# Presidential Canidates: Who will be good for gun owners?



## Cruentus (Nov 1, 2007)

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr18/0,4670,WhereTheyStandGunControl,00.html

This is an old article, but since the Primary's are coming up, this is a question we should probably start asking...


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 1, 2007)

Hannity interview of Guilliani:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/interview_with_rudy_giuliani.html




> *HANNITY*: Let me move on. And the issue of guns has come up a lot. When people talk about Mayor Giuliani, New York City had some of the toughest gun laws in the entire country. Do you support the right of people to carry handguns?
> *GIULIANI*: I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms. When I was mayor of New York, I took over at a very, very difficult time. We were averaging about 2,000 murders a year, 10,000...
> *HANNITY*: You inherited those laws, the gun laws in New York?
> *GIULIANI*: Yes, and I used them. I used them to help bring down homicide. We reduced homicide, I think, by 65-70 percent. And some of it was by taking guns out of the streets of New York City.
> ...


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 1, 2007)

The only hope on that score is Ron Paul.

Who ain't gonna make it there because the entire nation is too ****ing stupid to drop both parties and go for third parties or other candidates that the media doesn't endorse, cause, you know, gods forbid we should actually vote for someone not predicted to win or something....


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 1, 2007)

Ron Paul is going to be a no go.

It seems all we can hope for is that whoever gets into office will just stay away from the issue and not do us any damage during the next 4 years. I don't agree with Guilliani's overall opinion and history, but if he just leaves it up to the states then we should be fine. I don't think that we can trust any of the likely dems on this one to simply do that.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2007)

I haven't heard any of the candidates yelling about repealing the second amendment. 

When you say "good for" ... what do you actually mean?


----------



## thardey (Nov 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> When you say "good for" ... what do you actually mean?



Someone who takes guns away from stupid people and gives them to me! (For free, of course!)

:shooter:

(Sorry, couldn't help it.)

:boing2:


----------



## tellner (Nov 1, 2007)

Guns aren't as big an issue as they were ten or fifteen years ago. There are much better wedge issues for the execrable to exploit. And since the Democrats have realized that it's costing them more votes than it's gaining they've pretty much abandoned it.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I haven't heard any of the candidates yelling about repealing the second amendment.
> 
> When you say "good for" ... what do you actually mean?



I mean, canidates who aren't going to pass or push laws that would/could infringe on the ability to own and carry firearms (such as national registries,  manditory purchase licensing or federally dictated waiting periods, "assault weapon" bans, etc.) at the very least. At best, those who might actually pass  laws in favor of gun ownership.

Now, some will say that the democratic and republican canidates won't really pass a law to infringe on these rights, so it is a non-issue. I hope they are right. However, many have ideologies that gun rights advocates (like myself) find dangerous, and could make them apt. to allowing anti-gun legislation to go through if pressured enough.

So, for us who like our carry and purchase rights, this is worth discussing.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2007)

Oh, I see. 

A President can certainly push for legislation. But it is the Congress that writes the legislation in our country; be those laws for or against anything. 

I wonder if it would be discussing something like .... oh ... 


Presidential Candidates: Who will be good for telephone users (4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. e.g. warrantless wiretaps, retroactive immunity for telecoms)?


Presidential Candidates: Who will be good for media consumers (1st Amendment protection of a free and independent press.  e.g. the Republican led FCC is weakening protections of media ownership by years end)? 

Under the current President, these, and other Constitutional protections have been assaulted in ways that gun rights have never been. 


I guess some Constitutional protections are more equal than others. 

(And Paul ~ this particular rant is not necessarily directed toward you. You seem to be relatively open to discussing some of these things that those of us not terrified by terror are interested in, and worth discussing).


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 1, 2007)

Well, MichealEdwards, no offense taken and I agree with what you are saying. I think that our rights to privacy, free speech, and other civil liberties are worth talking about too (although, perhaps in the study rather then the gun forum).

For some reasons that I have not yet fully figured out, it seems that gun rights and other civil liberties or other amendment rights gets somehow seperated. In other words, there are many candidates who would surpress free speech or the right to privacy, but who would maintain 2nd amendment rights. And then there are others who would infringe on 2nd amendment rights, but who would maintain other civil liberties and who have been very vocal against things detailed in the patriot act and other amendment violations. It's strange to me because I don't politicize civil liberties. I can't support the removal of one amendment freedom while advocating for another.

So, I think what happens is the issue gets politicized. The Republicans have to say they support 2nd amendment rights even if some of them would infringe on those rights, and the democrats have to at least say that they would "reasonably" infringe on those rights even if they really have no plans too or even really wouldn't.

