him a whole lot better than Hillary, so I think we have to look at the best of the available options.

So, when the times comes, and it will, vote against Hillary, but please do it in such a way that it hurts her, not in a way that helps her. Voting for Ron Paul in the general election as a write-in or as a Libertarian or something else will help Hillary. Don't do it. Please. Think of your guns! If you don't care about your guns, then think of my guns! I love my guns! :D If thinking of my guns doesn't do it for you, well, then think of being taxed up the *** for her next health care plan for America!!!

buff_01
09-18-2007, 12:30 PM
PeV: Your "objective statement of fact" is purely opinion. You do not have a magical crystal ball.

G. Edward Griffin explains the situation quite succinctly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6zhIiGCvg

Paratus et Vigilans
09-18-2007, 12:57 PM
PeV: Your "objective statement of fact" is purely opinion. You do not have a magical crystal ball.

G. Edward Griffin explains the situation quite succinctly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6zhIiGCvg

I don't need a magical crystal ball to know, right now, today, that Ron Paul will not be the nominee of the GOP for the office of the presidency in the 2008 general election. I won't argue with you about whether that statement is fact or opinion, because I don't expect to change your mind set on that, nor do I need to do so. The numbers aren't there. It can't happen. Ron Paul's message does not reach enough of the GOP for it to make him its nominee.

Thank you for the link to the speech by Mr. Griffin. It was an excellent speech. He is wrong. It makes a great deal of difference to the entire nation whether the president of this country is a Democrat or a Republican. The president gets to put justices on the supreme court. That matters a lot. The president has the power of the veto, and with the opposition party having such a slim majority in congress, that also matters a lot. It's not about winning or losing an election, emotionally, like it's a sporting event, as Mr. Griffin suggests. It's about using your vote to the maximum ability you have, to get the most bang for your buck, as it were.

America is a nation where the vast majority of the population finds itself somewhere in the middle on most issues. To move the nation this way or that just a little can, therefore, make a great deal of difference, and requires only a thoughtful application of force to the area where the maximum leverage can be achieved.

Use your vote wisely.

Anthonysmanifesto
09-18-2007, 1:15 PM
It's not about winning or losing an election, emotionally, like it's a sporting event, as Mr. Griffin suggests. It's about using your vote to the maximum ability you have, to get the most bang for your buck, as it were.

unfortunatly I think the american public may just as well view this as a sporting event. as does the media. whos on the injured list? whos the new head coach? whos the rising star? rookie of the year? scandal anyone?


America is a nation where the vast majority of the population finds itself somewhere in the middle on most issues. To move the nation this way or that just a little can, therefore, make a great deal of difference, and requires only a thoughtful application of force to the area where the maximum leverage can be achieved.

Use your vote wisely .

If it helps you, the California Republican primary is no longer winner take all.

Delegates to the national convention are now chosen by congressional district.

so you can play a role in who take son hilllary, if you are a registered republican in February.

so to leverage your vote, do you vote for the liberal who can beat hillary?

AKman
09-18-2007, 1:35 PM
(1) Ron Paul has ZERO chance of a primary showing or winning in general election. Anyone believing otherwise is smoking crack.

Actually, there is about a one in ten billion chance that a meteor could strike the next Republican Debate, and with Ron Paul shuffled off to the side he could be the lone survivor and by default the Republican candidate.

Close to zero, but never zero probability.

Also, Ron Paul did step on his dick the other day on the illegal immigration issue, so I suspect he will lose what little base he has.

Anthonysmanifesto
09-18-2007, 2:46 PM
Maybe the next president will appoint Ron Paul FED Chairman, and he will re-institute the gold standard and dissolve the Federal Reserve.

SemiAutoSam
09-18-2007, 2:50 PM
I would do cartwheels down wall street if this happened.

It would bring back a portion of my faith in the Country as a WHOLE.

But it would only be a start and RP knows that.



Maybe the next president will appoint Ron Paul FED Chairman, and he will re-institute the gold standard and dissolve the Federal Reserve.

bwiese
09-18-2007, 2:55 PM
Also, Ron Paul did step on his dick the other day on the illegal immigration issue, so I suspect he will lose what little base he has.

Yup.

Rob P.
09-18-2007, 3:22 PM
So, when the times comes, and it will, vote against Hillary, but please do it in such a way that it hurts her, not in a way that helps her. Voting for Ron Paul in the general election as a write-in or as a Libertarian or something else will help Hillary. Don't do it. Please. Think of your guns! If you don't care about your guns, then think of my guns! I love my guns! :D If thinking of my guns doesn't do it for you, well, then think of being taxed up the *** for her next health care plan for America!!!


I really WISH more people would see this point and stop touting Ron Paul as the 'only' choice. He may be YOUR only choice but the fact is, between Ron Paul and HIlliary, Hillary has more support in the population and will DECIMATE RP in any election.

That means if Hillary gets the dem nomination and RP gets the republican nomination, HILLARY will be our next prez. Not Ron Paul no matter how much you want to delude yourself into thinking that he'll beat her. Ron Paul CANNOT win either the primary or the white house. You can believe it until Hillary comes and takes your guns away but it will not change anything.

So, get off the RP bandwagon and get ON the bandwagon of the candidate who can beat Hillary. Personally, I think that no republican will win this elections. To much bad blood over Iraq and the poor economy/housing.

So, find a democrat you could live with while hoping that a real republican shows up in the next election cycle or 2. Otherwise we're all in trouble.

carsonwales
09-18-2007, 3:37 PM
http://www.headsuptrading.com/ar/drinksome.jpg

SemiAutoSam
09-18-2007, 3:39 PM
Too much bad blood over a war we should not have been involved in, In the first place and no benefit to the parents of those killed in that hell hole.

And not to mention the money that was wasted on the Citizens of that country that Generations of Americans will be paying on for the next 10-20 years or more.

We need to keep our military here to protect our SOIL here not scatter them around the globe to fight everyone else's battles.

And the Army Recruiter wonders why I curse them when they call trying to recruit my son into their military to be killed in IRAQ no way no how.

Their No Child Left behind act has ulterior motives.




get off the RP bandwagon and get ON the bandwagon of the candidate who can beat Hillary. Personally, I think that no republican will win this elections. To much bad blood over Iraq and the poor economy/housing.

AKman
09-18-2007, 3:54 PM
Their No Child Left behind act has ulterior motives.

As far as I can tell, its to dumb down the reasonably intelligent kids and level the playing field with the stupid ones. A great equalizer for the masses that can't afford to send their kid to private school.

As for Hillbillary, the only hope is that she still scares the heck out of a lot of people. While I'm not very excited about the Republican candidates, it will take a fairly mainstream candidate to beat Hillbillary. Ron Paul has come off looking like a nut, but without the charisma and one-liners of a Ross Perot. Tancredo has one issue, illegal immigration, and from what I can tell absolutely no backing from anyone with money. I could rant down the whole list, but they all have their "issues."

I would love to see Hillbillary and Newt Gingrich mix it up.

dfletcher
09-18-2007, 6:41 PM
Wrong. He wants to leave it to the individual states to decide. The constitution does not give the fed gov the right to police this, anyway. Roe V Wade is the essence of "legislating from the bench".

I'm glad Ron Paul is in the race and believe it is good for the Republican Party. I hope he stays longer than most believe.

If the above is accurate, does Ron Paul also believe that gun control is to be left to the individual states? How can one believe abortion is best left to the individual states, but not allow that gun control is best left to the individual states?

Are voting rights best left to the individual states, access to housing best left to the individual states, etc? In short, does Ron Paul believe in the 14th Amendment?

I grew up in New England - a more "polite" method of segregation was practiced than that of the south, but our home mortgages and housing carried restrictive covenants. Would these be allowed so long as they do not involve federal monies?

I know the easy answer is "that would never happen" but since Ron Paul is seeking the nomination in large part on constitutional purity, I think it is a relevant question.

