Posted on 11/02/2007 9:35:48 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
When word began circulating in Republican circles last spring that former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson was considering a run for the presidency, the reaction ranged from relief the party had finally found a suitable standard - bearer to squeals of delight about the actor/politician and his resemblance to former President Ronald Reagan.
It was arguably the high mark of the campaign thus far.
Thompson seemed to squander the summer as he considered his run and raised fewer campaign dollars than hoped. Once he hit the campaign trail, he was forced to acknowledge ignorance about some local issues when stumping across the country, such as Terri Schiavo and offshore drilling in Florida. Republican voters found him wanting, a reaction epitomized by a moment that can be seen on YouTube when Thompson had to ask his audience for applause.
And yet, in a striking statement about the fluidity of the Republican race, he strode into Las Vegas on Thursday as a top-tier candidate with a real shot at the nomination.
His chief opponents, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, are seen as having weaknesses, especially among the party's conservative core. Thompson, who was the Republican staff lawyer for the Watergate Committee and then a prosecutor and a lobbyist, will be especially tough in the South , which is the party's geographic base and which will host an early primary in South Carolina.
The man who plays tough-talking, straight-shooting New York District Attorney Arthur Branch on TV's "Law & Order" spoke to about 100 Republicans at Stoney's Rockin' Country, a country bar on South Las Vegas Boulevard , at a breakfast fundraiser for the state Republican Party. It was an unconventional fundraiser crowd: Some seemed to be bar patrons dropping by for an early nip.
Thompson began with a joke that drew a laugh: "Keep watching those reruns. There's something called residuals," he said of "Law & Order" and its ubiquitous presence on cable TV.
He said Republicans would have to stop the Democrats, "a political party that wants to turn the country into a giant welfare state" and "plays politics with national security."
Thompson, who speaks in a laconic drawl and in a spare style devoid of policy details or soaring rhetoric, described himself as a "common -sense conservative" who believes in low taxes and strong national defense.
Politics isn't so complicated, Thompson said. "It's peace and prosperity, my friends."
It was a short speech, and then he worked the rope line.
State Sen. Bob Beers, who was at the breakfast, said he'll support Thompson. "I like him, I like his politics, and I feel comfortable following him."
Beers said Thompson's campaign hadn't asked for an endorsement or any help with his Nevada organization.
Nevada Republicans will hold their caucus Jan. 19.
You suffer from realititus alternatum!
LLS
This is why No mitt... NO WAY!I responded (based on Bush's support for extending the Assault Weapons Ban in 2000):
You could have just said that in 2000, said “no Bush”, and we could have had Al Gore as President.To which you oddly responded as if there was some argument (which itself was hilarious because you didn't MAKE an argument, just an assertion without foundation):I missed where Fred Thompson promised to abolish all the current firearms laws. After all, if it’s an absolute right, there shouldn’t be any laws putting restrictions on it.
OF course, Fred won’t do that, because he wouldn’t win the election. Because there are people just as stubborn as you who disagree with you, and so long as everybody insists on 100% fealty, nobody will get elected from our side.
You lost the argument and then you try using a strawman argument... putting words into my mouth and then chastising me for your inane inability to mount a cohesive and logical response... because there is no argument... you are wrong and so it mitt.The Feds have the right to regulate the sale and manufacture of firearms... and they can do so as long as it does NOT violate the Second Amendment. There are also Federal limitations on Free Speech... it is “regulated” to a degree. CFR is a prime example! You are also pitifully unaware that Federal Law allows for private ownership of some of those very weapons that you try so unsuccessfully to use in your erroneous argument. There are events held for charity where an average Joe can go and shoot these 50 cal Machine Guns... M-60 machine guns... and other military weapons... ALL legally owned by holders of a Class Three Firearms License. I know a guy that owns an old Sherman Tank too. Like I said... you lose and so will mitt!
Thus conceding my point (that there are reasonable restrictions on weapons), further conceding that you must have a special license to own a class of weapons. Oh, and you mention someone who owns a sherman tank -- I imagine he doesn't shoot that off in his back yard.
So in the argument over whether banning the ownership of certain weapons by the average citizen, I say that there are reasonable constitutional restrictions, and YOU say there are reasonable constitutional restrictions.
Our only disagreement is that I think Mitt isn't disqualified for agreeing with us, and you think he is.
I could ask YOU to give me your explanation of why it's OK for the government to restrict the right to own a 50-caliber machine gun to people with a class 3 license, but NOT OK to restrict the ownership of a few types of "assault weapons" to a restricted group of people.
