Post by: helpless on August 15, 2007, 01:20:49 PM
Huckabee: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mike_Huckabee_Gun_Control.htm
Quote
My position on the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is as clear for me as the position held by most journalists toward the 1st Amendment. While I do not consider myself a "gun nut," I proudly own a variety of firearms and enjoy hunting as well as sports shooting. But even if I were not a hunter or did not enjoy shooting, I would still be a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment right of Americans to own firearms for self-protection and as a matter of principle.
There are 700,000 physicians in the US and the number of accidental deaths caused by them per year is 120,, making the accidental death rate per physician 17%. Using the same logic, there are about 80 million gun owners, and the number of accidental gun deaths per year among all age groups is 1,500. The same calculation reveals the number of accidental deaths per gun owner to be 0.00188%. In other words, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 more times more dangerous than gun owners. Yet, I hear no one suggesting we ban doctors.
There are 700,000 physicians in the US and the number of accidental deaths caused by them per year is 120,, making the accidental death rate per physician 17%. Using the same logic, there are about 80 million gun owners, and the number of accidental gun deaths per year among all age groups is 1,500. The same calculation reveals the number of accidental deaths per gun owner to be 0.00188%. In other words, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 more times more dangerous than gun owners. Yet, I hear no one suggesting we ban doctors.
--------------------------------------
Ron Paul: http://www.paulonpaper.com/topic.php?id=17 (<---Lots of his stuff here)
Quote
"The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny."
Pretty straight forward.
--------------------------------------
Now this guy is a nightmare:
Barack Obama: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Quote
# Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
# Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
# Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
# Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
# Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on August 15, 2007, 01:24:01 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on August 15, 2007, 01:33:31 PM
ANd any candidate for the GOP will need to be pro 2A to get the nomination (you listening, Rudy?).
Post by: Paddy on August 15, 2007, 01:37:15 PM
Post by: helpless on August 15, 2007, 01:59:38 PM
Quote
you listening, Rudy
Yeah he better hurry up and change his views.
I may have opened a can of worms saying the word "dream".
Post by: RevDisk on August 15, 2007, 02:33:52 PM
"Dream Candidates" get their name from the fact that anyone thinking they have a shot at winning are merely dreaming.
ANd any candidate for the GOP will need to be pro 2A to get the nomination (you listening, Rudy?).
ANd any candidate for the GOP will need to be pro 2A to get the nomination (you listening, Rudy?).
Eh, McCain is never going to make it. Romney is doubtful. And the core of the GOP doesn't care too much for Rudy. I do ponder if the NYFD can successfully Swift-Boat him. I personally am rooting for Ron Paul, but he realistically doesn't have a chance.
So we're probably looking at 4 years of Hillary or Obama. And as much attention as Obama gets, he's young for the job. I suspect Hillary will mop the floor with him and the polls are pointing at it unfortunately. I suspect Hillary will be less militantly anti-RKBA than Obama. Granted, that's like saying I'd rather be hung than impaled on a rusty 6 foot spork.
Oy, I have a headache. Any realistic outcome, America has lost.
Post by: Paddy on August 15, 2007, 03:10:47 PM
Quote
So we're probably looking at 4 years of Hillary or Obama.
Thanks to GWB and the current crop of Republicans. 
Don't count Edwards out either; the left seems to be rallying around him right now.
Post by: helpless on August 15, 2007, 04:49:05 PM
Quote
I personally am rooting for Ron Paul, but he realistically doesn't have a chance.
Thank god everyone else doesnt feel the same as you do. You should vote for who you want to be president.
Post by: Paddy on August 15, 2007, 06:06:23 PM
Post by: SomeKid on August 15, 2007, 06:39:45 PM
As I recall, the entire West coast voted for the loser last time, as did most of the East coast.
Post by: Pew pew pew on August 15, 2007, 07:14:07 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 15, 2007, 07:17:05 PM
Quote
Nobody name 'Huckabee' will be elected POTUS.
Yeah, the name itself is a serious drawback. That alone could lose him the nomination, to say nothing of the actual election. But as names go, it sure beats "Clinton" or "Bush."
Post by: The Rabbi on August 16, 2007, 03:23:25 AM
Post by: auschip on August 16, 2007, 05:01:09 AM
Quote
I personally am rooting for Ron Paul, but he realistically doesn't have a chance.
Thank god everyone else doesnt feel the same as you do. You should vote for who you want to be president.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on August 16, 2007, 05:07:00 AM
How about if we don't think he has a chance, AND we don't want him as president?
Yeah but, theres a whole lot of people on Ell and Pee who like him......
but I can't back that up.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 16, 2007, 05:36:30 AM
Ron Paul, though, the mention of his name is becoming like those HEAD-ON commercials, mostly due to his annoying obsessed and downright evangelical supporters who just won't shut up!
I swear, it's like...
"I'm going to get a sandwich." "Sandwiches would be better if Ron Paul were president!"
"Ammo costs more." "Ron Paul would cause lower ammo prices!"
"Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul"....
ARRRG. Enough!
Post by: The Rabbi on August 16, 2007, 05:49:04 AM
I dont believe either of those things of course. But your post suggested it. Do you suppose Ron Paul could get rid of the corn on my foot?
Post by: Paddy on August 16, 2007, 05:51:08 AM
Quote
Do you suppose Ron Paul could get rid of the corn on my foot?
