PDA

View Full Version : Fred Thompson Speech to the NRA: 9/21/07 (Video)


carsonwales
09-21-2007, 5:37 PM
http://blogsforfredthompson.com/fred-thompsons-speech-nra-9-21-07

This guy is the real deal folks.....

"I have never subscribed to the notion, that infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law abiding Americans makes us safer"

"Our basic rights come from God, not the Government"

"All solutions and all problems are not found in Washington DC"

"Governments big and powerful enough to give you anything, are big and powerful enough to take those things away, and we reject that kind of government in this country"

(speaking of his wife) "I don't know, but I think she will make a much better First Lady than Bill Clinton"

"I live in a country that sheds more blood for other peoples liberty than any other country in the world....There is no reason to apologize for the United States of America"

===================

Questions & Answers segment: (paraphrased)

Q: Do you agree that its OK to impose more restrictions on gun owners rights in cities such as New York and Chicago than it is in Tennessee or Montana?
A: NO...Its more than coincidental, that places with the highest crime rates also have the highest levels of gun control. Thats more than a coincidence.

Q: Whats your position on gun shows?
A: I enjoy gun shows..they are part of Americana. I am against restrictions on private citizens as it pertains to gun shows. I resist regulations affecting private citizens at gun shows.

Q: If elected president will you support the position that Second Amendment protects and individuals right to keep and bear arms, and will you appoint an attorney general that does as well?
A: YES. My position on the Second Amendment is that the Constitution means what it says and is not restricted to protect of militias.




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

CalNRA
09-21-2007, 5:57 PM
put your flame suit on, you are in Ron Paul country son.














I like Fred.

carsonwales
09-21-2007, 6:21 PM
put your flame suit on, you are in Ron Paul country son.
I like Fred.

I am not worried about getting flamed by some keyboard commandos wielding bic lighters...

Thanks for the Heads Up

FRED 08

VegasND
09-21-2007, 6:22 PM
CalNRA: put your flame suit on, you are in Ron Paul country son.

It's too bad you are right about that, flame resistant suits should not be a requirement for political discussion.

I am no particular fan of Thompson. He is too much in favor of increasing/maintaing Federal power for my taste. Flaming and rude discourse about politics, while popular among some, changes no minds and only serves to irritate and annoy. No doubt he'd make a better President than anything the Democrats have offered so far, but that's damning with faint praise.

That Paul is preferable to me is a given. That the owners of the Republican party will never allow Paul to be their front man is also a given.

VegasND
09-21-2007, 6:59 PM
how about I substitute the late Harry Browne for Ron Paul

"Republicans will continue to campaign like Libertarians while governing like Democrats" (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=13229)

Harry Browne was an interesting guy. Met him once years ago and liked it. I used to give people copies of How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World and hope it would change the world. I'm pretty sure it did not make things worse.

Liberty1
09-21-2007, 8:52 PM
http://blogsforfredthompson.com/fred-thompsons-speech-nra-9-21-07


"I live in a country that sheds more blood for other peoples liberty than any other country in the world...."





Ya, why do we keep doing that Fred? Did Switzerland need to do that to stay free for the past 500 years or to buy oil?

It's past time for the Royal Kuwaitis, Saudis, Exon, Mobile Corp. etc. to prepare there own defenses and oil tanker escorts and stop using our boys as Hessians.




.

CalNRA
09-21-2007, 9:42 PM
Ya, why do we keep doing that Fred? Did Switzerland need to do that to stay free for the past 500 years or to buy oil?


hey, when you are the laundry machine of all the Europe's(hell the world's) dirty past, everyone wants you to stay unaffected.

do you really think the Swiss are good at banking and make their living on that because they are good at adding numbers?

carsonwales
09-21-2007, 9:45 PM
Ya, why do we keep doing that Fred? Did Switzerland need to do that to stay free for the past 500 years or to buy oil?

It's past time for the Royal Kuwaitis, Saudis, Exon, Mobile Corp. etc. to prepare there own defenses and oil tanker escorts and stop using our boys as Hessians.
.

I have a turtle shell you might be interested in...

I personally would rather project American power, assert our authority and dominance, than respond in a purely reactionary sense to the threats and dynamic world we live in...