M. Sage
09-18-2007, 7:27 PM
If the above is accurate, does Ron Paul also believe that gun control is to be left to the individual states?

Paul's biggest selling point (for me, anyway) is that he believes the Federal Government should adhere strictly to the Constitution.

What's the Constitution say about gun control? "...shall not be infringed." That's pretty absolute, it doesn't say anything like the 1A does: "Congress shall make no law..."

"Shall not be infringed" means what it says. It doesn't exclude any parties, federal, state or local, but it does include them all.

Bizcuits
09-18-2007, 7:27 PM
Ron Paul or Fred Thompson.

dfletcher
09-18-2007, 7:37 PM
Paul's biggest selling point (for me, anyway) is that he believes the Federal Government should adhere strictly to the Constitution.

What's the Constitution say about gun control? "...shall not be infringed." That's pretty absolute, it doesn't say anything like the 1A does: "Congress shall make no law..."

"Shall not be infringed" means what it says. It doesn't exclude any parties, federal, state or local, but it does include them all.

Agree - but the problem, from my layman's point of view, is that without the 14th "shall not be infringed" applies to Congress and not state legislatures. If we look at the Bill of Rights only, then Congress is not permitted to infringe but the states are allowed to infringe. If the 14th applies to the states with respect to the 2nd, it must also apply to others.

carsonwales
09-18-2007, 7:44 PM
How can one believe abortion is best left to the individual states, but not allow that gun control is best left to the individual states?In my simplistic world, gun control is neither a State or Federal issue...the Constitution is clear and governs...and does not allow gun control of any shape or form.

The Second Amendment says in crystal clear English: "(dependent clause),the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The only legitimate role any of our governing bodies concerning the second and 'arms' is reserved to the Federal; that role is restricted to protecting and preserving the literal wording of the Second, and the right of a free people to defend themselves.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed".

States rights and their individual interpretation of the Second should be abolished across the board.

Laudable as some State's constitutions are in reinforcing the USC Second with their own 'Bill of Rights' with parallel and coincident clauses, those lesser 'bill of rights' should be considered not only redundant, but ultimately meaningless in the shadow of the original Second.

Of course, the Constitution has long since been winnowed and picked by subjective theorists and opportunistic practitioners with subversive motives, and my simplistic literal interpretation is now the minority...

Where is my Federal Government to b!tch slap California?.....How the hell did we get here?

buff_01
09-18-2007, 7:57 PM
I'm glad Ron Paul is in the race and believe it is good for the Republican Party. I hope he stays longer than most believe.

If the above is accurate, does Ron Paul also believe that gun control is to be left to the individual states? How can one believe abortion is best left to the individual states, but not allow that gun control is best left to the individual states?

Are voting rights best left to the individual states, access to housing best left to the individual states, etc? In short, does Ron Paul believe in the 14th Amendment?

I grew up in New England - a more "polite" method of segregation was practiced than that of the south, but our home mortgages and housing carried restrictive covenants. Would these be allowed so long as they do not involve federal monies?

I know the easy answer is "that would never happen" but since Ron Paul is seeking the nomination in large part on constitutional purity, I think it is a relevant question.

I cannot speak for him, but I can guess that:

Gun rights are not left up to the states, they are constitutionally protected. Abortion is not constitutionally protected, so if states wanted to make laws concerning it, then they could. Covenants are normally local, and agreed to by contract, no? If that is the case, then the fedgov would have nothing to do with them. RP is big on property rights, however, and I'll bet one could make a case for eliminating zoning, and things like that. Basically, if you own it, do as you please on it, as long as you aren't restricting the rights of your neighbors.

Ron Paul has stated many times publicly that he would try to do away with birthright citizenship (14th amendment). I don't think he made a mistake with regard to illegals; He wants the troops HERE on American soil to protect our borders (as a defensive force should be), and he wants to eliminate entitlements that are like a magnet for illegals. I can't see a fairer way to deal with illegal immigration than that.

buff_01
09-18-2007, 8:04 PM
So, get off the RP bandwagon and get ON the bandwagon of the candidate who can beat Hillary. Personally, I think that no republican will win this elections. To much bad blood over Iraq and the poor economy/housing.

I'll say it again: Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican who can beat Hillary/Obama. The people will not vote in another pro-Iraq war president.

Of course, Hillary/Obama are pro-war everywhere else in the world, as are the rest of the candidates on either aisle. Ron Paul is the only choice, because he is the only one who sees the dire economic and social condition we are in due to our military and monetary empire abroad. He has devoted his entire life to fighting to protect our natural liberties, and I'll be god damned if I'm going to vote for anyone else currently running who will only restrict them.

"Voting for the guy who looks like the winner" is the entire reason this country is so ****ed up, and I will not play a part in the destruction of this nation.

SemiAutoSam
09-18-2007, 8:10 PM
The 14th is a double edged sword as to citizenship IE State Citizenship verses 14th amendment citizenship

One of the reasons I would want to see Ron Paul get in office is his desire to take out the 14th.

I would rather have my sovereignty back than have to abide by all of the federal laws.

without the 14th and the 16th there would be no federal tax do any of you realise that ?

The state Citizens would once again not be a slave to the federal government.


http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php


Here find some peace.
http://hytaipan.home.comcast.net/media/serenity2.html

carsonwales
09-18-2007, 8:15 PM
I'll say it again: Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican who can beat Hillary/Obama.


Ron Paul will come in near (if not) dead last in the primaries (and not because he is pubbie isolationist, run home and wait for the next attack [I got no plan kind of guy]).

Its because he has no money and no recognition....and he never will. His ideas are not going to go on a fire sale anytime soon...

Did you see him on O'Rielly the other night?...Ron Paul is woefully UN-prepared to be President. I felt sorry for him. The man with no plan - no 'what if' scenario answers.

How do you calculate he can beat Hillary? Do you actually believe that anti-war types are going to vote republican because RP wants to 'bring the troops home' (only to send them overseas again)?

How in the world do you conceive that a guy who is going to get 2-3% in the primary (if he is lucky) has a chance of beating Hillary?

Pat Buchanan would get more votes....and I would bet ya Dr. Keyes gets near as many if not more votes in the Primary....

The Republicans will win if they field a pro war, pro second amendment, smaller government, social conservative, PRO AMERICAN POWER candidate...any candidate who says we have to 'rebuild' our standing in the world is going to have his *** handed to him in his own hat. Americans are sick and tired of American Negativism...

A Libertarian dressed in Elephant drag is not going to cut it.

edit:

You can quote me here too: Hillary will never ever ever choose Osama Obama as here running mate.
Not a in a million jillion years. Hillary's running mate is going to be a Clinton loyalist...a firmly controlled subservient...Bill Richardson has a better chance than Osama...
Osama Obama spent his formative years in a Indonesian madrases....do you believe Hillary wants to hang that albatross around her neck considering the baggage she
already is carrying?....NOT IN A MILLION YEARS

buff_01
09-18-2007, 8:24 PM
I didn't mean a ticket with both of them, I meant one or the other :)

dfletcher
09-18-2007, 8:39 PM
I guess I started of with an assumption that the Bill of Rights as originally written applied to the federal government and it is only through the 14th Amendment that it is applied to the individual states - is that correct or am I mistaken?

The 1st and 10th Amendment indicate that from my reading - "Congress shall make no law ....." and "The powers not delegated to the United States ...."
It seems to me we end up suffering the bad to get the good.

carsonwales
09-18-2007, 8:49 PM
I have a hypothetical for all you folks:

Hillary is going to win the nomination. There is no love lost between her and Osama Obama...Zero...Zilch.

Demographically speaking her people are nearly if not antithetical to Obama's.

I see a huge rift in the Democrats demarcated by Hillary and Obama. Its a nearly balanced split of the democratic base...

Here is my theory:

One is going to lose...(no kidding)...and I believe a huge number of liberals and progressives will sit out the election pissed off their guy(gal) didn't make it.

