Who Do Gun Owners Vote For?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

I think this is an issue that requires being addressed independently. Please leave Paul out of this thread. We all know where he stands but he isn’t going to win. So if you aren’t, or cannot vote for Paul who do you intend to vote for?

Republicans:

John McCain- GOA’s Take on John McCain | GOA

Mitt Romney- Mitt Romney - Gun Control - YouTube

Mike Huckabee- http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/huckabee.htm

Democrats:

Hillary Clinton- Clinton Has Gun-Makers In Her Cross Hairs | GOA

Barrack Obama- Obama | GOA

John Edwards- John Edwards on Gun Control

mike

2

Out of those choices Huckabee sounds best.

3

Alan Keyes is still running. He is more pro 2nd ammendment than anyone.

4

Are you familiar with those sites and who runs them? Because I have been looking for descent information on this subject, but have trouble finding anything from a source I would regard as reliable.

Also, on a related topic, if I wanted to bury something metal in my backyard, and needed to do so in a matter that would resist both detection and corrosion, what would be the best way to go about that?

5

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Out of those choices Huckabee sounds best. [/quote]

Yes, if I were a one-issue voter Huck would be my guy. But then he goes around and says stuff like, “I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it�??s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do - to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”

If you’re anti-gun I will never vote for you. If you’re pro-gun I might vote for you. If you’re Huckabee, you’re a crazy pastor who just demonstrated a deep lack of respect for the Constitution. No vote for you.

mike

6

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Are you familiar with those sites and who runs them? Because I have been looking for descent information on this subject, but have trouble finding anything from a source I would regard as reliable.[/quote]

What is the problem with GOA or the JPFO? They have a vested interest in insuring that voters vote pro-gun. I suppose you could accuse them of having a bias when it comes to specific legislation, but not in giving you an idea as to where each candidate sits on the gun issue.[quote]

Also, on a related topic, if I wanted to bury something metal in my backyard, and needed to do so in a matter that would resist both detection and corrosion, what would be the best way to go about that?[/quote]

I would suggest a pig PVC pipe. I don’t know if it would resist a metal detector, but I imagine it would work well.

mike

7

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I would suggest a pig PVC pipe. I don’t know if it would resist a metal detector, but I imagine it would work well. [/quote]

It certainly wouldn’t “resist a metal detector”.

Gabby, there is no way to foil a metal detector but to dig really deep and hope that the equipment they use is not powerful.

8

If they look they can find any hole dug w/ ground penetrating radar but I doubt it will be used randomly to look for buried rifles.

9

To answer the original question, vote for a Republican Congress.

10

[quote]lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
I would suggest a pig PVC pipe. I don’t know if it would resist a metal detector, but I imagine it would work well.

It certainly wouldn’t “resist a metal detector”.

Gabby, there is no way to foil a metal detector but to dig really deep and hope that the equipment they use is not powerful.[/quote]

You could still bury guns close to already existing metal, e.g pipes, drains and so on.

That way they´d think they knew what was down there and would not bother to dig it up.

11

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
To answer the original question, vote for a Republican Congress.[/quote]

Yeah. I think it would be ridiculous to base your vote on President on this one issue. Particularly since no one’s right to bear arms is going to be taken away any time soon, initiatives like safety locks and greater regulation notwithstanding.

While some radical organizations would like a complete ban on gun ownership, no credible politicans can endorse that position. It’s not realistic, and there’s not enough public support.

12

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
What is the problem with GOA or the JPFO? They have a vested interest in insuring that voters vote pro-gun. I suppose you could accuse them of having a bias when it comes to specific legislation, but not in giving you an idea as to where each candidate sits on the gun issue.

[/quote]

I have no problem with them. I hadn’t heard of them before, and I know a lot of bogus groups pop up around election time, so if they are familiar to you and reliable that’s good enough.

13

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

To answer the original question, vote for a Republican Congress.[/quote]

Exactly. What impact is the President going to have on ownership of firearms? Likely, very little. The appointment of federal judges is one area.

Congress worries much more about such things - focus there. And really, the most important battles will be in the state legislatures.

14

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

To answer the original question, vote for a Republican Congress.

