Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Do you trust John McCain with your guns?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    The qustion is simple: do you trust John McCain with your rights and why?

    One thing is certain: McCain has always voted against the federal ban on semi-automatic rifles and has pledged to continue to do so. I see no reason not to trust him on this. That takes care of my biggest litmus test (Even Giuliani has said he wouldn't sign it...but he doesn't have the record to back it up like McCain does...the only Republican to support a federal rifle ban is Multiple Mitt Romney). This issue will almost definitely end up on the president's desk so this is very important.

    But that's where the good news ends...at least when it comes to his record. He voted for closing the "gun show loophole." That's a fact. This is how he spins that on his website: "At a time when some were trying to shut down gun shows in the name of fighting crime, John McCain tried to preserve gun shows by standardizing sales procedures."

    The question remains: does he STILL support banning private transfers of firearms?

    GOA reports: Leading up to the 2000 election, "McCain began speaking out against small, inexpensive handguns and he entertained the idea of supporting the 'assault weapons' ban. His flirtation with anti-Second Amendment legislation quickly led to a political marriage of convenience with McKelvey."

    "Within months of the formation of AGS, McCain was featured in radio and television ads in Colorado and Oregon supporting initiatives to severely regulate gun shows and register gun buyers. Anti-gunners were ecstatic to get McCain on board."

    ...

    "At the time still a newcomer to the gun control debate, McCain said, "I do believe my view has evolved.""

    The question: has his view continued to evolve? If so, in which direction?



    The fact that we have to ask these questions is not good. However, with Fred effectively out of this race (and assuming Ron Paul doesn't catch fire), we've got a race between...

    Huckabee: EXCELLENT on guns, mediocre on privacy and pathetic on everything else

    McCain: Mediocre on guns, mediocre on fiscal policy, horrible on foriegn policy

    Romney: Horrible, abysmal and patheticon guns, flip-flopper on everything else

    Are you crest fallen yet, my fellow GOPers? You should be.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    This statement is a good start:

    "Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway."

    Link

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    I said so in a different thread, so I'll say it here:
    I can't trust McAmnesty not to cheat at Scrabble.
    Oh, and that campaign financing 'reform' he pushed through REALLY didn't help his standing with me.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Oh, I believe that McCain will make sure I can have guns. Unfortunately, he'll make sure that I have them in Iraq, Eurasia, or whatever other country we need to go to in order to fight the War on Nouns.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    The irony of McCain is that assuming he doesn't cut a deal with Ted Kennedy to ban and confiscate all firearms in the US in exchange for a bj and a nap or whatever it is that those two have going on together, that given his illegal immigration and economic policy, we may be a third world nation before he's done and we will all really need those guns he didn't ban as the daily US citizen deaths at the hands of illegals climb past the current 25 to God knows what number. Not to mention that we have no idea how many terrorists are running around now having come here the same way - but when McCain is done they will be "domestic terrorists" rather than "foreign terrorists" after he gives them all amnesty and citizenship.

    I can't trust McAmnesty not to cheat at Scrabble.
    Pretty much sums up my feelings.

    Forgot to add that his continued opposition to drilling in ANWR and the newly found oil fields in the Gulf ensures that we will spend the next generation having to be involved in Middle East politics and deal with people like Chavez.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Not to mention that we have no idea how many terrorists are running around...

    Oh god. Spare me the hysteria...please...please! You're more likely to be hit by lightening than killed by a terrorist. Sogo buy a personal lightening rod or stop talking about "terrorists" (whatever the hell that means). The only way that's relevant is in the fact that McCain wants to spend the next 100 years lording it over the people of Iraq who will eventually get even more righteously pissed off at their masters than they already are and do what any real patriotic American/Iraqi/human being would do and fight back (not that we haven't given them 1,000 reasons besides Iraq to defend themselves against our empire).

    I'm so sick of hearing about this f***ing boogeyman. Stop killing, conquering, subverting and destroying the countries ofstrangers and they'll stop coming up with elaborate schemes to kill you back.

    Stalin was right. There's no difference between dictatorship and democracy. Scare thesheeple and they'll do whatever the hell you want.
    "domestic terrorists"
    You mean like These guys?

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    Not to mention that we have no idea how many terrorists are running around...

    Oh god. Spare me the hysteria...please...please! You're more likely to be hit by lightening than killed by a terrorist. Sogo buy a personal lightening rod or stop talking about "terrorists" (whatever the hell that means). The only way that's relevant is in the fact that McCain wants to spend the next 100 years lording it over the people of Iraq who will eventually get even more righteously pissed off at their masters than they already are and do what any real patriotic American/Iraqi/human being would do and fight back (not that we haven't given them 1,000 reasons besides Iraq to defend themselves against our empire).

