fred thompson and 2nd amendment.

[rpfreedom08]

What does fred thompson have to say on the subject? I just need to know for someone that likes guns and is pro thompson.

[DaronWestbrooke]

Ron Paul is pro-Constitution, including the second Amendment, but his voting record shows he isn't a radical either, he believes in 'smart' gun laws; (that way we can appeal to both sides.) After all, he did vote against prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers...

His position can be appeal to everyone.

[ItsTime]

should find some good things here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/1828
http://gunowners.org/pres08/

[DaronWestbrooke]

Ron Paul is pro-Constitution, including the second Amendment, but his voting record shows he isn't a radical either, he believes in 'smart' gun laws; (that way we can appeal to both sides.) After all, he did vote against prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers...

His position can be appeal to everyone.


Sorry, I just realized you were asking about Fred, not Ron.. Fred is way out on the right wing in terms of guns. he isn't reasonable like Ron.

[ItsTime]

Sorry, I just realized you were asking about Fred, not Ron.. Fred is way out on the right wing in terms of guns. he isn't reasonable like Ron.

you mean left wing? Fred is very anti-guns

[DaronWestbrooke]

Not the way I see it, Ron seems a lot more reasonable, voting against reducing waiting periods and voting for letting people sue gun companies when guns are used in crimes.

Fred seems way out there.. I've tried to use that GOA link for Fred and got beaten up over it by the right wingnuts because most of the 'anti-gun' things they list for Fred really aren't about guns or indirectly relate.

Ron is far more thoughtful and moderate on the subject. Fred seems like a wingnut. Who, after all, has a gun tournment named after them? If that isn't redneck gun lover pandering, nothing is.

I would rather support a sensible, well thought out Paul position on guns.

[DaronWestbrooke]

you mean left wing? Fred is very anti-guns

I understand what you are saying though, we need to make sure we can sell Paul's side to the pro-gun crowd too, this is a good way to put it.

[Givemelibertyor.....]

Fred voted for the Lautenberg Amendment. That alone makes him anti-gun in my book.

[DaronWestbrooke]

Fred voted for the Lautenberg Amendment. That alone makes him anti-gun in my book.

Good spin, I'll have to remember that.. I may go over to some right-wing forums and see how it flys.

[Spirit of '76]

Ron Paul is pro-Constitution, including the second Amendment, but his voting record shows he isn't a radical either, he believes in 'smart' gun laws; (that way we can appeal to both sides.) After all, he did vote against prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers...

His position can be appeal to everyone.


Sorry, I just realized you were asking about Fred, not Ron.. Fred is way out on the right wing in terms of guns. he isn't reasonable like Ron.

What the hell are you smoking?

[voortrekker]

Not the way I see it, Ron seems a lot more reasonable, voting against reducing waiting periods and voting for letting people sue gun companies when guns are used in crimes.

What? if this is true it is news to me.

Letting people sue gun companies when guns are used in crimes? This makes no sense.

Guns cannot kill people, people kill people.

And has far as I understand, Ron Paul is the most staunchest defender of the 2nd Amendment among the all the candidates-including Fred Thompson.

To my knowledge, he is in fact is more so than ANY congress critter presently in office.

Ron Paul is no moderate when it comes the 2nd Amendment.



Did I miss some new info on RP's 2nd Amendment stance or what?:confused:

[Spirit of '76]

Some of Fred's anti-gun votes are detailed here:
http://conservativesagainstfred.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/fred-thompsons-anti-gun-senate-record/

[voortrekker]

What the hell are you smoking?

What I'm thinking too.:eek:

[DaronWestbrooke]

Yes, it is some of the more sensible gun leglislation out there. It keeps the federal government from restricting people from using the courts.

Here are Paul's votes on this.
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-534 on Oct 20, 2005

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill HR 1036 ; vote number 2003-124 on Apr 9, 2003

As I've stated, Paul seems to have a more reasonable and moderate approach than that of a gun nut.

[Givemelibertyor.....]