I guess Ron Paul would rather be a spectator than participate in the rapidly changing geopolitical landscape...look around you...the world is moving at light speed politically right now...

It boils down to whether you would rather be an observer and/or reactionist, or would you rather be a protagonist of American interest on an increasingly rapid moving post Cold War geopolitical landscape...

To each his own...and I prefer the later.

We asserted our dominance on the world stage in WW2.
We re-emphasized it in grinding the Soviets into capitulation (the entire planet owes a debt of gratitude).
We showed the world what we could do in Desert Storm and in our decimation of Sadam...

We own the playing field....we are the quarterback.....we are driving the ship......

================================================

Ron Paul, bless his heart, hasn't figured it out yet.

Have you considered that given time, One Nation, will eventually set the tone and tenor for the next Millennium?

Now is not the time for isolationist withdrawal.

Now is the time to make sure that the ideals, premise, and values of THIS nation shape the New World Order...not the values of Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong, Putin, France, Castro or Chavez.

I vote NO for isolationism.

I vote YES for assuming our rightful role as the protagonist of freedom and liberty, and being the loudest and most vocal voice of self determination.

I respectfully disagree.

Liberty1
09-21-2007, 11:35 PM
I have a turtle shell you might be interested in...

I personally would rather project American power, assert our authority and dominance, than respond in a purely reactionary sense to the threats and dynamic world we live in...

I guess Ron Paul would rather be a spectator than participate in the rapidly changing geopolitical landscape...look around you...the world is moving at light speed politically right now...

It boils down to whether you would rather be an observer and/or reactionist, or would you rather be a protagonist of American interest on an increasingly rapid moving post Cold War geopolitical landscape...To each his own...and I prefer the later.

We asserted our dominance on the world stage in WW2.
We re-emphasized it in grinding the Soviets into capitulation (the entire planet owes a debt of gratitude).
We showed the world what we could do in Desert Storm and in our decimation of Sadam...

We own the playing field....we are the quarterback.....we are driving the ship......

================================================

Ron Paul, bless his heart, hasn't figured it out yet.

Have you considered that given time, One Nation, will eventually set the tone and tenor for the next Millennium?

Now is not the time for isolationist withdrawal.

Now is the time to make sure that the ideals, premise, and values of THIS nation shape the New World Order...not the values of Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong, Putin, France, Castro or Chavez.

I vote NO for isolationism.

I vote YES for assuming our rightful role as the protagonist of freedom and liberty, and being the loudest and most vocal voice of self determination.

I respectfully disagree.




Wow! Amerika uber alas! War is Peace!

So I take it limited constitutional federal government and respect for individual rights can continue to wither under the weight of the size of government you'll need to spread democracy through the barrel of a gun? You want the last 60% of my wages now or can I keep it please for another year?

We've been trying gun boat diplomacy since the Spanish American War. Our intervention in old Europe's WWI set the stage for the blowback which was the subsequent 100 year war of the 20th Century. We lost our freedoms and rights in that century and I'm not for more of the same. Defend Americans and our liberties? Yes. Hunt down those who planned 9/11? Yes! Secure our borders against attack? Yes! Ignore our Founding Father's advise and destroy our Constitution through more corporate jingoism hidden behind "Making the World Safe for Democracy" at the expense of American's lives and prosperity? Hell no!

Fred is a Washington player and he'll disappoint conservatives the same way George has once he has the job.

Oh, and I've got all the turtle shell I need: I call it the US Constitution Bill of Rights Amendment II. Thanks for the offer though.

MedSpec65
09-22-2007, 7:10 AM
I am not worried about getting flamed by some keyboard commandos wielding bic lighters...

Thanks for the Heads Up

FRED 08 Lots of Paul supporters here, that's for sure. Sometimes I think they harm their cause by injecting his name into threads with no relation, but they have every right to do so. I just don't think he's the critical thinker with the debating skills we need. I'm hoping Fred uses his permanent scowl and his public speaking skills to destroy the empty-suit mainstream GOP candidates we're faced with. Republicrats are useless.

easy
09-22-2007, 7:44 AM
Lots of Paul supporters here, I just don't think he's the critical thinker ... we need.

Ron Paul is behind the curve with reality. Isolationism is a quaint concept but totaly impractical.

