Why Does Anyone Think The GOP Supports The 2nd Amendment?

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by alvagoldbook, Jul 23, 2008.

  1. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    New Mexico
    Big Bore must have followed Alva over here.

    Big Bore, I don’t get how ANY firearm owner can vote for a (D), especially for national office. They have a long established voting record that is ANTI Bill of Rights.

    So you go ahead and vote for somebody that is going to lie when they take the oath of office. " I, XXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States…” But know this, you are most likely supporting a traitor to the Constitution.

    For me, I’ll first check and see it that person I want to vote for is a SUPPORTER of the Constitution, then we’ll move onto the next ISSUE of importance to me. But like I said, you’ll be very hard pressed to prove that that many (D)s support the Constitution.
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2008
  2. I've skipped over this thread each time that I've noticed it over the last 6 weeks. Now I understand why. Should not have resisted my instincts.:rolleyes:

  3. 45nut

    45nut Well-Known Member

    Jul 19, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    The leadership of the DNC couldn't see the light if you shoved a billion candle watt searchlight up their butt.

    Most "conservative" democrats that I know have just given up and switched parties so they could do something aside from banging their heads against that liberal brick wall. :confused: :D

    Take for instance my US Congressman Ralph Hall: :D

    Conservative Democrat

    Hall described himself as "an old-time conservative Democrat," even by Texas Democratic standards. Indeed, he was one of the most (if not the most) conservative Democrats in the House for many years. He was an early supporter of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget and also favored legislation requiring a super-majority on any tax increases. He frequently clashed with the Clinton administration, and voted for three of the four articles of impeachment against Clinton. He endorsed George W. Bush for President in 2000; the two had been friends for many years.

    In January 2004, on the final day for candidates to file to get their names on the ballot for the March 9, 2004 primary, Hall switched parties and became a Republican. Hall said that Republicans refused to put money for his district into a spending bill, and when he asked why, "the only reason I was given was that I was a Democrat." He also cited concerns with his fellow Democrats' criticism of President Bush; he hadn't attended Democratic caucus meetings for some time due to the barbs thrown at his longtime friend. He told the press, "The country is at war. When the country is at war you need to support the president. Some of my fellow congressmen have not been doing that."

  4. Vladimir

    Vladimir New Member

    Jan 29, 2008
    Issaquah WA
    The problems with liberals, with democrats, and with proponents of change is you don't get to pick and choose. Whether you like it or not, you are stuck with all their change. I don't get why conservative union folk can vote democrat for that reason.

    There are parts of Obama that I really like, some things I'd really like to see happen, etc. Biggest being, I think he brings a better, more human element to foreign policy and foreign affairs. The idea of actually talking to Iran and Cuba, I can totally understand the argument against it, but I don't adhere to that argument. I think that could be huge, could be excellent, and I think we need to get there.

    The thing is, the other 99% of his change has a bad odor I can't get close to. That's why conservatives are the real "agents of change," rather than seek decades of change in one election cycle, we take it slow- rather than getting sidetracked by a million issues we try to focus on one... sure it doesn't always work, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

    Any gun owner who votes for Obama simply doesn't have a clue, simply isn't thinking straight.

    The Union folk have it all wrong. Obama might support them, but what does he really offer them? It makes no sense. Meanwhile, I see that McCain, though I disagree with him on one of my biggest central issues (as most people know), Russia, I see that he actually offers something for America. Obama is buying support with kind words and promises. McCain is earning it.

    Obama thinks he is a great independent, he will be the single most indebted President entering office on our history. It's obvious! Obama is running an optimist "I can make life great" platform. Meanwhile, McCain is running a Jimmy-Carter style REAL WORLD campaign, not to the SAME degree, but similar. He isn't afraid to tell us life isn't going to be perfect, he isn't afraid to take on his friends and supporters (after all what politician doesn't LOVE pork-barrel spending, except for McCain). The fact that McCain can get so much support, running such a campaign, should be a huge sign to us... maybe Americans are getting a little smarter. Obama's "I promise good things" is still working, but think about the divide there would be if McCain was running the same type of empty campaign.
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2008
  5. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Feb 17, 2005
    South Carolina
    On McCain's first run I might agree with you had he won the nomination... This time he was the candidate by default. My (possibly wrong) opinion is that McCain was the only Republican in the crowd that stuck out as being different. Because of this, the very right-leaning conservative crowd (the largest portion of the Republican party) was split among 3-4 other candidates because every other candidate was so similar. McCain didn't have to score big numbers to get the nomination. He won by default... Or, that's my opinion, and we know how those go...
  6. Vladimir

    Vladimir New Member

    Jan 29, 2008
    Issaquah WA
    But you are forgetting Rudy, who supposedly was going to end up as the nominee for sure (just like Clinton was). I think it is more complicated, and comes out somewhere even. You probably have something like this... McCain and Rudy on the left. Romney and Paul in the middle. Brownback, Huckabee, Thompson and Tancredo. Now Brownback, Thompson and Tancredo weren't huge draws. Romney and Paul go in the middle because they probably took votes from BOTH left and right, as Romney had some liberal gaffes and Paul was either liked for being anti-Iraq or because of his views that were conservative.

    But even then your idea doesn't really effect what I am saying. I am saying the fact that he is running a realistic campaign, not one of just promising "good things," and still getting all this support- I think that is significant. If you look into Obama's campaign, it is built on "happy promises," not the truth. That is typical of campaigns, because generally campaigns that are built on truth do not do well.

    In fact if your theory is correct, it just makes McCain all the better, because if your theory is correct (which it may very well be) you have to throw a bunch of embittered conservatives into the mix.
  7. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Feb 17, 2005
    South Carolina
    You have to also consider the primary order Vlad... SC usually sets the precident for who takes the nomination, just as we were in 2000 where we selected GWB despite McCain being a favorite. We're one of the first southern conservative states to hold a primary. In SC, Giuliani and Paul were not an issue but did help to spread votes among voting Republicans. Votes were cast for Thompson, Huckabee and Romney in the end to form a 60% majority vote. McCain was left with 30% and some fringe types chose others for the last 10% ... That made the race between Huckabee and Romney, vs. McCain after Thompson dropped out. Again, McCain is the lone wolf... Paul was never an issue... I don't think it's all as complicated as you depict it to be. I'd be happier if all primaries happened the same day.


    Again, if they're all the same except one, you can bet who gets the selection...This past primary was a statistical probability problem and not one with any real merit in issues.
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2008
  8. 45nut

    45nut Well-Known Member

    Jul 19, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    Here's my take:

    With Democrats in control of Congress and the White House you have a 100% chance of loosing your Second Amendment rights. :mad:

    With Republicans in control of Congress and the White House you have at least an even chance of not loosing more Second Amendment rights with a shot at maybe gaining some back.

    For me, it's a no brainer. That's not to say that the GOP hasn't screwed us, but at least we got a little foreplay with it. :eek: :D
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Does anyone else see similarities between Obama, the Democrats, and Hugo Chavez?? Mar 1, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Does anyone else want to smack the shiznit out of Cynthia Mckinney? Apr 1, 2006
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Trump Wins - What Does This Mean For Our Guns? Nov 9, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Texas Does It Right Mar 27, 2015
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Carson City, NV COSTCO doesn't want your business if you carry Jul 28, 2014