So it is relevent to have these discussions because it is difficult to find out where people truly stand on the issue.

For example, I am not sure that Guilliani and Hillary are any different regarding 2nd amendment rights. I think that they both believe in some level of regulation, but I think that they are both smart enough to realize that by allowing anything to pass while on their watch would be harmful to their approval ratings. The only difference between the two on this is that I think that Guilliani would be more inclined to leave this up to states then Hillary; but neither will be posing anything like the "assault weapons ban" that was highly unpopular in the 90's as far as I can see.

Anyway, the other issues are important too, but probably more appropriate for a seperate topic somewhere else...


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 2, 2007)

I'm not very optimistic about any of the candidates.  At best, some of them might be indifferent and choose to just leave the issue alone. 

Unfortunatly, I can't agree with those who have said that the dems will not mess with this issue or push for more bans because of fear of losing votes or having their approval ratings drop.  I imagine they will try to avoid the issue during the race but after the election I doubt that they'd think twice about going after our rights again.

I really have nightmares about the possibility of Hillary getting elected.  The thought of what could happen to our gun rights having her as president with a democrat-controlled congress just makes me sick.


----------



## Journeyman (Nov 2, 2007)

Ron Paul is the best on that single issue, but he's such a flake that I'd even vote for Hillary to keep him from becoming President.  Paul won't get the nomination though, so I won't be faced with that choice.

Of the candidates who would make a good President, Duncan Hunter is the best on guns.  Unfortunately, he's not going anywhere in the polls, so it doesn't look like I'm going to get to vote for him.

Of the candidates with a decent chance at the nomination, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee are probably best.

Bill Richardson is the best of the Democrats on the issue.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 2, 2007)

I am really enjoying the conversation of this thread.  Lets keep it civil and nice so it can continue.  Thanks.

Lisa
MT Assist. Admin.


----------



## Carol (Nov 2, 2007)

Can anyone share where Senator Clinton stands on firearm-related legislation and other 2A related matters?


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 2, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Can anyone share where Senator Clinton stands on firearm-related legislation and other 2A related matters?



She has a history of lobbying for gun control in her early days:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...Times Topics/People/C/Clinton, Hillary Rodham

But, she has been relatively quiet on the issue now that she is running for President. I am hoping she'll learned from her husbands mistakes with the AWB in the 90's. The democrats realized after 2000 that they alienate a huge part of their "working class" base when they take a big stance against the 2nd amendment.

But, these are just my hopes. There really is no trusting what she will do at the moment. She stays away from the issue. It will come up in the general election more, of which I will assume that she will waffle and duck. It really is hard to trust, given her history on the matter.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 2, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Can anyone share where Senator Clinton stands on firearm-related legislation and other 2A related matters?


 
She's extremely anti-gun

this link is to a page that shows a history of her votes on firearms-related bills.  She was a co-sponsor of many of them.
http://www.sportsmenforclinton.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=26

this one is to a statment she made calling for re-authorization of the "assault weapons" ban
http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2004/2004302B06.html


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 3, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Doing things to infringe on our right to bear arms is directly proportional to not respecting our liberties and freedoms of self-defense, and our freedoms to exist and pursue life, liberty, and happiness as a whole.


 
So, let's say ..... 

When the President of the United States, sets up a chain-link, fenced in area four blocks away from a location where he is about to give a speech, and tells those who wish to peaceably assemble and hold up signs that oppose his position that they may exercise their First Amendment Rights of Freedom of speech "Over There" ... that would be a direct, proportional infringement on not respecting our liberties and freedoms of Free Speech, and our freedoms to persue life, liberty and happiness.

And while it may be a generalization that gun owners are Republican, why they hell aren't they mad as hell over the First Amendment abuses that we have documented here, ad nauseum. 

Which brings me back to ... why don't we see threads with titles like .. 

Presidential Candidates : Who will be good for Freedom of Speech?


And, lastly, your descriptions of '2 camps' is hardly objective. The biases in your language are obvious to someone familiar with our society. Hell, you even use quotes around the title of a Hillary Clinton book. And then proceed to call any who might fit in that camp a *****. You may call it "extreme pacificsm", but you are not describing Ghandi. You are using the phrase derogatorily.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 4, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Which brings me back to ... why don't we see threads with titles like ..
> 
> Presidential Candidates : Who will be good for Freedom of Speech?