Fred is articulate and engaging. He's looking better than the rest of the offerings that's for sure.

dfletcher
09-22-2007, 9:33 AM
I saw the Guiliani and Huckabee segments - Guiliani's "transformation" was remarkable but there were quite a few "maybe's and probably's" and "we'll have to examine that in the future" that I think sank him with the audience. Huckabee was long winded but nailed it I though. He has a CCW, hunts but understands the 2nd isn't about hunting. Based on gun rights Huckabee seems pretty much 100%.

DigglerD
09-22-2007, 10:59 AM
I have a turtle shell you might be interested in...

I personally would rather project American power, assert our authority and dominance, than respond in a purely reactionary sense to the threats and dynamic world we live in...

I guess Ron Paul would rather be a spectator than participate in the rapidly changing geopolitical landscape...look around you...the world is moving at light speed politically right now...

It boils down to whether you would rather be an observer and/or reactionist, or would you rather be a protagonist of American interest on an increasingly rapid moving post Cold War geopolitical landscape...

To each his own...and I prefer the later.

We asserted our dominance on the world stage in WW2.
We re-emphasized it in grinding the Soviets into capitulation (the entire planet owes a debt of gratitude).
We showed the world what we could do in Desert Storm and in our decimation of Sadam...

We own the playing field....we are the quarterback.....we are driving the ship......

================================================

Ron Paul, bless his heart, hasn't figured it out yet.

Have you considered that given time, One Nation, will eventually set the tone and tenor for the next Millennium?

Now is not the time for isolationist withdrawal.

Now is the time to make sure that the ideals, premise, and values of THIS nation shape the New World Order...not the values of Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong, Putin, France, Castro or Chavez.

I vote NO for isolationism.

I vote YES for assuming our rightful role as the protagonist of freedom and liberty, and being the loudest and most vocal voice of self determination.

I respectfully disagree.




In a nut shell... take on the world (in the guise of shaping it like us, regardless of existing infrastructure, culture & norms) at the expense U.S. collapse. It didn't work for the Roman Empire, The Mongol Empire, Persia, Napoleon, Hitler and just about every single instance in known history when "One Nation, [attempts to] set the tone and tenor for the next Millennium" or one nation tries "to make sure that the ideals, premise, and values of THIS nation shape the New World Order".

Why would you even begin to think it will work for us?

You're right, the political world is moving at light speed, trying to force it into conformity with your views will only create hate, resentment and strong opposition that will necessitate the need for more self defeating force. It's a very dangerous game you want to play that will only require more and more escalation until we are without the means to escalate any further.

I vote NO for imperialism.

I vote YES for assuming our rightful role as the protagonist of our views for our citizens under our Constitution (and consequently NO for unlawfully and hegemonically imposing our views on other nations that never asked for it and vehemently oppose it within their borders).

I respectfully disagree.

Isolationism is a quaint concept but totaly impractical.

A lot of people create a false dichotomy... it's either make war with those who don't believe in what we do -or- disengage all together. How about; be engaged in world policy, vie to shape it to be beneficial to our interests, but don't drop bombs and throw a hissy fit if we lose a point here and there... there is a thing called compromise and it's an absolute must in a global community.

PressCheck
09-22-2007, 12:17 PM
Well...I send Fred 2,300 bucks.

VegasND
09-23-2007, 12:17 PM
While I think you have an excellent idea for a thread, I don't think most people can keep the topic within the realm of common sense. If a knowledgeable group make a single probable change then explore the possibilities it can provide some real understanding of how history works and what drove us to where we are. Most people want to be like Harry Turtledove (among others) and turn a history lesson into pure fantasy.

The Man in the High Castle also comes to mind. What ifs should be limited to maintain some idea of how easily things could have been different.

Ok History buffs, interventionists and isolationists;

Question of the day:

If the United States and President "He Kept us out of War" (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.woodrow) Wilson had stayed out of the Great War (WWI) would WWII have happened or happened differently?

If the United States hadnt opened commerce with Japan by force or occupied the Philippines, would the Pacific Theater ever happened or happened differently?

good times. Maybe this should be a different thread...

MedSpec65
09-23-2007, 12:34 PM
Fantasy history is exactly what's been taught in our public schools for two generations and it shows on this forum.

Kestryll
09-23-2007, 2:26 PM
Lots of Paul supporters here, that's for sure. Sometimes I think they harm their cause by injecting his name into threads with no relation, but they have every right to do so.

