Presidential Politics and Gun Rights
January 31st, 2008 by Syd
Well, the field has narrowed considerably. Fred and Rudy are gone, as are Bill, Dennis, John, Tom, and Tommy. Left standing on the Republican side are Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. On the Democrat side we have Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Since I have already done detailed profiles on the candidates’ positions on gun rights and gun control, I will simply make some observations on the individuals and then provide the link back to the more detailed surveys of their histories and positions.
Democrats:
Barak Hussein Obama — Barak Obama has been a member of the the board of directors of the infamous anti-civil rights money pit known as the Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation has been an unlimited supply of money for all of the most virulent gun control organizations. Since 2003, the Joyce Foundation has paid grants totaling over $12 million to gun control organizations for gun control advocacy and research into gun violence prevention. The largest single grantee has been the Violence Policy Center, which received $4,154,970 between 1996 and 2006, and calls for an outright ban on handguns, semi-automatic and other firearms, and substantial restrictions on gun owners. Conveniently, the Joyce Foundation has a list of the gun control funding grants here . The Joyce Foundation’s Annual Reports list Barack Obama as one of the 12 members of the Board of Directors from 1998 until 2001. Barak Obama is an enemy of gun rights, plain and simple. For more on Barak Obama’s positions on gun rights and gun control, click here.
Hillary Rodham Clinton — What more can be said of Hillary? To her credit, she admitted to Tim Russert that she had backed off her demand for federal registration of all handguns. I hear that as the cynical calculation of a power-hungry politician. If she is going to claim the tenure of her husband as part of her political experience, then she must claim the Brady Bill, the Assault Weapons Ban, the attack on the Branch Davidians in Waco and the battle of Mogadishu as elements of her “leadership.” For more on Hillary’s positions on gun control, click here.
Republicans:
Ron Paul — Of all of the candidates, Ron Paul has the best record on gun rights. Being a constitutional purist, Ron Paul hits all the right notes on gun rights, and he has done so for many years. He was a champion of gun rights long before he decided to run for president. It’s in his DNA. Unfortunately, I think Dr. Paul’s chances of getting nominated or winning the presidency are all but non-existent. For more on Ron Paul’s positions on gun rights, click here.
Mike Huckabee — Mike Huckabee is second only to Ron Paul on gun rights. I really like Huckabee on guns. Both he and his wife have concealed carry permits. That’s walking the walk. I don’t believe that Huckabee’s religious fervor and social conservatism syncs well with the mood of the electorate in 2008. My spider sense tells me that Huckabee’s run won’t survive Super Tuesday. For more on Mike Huckabee’s positions on gun control and gun rights, click here.
Mitt Romney — Mitt Romney is mostly saying the right things about gun rights and gun control these days. I just wish I could believe him. His conversion to conservative values such as Second Amendment rights seems a bit late and a bit too coincidental with his decision to run for president. If he means what he says on gun rights, I could be OK with him. I just wish that he actually owned some guns himself, and that he had bought his lifetime membership in the NRA a bit sooner. For more on Mitt Romney’s positions on gun rights and gun control, click here.
John McCain — I have a standing offer to anyone who spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton that I will buy them a beer anytime, any place. I have a great personal fondness for McCain despite a number of his positions with which I adamantly disagree. McCain claims that he doesn’t own a gun, and I don’t believe him. McCain has been all over the board on gun rights, so much so that it’s hard to tell where he really stands. He has so alienated the right with things like McCain-Feingold that I am concerned that he will never have the support of the conservative branch of the party. For more on John McCain, gun rights and gun control, click here.
Endorsement?
One subscriber to my newsletter asked me who The Sight M1911 was going to endorse for president. I replied that I had already endorsed Fred Thompson and that hadn’t worked out very well. However, with the givens of the field we now have, I have to make a bifurcated endorsement. So, here goes. For Second Amendment purity, the nod has to go to Dr. Ron Paul. He is absolutely the best candidate from either party on gun rights. For “real politik” elect-ability, meaning the guy my gut says has the best chance of defeating Hillary and/or Obama, I have to pick John McCain. (Yes, I’m holding my nose, but anything is better than Hobamary. Ann Coulter disagrees. She has endorsed Hitlery)
Good to see Paul’s finally getting the nod that he needs.
I Just listened to Ron Pauls speech from Denver last night. He definately is on the right track on all the issues, especially the Second Amendment. I’ll vote for him anyday. Even though his chances are bleek, I feel a large vote for him from the people will send a message to whoever’s elected. He’s now getting the money he needs to continue. He had a stronger showing than Romney last night. That’s impressive. He certainly converted me. I feel all the folks who want to keep their guns should listen to this man and vote for him. In my 58 years I’ve never heard a more inspirational speech from a Presidential Candidate. He’s a down to Earth American with the true American spirit that most people have forgotten or never even had. But that’s just me…
Should you hold your nose? Will you hold your nose? I think that I knows that there are a many who care about personal freedom that won’t show up in November.