They will vote green or just not vote.

All it will take for us to win is to field an articulate Right Center Pro American, Pro Border Control guy to sweep in a landslide...

Thats just my theory...

And Fred is the guy....

ca_bubba11
09-18-2007, 9:14 PM
Osama Obama..

What an ignorant thing to say. Rush, is that you ? Easy on the meds there. You may not like the guy but to equate him to a murdering terrorist is pretty low.

N6ATF
09-18-2007, 9:14 PM
You HOPE Fred is the guy... he might act like he's pro border control... but as has been proven time and time again it doesn't take a professional actor to convince someone that they are exactly the opposite of who they REALLY are.

He needs to do something drastic within his first year in office, like redeploying the military to secure the border and inspect cargo containers at the ports, or campaigning for a constitutional amendment that would prohibit all future amnesties (by any name) for foreign invaders. Hell, we're to the point where a politician who offers a token pro-security measure WITHOUT a backdoor pro-invader agenda would be a serious improvment.

If you trust someone before they even do anything to prove that they can walk the walk and not just talk the talk, I pray that you don't become a victim of elder fraud someday.

dfletcher
09-18-2007, 9:17 PM
I wonder how important is the "likeability" factor? Meaning regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with their politics, who strikes you as an OK guy?

Something to consider, with Hillary on the ticket I think many Republican voters who may have been willing to sit out the election will hit the voting booth just to make certain she doesn't get in. Would they be similarly inclined with Obama?

SAN_ Shooter
09-18-2007, 9:36 PM
For the past few election cycles, I've been registered as a Libertarian. If only to let the pollsters know that there are a few independent voters out there. Although I agree with RP's platform, he doesn't stand a snowball's chance! In years past, I've "wasted" my vote on many alternate candidates. Does anyone out there remember Barry Commoner? And, I am one of those fools who admits to casting a "Perot-test" vote.

As stated in an earlier post, I don't think any Republican candidate will prevail in the next election. The GOP's party faithful is unwilling to admit that the Iraq war was a big mistake. And to them all anti-war sentiment is viewed as "unpatriotic". As a Vietnam vet, I cannot understand this mindset.

Rudy is a faker and he will do as much harm as any declared Democratic candidate. And I'm afraid that a vote for Fred is no better. Being a good actor, Fred could sell brass knuckles to Ghandi. I just don't trust a smooth-talker. Furthermore, a vote for Fred reinforces mindset of those celebrity-worshipping Hillary suporters. Americans watch way too much TV!

I am pretty sure that either Hillary or Obama will be our next President. However, I cannot accept a reality in which either one of these characters is Commander in Chief of the US military. I intend to change my party affiliation and cast a vote for Richardson in the CA primary. Any other choice would be a wasted vote.

Yours Humbly (a mere taxpayer),
Miguel

carsonwales
09-18-2007, 9:42 PM
What an ignorant thing to say. Rush, is that you ? Easy on the meds there. You may not like the guy but to equate him to a murdering terrorist is pretty low. **** you neocons. Looks like this place is similar to all the hate mongering right wing looney firearm sites.

Don't be silly.

The guy grew up studying Islamic/Muslim teachings...and it just so happens that every single hot point on the planet has that faith as a common denominator....and he won't flat out denounce the radical Muslims...hell he even follows Rueters and avoids the word Terrorist when describing Hezbollah,

Is Osama a radical Islamist? I havn't a clue, and if I led you to believe I think that way I apologize. I am not a neocon..whatever the heck that is.

Is it hate mongering for me to not want a President or Vice President who grew up attending madrases and is anything but forthcoming with the details of HIS Islamic faith and education?

I am comfortable with my assessments and assumptions...

You decide.

I am a million light years from wanting anybody in the highest office of the land even remotely being sympathetic with Islamic Muslim causes, until the vast majority of those 'devoted' to Allah turn on the dirt bags who have hijacked the so called religion of peace...

Frankly I think there is going to be one helluva allot more blood spilled before this is all over...

You can call me a bigot and a racist (even a neo-con), but the last thing I want is a Muslim or Islamist sympathizer in the Whitehouse....period.

SemiAutoSam
09-18-2007, 9:42 PM
His father is a Islamic or a Muslim so how would he not be the same?

http://www.usvetdsp.com/dec06/obama_muslim.htm

I'm sure there will be some that dont care for the reference that I have quoted but its only My opinion not saying its anyone else's.

And I sincerely hope no one thinks this is hateful in any way.



What an ignorant thing to say. Rush, is that you ? Easy on the meds there. You may not like the guy but to equate him to a murdering terrorist is pretty low.

ca_bubba11
09-18-2007, 9:50 PM
You can call me a bigot and a racist (even a neo-con), but the last thing I want is Muslim or Islamist sympathizer in the Whitehouse....period.

Lets just nuke those Muslims. Yep, lets go to war with Iran too.

Why are you not fighting and dying ? Why should those boys and girls, my fellow Americans fight your ****ed up neo-con illegal wars for you ?

Hating Islam in general is very narrow minded, and yes, it does make you a bigot. I would gladly give up my guns in a heartbeat if my fellow Americans do not have to die for your fake for profit wars fought on the basis of invented evidence. Putting another Republican in office is unthinkable for me.

Crazed_SS
09-18-2007, 10:48 PM
What an ignorant thing to say. Rush, is that you ? Easy on the meds there. You may not like the guy but to equate him to a murdering terrorist is pretty low.

You must be new here.. Comments like those are par for the course.. youll go crazy like me if you let it get to you. :)

Paratus et Vigilans
09-19-2007, 7:39 AM
I would gladly give up my guns in a heartbeat if my fellow Americans do not have to die for your fake for profit wars fought on the basis of invented evidence. Putting another Republican in office is unthinkable for me.

Wow. Did the Kool-Aid at least taste good? :rolleyes:

SemiAutoSam
09-19-2007, 7:43 AM
Wow. Did the Kool-Aid at least taste good? :rolleyes:

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z151/PARKINGLOT3310/funnies/koolaidman.gif

ca_bubba11
09-19-2007, 7:45 AM
Wow. Did the Kool-Aid at least taste good? :rolleyes:

If you are not utterly disgusted with the present day conservatives over what they've done over the last 6 years, I have nothing more to say to you. As a typical conservative, when you are challenged, you resort to cheap shots.

SemiAutoSam
09-19-2007, 8:46 AM
This is a candidate calculator The issues are below you can rate each issues importance to you.

and vote YES, NO, UNDECIDED.


http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html

Candidate Calculator
Answer the questions below to find the 2008 Presidential candidate that best aligns with your beliefs. Give it a try!

Mark the column for 'Yes' if you support the issue and 'No' if you oppose it. After that, select how important the topic is to you. If you are unsure or have no opinion on a topic, just mark the unsure column. You will be scored based upon how well you match the current views of each of the 2008 presidential candidates. Click any topic for more information.

2008 Presidential Issues
ISSUE Do You Support? Importance
Abortion Rights Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Death Penalty Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
No Child Left Behind Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
ANWR Drilling Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Kyoto Protocol Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Assault Weapons Ban Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Gun Background Checks Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Patriot Act Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Guantanamo Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Water Boarding of Captives Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Citizen Path for Illegals Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Border Fence Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Internet Neutrality Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Iran Sanctions Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Iran Military Action Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Support Iraq War Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Increase Minimum Wage Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Same Sex Marriage Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Universal Health Care Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Free Trade Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
School Vouchers Yes No Unsure HighMediumLow
Privatizing Social Security Yes No Unsure

Paratus et Vigilans
09-19-2007, 8:56 AM
What an ignorant thing to say.

QED

xrMike
09-19-2007, 8:56 AM
Let's assume he (Ron Paul) doesn't win the Republican primary....what then?I'll be writing his name on my ballot then.

xrMike
09-19-2007, 9:04 AM
So I ask the question again...when/if Ron Paul loses in the primary, who do you vote for? Will you throw away your vote on a Libertarian candidate out of protest? Will you vote for the remaining Republican?Nope, I'm voting for the person I actually want to win for once, instead of the lesser of 2 clowns.

