Politics - Fred Thompson's record on the 2nd Amendment

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:28 am

(...and Ron Paul too...)

http://gordonunleashed.com/blog/2007/09 ... ck-record/

...of the 33 firearm-related votes cast while Thompson was in the Senate, Thompson voted against the Second Amendment almost half (42.4 percent) of the time.

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:02 am

Trial lawyer chump. What would you expect from him? The nature of the beast.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:13 am

I like Paul, but he is not going to get elected, so why focus our energy on him? Thompson has a very solid chance of winning the primary. He certainly has the best understanding (outside of perhaps Paul) of the Constitution and the principles of Federalism. He is much more likely to be on the right side of issues that matter to us most - especially guns - and especially compared to ANY of the Democrats likely to win their primary.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:01 am

Ysabel Kid wrote: He is much more likely to be on the right side of issues that matter to us most - especially guns - and especially compared to ANY of the Democrats likely to win their primary.

IMO, His record on the those big issues demanding adherance to either the spirit or the letter of the U.S. Constitution says otherwise.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:03 am

Who is Gordon and why was he on a leash in the first place?

Rusty <><

cma g21 · Post by **cma g21** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:33 am

FWiedner wrote:
Ysabel Kid wrote: He is much more likely to be on the right side of issues that matter to us most - especially guns - and especially compared to ANY of the Democrats likely to win their primary.
IMO, His record on the those big issues demanding adherance to either the spirit or the letter of the U.S. Constitution says otherwise.

So, you saying he'd be no better (or worse) than the likely Democrat nominees?

BruceB · Post by **BruceB** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:08 am

FWiedner wrote:(...and Ron Paul too...)

http://gordonunleashed.com/blog/2007/09 ... ck-record/

...of the 33 firearm-related votes cast while Thompson was in the Senate, Thompson voted against the Second Amendment almost half (42.4 percent) of the time.

You need to qualify that by pointing out that it is GOA's definition of what legislation is anti gun. IIRC, they were head up over standardizing driver's licenses and consider that legislation to be "anti-gun".

Besides, Hillary's going to win; just ask Junior!

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:24 pm

Ysabel Kid wrote:I like Paul, but he is not going to get elected, so why focus our energy on him? Thompson has a very solid chance of winning the primary. He certainly has the best understanding (outside of perhaps Paul) of the Constitution and the principles of Federalism. He is much more likely to be on the right side of issues that matter to us most - especially guns - and especially compared to ANY of the Democrats likely to win their primary.

That is certainly what his campaign would love for you to believe. This guy is an empty suit. He is a faux conservative AT BEST.

The field is bleak. I've personally had it with voting for the "least appearing bleak".

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:30 pm

El Mac wrote:
Ysabel Kid wrote:I like Paul, but he is not going to get elected, so why focus our energy on him? Thompson has a very solid chance of winning the primary. He certainly has the best understanding (outside of perhaps Paul) of the Constitution and the principles of Federalism. He is much more likely to be on the right side of issues that matter to us most - especially guns - and especially compared to ANY of the Democrats likely to win their primary.
That is certainly what his campaign would love for you to believe. This guy is an empty suit. He is a faux conservative AT BEST.

The field is bleak. I've personally had it with voting for the "least appearing bleak".

Then he fakes it exceedingly well. Go back and read his articles on www.townhall.com. It wrote a bunch of them over the summer. If this is truly what he believes, he is "our" guy...

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:06 am

Ysabel Kid wrote:I like Paul, but he is not going to get elected, so why focus our energy on him? Thompson has a very solid chance of winning the primary. He certainly has the best understanding (outside of perhaps Paul) of the Constitution and the principles of Federalism. He is much more likely to be on the right side of issues that matter to us most - especially guns - and especially compared to ANY of the Democrats likely to win their primary.

He could if folks stopped settleing for who someone else said is the best.
Journalism is not a good thing to use to judge a candidate. Look at the voteing record. Much better.

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:51 am

Ysabel Kid wrote:Then he fakes it exceedingly well. Go back and read his articles on www.townhall.com. It wrote a bunch of them over the summer. If this is truly what he believes, he is "our" guy...

