Will You Vote for a Master Debater or Go With a 2nd Amendment Supporter?

Oh yeah…

You see this on one of those peoples shows that calls teflon coated bullets armor penetrating, hollow points too?

There is nothing in this that shows lack of knowing how to shoot a gun, she keeps her eye on the target the whole time.

No. I don’t. And stop calling me Shirley.

I like about 75% of what Paul says. A lot. It’s the other 25% that screams “I believe in the Great Pumpkin,” and that scares the ever-lovin’ crap outta me.

I’m right there with you. Ron Paul supporter as well. The guy just makes sense on just about everything he’s asked to comment on. Course, he’s a 2A supporter and not even a gun owner himself. Who can’t like that? And you’re right all the rest are status quo so in the end, I’ll probably sit this one out AGAIN.

Heck, nobody even asks when were pulling out of Europe, or elsewhere? Cold war is over folks. And the idea of staying in Afghanistan until 2024 is just plain crazy. And NO, 2024 is not an exaggeration as it’s the current plan via a US/Afghan pact recently signed. Y’all are nuts for being so afraid of peace.

+1

+1

This just in: Perry WILL participate in the debate, finding a way to do his job (Governor) and run for another one, simultaneously.

In other news, Poppymann is wrong about Perry.

Amen, brother.

+1

Ron Paul is precisely the kind of ‘mind-your-own-business’ candidate you’re looking for. Pick up his latest book and read about the issues you’re interested in.

In the primary, a mugwump is the LAST thing you want. That’s what we had last time – a choice between Obama (Progressive/Socialist) and McCain (Progressive Lite). There were few differences between the stances of the candidates – McCain planned to take us down the same road, but a little slower.

What we need is a candidate that can clearly enunciate the differences in Conservatism, and present a compelling case to veer away from the descent into Social Democracy, courtesy of Obama. Frankly, I’d love to see someone challenge Obama for the Dem nomination, but anybody who’d do that would be to the LEFT of him, and there’s not much room left there.

I see your point about what Obama has proposed, legislation-wise, but look at what he’s done using the EPA, the FDA, Wildlife and Fisheries, and the DoJ as clubs to get his way, even when his Democrat-controlled Congress wouldn’t go along. He’s proven to be more than willing to shred the Constitution and take power by executive fiat. And if you think he would stop at what he’s already done in a second term, you’re deluding yourself.

There. Now that wasn’t so bad a flame, was it?

Why give Barry a second term of 4 years to show how he feels about firearms? With no worries about re-election his would be a liberal presidential dream. All the hard core lefties are moaning about how he hasn’t met expectations without seeing the big picture. It takes time to circumvent the 2nd and tell 75 million people they need to call 911 instead.

Barry’s record on gun votes is also purposefully empty, so just because he never took a professional stand either way doesn’t mean he’s an NRA life member. Anyone with his background drinks the disarmament kool-aid as well or they don’t get into the tree house.

I don’t care if the other side runs a ham sandwich for president, as long as the sandwich knows what the Constitution says.

Actually Obama HAS signed a law regarding gun rights. He signed the law that allows people to carry guns in national parks. It was in the credit card bill. When asked about it, his press secretary basically said “MEH.”

But he’s a Democrat, so he gets an F.

One of Obamas SCOTUS appointees ruled against our 2A rights along with the rest of the lefties in the SCOTUS. His other appointee is a known gun hater as well. What was that you were saying about “neutral”?

I take it you don’t know a damned thing about “Project Gunwalker” (see also, “Fast and Furious”, “Project Gunrunner”, “Operation Castaway”, “Project Grenadewalker”)?

Obama knows that he can’t do anything openly anti-gun in his first term. But smuggling a couple thousand guns to Mexican Drug Cartels resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans and at least two Americans is just fine – especially when he doesn’t think it can be traced back to him.

Want to see a real push for gun control? Re-elect O-Bomb-Ya!

When you get that research, PLEASE feel free to either post it here, or write a story and we’ll post that. I don’t pretend to be omniscient on the candidates, and there’s only so much you can learn through a campaign’s Reality Distortion Field, coupled with the mainstream media’s natural tendencies to distort the GOP field.

Oh, and you make a compelling case for some of those rankings.

You seem to discount Paul because he hasn’t been “successful” in passing his legislation.

I submit that this is the wrong standard. The people who should be severely hammered for their failures are those who are fully empowered to take positive action and don’t.

Ron Paul is so solidly Pro-Second Amendment you don’t have enough room for all the “pluses” that would follow his “A+++”. But because others have prevented his efforts from going forward, you downgrade him to a ‘B’? Where is the logic in that?