I'd like to think that's what our founders intended for us to do.

SemiAutoSam
09-19-2007, 9:35 AM
Good point use the power of the write in vote.

But will the Diebold voting machines give that option ?

Nope, I'm voting for the person I actually want to win for once, instead of the lesser of 2 clowns.

I'd like to think that's what our founders intended for us to do.

bwiese
09-19-2007, 9:49 AM
I would gladly give up my guns in a heartbeat
Putting another Republican in office is unthinkable for me.

Thank you. The Bradys are just down the street, they'll enjoy your membership.

tombinghamthegreat
09-19-2007, 10:02 AM
Originally Posted by ca_bubba11 View Post
I would gladly give up my guns in a heartbeat
Putting another Republican in office is unthinkable for me.

You would give up your guns....because you think that the Democrats will end the war? That is funny since almost all of the Democrat candidates plan on keeping troops in Iraq except Richardson but his chances of winning are much lower than Ron Paul.

Someone sent me this just recently on myspace when I mentioned voting.

http://www.rondak.org/Images/diary-pix/rooftops.jpg

ca_bubba11
09-19-2007, 10:09 AM
Thank you. The Bradys are just down the street, they'll enjoy your membership.

So because I will not vote Republican, I am part of the Brady campaign ? What a simple minded and incorrect thing to say. What the Republicans are doing to this country and the world is not some fantasy SHTF scenario. It needs to stop *now*.

SemiAutoSam
09-19-2007, 10:13 AM
From my perspective its not the DEM vote that would get you kicked t the curb but the attitude about giving up your guns.

Unless you dont value whats in the Bill Of Rights.

IMHO the 2A is the Cornerstone to the whole thing pull it out and the hole thing will come down.


So because I will not vote Republican, I am part of the Brady campaign ? What a simple minded and incorrect thing to say. What the Republicans are doing to this country and the world is not some fantasy SHTF scenario. It needs to stop *now*.

ca_bubba11
09-19-2007, 10:16 AM
You would give up your guns....because you think that the Democrats will end the war? That is funny since almost all of the Democrat candidates plan on keeping troops in Iraq except Richardson but his chances of winning are much lower than Ron Paul.


I agree with Paul on foreign policy and I think he is an intelligent, educated guy. I think the Republicans who control the party today need to be voted out. I am even willing to register as a Republican and vote for Paul (I am *not* a registered Democrat). I will not vote for Hillary or Obama. I am socially liberal -- that is more important to me than most other things. That was my point. I will oppose anyone who supports more war, more death, more hate, throws some more jingoism, pro-America masturbation in my face, and discriminates against gays, and does not believe in strict separation of the church and the state. Guiliani and that bastard Romney are the kind of people that make me very very sick.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are no longer liberals. They are "neo-liberal" fakes, just like the Republicans are "neo-con" nutjobs.

ca_bubba11
09-19-2007, 10:27 AM
From my perspective its not the DEM vote that would get you kicked t the curb but the attitude about giving up your guns.


Well, that is the opinion that seems to be prevalent. That if you do not vote Republican, you are an anti-American gun grabber. What I am trying to say is that I would vote primarily based on foreign policy and social liberalism, and secondarily based on 2A rights. Unfortunately, the people who throw the NRA a bone are the ones who are also socially conservative and war mongers.

Paratus et Vigilans
09-19-2007, 10:29 AM
Unfortunately, the Democrats are no longer liberals. They are "neo-liberal" fakes, just like the Republicans are "neo-con" nutjobs.

It must not take very long to call the roll in your perfect world! :rolleyes:

Fakes, nutjobs, ignorant, simple-minded . . . do you even realize how much name-calling you engage in when you post?

Step back, take a deep breath, let it out slowly, and try again with a bit less hostility, okay? You'll live longer and be happier! :)

paladin4415
09-19-2007, 10:45 AM
ca_bubba11

Looks like you have more hate in you than all the Republicans I know put together.

ca_bubba11
09-19-2007, 10:49 AM
ca_bubba11

Looks like you have more hate in you than all the Republicans I know put together.

Don't mistake frustration and despair for hate.

FortCourageArmory
09-19-2007, 11:06 AM
Don't mistake frustration and despair for hate.

It's hard to tell the difference in your words. When you make the claim that you'd give up your guns, you're going to put EVERYONE on high alert that you are a gun-grab supporter. Spewing vitriol and anger at the Republicans (some justified, some that is WAY out in left field) ratchets the alert condition up another notch.

I'm with bwiese that those touting Ron Paul ans the ONLY candidate sound like substance-abuse freaks. He has ZERO base and no money. Two strikes against anyone wanting to run for President. Fred Thompson is the viable conservative candidate that can beat Hillary in 2008. We need to get behind him now and stay there.

SuperSet
09-19-2007, 11:17 AM
I haven't made up my mind yet but I'm leaning either Bill Richardson, Fred Thompson or Ron Paul.

buff_01
09-19-2007, 12:44 PM
I'm with bwiese that those touting Ron Paul ans the ONLY candidate sound like substance-abuse freaks. He has ZERO base and no money. Two strikes against anyone wanting to run for President.

NO MONEY?

As of the end of the second quarter 2007, Ron Paul had over $2.4 million in the bank, which was more than John McCain, who only had $2 million. He outraised every second-tier candidate, and was fourth in fundraising among the Republicans. He has received more this quarter than he did last quarter, so you do the math.

ZERO BASE?

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/3403/rpgroupsnj7.jpg

^keep in mind, these are not just people who kind of like him. These are boots on the ground.

Rob P.
09-19-2007, 7:07 PM
NO MONEY?

As of the end of the second quarter 2007, Ron Paul had over $2.4 million in the bank, which was more than John McCain, who only had $2 million. He outraised every second-tier candidate, and was fourth in fundraising among the Republicans. He has received more this quarter than he did last quarter, so you do the math.

2.4 million won't cut it. And claiming that he raised more this last qtr than he did before STILL doesn't cut it.

We are, at present, FOUR MONTHS away from the primary and RP will need to raise FIFTY million in order to compete for that by November (because it will take time to create and air the TV/Radio stuff). 2 months to raise 50 million is an impossible task when you are polling in the single digits.

All you guys who think RP is the greatest thing since autoloaders need to understand one simple fact. You cannot get RP or anyone else into the white house without FIRST getting the bus to stop at his door. And that won't happen if you vote republican in the primary because Hillary will get the nod if you do.

So, it's a 2 step process. STOP Hillary FIRST! and then vote your conscious later. If you don't take step #1 you won't get the chance at step #2. Time to wake up and smell the cordite.

LAK Supply
09-19-2007, 7:37 PM
Geez.... I must have gone to the wrong forum.... I thought I was at Calguns! Now that I've seen another "Ron Paul is the only hope for America" (although anybody that has no chance of winning is any hope) thread I realize that I'm actually at TFL! :p

berto
09-19-2007, 8:10 PM
Fred and barring that any other guy with an 'R' next to his name because Richardson ain't getting the dem nomination and I'm pretty sure I don't want a dem in the white house while those clowns control congress too.

The competition is Hil or Edwards. Obama is the '08 version of Howard Dean minus the YAAARRRGH for now. Obama will fade as the time to actually vote gets closer and the Clinton machine gets out the knives. I have no proof or polling, it's a gut feeling. Edwards will emerge as the anti-Hil choice for the dems. You read it here first.

FortCourageArmory
09-19-2007, 9:05 PM
NO MONEY?

As of the end of the second quarter 2007, Ron Paul had over $2.4 million in the bank, which was more than John McCain, who only had $2 million. He outraised every second-tier candidate, and was fourth in fundraising among the Republicans. He has received more this quarter than he did last quarter, so you do the math.

ZERO BASE?

^keep in mind, these are not just people who kind of like him. These are boots on the ground.

