Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Meet your next President

You all were on the wrong side of history in 2008... but lucky for you, you will have a chance to not make the same mistake twice.

RonPaulWallpaperTrialcopy.jpg
«1

Replies

  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    :deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:
  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 12,136 Senior Member
    They just said on the news tonight that he is now tied with Newt.
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,113 Senior Member
    Excuse me while I turn off the light and go to sleep....snore, snore, snore...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,871 Senior Member
    Democrats had Obama for their Chosen One.

    Republican Libertarians have Ron Paul.

    And mainstream Republicans have Ronald Reagan.

    Looks like every group has its own leader who will "make all things right."

    I guess of all those, the only one who's truly messianic is Reagan, for his return for redemption would involve resurrection.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • gunwalkergunwalker Member Posts: 479 Member
    Paul has no chance. He makes too much sense and does not say what people want to hear.
    We do not view the world as it is, but as we perceive it to be.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,910 Senior Member
    The real reason he has no chance is that he's too much of a threat to the establishment.
    There are conservatives who would vote for him, if not for his foreign policy stance, especially on Israel.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,113 Senior Member
    The real reason he has no chance is that he's too much of a threat to the establishment.

    That...and he's a couple of degrees off plumb...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,954 Senior Member
    gunwalker wrote: »
    Paul has no chance. He makes too much sense and does not say what people want to hear.

    Agreed. Alphasig is right too though. The powers that be do NOT want to see him elected. However the main thing is that he does not say what you might want him to say but rather the way he sees things.... unlike most all the other two faced politicians in office right now.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Ain't gonna happen.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 25,125 Senior Member
    What worries me, is he might not get the Republican nomination and to decide to run as an independent.

    Then disaster happens, many people will vote for him and he still won't be President; but, each and every vote for Paul, in that case, would be a de facto vote for Obama!
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    Ain't gonna happen.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/16/us-usa-campaign-paul-idUSTRE7BD1TN20111216
    "But in the last debate before Iowans vote on January 3, the Texas congressman might have crossed a line with Republican voters when in a war of words with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Paul accused his fellow Republicans of wanting to follow Iraq with another "useless" war.

    Paul stated that he would not go to war with Iran if there was proof the country had developed a nuclear weapon, leading Bachmann and others to pounce."

    Ron Paul is wrong about Defense Spending. http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/11/28/fact-check-ron-paul-is-wrong-about-defense-spending/

    Why Ron Paul can't win. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204026804577100730656321606.html
  • N320AWN320AW Senior Member Posts: 648 Senior Member
    gunwalker wrote: »
    Paul has no chance. He makes too much sense and does not say what people want to hear.

    Could not have said it better!

    Well, he DOES have a chance!
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Member Posts: 203 Member
    There are conservatives who would vote for him, if not for his foreign policy stance, especially on Israel.

    As a true conservative and as a person who should beleive in the Constitution, you should agree with his foreign policy... regardless, we cant afford it anymore. We are bankrupt.
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    That...and he's a couple of degrees off plumb...

    You have something to prove this or is that all you have to go on?
    NN wrote: »
    What worries me, is he might not get the Republican nomination and to decide to run as an independent.

    Then disaster happens, many people will vote for him and he still won't be President; but, each and every vote for Paul, in that case, would be a de facto vote for Obama!

    I am not worried if he runs independent. He will still get my vote and he will get the vote from a lot of ex-obama voters, especially the independents. If you dont want him running as an independent, then you better step up and vote for the only real conservative running.

    Nomadac wrote: »
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/16/us-usa-campaign-paul-idUSTRE7BD1TN20111216
    "But in the last debate before Iowans vote on January 3, the Texas congressman might have crossed a line with Republican voters when in a war of words with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Paul accused his fellow Republicans of wanting to follow Iraq with another "useless" war.

    Paul stated that he would not go to war with Iran if there was proof the country had developed a nuclear weapon, leading Bachmann and others to pounce."

    Ron Paul is wrong about Defense Spending. http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/11/28/fact-check-ron-paul-is-wrong-about-defense-spending/

    Why Ron Paul can't win. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204026804577100730656321606.html

    Bachmanns wrong about Iran.

    A follow up to that opinion piece...
    sailingaway Monday, November 28th at 11:06AM EST (link)

    What Ron Paul said was that the cuts just come from future increases. Horowitz blasts him for this, then describes what the cuts come from in his own terms: future increases…..for inflation.

