• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Nation Association for Gun Rights Report on the 2012 Candidates

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Link.

It's important we all know exactly where our candidates stand on the Second Amendment.

You might be surprised:

Stonewallers:
Mitt Romney - refused to respond. As governor of MA, he signed a bill that banned an entire class of firearms.
Newt Gingrich - has a long history of supporting gun control. Openly championed the Lautenberg Gun Ban when it first passed.

Anti-gun:
Barak Obama - wants to ban the private sales of all firearms between American citizens; ban certain hunting and self defense ammo that meets arbitrary conditions; ban standard magazines that hold more than 10 rounds; ban semi-auto rifles and ALL handguns; implement the UN Small Arms Treaty, giving them the power to GUT our Second Amendment rights.

Known Pro-Second Amendment:
Ron Paul
Michelle Bachman

The remaining candidates have remained silent.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
It looks like an attempt for NAGR to generate fear to genreate donations. Half of the video was about soliciting money.

It bothers me when these groups use these tactics, the 2A is the only reason to vote for a president. Based upon NAGR, Harry Reid is a great candidate. His support of the 2A is actually quite good. As for the rest of his politics, uh....aint no way.

So if a candidate fails to turn in the survey, they will be castrated by NAGR as not supporting the 2A? It appears that is their implication. Geesh!
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
Having looked up how Newt voted when he was congress I'd say he's pro-gun. As well as things I've heard him say.
 

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
The Lautenberg misdemeanor DV law , just like the felony prohibition may be well intended, but unfortunately both disablements are too broadly applied.

The key word in DV is VIOLENCE. If the DV offense warrants disablement of the firearm right, the offense should be prosecuted as the violent felony that it is rather than a misdemeanor. That would address the DV problem without expanding the envelope.

I wonder why Rick Perry was "over looked" in this report ? Probably due to his not responding to the NAGR 2A survey.

Perry is still the best choice concerning respect for the 2A, but he is going to have to produce some traction real soon with his TV ads for that fact to even matter.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
National Association for Gun Rights? Must be made up of house wives. :rolleyes:

So true!! :lol: :lol:


There was a gun group that comes out every election cycle that solicits money and indicates they are the pro 2A, but promote gun control and other issues. IIRC, they were out in 2008 wanting the 'loophole' fixed, wanted to stop hunting in certain areas (Sierra supporters) and such. For some reason I thought is was this group. I may be wrong about it being this group, but I know there was one out there.

Anyone else recall this group(s)?
 

builtjeep

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
323
Location
South Chesterfield, VA
I believe its the National Hunters and Shooters Association, or something similar to that. Wolf in sheepdogs clothing.

Sent from my PG06100 using Tapatalk
 

Doble Troble

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
58
Location
Greenville
Wasn't Jim "Obama won't take your guns" Shockey part of National Hunters and Shooters Association? I could be wrong, but talk about a douche... He needs to stay in Canada, and he doesn't even belong there - the UK maybe.

Gingrich has been pro-gun and pro- go along to get along to the detriment of gun owners. He's very good Constitutionally from what he "says". But as was indicated very correctly above, what politicians say is irrelevant. What they do is critical.

Gingrich is clearly a light year ahead of Obama on the Second Amendment, but if he gets the nomination gun owners MUST hold his feet to the Gun Rights fire.

This means that anything and everything that comes up regarding the Second Amendment MUST BE RESPONDED to by all of us with emails and telephone calls. If he gets elected and strays from the Second he must be made to pay the only way free citizens can make politicians pay - money and votes - and millions upon millions of phone calls, emails and personal visits.

Politicians hate inconvenience almost as much as losing money and votes.
 
Last edited:

Wolfgang1952

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
169
Location
Mt Hermon / Franklinton,La ,
Wasn't Jim "Obama won't take your guns" Shockey part of National Hunters and Shooters Association? I could be wrong, but talk about a douche... He needs to stay in Canada, and he doesn't even belong there - the UK maybe.

