Sunday, March 4, 2012

The GOP Candidates on Gun Rights

All Voices lays it out for voters - Santorum is your man.

Rick Santorum

Santorum has the distinction of having a lifetime A+ rating with the NRA.

Newt Gingrich

Gingrich believes that the Supreme Court has become a permanent constitutional convention in which the whims of five appointed lawyers have rewritten the meaning of the Constitution. And furthermore, anyone who thinks various Supreme Court decisions are not adequately worrisome need only look at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to see how domination by secular Left-liberal judges will change America. He views the court decisions to be “out of step with the views of the vast majority of the American people.”

Let’s take a look at what the “vast majority of Americans” think. The facts do not support Gingrich’s statements. After the assault and mass shootings in Tucson, Arizona last year, Americans remain split on the issue of gun control with the scale tipping to more controls, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.

Mitt Romney

Romney’s views are murky, and appear to have changed. In February he said, “find common ground with pro-gun and anti-gun groups. In the past he signed the nation’s first ban on assault weapons in Massachusetts as governor and increased gun owners fees by 400%. How does he propose to reconcile this with groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) the most powerful gun lobby in the U.S.?


  1. I love the tired claim that most Americans want gun control. I guess if you keep saying it over and over, you'll start to believe it. Of course no one else does.

  2. The website is called "All Voices" and they only have 3 out of the 4 GOP candidates' position? Surprising, since the candidate they left out is the one who beats Obama head-to-head in the national polls.
    orlin sellers

    1. I noticed that too and figured they'd written Ron Paul off.

  3. One would think that Republicans would have a better position than Democrats on guns, but the first Bush signed gun control legislation, and the second Bush did little of any merit with respect to gun rights. That being said, at least Republicans aren't actively against guns. It's clear that the members of the Obama administration don't like guns and don't respect gun owners.

  4. I'm voting for anyone but Obama.

    Even Mittens would be better than Obama for the sheer fact that his main concern will be reelection while the Crooner-in-Chief will be a lame duck, free to do anything he wants with no fear of consequences.

  5. Texas Colt carryMarch 5, 2012 at 4:01 AM

    Greg, with all due respect, the second Bush gave Texas their gun rights in 1995. He signed into law the Texas CHL and improved on it the whole time he was in office. Rick Perry came after G. Bush and still expands on G. Bush gun laws. Bush had recognized the peoples desire in Texas and acted upon it. Being in the white house, I imagine that finding the nations voice a little harder to do. But he did let the assault weapons ban die.

    If the nation really wanted a strong second amendment person in the white house chair, they missed, Rick Perry would have been your guy. The second choice is still up, Rick Santorum. From there its a toss up and a hope that you dont end up with a republican that will nullify the second amendment.

    I dont want to hear about Ron Paul, he is a nut bag!

    1. I'm glad that Bush did that for Texas. It's unfortunate that he couldn't do more for gun rights in the country as a whole.

    2. I dont want to hear about Ron Paul, he is a nut bag!

      I'm wondering if that's why the GOA gave him an A+ rating, being the kind of nut bag that wants to restore personal liberty and freedom to individuals. That does sound pretty nutty to me.
      orlin sellers

  6. "I'm wondering if that's why the GOA gave him an A+ rating, being the kind of nut bag that wants to restore personal liberty and freedom to individuals. That does sound pretty nutty to me.
    orlin sellers"

    All of that I agree 100% with.

    Not that kind of nut bag I meant. Isolationist nut bag is what I mean.

    1. Not that kind of nut bag I meant. Isolationist nut bag is what I mean.

      Isolationism? I hear this stuff and can only shake my head in disbelief. Nothing personal, TCC. But, how can a man that wants free trade with every nation possibly be an isolationist? Do you want troops and bases in foreign lands or American products?
      What good does the isolation of Cuba do for us? We could be trading with them, that is what he would do. How is that isolationism?
      What good is isolating Iran? Why not trade with them and them with us? Typically, you don't bomb people you are doing business with.
      Look at Vietnam. We went to war with them, killed millions of them, 60,000 Americans died, how much did that 10 year war cost with nothing to show, all in the name of stopping Chinese communism. Yet, today we freely trade with Vietnam and China is our banker.
      I think, my friend, you are confusing peaceful non-interventionism and free trade with all people with what the war profiteers call isolationism - not bombing brown people for profit.
      orlin sellers

  7. Texas Colt carryMarch 6, 2012 at 5:56 AM

    "I think, my friend, you are confusing peaceful non-interventionism and free trade with all people with what the war profiteers call isolationism - not bombing brown people for profit."