    It is in fact future increases and ‘inflation’ is pure projection until it happens and is just automatic increases in all programs, across the board.

    So what Ron Paul said was absolutely true under Horowitz’s own analysis, he is just saying ‘that kind of ‘increase’ shouldn’t be looked at as an ‘increase’ in the way he sees things’. However, I see no logic for the specific rate of increase for ‘inflation’.

    This is not a meaningless issue, both because he ascribes inaccuracy to someone who was accurate, but merely disagrees with him on assumptions, and because inflation is a product of an unbalanced budget, as the FED prints more money to cover payments, diluting the value of the money. That is what inflation IS. So this automatic raise, even if accurately projected, assumes continuing an unbalanced budget. Why would we want to do that?

    Ron Paul’s budget plan cuts a trillion in the first year, and, due to preserving Social Security and Medicare, veterans benefits and indigent accounts (the latter in block grants to the states) doesn’t balance the budget until 3 years out. He would have liked to balance it in one, but understands about dislocation and he views senior entitlements as a contract issue, and, accordingly, a top priority.

    But three years out, the budget would be fully balanced and even in year one it would be much closer to balanced than it is now. So with THAT scenario there is no justification for presuming an increase for inflation, at all.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,113 Senior Member
    You have something to prove this or is that all you have to go on?

    I don't need anything to prove a damn thing....Its my opinion and I'm entitled to it...
    I've been listening to RP ramble on for years...I'll admit that he has some great ideas...but he has these flights of fantasy that greatly disturb me...especially those flights of fantasy involving foreign policy...

    For instance: Like the debate the other night...the man was completely unable to grasp the question that was being asked of him...in spite of the fact that it was posed to him three different times...

    "Assuming you were President and you had proof the Iran had a nuclear weapon...what would you do?".... Seems pretty simple to me...

    Rather than simply answer the question...he went off on a rant...

    I predict that RP will NOT be nominated as the Republican delegate...but he WILL run as an Independent... and the folks voting for him will ensure we get Obama as a lame duck President...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Newt jacks his jaws about some whacky idys too. His latest about the Supreme Court's/Lower courts decisions are out there. He wants or said the Prez should be able to over-ride their decisions/ignore them. True, some of the stuff/decisions handed down by liberal courts go against our constitution like the one in SF, but there already is a mechanism in place called IMPEACHMENT, but it's for the Congress to do, not a single man (Prez).

    Would you want any elected Prez to be able to ignore/reverse the Supreme Court's rulings? What if Obammy could reverse the 2nd Amendment ruling?

    I'm beginning to think more and more Mitt may be the only one who can beat Obammy, although he isn't exactly my ideal candidate.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 25,125 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    I predict that RP will NOT be nominated as the Republican delegate...but he WILL run as an Independent... and the folks voting for him will ensure we get Obama as a lame duck President...
    This is a serious worry for me, we had the "make a statement with RP" in the past and we got Obama.

    I think voters still do not get the seriousness of the election yet.

    Newt is an issue with the talking heads at least, stating he gets ideas and vocalizes them without thinking them out.

    I'm still waiting for some serious attacks on old Newt based on his past history of ethics violations.
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Member Posts: 203 Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    I don't need anything to prove a damn thing....Its my opinion and I'm entitled to it...
    I've been listening to RP ramble on for years...I'll admit that he has some great ideas...but he has these flights of fantasy that greatly disturb me...especially those flights of fantasy involving foreign policy...

    For instance: Like the debate the other night...the man was completely unable to grasp the question that was being asked of him...in spite of the fact that it was posed to him three different times...

    "Assuming you were President and you had proof the Iran had a nuclear weapon...what would you do?".... Seems pretty simple to me...

    Rather than simply answer the question...he went off on a rant...

    I predict that RP will NOT be nominated as the Republican delegate...but he WILL run as an Independent... and the folks voting for him will ensure we get Obama as a lame duck President...

    So you think we should act militarily if Iran had a nuke? Why? You dont think much of Israel then.

    Why dont you ask why we havent invaded North Korea?
    Why havent we invaded Pakistan? The currently support our enemy, they hid osama, they have nukes.

    You are being played by the corporatist into supporting another war in the middle east. Our own military disagrees with you by supporting Ron Paul over all others. They are tired of fighting the neocon's wars.

