Fred Thompson’s Anti-Gun Senate Record Full details at http://conservativesagainstfred.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/fred-thompsons-anti-gun-senate-record/ The Conservatives Against Fred Thompson volunteers have compiled a list of proposals supported by Fred Dalton Thompson in the senate that include Gun Bans, confiscations and limitations to the free speech of Gun Rights Advocates. Dates and bill numbers are provided so this information can be easily verified. Summary: 1. Anti-gun terror bill (S. 735 ) 2. Anti-gun terror bill — final passage 3. Taggants in gunpowder 4. Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation gun ban 5. Free Speech restrictions 6. Smith “Anti-Brady” Amendment 7. Anti-gun Clinton judge appointment 8. Anti-gun Surgeon General 9. Ending the filibuster of a major anti-gun crime bill 10. Young adult gun ban 11. Adopting the “Gun Control Lite” strategy 12. McCain’s Incumbent Protection (2000 version) 13. Incumbent Protection (2002 failed filibuster)
Nice find. I was always curious on Thompson's 2nd Amendment stance since he never addressed it in any of his speeches.
Don't forget his voting record on illegals. One way and one way only. Abide by the Constitution. Ron Paul is the ONLY one whose voting record proves he belongs in the Oval Office.
Yeper! It would be good to see a good debate here to see (voteting records etc.) WHY, each one here backs a perticular canidate. A poll perhaps. Time is short.
Yeper! It would be good to see a good debate here to see (voteting records etc.) WHY, each one here backs a perticular canidate. A poll perhaps. Time is short. (A little bs here.)
Sorry about the double,above. I had typed more in my original post,but.. for some reason it went South.
BS Detector going off Hillary thanks the whining from the gun crowd for continued attacks on Republican Candidates ! IF you don't want the Clintons BACK in the White House, you had better register AND vote in the upcoming election season. The Republican Candidate MUST be electable by the Voters. Without VOTES from so-called moderates and thinking Democrats, you WILL get a Democrat in the White House. Ron Pauls positions may be good but he cannot get elected President. Newt is the brightest...but out. Either Guliani or Thompson.....We MUST retain the White House or under go another attack on gun ownership and MORE Taxes. Reagan was correct on the 11th commandment....speak no evil of fellow Republicans !
Ron Paul absolutely has a chance, but that chance is out of the window if everyone thinks the way you do. And yeah, Giuliani is the person we want for president! [sarcasm] He really does stand up for the Constitution.[/sarcasm] Give me a break. He may as well be a Democrat.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. The GOP and the DNC are, for all intents and purposes, one and the same. Do some research on the other candidates' records.
Yup, stand up for a sure loser, and we all lose. Bill Clinton was elected TWICE, with just 43% of the vote. Why? Because a bunch of whiney republicans who didn't get their way, voted for Perot, on "principle." Perot (from Texas) was a ringer by the Clinton machine, who had no chance to win and disappered between elections. Are we now seeing another conservative Texas ringer by the Clinton machine? I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Clinton machine is actually supporting Ron Paul. I'd rather forgive Giuliani for his wayward past, than live under the so******t regime of another Klinton. The Democrats just love it when we fight among ourselves.
You need to stop watching Faux News. If ANYbody gets elected other than RP, we are going to have more marxism.
no chance Get out of the Ron Paul handbasket and take a good look at Mike Huckabee. Best candidate in the field. I'm not opposed to Paul because he has no chance; I'm opposed to his stand on the issues. I believe in the Constitution, but I believe in other things too--like common sense. Other than gun control, many of his other positions might as well come from MoveOn.org. Forget it.
we disagree We disagree there, and that's OK. But I'll tell you this, and you can take it to the bank: If he runs a 3rd-party campaign, he'll put Hillary in the White House, and if she gets to pick a couple of justices for the Supreme Court, you can kiss your guns goodbye. And I'll tell you something else: if he does run, the Clintons will be funneling money to him through their backers. Remember Perot? Watch and see.
As you stated in the past, we disagree "STRONGLY". Outside of the best voting record and (yhr only one) abiding buy the Constitution,( his voting record proves it) Just where would you say Mr. Paul is wrong? I voted for Perot,went to see him talk. He did 'screw' it up. Perhaps on perpose. As far as the Clintons funneling Ron Paul money...well, what does one say to such nonsense?
"As you stated in the past, we disagree "STRONGLY". Outside of the best voting record and (yhr only one) abiding buy the Constitution,( his voting record proves it) Just where would you say Mr. Paul is wrong?" See new thread. "I voted for Perot,went to see him talk. He did 'screw' it up. Perhaps on perpose. As far as the Clintons funneling Ron Paul money...well, what does one say to such nonsense?" A 3rd-party campaign, a la Perot's, would be very much in the Clintons' interest. If you don't think they'd pull a few strings to make that happen, you haven't been paying attention. They have.
Not paying attention, or not pulling "facts" off the wall. Nonsense is the 'key' word. Mr. Paul and the Clintons? You are not paying attention.
? So you don't think Hillary is ruthless enough to do it? Or maybe you think she's too dedicated to her "principles"... The only "principle" to which the Clintons have any allegiance is power. I admit the idea seems far-fetched; but you can bet they're thinking about it. I look forward to seeing you on the other thread. (Still don't have my Saiga, BTW, but I'm working on it. Too bad they don't make .22 Saiga clones...)