    I'm so sick of hearing about this f***ing boogeyman. Stop killing, conquering, subverting and destroying the countries ofstrangers and they'll stop coming up with elaborate schemes to kill you back.

    Stalin was right. There's no difference between dictatorship and democracy. Scare thesheeple and they'll do whatever the hell you want.
    "domestic terrorists"
    You mean like These guys?
    Way to take a small portion of what I said out of context and run with it. I brought up terrorists only within the context of illegal immigration, unsecured borders and amnesty for criminals. If you reread what I posted you will also realize that when I used the term "domestic terrorist" I was still talking about McCain's amnesty plan. My comment could not have less to do with the link you posted. No hysterics from me, just derision, but you did get pretty excited there. I also commented on his energy policy exacerbating our involvement in the Middle East. Guess I should have spelled out that it exacerbates it because of much of the reason you jumped on me about, but I thought it was pretty obvious. So you can climb down off your sheeple tower now and realize that except for an occasional troll, this is one of the last sites on which you will find sheep.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    I think you can trust McCain on the 2nd and for him not to go ape over more gun control measures. You can trust him more than Guiliani, who took a strong gun control stance in New York. As of today (Rasmussen), McCain leads in New Jersey AND California. He is not weak on defense and definitely not cut and run. Even the Democrats realized, politically, that it ill-advised to remove all the troops on a given time-table. McCain is basically a moderate, but seems to be fair and level-headed. You will get your best pro-2nd amendment and minimal gun control with Thompson, but right now, he is not coming on strong. Remember you will get a true anti-gunner, pro gun control with Hillary, and likely with Obama. Hillary has already said she would reinstate the gun control measures of Clinton. She SAYS she supports the 2nd amendment and always has. :shock: If that is support, then I am not buying any of it. There is a three-way GOP race right now in Florida, so keep an eye out. This nomination process is far from over at this point for the GOP and the Democrats. Be prepared for some outrageous comments from the far left (socialist left) as Super Tuesday approaches. I would expect that the nominations will be mostly set by that time. Otherwise, get ready to count hanging chads, pregnant chads, dimpled chads, and the rest of the chad family. Stay tuned.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Vir Quisque Vir wrote:
    I think you can trust McCain on the 2nd and for him not to go ape over more gun control measures. You can trust him more than Guiliani, who took a strong gun control stance in New York. As of today (Rasmussen), McCain leads in New Jersey AND California. He is not weak on defense and definitely not cut and run. Even the Democrats realized, politically, that it ill-advised to remove all the troops on a given time-table. McCain is basically a moderate, but seems to be fair and level-headed. You will get your best pro-2nd amendment and minimal gun control with Thompson, but right now, he is not coming on strong. Remember you will get a true anti-gunner, pro gun control with Hillary, and likely with Obama. Hillary has already said she would reinstate the gun control measures of Clinton. She SAYS she supports the 2nd amendment and always has. :shock: If that is support, then I am not buying any of it. There is a three-way GOP race right now in Florida, so keep an eye out. This nomination process is far from over at this point for the GOP and the Democrats. Be prepared for some outrageous comments from the far left (socialist left) as Super Tuesday approaches. I would expect that the nominations will be mostly set by that time. Otherwise, get ready to count hanging chads, pregnant chads, dimpled chads, and the rest of the chad family. Stay tuned.
    Obama has already said that he favors a federal law prohibiting all concealed carry by civilians. He also has supported gun bans and according to some sources, confiscation. I have no doubt from his comments and voting as a State legislator that he will not only sign, but encourage, another AWB. There is no "likely" about his anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment, anti-liberty positions. He wants liberty for anyone who chooses abortion and sodomy, and higher taxes and forced partipation in government programs for everyone else except himself, his family and his cronies.

    He is a typical Illinois democrat - special rights for every judge, attorney and elected official, and really special rights for elected and appointed officials in Chicago. Remember he is part of the political machine that prevents law abiding Illinois citizens from carrying weapons, and is now trying to essentially ban firearms in Chicago and within a 100 miles radius.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    " I have no doubt from his comments and voting as a State legislator that he will not only sign, but encourage, another AWB"

    OK, I was being too kind by saying likely Obama above in the anti-gun camp. Obama for sure, just like Hillary. A great way to lose your gun rights quickly, vote for either one and you are guaranteed to be dissatisfied with respect to the 2nd amendment and the flood of new gun "control" laws, and more backdoor politics to disarm everyone in our republic. NOT satisfied with the Bush administration position either.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    I brought up terrorists only within the context of illegal immigration, unsecured borders and amnesty for criminals.
    Make-believe boogeymen have nothing to do with this election, except to the extent that we're willing to trade our freedoms so that mommy government can protect us from them.