I smell a troll

[Spirit of '76]

What I'm thinking too.:eek:

DaronWestbrooke is a troll. Look at the rest of his posts.

[Corydoras]

Daron, I've looked over your past posts. You sound like a crossover Democrat. Are you?

[voortrekker]

Yes, it is some of the more sensible gun leglislation out there. It keeps the federal government from restricting people from using the courts.

Here are Paul's votes on this.
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-534 on Oct 20, 2005

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill HR 1036 ; vote number 2003-124 on Apr 9, 2003

As I've stated, Paul seems to have a more reasonable and moderate approach than that of a gun nut.



Well, that's news to me. Thanks for the info.

It still doesn't makes sense to me that gun manufacturing companies can be sued due to someone that uses a gun it made to commit a crime.:confused:

Anybody?

[Corydoras]

DaronWestbrooke is a troll. Look at the rest of his posts.

I was particularly amused by how he happened to appear in this thread:
http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=23499

[Spirit of '76]

Well, that's news to me. Thanks for the info.

It still doesn't makes sense to me that gun manufacturing companies can be sued due to someone that uses a gun it made to commit a crime.:confused:

Anybody?

Why don't we hear it from Ron himself? ;)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul91.html

[DaronWestbrooke]

Daron, I've looked over your past posts. You sound like a crossover Democrat. Are you?

Yes, I am sick of the establishment dems. The rEVOLution isn't just about Republicans you know! Or do you not want us?

[RP4ME]

Not the way I see it, Ron seems a lot more reasonable, voting against reducing waiting periods and voting for letting people sue gun companies when guns are used in crimes.

Fred seems way out there.. I've tried to use that GOA link for Fred and got beaten up over it by the right wingnuts because most of the 'anti-gun' things they list for Fred really aren't about guns or indirectly relate.

Ron is far more thoughtful and moderate on the subject. Fred seems like a wingnut. Who, after all, has a gun tournment named after them? If that isn't redneck gun lover pandering, nothing is.

I would rather support a sensible, well thought out Paul position on guns.

why woudl suing the gun manuf. be fair if they dont commit the crime? That makes no sense to me?

[voortrekker]

Why don't we hear it from Ron himself? ;)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul91.html

Whew!!!!!!!

Thank you for this info. :) :) :)

I thought I was about to have a MI!

[DaronWestbrooke]

I smell a troll

Why? Because I look at Paul's record and see something that all sides can get behind? I'm not the one who wants to alienate half the voting block.

[Spirit of '76]

I was particularly amused by how he happened to appear in this thread:
http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=23499

Did you see the one where where he said:

We need to get real, Paul is an establishment candidate like the rest of them, and he is there to pander to us and make us think we have a voice.
:rolleyes:
http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=252750#post252750


Or how 'bout the one where he says Ron needs to come out in favor the Fairness Doctrine?
http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=253170#post253170

Or how 'bout the one where he's trying to spin Ron as being soft on immigration? Or the one where he's trying to spin Ron as being soft on abortion?

How much more obvious could it be? :cool:

[Corydoras]

Yes, I am sick of the establishment dems. The rEVOLution isn't just about Republicans you know! Or do you not want us?

Of course it's not just about Republicans-- we have a lot of Libertarians, too, and increasing numbers of Democrats. Well, what bothers you so much about the Democrats? You seem to be uncomfortable with the basic tenor of various of Ron's positions.

[DJ RP]

Fred Thompson is anti-gun ron paul is the the most pro gun candidate running and his record proves it. Tell that to your friend.

[DaronWestbrooke]

Did you see the one where where he said:

:rolleyes:
http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=252750#post252750


Or how 'bout the one where he says Ron needs to come out in favor the Fairness Doctrine?
http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=253170#post253170

Or how 'bout the one where he's trying to spin Ron as being soft on immigration? Or the one where he's trying to spin Ron as being soft on abortion?

