POLITICS - Which Candidate Can You Trust with Your Guns?

Rafe Covington · Post by **Rafe Covington** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:21 pm

If you think the majority of Americans care about our 2nd. Amendment rights than you are sadly mistaken my friends. Most don't even have the ambition to even vote, too busy worrying about right now and not the future. This country was founded and defended by people who thought the country was more important than themselves, that feeling no longer exist with the vast majority of Americans. To put it bluntly they just don't care enough to do anything to straighten this country out.

The question about who I would support as to be President, of all the choices I have I guess I lean toward Fred Thompson. I don't trust anybody outside my immediate family, trust is something earned not given.

As far as my 2nd. Amendment rights, I will fight to the death to keep them. My family has fought wars for a very long time and I can do no less than they did. sorry for being long winded.

guido4198 · Post by **guido4198** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:50 pm

My "litmus test" issue is a candidate's support for the Second Amendment. I realize the majority of my fellowAmericans might not feel as strongly about this issue as I do, but it's my "main issue" in every election anyhow. That said...I spent a lot of years in Tennessee. I was able to shoot Trap with Fred Thompson once, and find him to be a straight talking individual who says a lot of the things I like to hear. He gets my vote in the primary,no hesitation,no question.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:29 pm

Since Fred Thompson looks like he may quit the race, I think I might vote for Mike Huckabee.

As a Christian and a gun owner I can't vote for a democrat, & I won't waste my vote on a 3rd party canidate.

Kansas Ed · Post by **Kansas Ed** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:45 pm

It occurred to me on the drive home from work today that there is sure a lot of candidates out there who are "neck and neck" in the race. All of them are contenders...Romni, Thompson, Guliani, Huckabee... and then on the other side, Edwards, Clinton, Obama...I'm thinking " wow I've never seen anything like this before" and that's when it hit me.... Is this race fabricated to be close in order to garner more campaign funds and everyone involved get richer at the expense of country?

Ed

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:48 pm

Kansas Ed wrote:It occurred to me on the drive home from work today that there is sure a lot of candidates out there who are "neck and neck" in the race. All of them are contenders...Romni, Thompson, Guliani, Huckabee... and then on the other side, Edwards, Clinton, Obama...I'm thinking " wow I've never seen anything like this before" and that's when it hit me.... Is this race fabricated to be close in order to garner more campaign funds and everyone involved get richer at the expense of country?

Ed

Sshhhhh! Shaddup or you'll get an unplesant knock at the door at 2am...

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:55 pm

I will not vote for a Democrat.

Nor will I vote for a faux Republican disguised as a conservative.

Kansas Ed · Post by **Kansas Ed** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:57 pm

Old Ironsights wrote:
Kansas Ed wrote:It occurred to me on the drive home from work today that there is sure a lot of candidates out there who are "neck and neck" in the race. All of them are contenders...Romni, Thompson, Guliani, Huckabee... and then on the other side, Edwards, Clinton, Obama...I'm thinking " wow I've never seen anything like this before" and that's when it hit me.... Is this race fabricated to be close in order to garner more campaign funds and everyone involved get richer at the expense of country?

Ed
Sshhhhh! Shaddup or you'll get an unplesant knock at the door at 2am...

You mean they've now started knocking first??

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:00 pm

Kansas Ed wrote:
Old Ironsights wrote:
Kansas Ed wrote:It occurred to me on the drive home from work today that there is sure a lot of candidates out there who are "neck and neck" in the race. All of them are contenders...Romni, Thompson, Guliani, Huckabee... and then on the other side, Edwards, Clinton, Obama...I'm thinking " wow I've never seen anything like this before" and that's when it hit me.... Is this race fabricated to be close in order to garner more campaign funds and everyone involved get richer at the expense of country?

Ed
Sshhhhh! Shaddup or you'll get an unplesant knock at the door at 2am...
You mean they've now started knocking first??

Always have... about 2 seconds before hitting it with the ram...

