Presidential Canidates: Who will be good for gun owners?

[Blotan Hunka]

The founding fathers made their opinion on individualism pretty clear.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

And that *should* be all that counts.

 

[grydth]

The founding fathers made their opinion on individualism pretty clear.

I'm sure there will be another "scholar" along any minute now to assure us that the Founders actually intended to grant all power to a central government... yeah, that's what they really meant... maybe the new one will be from Emory University, too :shock:...

 

[Sorros]

Any Liberatarian candidate.

 

[Sigung86]

I am late to the fray, as it were. It seems to me that we are missing the crux of a number of things. Primarily, in my considered opinion, once the 2md ammendment was made legal all those years ago, in my mind, the Federal Government gave up any right to be involved in the gun control situation. It is, essentially, and should always be a State's rights issue, simply because I don't see how ownership of firearms is a Federal issue. Unless the Feds are afraid of what could be...

After all, wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said, "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject"... Andt that pretty much sums it up.

On the other hand... I think our government is too big, too waddly, and too apt to want to take all the power and give none of the perks. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have one person out there running for office who is even minimally qualified, insofar as taking care of the people, in a hands off State Government sort of way.

I read of the illegal, and often times brainless actions and stances of many of the people running for office, and don't understand how people with minimal intelligence can vote for them. Seems like we, as voters, are getting awfully good at only picking someone who "kind of, and almost" thinks like we the people do.

'Twould be truly amazing if for one primary, no one won, and they got the distinct message that people are getting really tired of the political, Ol' soft shoe, and Shuffle off to Buffalo, second rate politicians we are getting.

It's almost as if we should not consider voting anybody into office who is running for it. :uhyeah:

 

[newGuy12]

Its late at night, and I did not read the whole thread. I will say this:

1) By the time our civil liberties are severely eroded (as in "show me your papers")

AND

2) The country is totally, surely, "I mean what I say" broke (as in no money, no credit) from all of the spending that we are doing,

Its time for the final crack down.

When that time comes, citizens can raise up their little pea-shooters all they want to, because it won't even slow down the powers that be, won't even slow them down.

 

[newGuy12]

It's almost as if we should not consider voting anybody into office who is running for it. :uhyeah:

Its almost as if anyone who is too sickened to vote should vote for a third party candidate.

Not that that would matter much (I'm not sure how widespread electronic voting will be in the general election --> its WAY easy for an election to get owned).

The last call has been made. The party's over folks. Its only a matter of time. We deserve it. We waited too late to act.

When it comes right down to it, we had to choose between freedom and safety. We chose safety.

You pay your money and you take your chances.

 

[Grenadier]

Moderator's Note:

This thread has been split, due to off-topic discussions.

The posts regarding the off-topic material have been moved here.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Senior Moderator

 

[Cruentus]

New Guy,

I think your view is incredibly pessimistic, and one that I cannot ascribe too. We have 2 choices; give up or use the means that we have available to fight for our freedoms. Sitting back and not voting, or getting pissed and blowing up a federal building (not saying your advocating this, but some people with the same pessimistic view do) is giving up. And if you do that, you've lost.

We still have means available to advocate for our freedoms, and it would behoove us to use those means.

In my world, we have a saying, and that is 'extreme pessimism gets you killed.'

 

[newGuy12]

I am extremely pessimistic, have been all my life, yes, to a fault. I've had people call me a nihilist. I see no hope for this world. But, I'm not one to try to hasten its demise.

I do realize that I can't trust my perspective too much, so I have that going for me.

I support gun rights, big time, though I'm not a gun owner (I don't wish to have the responsibility of gun ownership, its too much for me).

Sorry about messing on this thread, Cruentus. I should have just read posts last night without posting. I hope that the readers of this thread can determine who the best candidate for gun-rights is, and throw their support behind their candidate!

 

[KenpoTex]

*bump*

just ran across this site. It give a quick and dirty look at the 2A-related voting record of all the candidates

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm

 

[Guardian]

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).