$2.4 million and we're less than 120 days from the primaries? This is a race where the candidates expect to spend in the neighborhgood of $50-$75 million, so yes, that equates to no money.

And yes, zero base. His poll numbers (of people likely to vote for him) are in the low-mid SINGLE digits. That would be the ZERO BASE I was speaking about.

This adds up to Ron Paul having not a prayer, zilch, nada, none, not one chance in a million of becoming the GOP candidate let alone the President. You want Hillary in the White House? Back Ron Paul and you'll get it.

carsonwales
09-19-2007, 11:13 PM
Geez.... I must have gone to the wrong forum.... I thought I was at Calguns! Now that I've seen another "Ron Paul is the only hope for America" (although anybody that has no chance of winning is any hope) thread I realize that I'm actually at TFL! :p

When the dust settles, Ron Paul won't even make 'footnote' status...

You know that, I know that....

The real grease when it meets the rail will be more than likely Thompson...against the Hilldabeast...

Fred will win in a landslide....

The best thing conservatives have going for them is Hillary....

As long as we don't screw up in the primary...

This is a slam dunk....

carsonwales
09-19-2007, 11:22 PM
ca_bubba11

Looks like you have more hate in you than all the Republicans I know put together.

We should keep him around to beat up on and kick around....

Just for giggles...

To this day I find it (intellectually and pragmatically) unfathomable, that given a logical discourse in the inalienable right of an individual to preserve his OWN life, we still run across 'citizens' who so willingly abrogate THAT responsibility (to the state).

The fact these 'men' would so willingly concede to a 'state' that is neither ready, willing or able to hold reverent the sanctity of individual pursuit and responsibility is pathetic...

How is it possible that their are true 'Americans' who concurrently believe that the 'state' that does not trust them, will protect them?

Jefferson would puke...This is so Un-American....

Boggles my mind...

N6ATF
09-19-2007, 11:46 PM
Good point use the power of the write in vote.

But will the Diebold voting machines give that option ?

They did the last time I voted. Somehow they've improved touch-screen accuracy over days of yore.

I'm not sure why anyone would think anyone other than a white male would ever have a chance, let alone actually win the presidency. History repeats itself.

N6ATF
09-19-2007, 11:59 PM
http://www.rondak.org/Images/diary-pix/rooftops.jpg

Not sure what that means... if the point is to kill evil rulers... how often has that been successful since the advent of the sniper rifle?

Historically, I've seen more good-leaning people being assassinated than bad.

shark92651
09-20-2007, 7:18 AM
I don't understand why so many people put Roe v Wade on a pedestal like it would be the end of modern civilization if it were to be reversed. Even if Roe V Wade were to be overturned you would still be able to get all the abortions you want in this state - and most others.

Except the fact that Ron will eliminate your right to choose and reverse the roe v. wade case.

xrMike
09-20-2007, 7:26 AM
You cannot get RP or anyone else into the white house without FIRST getting the bus to stop at his door. And that won't happen if you vote republican in the primary because Hillary will get the nod if you do.So spell it out for me -- are you saying to register as a Demon-rat and vote for somebody besides Billary in their primary?

carsonwales
09-20-2007, 8:17 AM
This is a candidate calculator The issues are below you can rate each issues importance to you.

and vote YES, NO, UNDECIDED.


http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html



http://www.headsuptrading.com/ar/candidatecalculator.jpg

SemiAutoSam
09-20-2007, 8:31 AM
Maybe Kestrill could create such a poll on the board here and record the members votes not only on their choices but on the issues as well.

I know this sounds like a lot of work and it most likely is but it would be interesting to see the results of such a poll.

Anyone want to give it a shot with the poll function of a new thread ?


Issues listed at this page.
http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html


Maybe also a poll for the candidates if they will all fit.
Most Top-Matched Candidates



Gravel - 16.72%
Kucinich - 12.49%
Tommy Thompson - 10.78%
Romney - 10.06%
Giuliani - 9.48%
Biden - 6.19%
Cox - 4.28%
Clinton - 4.24%
Obama - 4.03%
Hunter - 3.69%
Dodd - 3.11%
Paul - 2.93%
Fred Thompson - 2.78%
Tancredo - 2.73%
Huckabee - 1.90%
Richardson - 1.74%
Edwards - 1.17%
Brownback - 1.14%
Mccain - 0.53%

Top 5 Most Important Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq Surge
Abortion
Free Trade
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Guantanamo Bay

FortCourageArmory
09-20-2007, 9:17 AM
When I took that poll, Fred came up. :)

SemiAutoSam
09-20-2007, 9:23 AM
Not to dissect your opinions but would you mind posting your answers to the questions so the membership can see why people choose FT ?

I will do the same when I get back from some errands.


When I took that poll, Fred came up. :)

FortCourageArmory
09-20-2007, 10:09 AM
Here they are:

2008 Presidental Issues

Abortion Rights - No
Death Penalty - Yes
No Child Left Behind - No
Embryonic Stem Cell Research - No
ANWR Drilling - Yes
Kyoto Protocol - No
Assault Weapons Ban - No
Gun Background Checks - No
Patriot Act - No
Guantanamo - Yes
Water Boarding of Captives - No
Citizen Path for Illegals - No
Border Fence - Yes
Internet Neutrality - Yes
Iran Sanctions - Yes
Iran Military Action - Yes (if necessary)
Support Iraq War - Yes
Increase Minimum Wage - No
Same Sex Marriage - No
Universal Health Care - No
Free Trade - Yes
School Vouchers - Yes
Privatizing Social Security - Yes

Who do you plan to vote for in 2008? Fred Thompson

Rob P.
09-20-2007, 10:09 AM
So spell it out for me -- are you saying to register as a Demon-rat and vote for somebody besides Billary in their primary?

Let's see, how should I put it......


Hmmm.....





YES!!!!!

Remember you only have a FEW DAYS left to do this.

carsonwales
09-20-2007, 10:57 AM
Let's see, how should I put it......


Hmmm.....





YES!!!!!

Remember you only have a FEW DAYS left to do this.

We want Hillary to win....The nutcase liberals might think America is ready for women president, but trust me when I tell you this:

SHE WILL BE MASSACRED IN THE GENERAL ELECTION

Paratus et Vigilans
09-20-2007, 11:36 AM
When I took that poll, Fred came up. :)

Same here!

fatirishman
09-20-2007, 12:15 PM
On strictly gun rights grounds, there can be no doubt that Ron Paul is far and away the best candidate. A question for all the Fred Heads, et al.: which of the following would your preferred candidate move to eliminate: 1. The machinegun ban. 2. The Gun Control Act of 1968 3. The armor piercing hand gun ammo ban 4. The NFA 5. The ATF? Now, I am not arguing that one must support Paul, that the perfect should be the enemy of the good, or any other such thing. However, if you wish to argue that Thompson or Tancredo or whoever is better on gun rights, you either have to show that they would also eliminate such laws and agencies, or explain why. "Fred Thompson secretly wants to eliminate these things" isn't a good enough answer barring some sort of evidence; so please explain why your preferred candidate is better on guns, despite the fact that Ron Paul is, to my knowledge, the only candidate that believes you should be able to walk into any store, pay cash with no background check, and walk out with a brand new machinegun.

Rob P.
09-20-2007, 12:17 PM
We want Hillary to win....The nutcase liberals might think America is ready for women president, but trust me when I tell you this:

SHE WILL BE MASSACRED IN THE GENERAL ELECTION

Do you really believe this? You would rather have the frontrunner on the opposing side facing your candidate and HOPE that you win instead of trying to be sure that the favorite isn't in the game after the primary?

You say that she'll 'be massacred" but you don't know that - you only believe it. What if you're wrong? What if America decides that she's better than the R choice? There are too many bad potentialities to leave this issue until next Nov. Decide the issue NOW and vote for anyone on the dem ticket except Hillary.

