Fred Thompson Wows 'Em At the NRA Convention


doublenutz

New member
Link Removed

Going in, Rudy Giuliani was going to have a tall order to get a warm welcome from the NRA. Fred Thompson just made that harder by going up on the stage and giving a just about flawless performance. He repeats the line about Americans sacrificing more blood for other countries' freedom than for any other country; I can't help but wonder if it's a jab at the Washington Post for critiquing it and arguing the Soviet Union might rival that claim.

He got a standing ovation at his finish, and then he did a brief Q & A.
"Some believe that the Second Amendment has different meanings in different places, and that the gun rights of citizens in, say, New York City and Chicago can restricted more than the gun rights of those in Tennessee and Montana. Do you agree?"

Thompson responds with a deep, rumbling, slow, "Noooope." Then he follows with absolute catnip for gun owners: "It's never seemed to me to be coincidental that the places that have the highest crime rates tend to be the places that have the most restrictions on gun ownership in America."

Asked about gun shows, he calls the "part of Americana... There's always been an effort on the other side to go after something high profile or particularly vulnerable, an easy target, but I've always resisted that."
Will he appoint an Attorney General who shares his opinion of the Second Amendment. "Yes." More applause. "I think we're winning on the interpretation of the Second Amendment. I have a complicated position on this: The Constitution means what it says." He gets another standing ovation.

From my regular appearances on Link Removed, I think I have a pretty good idea of what gun owners want to hear from a presidential candidate; Fred Thompson gave 'em pretty much their ideal.

I would also note that perhaps Thompson ate his Wheaties this morning, because he didn't seem tired or sleepy at all.
 

doublenutz

New member
Giuliani Bobs and Weaves on Gun Control Record

Link Removed

FOX News Election Coverage


FOXNEWS.COM HOME Giuliani Bobs and Weaves on Gun Control Record
Friday, September 28, 2007
By John R. Lott Jr.
foxnews_story.gif



Rudy Giuliani had a monumental task last Friday. Going before the NRA, Giuliani wanted to alleviate gun owners' fears that he would take away their ability to use guns to defend themselves.

Some media suggested an even more lofty goal: "it is possible that the NRA would endorse Giuliani."

Surely Giuliani said many comforting things. He talked about the Second Amendment protecting individual rights. And he now disavows the lawsuits against the gun makers-- something that he himself initiated, but that he says went off course and went in directions with which he disagreed.
For good measure, Giuliani also invoked his time in the Reagan Justice Department a quarter of a century ago and Reagan’s defense of gun rights as evidence of his own support.

For many, the bottom line is, as the New York Times claimed, "that he opposes new restrictions on gun ownership."

The Boston Globe interpreted Giuliani as pledging "he would punish gun-toting criminals harshly while leaving law-abiding gun owners alone."
But this is the same Giuliani who six years ago supported Federal gun licensing and seven years ago said that 86 to 88 percent of the guns sold in the United States should not be sold because gun makers "would have to know that they are supplying an illegal market."

This is the same person who sued gun makers so that the city could recoup its costs of dealing with crime, that openly broke with the Reagan administration during congressional testimony on a gun control bill.
Some of those present at the NRA meeting were moved by Giuliani’s comments. Giuliani apparently had at least neutralized their concerns. Yet, a careful reading of Giuliani’s speech finds it filled with caveats.
Take his answer to a question about gun control:

"My position is the law should be left the way it is now. Given the level of crime in this country, I think the emphasis and the energy should be spent on enforcing the laws that presently exist, and if changes in the law are necessary later, that'll respond to other social conditions.

"I think the single most important thing that the next president has to do is to organize an effort in the Department of Justice and with state and local law enforcement to work in a cooperative way to enforce the laws that presently exist. After we do that, and we see the impact of that, then we can take a look at whether new laws are necessary; they may or may not be. "

"Given the level of crime in this country?" Would his position change if crime increased? It would certainly seem so. Surely Giuliani has frequently claimed that gun control reduces crime. Indeed, he has claimed that most of the reduction in New York City’s crime rate during the 1990s was due to gun control: "the single biggest connection between violent crime and an increase in violent crime is the presence of guns in your society...the more guns you take out of society, the more you are going to reduce murder. The less guns you take out of society, the more it is going to go up."
Giuliani is justifiably proud of New York City’s dramatic reductions in violent crime during the 1990s, but his claim that "the single biggest" factor was taking guns off the street is weak, to say the least. There is no academic research by economists or criminologists that indicates that gun control mattered at all.

There are other more obvious explanations, especially the massive increase in full- time sworn police officers. The number grew from 26,844 in 1990 to 39,779 by 2000, roughly five times faster than in other big cities. New York City also improved its police department by raising hiring standards and increasing officer pay, What about Giuliani’s statement, "After we do that . . . we can take a look at whether new laws?" The only restriction that this implies is that the Federal and state governments must first do what they can to reduce crime. After that, all restrictions are off.

