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.