Posted on 11/22/2007 11:54:39 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
COLUMBIA, S.C. - When Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson walks down the aisles of a gun show Saturday in Charleston, the game he's hunting won't be hard to spot.
The former senator and actor is looking to differentiate himself from rivals Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney - and use his appeal as a "country boy from Tennessee" who knows NASCAR and hunting to portray the city slickers as out of step with this early voting state's residents.
There is little doubt gun rights are a tough issue for the front of the GOP pack.
Former New York Mayor Giuliani has supported federal handgun owner registration and advocated that handgun buyers "demonstrate good moral character and a reason to have the gun." It's a contrast to his more recent call for state-by-state gun controls.
As Massachusetts' governor, Romney signed one of the nation's toughest laws against assault-style weapons. And one of his earliest campaign stumbles came when he was described as a lifelong hunter. It turned out he never held a hunting license. Romney later said he had hunted small game numerous times.
A spokesman for Thompson said the former Tennessee senator should be the choice for people who think gun rights are important.
"Gun owners would know they're with one of their own in the White House if he gets elected," said spokesman Jeff Sadosky, who said he did not know how frequently Thompson handled guns either hunting or otherwise.
But not all gun supporters are totally enamored by Thompson. The Gun Owners of America criticizes him for missing the mark while in the Senate.
In the 33 votes it counts, the group said Thompson was on the wrong side of gun rights, including supporting laws allowing minor offenses to cost people the right to own a gun and supporting campaign finance law changes that crimped the group's ability to get involved in elections.
"Fred Thompson has been there about two-thirds of the time. When you put that in a letter-grade form, that comes out to around a 'D' - and that's not very impressive," Gun Owners of America spokesman Erich Pratt said.
The group does give Thompson credit for protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits and supporting legislation affecting private gun sales at gun shows, Pratt said.
Thompson isn't the only presidential candidate seeking out South Carolina sportsmen and sports fans. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is visiting the state fresh off a poll that has him among the front-runners in Iowa. Polls in South Carolina have Huckabee well off the pace, but also show a number of undecided voters.
Huckabee will tailgate Saturday with World Wrestling Entertainment star Ric Flair before the Clemson plays South Carolina in the biggest football game of the year in the state. The Arkansas governor will then make a number of stops Sunday, ending at a skeet shoot in Spartanburg.
Both the NRA and Gun Owners of America expect gun rights to become an even bigger issue in the 2008 elections after the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear a case that could determine whether a gun ban in Washington, D.C., is legal.
NRA chief lobbyist Chris Cox warns candidates they can't try to fool gun owners, recalling Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry donning hunting gear as the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004 when his voting record wasn't as staunchly pro-gun as some wanted.
"Thirty minutes in a goose pit 16 days before an election wasn't going to make up for 20 years of stabbing gun owners in the back," Cox said. "Some of us wear camouflage not to be seen and other wear camouflage to be seen."
I think there is a good chance of the NRA backing Fred.
>>>>> ... Gun Owners of America spokesman Erich Pratt
IIRC, Pratt is that spokesman who can't debate his way out of a paperbag. The GOA should back Fred too, but the Huckster seems to be more to their liking.
What, are they nanny-state, big government, open borders socialists, too?! LOL
Clearly Fred Thompson is the choice of 2nd amendment advocates, McCain wanted to end Gunshows, Jooles is a out and out gun grabber and Mitt is a mixed bag.
He did sign the extension of the so called “Assault Weapons” ban in MA, but existing firearms owners had their CCW’s term expanded, and MA became a “Must Issue” state as well.
No such baggage with Fred, the GOA is speaking about the Clnton Dole anti terrorism act, and the restriction was nonsensical “A young teen must have an adult around if they are using a firearm (I think it was only Assault Weapons and pistols).
The Domestic Violence Act was much worse, and IMO UnConstitutional depravation of Civil Rights via ANY domestic violence related conviction even retroactively..
The Second Amendment serves as the anchor by which all other rights are ultimately guaranteed. Neither Romney nor Giuliani ever understood that fact. The Democrats, meanwhile, understand it only too well - which is why they’re absolutely set on eliminating Second Amendment rights.
Ping
I hope so
"Wasn't as staunchly pro-gun"? Didn't Kerry make a special trip back to Washington to join Shumer, Feinstein, Kennedy, and others to vote against gun rights? I can't remember the specific issue; was it an attempt to re-new the so-called "assault weapons" ban?
The author of this article reveals his bias, causing me to dismiss his assessment of Thompson altogether.
Also, can somebody summarize who Pratt supports for this upcoming election. Thompson's stand on the Second seems pretty strong to me.
Huckabee’s illegal immigration stance will kill any chance he had.
Another excellent move by Thompson - SC is his if he plays it right.
Endorsing a candidate in a general election has the foreseeable result of aiding the preferred candidate at the expense of the other.
I can see that endorsing one candidate in a primary might have the effect of shifting votes from some other pro-gun candidate with the possible result of having a third, anti-gun candidate barely out-poll all of the pro-gun candidates.
For example, if FDT, hypothetically has broader appeal with the whole electorate than, say, Hunter, then it might make sense to promote FDT. But if Hunter has the broader appeal, then he might be the best candidate to support.
The point is that the best candidate based on just gun rights might not result in the best outcome for gun rights.
If I though Julie-Annie would support my gun rights, especially by selecting pro-gun Supreme Court justices, I would be for him despite his other nonsense. But he is so obviously a hypocrite on this important issue that I could never vote for him. I'll stay home that day cleaning guns and watching the Republican party elect Hillary.
That is true but in this election if they wait gun owners may very well be faced with only rabid gun grabbers to choose from in the general election.
Of the top three only Thompson is pro gun. Rooty and Mutt are no better than any of the RATS.
One of those three will be the nominee and for the NRA to wait and see is stupid and makes them worthless politically.
They waited in 92 and 96 and wound up with nobody they could endorse. Republicans lost both times as you know.
They are going to have to pull their head out of their a$$ and make a choice in the primaries this time or just lose more membership and gun rights.
If tomorrow, the SC, the Congress and the President addimitted the truth that the 2nd is for citizens to have military weapons, to attack and defeat government tyrants....then Pratt would be out a job.
So, the NRA, GOAL and others get their bread buttered by dragging out the obvious.
Just a bump to realize that job preserving bureaucracy is everywhere.
And, guns are not about hunting Bambi.
I just thought you all should see this if you haven’t. Fred Thompson posted these comments just after the Supreme Court made the decision to hear the DC Gun Law case.
A Citizen’s Right
Posted on November 20th, 2007
By Fred Thompson: http://fredfile.fred08.com/blog/category/second-amendment/
“Here’s another reason why it’s important that we appoint judges who use the Constitution as more than a set of suggestions. Today, the Supreme Court decided to hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.
Six plaintiffs from Washington, D.C. challenged the provisions of the D.C. Code that prohibited them from owning or carrying a handgun. They argued that the rules were an unconstitutional abridgment of their Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The District argued, as many gun-control advocates do, that these words only guarantee a collective “right” to bear arms while serving the government. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected this approach and instead adopted an “individual rights” view of the Second Amendment. The D.C. Circuit is far from alone. The Fifth Circuit and many leading legal scholars, including the self-acknowledged liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, have also come to adopt such an individual rights view.
I’ve always understood the Second Amendment to mean what it says – it guarantees a citizen the right to “keep and bear” firearms, and that’s why I’ve been supportive of the National Rifle Association’s efforts to have the DC law overturned.
In general, lawful gun ownership is a pretty simple matter. The Founders established gun-owner rights so that citizens would possess and be able to exercise the universal right of self-defense. Guns enable their owners to protect themselves from robbery and assault more successfully and more safely than they otherwise would be able to. The danger of laws like the D.C. handgun ban is that they limit the availability of legal guns to people who want to use them for legitimate reasons, such as self-defense (let alone hunting, sport shooting, collecting), while doing nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring guns.
The D.C. handgun ban, like all handgun bans is necessarily ineffectual. It takes the guns that would be used for self protection out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, while doing practically nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to use to commit crimes. Even the federal judges in the D.C. case knew about the flourishing black market for guns in our nation’s capital that leaves the criminals armed and the law-abiding defenseless. This is unacceptable.
The Second Amendment does more than guarantee to all Americans an unalienable right to defend one’s self. William Blackstone, the 18th century English legal commentator whose works were well-read and relied on by the Framers of our Constitution, observed that the right to keep and bear firearms arises from “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” This view, reflected in the Second Amendment, promotes both self-defense and liberty. It is not surprising then that the generation that had thrown off the yoke of British tyranny less than a decade earlier included the Second Amendment in the Constitution and meant for it to enable the people to protect themselves and their liberties.
You can’t always predict what the Supreme Court will do, but in the case of Heller and Washington, DC’s gun ban, officials in the District of Columbia would have been better off expending their efforts and resources in pursuit of those who commit crimes against innocent people rather than in seeking to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who would use them only to protect themselves and their families. And that is why appointing judges who apply the text of the Constitution and not their own policy preferences is so important.”
Agreed, but...
You probably meant to say...
watch the liberal-RINO-wing-of-the-republican(with a small "r")-party elect hillary.
Is it the case that the group we're talking about consists of Thompson, Hunter, Paul, and Huckabee?
Of all the pro-gun candidates, how would you rank their standings (as a percent of primary vote total)? For clarity, include the anti-gunners.
I would expect the MSM to support Rudy because he is a RINO whose policies would be indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton or Arnold Schwarzenegger. That makes it difficult to assess how the campaign is really going.
Those who complain that Thompson "lacks the fire in the belly" or isn't campainging "hard enough" seem to miss the fact that Thompson has pretty clearly stated his policies in various statements. You don't have to guess about his pro-gun stance since he has stated it very clearly.
“In the 33 votes it counts, the group said Thompson was on the wrong side of gun rights, including supporting laws allowing minor offenses to cost people the right to own a gun and...”
************
Is this true? Minor offenses, like a speeding ticket, will remove your right to own a gun?
Wish somebody wouldvaskvRudy—Hillary—Obama about the Supremesvupcoming DCvcase
Not that I am aware of. But I have read of the low assessment of Thompson. I'll believe it when specifics are supplied.
On the topic of having the NRA endorse a candidate, I think that it is premature.
The whole idea of how primaries are organized is to allow a small sample of US voters to indicate who they support. It denies the media any room to spin who is leading and denies them the influence of their biased polls.
An early primary in New Hampshire and Iowa puts those voters on record, but other voters can then assess how sensible those decisions are.
It would be early for the NRA to take sides, because they might pick a candidate who doesn't show well. Trailing candidates often take themselves out of the running if they get a disappointing showing.
That would be bad enough for the NRA to have to pick another candidate, one who they ignored, after their own drops out. Even worse, however, would be the prospect of a candidate showing badly but NOT dropping out.
If, for example, the NRA supports Huckabee, and then Thompson leaves Huck in the dust in the first few primaries, what then? If Huck is still running, does the NRA pick again, even though their first pick considers himself still in the race?
The NRA probably COULD do what I described, put it isn't very practical.
Maybe what the NRA should do is a negative "endorsement"? Maybe they could just put the hex sign on Rudy and Romney, hoping that the gun owners in the primary states will then choose from the others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.