Giuliani’s statement on lawsuits against gun makers is no more comforting. He now disavows the lawsuits because of "twists and turns I disagree with." But there is absolutely no mention about what these changes were. His own statements, when originally announcing New York City’s lawsuit, contained a laundry list of complaints. Indeed, his claims seemed the same as those in other city lawsuits.

Possibly, Giuliani’s opinions on the Second Amendment were really affected by Judge Laurence Silberman’s recent court decision striking down Washington D.C.’s gun ban. Silberman did make a persuasive case that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right. But Giuliani has frequently pointed out that constitutionally protected rights still allow “reasonable” regulations to accomplish some other goal, such as public safety.
Despite the assurances of the press, Giuliani clearly did not say that he would oppose new gun laws. Compared to what conservatives call the Link Removed by Fred Thompson, Giuliani’s presentation just didn’t cut it.

With the nation at war, Republicans possibly have more important things to care about than gun control. But Giuliani’s image as a straight shooter risks being damaged by all the bobbing and weaving that he is doing over gun control.

John Lott is the author of the book "Freedomnomics," and is a Senior Research Scientist at the University of Maryland.
 

raybsc

New member
It figures.
What the gentleman, "I use the term gentleman loosely" from NY did not say is what really bothers me.

We have many laws now concerning gun control that need to disappear.

This man is dangerous to gun owners across the land.

I have the feeling that Fred will be trustworthy on 2nd Amend rights.

Bloomberg and Rudy cut from the same mold - anti-gun:mad:
 

DrDavidM

New member
I am truly pleased with what Thompson said. He seems like the best candidate for the job. However, I trust the words of no politician. I guess we just have to choose the best (not perfect) candidate
 

doublenutz

New member
I am truly pleased with what Thompson said. He seems like the best candidate for the job. However, I trust the words of no politician. I guess we just have to choose the best (not perfect) candidate

Funny, Thompson always says- "...I am not perfect but, I am consistant. You know what you can expect of me."
 

Bohemian

New member
President Clinton-Speaker Gingrich Say Governor Huckabee the Dark-Horse to win...

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Former President Bill Clinton say Mike Huckabee is the most likely GOP Dark-Horse Candidate to win the nomination...

there is hope for America and the 2nd Amendment!

Little Rock, AR – Former AR Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike
Huckabee received praise from politics' 'odd couple' – former
President Bill Clinton and former Speaker Newt Gingrich –who said
Sunday, in separate interviews, that he is the most likely "dark horse
candidate" to win the GOP nomination... (On ABC News)

Link Removed

Don't forget to get registered to vote before its too late; the
primaries are way early this year...

January 19th, 2008 here in Nevada...

Semper fidelis
 

doublenutz

New member
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Former President Bill Clinton say Mike Huckabee is the most likely GOP Dark-Horse Candidate to win the nomination...

there is hope for America and the 2nd Amendment!

Little Rock, AR – Former AR Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike
Huckabee received praise from politics' 'odd couple' – former
President Bill Clinton and former Speaker Newt Gingrich –who said
Sunday, in separate interviews, that he is the most likely "dark horse
candidate" to win the GOP nomination... (On ABC News)

Link Removed

Don't forget to get registered to vote before its too late; the
primaries are way early this year...

January 19th, 2008 here in Nevada...

Semper fidelis


After taking those position survey's today. I have found that I am further away from Huckabee than ever as he is not quite as conservative as I thought. It appears via the surveys that I am closer on the issues to Fred Thompsan (as I thought) and Duncan Hunter.
 

doublenutz

New member
Former President Bill Clinton say Mike Huckabee is the most likely GOP Dark-Horse Candidate to win the nomination...


Semper fidelis


Dude of course Clinton would endorse Huckabee because he knows that Hillary can beat him (it is the same thing I have been preaching in earlier posts... I am going for the win as first a Republican that can defeat RINO Rudy and then Hillary... I simply do not believe Huckabee can defeat either of those two).
 

Bohemian

New member
Huckabee for the 2nd Amendment

It is ludicrous to think that former President Clinton and former speaker Newt Gingrich would both say that Mike Huckabee has the best chance of beating Hillary in the general election because Bill Clinton knew/knows that Hillary could beat Huckabee in the general election...

The facts are there are few politicians in modern history that know more about winning an election as a dark-horse candidate then Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich...

Polls show both Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul closing on Rudy and Mitt...
McCain is all but out...

Huckabee and Paul are the only true 2nd Amendment supporters whom have a perfect pro-gun record...