I don't care what "he" wrote (actually, I'd put my paycheck that is was a series of staffers that did the actual writing) this past summer. Rather, I discern more from how he actually voted over the past years.

http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm

He is a reed that blows in the wind. Like many a used car, looks good on the outside, just don't check under the hood.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:49 am

El Mac wrote:
Ysabel Kid wrote:Then he fakes it exceedingly well. Go back and read his articles on www.townhall.com. It wrote a bunch of them over the summer. If this is truly what he believes, he is "our" guy...
I don't care what "he" wrote (actually, I'd put my paycheck that is was a series of staffers that did the actual writing) this past summer. Rather, I discern more from how he actually voted over the past years.

http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm

He is a reed that blows in the wind. Like many a used car, looks good on the outside, just don't check under the hood.

I agree - actions speak louder than words, but some of those votes might not have been anti-gun. I haven't examined them all yet. Still, I am impressed with someone who puts what they believe down on paper - for all to read and remember - versus the wishy-washy crop of politicos who won't be tied to any position. Even if his staffer wrote most of this - which I don't think is the case - he signed it, and is stating his beliefs in doing so.

johnly · Post by **johnly** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:48 pm

Let me see....

Fred or Hillary think think think...

Hillary or Fred think think think...

Fred or Hillary think think think...

Yep. Fred would get my vote.

It's not as important as how he votes on all the issues, just those that are the most important. It's hard to say what a person considers a piece of "gun control" legislation. Was it a bill that directly targeting the 2nd Amendment like the "assault" weapons legislation or proposed "bullet" ban, or just something that doesn't meet some blowhards purity standards?

Don't know, but given the choice of the two and the track records of their respective parties, voting for a Democratic president with both the US House and Senate in Democratic control is suicide for gun owners.

John in Oregon

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:23 pm

johnly wrote: Don't know, but given the choice of the two and the track records of their respective parties, voting for a Democratic president with both the US House and Senate in Democratic control is suicide for gun owners.

John in Oregon

Amen brother, amen!

Post by **Old Savage** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:30 am

Anyone who doesn't see that is dumber than dirt.

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:14 am

Anyone that votes for anyone that is not solidly in the 2A camp is dumber than dirt, I don't care what initial he has next his/her name.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:40 am

El Mac wrote:Anyone that votes for anyone that is not solidly in the 2A camp is dumber than dirt, I don't care what initial he has next his/her name.

Thats a broad stripe to paint.
Heck GW aint solidly anything let alone pro gun. Lotsa dumber than dirt folks around I reckon.

Solid politicians dont exist anymore.

Mojo · Post by **Mojo** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:28 am

johnly wrote: Don't know, but given the choice of the two and the track records of their respective parties, voting for a Democratic president with both the US House and Senate in Democratic control is suicide for gun owners.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up right there.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 11:34 am

El Mac wrote:Anyone that votes for anyone that is not solidly in the 2A camp is dumber than dirt, I don't care what initial he has next his/her name.

So you won't vote for anyone - or a third party candidate with no chance - if neither (D) or (R) is 100% pro-gun? That is the surest way to get us all saddled with Hillary, and we KNOW where she stands.

By the way, speaking of Thompson's votes:

"In 1995 the SCOTUS overturned a federal law that banned gun possession near schools. For the first time since the New Deal, the court ruled that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, its usual excuse for meddling in state and local matters.

A year later, Congress passed the same law again, this time specifying that a defendant can be found guilty of carrying a gun in a school zone only if the weapon 'has moved in' or 'otherwise affects' interstate or foreign commerce. While 72 of his fellow senators pretended to believe this easily satisfied requirement rendered the law constitutional, Fred Thompson voted against the transparent ruse." (Jacob Sullum, Reason magazine)

Yep, I'll stick with Fred...

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:49 pm

Leverdude wrote:
El Mac wrote:Anyone that votes for anyone that is not solidly in the 2A camp is dumber than dirt, I don't care what initial he has next his/her name.
Thats a broad stripe to paint.
Heck GW aint solidly anything let alone pro gun. Lotsa dumber than dirt folks around I reckon. Solid politicians dont exist anymore.

Well sir, GW may be a lot of things but anti-gun he is not. Show me ONE BILL that he has signed that was anti-gun.

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:53 pm

So you won't vote for anyone - or a third party candidate with no chance - if neither (D) or (R) is 100% pro-gun?

Thats exactly right.

That is the surest way to get us all saddled with Hillary, and we KNOW where she stands.

Then so be it. I'm sick of lying and whiney repdemocrats. Call a spade a spade. Unfortunately politicians have to learn the hard way from time to time.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:47 pm

El Mac wrote:
So you won't vote for anyone - or a third party candidate with no chance - if neither (D) or (R) is 100% pro-gun?
Thats exactly right.