How much more obvious could it be? :cool:

The first quote you completely missed that I was responding to someone who is dropping out of the rEVOLution just for Paul, not seeing the bigger picture.
As for the rest, I'm sorry if you don't like that half the country finds Ron acceptable to. I am a dem who is sick of the establishment and I thought I found someone who can appeal to my side as well. He seems a hell of a lot more balanced on issues than people on either side. I'm sorry if I tried to help you win over dems. The rEVOLution isn't just about right wingers you know. You need our side too.

[Spirit of '76]

Sometimes I'm concerned that Paul is just another puppet there to appease to us and make us think we have a voice...

Ahem.

[DaronWestbrooke]

Well, what bothers you so much about the Democrats? You seem to be uncomfortable with the basic tenor of various of Ron's positions.

What bothers me so much is they are more of the same shit, they only talk. I am not uncomfortable with Ron's positions, on the contrary, I am finding that Paul's positions on a lot of issues are something I can support as a democrat, they are reasonable, not radical. I like his freedom of people to choose versus the government forcing laws down our throats.

[DaronWestbrooke]

Ahem.

Quit playing games, full context. It is about the rEVOLution, not one man.

[Spirit of '76]

Quit playing games, full context. It is about the rEVOLution, not one man.

Piss off, troll.

[Rich333]

Fortunately I know enough about both RP's and FT's positions to know that Daron has it completely backwards, because he seems intent on trying to trick people like me into supporting FT. I am one of those "radicals" he refers to on this issue (though not a redneck... born and raised in Brooklyn); I don't care if it's a BB gun or an H-bomb, the right to bear arms is the right to bear arms, and those are arms.

[Corydoras]

Ahem.

LOL
:p

[Spirit of '76]

Fortunately I know enough about both RP's and FT's positions to know that Daron has it completely backwards, because he seems intent on trying to trick people like me into supporting FT.

That's exactly what he's doing, despite his transparent cover story of being a liberal supporting Ron.

He's just here to put ridiculous spin on Ron's record in a vain attempt to make it look like he's soft on everything Republicans care about.

[Corydoras]

Imagine if all Christians who were against the neocon support of Israel's wars gave up their 10% tithe to the church for one month and gave it to Paul? Who stands more for their values anyway?

Oh, yeah, he sounds JUST like a converted Democrat trying to convert other Dems!
:p :D :p

[Rich333]

He's just here to put ridiculous spin on Ron's record in a vain attempt to make it look like he's soft on everything Republicans care about.
It's not just a Republican issue. Anyone who has studied the history of the 20th century should be against weapons regulations. Governments murdered over 200 million of their own invariably disarmed citizens last century, and the death toll for this century is piling up pretty damn quick too.

[Spirit of '76]

Yeah, he seems to be having trouble figuring out which role he's supposed to play.

[ItsTime]

Yes, I am sick of the establishment dems. The rEVOLution isn't just about Republicans you know! Or do you not want us?

Welcome to the movement!

[Spirit of '76]

It's not just a Republican issue. Anyone who has studied the history of the 20th century should be against weapons regulations. Governments murdered over 200 million of their own invariably disarmed citizens last century, and the death toll for this century is piling up pretty damn quick too.

Yeah, I understand that. I'm just talking about the trolling posts "DaronWesbrooke" is making here, trying to make it look like Ron is soft on all the issues Republicans care about, such as the 2nd Amendment, abortion, immigration, etc.

[Rich333]

I'd rather not drive away an RP supporter with internal bickering, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in case he really is being honest, and just going about things in a backwards manner. I think we should all do the same and address his positions instead of just labeling him a troll. I don't entirely trust that he is being honest, but whether he's a troll or not is irrelevant; a rational debate never hurt anyone.

Daron: Why do you think weapon regulations are "reasonable"? Define the line between a "reasonable" and an "unreasonable" regulation. And keep in mind that "reason" must be involved; that is, it must be a logically consistent position.