If we do this we win in Nov no matter who gets elected because it WON'T BE Hillary. It might be the lesser of 2 evils but it won't be evil herself.

CCWFacts
09-20-2007, 12:24 PM
Hillary might be able to win the general election. She is smart, she is powerful, she has lots of money, she has tons of insider backing. It will be a math game. She'll have certain states (including this one) locked up. She only needs to get a few of the non-coastal states to win. If the Repubs run a weak candidate, she could win.

FortCourageArmory
09-20-2007, 12:52 PM
On strictly gun rights grounds, there can be no doubt that Ron Paul is far and away the best candidate. A question for all the Fred Heads, et al.: which of the following would your preferred candidate move to eliminate: 1. The machinegun ban. 2. The Gun Control Act of 1968 3. The armor piercing hand gun ammo ban 4. The NFA 5. The ATF? Now, I am not arguing that one must support Paul, that the perfect should be the enemy of the good, or any other such thing. However, if you wish to argue that Thompson or Tancredo or whoever is better on gun rights, you either have to show that they would also eliminate such laws and agencies, or explain why. "Fred Thompson secretly wants to eliminate these things" isn't a good enough answer barring some sort of evidence; so please explain why your preferred candidate is better on guns, despite the fact that Ron Paul is, to my knowledge, the only candidate that believes you should be able to walk into any store, pay cash with no background check, and walk out with a brand new machinegun.

It's not a matter of being a "Fred Head"...whatever that is..., but a case of backing a candidate that can win and shares a majority of the views that I do. Ron Paul may share more of my core beliefs, but he doesn't stand a chance at winning a national election. That turns into a win for Hillary. THAT needs to be kept from happening at all costs.

fatirishman
09-20-2007, 1:01 PM
"but a case of backing a candidate that can win and shares a majority of the views that I do" - I don't have any problem with that (actually, I am pretty sure we are not in a good place in 08, but whatever). I just want to be clear that Fred, et al, aren't really progun, they are just less aggressively anti. For the record, I'm gonna vote Paul, but that is largely on the war, spying, etc. - if he and Fred switched gun positions, I'd still probably vote for Paul, so I'm not basing my vote on gun issues. I am just saying that it really is unfair for supporters of the gun-grabbing Fred Thompson to say he will protect our rights, when he won't (Lautenberg ban anyone?).

SemiAutoSam
09-20-2007, 2:41 PM
Here are mine


Here they are:

2008 Presidential Issues

Abortion Rights - YES
Death Penalty - Yes
No Child Left Behind - No
Embryonic Stem Cell Research - YES
ANWR Drilling - ???
Kyoto Protocol - No
Assault Weapons Ban - No
Gun Background Checks - No
Patriot Act - No
Guantanamo - NO
Water Boarding of Captives - No
Citizen Path for Illegals - HELL NO
Border Fence - Yes
Internet Neutrality - Yes
Iran Sanctions - MAYBE
Iran Military Action - NO
Support Iraq War - NO
Increase Minimum Wage - No
Same Sex Marriage - No
Universal Health Care - No
Free Trade - NO
School Vouchers - Yes
Privatizing Social Security - NO

Who do you plan to vote for in 2008? Ron Paul

I changed a few answers from when I first took the poll above are my most recent answers to that poll.

Here is a link to the poll if anyone else wants to take it. Or just copy and paste your answers in like I did.

http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html

Fate
09-20-2007, 3:01 PM
The only Republican candidate that can get crossover votes from registered Democrats would be Ron Paul. That said, the Democrats already have CA in their pocket, so all the hullabaloo about who to vote for as a Republican is essentially moot.

AKman
09-20-2007, 3:06 PM
Well hell. I took the poll and look who popped up.

http://www.vajoe.com/images/paul.jpg

I must be one of them thar Librarians.

RP came out at 64.63%

Others in the pack were:

Arizona Senator John McCain (R) - 63.08% - NEVER, DIE FIRST!!!
Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson (R) - 60.77% - WHO???
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R) - 60.00% - BETTER DEAD THAN FRED!!!

I think the poll was rigged. I'm not even a Republican.

Middle of the pack:
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden (D) - 56.92% - MIGHT STEAL MY LINE...
California Representative Duncan Hunter (R) - 53.85% - O.K.
New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) - 50.77% - EVEN BILL WOULDN"T HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN!
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) - 50.77% WELL SHUCKS.
Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo (R) - 50.77% - I GONNA HANG THEM ILLEGALS
Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd (D) - 50.00% - MR PERSONALITY
Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R) - 47.69% - TOTO AS A RUNNING MATE
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) - 47.69% - RECONQUISTA!
Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (D) - 46.15% - JIHAD FROM WITHIN!
Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D) - 44.62% _THIS GUY JUST MAKES ME PUKE. EVEN GIVES LAWYERS A BAD NAME.


Bottom of the barrel:
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) - 44.62% - YUP
Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) - 44.62% - TOO WHITE!
Businessman John Cox (R) - 41.54% - WTF?
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) - 40.77% - COMMIE IN DISGUISE, MOR MAN THAN ALL EXCEPT HILLARY.

VegasND
09-20-2007, 3:55 PM
No surprise Ron Paul came in first for me. After all, I've already voted for him to become President once.

What got me PO'd is that the poll says I've got 26% in common with Hilarity! That is just so, so very wrong.

odysseus
09-20-2007, 4:37 PM
It's a little sad and a little bit of a wonderment to me...

Ron Paul has spoken more closely to what I would estimate a large portion of people on this board (and so many others) believe in. It's no doubt why so many in the 2nd Amendment/RKBA world feel so closely to him and why many are so passionate that for once in a long time, a candidate in the Republican party has come out with the track record and voice that he has. Perhaps that has been the caustic part within the party as the other candidates, instead of embracing his strong points, have tried to point him out as a fool - and are calling fellow conservative libertarian leaning people fools then as well.

I thank some of the others here pointing out the voting records of the front runners. I was surprised a little about F. Thompson's record. Not shocked, but the hype might not necessarily equal to the record. I will not vote for Giuliani as much as I won't vote for Hillary or Obama.

What is sad to me is that fellow Repubs are just turning against Paul supporters, with the "He will never win" spin. Yes that's all fine, dandy, and in all probability very true, but what fellow Repubs should be doing is asking for their "front runner" candidates then to echo some of the most basic and true points Ron has been talking about. Since most all of us agree to most of it. Tell me if it isn't true. Why then will they not? Has true conservatism and the belief of limited government based on our Constitution died in the Repub party? Say it isn't so, but perhaps it is...

M. Sage
09-20-2007, 7:19 PM
Agree - but the problem, from my layman's point of view, is that without the 14th "shall not be infringed" applies to Congress and not state legislatures. If we look at the Bill of Rights only, then Congress is not permitted to infringe but the states are allowed to infringe. If the 14th applies to the states with respect to the 2nd, it must also apply to others.

I don't see where the 14th says anything about Constitutional amendments only applying to Congress or at the Federal level.

I see where it says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." Sounds to me like they're actually broadening Constitutional protections. "Congress shall make no law abridging..." Isn't that an "immunity" from having your rights taken away?

dfletcher
09-20-2007, 8:11 PM
I don't see where the 14th says anything about Constitutional amendments only applying to Congress or at the Federal level.

I see where it says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." Sounds to me like they're actually broadening Constitutional protections. "Congress shall make no law abridging..." Isn't that an "immunity" from having your rights taken away?


Correct.

As I understand it, as written the Bill of Rights applied to Congress only - to the federal government - and not to the state governments. The 1st Amendment states "Congress shall make no law ...." and the 10th makes reference to "powers not delegated to the United States". Maybe others can give chapter and verse, I don't know enough about it to state with certainty how it is known that the Bill of Rights (absent the 14th) applied to the national government only.

The 14th Amendment is the vehicle which applies the Bill of Rights to the states - the "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ...."