You'll need Hillary Health Care for that.
Post by: RevDisk on August 16, 2007, 06:31:08 AM
Quote
I personally am rooting for Ron Paul, but he realistically doesn't have a chance.
Thank god everyone else doesnt feel the same as you do. You should vote for who you want to be president.
Actually, I plan on voting for him. I know he won't win, but I vote according to my beliefs.
Quote
Thanks to GWB and the current crop of Republicans. Don't count Edwards out either; the left seems to be rallying around him right now.
As I said, either Hillary or Obama will win. RKBA wise, Hillary is better. She won't try to destroy RKBA if the polls are lukewarm on it. I'd never vote for her, of course. I like being able to sleep at night. Obama is strongly an anti. If either of them imploded somehow, ya, Edwards would have a shot. Otherwise, nope.
Democrats were put into power expressly by the country voting against GWB and to the recent flurry of scandals. I'd say it was more "anti-incumbent" than "pro-Democrat". Only, the Democrats are showing zero guts. Presidential wise, the Dems just about have a lock unless they do something stupid. Congress wise, don't be so sure. Expect more incumbents, Dem and Repub, to get tossed.
Good news is, RKBA will be basically ignored. We're probably not to make any gains, but we won't lose anything either. Most of the new Congresscritters are basically aware that the country wouldn't tolerate extreme RKBA changes. A lot are lukewarm pro-RKBA, like Sen Bob Casey from my state. Expect roughly the same in the next election.
Post by: Tallpine on August 16, 2007, 06:37:45 AM
Post by: helpless on August 16, 2007, 10:16:25 PM
I'm watching Huckabee, though sometimes he seems a little corny.
I do not consider myself a 1 issue voter either, but a government that tries to disarm it's citizens is a pretty huge issue.
Post by: Balog on August 17, 2007, 10:45:26 PM
Post by: longeyes on August 18, 2007, 08:46:47 AM
Post by: lee n. field on August 18, 2007, 04:17:01 PM
Quote
Do you suppose Ron Paul could get rid of the corn on my foot?
You'll need Hillary Health Care for that.
You'll need Hillary Health Care for that.
Take a number. When it's called (in two years), we'll amputate.
Post by: Paddy on August 20, 2007, 03:26:55 PM
Post by: Michigander on August 21, 2007, 01:55:16 AM
Or did I miss something?
Post by: helpless on August 21, 2007, 03:30:41 AM
Quote
Or did I miss something?
Nah that would make to much damn sense.
Nothing to see here people move along....
Post by: xd9fan on September 06, 2007, 03:55:14 PM
Quote
Re: Mike Huckabee & Ron Paul
« Reply #15 on: August 16, 2007, 10:36:30 AM »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huckabee is starting to interest me, based on the fact that he actually answers questions instead of obfuscating and equivocating around them.
Ron Paul, though, the mention of his name is becoming like those HEAD-ON commercials, mostly due to his annoying obsessed and downright evangelical supporters who just won't shut up!
I swear, it's like...
"I'm going to get a sandwich." "Sandwiches would be better if Ron Paul were president!"
"Ammo costs more." "Ron Paul would cause lower ammo prices!"
"Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul"....
ARRRG. Enough!
Seriously The sandwiches kicka$$
Post by: jeepmor on September 06, 2007, 04:15:05 PM
Ron Paul, besides his evangelical demeanor, is really the only Republican that doesn't seem to be be tap dancing.
I know, I know, all your wisdom prevails over mine. Hence Bush....
Post by: xd9fan on September 06, 2007, 04:38:38 PM
Death before Dishonor
On September 6th, 2007 JeffnDallas says:
Mike Huckabee (who I actually "liked" before this debate) seemed to be referring to our military as the Samurai of Feudal Japan with his references to "death before dishonor" and "saving face." I was also reminded of the words of Spartan women when sending their husbands off to war, "Either return with your shield or on it." Is this what Huckabee is saying?! Have we become so egotistical and flippant with our men and women in uniform as to tell our own troops, "We care more about OUR honor than YOUR lives?!" If we are looking at military history, why not look at the Rule Book still taught in most military colleges and settings, the writings of Sun Tzu, "The Art of War":
"Invicibility is defense. Vincibility is attack. Defend and one has a surplus. Attack and one is insufficient."
"One who does not thoroughly know the harm from employing the military cannot thoroughly know the advantage from employing the military."
"There are roads one does not follow. There are armies one does not strike. There are cities one does not attack. There are grounds one does not contest. There are commands of the sovereign (president) one does not accept."
These writings are still taught at the War College, West Point, Annapolis and others, which is probably why so many generals have opposed Bush publicly. THEY KNOW BETTER! But obviously Fox and the other candidates need to do some additional reading. Sorry Ron, maybe another "recommended reading list" is needed for these militaristic morons.
Post by: grampster on September 06, 2007, 05:12:26 PM
Fred Thompson, if he does as he says, will be handing out a stiff dose of reality regarding the pressing issues of the day and for the future. It remains to be seen if America is ready for some straight talk, that is if Fred actually hands out a well said portion of reality as he says, or more nanny statism. We shall see.
I've got 5 bucks says Fred gets the Republican nomination. If so, the Democrats ought to fold up their tent.