Posted on 03/29/2006 11:02:37 AM PST by Sonny M
BTTT
More details please. What gun ban are you speaking of?
As Governor he als signed Virgina's Concealed Carry law.
See:
http://www.gunowners.org/statealerts/sva1700.htm
http://www.csgv.org/news/news_releases.cfm?pressReleaseID=76
"I have taken a position that I would not repeal the existing ban. Therefore logically I would vote to continue the existing [1994] law."
- Senatorial candidate George Allen, as quoted in the September 15, 2000 edition of the Richmond Times Dispatch
He ended up on our side eventually. But I can't wholly trust him because of that flip-flop, as well as his flip-flop on hate crimes.
"As we discussed, if I am elected to the Senate, I will take no action that would have the effect of elevating sexual orientation to civil rights status," Allen wrote, "including, but not limited to, adding sexual orientation to Federal Hate Crimes legislation or any other similar legislation." Then he voted sexual orientation into Federal Hate Crimes legislation.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/10/6/112714.shtml
Nobody's perfect, and I'll say it again: my mind is open as to Allen's candidacy. But I don't feel very confident with this sort of stuff in his background. And I don't generally vote for folks I don't trust. I might not agree with 100% of their policies (Bush, for example) but I expect to be sure as to what their policies are (and I voted Bush twice, though we have significant policy variances).
You are absolutel right...."nobody is perfect". I would have one hell of a time trying to get the right stance on the countless issues facing a candidate.
Allen may have changed some opinions because he had to mature into National Politics.
He was a great Governor for the state of Virginia.
He is doing one hell of a good job, imo.
So, you're one of those guys who wants to lobby to get your way, and when you get it you're still not satisfied?
Gun owners have nothing to fear from George Allen. There is no one on the GOP horizon (as in serious contender) who is more "on our side."
Allen's statement on the Hate Crimes Bill:
"When I ran for the U.S. Senate in 2000, I stated numerous times that I would support adding 'sexual orientation' to the category of 'hate crimes,' unless the legislation raised 'sexual orientation' to the level of a civil right, which I could not support," Allen said. He explained that the 2004 amendment was "different from earlier proposals," and "(did) not elevate 'sexual orientation' to civil rights status."
See your problem is getting your "facts" about Allen from the people who are professional campaign whiners. They'll never be satisfied. And, if they stop complaining, they'll be out of a job.
Unfortunately for them, and perhaps you (perhaps not), the Apostle Paul isn't running and Alan Keyes will never be President.
Allen isn't perfect, and I've never claimed that he was. But, IMHO, he's the best out there.
I don't demand perfection--I voted for Bush, twice. And I don't like Alan Keyes. See, I demand a degree of consistency, and two flip-flops like this and relative inconsistency on immigration make me wary of Allen. Keyes flip-flopped on his basic positions in Illinois. But Allen, the guy signed off on a GOA survey as supporting the right to bear arms then publicly flip-flopped, and you claim it's testimony to HIM when he bows to lobbying against such a sellout? The guy said he wouldn't vote for elevating sexual orientation to a hate crime and now you take his evasive reason for doing exactly that as gospel? You act as if I should trust someone who's had to be lobbied to KEEP HIS WORD. With your degree of gullibility, I wouldn't trust you to manage a hot dog cart. You'd probably better stop supporting Allen, because if other people find out a sucker like you is associated with him, they may think twice.
He might yet end our candidate, but the election is years away and the GOP deserves a proven, conservative nominee. If Allen isn't it, we ought to know before anointing him. Posting his flip-flops isn't whining--it's telling the truth instead of blowing smoke about Allen like so many seem eager to do.
And I know for a fact that he makes no decision until he's thoroughly thought it out and believes he's doing the right thing. You can take that to the bank. I've seen it in action.
I seem to recall you and I having similar conversations before. You don't like him, fine. But you're wrong about him being a sellout.
That said, I'm through with this conversation with you. If it fulfills some deep emotional need, you may have the last word.
Good nite.
Lol, hes trying to reach out to us 'wild eyed right wingers'.
He's doing a great job isnt he?
Allen's earlier position on the ban was that he would support its renewal in it's original form, but there must be proof that it had been effective in reducing crime. After analyzing it he found that it had zero effect. In my own conversation with him I told him that not only did it have zero effect on crime, but it had also created a "Black Market" of guns and gun parts not effected by the ban, and instilled a "how can I get around the law" mindset in those of us that wished to exercise our constutionslly protected second amendment rights. He told me that he hadn't realized that that was the case. Later when the vote was held on the "poison pilled" gun manufacturer lawsuit immunity bill he voted against it.
I have nothing against George Allen other than his being a professional politician. Of the possible candidates he is the best so far.
Whats Howdy Doody doing on a horse?
If you want people to take your criticisms seriously, stop being an idiot.
It's only ad hominem if your not an idiot.
So, there's that.
You got a source for this?
I don't trust any of them. Talk is cheap. They have to put up or SHUT UP
I would like to think that most people who go into politics have a general philosophy on most issues in their heads BEFORE they are faced with a choice on legislation. And I don't understand how he could EVER have backed such a ban in the first place were he philosophically inclined to defend the right to bear arms.
"Allen's earlier position on the ban was that he would support its renewal in it's original form, but there must be proof that it had been effective in reducing crime."
That is at best an evasive answer (especially after the answer he gave to GOA clearly opposing the ban), and at worst a genuinely disturbing response. Is the Constitution a piece of paper to be shredded at the possibility of 'reducing crime,' as far as Senator Allen is concerned? He sure didn't seem to feel that way when he told GOA he would vote AGAINST the renewal--before he said he would vote FOR it. No 'weighing the impact of the law' came into play on that GOA survey. And none should, when it comes to the right of American citizens to bear arms. Or do you and he disagree with that?
"After analyzing it he found that it had zero effect. In my own conversation with him I told him that not only did it have zero effect on crime, but it had also created a 'Black Market' of guns and gun parts not effected by the ban, and instilled a 'how can I get around the law' mindset in those of us that wished to exercise our constutionslly protected second amendment rights. He told me that he hadn't realized that that was the case. Later when the vote was held on the 'poison pilled' gun manufacturer lawsuit immunity bill he voted against it."
So you told him the law wasn't working and created more criminals, and created disrespect for the law. And that the law was ineffective, THAT is what sold him. But that really does not sell me on the guy, because he didn't make the determination on Constitutional grounds but on pragmatic governance grounds. I don't want a pragmatist in the Oval Office. A pragmatist might well approve the actions of cops in NOLA going house to house, taking guns, to prevent crime. No, I want a conservative who believes that some rights are inviolable as God-given, and that the right to bear arms is very near to the first among them.
Perhaps you've got some indication that Allen fits that bill that I'm not privy to. I would sure appreciate hearing it.
Mike, you are a horse's ass.
But Senator Allen will be our next President, and he will be the salvation of strong defense/smaller government Conservatives in the tradition of Ronald Reagan.
FYI - your medication has expired, putz.
Only if he's tall, dignified, and parts his hair the correct way.
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.