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:34 pm

Swampman wrote:I will vote for whichever Republican is left standing at the end. As a Christian and a gun owner I can't vote for a democrat. I won't waste my vote on a 3rd party canidate.

Its only thrown away because theres so many unable to think for themselves.
We ought to do away with parties & just vote for people anyway.
If Bush wasn't Republican nobody would ever think of him as conservative.
Cuz, he's not. Unless you count conserving his & his friends buisness interests
Personally, I wont waste my vote on another liar that happens to be a Republican.
At least Hillery & her crew are honest in their socialist tendencies.

Just think, if everyone who cared about the constitution jumped on the Ron Paul bandwagon he would win, A politician that just dont care about PC & publicly supports most things we say we want.

By casting your lot with who evers still around after the GOP nominations the best you can hope for is more of the same old smoke & mirrors.
8 years the GOP has been running the show, alot of it with Congress solidly in Republican control. Are we any better off?
I dont want to hear how much worse it woulda been if the Democrats were in control. I want to know what the Republicans, many who ran on a pro gun ticket, have done to secure the second ammendment.
Mr Paul introduced many Pro gun pieces of legislation that went nowhere, but our Rep President, who I voted for twice, is on record saying he would sign the assault weapons bill if it hit his desk. Bullsnot!

The only guy in the running thats even fit for the office is Paul. The rest just want their time in the spotlight or to push an agenda.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:59 pm

I don't think I'd ever vote for Ron Paul unless it comes down to him or Hillary. There's something about him I don't like. I think it's the people that support him. I haven't met one yet that seemed normal.

DDude · Post by **DDude** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:37 pm

Swampman wrote:I don't think I'd ever vote for Ron Paul unless it comes down to him or Hillary. There's something about him I don't like. I think it's the people that support him. I haven't met one yet that seemed normal.

I know for a fact that I'm not normal. I think for myself unlike the multitude of sheeple that populate the country.

Anyways, if Mr. Paul fails to win the Repub nomination and decides not to run as an independent then I won't even bother to vote as all the other current Repub candidates are nothing more than Dems in elephant clothing. Different POTUS, same ol' sh*t.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:08 pm

The Bush administration has recenlty begun to facilitate a program to indoctrinate school children by distributing comic books wiith popular super-heros promoting and endorsing the UN's one-world agenda.

It appears to me that the single working goal of the U.S. government for the last 6 years has been the elimination of freedom and personal liberty for all Americans and all free men everywhere in the world.

I find the huge slate of Democrats, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee to be wholly unappealing. Richardson I'd think about.

I cannot vote for a Democrat, as I have no belief in common with their platform, and I don't want another Neo-con slithering into the Whte house pretending to be a Republican.

Of the Republicans, Thompson, Paul, and Hunter, Thompson is an empty suit, and Hunter is a one issue candidate. Paul is the only true conservative in the race.

reo · Post by **reo** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:56 pm

jbm1968 · Post by **jbm1968** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:08 am

Fred Thompson and only Fred Thompson.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:59 am

I served 10 years with the 1st SOW. That doesn't make you normal, or a hero. It makes you a man that did what he was paid to do.

I still won't vote for Ron Paul.

bunklocoempire · Post by **bunklocoempire** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:16 am

Ron Paul. Who has voted consistently with our Constitution? Ron Paul. Who has said airlines packing heat on 9-11 would've been a good idea? Ron Paul. Who champions our Constitution and won't mess with the lobbyists because the lobbyists shouldn't even exist? Ron Paul. Who says the unborn have rights under our Constitution? Ron Paul. Who can point to our Constitution and win any argument with the "left"or "Dem lite right"? Ron Paul and me and you, and anyone who believes our Constitution has any value. Again, if you're not convinced Pauls the 2nd Ammendments best friend (or our Constititution in general) you don't know enough about him. I'm voting for our Constitution and I aint scared of the responsibility that comes with living by our Constitution. Ron Paul or Bust! Now who has said Paul can't win? George Stephanapolis former Clinton groupie, go ahead, agree with George or grow a pair and do something about it!

