Michael's Hard Question...

[gringle84]

After reading Philip W. Morrow "Independent" for 2008 POTUS website a few posts back, I do like his stance on the issues.

If the firearm owners could do a "Zumbo" with force this election and be behind a good 2A candidate, win or lose, that would be a shot across the bow or heard around the world?

Mr. Morrow sounds good, are there any others that we could support? Gun owners shouldn't split the vote, just one candidate that we can rally behind and spread the word that this Nov., gun owners vote this one man!

Vote I will, but it will not be for Mitt, Rudy or John........

Robert

[Long Armed Devil]

Found this site that gives some of their voting records..www.ontheissues.org  May be of some help to some.  I live in AZ. and the day after I sent in my early ballot by mail Fred withdrew.    

[SlideRacker]

I have said it in other posts, and I'll say it again...Huck can't come up with enough money to win, but if it comes down to the party switch I'll vote for him. The only wrinkle in his 2A armor that I am aware of is the fact that he is for geographic gun control. I am from Arkansas, and I have delt with this fella for years. I know what he ment by this, and I do not agree with it. He wants to put the gun control problem in the hands of the local governers and mayors and out of the fed's hands. This idea is crazy to me. If I have a real constitution which gives me a right, how can I allow a dimwitt mayor limit it. I know this was an attempt by him to do one of the things he does well, and that is move control out of the fed's hands.
All in all, Huck is a gun owner, hunter, sport shooter, and CCW holder. He did a great job for us here in Arkansas when the gun grabbers came calling. We had a school shooting here while he was in office. The gun grabbers were here in force in less than a week. Huck first tried to be nice, listen, and reason. When that didn't work he basicly told them to read the constitution, and remember what state they were in. He made a good showing of his record to uphold the 2A, and advised our legislature to keep that in mind as well. 
I'll damn sure throw my vote away on him before I give it to Hitlery or Obama Winfery.

[tombogan03884]

Robert, Again Ron Paul seems to be the best choice (despite what Hazcat will have to say) With all the collage students who are supporting him he has a better chance to at least make the "major" parties think than if we put our wait behind "a gun guy" of our own.

[Long Armed Devil]

In the end you must look at who you think will go to bat for your issues.  For me that is someone who will uphold the 2A.  I would much rather have someone who is a 2A person and disagree  with them on a host of other issues.  For me the most important thing is my and our gun rights.  The 1st step to taking away freedoms is not to control the press or the ability to have free speach but, is to take away the people's ability to defend themselves.  You see it all the time in other countries. 

So if they don't line up with me on abortion, imigration, drug policies...ect but were proven 2A defenders I would vote for them  and try to fight those other battles later.  I might lose those battles but if I do I"ll still have my 2A rights and my guns and my ability to defend my family.

What happend during  Katrina sickend me on many levels but the worst thing was the disarming of law abiding citizens.  Those poor souls were being set up to be to be victimized.

The worst thing you can do is NOT to VOTE. 

Stand Up and be Counted.

[Sponsor]

[dgray64]

Please don't, Michael.   That was the question I asked myself as well so I went to McCain's site and read what he said about the 2nd Amendment which was impressive and had me going until I remember that he has been known for saying one thing and doing another.  He is also famous for the McCain\Finegold (mess).

I went to Mit Romneys site and there was no info on his stance so I wrote him an email trying my best to word it as a neutral so that he might not know if I were pro or con and make his answer accordingly.  He answered the following"

Dear David:
     Thank you for contacting me about the important issue of gun ownership and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I appreciate your interest in my campaign for President and would like to extend my sincere gratitude for taking the time to share your views with me.
 
     I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American.  It’s essential to our functioning as a free society, as are all the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I am proud to be among the many decent, law-abiding men and women who safely use firearms.
 
     I firmly believe in the importance of responsible gun ownership and sales. I recognize there are people in this country who want to remove all guns in our society and I think they’re wrong. Washington needs to distinguish between law-abiding gun owners and criminals who use guns.  Those who use a firearm during the commission of crime must be punished severely.  The key is to provide law enforcement with the resources they need and punish criminals, not burden lawful gun owners.
 
     As Governor of one of the most liberal states in the country, I stood up for the rights of gun owners and sportsmen over burdensome bureaucratic regulation. I advanced legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners in my state and I’ve been proud to have the support of pro-Second Amendment and sportsmen’s groups in my previous runs for public office. I also designated May 7 as “The Right to Bear Arms Day” in Massachusetts to honor “the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms in defense of their families, persons, and property and for all lawful purposes, including the common defense.”
 
     One of the most active fronts in the fight to preserve our Second Amendment rights today is being waged in the courts. As President, I’ll appoint strict constructionist judges who will follow the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. I’ll also fight to repeal the McCain-Feingold law, which sought to impose restrictions on the First Amendment rights of groups like the National Rifle Association, to advocate for issues we care about.
 
     I am running for President because I fervently believe that I have the experience and vision to address the issues facing our country. Throughout my years in both the private and public sectors, I have been successful by pursuing innovation and transformation. If there ever was a time when innovation and transformation were needed in government, it is now.
 
     Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to visit my website at www.MittRomney.com for updated information on Second Amendment rights and other issues that may be of interest to you.  I look forward to hearing from you in the future, and earning your support.

Sincerely,

Mitt Romney Signature

So...at this point I'm going to have to go for Romney as he has a business and leader background.  McCain has never had any business interests that we know of and he has become more and more liberal over the years.  Besides, the national media has pushed his campaign so hard that you know that they will cut him to pieces for Hillery as soon as feasible.  I hope I'm right!

Dave   

[clayflingythingy]

dgray,

What part of "Mitt Romney will SIGN an AWB" do you not understand?

Any new AWB out of a Dem congress will likely be worse than the one that expired. Are you jonesing for a six round limit on magazines? Do you want to see AR's, AK's, Mini 14's and all other "military style" autos banned from sale?

 What part of "Mitt Romney will SIGN an AWB" do you not understand?

McCain has voted against the AWB. There is at least the expectation he will veto an AWB. With Romney there isn't even that. If Romney is the nominee I will join some of the others on this board and vote 3rd party.

[Teresa Heilevang]

dgray,

 If Romney is the nominee I will join some of the others on this board and vote 3rd party.

Afraid I have to second that    Mitt is a sell out already. He supported Bush in selling us out.. Thought it was a GREAT move.. 
Nope .. Mitt is OUT!
*just my opinion , of course* 

[Hazcat]

Mitt on 2A

MR. ROMNEY: I do support the Second Amendment, and I believe that this is an individual right of citizens and not a right of government. And I hope the Supreme Court reaches that same conclusion.

I also, like the president, would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state. It was a bill worked out, by the way, between pro-gun lobby and anti-guy lobby individuals. Both sides of the issue came together and found a way to provide relaxation in licensing requirements and allow more people to — to have guns for their own legal purposes. And so we signed that in Massachusetts, and I said I’d — I would would support that at the federal level, just as the president said he would. It did not pass at the federal level.

I do not believe we need new legislation.

I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that, if they’re implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reasons. That’s the right that people have.


So he did sign a permanent AWB in his state and would sign a national AWB but he doen't think new laws are needed (right now).

Too many flops for me.

http://lonestartimes.com/2008/01/25/mitt-romney-and-the-second-amendment/

[tombogan03884]

Hazcat you beat me to it. Mitt the sh*t ALREADY signed one of the most restrictive AWB bills in the country.
A few months ago he was Bragging that he supported the 2A , was a life long NRA member and was elected gov with NRA support. NRA replied that He became an NRA Life member in 2006 and that they had not endorsed ANYONE in that particular election