They do harm their cause and NO they do NOT have every right to do so.

I have stated before and I will state again for what may well be the last time, I am sick and tired of seeing threads about any other candidate, Thompson, Tancredo, Hunter or even Obama or Clinton, turned in to a 'Your candidates sucks because Ron Paul is _______'.

It would be only moderately annoying if it weren't for the Paul supporters who complain when someone mentions another candidate in their thread while there are active threads with them doing the same thing.

As I have said before I have not seen this to anywhere near the same degree with any other candidate's supporters and it is repetitive and irritating.

If anyone feels it is their right to inject Ron Paul in to every thread then there is a Ron Paul forum out there and I'm sure they will agree with that right.

Here however we have attempted, at the request of the Ron Paul supporters in the case of Ron Paul threads I might add, to keep threads about candidates from becoming hijacked by other candidates supporters.

LAK Supply
09-23-2007, 2:33 PM
You mean this isn't TFL and you don't want it to be? :rofl:


They do harm their cause and NO they do NOT have every right to do so.

I have stated before and I will state again for what may well be the last time, I am sick and tired of seeing threads about any other candidate, Thompson, Tancredo, Hunter or even Obama or Clinton, turned in to a 'Your candidates sucks because Ron Paul is _______'.

It would be only moderately annoying if it weren't for the Paul supporters who complain when someone mentions another candidate in their thread while there are active threads with them doing the same thing.

As I have said before I have not seen this to anywhere near the same degree with any other candidate's supporters and it is repetitive and irritating.

If anyone feels it is their right to inject Ron Paul in to every thread then there is a Ron Paul forum out there and I'm sure they will agree with that right.

Here however we have attempted, at the request of the Ron Paul supporters in the case of Ron Paul threads I might add, to keep threads about candidates from becoming hijacked by other candidates supporters.

mblat
09-24-2007, 7:41 AM
They do harm their cause and NO they do NOT have every right to do so.

I have stated before and I will state again for what may well be the last time, I am sick and tired of seeing threads about any other candidate, Thompson, Tancredo, Hunter or even Obama or Clinton, turned in to a 'Your candidates sucks because Ron Paul is _______'.

It would be only moderately annoying if it weren't for the Paul supporters who complain when someone mentions another candidate in their thread while there are active threads with them doing the same thing.

As I have said before I have not seen this to anywhere near the same degree with any other candidate's supporters and it is repetitive and irritating.

If anyone feels it is their right to inject Ron Paul in to every thread then there is a Ron Paul forum out there and I'm sure they will agree with that right.

Here however we have attempted, at the request of the Ron Paul supporters in the case of Ron Paul threads I might add, to keep threads about candidates from becoming hijacked by other candidates supporters.

You mean it isn't Ron Paul thread?:D

Nra-Life-Member
09-24-2007, 9:37 PM
Thanks for the Video!

Here is more..


LINK:
Fred Thompson on the 2nd Amendment (http://www.downrange.tv/forfred.htm)

• On the Second Amendment —"If you care about constitutional law, and everybody should, the big news is that it looks as if the Supreme Court is going to hear a Second Amendment case some time next year. The event that sparked this legal fuse was a case brought by six D.C. residents who simply wanted functional firearms in their homes for self-defense. In response, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the District’s 31-year-old gun ban — one of the strictest in the nation.

Our individual right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, may finally be confirmed by the high Court; but this means that we’re going to see increasing pressure on the Supreme Court from anti-gun rights activists who want the Constitution reinterpreted to fit their prejudices."

• On the Virginia Tech nightmare — "Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms -- and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.

The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so."

• On gun control — Thompson opposes gun control, praising a recent federal appeals decision overturning a long-standing handgun ban in Washington, D.C.: "The court basically said the Constitution means what it says, and I agree with that."

His voting record:

Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)
Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)
Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits. (Jun 1995)
Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted NO on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted YES on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)
Voted NO on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
Voted YES on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995)

• Gun Owners of America ratings — "He has no need to convince voters that he has changed his ways and now sees the light, because he has been fairly consistent throughout his career."

Here is the bottom line, folks — we in the gun culture do NOT have a second choice! Fred Thompson is our candidate; let's get him elected!