Happy New Year All! Bunkloco

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:43 am

The only thing Ron Paul (as a 3rd party canidate, which he will be)can do is give the election to a canidate that the people don't want. That's how Abe Lincoln and Bill Clinton became president. More people voted against them than for them.

bunklocoempire · Post by **bunklocoempire** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:08 am

Swampman Wrote:[quote]The only thing Ron Paul (as a 3rd party canidate, which he will be)can do is give the election to a canidate that the people don't want. That's how Abe Lincoln and Bill Clinton became president. More people voted against them than for them.[quote]

I'm not able to predict the future with the 3rd party thing and I look at it as more of the same if Paul doesn't win the presidency. I've had enough of voteing and hoping the "winner" will do right by our Constitution which they all swear to uphold and defend against enemies foreign and domestic. If I'm lost I don't drive on forever, I change directions and get unlost.

Swampman, you had mentioned earlier in a post about not meeting a normal Ron Paul supporter, this is my short bio and voting record:

I'm a Christian first, American second. Married to a great gal and have two step-sons.
I vote Republican in my state, and the differences where I live, between Repubs and Dems, is more and more blurred, I really can't tell the difference anymore.
I voted Reagan.
I voted Bush I
I voted Bush II
Again voted Bush II second time around.
I was initially for the Iraq operation, more out of apathy knowing oil is power and an army and economy don't run on good vibes. After seeing how Iraq was/is being handled by our "leaders" and our society in general, my support of the war, NOT OUR TROOPS, has ended. I know this is a knee jerk for most people but I have plenty good reasons. Ask me and I'll tell ya. I am not a "conspiracy nut" like some of the Paul supporters have been labled, but truthfully, I would rather stand with a questioning nut than a non-questioning person. As a Christian, I believe I am responsible for spreading Gods Word,moral behavior (by word and example). As an American I believe our Constitution, Bill of Rights and the advice of our founding fathers, is as close to ideal government as sinful man can get. Also as an American I have come to realize that ignoring any parts of our Constitution and advice from our founding fathers is trouble. Straying from our Constitution is kinda like pullin' out one or two spark plugs from an engine and expecting good results.

Gotta get some sleep, I'll check back for any questions/comments.

Bunkloco

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:18 am

BlaineG wrote:
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....

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

DDude wrote:
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.

Ysabel wrote:
...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.

Tutt wrote:

BECAUSE I don't want to lose gun rights, I'd vote for Hillary before Guliani.
Hillary would have a lot of Republicans who would oppose her anti-gun proposals.

Guliani would have the majority of Republicans 'going along to get along'. Guliani may claim to be a 'Republican' but that DOESN'T mean he's not fully as ANTI-GUN as Hillary.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:45 pm

"a "conspiracy nut" like some of the Paul supporters have been labled"

I think you nailed it. That's the term I was trying to find.

At any rate RP will be gone after New Hampshire unless he plans to be a spoiler like the first RP (Ross Perot)

That's what I'm thinking will happen.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:04 pm

Again, he's only a spoiler because some folks cant do the right thing if their party says something else. Then they talk about sheeple.

If the pro gun community wont even support the ONLY real pro gun prospect then they really have no complaint when they lose more of their rights. Seems like many Republicans who call themselves conservatives only care that their guy wins. Even if their guy doesn't represent them.

There really is only one pro gun choice. Normal in America these days seems to be pro nanny state socialism. I'm glad I'm dont fall in that catagory. All I need from my Gov't is to be left alone.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:53 pm

When you help elect Hillary, do you think she'll leave you alone?

Great Generals use tactics to win battles. Frontal suicide charges look manly, but they don't win wars.

A vote for RP is a wasted vote. I won't waste mine.