I recognize this is a “guns” forum. But if you’re talking about the Second Amendment, you’re talking about one part of the whole, and I don’t think it’s out of place to point out that a candidate’s disregard for one part of the Bill of Rights is likely to carry over to other parts… after the election.

There is no “National Don’t Search Me Illegally Association”, so politicians don’t have to pander to Fourth Amendment issues to the extent that the NRA forces Second Amendment consideration. But will anyone here argue that someone who wants to empower searches and seizures without probable cause will steadfastly protect your right to own firearms? Before you answer, recall that the Founder’s intent in the Second Amendment was to ensure you have the means to KILL tyrants who violate your rights. So it makes sense to measure the extent to which a candidate will protect ALL of your rights.

To figure out which candidates are just posturing for elections and which ones mean what they say, shouldn’t we look at where these people come from?

Bachmann – former IRS collection attorney. Currently: Supporter of “PATRIOT” act Fourth Amendment infringements.
Perry – former campaign manager for Al “turn in your guns now” Gore
Romeny – who knows what Romeny was besides Romneycare czar. He changes position faster than a weather vane.
Cain – Pizza Maker and President of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank (who sees “no reason” to audit the Fed)
Ron Paul – 30 years ago, defender of the Constitution. 20 years ago? Same. 10 years ago? Same. Four years ago? The same. Today? The guy all the OTHER candidates are trying to copy! Also, the guy who forced a partial audit of the Fed and found $16 trillion sloshing around that we didn’t know about before.
Gary Johnson – hasn’t got a chance in hell, but did a credible job of pulling his state out of a financial hole and defending freedom.
Anyone else who matters?
I don’t think so.

When it comes to the Bill of Rights, gun owners need to understand that checking off the “I love guns” box is practically a requirement for Republican candidacy and that even flip-flopping shills like Bachmann, Romney and Perry will do it – though they may not really give a damn about ANY of your rights and their support of the Second Amendment may only last until the day after the election.

That’s why I think a person’s WHOLE record should be considered, not just the election season rhetoric of wannabees who will say ANYTHING to get elected.

When you do that, there’s no question. Ron Paul is the only rational choice.

I’ll second that. How does someone who opposes all gun control, wants to repeal the gun control we have, and wants to eliminate the ATF only get a B on gun rights? What did Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, and Palin do to top that? Do any of those four even have a stated position on the ATF, NFA, GCA, or NICS?

Brown people?

+1

Brad, the problem is that people 8,000 miles away aren’t depriving me of my life, liberty, or property and “my” government is. If we accept the official 9/11 narrative, dying in a terrorist attack carried out by people in sandland is almost zero. I’d rather keep my money, preserve its puchasing power, and buy raw milk at the grocery store.

Because people who live in mud huts without running water are really a threat thousands of miles away. Yeah, never bought that propaganda back in the beginning. Still don’t.

And there’s nothing loony about his view on defense. Staying at war indefinitely is loony. Staying spread out around the world is loony. The only thing loony here is how the GOP now defines national defense. IKE were he still alive would be slapping some folks back into reality on that one.

What do decades-long wars on the other side of the world have to do with gun rights in America? Not a whole lot, that’s what.

Preemptive attacks would be offense, not defense. Ron Paul is big on defense. If people want to talk about international conflicts and Ron Paul, how about talking about Ron Paul might be the only guy who would secure America’s borders. Using “war” criteria, every candidate who wouldn’t seriously secure the borders should get a big fat F.

From one of the best Ron Paul videos out there – “Stop Dreaming.”
“Needless war… war that is undeclared… Here we are going to war, ever since WW2 we’ve never declared war, we’ve never won a war… there’s nothing conservative about that.”

edit: I had the link set to start at 4:10. I didn’t know the site would embed the vid. Oh well, Enjoy!

Paul gets a B in my book because he counters the positives on the gun rights with a Looney Party take on defense.

We’re currently blowing over $1 trillion a year on over 800 bases and 5 different wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Pakistan). As Ron Paul pointed out again yesterday, before we went into Iraq in 2003, there were 3 suicide terrorist attacks per year. By 2007, there were 700 per year. Motivating a 23,000% increase in attacks on us at a cost of $2,700,000,000 per DAY and over 4400 dead and 100,000 wounded troops doesn’t sound like a very good idea to me. How about you?

The idea that we should simply pack up our tents and come home, waiting for our enemies to attack us on our home turf is insane. And incredibly bad tactics. I don’t think we should engage in nation-building nor adventurism, but taking the fight to the bad guys is never a bad idea.

