Posts Tagged ‘Ron Paul’

From Wyoming Gun Owners

February 1, 2012

Vying for your vote in the field of “Republicans” are candidates with a documented history of supporting gun control schemes backed by the Brady campaign against guns.

And like usual the tough gun rights questions aren’t being asked of the Presidential candidates by the liberal anti-gun media.

Even the so called “conservative” talking heads seem to sidestep the real meaning of the right to keep and bear arms.

This is very concerning since here in Wyoming “constitutional carry” was passed into law eliminating the need to–ask big brother permission–before exercising your God-given right to self defense.

That’s why now more than ever we must demand to know if these candidates will defend or strike down the rights that you and I have worked so hard to restore.

Wyoming Gun Owners is the only state organization working at this level, asking the hard questions in a–Wyoming Gun Owners 2012 Presidential Gun Rights Survey–that was sent to the candidates by certified mail.

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who has returned the survey. His response was 100% in favor of your gun rights.

The remaining candidates, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum, have all decided to stonewall gun owners by refusing to return their surveys!

Also receiving Mitt Romney’s survey was his Wyoming Campaign Chairwoman–Cynthia Lummis.

During a state wide radio tour Representative Lummis announced her personal endorsement and declared Romney as the best candidate for Wyoming.

Unfortunately Romney’s past is riddled with heavy support of gun control, even signing some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation during his occupancy of the Massachusetts governor’s office.

Romney says he has “changed his mind” on a laundry list of issues. But how can anyone truly believe he has had a change of heart concerning the second amendment if Romney now refuses to put his answers on paper and place his signature on it?

In my personal experience, when a candidate refuses to put their views on the second amendment in writing, it’s a early sign that if sent to Washington they would just lay down and pander to those in the gun control crowd.

This is why it’s so important for you to contact Mitt Romney’s campaign chair Cynthia Lummis and demand an answer of why we are hearing–absolutely nothing but silence–on tough gun rights questions.

Please call and email Cynthia Lummis today!
Phone: (307) 772-2595
email: http://lummis.house.gov/Contact/


SOURCE

To Liberty,

Anthony Bouchard
   Executive Director
Wyoming Gun Owners

 

P.S. Please consider chipping in $15 or $20 to help Wyoming Gun Owners continue to fight the anti-gun politicians no matter when or where they may be hiding.

Re-posted with permission.

Election 2012: Which candidates really believe like those that send them to foggy bottom do?

January 8, 2012

We often see in candidates the populist notion, or action that shows them to be followers of the wind. Bill Clinton being the most famous of those that rule by polls. Polls can, and are twisted by those that put the damned things together. Like statistics, they can always be manipulated to show whatever bias the pollster wishes to convey to further their position. Be that the NRA (full disclosure I am a Life Member.) or NOW.

However, answering questioneres about a subject can provide insights into a candidate. What follows is from an email from a pro gun advocacy group, NAGR, with a link following so that you may join or donate to the cause should you choose to do so.

With the Iowa caucuses just a few days behind us, and with New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada choosing their Republican candidates soon, I wanted to write to you and give you a quick update on the NAGR Presidential Survey program.

As you know, NAGR has mailed every candidate for President an official NAGR Gun Rights Survey.

Ron Paul is the only remaining Republican candidate who has returned his survey 100% in favor of gun rights.

Over the last few weeks and months, I’ve asked you to call the campaigns of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry to demand that each candidate return their gun rights survey 100% in favor of the Second Amendment.

Believe me, your calls worked. Repesentatives from each of those campaigns called NAGR offices, demanded we instruct our members and supporters to stop calling and to send them a survey.

Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry were hurt severely in Iowa because they stonewalled gun owners by refusing to return their surveys, and I think the longer that Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney ignore gun owners, the more it will hurt them as well.

Each candidate has the NAGR Presidential Survey in hand. However, we didn’t stop the calls, and we won’t. Each of the remaining candidates needs to know that gun owners have a powerful voice and we will assume that silence is a sign that they are hiding an anti-gun position.