That is the surest way to get us all saddled with Hillary, and we KNOW where she stands.
Then so be it. I'm sick of lying and whiney repdemocrats. Call a spade a spade. Unfortunately politicians have to learn the hard way from time to time.

El Mac -

I understand where you are going with this. How are we going to get RINO's to stop acting like Democrat-wannabe's unless we punish them for their behavior. I agree completely. I'm just not willing to let Hillary get in because the cure will be FAR WORSE than the aliment!!!

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:57 pm

El Mac wrote:
Leverdude wrote:
El Mac wrote:Anyone that votes for anyone that is not solidly in the 2A camp is dumber than dirt, I don't care what initial he has next his/her name.
Thats a broad stripe to paint.
Heck GW aint solidly anything let alone pro gun. Lotsa dumber than dirt folks around I reckon. Solid politicians dont exist anymore.
Well sir, GW may be a lot of things but anti-gun he is not. Show me ONE BILL that he has signed that was anti-gun.

Didnt say he was anti gun. Said he wasn't pro gun. Theres a big difference.
You said

Anyone that votes for anyone that is not solidly in the 2A camp is dumber than dirt,

Mr Bush isn't remotely solidly in the 2A camp. Matter of fact Mr Bush is on record saying he would sign the assault weapons bill if it crosses his desk. The only reason he hasn't signed any gun control into law (& he will very soon) is because we had a Republican congress. Thats gone now & I think you'll get to see him sign all kinds of things.

I dont think he's anti gun. I think he's ambivolent about it & if the tide turns so will he. Theres alot of things he wont budge on. I dont think gun controls one.
Me & you, we just dont matter.

brucew44guns · Post by **brucew44guns** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:39 pm

All this talk about candidates, it's interesting and I suppose it's necessary, but I think I'll just keep on buying ammo. Might really need it one day.

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 9:45 am

Leverdude wrote:
El Mac wrote:
Leverdude wrote:
El Mac wrote:Anyone that votes for anyone that is not solidly in the 2A camp is dumber than dirt, I don't care what initial he has next his/her name.
Thats a broad stripe to paint.
Heck GW aint solidly anything let alone pro gun. Lotsa dumber than dirt folks around I reckon. Solid politicians dont exist anymore.
Well sir, GW may be a lot of things but anti-gun he is not. Show me ONE BILL that he has signed that was anti-gun.
Didnt say he was anti gun. Said he wasn't pro gun. Theres a big difference.
You said
Anyone that votes for anyone that is not solidly in the 2A camp is dumber than dirt,
Mr Bush isn't remotely solidly in the 2A camp. Matter of fact Mr Bush is on record saying he would sign the assault weapons bill if it crosses his desk. The only reason he hasn't signed any gun control into law (& he will very soon) is because we had a Republican congress. Thats gone now & I think you'll get to see him sign all kinds of things.

I dont think he's anti gun. I think he's ambivolent about it & if the tide turns so will he. Theres alot of things he wont budge on. I dont think gun controls one.
Me & you, we just dont matter.

Bush signed into law one of the most controversial CCW laws, that of Texas. He used it masterfully (well, his campaign did anyway) to unseat what was then the "unseatable" Gov. Ma Richards. Were it not for that, and her big mouth spouting off against it, he would not have gained the Tex. Gov.

He put into office, the AG John Ashcroft, THE most supportive of recent AG's of the 2A this country has seen. (Can't say the same for the last AG however.)

He has not signed anything remotely anti-gun. He could easily afford to say he would sign the AWB if it came to him...because at the time Congress was freshly owned by the Republicans and he knew it would never make it to his desk. True, it would have been my preference to hear him come out publicly and just say the AWB was trashy law anyway. You know, cowboy up so to speak. But, it is DC and it is politics. Hard to expect much from a lousy politician anyway.

If he were to sign in some kind of AWB or anti-gun legislation, I'll be the first one on here to cry foul and publicly eat crow. Yes, its a risky gamble of me. I've lost a lot of faith in him already...don't know why I continue to even halfway take up for him.

And I do resent the way the Reps have acted in power. That along with their being so wishy washy on 2A and immigration and a couple of other things have absolutely soured me on the Rep Party.

Let them eat cake.

When they come back around, I'll be there for them. For now, I'm done with them.

Politics - Fred Thompson's record on the 2nd Amendment

Politics - Fred Thompson's record on the 2nd Amendment

Re: Politics - Fred Thompson's record on the 2nd Amendment