Indeed. I haven’t heard anyone propose that.

What Paul has said is recall the troops and use them here to defend America.

You know, if I were a tactician for Al Queda, and I wanted to tie America’s guts in a knot, I’d smuggle 30 well-trained suicide attackers across the Mexican border with AK-47s and 2000 rounds of ammo each. I’d have them travel to different locations throughout the US in 3 man teams. And on an appointed day, at a predetermined hour, I’d have those 3 man teams go into a school and shoot everyone they could in a period of 15 minutes. At the end of that time, the killers would head off to another school and repeat the attack, and 15 minutes later, a third school for a third attack. Based on the casualty numbers of Cho’s attack at Virginia Tech, and the increased lethality and accuracy of a rifle over a hand gun, I would expect the ten teams to kill between 6000 and 9000 children. If you doubt the numbers, run them yourself.

What aspect of our current National Defense policy accounts for that sort of attack? How do soldiers running around in Afghanistan defend against that sort of massacre?

The soldiers who should be interdicting invaders at the border are instead securing Iraqi borders!

Imagine the impact on our society of such an attack. Parents would be terrified to let their children out of their sight. The public school system would be done. There would be a huge cry to ban guns. And “security” insanity would run rampant. The pucker factor would be overwhelming and the same morons who say, “We have to kill them over there so they can’t get over here” would be screaming for a full-blown police state complete with identity documents, secret police, checkpoints on every corner. A national “emergency” put Hitler into power. It would be no different here. It would be the end of America.

But our military is “making us safe” by bombing Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and Pakistan. How, exactly, does that work? How does it prevent the scenario I’ve just outlined?

As for killing the “bad guys” – we’ve done a lot of that. But we’ve killed far, far, far more innocent civilians than we have bad guys. And every time we kill an innocent in a foreign country, we create a whole new family who wants to see America die. The most powerful recruiting tool for Al Queda is the US Military.

Do you blame them for hating us?

What if the Chinese were to invade America, bomb us for 10 years, kill YOUR family? How much love would you have for the Chinese? And wouldn’t your every waking moment be filled with plans for revenge? And when the families of the 100,000+ innocents we’ve killed get to that point, where all the population wants to do is kill Americans, what choice do you really have but to kill them all? Is your ultimate plan genocide? Do you plan to murder every person in that region of the world? Or have you just not gotten around to thinking that far ahead?

Let’s be clear how we were attacked on 9/11. The FBI screwed up, preferring political correctness over reasonable actions. The FAA ignored warnings of people who wanted to “fly” airplanes, but not take off or land. According to WND, the FAA reversed a 40-year-old rule that had permitted pilots to carry guns in the cockpit just TWO MONTHS before the attack. And the advice of the Federal Government in the event of hijacking attempts was to “cooperate”.

Look at that. At every point, a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FAILURE permitted furtherance of the terrorist attack. Do you remember the statement by a government talking head after the attack that, “no one could have foreseen the attack”? I do. I thought it particularly vapid given that best-selling author Tom Clancy had published in 1994 and 1996, not one, but TWO best-selling novels that made mention of a 747 loaded with fuel crashing into the US Capitol. Such is the level of awareness of the Federal government.

To correct what may be a mistaken impression on your part – Ron Paul voted in favor of tracking down the people who carried out the 9/11 attacks. But he voted against the war with Iraq. Why was it we went into Iraq again? Weapons of mass distraction? Oh, that’s right: Al Queda was there! Except they weren’t. So Ron Paul was right again. No weapons and no Al Queda. Meanwhile, the cretins running our foreign policy managed to kill 100,000+ Iraqi civilians. 100,000+. That’s a pretty high price to pay for American paranoia. And let’s be clear about that: It’s paranoia (and greed) that drives our foreign policy.

You know something else we should do as we reach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks? We should put the attacks in perspective. About 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks. In the same year, 43,788 people died in traffic accidents. So more people died in a single average month in 2001 from accidental car wrecks than died from the 9/11 attacks. How would you respond if someone were to propose we should kill 100,000 innocent people and blow more than $1 trillion per year for a decade in response to the number of people killed in traffic accidents in a single month? How about proposing to kill every person who works at Ford, GM and Chrysler?

Pretty stupid, huh? But it makes as much sense as going into Iraq. Or staying there.

So what would happen if we followed Ron Paul’s advice? Brought the troops home?