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    I trust McCain a lot more than I trust Romney - the only candidate to have signed an "assault weapon" ban, and a candidate who has made it clear that if elected President he will sign a ban on weapons of "unusual lethality".

    It is just a shame that Fred Thompson has performed so badly as I think he would make a great President.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    I believe McCain is a mute point in regards to guns as he has no hope of becoming the president.

    Why? It is my personal opinion and theory after watching this game for a good while that whom I refer to as the "elites" have planned all along to put Hillary in the white house whether by real votes or Diebold machines http://blackboxvoting.org/

    They want to run someone against her that cannot really pull a win. McCain or Rudy are perfect for this.

    My prediction if anyone other than Ron Paul wins is as follows. At the end of the next 4 years there will be no free internet (as in freedom of speech, as in this) and incremental if not full gun control. I also predict a draft.

    Who can beat Hitlery? I believe the only person who can do it is Ron Paul. Get behind the man and hunker down for a big fight. These folks will not go easily.

    Here is a little snippet and link to full article by Gary North to understand what I am saying about this whole thing being fixed and hence the elites absolute terror and media blackout of Ron Paul. The man took second place in NV but that was barely if at all mentioned in the MSM. I only track online stuff though as I haven't watched TV in over 10 years.

    This is no conspiracy. The info is out there for anyone to research who has the desire to do so. Look into things like how many of our Sec of Def have been CFR members, how many presidential cabinet members etc.

    There is one thing that has halted the advance of their globalist agenda and that would be the fact that they are terrified of our guns.

    __________________________________________________ _______

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north552.html

    ...snip Within three years of the CFR’s founding, one of the founders, a New York corporate lawyer named John W. Davis, got the Democrats’ nomination for President. Today, no one gains the nomination who is not a CFR member.

    The Presidential election is therefore a contest between CFR Team A and CFR Team B.

    In 2004, the race narrowed down not just to members of the CFR. It narrowed down to a pair of Skull & Bones members. Bones lets 15 people a year into its ranks. What are the odds against two members gaining the joint nomination of the highest office in the land? Did the media dwell on this? Of course not. The public would not have known of the existence of The Order, had not George H. W. Bush been a member. So, to turn it into a peripheral matter in 1980, (rival) Scroll & Key member Gary Trudeau make light of it – featherweight light (his image of Bush, Sr.) – in a series of "Doonesbury" cartoons.

    How did Bush get the nomination for Vice President in 1980? Reagan had beaten him, and Reagan said he would not put him on the ticket. Then he reversed himself.

    The following story I believe is true. It was told to me by W. Cleon Skousen (The Naked Communist, The Naked Capitalist). Immediately prior to Reagan’s smiling announcement of Bush as his VP running mate, Reagan had spent the weekend at a large estate in Leesburg, Virginia. At that meeting was one of Skousen’s relatives (not Mark or Joel). He witnessed two CFR members, very prominent, who cornered Reagan for the weekend. According to this third-hand, unverifiable testimony – which Skousen relayed to me a few years later – they presented Reagan with a choice: Bush as VP with media neutrality or someone else with media skewering. One of these figures was a talking head with enormous influence. The other was a Rockefeller hireling with enormous influence. They are still alive. One of them still has influence. ...snip

    _______________________________________

    As for a real world strategy to combat this I believe Ron Paul's anti-war stance is the key to attracting folks to his platform from all political parties. If we can get liberal democrats voting for Ron because he is the ONLY candidate that will actually bring our troops home, now, then so be it. Votes are votes and my guns are MY guns and I believe Ron Paul when he says the 2a means what it says and he will respect it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    "Do you trust John McCain with your guns?"



    I don't trust John McCain with ANY thing of mine.



    Tarzan

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    Who will appoint the most conservative judges to the federal courts.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    Forty-five wrote:
    Who will appoint the most conservative judges to the federal courts.
    Ron Paul

  17. #17
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    John McCain is a pretty good Democrat, but his support of the constitution is weak. No I do not trust him with my guns.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    Here's the bottom line. If you belive in no compromise to the gun issue then Ron Paul is the only candidate period.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    GLENGLOCKER wrote:
    Here's the bottom line. If you belive in no compromise to the gun issue then Ron Paul is the only candidate period.
    Agreed, and I'm voting for him.

    There are, however, people who are so invested in the idea of American agression and the international nanny-state that they won't vote for a Constitutionalist...so who should we encourage those people to vote for? I'm leaning towards Huckabee because at least he's solid on the gun issue, even if he has little else going for him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •