43 replies [Last post]
expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Who is the most pro-gun presidential candidate?

True, but they've definitely been spinning things. For one thing, they're incapable of dealing with more than two candidates at a time. Ever notice that it's always two candidates on each side that get the press? They view each election as a prize fight, and that's how the model they use for coverage. So you get two people in the ring for each party, plus a Marlon Brando candidate they cast as #3, and his press coverage boils down to "I coulda been a contender" -- if only he could get in the ring.

The spin on Romney has always been pretty clear. He beat McCain in every state until South Carolina. He lost by five points in Florida (still 2nd place), and yet press coverage afterward was that Romney was "vowing to fight on" -- like he was a desperate man in a lost cause. They've had to spin some races as "must win or else" races for candidates, just to create drama.

Hillary, on the other hand, went months without the press biting on anything negative --, and press criticism of her has been a relatively recent development. I'm not saying they control everything, but I think a significant portion of he country's opinion rides on fad politics.

Offline
Location: Eatonville, Wa
Joined: 08/26/2007
Posts: 610
Who is the most pro-gun presidential candidate?

The thought of hillary, obama, or mcain keep running through my head. I cant decide in that situation on whether I would move to venezula and enjoy chavez as my leader, or will i move to cuba and enjoy life there. this current election is like having something stuck in your teeth and no toothpick, annoying and frusterating, You would think you could do something about it but you cant. So if your like me you get to sit back and watch every thing go to ...(well you know).

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
Who is the most pro-gun presidential candidate?

You know its bad when you turn on the radio and hear Ann Coulter saying if the race comes down between McCain and Hillary she is going to vote for the more conservative candidate - Hillary!

She actually made a good point - we can bash Hillary for voting for liberal legislation, but who wrote that legislation? Why McCain of course.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Who is the most pro-gun presidential candidate?

Coulter presents an interesting argument. If we're going to have a liberal president enact awful legislation, better it be Hillary. If it's McCain, people will blame the damage on Republicans and go farther left. If it's Hillary, people will realize the left is flawed and elect another Reagan.

The libs love McCain because they know the conservative base of the Republican party considers him a traitor and he'll never gain their support. On the other side of the coin, Dems won't vote for him because he's Republican. So Hillary/Obama can work both ends and beat him. McCain is charismatic and has a great story, but he's unelectable.

What a lot of people don't realize is that political campaigns aren't just pushing their candidate. Today's campaigns also work on shaping the opposition and quietly supporting candidates you think you can beat. I've said it before -- Romney terrifies them because he's a Republican who managed to get elected governor of the bluest state in the Union. If he can convince the Kennedy's home turf to vote Republican, he can do it in the rest of the country.

I also find it fascinating that anyone on the street will tell you that industries and corporations will try to shape political events to their advantage -- whether it be the oil industry, defense, automotive, aerospace, etc. If the oil companies controlled what you heard during political campaigns, do you think they'd use that power? No one doubts that at all. We see oil industry political campaigns all the time from BP and Conoco/Phillips up here in Alaska. But for some reason nobody considers the possibility that the media is the same -- a business that will try to shape politics to its advantage. The only difference between big media and the oil industry is that big media has unencumbered free access to print and airwaves to deliver its message.

The media wants a Hillary/McCain contest this fall, and that's what they've been pushing for all along. That's the die they cast months ago, and it seems we're returning to it now. Obama's "surge" is spin to try to deflect public perception that Hillary is "inevitable." Hillary's still winning pretty much everything. As soon as everyone started complaining about her inevitability, suddenly she was in a real fight. They're positioning her to be the comeback kid -- which was Bill's claim to fame.

Funny, isn't it? Obama's won two states and Romney's won four. And yet the press would have you believe Obama's thumping Hillary and Romney's fighting to stay in the race.

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
Who is the most pro-gun presidential candidate?
Quote:
Romney terrifies them because he's a Republican who managed to get elected governor of the bluest state in the Union. If he can convince the Kennedy's home turf to vote Republican, he can do it in the rest of the country.

Excellent observation Thumbs up

My wife would think I'm paranoid and a lunatic if she read this, but seriously, I believe our country is in trouble. The liberal machine is growing, fueled by voters that will sell their souls for free government handouts.

Conservatives hold one ace card and the liberals know it - the 2nd amendment protects our liberties and keeps us free. If the 2nd amendment falls so do all of our other rights.

Notice I did not say Constitutional rights - but all rights. Some rights are highlighted by the Constitution, but there are other rights that are inherent to man with which were are born. The government does not grant us these rights, but they can take them away if we let them.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Who is the most pro-gun presidential candidate?

The media wants a close race (at all stages of the nomination and election) and high drama. McCain and Hillary are dramatic... Other than that, I don't see much collusion.

I don't think either nomination is close to being locked up. Romney could easily still win the nomination. Polls claiming that McCain has opened up a double digit lead since FL are most likely just as inaccurate as those declaring his imminent demise months ago (big scoop-o-drama... ride the seesaw).