Here is the point right here. It's the House and Senate that we have to worry about with Gun Laws, the President just signs those laws if they apply federally. It's up to us to vote in people that are Pro-Gun at the Congress/Senate (State Side) that are Pro-Gun, not the President so much.

 

[Sorros]

I am extremely pessimistic, have been all my life, yes, to a fault. I've had people call me a nihilist. I see no hope for this world. But, I'm not one to try to hasten its demise.

I do realize that I can't trust my perspective too much, so I have that going for me.

I support gun rights, big time, though I'm not a gun owner (I don't wish to have the responsibility of gun ownership, its too much for me).

Sorry about messing on this thread, Cruentus. I should have just read posts last night without posting. I hope that the readers of this thread can determine who the best candidate for gun-rights is, and throw their support behind their candidate!

New guy,
turn off the HBO and turn on the comedy channel. you'll feel a lot better.

 

[KenpoTex]

*bump again*

found this about Obama (what a ****ing moron:angry

-------------------------------------

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007...ees_need_for_ru.html


Obama: My wife sees need for rural gun ownership

by John McCormick

HARLAN, Iowa -- From his days of campaigning in Downstate Illinois, Sen. Barack Obama has been asked plenty of times about his views on gun ownership.

But the Illinois Democrat and presidential candidate added a new wrinkle Saturday night while campaigning in conservative-leaning western Iowa, when he said his Chicago-native wife, Michelle, recently commented that she could see why rural folks might want to own guns.

Here was Obama's discussion of gun ownership and his wife's thoughts during a campaign stop at a middle school:

"We should be able to combine respect for those traditions (traditions? what happened to inaliable rights?) with our concern for kids who are being shot down. This is a classic example of us just applying some common sense, just being reasonable, right? (reasonable? like gun free zones such as shopping malls and um...how 'bout college campuses, yeah, reasonable works) And reasonable would say that lawful gun owners – I respect the Second Amendment. I think lawful gun owners should be able to hunt, be sportsmen, protect their families.

"And by the way, Michelle, my wife, she was traveling up, I think, in eastern Iowa, she was driving through this nice, beautiful area, going through all this farmland and hills and rivers and she said 'Boy, it's really pretty up here,' but she said, 'But you know, I can see why if I was living out here, I'd want a gun. Because, you know, 911 is going to take some time before somebody responds. (so people in the cities always have a cop right there and don't have to worry about response times?) You know what I mean? You know, it's like five miles between every house.'

"So the point is, though, we should be able to do that, and we should be able to enforce laws that keep guns off the streets in inner cities because some unscrupulous gun dealer is, you know, letting somebody load up a van with a bunch of cheap handguns or sawed-off shotguns and dumping them and selling them for a profit in the streets." (cause this happens soooo often )

--------------------------------------------

(red text is mine)

 

[Cruentus]

Well, this is a classic example of someone with a clear anti-2nd amendment view trying to pander. He clearly does not understand the right, or how illegal firearms get on the street for that matter.

He actually scares me a lot more then Hillary. Too bad Edwards isn't doing better in the polls; if I had to pick a democrat, he's probably my favorite right now.

 

[KenpoTex]

Well if it wasn't already obvious, Obama is anti-freedom. What's worse, he can't even keep his story straight...

http://www.nysun.com/article/71591


His Disturbing Pattern

By KENNETH BLACKWELL
February 21, 2008

Senator Obama recently gave us a disturbing foretaste of the contradictory doublespeak we could expect under an Obama presidency.

Last week, a deeply disturbed young man went on a criminal rampage at Northern Illinois University, murdering several innocent people before taking his own life.

Mr. Obama spoke out last Friday about the tragic event, and exposed the crucial disconnect between his rhetoric and his politics.