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:31 pm

Important topic that needs carefull scrutiny. Saying they are all stuff and it's a waste to vote is wrong. Non are perfect-but a couple are more desirable than an a;ternative-prticularly a Democrat.
I have read and listened to as much about the candidates that I can find. Try to see if people are answering the questions or giving devious dialoge about beliefs new or old that is not a direct answer. Caught R Paul at that-not the only one. You can believe strictly in the constitution, but still have to make a decision that makes sense.
The way the criteria are put forth here Ronald Reagen would never have gotten elected and given a chance to show his color, and most can agree that he was a great president.
complaining is human nature but making decisions that will affect your future is a responsability of a free people.
Up to now this is my view-but I'm still listening

Ruddy-Saw too much anti gun activity from him to think he wouldn't pass anti gun legislation. Judges, not shure. His persnal life and past performance don't let me trust him.
Romney-Don't know as much about him as most has been since the campaigning but don;t feel secure so far. Seems to have changed position as the wind blows-kind of like the position of a snowflake in the wind. O ya "we didn't raise taxes that much-just user fees"
Huckabe- Think he is allright-has answered a lot of the attacks to my satisfaction. My take on how religon relates to government for him is much the same as some of the founding fathers. From what I can learn, his tax increases started from very low rates not adequte to fund mandates in education and infrastructure-still leaving his state comparably low on income tax and peoperty tax rates. I would not be any more upset about voting for him if he were the nomine, than Ragen the first time around.
John M-Like him the least of the republicans from his past performance

-Would still vote for him before a Dem-Maybe like the difference between geting pushed off a cliff or jumping on your own.
Respect his service and what he sufferd. Agree with his view of defense and the war. He just sways too far left some times and may not read the constitution enough. Think he is a nice sincere man but not a good pres.

Paul-----A lot to like but some how not in context of operational tact-Not to show at the NRA thing without rxplination? He not gonna deal with them if he was pres? Not a start to a working relationship. Go back to reagan again-the communicater

-not the impression I get of Paul. Can't feel comfortable with an isolationist in the pressent world.
Fred--Not perfect, but a long way from an empty suite. You don't have to have your mouth open constantly, just clearly say what you mean. Going over what I can find he doesn't have any views that I can find that conflict with the constition. ( probably hear some now

). Find myself liking him-just wish he got more exposur. It seems the meadea avoids talking about him. For example how much attention did the media pay to third place dem Hillary compared to Fred-really-I mean he was a candadate that did better than expected for the money and effort spent. Thats all exposur and name recognition. When reporting caucus results they only reported the top two republicans until John pulled into third momentarilly, then there were three positions to report, then Fred pulled back and was barely mentioned other than neck and neck with McCain.
Like I said before-The views of Ron R and the personality of Harry T.
He needs to crank up his campaine with thing comparison and study the communication style of RR. He's not that far away with facial expresion and body language???

Just want to mention Oboma this morning on the campain news picture with wife and kids reminded me of the old days of John F ,Jackie and kids. This guy has a lot going for him weather the Dem leadership and the Clinton machine like it or not. Maybe getting the cart in front of the horse, but who would be a good running mate?

Amazing times.
For shure, even without victory, the true conservative attitude is gaining ground and more people are becoming involved. Paul going to a third party candidate nomination would not add to his credability though.
Dave

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:12 pm

"Oboma this morning on the campain news picture with wife and kids reminded me of the old days of John F ,Jackie and kids."

A very good reason not to vote for him.

Grizz · Post by **Grizz** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:03 pm

Swampman wrote:"Oboma this morning on the campain news picture with wife and kids reminded me of the old days of John F ,Jackie and kids."

A very good reason not to vote for him.

I will never NEVER vote for someone named Hussein.

I will never EVER vote with someone whose parent is a foreigner.

I will never EVER vote for anyone as stupid as Hussein.

That kid is not only just barely an American, he is still wet behind the ears.

I hope, I fervently hope the dhimmocrats nominate him.

Grizz

Two401Pm · Post by **Two401Pm** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:26 pm

Has anyone researched Alan Keyes? I would like to here some others thoughts on this man.

bunklocoempire · Post by **bunklocoempire** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:02 am

Caco, can ya fill me in on this one? What your refering to regarding Paul, thanks.
Caco wrote:
[/quote]

I have read and listened to as much about the candidates that I can find. Try to see if people are answering the questions or giving devious dialoge about beliefs new or old that is not a direct answer. Caught R Paul at that-not the only one.

[/quote]

Isolationist vs. non-interventionalist
Caco wrote:

Can't feel comfortable with an isolationist in the pressent world.

Just to clear some things up, Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he is a non-interventionalist, as am I, and most of us if you think about it. I have problems with one of my neighbors but for my part I still try to be a good neighbor, don't get me wrong, if it comes down to protecting my family and property the one neighbor will encounter major grief. I will not however, go out of my way to cause problems for my neighbor, his property or family. And again, if my neighbor wants to talk, needs a little help, I'll do what I can to help build a better relationship.

An isolationist would not have any dealings with his neighbor.

Now don't feel too bad, almost every main stream media interviewer has gotten this wrong and had to be corrected by Paul. A very common occurance. Ahh the magic of you-tube!

Some people here and across our Nation feel voting for Ron Paul is a "wasted" vote, and then compare him with Ross Perot or Forbes. Ross Perot and Steve Forbes never championed true Liberty, and when "Liberty fever" is caught there is no cure, it's symptoms may fade with time but initially it grows, as Pauls supporters have. No worries, people might not get it this time around (took me a while, I was preoccupied with the democrats!), but we'll keep a light on for ya!

Bunkloco

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:41 am

Swampman wrote:When you help elect Hillary, do you think she'll leave you alone?

Great Generals use tactics to win battles. Frontal suicide charges look manly, but they don't win wars.

A vote for RP is a wasted vote. I won't waste mine.

Not sure I understand your analagy.

Great Generals use tactics to win battles. Frontal suicide charges look manly, but they don't win wars.

This isn't the last minute, theres time to change minds or open eyes, or you can just ride the wave as usual & we might get another Republican who says nice things but does what he wants.

Is another liberal Republican president going to leave me alone or do away with the damage Mr Bush did? I dont want Hillary in there, I want a guy who wants to fix the things I think are wrong.

Seems, in hindsight my vote for Bush was wasted, although its satisfying to know there was no satisfactory alternative.

Nah, the way I see it a vote for the GOP sans RP is a wasted vote. Those votes could be supporting a guy who believes in the Constitution. Its one thing to talk about all thats wrong with the country. Quite another to actually go & do something about it. We have that opportunity now.
I'm not going to ignore it just because its not popular.

ohwin94_61 · Post by **ohwin94_61** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:05 am

I wonder some times why the NRA is located so close to Washington

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:37 am

Ah, the old "wasted vote"...

So where is the wasted vote? In supporting the first-tier media darlings who promise to throw more entitlement candy, or in supporting candidates who campaign based on what our founding documents actually say?

If you want to support our nation as a nation, and not prolong the careers and life-styles of golden-parachute politicians and greedy government money blood-suckers, you need to take power way from them, not re-elect their candidates.

The Neo-con Republicans and Democrats are leading us to destruction.

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:10 pm

Bunklocoempire;
Need to shorten that to BLE

Well your quuestion got me searching reading and thinking again-so actually thanks

Through the process came up with some pole results on NH and the candidates. According to those Paul was way ahead in the republican group and would be voted for by a big majority.
Also was not aware of the high percentage of independent voters there. Of course not all independents go right wing.
In searching for the ocasion on Paul I had in mind, I came accross enough new stuff to keep a person keep on going to links till November. Did find the interview held on the 3rd on who radio DesMoines Ia and after re listening have to admit he did give an answere after a discorse on his forigen policy. At the time that policy thing sounded like a dance around the question-He did answere the question though and that answere falls in line with the problem a lot of serious people have about Paul.
As this is a audio bipod recording on line, I can't quote it here but from memory it goes some thing like--Caller asking Paul "If you knew a certain N Korean ship had neuclear chip weaponry on board headed for Iran, what would you do"? Thats when Paul went into explaining his foriegn policy discripton-finally ending in "nothing"!!!! First of all don't know if the term was neuclear chip for shure but it was neuclear weaponery, But the substance of the answere is he would do nothing. That is a little past non intervention-I know there are some here like Paul that think they would not dare use them because of retaliation, But does anyone think they would not dispense these to terrorist orgininizations just like the tons of explosives and conventional weaponrs they have given? Have I just been indoctranated or would Islamo Faciast terror organizations use neuclear wepons if they had them?? Would Pauls answere be the same as if he lived in Isreal?? How about you? If you lived anywhere in the vacinity would you allow the potential for annihilation to be delivered??
Mickelson invited every candidate or there representative to come on his show that day and present their positions.
This can be found at-"news radio 1040 WHO" then at the top listing "shows" a small menue pops up and click on "Jan mickelson". You should then be at a page where you can scroll to bipod recordings of his shows with a discription of the guests and subject mater. He is a political junky talk show host and because of the caucus gave any candidates who wanted to have air time. Its over an hour long but If your like me worth it

The long here is the impression in my memory was not totally accurate but my concerns about Paul were included in his answere.
Maybe if you could go far enough back with hind sight as a guide you could stear through this non intervention forighn policy and survive-Not smart enough to say. But given the relationship with Isreal over the years and the different scenarios that would have occurred with different actions I don't think anyone could say what the world would be like if some one with Pauls mind set was in the whitehouse 40 years ago without the benifit of seeing into the future.
In reality the Islomo terrorists want every body else gone and don't have any rules and are not concerned about the price they pay or how long it takes and as I understand it do mean every one else which does not indicate a border. Do you think our policy was the motivation to word the koran? Maybe it was the Israilies-maybe other religous sects?
We are were we are at today- mistakes for shure, but it is a mine field and I don't think you can just run away without the possability of stepping on one.
Dave

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:38 pm

Dave, here is an analogy for you:

You "know for certain" that neighbor A is selling his Glock collection to neighbor B - even though neighbor B's kids are known gangbangers and neighbor B is blowhard braggart who beats his wife - but has otherwise not been prohibited by law from buying those Glocks.

What would you do? What can you do?

I can't shoot someone just because they are a blowhard who I THINK might hurt me at a later date - even if they have said flat out that they plan to. All I can Ethically, Morally and Legally do is keep aclose eye on him so as soon as he starts to draw I'm ready and quicker.

That is the essence of both personal Self Defense and Non Interventionism.

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:59 pm

OI-
I understand, but same scnerio only hand grenades or rocket propeled gernades instead of the glocks-ie far greater potential. Iran is already supplieng conventional weapons and explosives which are being used without hesitation. Vaporized cities and larg radioactive clouds might cause you concern if were Israile-Even if you don't live there do you stand by and watch? We are the super power and with England France and Canada when they have the balls now are resposible for a balance of powers to keep a perception of peace and balance right or wrong. Granted we give preferance to oil for our own welbeing, but thats just reality. What do you do about africa-what can you do? Maybe because the problem stays within their borders it is viewed as to sticky

Anyway anyone should be concerend about nulear weapons getting to cazies
Dave

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:05 pm

O yea OI- I'd pass a good national data base law so anyone knew they should't have guns

Dave

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:32 pm

Why didn't we start a shooting war when Moscow sent Nukes to Cuba?

Same scenerio. Sure, we threatened, but by in large we in fact "did nothing".

Nukes are no different to a Nation than handguns are to individuals.

As soon as the transfer itself is, in fact, prohibited then we would be authorized to do somthing about it.

If it was not, then at best it would be piracy and likely an act of agressive warfare.

But not even NPTs have the force of law, and nations can engage in trade at will.

Again, I cannot attack you simply because you threaten me - especially when the threat is barely credible. (If these guys were able to do anything but blow smoke, they wouldn't have needed airliners...)

The first and most important thing we should be focusing on is stopping the overarching maw of Government from continuing to eat away at the Constitution and our God Given Rights. If we don't do that, we won't have anything to protect - or at least worth protecting - FROM the Islamofacists.

The "business as usual despite our claims" Politicians in the forefront of the presidential race are part of the problem. THere is only one candidate addressing the solution.

Am I 100% in his camp on foreign policy? No. But I want to have a country to protect more than I want to protect the people in power.

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:55 pm

The ship with the nucs turned around before cuba. Was John bluffing?????????? Evedently the russians didn't think so.
He diden't advertise being non confrontational so a big stick IN THE READY looked sincere. If he would have campained as a no war president, would it have worked?? What then?? They gotta know you don't fold and run

Was that a democrate that said some thing like "speak softly, but carry a big stick"? And of corse the insinuation was that the stick would be used if necessary!!
Anuke would have probably ben on board if they had one-Again read their rule book.
Dave

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:04 pm

Obviously you have not looked ar Mr. Paul's position.

He is for a strong - very strong - DEFENSE.

But DEFENSE does not mean intervention. DEFENSE means waiting until the other guy is committed to the draw.

Kennedy (and Regan) made the Russians back down by staring them in the face and being willing and able to draw faster - not by shooting them from the barroom door the moment they walked out into the street to call us out.

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:10 pm

AI
Got me fired up before I finished your whole post-sooo

Guess we'd both agree the fed gvt first and most important responsability is defence. Agreed a lot of the rest is an overstepping of the fed bounds, and Paul is not the only one saying that ie Fred and Mike state that plainly. They like myself though don't think the direction of the war on terror is a hands off deal, hence be able to do your job of defense.
Dave

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:19 pm

Can't keep up here

Ben reading a lot about Paul and using the term defense without giving your definition is kind of like some of Obamas pie in the sky for free promises.
The fact is his answere to the caller on the Mickelsen show- showed what he was willing to do in a defensive cituation and sooner or latter enimies will know his limits.
Don't know if ya can play poker if your hand shows on your face.
Dave

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:34 pm

"But DEFENSE does not mean intervention. DEFENSE means waiting until the other guy is committed to the draw."
For my part self defense would entail some defensife stratigy if I thought he might go for his gun.

Whats to know about terrorist commitment?

Kennedy (and Regan) made the Russians back down by staring them in the face and being willing and able to draw faster - not by shooting them from the barroom door the moment they walked out into the street to call us out.[/quote]

The key wording is willing and them understanding that. Other wise they might call the bluff and you are screwed. Paul wais saying you can do that cause you don't dare use em. What do you do at THAT point if you look weak and they call your bluff?
Do what Kennedy DID

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:41 pm

Ethical Defense (self or national) is derived from a moral imperative:

"No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation."

Sometimes a Man (or Country) has to be willing to suck up the first punch to maintain the High Ground.

As an old Quaker was said to have told the town ruffian who struck him twice and asked him what he was going to do about it:

"Now that I have turned mine other cheek, I shall proceed to beat the tar out of thee..."

Once force has been initiated, all bets are off. That's why I carry a gun.

Here is another analogy for the Middle East situation, one that adequately demonstrates where my difference of opinion with Mr. Paul's on the ME lies:

The Police cannot (legally/morally/ethically) go about arbitrairly kicking in doors on a hunch. They must have Probable Cause and a Warrant... unless they are under immediate attack.

The US had both "probable cause" and the "warrant" to enter Iraq after Saddam defied the UN security council.

While warrants are sometimes issued in error (though in this case I think not) it was, in fact a legitimate one that we legitimately prosecuted. That is where he & I disagree.

And the reason I support him, though we disagree on this point, is because we agree on all the others - and that can be summed up in a quote attributed to Ben Franklin:

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

EVERY other candidate out there wants me to sacrifice essential Liberties - even Thompson (who is a signatory on the McCain Feingold anti 1st Amendment Act).