Gingrich has been pro-gun and pro- go along to get along to the detriment of gun owners. He's very good Constitutionally from what he "says". But as was indicated very correctly above, what politicians say is irrelevant. What they do is critical.

Gingrich is clearly a light year ahead of Obama on the Second Amendment, but if he gets the nomination gun owners MUST hold his feet to the Gun Rights fire.

This means that anything and everything that comes up regarding the Second Amendment MUST BE RESPONDED to by all of us with emails and telephone calls. If he gets elected and strays from the Second he must be made to pay the only way free citizens can make politicians pay - money and votes - and millions upon millions of phone calls, emails and personal visits.

Politicians hate inconvenience almost as much as losing money and votes.




How true you are.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
The Lautenberg misdemeanor DV law , just like the felony prohibition may be well intended, but unfortunately both disablements are too broadly applied.

The key word in DV is VIOLENCE. If the DV offense warrants disablement of the firearm right, the offense should be prosecuted as the violent felony that it is rather than a misdemeanor. That would address the DV problem without expanding the envelope.

I wonder why Rick Perry was "over looked" in this report ? Probably due to his not responding to the NAGR 2A survey.

Perry is still the best choice concerning respect for the 2A, but he is going to have to produce some traction real soon with his TV ads for that fact to even matter.

Sure. He may appear pro 2A, but he is anti-4A. In the future when your gun ownership gets you classified as a suspected terrorist your 4th amendment will be violated because you practice your 2nd - because rick perry supports the patriot act. Rick Perry can go take a flying leap.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
So true!! :lol: :lol:


There was a gun group that comes out every election cycle that solicits money and indicates they are the pro 2A, but promote gun control and other issues. IIRC, they were out in 2008 wanting the 'loophole' fixed, wanted to stop hunting in certain areas (Sierra supporters) and such. For some reason I thought is was this group. I may be wrong about it being this group, but I know there was one out there.

Anyone else recall this group(s)?

the NAGer is a group of one person who sends out emails in hopes of getting donations. That is the extent of the "organisation".
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
It looks like an attempt for NAGR to generate fear to genreate donations. Half of the video was about soliciting money.

So what? The other half is about the candidates and how they stand on the issues.

It bothers me when...

Why are you stumbling over the inconsequentials instead of seeing the bars of gold?

So if a candidate fails to turn in the survey, they will be castrated by NAGR as not supporting the 2A? It appears that is their implication.

First, your terminology is intentionally negative and grossly out of proportion to the NAGR's response.

Second, if a candidate refuses to respond to a major 2A organization such as the NAGR, then they are either stonewalling, in which case their 2A position is suspect, or they're totally unaware that the NAGR is a major 2A organization, in which case their 2A position is suspect.

Either way, their 2A position is suspect. That's the NAGR's position.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Gingrich is clearly a light year ahead of Obama on the Second Amendment, but if he gets the nomination gun owners MUST hold his feet to the Gun Rights fire.

This means that anything and everything that comes up regarding the Second Amendment MUST BE RESPONDED to by all of us with emails and telephone calls.

Why start behind the eight ball? Why not elect a candidate who is clearly pro-2A, as it is written, not as it's commonly and incorrectly misinterpreted? If someone says they're pro-2A then pushes a concealed carry bill while not supporting OC, they're not pro-2A, as forcing people to CC is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. They're mindful that 2A is important to their voters and are merely throwing them a bone.

Politicians hate inconvenience almost as much as losing money and votes.

If a candidate finds returning a simple, half-page survey "inconvenient," they don't have what it takes to run a country.
 

nobama

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
756
Location
, ,
True !! Why NOT reply. When someone asks me about how I feel or believe in something, I am very passionate in my answers, regardless of who it might offend. No reply = no passion on the subject. Only those that will spell out the reason for the 2nd Amend. are the ones that will stand up. Screw the rest.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
So what? The other half is about the candidates and how they stand on the issues.