Exactly. What impact is the President going to have on ownership of firearms? Likely, very little. The appointment of federal judges is one area.

Congress worries much more about such things - focus there. And really, the most important battles will be in the state legislatures.[/quote]

How does the president NOT become the single most important voice re: gun rights? He can singlehandedly veto a bill passed by the house. Sounds pretty clear cut to me.

mike

15

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

How does the president NOT become the single most important voice re: gun rights? He can singlehandedly veto a bill passed by the house. Sounds pretty clear cut to me.[/quote]

Well, he could - that isn’t in dispute. The point is that larger priorities will occupy the President’s agenda, most likely, so choosing a President on that issue as a top priority, in my view, doesn’t make a lot of sense when considering the big picture.

I own guns. I even have a shall-issue carry permit. The politics affecting those rights are important to me. But I have never been a one-issue voter - and while I do want to hear what a Presidential candidate has to say on the matter, it isn’t the defining issue, given the President’s job responsibilities.

16

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

To answer the original question, vote for a Republican Congress.

Exactly. What impact is the President going to have on ownership of firearms? Likely, very little. The appointment of federal judges is one area.

Congress worries much more about such things - focus there. And really, the most important battles will be in the state legislatures.

How does the president NOT become the single most important voice re: gun rights? He can singlehandedly veto a bill passed by the house. Sounds pretty clear cut to me.

mike[/quote]

He has the easiest way to stop it but he does not pass the bills through congress. A good congress would never send a bad bill through. That is why voting for a good congressman is crucial.

17

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, he could - that isn’t in dispute. The point is that larger priorities will occupy the President’s agenda, most likely, so choosing a President on that issue as a top priority, in my view, doesn’t make a lot of sense when considering the big picture. [/quote]

Huh? The 2nd amendment is not top priority in your “view”? Well, I guess waging unconstitutional never-ending wars of aggression trumps that…

18

[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, he could - that isn’t in dispute. The point is that larger priorities will occupy the President’s agenda, most likely, so choosing a President on that issue as a top priority, in my view, doesn’t make a lot of sense when considering the big picture.

Huh? The 2nd amendment is not top priority in your “view”? Well, I guess waging unconstitutional never-ending wars of aggression trumps that…[/quote]

Go away

19

[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, he could - that isn’t in dispute. The point is that larger priorities will occupy the President’s agenda, most likely, so choosing a President on that issue as a top priority, in my view, doesn’t make a lot of sense when considering the big picture.

Huh? The 2nd amendment is not top priority in your “view”? Well, I guess waging unconstitutional never-ending wars of aggression trumps that…[/quote]

Damn Lixy, you’re really itching for a fight aren’t you? How about leaving that for a thread that calls for it eh?

mike

20

[quote]lixy wrote:

Huh? The 2nd amendment is not top priority in your “view”? Well, I guess waging unconstitutional never-ending wars of aggression trumps that…[/quote]

Look everyone - Lixy is trying to ruin yet another thread by jerking into the ditch of his hatred of American foreign policy.

Mike’s got a nice thread going here on an interesting topic, you should try and contain your usual litany of idiocy, lest it infect everything here, if not too late.

Plus, your post shows you still know nothing about American government. Despite your painfully obvious limitations and childish and idiotic need to lash out, the President would likely not have anything to do with any policy enacted that is related to gun ownership.

In our Constitution, certain government branches have certain jobs. The President just doesn’t have the power to “announce edicts on gun ownership” - it would only come up in possible federal legislation or if he has his administration get involved in a legal challenge.

As such, it is a better move to focus on policy areas the President does do most of his work in - gun ownership, as a matter of the executive’s job, isn’t one of the areas. Laws restricting gun ownership are going to be hashed out in Congress, or most likely, in state legislatures.

That said, Lixy, we have all tired of your clumsy deconstruction of good topics by way of your incurable stupidity. You know nothing about the American government, how it works, where the 2d Amendment fits into it all, or anything related to it.

We know you are an idiot, Lixy - why do you feel the need to prove it over and over? Why not try and redeem some self-respect? Did you ever have any to redeem?