Presidential Canidates: Who will be good for gun owners?

[Cruentus]

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr18/0,4670,WhereTheyStandGunControl,00.html

This is an old article, but since the Primary's are coming up, this is a question we should probably start asking...

 

[Cruentus]

Hannity interview of Guilliani:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/interview_with_rudy_giuliani.html

HANNITY: Let me move on. And the issue of guns has come up a lot. When people talk about Mayor Giuliani, New York City had some of the toughest gun laws in the entire country. Do you support the right of people to carry handguns?
GIULIANI: I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms. When I was mayor of New York, I took over at a very, very difficult time. We were averaging about 2,000 murders a year, 10,000...
HANNITY: You inherited those laws, the gun laws in New York?
GIULIANI: Yes, and I used them. I used them to help bring down homicide. We reduced homicide, I think, by 65-70 percent. And some of it was by taking guns out of the streets of New York City.
So if you're talking about a city like New York, a densely populated area like New York, I think it's appropriate. You might have different laws other places, and maybe a lot of this gets resolved based on different states, different communities making decisions. After all, we do have a federal system of government in which you have the ability to accomplish that.
HANNITY: So you would support the state's rights to choose on specific gun laws?
GIULIANI: Yes, I mean, a place like New York that is densely populated, or maybe a place that is experiencing a serious crime problem, like a few cities are now, kind of coming back, thank goodness not New York, but some other cities, maybe you have one solution there and in another place, more rural, more suburban, other issues, you have a different set of rules.
HANNITY: But generally speaking, do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?
GIULIANI: It's not only -- I mean, it's part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment.
HANNITY: How do you feel about the Brady bill and assault ban?
GIULIANI: I was in favor of that as part of the crime bill. I was in favor of it because I thought that it was necessary both to get the crime bill passed and also necessary with the 2,000 murders or so that we were looking at, 1,800, 1,900, to 2,000 murders, that I could use that in a tactical way to reduce crime. And I did.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

The only hope on that score is Ron Paul.

Who ain't gonna make it there because the entire nation is too ****ing stupid to drop both parties and go for third parties or other candidates that the media doesn't endorse, cause, you know, gods forbid we should actually vote for someone not predicted to win or something....

 

[Cruentus]

Ron Paul is going to be a no go.

It seems all we can hope for is that whoever gets into office will just stay away from the issue and not do us any damage during the next 4 years. I don't agree with Guilliani's overall opinion and history, but if he just leaves it up to the states then we should be fine. I don't think that we can trust any of the likely dems on this one to simply do that.

 

[michaeledward]

I haven't heard any of the candidates yelling about repealing the second amendment.

When you say "good for" ... what do you actually mean?

 

[thardey]

When you say "good for" ... what do you actually mean?

Someone who takes guns away from stupid people and gives them to me! (For free, of course!)

:shooter:

(Sorry, couldn't help it.)

:boing2:

 

[tellner]

Guns aren't as big an issue as they were ten or fifteen years ago. There are much better wedge issues for the execrable to exploit. And since the Democrats have realized that it's costing them more votes than it's gaining they've pretty much abandoned it.

 

[Cruentus]

I haven't heard any of the candidates yelling about repealing the second amendment.

When you say "good for" ... what do you actually mean?

I mean, canidates who aren't going to pass or push laws that would/could infringe on the ability to own and carry firearms (such as national registries, manditory purchase licensing or federally dictated waiting periods, "assault weapon" bans, etc.) at the very least. At best, those who might actually pass laws in favor of gun ownership.

Now, some will say that the democratic and republican canidates won't really pass a law to infringe on these rights, so it is a non-issue. I hope they are right. However, many have ideologies that gun rights advocates (like myself) find dangerous, and could make them apt. to allowing anti-gun legislation to go through if pressured enough.

So, for us who like our carry and purchase rights, this is worth discussing.

 

[michaeledward]

Oh, I see.

A President can certainly push for legislation. But it is the Congress that writes the legislation in our country; be those laws for or against anything.

I wonder if it would be discussing something like .... oh ...


Presidential Candidates: Who will be good for telephone users (4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. e.g. warrantless wiretaps, retroactive immunity for telecoms)?


Presidential Candidates: Who will be good for media consumers (1st Amendment protection of a free and independent press. e.g. the Republican led FCC is weakening protections of media ownership by years end)?

Under the current President, these, and other Constitutional protections have been assaulted in ways that gun rights have never been.


I guess some Constitutional protections are more equal than others.

(And Paul ~ this particular rant is not necessarily directed toward you. You seem to be relatively open to discussing some of these things that those of us not terrified by terror are interested in, and worth discussing).

 

[Cruentus]

Well, MichealEdwards, no offense taken and I agree with what you are saying. I think that our rights to privacy, free speech, and other civil liberties are worth talking about too (although, perhaps in the study rather then the gun forum).

For some reasons that I have not yet fully figured out, it seems that gun rights and other civil liberties or other amendment rights gets somehow seperated. In other words, there are many candidates who would surpress free speech or the right to privacy, but who would maintain 2nd amendment rights. And then there are others who would infringe on 2nd amendment rights, but who would maintain other civil liberties and who have been very vocal against things detailed in the patriot act and other amendment violations. It's strange to me because I don't politicize civil liberties. I can't support the removal of one amendment freedom while advocating for another.