It is a pain in the butt getting out of bed and squeezing that nose, getting in the car still a sqeez’n, walking in the building looking kinda silly with that grasp. Then you have to pull that lever or press that button (luckily easy to do with one hand) and then drive home depressed about what you just did.
Yeah, I am going to do it. Yeah, it sucks but it won’t do any good because too many good people are going to stay home.
Don’t vote for someone you do not want to be president.
It encourages politicians to discount and ignore those who understand that the most important, perhaps only important, issue is individual freedom and the personal responsibility that goes with it.
Ron Paul has run as a Libertarian before. Maybe he will again.
If not, breathe deeply and vote only for those you would like to see in office and want to encourage. If that means skipping some lines on the ballot, that is a message too.
I concur with Syd.
If we vote for unelectable candidates in order to send a message, the message that gets delivered is that we can be ignored; that we will add to liberal victories by withholding our votes from those who, while not perfect, are still closer to our point of view.
More importantly, the candidates we help defeat with this purist strategy are the ones most likely to pay attention to us once in office.
And, looming over it all, there is the factor of Supreme Court appointments to think about. It is something to ponder carefully. If you throw a vote to Ron Paul and McCain loses, what kind of emotion driven left wing whack jobs do you think Hillary or Obama will nominate to join the high court? Right: someone from the Joyce Foundation. Not a pretty picture.
I must agree with Montana. What we must remember is that we have to unite together for one true purpose: defeat the Democratic candidate. If he (or she) gets elected, you can kiss our Republic goodbye!!
John Fox -
Exactly. If we remain pure as the driven snow, in terms of our political philosophy, we risk handing Billary or Obama the White House, due to splintered voting. In either case that bloated drunk, Teddy Kennedy, will be able to influence a lot of national policy. And we’d all love that, right?
This is like a knife fight: form doesn’t count, and there are no rules. There will be no second place winner - only a bunch of losers.
And the stakes are incredibly high. The most liberal members of the Supreme Court are getting very long in the tooth, which represents a serious opportunity to influence the course of the country for decades to come. A lot of the votes are still 5-4, meaning one or two appointments could cement the character of that court for longer than I care to consider.
We need not to blow this off in the interest of making a futile statement that no one will remember come a year from today.
We are not going to get 100% of what we want this year regardless of our vote choice. That’s a shame but, quite frankly, when have we EVER been able to “have it all”? Perhaps when Ronald Reagan won in ‘80 but certainly not since.
So, do we cast a Pyhrric Victory vote and probably, by so doing, help elect someone we REALLY don’t want in order to ’send a message’? I hope not.
There is no one solid, 100%-passes-the-litmus-test conservative running this year. So, my choice is to vote for that person most likely to beat Ms. Hitler. For me that person is Mitt Romney.
Have a day.
Bang Gunley, Pensacola, FL
Minute Man, The name says it all, well, you say lets all get on the band wagon for the purest and Ron Paul is that guy. Well, He won’t get elected ! So that leaves Romney or McCain. Not much of a choice in my opinion. I respect Mc Cains service but I think he is way over the left field fence and Romney is a ” what ever you want to hear” man. That leaves , well, nothing. I hope one of these two canditates will stand out on our side. I always thought the That the ” right ” was suposed to be the smart group but seeing what they have fielded for canditates, I truely wonder. What ever happened to all the John Wayne types, Where are the minute men ???????
What would Ben ,Tom,and those other founding fathers
do.I know what they did , they stuck to their guns They
faced sure defeat but they stuck their necks out anyway.
I am inclined to do the same they risked lose of life and
property, I should risk my vote.
A candidate has come along that is who we want and we
don’t supprt him because they say he can’t win.
Compmiseing settleing for less than we want
Thats not American Way
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. As I recall wasn’t it a Republican President who put oh I think at least 3 of the liberal supreme court justices in office?? Voting for a party who doesn’t care squat about what is important to you sends what message? That they can do whatever they want by manipulating the conservative base by using the sky is falling technique? As for me I’ll vote who I want to vote for and not base it on the fear factor…
I’ll vote right, I always do. I haven’t liked it since after Ronaldus Magnus was doing the right thing, but I must say that it seems odd that there is No One Else that the RNC can find in this huge country of ours. A third party can’t even get on the board.
Romney is the answer - McCain is a backstabber who believes in Global Warming, and limits to free speech! Ann Coulter has tried to make the point in her own unique way! Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Mark Levin — LISTEN UP! Romney *is* the hope of the Conservative soul of the party! www.hughhewitt.com