    If our economy collapses, and it will on the current path we are on, our foreign policy wont matter as the oldest democracy slips below the surface. Open your eyes.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,324 Senior Member
    On the subject of Iran or North Korea with nukes or other WMDs, I ain't crazy about the idea, but I have to approach it from the same angle I approach gun control: you can have all the toys you want until you use them irresponsibly, at which point you are never seen in civilized society again. In the case of gun control, this means you can walk into any gun shop and run up the VISA card on as many as you want with the only paperwork involved being the signature on the VISA receipt, but use them in a crime and you (at a minimum) go to prison forever. In the case of WMD's, unprovoked use gets you the full and unimpeded wrath of the country you used them against, while the rest of the world either helps with the whamming or sits on the sidelines.

    Just as we would mistrust a government that tries to regulate and control our access to firearms, nations that try to control the internal affairs of others will NOT be popular among those controlled, and just as trying to regulate firearms out of the hands of those who care nothing for regulations is a flawed premise, those that want nukes will eventually get them. Treating those powers like children merely increases the likelihood that those nukes will be used against those that lobbied for their control in the first place. Even if the external prohibition on nukes works indefinitely, you still have to worry about conventional/terrorist attacks (yes, like 9/11) from those who feel they are being held down. It rarely ends well for the schoolyard bully in the long run.

    In short, let them have enough rope to hang themselves with. Yes, this puts a lot of people - nations even - at risk, but just like gun control, where I would rather live with the possibility of being plugged by a criminal than with the certainty of a government that fears my freedom, I do not feel that having our government act like an overzealous parent to the rest of the world is the best way to keep us safe.

    This may or may not be Ron Paul's exact stance, but it's as best I can articulate the general viewpoint. A government that is smaller and less overbearing in ALL areas seems to be what he's after. I think he understands that we can't have it both ways - that wielding the biggest stick on the international playground can have negative complications for our freedoms at home. He falls off the Libertarian wagon on the abortion issue, but as he's running as a Republican, a few departures are to be expected.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,113 Senior Member
    So you think we should act militarily if Iran had a nuke? Why? You dont think much of Israel then.

    Why dont you ask why we havent invaded North Korea?
    Why havent we invaded Pakistan? The currently support our enemy, they hid osama, they have nukes.

    You are being played by the corporatist into supporting another war in the middle east. Our own military disagrees with you by supporting Ron Paul over all others. They are tired of fighting the neocon's wars.

    If our economy collapses, and it will on the current path we are on, our foreign policy wont matter as the oldest democracy slips below the surface. Open your eyes.


    Look Bub...I ain't being "played" by anyone....I served under 9 U.S. Presidents and I'm quite capable of forming my own ideas...

    Now like Mr. Paul...you need to focus...I said the man failed to comprehend a question that was asked three different times...I didn't say a damn thing about my views of foreign policy...

    Support of any particular candidate is fine...but doing so while ignoring their obvious weaknesses is folly...the election of RP won't be the second coming...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    Please, please take down that pic of Paul. :head: :roll:
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,721 Senior Member
    You all were on the wrong side of history in 2008... but lucky for you, you will have a chance to not make the same mistake twice.

    RonPaulWallpaperTrialcopy.jpg

    He gets my vote.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member


    He gets my vote in order to unseat BO, and not waste votes on 3rd party candidates. Romney is the most likely winner of the bunch. Obama must go!
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,113 Senior Member
    Please, please take down that pic of Paul. :head: :roll:

    I'm still trying to figure out who he looks like....Mr. Rogers maybe?
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    I'm still trying to figure out who he looks like....Mr. Rogers maybe?

    A modern day Don Quixote, perhaps, sizing up his next windmill.
  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,954 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    On the subject of Iran or North Korea with nukes or other WMDs, I ain't crazy about the idea, but I have to approach it from the same angle I approach gun control: you can have all the toys you want until you use them irresponsibly, at which point you are never seen in civilized society again. In the case of gun control, this means you can walk into any gun shop and run up the VISA card on as many as you want with the only paperwork involved being the signature on the VISA receipt, but use them in a crime and you (at a minimum) go to prison forever. In the case of WMD's, unprovoked use gets you the full and unimpeded wrath of the country you used them against, while the rest of the world either helps with the whamming or sits on the sidelines.