So, I think what happens is the issue gets politicized. The Republicans have to say they support 2nd amendment rights even if some of them would infringe on those rights, and the democrats have to at least say that they would "reasonably" infringe on those rights even if they really have no plans too or even really wouldn't.

So it is relevent to have these discussions because it is difficult to find out where people truly stand on the issue.

For example, I am not sure that Guilliani and Hillary are any different regarding 2nd amendment rights. I think that they both believe in some level of regulation, but I think that they are both smart enough to realize that by allowing anything to pass while on their watch would be harmful to their approval ratings. The only difference between the two on this is that I think that Guilliani would be more inclined to leave this up to states then Hillary; but neither will be posing anything like the "assault weapons ban" that was highly unpopular in the 90's as far as I can see.

Anyway, the other issues are important too, but probably more appropriate for a seperate topic somewhere else...

 

[KenpoTex]

I'm not very optimistic about any of the candidates. At best, some of them might be indifferent and choose to just leave the issue alone.

Unfortunatly, I can't agree with those who have said that the dems will not mess with this issue or push for more bans because of fear of losing votes or having their approval ratings drop. I imagine they will try to avoid the issue during the race but after the election I doubt that they'd think twice about going after our rights again.

I really have nightmares about the possibility of Hillary getting elected. The thought of what could happen to our gun rights having her as president with a democrat-controlled congress just makes me sick.

 

[Journeyman]

Ron Paul is the best on that single issue, but he's such a flake that I'd even vote for Hillary to keep him from becoming President. Paul won't get the nomination though, so I won't be faced with that choice.

Of the candidates who would make a good President, Duncan Hunter is the best on guns. Unfortunately, he's not going anywhere in the polls, so it doesn't look like I'm going to get to vote for him.

Of the candidates with a decent chance at the nomination, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee are probably best.

Bill Richardson is the best of the Democrats on the issue.

 

[Lisa]

I am really enjoying the conversation of this thread. Lets keep it civil and nice so it can continue. Thanks.

Lisa
MT Assist. Admin.

 

[Carol]

Can anyone share where Senator Clinton stands on firearm-related legislation and other 2A related matters?

 

[Cruentus]

Can anyone share where Senator Clinton stands on firearm-related legislation and other 2A related matters?

She has a history of lobbying for gun control in her early days:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...Times Topics/People/C/Clinton, Hillary Rodham

But, she has been relatively quiet on the issue now that she is running for President. I am hoping she'll learned from her husbands mistakes with the AWB in the 90's. The democrats realized after 2000 that they alienate a huge part of their "working class" base when they take a big stance against the 2nd amendment.

But, these are just my hopes. There really is no trusting what she will do at the moment. She stays away from the issue. It will come up in the general election more, of which I will assume that she will waffle and duck. It really is hard to trust, given her history on the matter.

 

[KenpoTex]

Can anyone share where Senator Clinton stands on firearm-related legislation and other 2A related matters?

She's extremely anti-gun

this link is to a page that shows a history of her votes on firearms-related bills. She was a co-sponsor of many of them.
http://www.sportsmenforclinton.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=26

this one is to a statment she made calling for re-authorization of the "assault weapons" ban
http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2004/2004302B06.html

 

[michaeledward]

Doing things to infringe on our right to bear arms is directly proportional to not respecting our liberties and freedoms of self-defense, and our freedoms to exist and pursue life, liberty, and happiness as a whole.

So, let's say .....

When the President of the United States, sets up a chain-link, fenced in area four blocks away from a location where he is about to give a speech, and tells those who wish to peaceably assemble and hold up signs that oppose his position that they may exercise their First Amendment Rights of Freedom of speech "Over There" ... that would be a direct, proportional infringement on not respecting our liberties and freedoms of Free Speech, and our freedoms to persue life, liberty and happiness.

And while it may be a generalization that gun owners are Republican, why they hell aren't they mad as hell over the First Amendment abuses that we have documented here, ad nauseum.

Which brings me back to ... why don't we see threads with titles like ..

Presidential Candidates : Who will be good for Freedom of Speech?


And, lastly, your descriptions of '2 camps' is hardly objective. The biases in your language are obvious to someone familiar with our society. Hell, you even use quotes around the title of a Hillary Clinton book. And then proceed to call any who might fit in that camp a *****. You may call it "extreme pacificsm", but you are not describing Ghandi. You are using the phrase derogatorily.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Which brings me back to ... why don't we see threads with titles like ..

Presidential Candidates : Who will be good for Freedom of Speech?

If you feel this to be a topic you want to get into--by all means--start a thread.

 

[Grenadier]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, return to the original topic, and keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Senior Moderator-

 

[Big Don]

Kucinich doesn't believe civilians should have guns, even though, as a city councilman he had a concealed carry permit. (Kinda like Fienstien)
Hey, the question was about presidential candidates, not "Presidential candidates with more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning..."