I have serious concerns about Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Perry. It’s their records that worry me.

Let me take a minute or two right now to remind you about the positions of the four Presidential candidates who have so far refused to return their National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey.

Mitt Romney:

So far Mitt Romney has refused to respond to his NAGR gun rights survey, perhaps because when Mitt Romney was Governor of ultra-liberal Massachusetts he signed a bill to ban an entire class of firearms.

Would he do the same thing — or even worse — as President of the United States? His record indicates that he would.

Mitt Romney supports the Brady Registration Act, mandatory 5-day waiting periods, mandatory firearms ID cards, the Federal Feinstein Gun Ban (so-called “assault weapons ban”) and he signed the Massachusetts Semi-Auto Ban in 2004.

He even went as far as to say that he supported Massachusetts’ tough anti-gun laws: “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them… I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”

And to throw fuel on top of Mitt Romney’s anti-gun fire, he received the endorsement of John McCain this week, who himself has recorded promotional commercials for anti-gun groups hell-bent on restricting our Second Amendment rights.

Rick Santorum:

If you’ve watched any of the Presidential debates, you’ve noticed that Rick Santorum claims time and again to be a “fighter” who has “led on conservative issues.”

Rick Santorum’s record on the Second Amendment, however, tells a different story.

In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

He voted for a bill in 1999 disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns… but it also included a provision to require federal background checks at gun shows.

In 2000, Santorum voted to force pawn shops to require a background check on anyone coming into the store to sell a firearm.

And then he voted with gun-controlling Democrats Dianne Fienstein and Frank Lautenberg to mandate locks on handguns in 2005.

But worst of all, Rick Santorum has a storied history of bailing out anti-gun Republicans facing reelection.

Rick Santorum came to anti-gun Arlen Specter’s defense in 2004 when he was down in the polls against pro-gun Republican Pat Toomey. Specter won and continued to push for gun control during his years in the Senate.

He also supported and openly campaigned for anti-gun New Jersey governor, Christine Todd Whitman.

It certainly appears that Rick Santorum has no regrets about his past anti-gun record. Worse, it appears he’d be happy to continue along this path as President.

Newt Gingrich:

For those who have followed Newt Gingrich’s career, the revelation that he talks out of both sides of his mouth won’t be a surprise.

Despite claiming to be pro-gun, Newt Gingrich’s reign as Speaker was downright hostile to our Second Amendment rights.

Newt supports the Brady National Gun Registry, a national biometric thumbprint database for gun purchasers, the Lautenberg Gun Ban and the “Criminal Safezones Act.”

Newt doesn’t think the Brady Instant Gun Registry goes far enough — he wants thumbprints:

“I think we prefer to go to instant check on an immediate basis and try to accelerate implementing instant checks so that you could literally check by thumbprint… Instant check is a much better system than the Brady process.” — June 27, 1997

Gingrich may claim to be pro-gun . . .

But his record indicates otherwise, and his refusal to answer his NAGR survey should give any Second Amendment supporter cause for concern.

Rick Perry:

Texas Governor Rick Perry has received an earful from NAGR members over the past several months for refusing to return his Candidate Survey.

His strategy seems to be to tell gun owners “trust me” while keeping completely silent on what he would do about our gun rights if elected President.

Over the years, gun owners have learned that this is a failed strategy.

George H.W. Bush ran as a pro-gun candidate for President in 1988, but when elected, things changed.

First, he signed an Executive Order banning the importation of so-called “assault weapons.”

Not only that, but it was under President Bush that “Operation Triggerlock,” which dramatically increased funding and power for the BATFE, was implemented.

Of course, as Governor of Texas, Rick Perry did make some minor improvements in state law for gun owners.

It is, however, one thing to act pro-gun as Governor of a state like Texas and quite another to be a pro-gun President of the United States.

Please keep up the pressure on these four Presidential candidates who continue to stonewall gun owners.

