ANY mainstream GOP pro-gun Presidential candidates?

G

GeorgeF

New member
I'm so steamed. I thought I had heard Mitt Romney was decent towards support of the 2nd Amendment but apparently he supported the 1994 Assault Rifle Ban.

I know there exists the option to vote Libertarian or such. There is also the option to foment a revolution. Neither is going to get a pro-gun candidate in the White House. BUT we have to keep our eye on the big picture - I am still concerned about border policy, any Supreme Court justices who need to be replaced and taxes. A Democrat is going to screw us to the wall on those last three. A Republican is more likely to take a favorable stand on those.

With that being said, who is the LEAST damaging (God I hate to even ask that) Presidential candidate regarding our gun laws? Or should we just acknowledge the fact that anyone who gets in the Oval Office is going to sign the legislation that gets to their desk? And therefore go after Congress and make sure it doesnt get that far to begin with.

Let the incendiaries fly.
 
With that being said, who is the LEAST damaging (God I hate to even ask that) Presidential candidate regarding our gun laws? Or should we just acknowledge the fact that anyone who gets in the Oval Office is going to sign the legislation that gets to their desk? And therefore go after Congress and make sure it doesnt get that far to begin with.
Click to expand...

Honestly, you are better off just doing your part to make sure your Congressional delegation is pro-gun. The president can't sign what never hits his desk.

Presidential candidates generally have to be more moderate on things like gun control (or the lack thereof) because they have to appeal to a wider base. A senator from Wyoming or a representative from rural Pennsylvania can run on a strong pro-gun platform...the majority of the voters in their district are pro-gun. A president, on the other hand, generally needs (fairly) broad national support. And unfortunately things like "assault weapon" bans are popular in the nation as a whole...even among moderate/liberal Republicans.

So yeah, don't trust a president to protect your gun rights.
 
Presidential candidates generally have to be more moderate on things like gun control (or the lack thereof)
Click to expand...

I don't know how much I agree on that one Juan. Clinton was outspoken as being anti gun and look what happened in 94. Bush hasn't been for gun control and said so while campaigning. We have lost he assault gun and clip ban and CCW's have came a long way.
I believe the President's views do carry a lot weight.

Congress also knows what will get signed and what will usually not.

To my knowledge Richardson a Dem. is the only prop- gun candidate, his chances aren't too high I don't think
 
I don't know how much I agree on that one Juan. Clinton was outspoken as being anti gun and look what happened in 94. Bush hasn't been for gun control and said so while campaigning. We have lost he assault clip ban and CCW's have came a long way.
I believe the President's views do carry a lot weight.
Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that a candidate couldn't be for gun control and win. That's entirely possible. Basically it seems like a majority of the nation is in favor of gun control, so winning the presidency becomes easier if you are either for it or at least neutral towards it.

Also, Bush (the II) hasn't been against gun control either. There have been a few issues (the AWB being one, instant background checks required at gun shows being another) where his stance was basically "I'd sign it but I'm not pushing for it."

Seems like a fairly moderate stance to me.
 
Romney attended the recent Shot Show in Orlando and made public comments about being pro-gun rights.

All of the presidential candidates play to their conservative/liberal bases to get through the primaries.

After the nominees are decided, the Republican and Democratic candidates will tend to move toward the center, in an effort to expand their appeal (without offending their power bases).

If the election were held today (March 6, 2007) "gun-rights/restrictions" probably would not be a top five issue for many voters. The war, crime, jobs, immigration and the economy are what likely voters say are their top issues.
 
Basically it seems like a majority of the nation is in favor of gun control
Click to expand...

Again I disagree, look what happened in the elections in 94. I believe the democratic party's loss in congress was directly connected to gun control.

Then I am no expert, and do not have the statistics to back that statement up with, at the time it just seemed fairly obvious.
 
Lots of interesting insights. I think we should definitely keep up the pressure on the gun grabbers and make our opinions known.

I'm glad that someone like Zumbo came around and got roasted. I am a bit disappointed that some (Nugent for example) feel that they have to give him a bye and put their support back behind him. The guy screwed up and has to face the consequences - if he hadnt been smacked down so hard there is no way he would have been so conciliatory.

In any event I do NOT want this to turn into a Zumbo bash. I agree with the 'act locally' bit and will be meeting my local state rep next week for a community breakfast.

Thanks for your insights.
 
Mainstream is what you make mainstream.

Reagan became the mainstream because people backed him.

If enough people back someone like Ron Paul, then this will shift the center of debate and this will be the new mainstream.
 
Tom Tancredo is rated A by the NRA. He hasn't announced yet, but does have a committee going.

Mitt was my Gov. for 4 years, he tried, but in Mass - 'Forget about it'.

Yes, the 94' elections had a heavy influence of Gun Control that knocked out the Dems - Clinton, Daschel, and several others made statements to the effect. That's why you don't see too much support for the thought this time, also the new Dems are more conservative than some of the GOP they replaced - the Montana Sen. Tester (IIRC) wants to get rid of the Patriot Act because of gun sale tracking.

teamtancredo.com
 
I agree that voting and applying pressure locally is our best bet to enact any meaningful changes independant of the issue.

IMO, there are not enough moderates in the running and as such our civil liberties are in danger. Our rights to choose are being whittled away by extremists on both sides.

- Too many Republicans exhibit a strong capitolist agenda and are weak and/or biased when it comes to social/environmental issues.

- Too many Democrats are lax on issues pertaining to "homeland defense" whether it be border security/immigration, or issues pertaining to the 2nd amendment.

It seems we can't win either way. It's going to take more than just a pro-gun stance by a candidate to get my vote.

I think it's still too early to judge many of the candidates. Many simply pander to the masses and say one thing, but do the opposite.

Actions speak louder than words.
 
Ron Paul fills all of the categories you mentioned GeorgeF. He is the single best gun supporter IN congress (there is no question about it, check his voting record if you have any doubt - don't believe the NRA rating for him (they gave him a "B" because he wouldn't compromise on some gun issues)).

As far as border policy, you will be hard pressed to find anyone with a firmer stance on illegal immigration and enforcement (and definitely no Amnesty).

And as for taxes, Dr. Paul has been named "Taxpayer's Best Friend" by the National Tax Payer's Union. I do not know of anyone currently in congress with a stauncher stand on taxes than Dr. Paul.

He is currently running as a Republican for President. All we need to do is mobilize and get him to win some primaries. Maybe we even have a fighting chance. One thing is for sure, another Hillary, Obama, Rudy, or Romney is definitely not the solution.

I urge you all to check him out! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

And since this is a gun board... Here's a recent writing of his on the subject:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul350.html

And a host of other writings from his archive:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals.
-Ron Paul
Click to expand...
 
So yeah, don't trust a president to protect your gun rights.
Click to expand...
Bingo. I would probably trust Ron Paul but as much as I'd like to see him in the White House it's unlikely he'll get there. If Guliani is the best the GOP can do then ClintBama has already won.


btw, glad to see you're unbanned :D
 
Anyone know his position on environmental issues?

Read the Wiki but didnt see anything mentioned.

Thanks for bringing him to my attention.
 
Good read; thanks for that.

So far, from what I have garnered, he gets my vote.

Even if he doesnt get the nomination he will be my "write-in" choice.
 
Ron Paul

For president, our silver bullet. Let's clean house. He has said no to all the things I have. All the forums I go to say the same thing, this might be a great victory for Americans. Bout time!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top