Fred Thompson has a substantial record of selling us out on the 2nd amendment and voting anti-gun...
Fred Thomson SOLD US OUT ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT, look at his record!

Personally I put Fred Thompson in front of Rudy, Mitt, John on most issues; but behind Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul when it comes to unwavering (100%) support for the constitution and pro-gun positions...

I also like Huckabees fair tax and other positions...

In the primaries NO CANDIDATE THAT HAS EVER VOTED FOR ANY FORM OF GUN CONTROL WILL GET MY VOTE...

That is the deal breaker for me...

The primaries should be our focus; the same population majority conservatives that voted John Kerry and John Edwards off the the map in 2004 by a landslide will get behind the republican that wins the primary...
And like Hanoi John Kerry; Hillary will go back to being a minor nuisance...

In my opinion, if you value the constitution, the second amendment and your gun rights you can not in good conscience vote for a candidate in the primaries that has ever voted anti-gun...

In the general election I will vote for the republican running against Hillary...
Because any of them are better then her on any given issue...

best regards.
 

doublenutz

New member
Fred Thompson has a substantial record of selling us out on the 2nd amendment and voting anti-gun...
Fred Thomson SOLD US OUT ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT, look at his record!

Dude... Bro...My Friend, Senator Thompson has voted his conscious 20 of 33 times in our favor as a advocate of our 2A rights.

That do not spell or say anything as harsh as those two words "sell-out" to me at all.
 

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
Fred Thompson has a substantial record of . . . voting anti-gun...
As much as it would be nice that all I'd have to consider when casting my vote are 2A concerns, they are not. While Ron Paul...whom I admit is the most Libertarian of the candidates...has a refreshing perspective on the Constitution with respect to 2A, I have other issues whach are just as important to me. Paul would withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately, for example. While I want them home as badly as anyone, the Military Me sees another side of this issue and, now that we're there and have made a commitment, I would be loathe to just cut and run (for that's what it would be at this point) and leave those people hanging before they're ready [regrettable pun]. Further, I truly believe that we're not fighting The Bastids here because we're still fighting them there, and that's an acceptable tradeoff to me. Other aspects of Paul are more attractive, but this is more than I could likely overlook in him.

There are planks in the "Ektarr for President" platform that I'm sure you and Ron Paul would be on board with, but that's for another posting...
 
Last edited:

Bohemian

New member
Any anti-gun vote is a sell-out in my Opinion...


  • Fred Thompson has at least 13 (Thirteen) anti-gun votes on record...

  • Mike Huckabee 0 (Zero) anti-gun votes on record...

  • Ron Paul 0 (Zero) anti-gun votes on record...
 

Bohemian

New member
Ron Paul's position on the War on Terrorism and foreign policy is the reason why I am with Huckabee...

I am just letting everybody know that Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are the ONLY candidates who have a 100% pro-gun and pro-constitution record...

And Huckabee has actually led a government and with great success at that...

Neither Fred Thompson nor Ron Paul have led a government or been the CEO of a major corporation.

Fred Thompson has been almost entirely out of politics for the last five years...

Fred Thompson has never been to Iraq or the middle-east...

Both Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul have been many times...

When it comes to the primaries...
If you have ever voted against the constitution, including but not limited to the 2nd amendment you do not get my vote...

There is no issue more fundamental then the right to self-preservation, an in-alienable right and one further guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, et. al. ...

If you do not have a history of 100% support for the constitution and the 2nd amendment you do not get my vote in the primaries...
YES IT IS THAT IMPORTANT...

One of the most creditable things of leadership ability a potential President can have on his/her resume is having served as a state Governor or CEO of a major international corporation…
In alternate, being a General, Admiral etc., in one of the branches of the Military would be another good indicator of proven leadership ability…


Paul comes off a tad bit radical when he talks about sequestering the U.S. from the rest of the world...

Americans don't cut and run... Charlton Heston, et. al.
 
Last edited:

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
I am just letting everybody know that Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are the ONLY candidates who have a 100% pro-gun and pro-constitution record...
If my current choices were limited to Paul or Huckabee, right now I'd probably lean toward Huckabee although...truth be told...there's probably a lot of value in going overboard and plugging in someone who's extreme to the Right, if only to send a message to those who are extremely Left! I'm for Fred, for now, until someone can demonstrate to me that either Paul or Huckabee would make a better overall choice. I don't think so at this time, given ALL the issues...not just 2A. But I'm still open, and the elections are still in the future.
 

Bohemian

New member
Heres one...

Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power...
Benjamin Franklin.

Which has been paraphrased to mean...
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither...
 

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
Heres one...

Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power...
Benjamin Franklin.

