Posted on 06/18/2015 7:11:23 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The senator from Kentucky continues to takes the road less traveled through the GOP primaries.
Sen. Rand Paul took a risk Thursday. Speaking to an audience of religious conservatives in the wake of a racially charged shooting in South Carolina, Paul delicately suggested that Republicans might want to start focusing on other parts of the Bill of Rights than the Second Amendment.
"Everybody is for the Second Amendment. All 55 candidates running for president are for the Second Amendment—on our side," Paul told the crowd. "But the thing is that a lot of young people, that might not be their primary issue."
Leaving room, even rhetorical room, to one's right—particularly on an issue as important to the Republican base as gun rights—is a gamble in the crowded 2016 GOP primary. But it's one very much in keeping with the Kentucky senator's campaign of almost-gonzo optimism, and it's the type of decision backed by Paul's personal conviction that his libertarian philosophy can unite traditional Republican voters with more independent-minded young people and minorities.
Speaking at the Faith and Freedom Coalition summit, Paul's remarks also mentioned the Wednesday night shooting that killed nine black church congregants in Charleston, South Carolina.
"We had the shooting this morning in South Carolina. What kind of person goes in a church and shoots nine people? There's a sickness in our country. There's something terribly wrong, but it isn't going to be fixed by your government. It's people straying away, it's people not understanding where salvation comes from. And I think that if we understand that, we'll understand and have better expectations of what we get from our government."
Paul's discussion of the Second Amendment was only a snippet of a longer and broader speech, much of which focused on religious liberty and, in particular, Paul's efforts to defend Christians overseas. He touted an amendment in which he proposed to cut off foreign aid to countries that persecute Christians, and said it was a sign of Washington's disconnect from the country that it was voted down in committee by a wide margin.
The speech was sandwiched in between those of his Senate colleagues and fellow presidential contenders, Marco Rubio (who did not mention the Charleston shooting in his speech) and Ted Cruz (who spoke of the event and began his remarks with a moment of silence). As part of his quest to distinguish himself from his GOP competitors while not alienating base voters, Paul emphasized his record of visiting black communities in Washington, Baltimore, and Chicago.
Polling suggests Paul's gauge of young people's enthusiasm about guns is accurate. A 2013 Pew poll found that just 16 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds own a gun, compared to 24 percent of the total population. A 2013 Harvard University study found that young people are split in their opinion about the National Rifle Association.
But young people don't tend to vote in the Republican presidential primaries. At one point in the 2012 election, CBS found that white evangelicals made up half of Republican primary and caucus voters.
And therein lies Paul's big challenge: He's trying to win the White House by reaching well past the Republican base, but if he can't win over enough of the party's base in the primary, his general election aspirations will be over long before they ever begin.
Well I’ll tell you what! YOU eat what is FED to YOU, and I’ll choose my own dinner!
That’s YOUR “Opinion.”
So you STILL haven’t explained away NAFTA causing us loss of Sovereignty!
Perhaps you need more info on Cruz reasoning on TPA.
He’s posted it if you care.
Hint: Most all of the negative information on the subject has been wrong.
Good timing on Paul’s part…
For most of the 1990s and the subsequent decade, a substantial majority of Americans believed it was more important to control gun ownership than to protect gun owners’ rights. But in December 2014, the balance of opinion flipped: For the first time, more Americans say that protecting gun rights is more important than controlling gun ownership, 52% to 46%.
Certainly the Reps need a kick in the can to protect the First, the Fourth etc. They have been almost pathetic on religious freedom. But the other side never gives up on taking away 2d amendment freedom, so we can’t move beyond it.
Once again, talking process. Like Bob Dole: “We need to get the women’s vote...”
Any time a candidate talks about how he is going to get the youth vote, or the Hispanic vote, or the women—he sounds self-absorbed and cynical.
You don’t ever hear Democrats talking about “the Hispanic vote” or “the youth vote” or “the women’s vote.” They’re out there shouting, “The Republicans want to deport you! The Republicans want to take away your food stamps! The Republicans want to kill you!”
Once again, talking process. Like Bob Dole: “We need to get the women’s vote...”
Any time a candidate talks about how he is going to get the youth vote, or the Hispanic vote, or the women—he sounds self-absorbed and cynical.
You don’t ever hear Democrats talking about “the Hispanic vote” or “the youth vote” or “the women’s vote.” They’re out there shouting, “The Republicans want to deport you! The Republicans want to take away your food stamps! The Republicans want to kill you!”
Scott Walker and Rand Paul have both made statements recently about how they are going to de-emphasize the “social issues” and “abortion.”
Do they think some pro-abort, hearing that, is going to say: “Oh! I’m voting Republican this time! They’re de-emphasizing abortion!”
Of course not. All they accomplish is to alienate pro-lifers.
Scott Walker and Rand Paul have both made statements recently about how they are going to de-emphasize the “social issues” and “abortion.”
Do they think some pro-abort, hearing that, is going to say: “Oh! I’m voting Republican this time! They’re de-emphasizing abortion!”
Of course not. All they accomplish is to alienate pro-lifers.
Do you really think you can Brow Beat someone into submission by insulting them? Whoever you “THINK” you are, you are welcome to YOUR opinion. As far as calling me a left winger, you are so off track you have left the yard. I am generally considered right of Genghis Khan!
AND you have STILL not answered my question about our submission to our lovely neighbors, Mexico and Canada. You are NOW aware, are you not, that we in America are NOW FORCED to eat beef that we do not know the origin of. Welcome MAD COW DISEASE! Marking our beef USA born and raised is considered Discrimination AGAINST MEXICO and CANADA. Tell me please, what has Mexico or Canada ever done for us? ZERO!
I delicately suggest that if you go out of your way to portray yourself as the civil-liberties guy, that you need not to be disparaging any of them.
So at a Faith and Freedom Conference you can’t pray out loud.. Just a moment of silence? I would say our candidates are just collectively pansy PC panderers. It doesn’t take a lot of faith to conduct a moment of silence. I think Rand isn’t the only nut in the fruitcake.
I would have thought a Faith and Freedom conference would have been a chance to pray for God’s Comfort and protection for a tragedy. An outward cry to seek justice, love mercy and walk humbly with Jesus Christ. Isn’t that what the slain pastor would have been honored by?
Without TPA, the chances of passing TPP are slim to none. The chance to kill TPP was with TAA being tied to TPA.
You are the one who is clueless.
Thank you!
It took 40 posts for someone to post who actually read the article??? The headline was written to make people scream (and it worked!), but he didn’t say “let’s get rid of the 2nd amendment,” he said, “everyone is FOR it, so let’s talk about other issues.”
Like the candidate or not, FR is becoming so agenda ridden that people are taking a sound-bite and skipping the rest of the sentence.
Thanks SoConPubbie.
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.