Give each campaign a call and demand the candidates return their National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey — at once:

Mitt Romney: 857-288-3500

Rick Santorum: 603-518-5199

Newt Gingrich: 678-973-2306

Rick Perry: 855-887-5627

You and I know that we have the most anti-gun President in the history of our country right now in the Oval Office . . .

. . . but perhaps even more dangerous would be a Republican with a proven anti-gun history cutting backroom, anti-gun deals.

National Association for Gun Rights

Newt Gingrich on Guns: A Mixed Record

November 10, 2011

Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America. But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.

The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban. And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”

His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped like a lead sinker to a “D.” In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal. Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.1

The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.2 Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home — and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.

While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996. Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”3 He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress — despite repeated requests to do so.4

Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions. For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.5 (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.) Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”6

 

 


[1] Final passage of H.R. 3610, Sept. 28, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml . Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.”

[2] See Gingrich’s vote at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml .

[3] Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996. The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking: “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.” But the fact that this gun ban covers misdemeanors in the home is primary evidence that NON-violent people have been subjected to lifetime gun bans for things like: shouting matches, throwing a set of keys in the direction of another person, spanking a child, etc.

[4] See H.R.1009, “States’ Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997,” introduced by Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID).

[5] H.R. 2703, March 14, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll066.xml .

[6] S. 735, April 18, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll126.xml .

SOURCE

Will we be left with yet again holding our noses as we cast our votes..? Herman Cain‘s 999 plan will in fact raise taxes on virtually all Americans. That’s a really big no no for me. Romney is yet another RINO that would make the epic failure obama a shoe in if he were to run with Romney as his V. P. pick. Cain is also a suspect when it comes to being a closet gun grabber. Rick Perry has no real plan to deal with the invasion across our southern border, a deal breaker for me. Bachman needs to grow up politically. Ron Paul… is Ron Paul, what else can I say? Too be blunt, I have no use for Santorum, or any of the others, and in fact believe that they would be dangerous if placed into high office.

Still, I have to be considered a charter member of ABO, the anyone but obama group. Beyond that, the epic failure just might get reelected. To that end it is of utmost importance that we Conservatives and Libertarians see to it that both the Senate and House are solidly out of the hands of the Communist/Democrat/Progressive’s that are hell bent on destroying these United States. Election 2012 will, I believe, mark a turning point in American politics for years to come. Gary Nolan, a founder of the Libertarian Party, marked this election that way years ago while speaking at the Colorado convention. Something to do with election / political cycles.

Granted, no candidate is ever “perfect.” But compromising is simply not on the table when your core values are on the line. I say that along the lines of Barry Goldwater and it is a very good policy to follow. That takes a sort of moral courage that is, in reality, possessed by few people…

 

Not your usual post-election commentary‏

November 11, 2008

Downsize D.C. keeps their turbulant tradition going with this not so politicaly correct commentary. Enjoy!

Quote of the Day: “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” — William Shakespeare

Subject: Not your usual post-election commentary

The media describes every election as historic, the most important in a generation, etc. When the voting is done they tell us a new era has dawned, that things will change, that nothing will ever be the same, blah, blah, blah.

One aspect of these claims is true, this time. It is both historic and meaningful that the United States has elected its first African-American president. We applaud and celebrate this. We think the significance of this event transcends mere symbolism. Otherwise, the election was what all other elections have been . . .

” . . . a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Can we support this harsh assessment? Consider . . .

The election thoroughly repudiated the Republican Party. They lost the White House in a landslide, and got clobbered in Congressional races. We might assume from this, if elections really produced change, that many Republican policies of the last eight years will be reversed. We predict that almost none of them will be.

The Republicans were responsible for . . .

* Enacting the largest new entitlement in decades — the prescription drug program
* Passing social engineering schemes like “No Child Left Behind”
* Starting an un-provoked war
* Gutting constitutional liberties
* Running-up vast deficits

Will the Democrats reverse any of these actions? Sadly, we think the answer is “No.” What, then, was the point of the election?

Was it merely to punish the Republicans while leaving their sins uncorrected? Was the purpose to give the Democrats permission to pursue all of their own pet projects for social engineering, and to spend, spend, spend to their hearts content?

Undoubtedly this last item is the message Democratic politicians will claim they heard. After all, they received a mandate, and if the mandate was not to pursue their dreams then the word has no meaning.

Of course, some voters can say, “Don’t blame me, I voted Libertarian . . . or for the Constitution Party . . . or the Greens.” Didn’t these voters, at least, send a clear message about what they want?

We think not.

What does the average person assume when he or she sees third party candidates listed in his newspaper with tiny vote percentages next to their names? We think he or she assumes that . . .

“Those are fringe candidates with fringe ideas that no one supports. Therefore, I need not consider what they have to say.”

The system is rigged against third parties. This guarantees low vote totals for those parties. It also guarantees that the ideas those parties represent will always be viewed as marginal.

Third parties don’t promote ideas, they marginalize them!

Oh yes, we know all about the exceptions, like the Socialists and the Progressives, both of whom had ideas adopted by the major parties. But please notice, those ideas made the politicians, and even tax-funded intellectuals in the school system, MORE POWERFUL. That’s the real reason those ideas were adopted; it wasn’t because the Socialists and the Progressives managed to score a few points on Election Day.

So what does voting for partisan candidates actually accomplish? What does it communicate? As far as we can tell the answer is nothing, except that . . .

It gives the victims of the con game — the American people — an illusion of control. But we have no control — no say so.

Voting in the partisan electoral contest merely gives sanction to the con-artists who constantly victimize us. That’s the role of the voter, to sanction what the politicians do. That’s it. It’s like Emma Goldman said, “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

Is this the way you want things to be?

The ways of the future do not lie in the ways of the past. The ways of the past involved hoping the new boss would be different than the old boss. But many decades have come and gone, and the new boss has always been the same as the old boss. We should abandon the old ways and adopt new ways.

The way to a better future lies in withdrawing our consent and issuing direct orders to our supposed public servants. Votes send confusing signals. But plain talk is rarely misunderstood.

The new way involves building a new social force with the power to make public servants miserable. Withdraw consent. Issue orders. Make the public servant submit.

The politicians are busy right now convincing themselves that the public wants top-down, centralized, Democratic social engineering. Who can disabuse them of this notion? After all, the votes have been cast. The people have spoken.

Only YOU can disabuse the politicians of their self-serving interpretations of inarticulate votes. The Republicans were repudiated. Therefore, the things the Republicans did must also be repudiated. This should be the mandate for the new Congress. Fortunately, we have a vehicle for doing just that . . .

Ron Paul’s “American Freedom Agenda Act” would repeal a good chunk of the bad things the Republicans did. Use our Educate the Powerful system to ask your elected representatives to pass this bill.

Use your personal comments to tell your elected representatives that the Republicans were repudiated, therefore the things the Republicans did must also be repudiated.

And stay tuned for new steps in a new direction, starting next week.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundati

The BATFE: A Dangerous Nomination‏

December 10, 2007

Yet again, President Bush shows that he is not a true supporter of firearm rights. He only wanted you, the gun owner to vote for him. At this point in time, the only true supporters of the Bill of Rights in the race for President, are Tom Tancredo, and Ron Paul. Think about it!

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

“We’ll miss him in Massachusetts, but he’ll be a strong leader at
ATF, and I look forward to working with him on key issues on gun
control.” — Senator Ted Kennedy

The above quote highlights all you need to know about Michael
Sullivan, the acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives.

Sullivan was, unfortunately, nominated by President Bush to
permanently take over ATF this year. Right before Thanksgiving, the
Senate “hotlined” his name for unanimous consent approval.
(Hotlining is a parliamentary maneuver which allows non-controversial
bills or nominations to be unanimously approved by the Senate without
debate or a vote.)

GOA immediately sent a letter to each Senator’s office, urging them
to oppose the Sullivan nomination. Thankfully, one senator
subsequently objected to Sullivan’s approval, and his nomination was
put on hold. However, that legislator is now coming under fire from
other senators, who are asking him to withdraw his “hold.”

