Presidental Candidates platforms on "Gun Control" now defined.

E

Elker_43

New member
The Washington Post has put out a synopsis of all the candidates feelings on many issues. The below defines each candidates now defined campaign platforms concerning Gun Control. To see all of the issues: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000122/aponline120003_000.htm

GUN CONTROL:

Snapshot: The United States had 32,436 firearm deaths in 1997. Homicides are the second leading cause of gun deaths, behind suicide. Homicide handgun deaths fell to a 9-year low of 9,796 in 1997.

Bauer: Enforce existing laws.

Bradley: Supports mandatory licenses for handgun buyers and registration for their guns, as well as ban on "Saturday night specials." Would raise license fees on dealers to reduce their number.

Buchanan: "No compromise" on gun rights. Deny convicted felons right to own firearms.

Bush: Enforce existing laws. Raise age for handgun purchases to 21. Supports instant background checks at gun shows, opposes universal gun registration. Signed laws in Texas permitting carrying of concealed
weapons and protecting gun makers from lawsuits from cities.

Forbes: Enforce existing laws and have states, not Washington, set firearm
standards.

Gore: Supports mandatory photo ID licenses for handgun buyers. Would require manufacturers and federally licensed sellers to report gun sales to a state authority to help trace the owner when gun is used in crime. Supports banning "Saturday night specials." In 1999, cast tie-breaking
Senate vote to expand background checks to gun shows and require safety devices, but measure did not become law.

Hatch: Enforce existing laws. Extend background checks to gun shows and expand them to look for history of mental problems. Cosponsored bill to toughen gun-show restrictions and deny juveniles convicted of felonies the right to gun ownership for life. Require child-safety locks.

Keyes: Right to gun ownership is essential to duty of citizens to "resist and overthrow the power responsible" if their rights are being "systematically violated." Repeal federal gun restrictions for law-abiding citizens.

McCain: Favors instant criminal background checks on all gun purchases. Opposes waiting periods. Opposed ban on assault-type weapons.
Mandatory child-safety locks.



------------------
To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state.
 
Are you a one-issue voter? I didn't used to be, but am becoming one. Just from the perspective of gun-owner rights, which of the above candidates best represents you views on gun control? It's kinda a no-brainer, right?


------------------
RKBA!

"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
MPR this morning represent Keyes as the darling of pro-lifers. But "they are planning to vote for electable Bush instead".

Sounds familiar? Keyes for me. I don't care if it is a losing cause, I am not willing to endorse an "electable" lesser evil.
 
Bradley: "... Would raise license fees on dealers to reduce their number."

Tell me again why they "just want to license handguns/gunowners to prevent crime".

I didn't think they were that stupid to expose one of their tactics. Sure, WE knew what they were up to, but now these words will come back to haunt them in any future
licensing debate.

Either they figure they've already won the battle or they are too arrogant to care. Or both.


------------------
Nevada alt C.A.N.
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
Right or wrong, I have become a one-issue voter and the issue is guns.

I'm not unaware of how candidates stand on other issues. However, a candidate's position on guns is my litmus test. If I have to choose between two pro-gun candidates, I'll vote on the basis of other issues.

But I absolutely will not vote for an anti-gun candidate. :p
 
Jimmy,
If you click on the URL I placed on the top post, you'll be able to scroll down to almost any major topic to see how they stand.

I myself have really become a one issue voter...and ...Alan Keyes is the Man.



------------------
To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state.
 
One crucial item of info for me is how a candidate stands on concealed carry.

That is a practical and operational issue.

I've heard that McCain opposed it as did E. Dole.

I would like to see candidates get beyond the defensive posture of enforcing existing laws.

Many states have laws that are very anti-RKBA.

I think that the 2nd Amend should supercede
state laws, such that Forbes statement is stupid if accurate. Many states will vote to take away rights if it is left to them.

There should be no state level pre-emption of the 2nd Amend.

Practically, I want the candidates to support CCW laws in general and national reciprocity
as well as no new Federal level laws at the minimum. I wish folks could actual ask this type of quesiton.

Existing laws in NY and state enforcement means: NO GUNS FOR YOU.

As the Feds acted to bring civil rights to all Americans - so shall they act to bring the RKBA to all. Sometimes Forbes loons out on states rights. States rights doesn't always mean happy times. Federal laws don't prohibit gun ownership and carry - State laws do. Just as the state can't tell me what church or temple to attend or not attend -
a state should not be able to tell me that I have no RKBA.

