Alphecca

Yep - you about summed it up for me. I'm one of those rare pro gun NYC folks. Give me a pro gun democrat, and remove the democratic party anti-gun plank (which they have had for years) and I could cheerfully vote for a Democrat

Richardson is Pro-gun fiscal conservative with executive experience.

His immigration stand will hurt him with some but I'm convinced the best way to solve that problem is to make crossing the border easier to do the right way than it is to do the wrong way so that we can focus our enforcement energy on those who try to subvert a more reasonable system; so I'm in agreement with Richardson on that one too.

Barring any major development on the Republican side; I'm switching over to the Democrat side for the primary so I can support Richardson. He's by far the best choice so far out of all the contenders, Democrat or Republican.

Richardson also has solid international diplomacy and energy credentials. He is the guy I am flogging. Regardless of his stance on the issues, remember that nominating him keeps Hillary out of the White House.

How about Ron Paul? I know he is not a front runner in the straw polls I am seeing lately nor does he have the name recognition of other GOP candidates. However, he is probably the most exciting candidate in this race for my money. I think he's just about the best candidate I could hope for in any race.

I'd be a Ron Paul supporter, but has he expressed any interest at all in running? If so, I haven't heard it.

BTW, I, too, am not beholden to any particular political party. Where a candidate stands on the 2A and its interpretation is the biggest factor in determining if he'll get my vote.
DAL357

Jeff, true that gun rights can be the end all in determining who to vote for, but it generally indicates the politicians view on individual rights, and respect for the constitution. If the person is consistent, then they get my vote. Be careful though about any dem for pres., as the dem controlled congress is anti gun and likely would push through anti gun measures, even around a dem president. Donuts to dollars, a "sensible" gun control measure would not get vetoes by Richardson (then again, McCain or Guiliani wouldn't vetoe it either). The pols attiude towards gun rights is a good indicator, but not the sole critetion for determinin one's political philosophy.

As I say, 50%...

That's always been my primary litmus test, too. Where does the candidate stand on our 2nd Amendment rights? Then follows national defense, taxes, and property rights.

I can count on one finger how many Democrats I've voted for since my first vote in 1968 (for Nixon, of course). But, if the GOP offers up the likes of Rudy, McCain, or some other RINO in '08, then I might consider a Democrat like Richardson to support or more than likely I'll just stay home.

Ron Paul is running (has an exploratory commitee, at least), the major media just hasn't gotten around to covering it yet, I think they've been too busy fellating Obama to notice.

http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/

Amazing that anybody's vote would rest on gun control as the dispositive issue. I am all for gun rights as well, but it seems there are far more relevant issues (like protection of unborn, expanding government, homeland security) that trump an issue (gun control) that is so unlikely to ever materialize that it is a waste of time to even worry about.

Guiliani on guns--no supporter here

HANNITY: Let me move on. And the issue of guns has come up a lot. When people talk about Mayor Giuliani, New York City had some of the toughest gun laws in the entire country. Do you support the right of people to carry handguns?

GIULIANI: I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms. When I was mayor of New York, I took over at a very, very difficult time. We were averaging about 2,000 murders a year, 10,000...

HANNITY: You inherited those laws, the gun laws in New York?

GIULIANI: Yes, and I used them. I used them to help bring down homicide. We reduced homicide, I think, by 65-70 percent. And some of it was by taking guns out of the streets of New York City.

So if you're talking about a city like New York, a densely populated area like New York, I think it's appropriate. You might have different laws other places, and maybe a lot of this gets resolved based on different states, different communities making decisions. After all, we do have a federal system of government in which you have the ability to accomplish that.

HANNITY: So you would support the state's rights to choose on specific gun laws?

GIULIANI: Yes, I mean, a place like New York that is densely populated, or maybe a place that is experiencing a serious crime problem, like a few cities are now, kind of coming back, thank goodness not New York, but some other cities, maybe you have one solution there and in another place, more rural, more suburban, other issues, you have a different set of rules.

HANNITY: But generally speaking, do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?

GIULIANI: It's not only -- I mean, it's part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment.

HANNITY: How do you feel about the Brady bill and assault ban?

GIULIANI: I was in favor of that as part of the crime bill. I was in favor of it because I thought that it was necessary both to get the crime bill passed and also necessary with the 2,000 murders or so that we were looking at, 1,800, 1,900, to 2,000 murders, that I could use that in a tactical way to reduce crime. And I did.

Jason, you miss the point. The gun issue and how the candidate addresses it is very telling of how they view you as a citizen, and how they see government's role in society. As Jeff said, it cannot be the sole issue, as a gun nut that ignores the est of the BOR is obviously off his rocker. However, the 2A is a foundational right, written into the constitution, that cannot be, to steal a phrase, infringed. Along with free speech it is the most important set of rights we have.

I certainly think we can dispense with the idea of Rudy winning the '08 nomination for the GOP; McCain has enough RKBA pecadilloes, and Rudy's aforementioned efforts to run from his past (and let's be frank...his true convictions) seem unconvincing to most.

