Gun stance of presidential hopefuls

[ouija]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Wow--you've made quite a change if you went from supporting Romney to Ron Paul.

Romney is, for all intents and purposes, a democrat.

Anyhow, I enjoyed reading your post. Very informative.

Frank

dont really know a bunch about them yet. the basics but as far out as we are, im not ramped up yet.

mcain...i live in AZ, i know his rediculousness

rudy...just something about him, along with his gun control stances, we'll see how he plays out , but i doubt i would ever really want to back him.

romney...just know he has been able to "fix" a lot of things, the winter olympics, a couple corprate deals, and stuff like that.

hillary and obama are media hype, and hillary just discusts me.

so, im just saying that with a retraction or change likely, but maybe not.

[Delija]

I wish that all the candidates had some kind of uniform questionnaire to answer so we could know what they believe (or at least what they say they believe). This would not only give us information we want, but might make them stop and think about how they answer - knowing they are going "on the record".

As things stand now, the candidates are free to tailor their responses to their audience. Today in San Francisco they are one person, tomorrow in Topeka, they are another.

Anyone can change their positions as the polls say they should. As far as that goes, a computer would be able to appeal to enough voters to get itself elected.

Another thing that would help us to be informed as to what kind of president a candidate would make would be for us to know how and why candidates did things differently on a local level than they would (or say they would) on a national level.

Giuliani as Mayor of NYC would likely need to have a different stance on gun control than he would as president. And would likely have an explanation for his actions. After all, the Constitution is upheld by the Supreme Court, not the president. On a local level, there are certain restrictions to our "rights" that apparently can be determined at that level. Should it be that way? I don't believe so, but the facts seem to say that is how it is. Look at gun control in California for example. Or Illinois, New Jersey, etc.

Labels seem just silly to me. Saying all Democrats are "liberal gun grabbers" is proved to be a fiction. We hear that repeatedly, but reality seems to be that the politics of gun owner's rights is tied more closely to demographics than to politics. Democrat politicians in Wyoming are more likely to be "pro-gun" than Republican politicians in our largest cities. (Schwarzenegger and Giulini would be obvious examples).

Someones comment here about Romney being elected in a "liberal" state seemed to imply that makes the man himself a "liberal". That too seems illogical to me.

I don't know what the answers are. If I did, I would make suggestions. Maybe even run for office ...LOL.

But I do recognize that things are often far more complex in real life than they are in the minds of many of us who see things only from our own perspective.

I cherish my rights to own and to carry a gun here in Florida. But I also can empathise with the problems such liberal gun laws as we have here might impact a place like New York City. It is beyond my imagination to ponder the results of armed taxi drivers in Manhattan. It is amazing they don't kill one another more frequently now without any "deadly weapons".

Some places are just less appropriate to have unrestricted CCW.

Even in Florida, one cannot legally carry a gun in a place that conducts gambling. Or on school grounds. Or at a bar. These are laws that take into consideration the greater likelihood of diminished reasoning. A human fault that is common in such places and that needs to be recognized.

Packing 350 tired, stressed, hot and uncomfortably dressed people into a subway car designed to hold 100 people also can be thought of as a situation where tempers and judgement may be affected in ways that might make guns less likely to be used (not used) with proper restraint.

Again, I don't know what the answers are. But I also don't think that it is reasonable to expect a politician from a very small town or a very large city to govern in the same manner they would if they were in the White House. I just wish they would all come out and tell us what they would do differently as president than they have as a Senator or Governor, or mayor, congressman, etc.

And for us to assume they would do everything as they have on a local level is to shortchange ourselves with assumptions unless we have grounds to come to reasonable expectations. This is information only available to us from the candidates themselves. Not from the NRA, not from political cartoonists, commentators, editorial writers, etc..........

It is a long process from announcing one's candidacy to election day. Seems there should be plenty of time for the candidates to actually come out and address our concerns. But it seems we are pretty much left to come to conclusions based on extrapolating behavior that may have nothing at all to do with what we would see from a person elected to the presidency.

Peace,
D.

[Deacon51]

I am holding on to the hope that Fred Thompson will run.

[NevJohn]

Originally Posted by Deacon51

I am holding on to the hope that Fred Thompson will run.

+1

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by NMCB3

I want a president who actually upholds the Constitution.

Enough said, this is my feeling also, and thus far none of the candidates look that appealing with the exception of Ron Paul & Tom Tancredo. Ever wonder why these two don't/won't get the support of their party? Is politics that unconstitutional?

Uh, don't answer that!

I see danger and falseness lurking in the wings with the rest of them.

[Son of Norway]

If Ron Paul is not elected in the primaries I will write him in on my election ballot. I cannot in good conscience vote for any of the phonies in this election. Screw the party line, people need to vote for the issues. Sadly most folks don't know what the issues are anymore.

[tbhahn]

Originally Posted by Deacon51

I am holding on to the hope that Fred Thompson will run.

If he runs, Fred has my vote! As far as other choices, Tancredo, Hunter, and Paul are ok in my book too.