If you feel this to be a topic you want to get into--by all means--start a thread.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 5, 2007)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

_Please, return to the original topic, and keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## Big Don (Nov 5, 2007)

Kucinich doesn't believe civilians should have guns, even though, as a city councilman he had a concealed carry permit. (Kinda like Fienstien)
Hey, the question was about presidential candidates, not "Presidential candidates with more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning..."


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 5, 2007)

The founding fathers made their opinion on individualism pretty clear.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 5, 2007)

And that *should* be all that counts.


----------



## grydth (Nov 5, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> The founding fathers made their opinion on individualism pretty clear.



I'm sure there will be another "scholar" along any minute now to assure us that the Founders actually intended to grant all power to a central government... yeah, that's what they really meant... maybe the new one will be from Emory University, too :shock:...


----------



## Sorros (Nov 5, 2007)

Any Liberatarian candidate.


----------



## Sigung86 (Nov 5, 2007)

I am late to the fray, as it were.  It seems to me that we are missing the crux of a number of things.  Primarily, in my considered opinion, once the 2md ammendment was made legal all those years ago, in my mind, the Federal Government gave up any right to be involved in the gun control situation.  It is, essentially, and should always be a State's rights issue, simply because I don't see how ownership of firearms is a Federal issue.   Unless the Feds are afraid of what could be...

After all, wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said, "An armed man is a citizen.  An unarmed man is a subject"...  Andt that pretty much sums it up.

On the other hand... I think our government is too big, too waddly, and too apt to want to take all the power and give none of the perks.  Unfortunately, we don't seem to have one person out there running for office who is even minimally qualified, insofar as taking care of the people, in a hands off State Government sort of way.

I read of the illegal, and often times brainless actions and stances of many of the people running for office, and don't understand how people with minimal intelligence can vote for them.  Seems like we, as voters, are getting awfully good at only picking someone who "kind of, and almost" thinks like we the people do.  

'Twould be truly amazing if for one primary, no one won, and they got the distinct message that people are getting really tired of the political, Ol' soft shoe, and Shuffle off to Buffalo, second rate politicians we are getting.

It's almost as if we should not consider voting anybody into office who is running for it.  :uhyeah:


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 5, 2007)

Its late at night, and I did not read the whole thread.  I will say this:

1) By the time our civil liberties are severely eroded (as in "show me your papers")

*AND
*
2) The country is totally, surely, "I mean what I say" broke (as in no money, no credit) from all of the spending that we are doing,

Its time for the final crack down.

When that time comes, citizens can raise up their little pea-shooters all they want to, because it won't even slow down the powers that be, won't even slow them down.


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 5, 2007)

Sigung86 said:


> It's almost as if we should not consider voting anybody into office who is running for it.  :uhyeah:



Its almost as if anyone who is too sickened to vote should vote for a third party candidate.

Not that that would matter much (I'm not sure how widespread electronic voting will be in the general election --> its WAY easy for an election to get owned).

The last call has been made.  The party's over folks.  Its only a matter of time.  We deserve it.  We waited too late to act.

When it comes right down to it, we had to choose between *freedom* and *safety*.  We chose safety.

You pay your money and you take your chances.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 6, 2007)

*Moderator's Note:*

This thread has been split, due to off-topic discussions.  

The posts regarding the off-topic material have been moved here.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Senior Moderator


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 6, 2007)

New Guy,

I think your view is incredibly pessimistic, and one that I cannot ascribe too. We have 2 choices; give up or use the means that we have available to fight for our freedoms. Sitting back and not voting, or getting pissed and blowing up a federal building (not saying your advocating this, but some people with the same pessimistic view do) is giving up. And if you do that, you've lost.

We still have means available to advocate for our freedoms, and it would behoove us to use those means. 

In my world, we have a saying, and that is 'extreme pessimism gets you killed.'


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 6, 2007)

I am *extremely* pessimistic, have been all my life, yes, to a fault.  I've had people call me a nihilist.  I see no hope for this world.  But, I'm not one to try to hasten its demise.

I do realize that I can't trust my perspective too much, so I have that going for me. 

I support gun rights, big time, though I'm not a gun owner (I don't wish to have the responsibility of gun ownership, its too much for me).

Sorry about messing on this thread, Cruentus.  I should have just read posts last night without posting.  I hope that the readers of this thread can determine who the best candidate for gun-rights is, and throw their support behind their candidate!


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 1, 2007)

*bump*

just ran across this site.  It give a quick and dirty look at the 2A-related voting record of all the candidates

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm


----------



## Guardian (Dec 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Oh, I see.
> 
> A President can certainly push for legislation. But it is the Congress that writes the legislation in our country; be those laws for or against anything.
> 
> ...


