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

Hillary is a known quantity of course, a straight "F" her whole career from the NRA.

On the Republican side we have Milt from anti-gun Massachussetts running against the guy who began the practice of cities suing gun makers, neither of whom is gonna play well across the South, making the time ripe for Ron Paul or SOMEBODY to run as a third party, handing Hillary the election

Cheer me up somebody, was there ever a Presidential election like this? Or are we experiencing a sad paradigm shift?

Birdwatcher

I believe most of the elections since 1950 would fit that bill. Well, maybe not Goldwater.

Paradigm shift.

the "right" seems pretty confused, demoralized, and fractured at the moment....

Well, the anti gun movement really didn't exist on any serious level until the mid 60s.....it was JFK assassination with the mail order Carcano that fired the whole thing up. Since then you've typically had a pro-gun GOP candidate and a more or less anti-gum democrat. This is the first time you've got two former blue state guys leading the Republican pack, neither of whom gave a hoot about the second amendment until they started running for president.

This is a function of the urbanization of America plus our volunteer military. You don't have the city kids getting the military experience of swearing to protect and defend the Constitution, or of being squad mates with Joe Bob from Podunk.

Good point.

When a government begins the curtailment of civil liberties, disarming the populace is always high on the list of priorities.

another good point.

Birdwatcher,
Last I checked, Ron Paul is running as a Republican, not in a third party, and as such, has an opportunity to be the pro gun Republican candidate-if enough people decide they want to vote for a candidate that's for the Constitution, and not the Republican Party. The choice is ours, and all the bellyaching about his "strange" views come mostly from those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. I don't necessarily agree with all of his views, but I do with most of them, thus that's for whom I will vote. You have the same opportunity.

True conservatism is a thinking ideology, whereas, liberalism is a feeling ideology. In any great debate between emotion (feelings) and logic (reason), emotion wins every time. Conservative politicians are beside themselves on how to get the message out and win votes. The majority of people are incapable of deep thought. Hence, RINO's will end up going against Hilde*itch in this election and all for see-able elections.

The way I see it, candidates' positions are gonna be irrelevant before the election. The SCOTUS will rule on the D.C. case before the election, and whatever they say will make politicians' positions essentially irrelevant.

Well I'll admit that RP says the exact same thing I have thought about how folks in the Middle East are naturally gonna be PO'd at any nation that so freely screws with their sovereignty. Then too we agree on his jaundiced take on the Saudis. But leaving Iraq tomorrow as he suggests prob'ly ain't a good idea.

Not much chance of him getting the Republican nod though if the response of folks around here is any indication, whoever I personally might vote for in the Primaries.

Still and all, RP as a REPUBLICAN ain't the problem. And if it ain't him as a Third Party, someone else will likely step up.

Birdwatcher

The current administration has consolidated so much power into the executive branch that there's nothing that the SCOTUS can do,... even if they were so inclined,... which they're *not*.

At this point,.. anything resembling a division of the powers of government is just a big dog and pony show.

Here,.. I'll give you the condensed version of the Supreme Courts decision in advance.

"The second amendment guarentees the right of the people to keep and bear arms,.. except when it doesn't."

You can write it down.

Bristoe... I'll take that bet, cynic!

Here's a classic example of a Supreme Court decision.

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/balbak.html

While four justices confirmed that Bakke had been the victim of reverse discrimination, four others agreed that the school's affirmative action plan was a logical application of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Justice Lewis Powell sided with both viewpoints,

First,.. tell me, in your opinion, does the second amendment guarentee the right of the people to keep and bear arms?,... and I mean any type of arms that they want.

I reserve my opinion 'til the SCOTUS renders theirs...

That seems like a pretty good strategy for somebody who always wants to be satisfied with the decisions of their government.

Government official: We're here to claim your first born.

DocRocket: What the hell you talkin' about?!!

Government official: The SCOTUS says that it's constitutional.

DocRocket: Oh,.. well,.. in that case,...