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:56 pm

I like President Bush, and I'd vote for him again.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:57 pm

The Police cannot (legally/morally/ethically) go about arbitrairly kicking in doors on a hunch. They must have Probable Cause and a Warrant... unless they are under immediate attack.

The US had both "probable cause" and the "warrant" to enter Iraq after Saddam defied the UN security council.

While warrants are sometimes issued in error (though in this case I think not) it was, in fact a legitimate one that we legitimately prosecuted. That is where he & I disagree.

The U.S. had neither, and in fact defied international law and the U.N. Security Council by pursuing a unilateral plan of action.

The U.S. military should not be the police force for the world, nor should it be the mercenary thug enforcement branch of U.N. dictate.

Bush should be in a prison for the criminally insane.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:01 pm

FWiedner wrote:The U.S. military should not be the police force for the world, nor should it be the mercenary thug enforcement branch of U.N. dictate.

I don't disagree. But until we get a Constitutionalist in office that is the reality.

Bush should be in a prison for the criminally insane.

Couldn't have done anything if Congress hadn't signed off...

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:31 pm

All an all got me to do some more thinking

Still worry about foriegn policy as technology in comunications, transportation and trade dependency make this a smaller world than it used to be. Can't change one thing without effecting another.
Don't think in the neuclear weapon area anyone wants to take a punch before they react
It don't matter if your carrying or not, or what your carrying if you let em get the drop on ya .
By the way Mickelsen on WHO carries

It's worth a trip over there.

Keep thinking
Dave

Grizz · Post by **Grizz** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:32 pm

Sometimes a Man (or Country) has to be willing to suck up the first punch to maintain the High Ground.

Bush should be in a prison for the criminally insane.

September 11 ring a bell? Hello?

The only successful way to respond to an act of war is with MASSIVE FORCE applied until the threat ceases to exist.

Al Qaida ring a bell? Hello?

The only successful way to respond to their threat is with MASSIVE FORCE applied until the threat ceases to exist.

Think the threat is over? Hello?

http://www.greatamericanjournal.com/Techniguy/Nukes/

This is not a conspiracy theory. It's the stated goal of al qaida, and it's considered real by the US government.

That means, among other things, that everyone who wants to bring our troops home from the mideast is unwittingly accelerating the day when they might succeed. Notice I said unwittingly.

Everyone running for president who claims to be about bringing our troops home lacks the wits to be commander in chief.

For anyone who doesn't understand this, it means that they are too stupid to be president.

PS: it's here, it's now:

http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellan ... an1007.pdf
Grizz

Crazy Horse · Post by **Crazy Horse** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:42 pm

Huckabee..... Ain't real crazy about him but I like him better than the others. I am from Arkansas.. He was a pretty good when he was here....I would cut my throat before I voted for Osama or Billary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PPpastordon · Post by **PPpastordon** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:49 pm

As for your opening question; " POLITICS - Which Candidate Can You Trust with Your Guns?" the answer is simple.

NONE!

Grace and Peace,

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:00 pm

Old Ironsights wrote:Ethical Defense (self or national) is derived from a moral imperative:

"No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation."

I agree. People made fun of Reagan's "star wars" defense concepts, but they were really in line with what is morally and practically right; defending the nation from ACTUAL threats, instead of going after whatever the biggest threat of the week is (as determined by lobbyists and the news media, usually). Along with strict border control, such strong-defense-without-offense would solve the 1% of the problem which would remain if we kept ourselves out of other people's business.

The threat/promise of retaliation can be potent, even if you aren't an interventionist. Look at China - nobody even hijacks THEIR jets - they know that to do so would mean that in about 3 minutes from the phone call, the entire area code from which the call originated would be vaporized.

Bogie35 · Post by **Bogie35** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:28 pm

Jeff Pitts wrote:
Bogie35 wrote: 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

Certainly you know I was being facetious! Don't take my posts out of context just to make me look stupid.

Sincerely,
bogie

POLITICS - Which Candidate Can You Trust with Your Guns?

who do trust