Richardson would have legs with independents like Jeff, but I worry about his odds of outrunning Edwards, Hillary, and Obama. Too early to tell I suppose. I do think he'll be in a strong position for VP candidacy.

As for the 2A as a dispositive issue, I'm about 80% of the way there myself. I'm a dyed in the wool progressive on gay rights, the environment, a woman's right to choose (and would have a lot more respect for the "protection of the unborn" crowd if they actually seemed to give a damn about the "already born"), etc. but I found myself voting for a LOT of Republicans at the state level in Maryland this year.

Democrats just need to wake up on this issue. They're getting there...but we're not finished guarding the 2A from Chuck Schumer and Ted K. yet.

In a post 9/11 and pre Islamic terror attacks on US soil world, 2A rights will become under increasing pressure from the far left leaders of the Democrat House. We must be vilgilant and eager for the fight on these issues. It not an accident that the largest block of support for a UN ban on small arms are Muslim nations.

As for president, eeech....., no one get me excited. Tom Coburn from Oklahoma or Tancrido, Kyl from Arizona are pretty good fellows. I'm waiting for Rudy make a detailed list of what he supports and what he doesn't on gun rights. I can only hope he understands that 2A rights are the defining issue for over 8 million consevative voters.

Ron, you make a good point. I think it dovetails nicely with the initial article. In that vein, I doubt any politician that supports a citizen's right to keep and bear arms would think about trying to herd anyone into any kind of camp.

"You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment." That's where we disagree. I think 'well-regulated militia' means 'bunch of disciplined citizens having effective military capability.' Thus being an effective deterrent by scaring the crap out of tyrants and criminals. Rudy thinks it has to do with gun control laws.

That status quo ain't bad. It isn't what I'd LIKE, but it ain't bad.

Heres something I dont get. People bring up Ron Paul as being good on gun rights. But Ron Paul is a federalist that thinks the 2nd Amend only applies to the federal govt but not to the states. That would mean states would be free to regulate or even ban guns if they wanted to. Im pretty sure that is his position, and imo that is not being... good on gun rights.

This is something I believe gun rights advocates have to come to grips with. If you support conservatives that are for federalsim, "states rights", etc... then you are not for the 2nd Amend protecting the gun rights of all the citizens of the US. I always say I believe in a "liberal" interpetation of the BORs, and that goes for all the Amendments, including the 2nd.

I like Richardson too, now that Mark Warner pulled out. I dont see how he gets the nomination though, the Dem primaries are just too slanted to the left. Maybe VP though.

Having a well regulated militia is just the reason that the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms. If you don't have militias in the historical sense, the right does not dissappear. I am sure there are others here who can school you on the "well regulated" militia language better than I. BTW, I don't buy into all the various tests set up by the courts to regulate "rights". I thought that was all a bunch of HS (or BS to you cow lovers) in law school, just like the whole living breathing constitution tripe. My Const. Law professor had no answer for this question: "Why would the founding fathers create an amendment process if the constitution were in fact a living breathing document that could be altered by 5 votes of the SCOTUS" Sounds very undemocratic to me. And don't get me started on penumbras...

Last time I checked the 14th Amendment made the BOR applicable to the states. I too am for decentralizing the federal powers, but a state cannot strip federally guaranteed rights, whether it is speech or guns.

A long time ago I swore before God and man to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and I do not recall ever withdrawing that oath. The idea of supporting any politico who can't stand up and honestly say he (or she) will support it ALL, every single word, as ammended - well,hell. I'm sorry, but no. No way. Never in this old man's life.

I have no intention of voting for any of their current crop of front-runners -- Giuliani, McCain, Romney.

I understand this position. However, I got to thinking of the possibility of a Hillary VS Giuliani situation and it seems to me that it would be advantageous to throw a vote at Giuliani simply because the prospect of a Hillary presidency is so horrific.

The one thing that makes me lean this way is because Giuliani, in the same Hannity interview stated that he would nominate Strict Constructionists to the Supreme Court. At least I believe he did. Yes, he could be spewing a heap of bullshit, but Hillary. That's just scary.

What I'd like to know is why the National Review's long editorial about conservative objections to Giuliani failed to mention the gun issue at all.

(Maybe the Second Amendment really has become lunatic fringe stuff....)

So, I guess you one-issue voters will be pleased when you are neutered and locked down in a paternalistic social_ist state, just as long as they permit you 1 hr. daily range time in the yard, huh?

The only single-issue issue is Freedom, and you will not find any Democratic candidate who espouses that platform capable of winning the nomination.

And as mentioned above, the influence of judicial appointments (for those willing to exercise this prerogative in accord with their professed convictions--conspicuously not the Republicans of late years) can last for generations.

Don't expect to get my vote just because you will let me keep the gun in my hand, if you are going to insist on handcuffing, hog tying, and gagging me before you push me down a dark hole.