    Military isolationism will not make for free trade. If we are to have free trade with other countries, then we have a duty to protect them from other that seek to prevent that trade thru violence. We also have a duty to protect ourselves from countries that wish to remove our freedom even if that means a military base in their country. We would not be there if they didn't want us there.

    This nation has been looked upon as a protector of freedom from other countries that wish to seek freedom for themselves that do not have the physical means to do so or lack enough means and need the help.

    Vietnam is a bad example, it was never classed as a war but a police action and was handled badly at that. There were two world wars that serve as the primary example. And a cold war that may or may not be still ongoing.

    We need trade with others, they need our trade, but its only possible with the freedom to do so. Freedom is not given, but fought for. Anything worth having is worth fighting to keep. Just as much as you would fight to keep your job, metaphorically speaking, you have a vested interest in keeping it.

    How would we have a free trade with Israel if Iran seeks to destroy their government and eliminate our trade with them, for example, and by those actions threaten our security and the security of others.

    Pacifism simply does not work, you fight for your rights. Either as an individual or as a nation. Just look to your self for that reasoning. Mike B., Laci, Democommie, Doggone and others on the anti gun have their beliefs and fight for them. They are not pacifists and conduct their own war against guns. Greg Camp, Fat White man, you and others as well as myself fight for our own interests as well. We do not isolate ourselves from others that wish to take away from our beliefs. None of us do. All of us do the same as a nation, to protect our way of life, our freedoms, and our trade. And we protect other countries that have the same interest and desires to free trade and free choice.

    1. Texas Colt carryMarch 6, 2012 at 5:59 AM

      This nation has been looked upon as a protector of freedom FOR other countries that wish to seek freedom for themselves that do not have the physical means to do so or lack enough means and need the help.

      Sorry, wrong word. Thats FOR not FROM

    2. Texas Colt carryMarch 6, 2012 at 7:04 AM

      However I will add this, I would be absolutely GIDDY if Ron Paul would be appointed to a chair in SCOTUS. He is a strict constitutionalist and would be a great judge on finding whether or not certain state laws are in line with the constitution. Or certain judgments from lower courts are within constitutional limits or not.

      Would certainly benefit ME!

    3. TCC, it sounds like you are suggesting that the constitutionalist, Ron Paul, wouldn't defend the country. Is that what you are saying?
      And I'm not sure why you think you need military bases in countries we trade with. As far as I know we don't have bases in China who is our major trading partner.
      Do we need bases in Japan to trade with them?
      How about Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia, India?
      And at this point, can we really afford an empire?
      It seems to me that the idea of promoting liberty and freedom by example is a much less expensive and less destructive way than using peace bombs and freedom missile on countries who are defenseless against the world's largest military.
      It just seems to me that the idea of perpetual war is not really working out so well and is breaking the bank. Doesn't that concern you? It simply is not sustainable.
      orlin sellers

  8. Texas Colt carryMarch 6, 2012 at 7:39 PM

    China, I dont know about. But the rest of the countries you listed we do have them there. My son-in-law has been based in all of those except Japan, to which he will be going to in a couple of months for three years. We are there to proctect their intrests as well as ours. Not every dictator is interested in promoting liberty, they would rather take it, from any country that is unable to protect themselves. Talks sometimes just dont work. If they show force, it needs to be met with equal or greater force. Ron Pauls own words are to the effect to bring our guys home and let the rest of the world fight it out, go to hell in a hand basket as long as it doesnt affect the U.S.. Where would your free trade be then?

    The concern I have is the latter. To not actively protect ourselves and our allies and interests. What wouldnt be sustainable is not protecting them. Humans do not live in a utopian paradise, anywhere. Doesnt mean that we shouldnt strive for it, we just dont have it right now with tyrants in power around the world.

    This desire to control the world, or a part of it on the backs of people has been going on since before Christ's time and has continued to this day. To use power for peace is a noble thing. To refuse to use power to keep the peace is suicide.

    I, for one, will refuse to lay down the power needed to protect ourselves and our intrests from tyrants that are willing to take what they want just because they think they can. Why trade with us if they can just take it if we lay back and let it happen.

    No thanks.

    1. Ron Paul's position on foreign policy is exactly the same as the founding fathers. They certainly knew about tyrants. And that was at a time when we didn't have an all-powerful military. Again, I'll ask, do you think RP would not defend the country?
      Do you think we can sustain and continue to fund this adventurism abroad? We're simply bullying other countries and nobody like a bully. And as RP has pointed out, there are forces in Iran that want to get rid of those tyrants, but, because we are so belligerent to that nation, those wanting change rally around their flag against us.

      I'm not sure where people get the idea it is our job to keep the peace around the world? Can you tell me one place where we have kept the peace? I can't think of one.

      It is simply bad manners and causes nothing but ill will to butt into others affairs, tyrant or not. The founders knew this, they'd seen it and that is why they wanted no part of entangling alliances or messing with others internal affairs.

      If you are ever so inclined, George Washington's Farewell Address, which is advice to the next presidents is a masterpiece worth reading.

      Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.
      orlin sellers

  9. Texas Colt carryMarch 7, 2012 at 3:15 AM

    No, its not that I dont think he would defend our country, but our intrests would be questionable.

    Your a Ron Paul supporter and thats fine. I have my prefrences as well,,,, which would be anybody but Obama. If Ron were to get the nomination, I would crawl over broken glass thru a mesquite thicket to vote for him. But that goes for the same for any of the hopefuls.
    But the Ron Pauls own position is why he isnt my first choice now, but he was at first.

    I also know about the bad manners, in the world wars we did our best to stay out of them untill there was no other way as our security and intrests were threatened. And it seems that Japan butted in first anyway in that war. So did the bringing down of the twin towers altho that wasnt their first attempt.

    Stations around the world protecting our own is hardly butting in any more than a security officer in a bank. Its just a deterent. In doing so, a lot of peace is kept.

    The cost is nothing compared to our current misleader mishandling of our budget. We have been able to afford it for generations before and if it were not for the current misleader, still could.

    But as it goes now, if there is an "R" beside their name, I will vote for them. Something I havent done before.

    1. TCC, I guess my only other question for you would be, why do you think the people in the military are the biggest contributors to the RP campaign?
      orlin sellers

  10. Texas Colt carryMarch 7, 2012 at 5:39 AM

    Ron Paul has a lot of support from more than just the military. Different class's of people support hopefuls for different reasons. The military is a class the holds strict constitution principles above all else. They are sworn to protect the constitution and have been trained to do so. Thats a class of individuals who volunteer with those kinds of convictions.

    Those in big business support another and so on. To simply parse out one branch of supporters does not make the call for everyone. But the fact is he wont get the nomination, but he does make people question the principles of the others running for the oval office. He, Ron, also is making people question their support for Obama and his flat ignoring the constitution, not his ignorance of it as in Obamas own words said "I will decide whats constitutional or not." The sheeple are waking up to the fact that the president cant decide what is or isn't constitutional and Ron Paul and those like him are the ones waking people up.

    Without Ron Paul this race may have been far different than it is now. Because he has been a contributing factor on how these hopefuls run on the peoples concerns thats now more evident than ever. Even the hard core Obama supporters are at least questioning their vote in '08 to down right pissed off about it now.

    Mitt will pick up a lot of left leaning 'R's' and moderate 'D's' but even that may not be enough. A lot of the left that wanted change now wants to change it back, so a moderate 'R' may not be enough. Which also explains a lot of the Ron Paul support. But again, its not enough for him. But the other hopefuls are watching this direction and taking note, modifying their campaign.

    1. My point about RP's military contributions was made to better solidify my other point that perhaps the military agrees with his non-interventionist foreign policy, thus, that support.

      I have no argument with any of your points and comments.
      orlin sellers

  11. I would like to thank Texas Colt Carry and Orlin Sellers for having a back and forth without name calling and being insulting to each other. This is a refreshing change from what has happened in past.