    Just as we would mistrust a government that tries to regulate and control our access to firearms, nations that try to control the internal affairs of others will NOT be popular among those controlled, and just as trying to regulate firearms out of the hands of those who care nothing for regulations is a flawed premise, those that want nukes will eventually get them. Treating those powers like children merely increases the likelihood that those nukes will be used against those that lobbied for their control in the first place. Even if the external prohibition on nukes works indefinitely, you still have to worry about conventional/terrorist attacks (yes, like 9/11) from those who feel they are being held down. It rarely ends well for the schoolyard bully in the long run.

    In short, let them have enough rope to hang themselves with. Yes, this puts a lot of people - nations even - at risk, but just like gun control, where I would rather live with the possibility of being plugged by a criminal than with the certainty of a government that fears my freedom, I do not feel that having our government act like an overzealous parent to the rest of the world is the best way to keep us safe.

    This may or may not be Ron Paul's exact stance, but it's as best I can articulate the general viewpoint. A government that is smaller and less overbearing in ALL areas seems to be what he's after. I think he understands that we can't have it both ways - that wielding the biggest stick on the international playground can have negative complications for our freedoms at home. He falls off the Libertarian wagon on the abortion issue, but as he's running as a Republican, a few departures are to be expected.

    Excellent post BigSlug, and I agree with you.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    This may or may not be Ron Paul's exact stance, but it's as best I can articulate the general viewpoint. A government that is smaller and less overbearing in ALL areas seems to be what he's after. I think he understands that we can't have it both ways - that wielding the biggest stick on the international playground can have negative complications for our freedoms at home. He falls off the Libertarian wagon on the abortion issue, but as he's running as a Republican, a few departures are to be expected.

    Therein lies the problem.

    The one clear thing he will say, on foreign policy, is that everyone else has gotten it wrong. From what little I can decipher, he seems to pretty much hold the same view as our most liberal politicians, and some of our more 'lukewarm' enemies.' The closest I have heard any other politician come to having the same position is Dennis Kucinich, and he is arguably the most radical screeching liberal who has ever seriously campaigned for President.

    What Paul does not and apparently will not articulate is what his planned response might be to threats from tin-pot dictators, or rogue nations who support terrorism against us and our allies. This is a legitimate hypothetical question to ask somebody who wants to command and possibly dis-assemble the most powerful military in the world. What is his position on Iran's plan to nuke Israel, take over Iraq from within, blockade the Persian Gulf - or China's decades long intention to re-take Taiwan?

    I'm not saying that past Presidents were right, or that past policies were necessarily correct. But much of what was done in the past was what some fairly intelligent and patriotic men thought was the right thing to do at the time, once it had fallen to them to decide. And most of the politicians articulated their views on the subject when campaigning for office. When someone asks Ron Paul, or any of his self-appointed spokesmen, they get vague generalities about mistakes made in the past and I have seen Paul himself become agitated if the questioner keeps trying to bring him back to point.

    We already have a Commander-In-Chief that got elected giving similar straw-man responses to such questions, and I'll never vote for someone who can't or won't respond to such questioning. He has to articulate under what circumstances he will use force, and just as importantly, when he will not use it.
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 12,041 Senior Member
    What I love about people's stance on Ron Paul boils down to this:
    "I like what Ron Paul has to say about pretty much everything except for his foreign policy. That makes him unelectable"
    Then, almost immediately
    "I detest everything that Mitt Romney stands for. The only difference between him and Obama one black parent and an 'R' next to Mitt's name. Mitt supports gun control, Government controlled and mandated healthcare, and everything else Obama loves. But I'm voting for Mitt! Woo-Hoo, Go RINOs!"

    Seriously? Mitt is Pro Gun control- the response is "He can't get that done with a Republican Congress." However, no one says the same thing for Ron Paul. He will never get his foreign policy stuff through. Why harp on it so much and then be proud that we are voting in a New England liberal with an 'R' next to his name.

    Mitt is worse than McCain. We would be better off with 4 more years of deadlock between a Republican congress and a Democrat in the Whitehouse. Then NOTHING will get done.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    bullsi1911 wrote: »
    What I love about people's stance on Ron Paul boils down to this:
    "I like what Ron Paul has to say about pretty much everything except for his foreign policy. That makes him unelectable"
    Then, almost immediately
    "I detest everything that Mitt Romney stands for. The only difference between him and Obama one black parent and an 'R' next to Mitt's name. Mitt supports gun control, Government controlled and mandated healthcare, and everything else Obama loves. But I'm voting for Mitt! Woo-Hoo, Go RINOs!"