That’s why it’s important for gun owners to contact their two
Senators. Under Sullivan’s leadership, the ATF has gone berserk.
Sure, the problems at ATF didn’t originate with him, but Sullivan has
certainly done nothing to put out the fire.

While discussing the agency’s 2008 appropriations bill, the House
Commerce & Justice committee issued a stinging rebuke for the ATF:

“The committee has heard reports that ATF has pursued license
revocations and denials against firearms dealers based on violations
that consist largely of recordkeeping errors of various types that
are unlikely to impede tracing investigations or prosecution of
individuals who use firearms in crime. The Committee encourages ATF
to consider lesser gradation of sanctions for recordkeeping errors.”
[House Committee report on HR 3093.]

The strategy, that was begun long before Sullivan arrived, has
continued unabated under his tutelage. ATF inspectors try to find
any violation they can, usually focusing on clerical mistakes.

A family gun business that had been in operation for years in
Baltimore, Maryland was attacked because of the “wanton, repeated
crime” of abbreviating Baltimore as “Blto” on the teeny,
tiny spaces
on the 4473 forms.

Now, the agency has turned their collective guns on Red’s Trading
Post in Idaho, among others. Even though one ATF agent told the
manager that Red’s was “one of the best small gun shops” he’d ever
seen, the ATF has continued its assault on this gun shop (which has
been in business for decades) for minor clerical mistakes and failing
to put up a poster.

According to WorldNetDaily, one judge who is familiar with the Red’s
Trading Post case found “the ATF speaks of violations found during
the inspections of 2000 and 2005, but fails to reveal that additional
investigations in 2001 and 2007 revealed no violations or problems.”
The judge also noted the ATF was exaggerating the situation by
“double counting” some violations.

The agency holds a continuing animus against gun owners and dealers.
Inspectors have no handbook under which to operate, and the absence
of such written procedures allows them to be arbitrary and
capricious.

Americans don’t need an anti-gun cop from Massachusetts as the
Director of the federal gun police.

CONTACT: Please ask your Senators to oppose anti-gunner Michael
Sullivan as the Director of the BATFE. You can use the pre-written
message below and send it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA
Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
(where phone and fax numbers are also available).

———- Pre-written letter ———-

Dear Senator:

I urge you to OPPOSE the nomination of Michael Sullivan for the head
of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Under
his leadership, the ATF has gone berserk. Sure, the problems at ATF
didn’t originate with him, but Sullivan has certainly done nothing to
put out the fire.

In July, a House committee report on HR 3093 rebuked the ATF for
pursuing license revocations and denials against firearms dealers
based on “violations that consist largely of recordkeeping errors of
various types” that are unlikely to impede tracing investigations or
prosecution of individuals who use firearms in crime.

Red’s Trading Post in Idaho is one of the many gun dealers that have
been frequently harassed by the ATF. Even though one ATF agent told
the manager that Red’s was “one of the best small gun shops” he’d
ever seen, the ATF has continued its assault on this gun shop (which
has been in business for decades) for minor clerical mistakes and
failing to put up a poster.

According to WorldNetDaily, one judge who is familiar with the Red’s
Trading Post case found “the ATF speaks of violations found during
the inspections of 2000 and 2005, but fails to reveal that additional
investigations in 2001 and 2007 revealed no violations or problems.”
The judge also noted the ATF was exaggerating the situation by
“double counting” some violations.

Finally, the fact that Ted Kennedy wants to work with Sullivan on gun
control is reason enough to find another candidate to head up the
ATF. Kennedy said, “We’ll miss him in Massachusetts, but he’ll be a
strong leader at ATF, and I look forward to working with him on key
issues on gun control.”

Because of these concerns, I would ask that you please oppose the
Sullivan nomination, and instead work with Gun Owners of America and
the NRA to find a nominee who will protect the rights of innocent gun
owners.

Sincerely,


%d bloggers like this: