POLITICS - Which Candidate Can You Trust with Your Guns?

[bsaride]

email from Wayne LaPierre:

Dear Fellow NRA Member,

Working together, we scored a major victory in the media war to save the Second Amendment at our Celebration of American Values event in Washington, D.C.

At this history-making presidential event, the media lined up for blocks to see John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter, and Bill Richardson look NRA members in the eye, tell us where they stand on the Second Amendment, and ask for our votes.

And for the first time in this presidential election, America's 80 million gun owners could hear these candidates, word for word, unfiltered, and undistorted by the media in presenting their views on our Constitutional rights.

Before you vote in the primaries, I urge you to visit www.NRAValues.org to hear where the candidates stand on the Second Amendment and decide for yourself who deserves your vote...

... And who doesn't.

Thank you for your loyalty to NRA and thank you for helping build a fortress of pro-firearm freedom voters around the Second Amendment in 2008.



----------------------------------
National Rifle Association * 11250 Waples Mill Road * Fairfax, VA 22030

[Grizz]

absolutely none of them. they're a class of lazy, crooked, corrupt, blood-sucking parasites. I wouldn't trust 'em with a bag of garbage much less my guns..,

Grizz

[Chuck 100 yd]

Thanks!

[Old Time Hunter]

Politics:

Pol - Latin for "many"

tics - Am for "bloodsucking creatures"

[Marlin .35]

NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Art

[Leverdude]

Ron Paul & he aint even on the list.

Edit;
Shoulda looked first. He never responded. Musta been busy.

[FWiedner]

Politician...

Trust...

I can't seem to get these two words to work in the same sentence...

[FWiedner]

Politician...

Trust...

I can't seem to get these two words to work in the same sentence...

Found one, but I had to find a verb.

"Don't trust a politician."

[Bogie35]

Politician...

Trust...

I can't seem to get these two words to work in the same sentence...

I'm with you on that!

Ron Paul didn't even respond to the invitation! Giulliani tends to flounder too much. I will vote for Hillary before I vote for Romney. I think Romney is actually Bill Clinton in a Republican costume. Hunter is actually a robot programmed to repeat campaign cliches. McCain and Thompson are ok. Tancredo was my favorite, but he backed out of the race.

So, since I must choose, I'm leaning toward Huckabee. To me, he seems like less of a politician than the others.

Humbly,
bogie

[Ysabel Kid]

It is not a matter of who we can trust - politicians, by definition, are untrustworthy - and I mean that seriously (not just complaining as we all do). Few, if any, will make a decision based solely on principle.

However, we will elect a President next year. So, the real question becomes, who will do the least harm to our cause? The least harm/most good will come from electing a President who will nominate additional strict constructionists to the federal bench, including - most important of all - the SCOTUS. The next President will probably nominate at least 2 in their first term - and perhaps more, especially if they get a second term. The high court is balanced on a razor's edge right now. A positive decision early in 2008 (before the election) on the DC case can still be reversed later by a stacked liberal court if Hillary, Obama or Edwards gets elected. All of the Democrats running - including the nominally "pro-gun" Bill Richardson - are disqualified in my book because none of them has an ounce of respect for the Constitution and will put forth leftist jurists who think it is a "living document" and/or we should followed "enlightened" countries in Europe (ask game keeper and Nath how "enlightened" they think England's gun laws are). For as anti-gun as Guiliani is, if he kept his promise to nominate jurists like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito we'd be infinitely better than a "pro-gun" Richardson (which isn't going to happen anyway) foisting us with anit-gun SCOTUS nominees...

[Blaine]

will vote for Hillary before I vote for Romney

I hope that's not a religion thing, because HillBilly will have your guns the very first chance she can.......Romney might not like it, but will tow the party platform....

[phlatnose]

Voting for Clinton? Someone has been drinking.
I would never put trust in any politician.

[homefront]

I had my eye on Huckabee, but no more.
Ron Paul has great ideas, but I don't think he's the guy most of America will vote for.
I think Fred Thompson will be a good bet, if he wakes up and speaks up. I liked his answer, premeditated or not, when he said, "I'm not telling you how many I have, or where they are."

[El Mac]

absolutely none of them. they're a class of lazy, crooked, corrupt, blood-sucking parasites. I wouldn't trust 'em with a bag of garbage much less my guns..,

Grizz

Beautifully said.

[El Mac]

For as anti-gun as Guiliani is, if he kept his promise to nominate jurists like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito we'd be infinitely better than a "pro-gun" Richardson (which isn't going to happen anyway) foisting us with anit-gun SCOTUS nominees...

Operational word there: IF.

And he won't. He is as left wing as they come, it just so happened he benefitted from his 9/11 launch to nationwide fame. Why would he put in SCOTUS "strict constructionists" that would likely overturn the very things he believes in - abortion, gun control, etc etc etc....??

Answer: He won't.

There isn't any iron in his words. Only lies compounded by more lies. Hell, even the man's family has come out against him.

What else do you need to know about him??

[J Miller]

I trust none of them. I don't and didn't trust Bush II, nor Bush I, and and I won't trust any in the future.

Bush II is not an active anti gunner, but any anti gun laws that cross his desk will be signed. He's a republican and is no friend of ours at all.

Joe

[Old Ironsights]

IMO Ron Paul didn't respond to the NRA because he's as POd at them as I am over HR2640.

What's the use in dealing with people to whom their PR agenda is more important than ACTUAL RKBA?

[J Miller]

O.I.,

You think Ron Paul has any decent chance of getting the Elephants nomination?

Joe

[Old Ironsights]

O.I.,

You think Ron Paul has any decent chance of getting the Elephants nomination?

Joe

No. But that doesn't mean he's going to drop out either.

By starting out this way he's put himself in a hellova better position than any previous Libertarian Candidate... which he probably won't run as anyway.

I'm guessing he will run as an Independent on a non-populist "Constitution First" platform.

[Jeff Pitts]

I will vote for Hillary before I vote for Romney.

Then we deserve to lose our gun rights. Romney ain't the best but.........

Jeff

[J Miller]

I will vote for Hillary before I vote for Romney.

Then we deserve to lose our gun rights. Romney ain't the best but.........

Jeff

Jeff, no we don't. Just because a person has a different point of view doesn't mean the rest of us deserve to loose. It just means those of us with the right point of view have to work a bit harder to make up for the others.

Joe

[Old Ironsights]

Jeff, no we don't. Just because a person has a different point of view doesn't mean the rest of us deserve to loose. It just means those of us with the right point of view have to work a bit harder to make up for the others.

Joe

We could start by Nuking the Liberal Urban Rat Farms... (East, Left & Central...) that outnumber/outvote us 3-1...

[Griff]

absolutely none of them. they're a class of lazy, crooked, corrupt, blood-sucking parasites. I wouldn't trust 'em with a bag of garbage much less my guns..,

The above would be my "sugar-coated" version; 'cause somewhere in that list I'd have to add: "bottom-feeding pond scum"!

[tman]

it's one of the political footballs that have been kicking around for the last 30 years. neither side will let go. i think the majority of americans favor gun ownership, but the special interests on both sides won't let it be finalized. too many lobbists out of a job. sort of self-perpatulating. same with abortion, gay marriage, oil and environment concerns,60yrs. from now, these issues will move from the left to the right to the left again. drink the koolaid,baby.

[Old Ironsights]

it's one of the political footballs that have been kicking around for the last 30 years. neither side will let go. i think the majority of americans favor gun ownership, but the special interests on both sides won't let it be finalized. too many lobbists out of a job. sort of self-perpatulating. same with abortion, gay marriage, oil and environment concerns,60yrs. from now, these issues will move from the left to the right to the left again. drink the koolaid,baby.

What a sadly true comment.

Lobbiest's jobs have become more important than God Given Rights.

[66GTO]

The least harm/most good will come from electing a President who will nominate additional strict constructionists to the federal bench, including - most important of all - the SCOTUS. The next President will probably nominate at least 2 in their first term - and perhaps more, especially if they get a second term.

For as anti-gun as Guiliani is, if he kept his promise to nominate jurists like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito we'd be infinitely better than a "pro-gun" Richardson (which isn't going to happen anyway) foisting us with anit-gun SCOTUS nominees...

YK,

Well said and my thoughts exactly.

If you look at the eroding of our 2nd amendment rights over the years, they were either laws upheld by the courts or judicial activism by the courts. The President's impact on constitutional issues lies almost entirely in the justices he appoints to the Supreme Court, not his public pronouncements. His influence over the Dept. of Justice is less important than judicial nominees, but DOJ policy on 2nd Amendment issues is also important.

[El Mac]

The least harm/most good will come from electing a President who will nominate additional strict constructionists to the federal bench, including - most important of all - the SCOTUS. The next President will probably nominate at least 2 in their first term - and perhaps more, especially if they get a second term.

For as anti-gun as Guiliani is, if he kept his promise to nominate jurists like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito we'd be infinitely better than a "pro-gun" Richardson (which isn't going to happen anyway) foisting us with anit-gun SCOTUS nominees...

YK,

Well said and my thoughts exactly.

If you look at the eroding of our 2nd amendment rights over the years, they were either laws upheld by the courts or judicial activism by the courts. The President's impact on constitutional issues lies almost entirely in the justices he appoints to the Supreme Court, not his public pronouncements. His influence over the Dept. of Justice is less important than judicial nominees, but DOJ policy on 2nd Amendment issues is also important.

Amazing. You gents ignore the guys actions but you believe the hot wind coming out of his pie hole?

New American motto:
Words not deeds!

[model55]

short answer none

[Leverdude]

We could start by Nuking the Liberal Urban Rat Farms... (East, Left & Central...) that outnumber/outvote us 3-1...

Hell of a way to run a democratic republic, just bomb the majority if they disagree.
I think if you took the politics out of it most folks are for civilian gun ownership. If it wasn't used shamelessly as a political lever by both the Dems & Republicans it would be a nonissue. They use it & theatrical spurts of emotional drivel to garner sympathy for their socialist agenda & our guys do the same in the other direction. At least until theyre elected, then they dont do anything.
Sadly however, the Democrats do what they sat after getting elected.

[66GTO]

The least harm/most good will come from electing a President who will nominate additional strict constructionists to the federal bench, including - most important of all - the SCOTUS. The next President will probably nominate at least 2 in their first term - and perhaps more, especially if they get a second term.

For as anti-gun as Guiliani is, if he kept his promise to nominate jurists like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito we'd be infinitely better than a "pro-gun" Richardson (which isn't going to happen anyway) foisting us with anit-gun SCOTUS nominees...

YK,

Well said and my thoughts exactly.

If you look at the eroding of our 2nd amendment rights over the years, they were either laws upheld by the courts or judicial activism by the courts. The President's impact on constitutional issues lies almost entirely in the justices he appoints to the Supreme Court, not his public pronouncements. His influence over the Dept. of Justice is less important than judicial nominees, but DOJ policy on 2nd Amendment issues is also important.

Amazing. You gents ignore the guys actions but you believe the hot wind coming out of his pie hole?

New American motto:
Words not deeds!

Nope. YK used the qualifier "if" on Guilliani referring to Supreme Court nomiinations. I didn't say I believe Guilliani nor did I endorse him. I was merely stating the obvious. The Supreme Court has more impact on our 2nd amendment rights than the promises of any politician. Just follow the D.C. case during the coming months and you will see what I mean. Those nine justices will decide the future of the 2nd amendment and the only power the President has over that is to appoint right thinking justices. Bush at least did that much right (after being forced to withdraw Harriet Myers).

[El Mac]

You are right that judges do have great impact. That much is most obvious.

[Old Ironsights]

Hell of a way to run a democratic republic, just bomb the majority if they disagree.

Better than Mob Rule (true "democracy"...)

Frankly, the "majority" can go hang. My God-given-Rights aren't up for "Majority" debate.

[DDude]

I'm not an "issues" voter so I don't give a hill of beans about what the politicians promise they'll do which is nothing but a load of bull.

What I look at is simple: which candidate acknowledges the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and will defend it as the presidential oath calls for him/her doing?

So far only Ron Paul has shown an interest in doing so by his record and actions. The fact that he even acknowledges the 10th Amendment is a major plus for me. The poor 10th has been ignored too long and as a result the federal government is bigger and more intrusive on every issue that we as a nation face.

Two weeks ago I wasn't planning on voting at all. After taking a closer look at him (especially after people stated he was a nutcase) I found myself favoring his message.

If he doesn't get the nomination and then doesn't run as an independent I won't bother voting as it won't matter since all the other Repubs are nothing more than Dems in sheeple clothing. Failure to elect a POTUS that will follow the Constitution to the letter simply means that the same ol' BS will continue. Government will get bigger and more intrusive, my wallet will continue to get raped every Friday and the US will be hated more by other nations since we can't keep our noses out of their business.

[brucew44guns]

Why isn't there one politician running for president who simply stands up for guns, the 2nd ammendment, closing the border, deporting illegals, keeping bad assed criminals in jail, and reducing taxes? If he spoke for guys-----like many of us folks, he would most likely win. There's more good guys who love their country and freedom, than there are pinko liberal commies who are trying to destroy our country and freedom. No need to pander to the left and try to be everybodys buddy, just just go after the people who prefer to carry a big caliber and you would probably win. Nuts to the losers, no one cares about the loser team do they.?

[Leverdude]

Why isn't there one politician running for president who simply stands up for guns, the 2nd ammendment, closing the border, deporting illegals, keeping bad assed criminals in jail, and reducing taxes? If he spoke for guys-----like many of us folks, he would most likely win. There's more good guys who love their country and freedom, than there are pinko liberal commies who are trying to destroy our country and freedom. No need to pander to the left and try to be everybodys buddy, just just go after the people who prefer to carry a big caliber and you would probably win. Nuts to the losers, no one cares about the loser team do they.?

Sounds like your looking for Ron Paul.

[Old Ironsights]

Why isn't there one politician running for president who simply stands up for guns, the 2nd ammendment, closing the border, deporting illegals, keeping bad assed criminals in jail, and reducing taxes? If he spoke for guys-----like many of us folks, he would most likely win. There's more good guys who love their country and freedom, than there are pinko liberal commies who are trying to destroy our country and freedom. No need to pander to the left and try to be everybodys buddy, just just go after the people who prefer to carry a big caliber and you would probably win. Nuts to the losers, no one cares about the loser team do they.?

With the exception of mass deportations - (which would require a suspension of Posse Comitatus and huge increases in government spending/taxes) - and walling off the borders - (which would require huge increases in government spending/taxes) - Ron Paul stands for ALL of those things.

And if notice, the things he's against, he's against because the Constitution says nothing about them and they would BOTH tend ro make Government bigger, more expensive, and more violently active within our own borders.

None of which is a good thing.

[Leverdude]

Hell of a way to run a democratic republic, just bomb the majority if they disagree.

Better than Mob Rule (true "democracy"...)

Frankly, the "majority" can go hang. My God-given-Rights aren't up for "Majority" debate.

Oh I agree, but the answer I think lies in political accountability. Politicians who vote against the constitution should be charged with undermineing our country & serve time. Theyre traitors just as much as people selling Gov't secrets or aiding an enemy of our country.
Theres not alot of rules for them to follow & the ones there are are easy to understand.

Blowing up the east, west & middle of the country wont help none.

[Old Ironsights]

...Blowing up the east, west & middle of the country wont help none.

Just the Urban Areas... Please?

I promise, I'll keep it contained to Cook County IllAnnoy here in the Midwest, Hollyweird and specifically targeted Non-Levergunner areas on the Left Coast and only use Neutrons on the Eas Coast/DC (don't want to damage historic buildings/documents...)

[Mojo]

I'm with O.I. on this one. I believe that Ron Paul was making more of a statement by not responding than he would have if he did. I'm a bit perturbed at the NRA these days myself. I have been a fervent member for many years and two years ago joined the GOA as well. My father's obituary read that he was a life long member of the NRA and one day (not too soon I hope) mine will too but they have got to stop playing these political BS games. Somehow, I feel they are selling us gun owners down river. As my wife often tells me, don't pee on my head and then tell me that it's raining.