Actually, drama is the theme of the message. It quotes the bill Romney signed and Newts 'allegedly' support of the Lautenberg gun ban; which do you know what this law did? It didn't ban guns, it banned 'convicted' domestic violence offenders (including misdemeanors). NAGR allude the others aren't pro 2A because they didn't respond to their little survey, they used the term 'stonewalled'. Just because they don't respond, doesn't mean they are anti 2A. Have you seen the survey? It's propaganda.

Why are you stumbling over the inconsequentials instead of seeing the bars of gold?

Bars of gold? Really? Please fell free to show me them.

First, your terminology is intentionally negative and grossly out of proportion to the NAGR's response.

Actually, NAGR states those who haven't turned in their 'survey' as "Refused to Respond"; again, a flair for the dramatics.

Second, if a candidate refuses to respond to a major 2A organization such as the NAGR, then they are either stonewalling, in which case their 2A position is suspect, or they're totally unaware that the NAGR is a major 2A organization, in which case their 2A position is suspect.

Either way, their 2A position is suspect. That's the NAGR's position.

First, NAGR is not a major 2A organization. I had forgot about them until you posted the link. If one sees their video and thinks their sole purpose is to not raise money....well I have a bridge for sale.

Secondly, here is a link to the survey. Notice those who have turned theirs in are in no way shape or form of getting the nomination. Signing it could do more harm to those who may be on the fence. You may solidify many on the right; but, in politics, you also have to get the moderates and fence sitting libtards to win. Signing this would more than likely push those fence riders over to Obama. the libs would have a field day. It could also solidify their base even more. Signing these 'surveys' or 'pledges' always have a double edge. You have to see which blade hurts the most.

Unfortunately, there are many who will not vote for a candidate that doesn't support the 2A as they do. This is very similar to those who will only vote for a politician who will ban abortion; they don't care about the rest of what they do. Therefore, some won't vote that may otherwise choose a conservative candidate. This obviously limits your selection. Although, it is good a candidate votes the way you believe, there is a broader picture to selecting the candidate.

Politics is not black and white, as many would like it to be. But, in reality, it hasn't ever been that way nor will it.

I have a candidate to support in the primary. If they do not obtain the nomination for the GOP; I will support the nominee. Anything is better than the current leader. My biggest hope is for more local elections go conservative, i.e. state senates/houses and federal senate/house.

So I say all this, the survey that NAGR wants to dramatize as extremely important, is as baseless as the anti-abortionist extreme. In other words, it is extremely small in the grand scheme of things. JMHO
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
NAGR allude the others aren't pro 2A because they didn't respond to their little survey, they used the term 'stonewalled'. Just because they don't respond, doesn't mean they are anti 2A.

If they're not willing to stand up and be counted, they're not pro-2A, either.

Bars of gold? Really? Please fell free to show me them.

Here's your word for today: metaphor

Actually, NAGR states those who haven't turned in their 'survey' as "Refused to Respond"

Are you claiming it was lost in the mail?

Signing it could do more harm to those who may be on the fence.

As between 3/5 and 4/5 of all Americans, including many liberals, support gun rights, I seriously doubt it.

This is very similar to those who will only vote for a politician who will ban abortion...

Not at all. Most Americans support abortion.

I have a candidate to support in the primary. If they do not obtain the nomination for the GOP; I will support the nominee.

That's wise. Some folks here are bound and determined to waste their vote writing in the name of a certain candidate even if he doesn't get the nomination.

Anything is better than the current leader.

I agree that any of the Republican candidates would be far better than Obama. I've never considered him a "leader."

My biggest hope is for more local elections go conservative, i.e. state senates/houses and federal senate/house.

Provided the candidates support a balanced budget, that'll help.

So I say all this, the survey that NAGR wants to dramatize...

I understanding their use of a dramatic flare, as it's followed by a fund-raising page. The use of drama itself, however, has zero bearing on the fact that only two candidates chose to respond. It's like the difference between saying "fire" and shouting "FIRE!" If there's a fire, then there's a fire. The level of drama has zero bearing on the fact that there is a fire.

Your claim that it does is a common logical fallacy.
 
Last edited:

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
If they're not willing to stand up and be counted, they're not pro-2A, either.

