Why Fred Thompson? > General Discussion

Posted: 4/30/2007 1:32:46 AM EDT

I realize that vs most of the other canidates are worse, but why the huge push on ARFCOM for Fred Thompson? His votes don't sound too impressive, Unless GOA just has beef with him.

Fred Thompson's Gun-Related Votes The U.S. Senate Debated: Thompson
Voted:
Government wiretapping of innocent citizens.4 Anti-gun
Anti-gun terror bill (S. 735 ).5 Anti-gun
Taxpayer funding to anti-gun lobby groups.6 Pro-gun
Taxpayer funding to anti-gun groups -- 2nd vote.7 Pro-gun
Anti-gun terror bill -- final passage.8 Anti-gun
Taggants in gunpowder.9 Anti-gun
Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation gun ban.10 Anti-gun
Kohl "Gun Free Zones" ban.11 Pro-gun
Free Speech restrictions.12 Anti-gun
Smith "Anti-Brady" Amendment.13 Anti-gun
Gutting of the Smith “Anti-Brady” Amendment.14 Pro-gun
Banning the importation of magazines.15 Pro-gun
Mandatory unsafe gun storage requirements.16 Pro-gun
"Lock Up Your Safety" mandatory trigger locks.17 Pro-gun
Anti-gun Clinton judge appointment.18 Anti-gun
Anti-gun Surgeon General.19 Anti-gun
Ending the filibuster of a major anti-gun crime bill.20 Anti-gun
Background registration checks.21 Pro-gun
Banning private sales of firearms at gun shows.22 Pro-gun
Anti-gun juvenile crime bill (S. 254).23 Pro-gun
Mandatory trigger locks with new handgun sales.24 Pro-gun
Hatch-Craig Gun Control "Lite".25 Pro-gun
More severe regulation of internet gun sales.26 Pro-gun
Young adult gun ban.27 Anti-gun
Medium-capacity magazine ban.28 Pro-gun
Adopting the "Gun Control Lite" strategy.29 Anti-gun
Gun show ban.30 Pro-gun
Praising the gun control mommies.31 Pro-gun
Senate instructions to pass gun control (Reed).32 Pro-gun
Senate instructions to pass gun control (Boxer).33 Pro-gun
Attacking gun makers in court.34 Pro-gun
McCain's Incumbent Protection (2000 version).35 Anti-gun
Incumbent Protection (2002 failed filibuster).36 Anti-gun

Posted: 4/30/2007 1:34:56 AM EDT

[#1]

I would like to know what was attached to those bills.

Posted: 4/30/2007 1:45:24 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
but why the huge push on ARFCOM for Fred Thompson?

Real quick, name another candidate that's viable, even remotely electable, and is more in tune with us on social and political issues.

<crickets>

Posted: 4/30/2007 1:58:09 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
but why the huge push on ARFCOM for Fred Thompson?

Real quick, name another candidate that's viable, even remotely electable, and is more in tune with us on social and political issues.

<crickets>

<nods head>

You look for the candidate that BEST represents YOUR interests.

Take a HARD look at ALL the candidates that are out there. Is Fred perfect? Hell no, but he's light-years ahead of EVERYONE else that's announced and the very fact that he's not a self-aggrandizing, two-faced, say ANYTHING to get elected politician speaks volumes to his character. Something that is given lip service but is one of the first things to go with almost anyone else that holds public office.

Posted: 4/30/2007 2:03:30 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
I realize that vs most of the other canidates are worse, but why the huge push on ARFCOM for Fred Thompson?

He was in Days of Thunder duhhhhh

Posted: 4/30/2007 2:04:42 AM EDT

[#5]

troll for demorats.

fred

Posted: 4/30/2007 2:19:52 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

troll for demorats.

fred

Whoa, hold that, I'm definately not demanything. The complete polar opposite. And I'm most certainly not trolling. I was just researching presidential cantidates, found a record of votes on GOA, had a question and posted it.

I can think of a couple guys I would rather have in office, but you are right. They stand nil chance of actually getting elected. I want to hear more about Fred and what he has done, before I go jumping onboard.

Posted: 4/30/2007 2:29:58 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I would like to know what was attached to those bills.

I agree. They take a bill that has good intentions and add a puppy stomping clause to it, and then yell and point fingers at people for not voting for it.

Political games...

Thise Nay votes probably had some sort of Unconstitutional basis.

Posted: 4/30/2007 3:28:55 AM EDT

[#8]

Because he didn't sue gun makers for making "too many" guns. He is perhaps the best presidential candidate for the Republican party since Ronald Reagan.

Posted: 4/30/2007 12:47:28 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Because he didn't sue gun makers for making "too many" guns. He is perhaps the best presidential candidate for the Republican party since Ronald Reagan.

yep....sorry TK...had to say it....

fred

Posted: 4/30/2007 12:57:35 PM EDT

[#10]

Fred could beat the entire demoncratic party by hand.

Posted: 4/30/2007 1:06:00 PM EDT

[#11]

Everybody else is doing it, so it's OK.

Posted: 4/30/2007 1:10:08 PM EDT

[#12]

Rudy's a far left Democrat Socialist pretending to be a Republican.

McCain is nearly as bad.

Fred Thompson is the only one of the current Republican Presidential hopefuls I don't consider a RINO.

Posted: 4/30/2007 1:12:49 PM EDT

[#13]

Lesser of evils, is my guess.

He sure isn't all that great.

Posted: 4/30/2007 1:17:39 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Lesser of evils, is my guess.

He sure isn't all that great.

Please don't say you will vote for Hildabeast to "teach them a lesson"...

fred

Posted: 4/30/2007 1:21:50 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Lesser of evils, is my guess.

He sure isn't all that great.

Horseshit.

Find me a repub that has a chance at the oval office who voted nay for everything on that list. It's obvious from GOA's wording that those bills were very vague and were NOT blatantly anti-gun.

The man who wrote this is anything but anti-gun.

Signs of Intelligence?

By Fred Thompson

One of the things that's got to be going through a lot of peoples' minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.

Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke, and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms — and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.

The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.

Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.

In recent years, however, armed Americans — not on-duty police officers — have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.

So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's "concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.

The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.

Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.

When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.

Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses — and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.

Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.

Posted: 4/30/2007 1:21:51 PM EDT

[#16]

Fred Thompson -- GOA 2008 Presidential Candidates and the Second Amendment

Posted: 4/30/2007 1:21:52 PM EDT

[#17]

Government wiretapping of innocent citizens.4 Anti-gun
Free Speech restrictions.12 Anti-gun
Anti-gun Clinton judge appointment.18 Anti-gun
Anti-gun Surgeon General.19 Anti-gun
McCain's Incumbent Protection (2000 version).35 Anti-gun
Incumbent Protection (2002 failed filibuster).36 Anti-gun

I'd probably disagree with most of these votes, but it's kind of a stretch to call them "gun-related".

Posted: 4/30/2007 1:23:17 PM EDT

[#18]

Why Fred Thompson?

Because, even if someone were to come-out with pic's of him in a thong and pasties doing the the Macarena with Truman Capote he'd STILL kick the ever-lovin' shit out of the motley crew we're putting forward at this point.

Posted: 4/30/2007 1:29:54 PM EDT

[#19]

Most of those bills have nothing to do with guns. But he did vote:
-To expand the statute of limitations on the NFA from 3 to 5 years.
-To punish sellers of ammunition who “should have known” that it would used in crime.
-To prohibit person with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions from possessing arms.
-Against a law prohibiting the FBI from using Brady check information to impose taxes or register guns, and providing that the information must immediately be destroyed.
-To prohibit juveniles from handling “assault weapons.”

Posted: 4/30/2007 1:40:49 PM EDT

[#20]

Let me shed a little light on Tennessee's political makeup...

Al Gore, former senator from here because his dad was politically connected (

) lost this state in the presidential election of 2000. We sent the only freshman republican senator to Washington this last time around. We're very conservative, pro-gun people. Fred was elected to the senate in '94, and reelected in '96, with the most votes ever cast for any candidate in the states history.

There's a reason for that.

Posted: 4/30/2007 1:49:03 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Why Fred Thompson?

Because, even if someone were to come-out with pic's of him in a thong and pasties doing the the Macarena with Truman Capote he'd STILL kick the ever-lovin' shit out of the motley crew we're putting forward at this point.

Posted: 4/30/2007 1:53:24 PM EDT

[#22]

Because he LOOKS like he could run the Oval Office.

Because he seems to understand the political game without really wanting to be the leader of the entire planet. What I mean is, he doesn't appear to be in it for the power and the glory and the graft.

He seems like an honest man.

Maybe that is partly because he is a trained actor. If so, more power to him. It worked for Reagan.

The rest of them are political animals, which is a nice way to say lying pigs.

Posted: 4/30/2007 1:54:36 PM EDT

[#23]

4 or 5 months ago I knew almost nothing about Fred Thompson other than he used to be a senator from Tennessee. I don't remember seeing a movie he's been in and I've never watched a single episode of Law and Order. Since he announced he's toying with the idea of running in 08 I started doing some research on him. I've spoken with people from Tennesee, I've read the mans words and I've researched his voting record when he was in the senate. My conclusion is he's by far, and I mean by FAR, the best candidate the Republican party has in 2008, and may be the best candidate the party has had since Reagan. He's got my vote in the Republican nomination, even if I have to write it in.

Posted: 5/1/2007 12:50:23 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Lesser of evils, is my guess.

He sure isn't all that great.

Horseshit.

Find me a repub that has a chance at the oval office who voted nay for everything on that list. It's obvious from GOA's wording that those bills were very vague and were NOT blatantly anti-gun.

The man who wrote this is anything but anti-gun.

Signs of Intelligence?

By Fred Thompson

One of the things that's got to be going through a lot of peoples' minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.

Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke, and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms — and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.

The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.

Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.

In recent years, however, armed Americans — not on-duty police officers — have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.

So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's "concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.

The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.

Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.

When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.

Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses — and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.

Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.

+1

That's pretty kick ass..

Posted: 5/1/2007 1:00:15 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
I don't remember seeing a movie he's been in.

You haven't seen The Hunt for Red October, Die Hard 2, or Days of Thunder?

Posted: 5/1/2007 1:07:10 PM EDT

[#26]

For anyone wanting to know "Why Fred Thompson?"

We not only need to elect someone to the Office of President we need to elect a Statesman and not a politician.
Fred is the closest thing to that in many years.

BigDozer66

Posted: 5/1/2007 1:08:03 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
img.photobucket.com/albums/v373/BigDozer66/GIFs/FredThompson08.jpg

For anyone wanting to know "Why Fred Thompson?"

img.photobucket.com/albums/v373/BigDozer66/GIFs/Barrelshroud.jpg

We not only need to elect someone to the Office of President we need to elect a Statesman and not a politician.
Fred is the closest thing to that in many years.

BigDozer66

I don't get it... what does a flying saucer have to do with anything?

Posted: 5/1/2007 1:14:29 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

troll for demorats.

fred

Whoa, hold that, I'm definately not demanything. The complete polar opposite. And I'm most certainly not trolling. I was just researching presidential cantidates, found a record of votes on GOA, had a question and posted it.

I can think of a couple guys I would rather have in office, but you are right. They stand nil chance of actually getting elected. I want to hear more about Fred and what he has done, before I go jumping onboard.

The list you posted above is dishonest BS.

Posted: 5/1/2007 1:15:58 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
img.photobucket.com/albums/v373/BigDozer66/GIFs/FredThompson08.jpg

For anyone wanting to know "Why Fred Thompson?"

img.photobucket.com/albums/v373/BigDozer66/GIFs/Barrelshroud.jpg

We not only need to elect someone to the Office of President we need to elect a Statesman and not a politician.
Fred is the closest thing to that in many years.

BigDozer66

I don't get it... what does a flying saucer have to do with anything?

Don't get sidetracked by the flying saucer...look at what the words say.

BigDozer66

Posted: 5/1/2007 1:51:31 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

troll for demorats.

fred

Whoa, hold that, I'm definately not demanything. The complete polar opposite. And I'm most certainly not trolling. I was just researching presidential cantidates, found a record of votes on GOA, had a question and posted it.

I can think of a couple guys I would rather have in office, but you are right. They stand nil chance of actually getting elected. I want to hear more about Fred and what he has done, before I go jumping onboard.

The list you posted above is dishonest BS.

Here is the source for the list.

And no, It isn't the brady campaign

Gun Owners of America- Fred Thompson

If you read all the notes, it explains a little. It sounds like they were kind of confused though

Warning

Confirm Action

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why Fred Thompson?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why Fred Thompson?