Ron Paul my not have a snowballs chance in Hades of getting elected but he certainly has quite a following here in my part of the country and he will have my vote on Super Tuesday. Hopefully, if he gets enough votes during the primaries the other crooks that are running might sit-up and take notice that the American people have sent them a strong message.

[Ysabel Kid]

El Mac -

As 66GTO pointed out, I didn't say I trust any of them - because I don't. I just pointed out that the largest impact the next President will have on our firearms rights will be in the judicial appointments they make. That being said, ANY of the Republicans running will be better than ANY of the Dem's running - including Bill Richardson. If it ends up being Guiliani or Romney or McCain versus Hillary, Barack or Edwards, I would pinch my nose and still vote for the GOP candidate. I don't want any of those - but again, WE WILL elect a President, and voting for a third-party or voting for the Dem to teach the GOP a lesson, or not voting out of protest will simply get us an ANTI-GUN activist in the White House.

That, my friends, is called cutting off one's nose to spite his face.

BTW, we are NOT a Democracy - thank G-D! We are a Constitutional Federal Republic. Supposedly, if we actually followed the rule of law, the rights of the individual would be protected regardless of what the majority thought or wanted. Of course, this is antithetical to the left, because it is diametrically opposed to socialism. So is individual firearms ownership, because it is the sign of a free CITIZEN not a indentured serf. I don't think anyone wants to blow up anyone in this country - but rather, wants to be left alone in freedom and we're sick of the leftist urban majorities trying to dictate how we live.

As bruce44guns noted, there are plenty of good folks in this country. The above is a moot point to a certain extent, because if the GOP is foolish enough to nominate a moderate or liberal Republican (again, Guiliani, Romney, McCain - of Huckabee {look at his record as Governor in Arkansas}), the Dem's are going to wipe the floor with us regardless of who they nominate. It will be a landslide. If the choice before Americans is either Dem or Dem-lite, they will vote for the real thing. The GOP's only hope for success in '08 is to run a true conservative.

The question becomes, is one running? I like Thompson and Paul, but I'm not sure either will make it past "Super Tuesday"...

[Grizz]

absolutely none of them. they're a class of lazy, crooked, corrupt, blood-sucking parasites. I wouldn't trust 'em with a bag of garbage much less my guns..,

The above would be my "sugar-coated" version; 'cause somewhere in that list I'd have to add: "bottom-feeding pond scum"!

I know, I know, I kinda pulled the punch. I guess I worry too much about offending an innocent bystander. The thought did cross my mind to just let it all out. I'll try to curb my anger management next time Griff..,

ROF, LOL

[El Mac]

YK,
I follow and agree with about 98% of what you say. However, the part I don't agree with is a Dem-lite installing a "strict constructionalist". They won't. They will install what they think they get past a socialist Senate. And that will just be another milque toast Souter/Kennedy type - at best.

If the Dem-lites run one of themselves, they darn well deserve to lose to the real thing. Unfortunately, that is the only thing the Dem-lites understand. Losing. It tends to galvanize the base.

Nor do I think Thompson comes anywhere close to being a true Republican/conservative. As a member of the Senate, he had to sell his soul to join that pathetic organization. His record does not indicate he is that much different than McCain, the Manchurian Candidate.

Paul... I'm not a huge fan of, but the more I hear from him, the more I think he isn't that far off of the mark. He isn't the freak of nature the media establishment would like for us to think. I may well vote for him. I'm darned tired of voting against someone.

[Old Ironsights]

... I'm darned tired of voting against someone.

+1

As long as there continues to be one, I'm supporting and voting FOR a Pro Constitution candidate - and toheck with the Identity Politics of the "front runners".

[Ysabel Kid]

I'm darned tired of voting against someone.

You and me both, brother. The last President I voted for was also the first one I voted for - Ronald Wilson Reagan. Ever since then it has been a vote against the other guy...