BTW, I don't actually SUPPORT the assault weapons ban, which puts me at odds with Mitt and Bush on where they draw that line. It's just that I don't fault them for DRAWING a line, like others hypocritically do.
Uh, no. It's just clear from your questions that you haven't read the Federalist Papers recently -- the authors state quite clearly what general level of arms is the militia's natural right. Hint: at this point suitcase nukes wouldn't qualify as "arms" the Founders believed we have a natural right to keep and bear. Another hint: many weapons that Romney wants to ban under the AWB *would* qualify as arms the Founders believed we have a natural right to keep and bear. Two final hints: the answer is in one of the Federalist Papers that Madison wrote...and think about why the Founders believed it was so important that our God-given RKBA not be infringed.
Beyond that, if you don't care enough about the full answer to bother reading our Founding documents, I'm not going to spoon-feed it to you. There's no point in arguing about this, as you and I apparently do not share enough common ground on this issue to make such a discussion worthwhile. FReegards.
There are few mentions of “arms”, armed”, or “militia” in the Federalist papers. Mentions of that “all-important” subject are rather sparse.
Realising of course that the Constitution stands on it’s own, and that the “Federalist Papers” were not voted on, and are not part of the constitution, the writers spent little time on the subject of militia, frankly because it wasn’t really a big thing in their time to suggest that people needed to be allowed to own weapons. Sure, they had seen a government try to disarm them, but there was little support for that amongst the Americans.
That’s why I wanted to see if you had anything concrete to offer, rather than a nebulous reference to “the federalist papers”, as if they contained an answer that would at all support your position.
A literal reading of the few sentences in the FP about the subject would suggest that ANY weapons used by the military would be permitted to the people without restriction. After all, the point of the amendment was to ensure that, if government got out of control, the people could rise up against it.
It makes no sense to claim that right to take back government if the government owns much superior firepower.
In revolutionary times, the guns owned by the people were in many cases superior to the ones provided to the army. Of course, in many cases they were the same, because people used their own weapons.
But anyway, I appreciate that you at least acknowledge that there IS an appropriate line to draw between weapons you can own, and weapons you can’t own.
Which means that Romney’s drawing the line is NOT itself an abrogation of constitional thought, as some pretend. We can argue whether he draws the line in the right place, but that’s an interpretational question, not a factual one. I don’t think he draws it in the right place, but he’s not too far off, and as everybody draws the line SOMEWHERE, the fact that he draws a line does not mean that he’s invoked some imaginary slippery slope that will take us into a weaponless future.
It is certainly true that the government no longer allows the people to own enough weapons to overthrow the government. And when a group even HINTS at such an adventure, the government slaps it down, like Waco.
But allowing a few more semi-automatic weapons in the mix wouldn’t change that. In order to really rise up against tyranny, we need a lot more than what the government will allow. The whole idea of the people being able to do so is but a quaint memory.
Incorrect -- it was indeed a big issue in Revolutionary times to protect the God-given right to own weapons (not to "allow" people to own them -- these rights transcend the government and what it "allows.") Governments of Europe during those times were notorious for infringing on people's natural right to keep and bear arms. The Founders were intent that our governments not infringe upon those rights. And the velidity of the Federalist Papers stems from the fact that they give us a view into our Founders' intent -- which is why originalist Supreme Court justices such as Clarence Thomas refer to them when working to understand a given issue's Constitutionality.
But anyway, I appreciate that you at least acknowledge that there IS an appropriate line to draw between weapons you can own, and weapons you can’t own. Which means that Romney’s drawing the line is NOT itself an abrogation of constitional thought, as some pretend
Wrong. The Founders described what they meant by RKBA; weapons such as suitcase nukes do not seem to fall under the Founders' description. But the rights Romney proposes to infringe with the so-called "assault weapons" ban clearly do fall under the Founders' view of rights and arms protected by the second amendment.
You're arguing that because a prohibition against suitcase nukes is not a second amendment infringement, that basically nothing is. I'm arguing that the federalist papers describe the general types/levels of arms the Founders meant when they wrote the second amendment, and that Romney's gun-grabbing proposals very clearly infringe upon those.
It appears to me that you believe our rights as they relate to RKBA are arbitrary and based on what's "appropriate;" I believe the definition of what falls under our natural RKBA are pretty well described in the Federalist Papers.
You’ve completely mischaracterized what I’m arguing. I’m saying that because you draw a line somewhere, it means that drawing a line is not itself disqualifying.
