Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Has there ever been an Presidential election where ALL the lead candidates were anti-gun?

<yawn>

Whether you like it or not, B, the SCOTUS has already declared they will hear this case. Now, I'm no attorney, but I hang out with some who have worked in the higher court area. They tell me that the lower court decision is irreversible on principles of law, which is, as I'm sure your razor-sharp mind has already apprehended, the issue. So all the SCOTUS has before it is to say yes, or no, to the lower court decision. If they uphold the lower court decision, anti-gun legislation dating back God knows how far is in jeopardy. If they overturn the lower court decision, we'll have, at best, your 'yes-and-no' limbo.

So, what is YOUR position? If they rule against your position is... overthrow the government?

My opinion is,.. the government doesn't give a damn what my opinion is,...

I've argued that position until I am now just a beaten up pulp and a shell of my old real self.

I can't believe so many people think the word "Arms" has to be qualified.

Duhhh!

... and I concur...

Acctually the anti gun movement started after the Civil War on a very small scale got some bigger post WW1 then during prohibition it began gaining some momentum, post WW2 with the Communist scare then the civil rights movement it again began getting stronger. But was for the most part seen as a bunch of nuts. Then the sixties the whole peacenick movement saw firearms as violent, and hunting as a barbaric link to a violent past. Thye JFK MLR and RFK murders just added more fuel to the fire. This comeing presidential election is troubling since the seeming malise of the conservative Americans may allow another anti gun democrat or a RINO into the office that is the only thing standing between we Citizens and confiscation, since our elected members of Government have seen fit to give over thier lawmakeing tasks to hired employees Giveing agencies the ability to decide what firearms are legal to be possesed by law abideing citizens, and other agencies the ability to outlaw storage of ammunition or components even by retailers. We need to pull it togeather while Ron Paul talks good about the Second Amendment his views on other things are unworkable for the most part. Some one who has a proven record of support for our Second Amendment is running third according to the latest polls maybe if we really unite behind Fred Thompsen we could have a chance of still being a free nation in five years.

The wording of the 2nd amendment can't get any plainer.

If you run upon someone whom you have to argue the point with,.. save your breath.

They're not a part of the reality based community.

Dude... I realize this may be beyond the pale for you, especially since the sun's been under the yardarm for a few hours... but it doesn't matter WHO you're running as a candidate, including Ron Paul, if the SCOTUS rules against our mutually-held belief that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right.

In terms of gun rights, the most important political event of the past 100 years or more will occur in the next 6 months, and it will NOT be who is nominated or not by either party. It is the question currently before the SCOTUS.

The absolute best that will happen from the SCOTUS ruling is that things stay as they are,.. with further government violations of our 2nd amendment rights waiting on down the line without missing a beat.

Like I said,... it's just a dog and pony show,.. a little play that is put on to make you think that there's somebody looking out for your rights.

DocRocket +1

The only effort expended by the SCOTUS will be in wording their decision in a manner which is ambiguous enough to make everyone on both sides of the issue feel as though they've won.

That's their job,... their only job.

blinddog1,
What positions specifically are unworkable IRT Ron Paul? He has a better record on the Second Amendment than Fred Thompson, who has a propensity to side with Federal LE instead of the citizenry.

The decision to vote for someone is yours. You have an opportunity to vote for a candidate who has shown that he believes in the Constitution as it was originally intended, and yet you're hesitant to commit because he has "no chance" or has "unworkable ideas". If you want more of the same, vote for the process candidate that the party puts forward, like Giuliani or Fred Thompson. If you really want to make a change, vote for Ron Paul. If enough people do it, he might well become the nominee.

Bristoe... your cynicism with regard to jurisprudence is truly unparalleled. I sincerely hope (and strongly believe) your cynicism is misplaced.

But enough of this crap. I spent most of today settin' up my deer stand, loadin' some thumpin'270 loads, and sightin' in my daughter's rifle. Now I'm gonna watch San Diego thump the Colts. I'm pourin' me a BIG Glenlivet, and hope you'll be doin' the same with a Ketel One.

Cheers, amigo!

I'm taking the night off,... but cheers to yas anyway,..

Thanks, bro.

Nukes? Weaponized anthrax? Privately owned helicopter gunships? Personal tank fleets? SAM batteries? TOWs?

Does the government posess all of those?

My point being,... since the 2nd amendment was penned in order to guarentee the ability of the people to deliver themselves from governmental tyranny,... how can the government deny the people the weaponry that it chooses for itself without violating the 2nd amendment?

It's a rhetorical question,.. but a valid one.

Its kind of a silly question. But I'm not surprised.


BTW, some poll has your boy up to 7% in NH. Ad buy must have worked, some.

Humor me and answer it anyway,...without denying the validity and purpose of the 2nd amendment, if possible.