Forbes is an idiot, IMHO.
 
I've always used how candidates viewed gun control as a litmus test. Most of the time, whan a candidate passes this test, I agree with a lot of the other things that he says, but not all. Keyes is the first candidate that I agree with 100%. Alan Keyes all the way!

Tom
 
I've heard both Gore and Bradley, on Larry King Live, say that they would look at an outright ban on civilian possession of handguns. In fact, in his first debate with Bradley, Gore said "we have to look at banning han.., uh, these assault weapons," etc. If Keyes can make it, which I don't think he can, I'll vote for him. If it's Bush, then he's the devil you know.

If I can't find out in the press where a candidate stands on gun control, I'll call them at home and pretend to be an anti just to get their views. I won't even vote for somone for school board if they support gun control.

Dick
 
Monkeyleg sez:
If it's Bush, then he's the devil you know.

...and then...

I won't even vote for somone for school board if they support gun control.

And therein lies a contradiction. Junior does support gun control, but you'll vote for him because he's not quite as anti as Gore/Bradley?

Does not compute.

------------------
"If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance."
-- Samuel Johnson
 
Here is the litmus test I'd like to use on them all: Y or N
1. The 2nd ammendment needs revision.
2. The 2nd ammendment supercedes state law.
3. The 2nd ammendment articulates a natural human right which cannot be revoked by any state law or even a US constitutional ammendment.
 
I just love the comment that if Keyes makes it, I'll vote for him. It doesn't say much. Please don't take this as a flame job, but really the only reason he might make it is if everybody saying that goes out and votes for him in the primaries. You cannot let someone else decide what your options will be come election time. YOU have to make it happen, and it involves maybe an hour of your time to go to the polls on primary day, and vote for your choice.
The problem our system of elections faces, is that nobody knows the constitution anymore, and so they vote on issues. Issues don't always jibe with the constitution. Social Security is UNCONSTITUIONAL. Same with Medicaid,Medicare, Welfare, Govt. Health clinics, and so on. Remove these items, and then if the states wish to pick up the program, then fine. RKBA should not even be questioned as the question is answered in the Second Amendment. I vote based on the Candidates constitutional knowlege. Does GW even know that the NEA is unconstitutional? I doubt it. There are only 2 candidates that I know of that are in sync with the constitution, and those two are: Harry Browne (Libertarian), and Alan Keyes (Republican). So my choice is simple. If Alan doesn't make it, then it's Harry Browne. At least you can't blame me for a screwed up future.
 
People seem to be afraid that the person whom they like (Keyes) won't win so they don't vote for them. And sure enough, they don't win. DUH!

It's a no brainer. Vote for who you like and don't worry about anybody else. You might be surprised.

Just vote for the Rep. in the general election. :)
 
Coin and others I definitly agree on voting what you belive in and good chance I will.

However, with 3-5 new Supreme Court Justices to be appointed by the winner we absolutley cannot afford Gore. If it wasnt for the possibility of the Emerson case going before the SC then I wouldn't be hesitant for a second. But if the 5TH Circuit upholds the Texas lower court, gun laws will be struck down across the country and the Supreme court will be under a lot of pressure (publicly) to make final ruling on this. And one of the issues is defining the Second Amendment, as an Individual right, and not an exclusively collective right. If we split and gore makes it in Then I hope emerson loses in the 5th circuit so as not to have Gores people in the supreme court set gun control in stone.

Remember its not just a vote for the president but a vote for the type of Justices that will possibly be deciding on your 2ND AMENDMENT.

The reason I bring this up now instead of in other previous posts is because I read yesterday on SAF articles the USA Today printed, and we definitly need a good court. Even with a bad president if he appoints decent Justices they can set the interpretation down as law and even that very president who appointed them wont be able to circumvent the law. Bush sernior was a " ", but at least we got Thomas out of the ugly deal, and far as I know he's with us on this issue, so even a not so good president can appoint decent people. But a globalist liberal like gore will appoint some "real winners" to be sure.
Another thing BTW is that Reagan appointed Sam Cummings to the Texas court and he's the only one that has come through for us to date. Kinda intersting stuff when you think about it, Reagan is long gone and his appointees are still with us. Just food for thought.
This dilemia makes it hard for me to decide though I love Keyes views. I know this is a kinda, Woulda, coulda, shoulda, maybe, and if senario, but is worth thinking about at least a little. Imput is welcome.