But when this all started, you claimed that because Romney DREW a line, he was disqualified.
What you really are complaining about is simply WHERE he drew the line. But you have offered NO argument as to why where YOU draw the line is correct, and where HE draws the line is incorrect.
The militia, the right to bear arms, the whole topic of guns is covered only a few times in the entire set of the federalist papers. You can keep claiming different, but since the document exists online, you will lose that argument.
Go search for the words “militia” or arms” or “armed” in the online federalist papers, you will find fewer than 10 references that are germaine to our conversation. The issue was important, but not a big subject of contention they had to spend pages on, like some other more controversial topics. As the federalist papers were attempting to convince people to support the constitution, they spent a lot more time on things that were controversial.
Let’s turn it around. What in the constitution or the federalist papers makes you think the founders would ban suitcase nukes, or machine guns?
Here's what I said: "This is the same argument leftist gun-grabbers use (to be clear, I am *not* calling you a leftist gun-grabber -- just observing that you are using their argument). By this argument, logically we should only be permitted to own arms that existed during Revolutionary times. It's specious. The Founders were no fools. The answers to your questions lie in the Federalist Papers."
And that's what I'm still saying. I've said repeatedly that the rights Romney wants to infringe upon with the AWB clearly fall under rights that the Founders considered God-given rights. I pointed you to the support of my argument, the Federalist papers.
Now in order to bolster your argument, you claim I began this discussion with an assertion I never made! There's no point in going around in circles. As I said before, our stances are too far apart for reasonable discussion purposes. Good night.
LLS
You can support whoever you want. And you can choose to read whatever comments you want, and respond to whatever comments you feel like.
So nobody is wasting your time but you. It’s not like I’m holding a gun to your head.
I just thought someone who was so passionate about the topic would have something of interest to say about it, to expound better on the reasons for their statements.
But you have no obligation to do so.
LLS
I’m not playing, but if you are, OK.
Buddy, you’re confusing me with another poster. I didn’t post those things. At this point you’re being very careless or deliberately dishonest.
You are Absolutely RIGHT. I was in a conversation with another Freeper, and you responded to a reply I made to that other poster. I have mistakenly confused the two of you.
I apologize, and have asked that my last post be taken down.
I was very careful to do the “to” button up, and then the “replies to” down, but completely missed the change in poster names.
It was the OTHER poster that made the first arguments.
No problem, FRiend — it’s tough carrying on several different threads/discussions at once (I try this myself occasionally, and it’s not easy)> Best FReegards, and even thought we disagree, it’s been nice talking to you.
Some here have mentioned that conservative CA State Sen. Tom McClintock (who ran a terrible campaign in the Recall as he got trounced by Ahnold) is Fred Thompson’s CA Campaign chair. True, and FT has also selected other real conservatives for his other states’ campaign chairs...like Chip Rogers as his GA chairperson, etc. What you all HAVEN’T talked about (perhaps you did a few weeks ago when he announced it on 10-23) is Thompson’s Immigration Statement, a move to the right for Thompson who had up til then given mealy-mouthed, non-sensical responses to “what” he would do as President about the Invasion by Mexico (His interview with Chris Wallace in March showed he didn’t know “what” to do about the millions of illegals already here). What is interesting to some of us is “who” drew this “statement” up, because it could very easily have been done by Tancredo or Hunter. As it turns out, only a select group of people know “who’s behind this statement”, and my close friend in CO is one of them. I think if more conservatives knew “who”, they would be shocked [and many] would flock to backing Thompson. It blew me away and it made me take another look at the man, even though I had been an ardent Hunter supporter. With Hunter’s authoring of the insane NDAA last October (removing Posse comitatus in an emergency and also supporting the MCA which removes habeus corpus in a national state of emergency giving Bush or whomever’s President near dictatorial power), I decided to no longer support him (Hunter). If Thompson can “parlay” that he has seen the light on the Invasion issue and that he is now calling for deportation of illegal aliens in the U.S. and the enforcement of existing Fed. Immigration laws, if he can swing this, he’ll be the nominee. NONE of the front tier including Open Borders Huckabee are strongly anti-Invasion, THE most important issue to conservatives today, IMHO. We know that Jim Gilchrist and Glenn Spencer have endorsed Ron Paul, but Paul has a “laissez faire” policy towards illegal aliens.
If Thompson can be believed on this new, more conservative position on the Invasion, he will gain a lot of votes and support.
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.