Which has been paraphrased to mean...
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither...
Bohemian, I must apologize that your reference escapes me. Help me out, willya?
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
As I have said in another thread, I was on-board with Fred when the rumors of his run first started circulating. However, since that time, I have learned of his 2A shortcomings, mostly, I'm embarrassed to admit, from that other thread. But the one thing that really concerned me about him from the beginning is that he voted in favor of McCain/Feingold. I believe strongly that the SCOTUS decided dead-wrong on the constitutionality of that political-speech-stifling bill, and Fred doesn't believe that, nor does he apologize for his support and vote in favor of it. Rather, he says that it was not implemented correctly, but that it was a good bill which he would still support given the same set of circumstances today. I guess he means by that, that if he didn't know how poorly it would be implemented today, that would be the "same set of circumstances." :rolleyes:

In short, he's got major problems with the first two amendments of The Bill of unalienable Rights. Is the 4th or the 5th next? I can't take that chance.

Blues
 

doublenutz

New member
As I said in the ther topic running adjacent to this one... It all comes down to who is truely an electable GOP candidate that can beat Billary in the white house other than Rino Rudy. Our 2nd Amendment rights will go straight down the tube if Hillary ever gets to appoint Supreme Court Justices.

The Liberal Dems already know this and are basking in the severly fractured GOP... in fact they are counting on us gnikcuF this up...

READ and WEEP-

Found this article in a Liberal Dem website "The Huffington Post" (keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/note-to-liberal-hillaryb_b_65770.html

headshot.jpg
Martin Lewis| BIO |


Note to liberal Hillary-bashers: It's The SCOTUS, Stupid!

Posted September 25, 2007 | 10:25 AM (EST)



1) I don't know who the Democratic Presidential candidate next year is going to be.


2) I don't know yet who I personally want it to be. I'm still considering. But my view really doesn't matter for the purpose of this column.

3) I DO know that I will support whoever the Democratic candidate is. If it's Dennis Kucinich or Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama or John Edwards. Or any of the other contenders. Over a Republican? There is NO debate. Nor should there be.

4) I do know that practically the only thing that can defeat the Democrats next year will be the selfish, self-destructive attitude of idealists on the left who are threatening sabotage if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate.

5) I have heard all the arguments and self-righteous (self-lefteous?) diatribes against Hillary on any number of topics. Corporatist... DLC... Panderer... all of that. And people who have said that there would be "no difference" between Hillary and any Republican candidate.

6) Here's the thing. Even if all those accusations against Hillary ARE true (and this post is NOT the place to debate the merits of those arguments) - that would STILL not make a difference to my intent to support her if she is the candidate.

7) And it shouldn't make a difference to any other voters who are Democrats, left-leaning, liberal, progressive or independent. For one overwhelming reason. That trumps any disappointments about votes in 2002, health-care details, triangualation, corporate ties, Iraq policy, etc etc

8) IT'S THE SCOTUS, STUPID!
The Supreme Court Of The United States.
9) Starting January 2009 there will be a four-year period where SIX of the Supreme Court members will be in their 70s, 80s and 90s.
10) FOUR of those six are dependable guardians of our rights. And the fifth is a swing voter.
11) The two oldest Supreme Court Justices will be 92 and 79 respectively by the end of the next Presidential term. And those two are John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
12) If you want to know why you MUST support WHOEVER the Democratic candidate is - then just study the actuarial tables on life expectancy.
13) The simple fact is that there is a very high probability that the next president may appoint at least two new Supreme Court Justices. And probably more. And the laws of statistics say that the first two justices to be replaced will be two of the most dependable votes for decency.
14) If you seriously believe that it makes no difference in how this nation is governed over the next 30 years if those two justices are conservative or liberal - then there is no hope for your soul or sanity.
15) If you seriously believe that in regard to the appointment of Supreme Court Justices - that it makes no difference between Hillary Clinton on the one hand - and Rudolph Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, John McCain or even Newt Gingrich on the other hand - then you are seriously beyond redemption.
16) It doesn't matter WHAT you may dislike about Hillary Clinton - or whoever the Democratic candidate is. If you have any regard for the future of this nation - you will remember this.

It's the SCOTUS, stupid.
'nuff said. Case over. Dismissed.
 

Bohemian

New member
The Hypocrisy of Fred Thompson on Gun Control...

After voting for the Gun-Free-Shool Zones Act in 1996...

Fred Thompson in 2007 said when speaking of the Virginia Tech massacre, he said: "Whenever I've seen one of those 'Gun-free Zone' signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago."

Ask Hanoi John Kerry if Hypocrisy can win you the Presidency...

The clear thinking Republican voting majority will not allow Hillary "Billary" Clinton in the White house...

Although, ultra liberal propaganda scumbag Martin Lewis and Al-Qaeda are pulling for her...

I like Mike
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,437
Messages
623,660
Members
74,275
Latest member
zxclord123
Top