Well, for starters, we wouldn’t be renting 800 bases in foreign countries. All the military paychecks currently spent in those foreign countries would be spent here in the US instead… a nice economic boost in addition to the $1+ trillion we’d save on not being the “world’s policeman”. We could deploy our military to defend our borders. Oh wait. Iraq might launch one of their ICBMs with a nuclear warhead and wipe us all out. Except they don’t have ICBMs and they don’t have nuclear weapons. And Israel has enough nukes to light up the entire middle east.

See, if the neocon military mindset made any sense at all, we wouldn’t be attacking countries that can’t hurt us. We’d be going after North Korea – a country that is actively developing both nuclear weapons and ICBM delivery systems. But there’s no oil in North Korea.

So if it’s not all about National Security – making us safe from people who might hurt us – what’s it all about?

Money.

Do you know how much all the companies who provide support services for our troops make? Blackwater? KBR? Do you know the cost of a single rocket launcher or bomb? This is Keynesian economics at its best. As long as you’re making something, and someone is buying it, things are rosy – even if the item is immediately destroyed and the entity doing the buying is the government. The faster we pour our resources into the trash can, the better. First, make a bomb and an airplane. Then burn a bunch of fuel to get the bomb to where we can destroy a bridge. Then send in contractors funded with our tax dollars to REBUILD the bridge we just destroyed. And maybe if the taxpayers haven’t yet figured out what’s going on, we can bomb the bridge again! Yeah. THAT helps the US economy because of all the tax dollars that go to military contractors.

Certain people profit, and they’ve got you suckered – thinking that bombing and rebuilding that bridge is going to make you “safer”.

Myself? I think we’re better off with an extra $1+ trillion a year saved and secure borders, not sending soldiers into a meat grinder, creating enormous medical costs for the care of hundreds of thousands of G.I.s maimed in combat, not killing people and pissing off their relatives and provoking them to try to kill America. But that’s just me. And Ron Paul. Because we’re “looney”.

OK, first off, what he says about national defense issues has NOTHING to do with his position on gun rights – that’s 100% you adding some BS to discourage people from supporting a politician you don’t like by lying about an important issue (gun rights).

Now, as to his “loony” ideas? Almost every war we’ve fought in the last 100 years was NOT a matter of self defense nor did it have anything to do with “our freedoms”. Fighting that Japanese in WWII in retaliation for Pearl Harbor was justified (however, WWII never would’ve happened if we hadn’t stuck our nose where it didn’t belong and gotten involved in WWI). As well, going after Al-Qaeda was justified and we’ve mostly wiped out the people who were in it at the time of 9/11. However, we CANNOT win a war against that sort of organization (without resorting to just burning the whole country to the ground). The Soviet Union failed to win the same war we’re fighting now and they had a lot fewer rules of engagement tying their hands.

Our military, like our police, is to respond to threats – not to run around beating anyone and everyone they feel like just because maybe they might do something at some point. So what if Kreblakistan says they hate the US? Unless they attack or declare war, we have no reason to waste hundreds of billions of dollars attacking them (not to mention all the innocent people who are raped and / or murdered in the process).

You clearly want an American Empire to rule the world with an iron fist – and that’s not what our Constitution says our military is for, nor is it what it should be used for. All people with your mindset have brought the US is massive deficits and a lot of dead bodies.

+1

How about a little Separation of Guns and Politics.

This isn’t Guns & Ammo. This is The Truth About Guns, and the truth is that it’s all politics. Unfortunately. And if people like us weren’t fighting the political fight, there wouldn’t be a gun left in America.

I enjoy the occasional forays into politics, religion, etc here at TTAG. The discussions are evenhanded and usually fun. And relevant.

Firearms ownership has a huge moral and political dimension that should be carefully thought out and discussed.

The main reason I come here is the mix of guns and politics. Writing about the ATF and Fast and Furious and what candidates are actually pro-gun etc is serious and important gun stuff.

As I replied to Mike Silver’s post, I think he makes some compelling arguments for his rankings. My criteria were different than his. Had I looked at things from the way he weighed everything, I think my conclusions would have been similar to his – except on his worst day, I’d still vote for Romney over Obama. Romney may go whichever way the political winds blow, but he’s not the kind of ideologue that Obama is, nor do I believe he would dogmatically take us down the road to Perdition, never re-examining his own beliefs they way Obama has done.

I look on debates as something more than a beauty contest (or lying contest). Occasionally, the truth comes through, when some reporter or candidate takes another one by surprise. It’s like my dad used to say about recitals, “I’m not interested in seeing a perfect performance. I wanna see what they do after they screw up, and see if they can recover, and how they recover.” THAT is the mark of someone that can think on their feet. And that’s a quality I think we need in the White House.

So, then, way back when, it was okay for States to limit speech? 4 Amendment protections were discretionary?

Or perhaps the incorporation doctrine came about because States tried to pick and choose which Constitutional protections were allowed.

Actually, the Bill of Rights was something of an afterthought, crafted by Madison, in order to get a majority of the states to sign off on the new Constitution. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists were going at it, tooth and nail, and Madison realized that the new Constitution was going down in flames. The big sticking point of those who didn’t like the Constitution was that it didn’t have (among other things) a Bill of Rights. Madison was on record as saying it wasn’t necessary, as (essentially) “who in the Hell is gonna try to take away these rights we just fought so hard to get.” The guy was many things. Prescient wasn’t one of them, at least in this instance. So he agreed to write if the the remaining holdouts would fold. They did. So he kept his word and proposed 12 amendments to the new Constitution. Two failed. The rest became our Bill of Rights. It was those who wanted to preserve states rights in the face of a much more powerful Federal government (than had existed under the Articles of Confederation) that worried many. The Bill of Rights accomplished two things – set limits on the Federal government, and established the concept that the Federal government had ONLY the powers specifically granted them. All other powers were retained by the people or the “several states.” The state legislatures already each had their own Constitutions, several of which (notably Virginia’s and Massachusetts’) were used as blueprints for the Federal document. Those protections were already there at the state level, so your point about the incorporation doctrine is an interesting interpretation, but I don’t think it holds water, historically speaking. If you look at “strict Constitutionalists” like Clarence Thomas, they invariably look at historical context, to assist them in divining what the Founders intended.

Who made it an issue?Liberals-and they’ve lost a lot of votes over it.Deservedly so-it starts with guns and devolves into a sewer like San Francisco where the city government seems to follow residents into the bathroom in pursuit of the ultimate nanny state.
I don’t hate government,but neither do I want it determining every detail of how I live,and the liberals have chosen that route.

The entire “left-right” model is pretty outdated.
I think a more accurate model would be “The government versus the People”.

No, the worldwide shitstorm ended when the Berlin Wall came down. Our enemies these days are weak compared to who we used to face off with, the commies who could end the world with the press of a button. But the ignorant cave dwellers get one lucky shot in and suddenly we’re cowering and allowing airport rent-a-cops to molest our children. Somehow, having a bunch of hateful weaklings who may kill a handful of us if they get lucky again gets people more fearful than living under the constant shadow of nuclear annihilation did.

+1
Perry is a corrupt Bush holdover.
People seem to have forgotten the HPV vaccine fiasco he tried to run down everyone’s throat that would have costed parents over $400 per child to vaccinate their girls for school, with no state aid or insurance help. And then he has the balls to rail against Obama Care as if what he was trying to do wasn’t just as bad.
Then there is the whole Trans-Texas Corridor project, the fact that he allowed Texas to loose land to Mexico, has possibly the worst track record of any Texas governor on Education. Lied about Texas being 23 Billion in the hole. But yes he has a firm stance on 2a so we should elect him.

Agreed. TTAG taken off the grades.

Sounds like something a cat person would say! 😛

Fortunately, it probably will not come down to just 2A issues. However – if all else is equal, the gun-thing is pretty important. If a man (or woman) does not trust you enough to allow you to have guns, they should not be trusted with your vote (and by extension) your freedoms – history is wrought with it starting with disarmament, only to lead to control. So, yes – it is a pretty big-flipping deal to me.

Magoo – you would. Actually, what I mean is that you wouldn’t consider a candidate’s position on the 2nd at all. I would. Now we would agree that there’s much more to picking a candidate than some single issue, even one as near and dear to my heart as gun rights. However, I’d argue that support for the 2nd Amendment show an awful lot about a candidate’s character, his or her support for the Constitution, and their understanding of Constitutional law. Let me put it another way, given the choice between two hypothetically equally-qualified candidates, I’d chose the one with the better record on 2nd Amendment issues. Reverse the situation, and I might have to hold my nose to vote, as I did in the last election.

Funny how if those same politicians actually upheld the constitution, many of those nagging problems would not exist.

Funny how if the second amendment ceases to be upheld, Magoo and the few like him will be shutup at the governments discretion as well and their irrelevant opinions will become even more irrelevant!

…recognizing the profound examples of Duty, Integrity, Honor and Courage displayed by members of every branch of the United States Military—at this juncture in our Nation’s History, my vote is for a complete Military overthrow of the entire Federal Government.”

Not sure I’d be up for a Nation-wide Abu Graib or 100,000 more dead civilians or martial law.

That is what you meant by “Duty, Integrity, Honor and Courage”, isn’t it?