TexasCHLforum.com

Folks need to take a look at the GOA bogus anti-Thompson website and see what the bills actually deal with, not merely rely upon GOA’s determination of what is and what isn’t “Pro-Gun� or “Anti-Gun.� In typical GOA fashion, they play fast and loose with what is truly a gun-related bill. The lists below use GOA’s creative captioning of the bills exactly as they appear in the GOA website. In using them, by no means do I accept their descriptions as being even remotely accurate. In some cases they are, in many cases they are laughable. I have also used bold print for bills that, if the descriptions are accurate, I believe are directly related to guns and provide at least some indication of a pro-gun or anti-gun vote. I have not put self-serving, result-oriented GOA tripe such as “praising the gun control mommies� and “Gun Control Lite� in bold print, in either the pro-gun or anti-gun categories

Even using GOA’s highly suspect captioning, Thompson’s votes on bills that have a direct bearing on guns is 12 pro-gun votes to 2 anti-gun votes.

Chas.

Here are the topics of the bills on which GOA claims Thompson voted pro-gun:

Taxpayer funding to anti-gun lobby groups
Taxpayer funding to anti-gun groups - 2nd vote
Taggants in gunpowder
Kohl “Gun Free Zones� ban
Smith “Anti-Brady� Amendment
Banning importation of magazines
Mandatory unsafe gun storage requirements
“Lock Up Your Safety� mandatory trigger locks
Background registration checks
Banning of private sales of firearms at gun shows
Anti-gun juvenile crime bill
Mandatory trigger locks with new handgun sales
Hatch-Craig Gun Control Lite
More severe regulation of internet gun sales
Medium-capacity magazine ban
Gun show ban
Praising the gun control mommies
Senate instructions to pass gun control(Reed)
Senate instructions to pass gun control (Boxer)
Attacking gun makers in court

Now compare these bills with what GOA lists as bills that are “anti-gun:�

Government wiretapping of innocent citizens
Anti-terror bill
Anti-terror bill – final passage
Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation gun ban
Free Speech restrictions
Gutting of Smith “Anti-Brady� Amendment
Anti-gun Clinton judge appointment
Anti-gun Surgeon General
Ending filibuster of a major anti-gun crime bill
Young adult gun ban
Adopting the “Gun Control Lite� strategy
McCain’s Incumbent Protection (2000 version)
Incumbent Protection (2002 fail filibuster)

Renegade wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Renegade wrote:He will say anything to get elected. He just got done spouting his lies at NRA today....

Don't be fooled.

So I take it you are supporting Hillary. 'Cause that's what's gonna happen if people get all stoked up over Giuliani's "lies" and sit on their hands in Nov. '08.

Don't be fooled. And don't BE a fool.

Huh? Why would you think that? There are plenty of other Republican candidates that are far more pro-gun than Rudy. (And at least one Democrat too).

Let's stay in the real world. Alan Keyes isn't going anywhere. Neither are any of the 2nd level Republicans OR Demcrats. The real world choice is between Rudy, Thompson, Romney, Clinton, and Obama.

My favorite would be Thompson.

But I could live with ANY of the Republicans before seeing Clinton or Obama in there.

And if it came to that, that's how I would vote.

People who would sit out if Rudy was the nominee would be burning themselves. It's what Hillary and Obama would want you to do.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Not as to individual constitutional rights. That's the danger we face until/unless we get a U.S. Supreme Court decision the Second Amendment creates an individual right. For example, no UN Treaty could abrogate the First Amendment right to free speech, or the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Chas.

Can you explain why? The wording seems pretty plain. It even says "nothing in this Constitution to the contrary..." (paraphrase).

Don't get me wrong, I agree we want a good Parker ruling, and I think it is very likely we can get one. But I think a teaty could still override it.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:People who would sit out if Rudy was the nominee would be burning themselves.

Just for the record, I don't recommend that anyone sit out the election. I was pointing out that it is a real phenomenon.

I have voted in every election since I turned 21, except one when I was sent out of town a day before election day (before early voting was an option).

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:People who would sit out if Rudy was the nominee would be burning themselves.

Just for the record, I don't recommend that anyone sit out the election. I was pointing out that it is a real phenomenon.

Sure. And I am pointing out that the "Rudy and his lies" people are going to CAUSE some people to sit out out of sheer disgust.

Chas says he will vote for Hillary if that's the choice. That's OK if he believes that's the best thing to do.

But a lot of people who would normally vote Republican will not want to see Hillary become president. But if they are convinced they should "punish" Giuliani for his "lies", they will just stay home.

Hillary wins.

God help us.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Not as to individual constitutional rights. That's the danger we face until/unless we get a U.S. Supreme Court decision the Second Amendment creates an individual right. For example, no UN Treaty could abrogate the First Amendment right to free speech, or the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Chas.

Can you explain why? The wording seems pretty plain. It even says "nothing in this Constitution to the contrary..." (paraphrase).

Don't get me wrong, I agree we want a good Parker ruling, and I think it is very likely we can get one. But I think a teaty could still override it.

Case law.

Chas.

"Your right to bear arms is based on a reasonable degree of safety," he said.

Hey Rudie...