Since this thread is about being pro-gun. I think McCain is a better candidate than Romney. Some have painted McCain as liberal, and indeed McCain-Liberman and McCain-Fiengold, as well as positions on illegal-immigrants (amnesty), and waterboarding (its torture) run counter to the most conservative parts of Republican party. However with regards to guns McCain has a long track record of being mostly on the right side.

This piece is pretty consistent on McCain and Guns:
http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/rkba/john-mccain-on-gun-control/

The problem with Romney and guns is that he spent quite a bit of rhetoric during his MA days blasting at gun rights and the NRA. Rhetoric that he abandon upon running for the presidency. I prefer to see McCain's voting record over Romney's promises.

That being said, I think Romney is a class act. McCain has already begun character attacks on Romney and I appreciate the fact that Romney has decided to stick to the issues and not roll in the mud with McCain. McCain should reread Regan's 11th commandment....

Furthermore, I can't vote for Huckabee after his comment about Jesus and the devil.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316507,00.html

He apologized, but it was a smear job... unworthy of a leader.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Who is the most pro-gun presidential candidate?

McCain's the best of the bunch, but he's had some wrinkles. He jumped the aisle and led the charge in Congress for background checks at gun shows. But then again, he voted against it. When it comes to voting against things you support, I don't know whether he picked that logic up with Kerry in Vietnam or from his close friendship with Hillary. On most other 2nd Amendment issues, though, he's been pretty solid.

I do have a beef, however, with McCain-Feingold and the limits it imposes on free speech. Under his rules, candidates can throw a bomb near the end of the campaign, and the people in the best position to call them on it are muzzled. I joined the NRA so they could speak for me; but John McCain is silencing my voice.

McCain's way ahead of Romney, though. Romney supports assault weapon bans and wants to keep "weapons of unusual lethality" off the streets. That's a pretty nebulous term; I don't know what constitutes "usual lethality." Terms like that set dangerous precedents, because they mean so many different things to different people. To me, it'd mean a 40mm grenade launcher. To someone else, it might mean a hollow point.

Nevertheless, both are light years ahead of Obama and Hillary. But I think people are pretty much aware of where they stand. Ban semi autos, ban guns in cities, sue manufacturers and dealers out of existence, limit how many you can buy, dictate how you store them in your home, expand the list of who shouldn't be allowed to have guns, and redefine the purpose of gun ownership as being limited to hunting. These are people who view New Orleans' gun confiscation pogrom against the law-abiding as inspired brilliance.

Bottom line: if you vote Democrat this year, you're voting for one of the most rabid anti-gun fanatics in the Senate -- whoever gets the nomination. Don't let the rhetoric fool you -- look at their records. If you think it's not that big of a deal because you're focusing on other agenda, think again. Throughout history, the first personal liberty sacrificed on the road to tyranny has always been the right of people to arm themselves. Every freedom we have hinges on the 2nd Amendment. If that one falls, the rest will eventually follow.

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
Who is the most pro-gun presidential candidate?

I think we need to remember Bill Clinton's attacks on the 2nd amendment only to get a glimpse what Hillary will be like.

Offline
Location: Eatonville, Wa
Joined: 08/26/2007
Posts: 610
Who is the most pro-gun presidential candidate?

I think at this point, its choosing a sh** sandwich or nothing, not a single candidate isnt pandering to the left wingers and anti-(insert your favorite ie, hunter, gun owner,common sense). Now Im not saying that GW was the greatest president but atleast he made some informed decisions. But with all of the potential options i do believe that I would rather vote none of the above.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Who is the most pro-gun presidential candidate?

I really don't know which of the Democrats is scarier. No need to discuss Hillary on this point, because it's obvious. But Obama is worrisome. He's completely liberal, inexperienced, and could easily be torn apart on issues.

But it's not that easy. If someone tries to go after his inexperience, naiive outlook, or even his positions, the Obama camp will throw the race card and accuse he attacker of racial motivations. Sure, you may not hear Obama say it -- but he has lots of supporters who will say it for him. Read any blog or discussion forum that addresses Obama, and as soon as anyone starts landing any criticism, someone will show up and accuse the person of being racist.

The Democrats have long ago mastered the art of the unimpeachable witness. It's like having a kid be a spokesman for school funding, or a Columbine survivor to speak out on gun control. They're masters of finding someone who can say whatever they want and get away with it, because as soon as someone questions him/her, the response is immediate: How DARE you! Long ago, the Democrats decided that when they can't compete in the world of ideas, they can shut down criticism through outrage and political correctness.

Hillary did it all the time with her gender, and if Obama gets the election you're going to see it again. In large part, they'll get a free ride because no one will dare criticize for fear of being publicly destroyed. If he gets the nomination and the number don't look good between him and McCain, I wouldn't put it past them to brush aside issues a "excuses" peopl use and insinuate it's because Americans are ignorant and need to get over their racism.

Personally, I'm deeply suspicious of politicians who avoid inspection by using social pressure to silence those who might question them. We've seen that too many times throughout history, and it has never been a good thing. If America succumbs to that, we set ourselves up for facism.