[CowboyTutt]

I can't believe that anyone would vote for Hillary and expect better protection of their gun rights rather than any of the GOP candidates?

I think it was well said, that even Guliani, who is a true "snake in the grass" will have pressure on him to tow the party line even if he doesn't like it. Meanwhile, Hillary will be ENCOURAGED to take away every last gun right she can by the Dems.

I'm starting to hope that maybe Obama has a chance, at least for the moment. Of the Dems, he is preferable.

I was really hoping for Thompson to make a stronger showing because I like what he has to say when he actually offers an opinion, but he has not played his hand at all well. It would have been fine to enter the race late, then come on like gangbusters, but he has been an "also ran" since he started. Either his strategy is completely unconventional (which it seems to be), or he is lazy like they say, or just inept.

I don't think I can vote for Huckabee, but I will have to wait and see what the options are.

While Ron Paul seems to favor the Constitution, his stance on the Iraq war confuses me. I don't think I trust him much either.

The primaries are going to be very important this election!

-Tutt

[Jeff Pitts]

Jeff, no we don't. Just because a person has a different point of view doesn't mean the rest of us deserve to loose. It just means those of us with the right point of view have to work a bit harder to make up for the others.

Joe, The day WE, the gun owners of America start voting for those like Hillary, those who would gut our rights, is the day we deserve to lose them. Its one thing to know your enemy, its another to arm them so they can gut us more easily.

You don't hand the keys of your house to a robber and expect to have everything left untouched. Voting for Hillary or any Dem with the exception of Bill Ritchardson ('supposedly' pro gun) would be exactly the same.

Jeff

[El Mac]

I can't believe that anyone would vote for Hillary and expect better protection of their gun rights rather than any of the GOP candidates?

Did someone here say that?

[Ysabel Kid]

I can't believe that anyone would vote for Hillary and expect better protection of their gun rights rather than any of the GOP candidates?

Did someone here say that?

Yep.

I will vote for Hillary before I vote for Romney.
bogie

Who say's were not a diverse crowd?

CowboyTutt hit the nail on the head - and it cuts both ways. Guiliani, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee would be pressured - heavily - to nominate strict constructionalists. For most grass-roots conservatives, this is their most critical issue, because everything else they care about (gun rights, pro-life, marriage, etc.) all revolve - like almost everything else - around the judicial system.

Cutting the other way, a Dem would be pressured by their grass-roots to nominate leftist judicial activists, who would help them impose the socialistic ideas they can't get through the legislative process. Even Richardson would be expected to toe this line. The others would do it gladly.

We have some fine folks here on this forum from the "other side" of the political isle compared to the vast majority here. I have respect for many of them - because of their love of freedom, this country, and firearms - and because of their willingness to stand up for their beliefs in a hostile crowd. That being said, the bottom line is the Democrat party - on a national basis - is anti-gun. It is part of their platform. Voting for them - at a national level - is going to simply result in our rights being stripped.
Voting for true "pro-gun" Democrats at a local and state level (though by the latter most are already eyeing national positions and toeing the party line), and letting them know why, is the only way to force change.

[DDude]

The only candidate I will vote for is the one who will abide by the oath they take to defend the Constitution.

The 10th Amendment, if adhered to all these years, would have prevented all the BS we currently endure from the monster central government.

If you vote for a candidate based on issues alone then the Constitution is the loser... and subsequently all of us as a whole. With the loss of the Constitution goes the loss of freedom and liberty.

[Old Ironsights]

...While Ron Paul seems to favor the Constitution, his stance on the Iraq war confuses me. I don't think I trust him much either. ...

Trust? Absolutely. Disagree with on that particular policy? Yep that too.

The thing about Paul is that he is and has been absolutely consistent. He doesn't play Identity Politics. Every position he has taken he sticks with, so yeah, I can trust him.

I'm not looking for a presidential candidate I can agree with on every single point of policy - especially foreign policy - I'm looking for one who I can TRUST will defend the Constitution. That's the President's main job.

It's Congress's job to declare Wars, not the President's. That's how the Constitution is written anyway...