 
Here is the point right here.  It's the House and Senate that we have to worry about with Gun Laws, the President just signs those laws if they apply federally.  It's up to us to vote in people that are Pro-Gun at the Congress/Senate (State Side) that are Pro-Gun, not the President so much.


----------



## Sorros (Dec 1, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> I am *extremely* pessimistic, have been all my life, yes, to a fault. I've had people call me a nihilist. I see no hope for this world. But, I'm not one to try to hasten its demise.
> 
> I do realize that I can't trust my perspective too much, so I have that going for me.
> 
> ...


New guy,
            turn off the HBO and turn on the comedy channel. you'll feel a lot better.


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 7, 2007)

*bump again* 

found this about Obama (what a ****ing moron:angry

-------------------------------------

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007...ees_need_for_ru.html


Obama: My wife sees need for rural gun ownership

by John McCormick

HARLAN, Iowa -- From his days of campaigning in Downstate Illinois, Sen. Barack Obama has been asked plenty of times about his views on gun ownership.

But the Illinois Democrat and presidential candidate added a new wrinkle Saturday night while campaigning in conservative-leaning western Iowa, when he said his Chicago-native wife, Michelle, recently commented that she could see why rural folks might want to own guns.

Here was Obama's discussion of gun ownership and his wife's thoughts during a campaign stop at a middle school:

"We should be able to combine respect for those traditions (traditions? what happened to inaliable rights?) with our concern for kids who are being shot down. This is a classic example of us just applying some common sense, just being reasonable, right? (reasonable? like gun free zones such as shopping malls and um...how 'bout college campuses, yeah, reasonable works) And reasonable would say that lawful gun owners  I respect the Second Amendment. I think lawful gun owners should be able to hunt, be sportsmen, protect their families.

"And by the way, Michelle, my wife, she was traveling up, I think, in eastern Iowa, she was driving through this nice, beautiful area, going through all this farmland and hills and rivers and she said 'Boy, it's really pretty up here,' but she said, 'But you know, I can see why if I was living out here, I'd want a gun. Because, you know, 911 is going to take some time before somebody responds.  (so people in the cities always have a cop right there and don't have to worry about response times?) You know what I mean? You know, it's like five miles between every house.'

"So the point is, though, we should be able to do that, and we should be able to enforce laws that keep guns off the streets in inner cities because some unscrupulous gun dealer is, you know, letting somebody load up a van with a bunch of cheap handguns or sawed-off shotguns and dumping them and selling them for a profit in the streets." (cause this happens soooo often  )

--------------------------------------------

(red text is mine)


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 7, 2007)

Well, this is a classic example of someone with a clear anti-2nd amendment view trying to pander. He clearly does not understand the right, or how illegal firearms get on the street for that matter.

He actually scares me a lot more then Hillary. Too bad Edwards isn't doing better in the polls; if I had to pick a democrat, he's probably my favorite right now.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 22, 2008)

Well if it wasn't _already_ obvious, Obama _is_ anti-freedom.  What's worse, he can't even keep his story straight...



> http://www.nysun.com/article/71591
> 
> 
> His Disturbing Pattern
> ...


*Emphasis added


----------



## Doc_Jude (Feb 23, 2008)

Obama IS ANTI-GUN. You better believe it.


----------



## searcher (Feb 23, 2008)

They all need to sit down and re-read the Constitution again(IF they have actually read it).    And they need to pay close attention to the part that states we are to be ready t protect ourselves from THEM.   They are the reason why The Founding Fathers put that in.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 11, 2008)

more crap from Osama...

Link


> I am not in favor of concealed weapons, Obama told the _Pittsburgh Tribune_. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.


 :bs1:

from the same article


> Obamas new hardline liberal position differs from his Democratic rival *Hillary Clinton and GOP candidate John McCain*, *who both are for concealed-carry*.


:lfao:
Okay, maybe I missed something...when did the Hildebeast stop being a commie and start respecting our 2A rights?


----------



## Guardian (Apr 13, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> more crap from Osama...
> 
> Link
> :bs1:
> ...


 
Since she needs the Gun lobbies support to win the Democratic Side of the house, she can't alienate 2 Million+ Voter and hope to win, now she's for us, that won't last long though, trust me on that.


----------



## K31 (Apr 13, 2008)

You're just "clinging" to your guns and religion says Obama:       "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. ... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."  http://apnewsexcite.com/article/20080412/D9001ADG0.html   Or, another way to say the religion part: "Religion is the opiate of the masses."