It maybe they are pro 2A, but politically, the survey is very risky. I would bet at this particular time, it's too volatilel to handle. It could be they send it in later. This is politics and you would be very hard pressed to remove politics from politics.


Here's your word for today: metaphor
Appreciate the word for the day; however, I still don't see your bars.


Are you claiming it was lost in the mail?
Just claiming NAGR hasn't received it and in doing such, they want to label them something other than what it is.


As between 3/5 and 4/5 of all Americans, including many liberals, support gun rights, I seriously doubt it.
But what gun rights do they support? Their definition of gun rights and our definition are two different things. I have friends that support the 2A; however, they feel everyone should register their gun and have training. That's their definition of gun rights. So, when they sign this survey that pledges to undo potentially what they support, do you think the media and the libs will let that slide?


Not at all. Most Americans support abortion.
Actually, this is a common tactic of the media and politicians (both sides); they want to paint a candidate as either pro-life or pro-choice. Depending on how it may help them. Similar to this survey.


That's wise. Some folks here are bound and determined to waste their vote writing in the name of a certain candidate even if he doesn't get the nomination.
Good we agree on this. However, this bothers me to see people who make these kinds of absolute statements, basically saying it's my candidate or we all suffer. We all should be on the same side, eventually. How we get there may be different, but in the end, the effort to out the King should be paramount.


I agree that any of the Republican candidates would be far better than Obama. I've never considered him a "leader."
100% concur!!


Provided the candidates support a balanced budget, that'll help.
100% agree. I wish all states and cities had to abide by this. Unfortunately, there are not enough.


I understanding their use of a dramatic flare, as it's followed by a fund-raising page. The use of drama itself, however, has zero bearing on the fact that only two candidates chose to respond. It's like the difference between saying "fire" and shouting "FIRE!" If there's a fire, then there's a fire. The level of drama has zero bearing on the fact that there is a fire.
Their attempt to yell fire parallels those of the SAF/CCRKBA....everything is FIRE...send money now!!!!!! It makes a difference if the fire is a cigarette burning or the theater is in full flames. So drama does play a part. Those who have chosen to respond are not candidates who have to worry about getting elected, so it doesn't matter what they do. All three candidates who have sent theirs in are at the end of the pack.


Your claim that it does is a common logical fallacy.

Actually, it called politics....generally there is nothing logical to politics. Therefore, supporting my claim.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
It maybe they are pro 2A, but politically, the survey is very risky.

Yet two of the seven candidates had no problems responded to it.

Appreciate the word for the day; however, I still don't see your bars.

Well, I can point you in the right direction. Beyond that, it's up to you.

Just claiming NAGR hasn't received it and in doing such, they want to label them something other than what it is.

Interesting claim. I trust this guy, though:


Dear Since9:

Just a quick note to let you know how important your membership is in the National Association for Gun Rights.

NAGR is the fastest growing and most effective gun rights group in America.

I’m a member, and you should be too!

Sincerely,

For liberty,

The Hon. Rand Paul
U.S. Senator (R-KY)


...they feel everyone should register their gun and have training...

The NAGR? Cite, please.

Good we agree on this. However, this bothers me to see people who make these kinds of absolute statements, basically saying it's my candidate or we all suffer. We all should be on the same side, eventually. How we get there may be different, but in the end, the effort to out the King should be paramount.

Personally, I think any one of about three of the Republican candidates would make suitable Presidents. The beauty of our system is that everyone has a choice!

100% concur!! ... 100% agree. I wish all states and cities had to abide by this.

Yep.

Their attempt to yell fire parallels those of the SAF/CCRKBA....everything is FIRE...send money now!!!!!! It makes a difference if the fire is a cigarette burning or the theater is in full flames. So drama does play a part. Those who have chosen to respond are not candidates who have to worry about getting elected...

Ron Paul responded. Seen the latest polls? He's catching up to Gingrich, fast, and Gingrich has slid somewhat in the polls.

Actually, it called politics....generally there is nothing logical to politics.

It's actually a science, but the way it's practiced is usually more like an art.
 
Top