2008 Presidential candidates position on gun rights

T

TheOtherOne

Inactive
Joe Biden anti-gun (F)
Hillary Clinton anti-gun (F)
Christopher Dodd anti-gun (F)
John Edwards anti-gun (F)
Mike Gravel anti-gun (F)
Dennis Kucinich anti-gun (F)
Barack Obama anti-gun (F)
Bill Richardson anti-gun (C-)

Sam Brownback pro-gun (A-)
Rudy Giuliani anti-gun (F)
Mike Huckabee pro-gun (A)
Duncan Hunter pro-gun (A)
Alan Keyes pro-gun (A)
John McCain anti-gun (F)
Ron Paul pro-gun (A)
Mitt Romney anti-gun (D-)
Tom Tancredo pro-gun (A-)
Fred Thompson pro-gun (B-)

This was mostly determined from information on the candidates individual wikipedia page, ontheissues.org, and gunowners.org.
 
Who cares...

it's politics...all will give what the people want to hear....my only concern are the bigots/racist/ethno-centric fools who post on these forums who will only give life to more anti-2A rhetoric...you know who you are...you are more dangerous to my RTBA then the entire Democratic party combined:rolleyes:
 
Go Rudy go. Time to face your past and suck it up dude. Face the issue and tell the boys, OK

WildbutnotreadytocommityetAlaska TM
 
Who cares...
Click to expand...

You obviously care enough to give a purely emotional response that other people are more dangerous than whichever "F" on the list you plan to vote for. I respect your choice, but you are wrong. It does matter.
 
The Bill of Rights consists of 10 amendments and I consider them all to be equal. I know that is not popular around here but no one right can stand on it's own. The other 17 amendments are a separate issue that some I agree with and some I don't. However I cannot support any cantidate that does not support all 10 of the Bill of Rights. How much they support each one determines which I choose to support and vote for. The second amendment will do no good without the fourth, fifth and sixth. Politics and a democary by their nature are a compromise. If you choose to only support 2A what is going to happen when they come an take your gun away without 4A to protect you?

With all that said right now I support Fred Thompson, he isn't perfect but he meets more of my desires than any of the others but I reserve the right to change my mind before election day.
 
I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I'm thinking with all the things the next president will have on his/her plate during the next administration, it seems gun control will be one of the last things on the list. Any gun control legislation will surely be challenged all the way to the supreme court, so they will have more say as to how it all goes down. Not that we shouldn't stay on top of things, but I think gun rights advocates and the current pro-gun climate in public opinion (ccw in 43 states IIRC and growing) will be a formidable block to anyone who takes them on. It won't be a fight any of them will relish. We need to be vigilant. We need to stand up to the "gun ban nuts" out there!
 
However I cannot support any cantidate that does not support all 10 of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And any candidate who doesn't support the Second Amendment does not support all 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
 
This was mostly determined from information on the candidates individual wikipedia page, ontheissues.org, and gunowners.org.
Click to expand...

So did the gunowners.org issue the grades, or did the OP issue them after considering all three sources? :confused:
 
Fremmer said:
So did the gunowners.org issue the grades, or did the OP issue them after considering all three sources?
Click to expand...
I went with all three sources. I'm sure the grades aren't perfect, but I tried. :o

Bill Richardson, for example, might not deserve a C- if you truly believe he is repentant of his vote on the semi-automatic rifle ban. I can't get over that though... plus he voted for the recent post-virginia tech bill that expands the power of the brady background check.
 
The Bill of Rights consists of 10 amendments and I consider them all to be equal. I know that is not popular around here but no one right can stand on it's own. The other 17 amendments are a separate issue that some I agree with and some I don't. However I cannot support any cantidate that does not support all 10 of the Bill of Rights. How much they support each one determines which I choose to support and vote for. The second amendment will do no good without the fourth, fifth and sixth. Politics and a democary by their nature are a compromise. If you choose to only support 2A what is going to happen when they come an take your gun away without 4A to protect you?
Click to expand...


Seems to me that with out the 2nd Amendment there really is nothing to assure the other 9.

In the end it’s a lot like Iraq. You can issue resolutions till Hades freezes over but in the end it’s the tanks and the planes and the bullets that make them work.
 
Seems to me that with out the 2nd Amendment there really is nothing to assure the other 9.
Click to expand...
However without the other ones your gun is only good for taking out a couple federal agents before they turn you into swiss cheese. Without the 1st you can't communicate with anyone to organize a resistance. Without the 4th you can't fight an illegal search and seizure and without the 5th you're just going to disappear into the night.

By themselves guns are useless in fighting tyranny. They have to be supported by a number of other rights to actually be useful. Otherwise you're just making a lot of noise and wounding a few government agents before you die.
 
Of course you can still communicate with people without the 1st Amendment. There are a guzillion ways IMHO.

The founding fathers found a way to fight tyranny without all those rights.;)
 
Against a much smaller force with far less technology at their disposal. The point is that in those days the technology was equal. If the government controls the media and all forms of communication then no, you can't communicate with people as well as they can. You can organize a menial insurgency in your town and maybe annoy a colonel or two but you will not be organizing a state-wide resistance movement or any type of movement that has any hope of success if the government has taken control of all communication technology by rescinding the 1st amendment.
 
Without the 1st you can't communicate with anyone to organize a resistance.
Click to expand...

You can't organize a resistance even with the First Amendment. It would be treason to do so. You are going to have a real hard time explaining how organizing a plan to overthrow the govt would be covered by the 1st Amendment.

And if ever comes down to violent revolution, you won't need guns anyway. Look at how insurgents are fighting US soldiers in Iraq. That's how the next revolution would be fought. Home made bombs, roadside IEDs, etc.

You can't go toe to toe with US Army and expect to survive.
 
The BoR did not grant any rights. The BoR delineated those rights that were always always existed, inalienable, that had been tyrannically suppressed by the crown, and other men throughout history. The second recognizes, that among the other, one has the RIGHT to defend all of them. This not something that is negotiable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top