I'll bet you its not...

And I'll win...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Tell me the basis for you fearing Hillary more than Guiliani's track record.

Chas.

With me its about character.
My biggest fear of Hillary is based is on her morality. If its given that birds of a feather flock together, and that she is not unlike Bill.
Bill attempted and had some success selling out the presidency and our Country.

Examples:
Pardons for sale.
Selling out to the Chinese.
willingness to lie under oath.

It would be an awful choice to make, but I think could support OJ Simpson before Hillary. I think most conservatives and libertarians feel the same way. I think Rudy has at least an average morality. The Clintons haven't shown any sense of morality.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:... the Clintons are from Arkansas.

As a born-and-bred Arkiesawyer, I object! Hillary is from Chicago, not Arkansas.

Charles, your insight is inspiring.

I HATE the thought of Rudy as POTUS. There's a photo of him w/ Schumer and Brady floating around the web that speaks volumes about his B-ess. Remember he talks about leaving gun issues up to the states - WTH, he just doesn't get the 2A.

Fred has got to do it! Ron P is a flake, Duncan Hunter is a "who".

The possibility of Rudy sucking in Reps to vote for anti-2A laws when Hillary would fail from the get go is a concept I hadn't considered. I have to think about this... my head is going to explode.

stevie_d_64 wrote:"Your right to bear arms is based on a reasonable degree of safety," he said.

Hey Rudie...

I'll bet you its not...

And I'll win...

Actually, I agree with him there, except not in the way he means it. My right to bear arms is what gives me that reasonable degree of safety in the first place.

It's kind of like his thing about licensing guns "just like cars" - I would sure love for him to open that can of worms, if indeed he means exactly the same as cars, because then I can have those cannon, machine guns, etc, just like cars.

Rudy tends to say populist things without analyzing the real meanings, which is why I, similarly to Charles, would have to vote for almost anyone else. He would have a tendency to use "But, you knew what I meant" a lot.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
Sure. And I am pointing out that the "Rudy and his lies" people are going to CAUSE some people to sit out out of sheer disgust.

No, I think the purpose is to get a real pro-gun candidate on the November ballot. That is kinda the purpose of a primary, to get the candidate from your party on the November ballot. Hard to accomplish if we do not talk about the records of the candidates.

Renegade wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
Sure. And I am pointing out that the "Rudy and his lies" people are going to CAUSE some people to sit out out of sheer disgust.

No, I think the purpose is to get a real pro-gun candidate on the November ballot. That is kinda the purpose of a primary, to get the candidate from your party on the November ballot. Hard to accomplish if we do not talk about the records of the candidates.

If the primary period is spent trashing "the other guy", then whoever wins will be damaged goods. Some portion of people who might have voted for him/her will not bother.

My advice to all the Republicans is that if you're gonna trash someone, trash one of the Democrats. Then tell me why I should vote for YOU.

So my favorite is Thompson. I hope he gets the nomination and wins the whole thing.

But mainly, I want whoever DOES get the nomination to be someone who can win. That means they have to poll well against the Democrat opponent. In order to do that, they can't have their negatives driven through the roof in the primaries.

jimlongley wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:"Your right to bear arms is based on a reasonable degree of safety," he said.

Hey Rudie...

I'll bet you its not...

And I'll win...

Actually, I agree with him there, except not in the way he means it. My right to bear arms is what gives me that reasonable degree of safety in the first place.

It's kind of like his thing about licensing guns "just like cars" - I would sure love for him to open that can of worms, if indeed he means exactly the same as cars, because then I can have those cannon, machine guns, etc, just like cars.

Rudy tends to say populist things without analyzing the real meanings, which is why I, similarly to Charles, would have to vote for almost anyone else. He would have a tendency to use "But, you knew what I meant" a lot.

Well we are not necessarily differing on this then...

Since this is mainly a political discussion about a certain candidates "opinion" which is exactly what this is...

Couple this with Rudy's well documented history of being an extreme gun-control advocate, his voting record, and implemented policies while in public office are the main reasons why I would not vote for him for President of the United States of America...Period...

Charles pointed out a really good thing in how even some "pro" gun organizations can nit-pick at a politicians record in very subtle ways...That is in no disrespect to those who are a part of that organization or the organizations overall efforts in helping to protect our right to keep and bear arms...

Politics is just one of those things that is so endearing to many who dabble in it or are fully engaged in it...I get caught up in it all too much as you already know...And its a nasty environment anyway you look at it...

If I could classify my position it would be more along the lines of political philosophy first (conservative), party affiliation second...

Gun-Control being a big issue with me obviously...

My biggest concern is that I do not want to hear the words "Madam Persident" in January 2009...Not that having a woman running this country in the future would be a bad thing...I believe it is inevitable, but Hillary Clinton is not one of those women...

There are a few more things about Rudy that do not endear him to folks outside NYC for the most part...He's a ok guy for the most part, but I will not vote for him in this election...

stevie_d_64 wrote:My biggest concern is that I do not want to hear the words "Madam Persident" in January 2009...Not that having a woman running this country in the future would be a bad thing...I believe it is inevitable, but Hillary Clinton is not one of those women...

And with that I TOTALLY agree.