So it seems to me if a candidate takes the "let the states decide approach" they are not supporting a basic tenent of the 14th Amendment - that states can not violate the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. This approach dictates that the federal government is not permitted to infinge on our gun rights, but a state (such as CA) is free to do so. Letting states decide, it seems to me, would allow DC to continue their gun ban.

SemiAutoSam
09-20-2007, 8:39 PM
dfletcher
I have a feeling you will find these 3 web pages very enlightening when it comes to the 14th Amendment and other areas surrounding it.

Good reading.

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/constitutions.php
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/citizenship.php
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php





http://www.constitution.org/afterte_.htm
^^^14th Below from site listed above^^^


Article. XIV.
[Proposed 1866; Allegedly ratified 1868. See Fourteenth Amendment Law Library for argument it was not ratified.]
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.







Correct.

As I understand it, as written the Bill of Rights applied to Congress only - to the federal government - and not to the state governments. The 1st Amendment states "Congress shall make no law ...." and the 10th makes reference to "powers not delegated to the United States". Maybe others can give chapter and verse, I don't know enough about it to state with certainty how it is known that the Bill of Rights (absent the 14th) applied to the national government only.

The 14th Amendment is the vehicle which applies the Bill of Rights to the states - the "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ...."

So it seems to me if a candidate takes the "let the states decide approach" they are not supporting a basic tenent of the 14th Amendment - that states can not violate the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. This approach dictates that the federal government is not permitted to infinge on our gun rights, but a state (such as CA) is free to do so. Letting states decide, it seems to me, would allow DC to continue their gun ban.

odysseus
09-20-2007, 8:44 PM
So it seems to me if a candidate takes the "let the states decide approach" they are not supporting a basic tenent of the 14th Amendment - that states can not violate the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. This approach dictates that the federal government is not permitted to infinge on our gun rights, but a state (such as CA) is free to do so. Letting states decide, it seems to me, would allow DC to continue their gun ban.

Yes, No, No, Yes, Yes, No..

Those who take the stand to let the States decide should be doing so under jursidiction that is not defined under our Federal Constitution. I may not be reading you correctly here, but you seem to paint a broad stroke with Federal powers. Your example of the 2nd Amendment is correct (however DC is not really a State) in that it violates certain Constitutional guarantees, thus the States cannot infringe their own laws into it. However there are many cases where the Federal jurisdiction is not defined and the Fed pushes itself into the jurisdictional powers of States. This is no simple one-answer horse, so thus you cannot generalize this issue of taking a position of State power. States have actually many powers to their own, and for good reason of not having one Federal power exercise control in areas we as States did not agree to.

M. Sage
09-20-2007, 9:20 PM
Correct.

As I understand it, as written the Bill of Rights applied to Congress only - to the federal government - and not to the state governments. The 1st Amendment states "Congress shall make no law ...." and the 10th makes reference to "powers not delegated to the United States". Maybe others can give chapter and verse, I don't know enough about it to state with certainty how it is known that the Bill of Rights (absent the 14th) applied to the national government only.

The 14th Amendment is the vehicle which applies the Bill of Rights to the states - the "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ...."

So it seems to me if a candidate takes the "let the states decide approach" they are not supporting a basic tenent of the 14th Amendment - that states can not violate the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. This approach dictates that the federal government is not permitted to infinge on our gun rights, but a state (such as CA) is free to do so. Letting states decide, it seems to me, would allow DC to continue their gun ban.

Ahh, see I read your previous quoted as saying it allowed states to infringe. My mistake.

Even without the 14th, what I said about the 2nd being "all-inclusive" stands. Reading the language, they obviously and specifically gave states the option to do certain things while not giving them a pass on others. Example: a literal reading of 1A allows for states to establish official religions. A literal reading of 2A doesn't allow for states to infringe on RKBA. It doesn't say "Congress" in the 2A.

chico.cm
09-20-2007, 10:23 PM
The only single determining issue for my selection of a candidate is how they view the United States Constitution.
If they think that the Consitution is a 'living document' intended to 'change with the times', they can pretty much go self-fornicate.


Hey CitaDel, can I quote ya?:D

N6ATF
09-20-2007, 11:36 PM
"Living document, change with the times"... that's the understatement of the century... some of these freaks would seem to be printing the Constitution on toilet paper with an American flag background.

DedEye
09-21-2007, 6:47 AM
"Living document, change with the times"... that's the understatement of the century... some of these freaks would seem to be printing the Constitution on toilet paper with an American flag background.

So to play devil's advocate for a moment, I'm left to ask: what about every amendment to the Constitution after the original Bill of Rights? Isn't that strong evidence to support calling the Constitution a living document? After all, they change the intent of prior amendments (as in the case of Prohibition, for example).

Still, I'd argue that without a new amendment addressing a previous one, no portion of the Constitution is invalidated by time passing.

erblo
09-21-2007, 4:07 PM
I'm in for Ron Paul, I guess a second choice would be Fred Thompson. I can't believe anyone here would even think about voting for a Dem.

To the people that say Ron Paul can't win: you are defining "winning" poorly. At this point it is unlikely he will win the presidency, I can concede that, but I think the point of his bid for president is to show what kind of support there is for his message. The longer he stays in the race, the harder it is to ignore his message. Hopefully it will show the neoconservatives that it would be beneficial to their own campaigns to support smaller government, personal liberties, non-interventionism.

It bugs me too so many people that write off Ron Paul based on incorrect information. Example: Overturning Roe v Wade does not destroy the right to choose, it prevents the government from forcing its decision on the states. In essence, overturning Roe v Wade would allow states to decide for themselves.

FatKatMatt
09-21-2007, 5:06 PM
Here are the candidates running from either party:

Democrats:
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
Christopher Dodd
John Edwards
Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson

Republicans:
Sam Brownback
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter
Alan Keyes
John McCain
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Tom Tancredo
Fred Thompson

From the Democrats, the only person I would consider is Richardson, but his party is so overwhelmingly anti that his decisions on guns (if he makes any during his presidency) will be swayed by them.

From the Republicans, the only people I would consider would be Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Alan Keyes, and Fred Thompson. However, everyone that I like is at 3% or below, except for Fred.

Fred Thompson is tied with McCain but is trailing Giuliani by 9 percentage points; not too bad considering he recently entered the race. Fred Thompson is definetely my choice.

MrLogan
09-21-2007, 7:19 PM
Ron Paul. :D

FUSE
09-21-2007, 10:33 PM
RON PAUL.

And he also is the only candidate that is not a TLC, CFR Member.

That might not mean a lot to a majority of you but there are a lot of people that know what those organisations stand for that would really appreciate this.

Please keep your Tin Foil comments to yourself.

Just registered so I can vote for Ron Paul!!... I know those organizations and because of them never really held much confidence in any president or runner up. But Ron Paul made me sign up so I can vote for him. Who knows maybe if we all catch that one extra person can really make a difference fever that we really can make a difference! :)

N6ATF
09-21-2007, 11:26 PM
So to play devil's advocate for a moment, I'm left to ask: what about every amendment to the Constitution after the original Bill of Rights? Isn't that strong evidence to support calling the Constitution a living document? After all, they change the intent of prior amendments (as in the case of Prohibition, for example).

Still, I'd argue that without a new amendment addressing a previous one, no portion of the Constitution is invalidated by time passing.

'Living document' in their minds means that the Constitution can be ignored and violated at will, no amendments needed. If the Constitution were really alive, they'd be shooting/stabbing/fragging it to death.

DedEye
09-22-2007, 3:56 AM
'Living document' in their minds means that the Constitution can be ignored and violated at will, no amendments needed. If the Constitution were really alive, they'd be shooting/stabbing/fragging it to death.

Understood and agreed. Honestly though (and this is, of course, just my opinion), the Republicans have been more guilty of that when it comes to the Constitution then Democrats, at least as of late.

