Thompson is no 2nd Amdt supporter.

From everything I've managed to read here and on other boards, it seems to be totally unrestricted firearms ownership. I do not agree with this position and will not vote for or support anyone who does.
 
Remember, only two Senators have been elected president.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of what you mean by this statement. Just a quick check shows that it's a whole lot more than two. (5 of the first 10 Presidents served as a Senator earlier in their career. I didn't bother to check any further.) If you meant that only two were elected as a sitting Senator, I don't see your point. Thompson isn't a sitting Senator.
 
Gosh deadin,

Heaven forfend we should interpret the Second precisely as it is written.

And how 'bout a cite to your assertion about "unrestricted firearms ownership"? To be fair, in considering Dr. Paul's voting record, it is on federal legislation. He will not vote for any expansion of federal authority, no matter how "common sense," if there is no brief for it in the federal Constitution.

I know, a frightening idea, really!
 
And how 'bout a cite to your assertion about "unrestricted firearms ownership"?
Click to expand...

Read the boards and pay particular attention to the rabid GOA and RP supporters. If these people are his base he is going to have to pay attention to them if he wants to be elected and to stay in power if elected. If he chooses to ignore his base, then we are no better off than we are with some of our current politico's.
 
So, to get to the heart of it, your objections to Dr. Paul are not based on anything he says, or anything he stands for, but are based on random anonymous postings on an internet board.

Okay, I understand completely.
 
Dr. Paul is damaged goods. After his foot in mouth episode he has no chance. Damaging the remaining republican field isn't going to change Paul's snowball's chance. All you do is strengthen the admitted enemy of the RKBA.
 
So, to get to the heart of it, your objections to Dr. Paul are not based on anything he says, or anything he stands for, but are based on random anonymous postings on an internet board.
Click to expand...

A person is known by the company he keeps.
 
 
Campaign finance reform was an attempt to prohibit soft money. It was......
In 2002, spurred by the 1996 campaign finance scandal which involved illegal donations to the Democratic Party from overseas sources and, later, the collapse of Enron, a major contributor to politicians at all levels of the U.S. system, the Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also called the McCain-Feingold bill after its chief sponsors, John McCain and Russ Feingold.
Click to expand...

Known as Chinagate. Think Freds intent was good? I do.
 
McCain-Feingold wasn't about "prohibiting soft money", it was all about incumbent protection, despite the noble-sounding declarations of the bill's originators.
 
McCain-Feingold wasn't about "prohibiting soft money", it was all about incumbent protection, despite the noble-sounding declarations of the bill's originators.
Click to expand...

If you are right, Mccain cut his own presidential chances, which I find hard to believe he would knowingly do.
 
There is no question he is right. McCain-Feingold was known on the Hill as the "Incumbent Protection Act" even before passage. It was all about controlling the "riff-raff"...

OTOH, how is Paul damaged goods?
 
From everything I've managed to read here and on other boards, it seems to be totally unrestricted firearms ownership. I do not agree with this position and will not vote for or support anyone who does.
Click to expand...

SO you like gun control, you just want it to be the bits and pieces you approve of.

Here's the gun control we should have: Commit a crime with a firearm, get charged, prosecuted and if guilty convicted for it, then sentenced to a long, long time in jail. Otherwise we should no more restrict firearm ownership than we do cars or knives or homes or hats. Any other position is just some form of gun-grabber. The possibility you might be a relatively mild one isn't a justification.
 
You vote for more of the same, you get more of the same. Don't cry about your precious gun rights if you can't be bothered to vote for a true 2A supporter because you only bet on the horse that has the biggest chance of winning the race.
Click to expand...

Right on. Read my tag line \|/
 
Until we have a perfect human who runs for office, voting will always be a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

No such thing as a perfect human...
Unless, of course you're Ron Paul...:rolleyes:

... sounds like somebody's got some personal political agendas on the block, here...
Click to expand...

Well, when you consider the OP's normal sources such as CNN and the like, it's a dead ringer...IMMHO...

A person is known by the company he keeps
Click to expand...
.
OTOH, how is Paul damaged goods?
Click to expand...
Such as the 911 conspiracy theorists? Or the pro-choice crowd? Or the open border card? I don't know if any of these are true, but the fence sitters of the country that listens to the elite media will probably hear Paul get branded on the aforementioned baggages...

He may be intact on the 2A, but other issues on the table he is lacking. And I am not a chooser of a candidate based on one issue...

Actually, I know he's pro-choice. Which, I don't classify him as a "constitutionalist" or a "conservative".
 
Call me oldfashioned, but I think that if some jerk beats up his wife and gets a domestic charge, he OUGHT to get his guns taken away.
Click to expand...

No flames, just a couple of questions:

Should he lose a Constitutional right for the rest of his life for a misdemeanor?

Should the Congress be able to pass ex post facto legislation in direct contravention to the supreme law of the land?
 
Paul isn't going to be elected. Thompson is the most conservative electable candidate. Its not about ideals, its about voting smart. If everyone on this board and on THR and on glocktalk and on arfcom and cal guns ALL voted for Paul, he would still barely clear 3% in the primaries. Thats just a fact of life.

As such, unless Hunter or Huckabee do something amazing, Thompson is the conservative republican.
 
Quote:
Call me oldfashioned, but I think that if some jerk beats up his wife and gets a domestic charge, he OUGHT to get his guns taken away.
Click to expand...
No flames, just a couple of questions:

Should he lose a Constitutional right for the rest of his life for a misdemeanor?
Click to expand...


Should beating the crap out of his wife be a misdemeanor??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top