----------



## tkd1964 (Apr 14, 2008)

I honestly don't feel safe with all three when it comes to the Constitution. we know where Ms. Hillary and Mr. Obama stand but it McCain who will sell your rights away when you least expect it. This happened to us back when the Assault rifle ban was going on. We had from my State the Great John Dingell, The great supporter of the Second ammendment, join the Anti's and voted for the Ban. This is what Mr. McCain will do. He's a Politician first and formost.


----------



## stonewall1450 (Apr 14, 2008)

Ok my few on the subject of a gun license is this: it is a great idea in theory. The problem is that it gives power and control to people who if given that power will run away with it. Stricter bans, more background checks, until you either need a proctologists permission before you can buy a gun. The other alternative is that they simply take them away. The theory behind me having to show a license to purchase a gun(not just having the money and buying the gun and waiting) is a good one. I mean if you are required to take a firearms saftey course before purchasing a gun it would be great. Prevent idiots from being an idot(though it doesnt really work with cars, but maybe it helps a little). So basically I am a no on the license only because what comes from it.
My view on the assault weapons: who needs an assault weapon that isnt going to have an assault weapon? I dont need a flash suppressor. I dont need a 30 round magazine. I dont need a retractable stock either. The thing about the ban is that it is worthless so why should we waste money enforcing it? If I am sick enough I am going to buy essentially the assault weapon civilian model(AR15 with 10 round capacity lets say). I am going to ducktape 2 magazines together and shoot just as fast with it. All you promote with the ban is accuracy with the weapon. Besides I would be far more lethal with a .308 at 200 yards than an innaccurate 1(only saying that because they are proven to be less accurate without proper training) at 10.
You want to protect us from the bad men who have guns that dont need them? Post cops and video surveilance at all public shooting ranges. The local Tallahassee public range is riddled with bullet holes from retards shooting walls. Also look at the people who come out with guns that you know they only have to shoot people(Im talkin about the "ganstas" that have these ak47s that you know arent legal). I got a shotgun,a rifle, a pistol and that is all I need really as far as guns are concerned.


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 14, 2008)

stonewall1450 said:


> Ok my few on the subject of a gun license is this: it is a great idea in theory. The problem is that it gives power and control to people who if given that power will run away with it.


 
It's only a great idea on paper.  Unfortunately, criminals tend not to read those papers, and you end up only attacking law-abiding citizens.  



> My view on the assault weapons: who needs an assault weapon that isnt going to have an assault weapon? I dont need a flash suppressor. I dont need a 30 round magazine. I dont need a retractable stock either.


 
That's your choice, then.  I, on the other hand, would much prefer to be able to cosmetically customize my rifle to my likings.  These cosmetic alterations do absolutely nothing to make the weapon "more deadly."  Furthermore, I can see past the BS that ignorant politicians try to push.  

For example, I just got a flash suppressor for my AR-15.  Some ignorant character asked me why I would want to hide from the police by using a flash suppressor...

I simply told him the truth, that flash suppressors do NOTHING to hide your position.  Instead, they simply reduce muzzle flash, so that you, the shooter, does not get blinded by the muzzle flash.  Why should I have to give up this comfort feature?


----------



## stonewall1450 (Apr 14, 2008)

Grenadier said:


> It's only a great idea on paper. Unfortunately, criminals tend not to read those papers, and you end up only attacking law-abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> That's your choice, then. I, on the other hand, would much prefer to be able to cosmetically customize my rifle to my likings. These cosmetic alterations do absolutely nothing to make the weapon "more deadly." Furthermore, I can see past the BS that ignorant politicians try to push....


 
Lol you repeated what I said, just in different words. Great idea in Theory=Great Idea on Paper lol. I just thought I might clarify that I am pro gun and I understand.
Also with what I said about the assault weapons. You basically made the point I did. All of the bans were basically cosmetic. I understand people misunderstanding the flash suppressor(which most people think is like a silencer[which does get rid of the flash if the proper ammunition is used]). I can also understand people not wanting someone to have a retractable stock to hide a rifle easier, but again this is basically a worthless point to make because you cant truly hide a rifle(you would have to wear a large coat or have a lot of baggage and basically the point of the retractable stock for concealabillity would be nill again). I also made my point about 10 round magazine vs. 30rounds. Like I said it isnt more deadly because if I was mentally disturbed I would just ducktape mags together and be more accurate(which would basically mean I have 20 accurate rounds).


----------