[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited January 26, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheBluesMan:
Are you a one-issue voter? I didn't used to be, but am becoming one. Just from the perspective of gun-owner rights, which of the above candidates best represents you views on gun control? It's kinda a no-brainer, right?


[/quote]


I sure am a one issue voter!
I wasn't...in fact I voted for Klinton in '92 because the Republicans were so anti-abortion (NOT to start a fight...I'm not pro or anti-abortion...it just ISN'T government business).
But Klinton's anti-Constitutional rhetoric and actions have disgusted me to no end.

And, we have an INALIENABLE RIGHT! A right that is in danger...
 
I watched Keyes on Hardball last night and he really hammered Chris Matthews. Hit him hard right between the eyes with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I will be donating more money for campaign!
 
Don't be fooled by McCain on his position on Gun Control.

November 24, 1999.
The New
Hampshire Union Leader ran an editorial on Monday exposing Senator
John McCain's voting record on guns this year.

In the editorial entitled "Shame on McCain: Embarrassed by GOP and
the 2nd Amendment," Bernadette Malone Connolly shows how McCain has
taken a decided turn to the left-- all in the hopes of gaining
favorable media attention during his run for President. Here's what
Connolly had to say about his flip-flop on gun rights yesterday:

----
Unprovoked, from out of left field, John McCain took a shot at
gun collectors, owners and dealers on CNN's "Larry King Live"
program last Monday night. Larry King didn't even bring up guns
with McCain, but when he asked McCain why congressional Republicans
are held in "low esteem in national polls," the GOP Presidential
candidate couldn't resist:

"We need to pass the legislation on gun control," he responded
after briefly mentioning the special interests' influence on HMO
reform. "It (gun control) was passed through the Senate. We need to
do things that the American people want us to do rather than being
gridlocked by the special interests and we're gridlocked on both
sides."

These special interests McCain is complaining about are the
citizens-- many in New Hampshire-- who are trying to defend their
right to buy a firearm from a gun show or private collector without
the imposition of the federal government taking three business days
to conduct a background check. This regulation is the one passed by
the Senate, even though 95 percent of all background checks take no
more than three hours, and gun shows usually last only one weekend.

McCain helped to kill this anti-gun owner bill last May, but
after the national media expressed outage at the outcome the next
morning, he panicked and demanded that the Senate do something to
placate the likes of the New York Times and CNN. McCain then
allowed the gun control bill to become the Senate's official
position, despite the effort led by New Hampshire Sen. Bob Smith to
kill it.

The gun issue reveals how McCain himself is too easily influenced
by special interests-- in this case, the media elite. Wasn't he
standing on principle when he voted against the gun show
regulations? How, then, could he be so supple as to let it become
the Senate position that is now under consideration by Congress as a
whole?

A tragic school shooting in Conyers, Ga., took place immediately
after McCain voted against the gun show ban, but that would have
been an opportunity for McCain to demonstrate the courage he
possesses by standing up to media pressure rather than capitulating
to it. Just weeks earlier the Columbine, Colo., school shooting took
place, but McCain held his ground against anti-gun legislation then.
It was the media explosion that brought him to his knees.

This weakness was brought to light again Monday night, when
McCain told Larry King exactly what the media elite like to hear:
The Republican Congress is a flop because they haven't stopped
citizens from privately buying and selling guns yet.
----
 
What gets me about the pols' is in the "Bush wants to raise age of handgun purchase to 21"-type statements. It's already that way.

Either they are posturing or they don't have a clue as to the current laws. In any event, they shouldn't attempt to "fix" something if they haven't a clue as to the "problem."
 
Coinneach, and KJM: rest assured I'm not taking your comments as a flame job. And perhaps I should have been a bit more articulate in my statement. Keyes is the man I'll vote for in the Wisconsin primary, although by that time it's possible he could be out of the race. George W disappointed me with his endorsement of the gun show bill and so on, but the prospect of Gore or Bradley being allowed to carry out their tyrannical agendas is too horrific to allow them to win by default. I also suspect that George W is more conservative than he is presenting himself to be on the campaign trail. He just may be pulling a reverse Clinton: campaign as a centrist, govern as a conservative. If that's so, that's fine with me. The Dems have been doing this to us for years. Until a third party _really_ gets its act together as a viable alternative, what else can we do?

Dick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top