Speaking of his determination to do "whatever it takes" to end gun violence, Mr. Obama acknowledged that the Second Amendment secures an citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

Noting that some argue that the Second Amendment only grants state governments the power to arm National Guard units, Mr. Obama said he rejected that view in favor of the widely held belief that the Second Amendment — like the rest of the Bill of Rights — involves rights held by American citizens. The Drudge Report last week carried the story with the title, "Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights."

But that title was wrong.

Because later in that same story it says that in the same news conference where he spoke about an individual's right and the Second Amendment, Mr. Obama also said he supports the D.C. gun ban. This is the absolute ban on handguns and readily usable firearms in the city of Washington D.C. that is at issue in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. I've written about the case before. The D.C. gun ban is a complete ban on having any sort of readily usable gun in your own home in D.C. to protect yourself or your family.

He went on to say that local governments should be able to enact any gun control laws they consider necessary to end gun violence, and that any such measures are constitutional. *

What kind of gun rights does he supposedly support? What kind of "right" do you have, when the government can completely rob you 100% of the exercise of that right, anytime they decide they have a good reason?

That's like saying you have the right to worship as you choose, but the government has the power to ban attending church. Or that you have the right to free speech, but that government has the power to stop you from speaking about any subject it wants. Or that you have the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, but that anything the government wants to search at your house is automatically reasonable.

A right that the government can completely take away at any time is no right at all.

To say that the Second Amendment means you can own guns, but that the city where you live can ban all gun ownership, means you have no Second Amendment rights at all.

Last week I wrote that I have never in my lifetime seen a major presidential candidate whose rhetoric is so far removed from his policy record. Little did I know that he would give me a perfect illustration of that point the very next day. This is what Americans can expect from a President Obama. He'll wax eloquent about your rights, but then say government can take away whatever part of them — or all of them — that it wants.

It's a disturbing pattern that's starting to emerge in Mr. Obama when he announces a principle or a goal, but then endorses policies that are the exact opposite. It's political doublespeak. It's Orwellian. In fact, it's Clintonian.

Look for this pattern across the board. This is how he'll empower private markets, by increasing government control. He'll preserve our private market health care system, by having government take it over. He'll lower taxes, by raising them. He'll cut government, by increasing government spending. He'll create jobs, by raising taxes and fees on business.

He'll protect our results in Iraq, by abandoning that country. He'll defeat the terrorists, by stopping attacks against them and sitting down to negotiate. He'll support our allies in Pakistan, by invading them with military force. He'll do whatever it takes to stop threats to our nation, by immediately announcing that he'll never use our ultimate weapons and by stopping our government from listening in on terrorists' phone calls.

I hope nine months is enough time for the Americans to catch on to his rhetorical sleight of hand. Mr. Obama has shown what he thinks of your Second Amendment rights by endorsing the D.C. gun ban last week.

I wonder what he'll say next week. It's a long time until November.

Mr. Blackwell is a Fellow at the Family Research Council, the American Civil Rights Union, and the Buckeye Institute. He is a columnist for The New York Sun, a contributing editor for Townhall.com, and a member of the NRA Public Affairs Committee.

*Emphasis added

 

[Doc_Jude]

Obama IS ANTI-GUN. You better believe it.

 

[searcher]

They all need to sit down and re-read the Constitution again(IF they have actually read it). And they need to pay close attention to the part that states we are to be ready t protect ourselves from THEM. They are the reason why The Founding Fathers put that in.

 

[KenpoTex]

more crap from Osama...

Link

I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

:bs1:

from the same article

Obama’s new hardline liberal position differs from his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and GOP candidate John McCain, who both are for concealed-carry.

:lfao:
Okay, maybe I missed something...when did the Hildebeast stop being a commie and start respecting our 2A rights?

 

[Guardian]

more crap from Osama...

Link
:bs1:

from the same article

:lfao:
Okay, maybe I missed something...when did the Hildebeast stop being a commie and start respecting our 2A rights?

Since she needs the Gun lobbies support to win the Democratic Side of the house, she can't alienate 2 Million+ Voter and hope to win, now she's for us, that won't last long though, trust me on that.