MedSpec65
09-22-2007, 6:27 AM
I'll be writing in either Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter after Gulliani is elected in the primary. I'll not be bullied into voting for another Republicrat like Dub'Ya again. Missus William Jefferson Clinton will most likely win by a landslide and become the first female President in our Nation's history. The fact that her husband will resume running the country won't matter. The two of them will blame Bush for the urban terrorist attacks and suicide bombings that will become commonplace in our lives within months after their election. Bush will be blamed for everything bad that happens for the next eight years. (Yes, the Clintons will be re-elected).

VegasND
09-22-2007, 6:46 AM
I'll be writing in either Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter after Gulliani is elected in the primary. I'll not be bullied into voting for another Republicrat like Dub'Ya again. Missus William Jefferson Clinton will most likely win by a landslide and become the first female President in our Nation's history. The fact that her husband will resume running the country won't matter. The two of them will blame Bush for the urban terrorist attacks and suicide bombings that will become commonplace in our lives within months after their election. Bush will be blamed for everything bad that happens for the next eight years. (Yes, the Clintons will be re-elected).


I will honestly be surprised if a majority of voters were to vote for either Hillary or Barack. I really think that there is enough latent racism and sexism that it will be a real uphill slog for either of them should one actually get the nomination.

As for Rudy G, I don't think the Republicans at the state conventions could bring themselves to choose him as long as they had a more hard-right fundamentalist approved choice.

Let's see if I'm proven wrong. It's certainly happened before.:D

MedSpec65
09-22-2007, 6:50 AM
[QUOTE=VegasND;763261]I will honestly be surprised if a majority of voters were to vote for either Hillary or Barack. I really think that there is enough latent racism and sexism that it will be a real uphill slog for either of them should one actually get the nomination.

As for Rudy G, I don't think the Republicans at the state conventions could bring themselves to choose him as long as they had a more hard-right fundamentalist approved choice.

Let's see if I'm proven wrong. It's certainly happened before.:D[/QUOTE: I sure hope you're right.

Rob P.
09-22-2007, 9:49 AM
I'm in for Ron Paul, I guess a second choice would be Fred Thompson. I can't believe anyone here would even think about voting for a Dem.

To the people that say Ron Paul can't win: you are defining "winning" poorly. At this point it is unlikely he will win the presidency, I can concede that, but I think the point of his bid for president is to show what kind of support there is for his message. The longer he stays in the race, the harder it is to ignore his message. Hopefully it will show the neoconservatives that it would be beneficial to their own campaigns to support smaller government, personal liberties, non-interventionism.

It bugs me too so many people that write off Ron Paul based on incorrect information. Example: Overturning Roe v Wade does not destroy the right to choose, it prevents the government from forcing its decision on the states. In essence, overturning Roe v Wade would allow states to decide for themselves.

We're not considering voting FOR a Dem. We're going to vote AGAINST Hillary. Different result and intent even though it appears to be the same tactic.

"Sending a message" is MEANINGLESS. Do you think Waco or Ruby Ridge meant anything? They "sent a message" and were discounted as nut jobs because main stream America does not think highly of, or react favorably to revolutionaries.

Most people are perfectly happy with things as they currently are. This means that they (the majority of folks) will vote to keep the status quo. The ONLY way we have of changing that is to prevent them from having the abilty to vote for no change. That means WE have to get rid of the bad candidates and keep the good ones. Voting for Ron Paul will not eliminate Hillary or Rudy or any of the other awful mistakes (I mean candidates) on the ballot because all these votes do is spread the minority vote instead of concentrating it in one place.

We have to vote for someone who has a chance at winning AND who favors our views. Give up on the no-hope candidates and concentrate on someone who can defeat Hillary in the primary. Remember, the winner is the candidate with the most votes. Not the one with the most rabid support.

N6ATF
09-22-2007, 11:15 PM
Understood and agreed. Honestly though (and this is, of course, just my opinion), the Republicans have been more guilty of that when it comes to the Constitution then Democrats, at least as of late.

Never named (party) names, but I guess some are more capable in their Satan worship than others.

Some want to destroy America bit by bit from within, some actually get enough power to do so, and some would rather use mass murder to be held up as a banner by those with the power to justify their actions. You'll never directly succeed at destroying America unless you have better weapons, but you can sure help indirectly.

hoozaru
09-25-2007, 1:13 PM
seriously?

http://images.cafepress.com/product/50264227v7_240x240_Front.jpg

seriously!

odysseus
09-25-2007, 1:41 PM
"Sending a message" is MEANINGLESS. Do you think Waco or Ruby Ridge meant anything? They "sent a message" and were discounted as nut jobs because main stream America does not think highly of, or react favorably to revolutionaries.

I might be reading you wrong here, but that's the first I have heard of the people of Waco or Ruby Ridge being called "revolutionaries". I don't know where that is coming from. Outside of the controversy I will not get into on these incidents, neither of them were trying to make a change but were more trying to isolate themselves away.

SchooBaka
09-25-2007, 2:14 PM
My vote will be for Ron Paul.
I've never seen such a huge surge of grass roots support and enthusiasm for a candidate like himself; He really knows how to energise his base.
Just by running, he's been exposing the bias in the main stream media, injecting real issues in the debates, and showing the country just how unconstitutional our government has become.
He's upfront and to the point when asked a question; no wishy washy, dance around the question answers like most other candidates in the debates.
He stands for what he beleives and refuses to back down. When attacked, he really show's that he's got what it takes to stand up and fight back.
He's the only candidate for me; and the only one that can bring our government back in line with the Constitutional principles it was founded on, IMHO.
:patriot:

dustoff31
09-25-2007, 2:16 PM
Understood and agreed. Honestly though (and this is, of course, just my opinion), the Republicans have been more guilty of that when it comes to the Constitution then Democrats, at least as of late.

Of course, that's because they are the ones in office of late. After the election the other side will resume shredding the constitution.

Rob P.
09-25-2007, 2:41 PM
I might be reading you wrong here, but that's the first I have heard of the people of Waco or Ruby Ridge being called "revolutionaries". I don't know where that is coming from. Outside of the controversy I will not get into on these incidents, neither of them were trying to make a change but were more trying to isolate themselves away.

Both the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents were because the people involved didn't want to bend over and take it anymore. They said 'no' to the gov when the gov wanted to come calling officially. They backed up their position with guns and we know the result. If that's not challenging the gov and 'making a statement' I don't know what is.

The fact that they were isolationists who wanted to be left alone isn't relevant because the gov WON'T leave anyone alone. They want your taxes and they want to control your thinking and actions and how you treat animals and what you have to teach your kids in school even if you don't agree with it. That's overreaching and some people don't like it and will not play that game.

This country was founded on the principle that gov doesn't have the right to interfere and ignore you when you protest about it or kill you over it. We called those people who stood up 'revolutionaires' and there isn't any difference today except for the number of apathetic citizens in our population who support our gov no matter what.

SchooBaka
09-25-2007, 2:57 PM
Speaking of Waco and Ruby Ridge, I hope everyone is keeping on eye on Ed and Elaine Browns situation in New Hampshire.
http://www.makethestand.com/images/MTS/EdElaineBrown002.jpg

http://www.makethestand.com/

Buddydog
09-25-2007, 3:49 PM
Here is what I find most amusing....For every thread that is started thats asks a question similar to this one did the results are the same. For example:

"Who do you want to win the Republican primary?"
"What candidate supports gun rights?"
"Which candidate are you most excited about?"
"Which candidate do you feel could bring the most positive change to our country?"

Time and again I see more support for Ron Paul than anyone, and I mean ANYONE else. Yet there is always the "He will never win the primary" crowd. How is that at all possible? The primary is basically a direct election so if everyone votes for Paul, the delegates from that state should nominate him.

Let me know if I am wrong about that. Anyway, Paul as a Republican, Independent, Constitutionalist, Libertarian, Green Party, Write In, I don't give a ****. That man is getting my vote no matter what!

Fred Thompson seems like a great guy. I love Hunt for Red October but we need change in this country like 6 years ago. Nice guy but Fred won't bring that change.

Bud