[DaronWestbrooke]

F-off 76. I am not saying he is soft, he is about freedom, something you can't get through your rightwingnut skull. Just because you may not like that his votes for FREEDOM appeal to democrats too, you don't have to try to trash others attempt to help you reach out. I gave you actual bill numbers that you can use when appealing to democrats to show a wide appeal and you attack back with slander. I'm glad most of the rEVOLution is more accepting that some of the wingnuts in it.

No go spin some more of my sarcastic comments like the tithe one and make yourself feel better.

[DaronWestbrooke]

Daron: Why do you think weapon regulations are "reasonable"? Define the line between a "reasonable" and an "unreasonable" regulation. And keep in mind that "reason" must be involved; that is, it must be a logically consistent position.

THANK YOU for letting me discuss. Allowing people to go to courts is allowing a jury to decide. In other words, it is about freedom and the decisions to be in the hands of the people, not restricted by the federal government. Why should the government say who we can and can't sue. Even if you think the lawsuit is unreasonable, we should have the right to present our case before the public (jury), not silenced. IE, appeal to the democrats by showing the support of FREEDOM.

[Spirit of '76]

F-off 76. I am not saying he is soft, he is about freedom, something you can't get through your rightwingnut skull. Just because you may not like that his votes for FREEDOM appeal to democrats too, you don't have to try to trash others attempt to help you reach out. I gave you actual bill numbers that you can use when appealing to democrats to show a wide appeal and you attack back with slander. I'm glad most of the rEVOLution is more accepting that some of the wingnuts in it.

No go spin some more of my sarcastic comments like the tithe one and make yourself feel better.

You must be one of the two or three Fredheads with an IQ over 50.

[Rich333]

You must be one of the two or three Fredheads with an IQ over 50.
Please stop.

[Rich333]

THANK YOU for letting me discuss. Allowing people to go to courts is allowing a jury to decide. In other words, it is about freedom and the decisions to be in the hands of the people, not restricted by the federal government. Why should the government say who we can and can't sue. Even if you think the lawsuit is unreasonable, we should have the right to present our case before the public (jury), not silenced. IE, appeal to the democrats by showing the support of FREEDOM.
Okay, that's reasonable enough. Now why couldn't you frame it like that in the first place? You talk about not alienating people, but the way you framed it earlier does alienate people; in particular, people who think like me about this issue.

[rpfreedom08]

Damn I wasn't expecting this thread to get so crazy, lol. I was just asking a simple question to convert some of the gun guys on the rx7club forum :) Thanks for all the helpful info though, it was greatly appreciated!

[voortrekker]

THANK YOU for letting me discuss. Allowing people to go to courts is allowing a jury to decide. In other words, it is about freedom and the decisions to be in the hands of the people, not restricted by the federal government. Why should the government say who we can and can't sue. Even if you think the lawsuit is unreasonable, we should have the right to present our case before the public (jury), not silenced. IE, appeal to the democrats by showing the support of FREEDOM.


I agree about letting a jury decide, but do not judges also decide?

BUT again, How can one logically assert justification towards suing gun manufacturers due to the criminal activity of others.

It should not even warrant going to court no matter what any person thinks. It just doesn't make sense.

My fear with this is all it would take is one significant court case won against one gun manufacturer to make it much easier to try cases against other gun manufacturers.

In effect, it would start a brush fire that could endanger the entire firearm industry.

[enjerth]

Fortunately I know enough about both RP's and FT's positions to know that Daron has it completely backwards, because he seems intent on trying to trick people like me into supporting FT. I am one of those "radicals" he refers to on this issue (though not a redneck... born and raised in Brooklyn); I don't care if it's a BB gun or an H-bomb, the right to bear arms is the right to bear arms, and those are arms.

I'm with you all the way. People in this group have used quotes that indicate when the government no longer serves the people, it is the people's right to overthrow that government. The second amendment reinforces that notion and even mentions acknowledges such a use as legitimate. If people REALLY believe that, then what chance has a people of overthrowing a government if it's government is armed to the teeth and prevents it's people from even owning a fully-automatic rifle? Would we have any chance, being less equipped than even the Iraqi army was?