    Seriously? Mitt is Pro Gun control- the response is "He can't get that done with a Republican Congress." However, no one says the same thing for Ron Paul. He will never get his foreign policy stuff through. Why harp on it so much and then be proud that we are voting in a New England liberal with an 'R' next to his name.

    Mitt is worse than McCain. We would be better off with 4 more years of deadlock between a Republican congress and a Democrat in the Whitehouse. Then NOTHING will get done.

    That's an argument that assumes everyone who is opposed to Ron Paul is for Mitt Romney, and that's what anyone gets who tries to pin Paul down on national defense, from him, personally, and his supporters.

    Mitt Romney is one of my least favorite choices for President, but if necessary I'll choose him over Ron Paul, on national defense alone. National defense is the first 'eliminator' anyone should choose, because a president that does not have the will to kill our enemies, when necessary, is worthless as a CIC, and that is 51% of the job. Ron Paul has given no indication that he is willing to deal with enemies who use negotiation as a strategic ploy.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,324 Senior Member
    bullsi1911 wrote: »
    What I love about people's stance on Ron Paul boils down to this:
    "I like what Ron Paul has to say about pretty much everything except for his foreign policy. That makes him unelectable"

    And I tend to think that might be what makes him imminently electable. He's not going to appeal to the hawks, and he's not going to appeal to the big government liberals, but a lot of this country is TIRED; tired of being at war and tired of seeing how much of their income is disappearing for no perceptible benefit. While waffling on a hypothetical question of "When would you use force?" might be seen as timidity, it might also suggest somebody that would actually ponder the situation carefully before yelling "Fix bayonets!" and sending the flower of our youth into a multi-year meatgrinder without a well defined final objective. While pulling the trigger is an essential part of the CIC's job, when the consequences of pulling it are placing the entire country on a war-footing, we would prefer that trigger NOT to be at the hands of a man who prefers a two-ounce, Benchrest model.

    We're still living with the fallout of 9/11, and a lot of that fallout made the Bush administration (which many equate with the Republican establishment) highly unpopular with the masses.

    Meanwhile, we've currently got a President who epitomizes the socialist wing of the Democratic Party - also becoming highly unpopular with the masses.

    Enter into this mix Ron Paul, who doesn't want to send your kid off to get killed in a war that doesn't appear to the layman to threaten Main Street, U.S.A.; is emphatically NOT after your 2A rights; and doesn't want to tax you into oblivion paying for someone else's medical (and other) bills.

    Like Ron Paul or not, I don't think that "unelectable" is a term that can be applied to him in the current dissatisfied climate. We've recently experienced firsthand the results of having both the extreme right and extreme left in charge. Paul may be exactly what a big chunk of the middle wants.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    While waffling on a hypothetical question of "When would you use force?" might be seen as timidity, it might also suggest somebody that would actually ponder the situation carefully before yelling "Fix bayonets!" and sending the flower of our youth into a multi-year meatgrinder without a well defined final objective.

    It might also mean that the answer to that question is "never."

    The point I was trying to make is that we sit back and watch the talking heads ask gotcha questions to all the other Republican candidates, and they know they have to deal with their perceived weaknesses, infidelities, and the mistakes that are evident in their public record. Yet, Ron Paul mostly gets a pass on his one major perceived weakness. That is largely due to the media perception that he can't win, but some of it is because whenever he is asked, he is never responsive to the question that was actually asked.

    Why can't I know the answer to some questions like:

    1. Would you have attacked Afghanistan?

    2.Do you approve of the special ops mission to kill Bin Laden, within the boundaries of a sovereign nation we are not at war with, and without their knowledge or approval, to the great outrage of their population?

    3.Do you think we were right to speed-deliver Phantoms to Israel when they were on the verge of defeat in the Yom Kippur War, due to losing their own to Soviet missiles, in the hands of Soviet trained Arabs?

    4.Did we do the right thing when we blockaded Cuba to prevent the Soviets from installing nuclear missiles that could reach our cities in 15 minutes? A blockade is a profound act of war, and this one was a poke in the eye of our perceived enemy, whom we believed at the time was superior in missile technology and had more warheads, and the will to use them.

    5.Protecting South Korea and Taiwan from invasion by Red China and its surrogates for 60 plus years?

    Just knowing that he has given some thought to such things would help. Instead, I am being asked to vote for someone who has no more been vetted on this subject than Obama was, and whose thoughts on the subject might very well be similar.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement