[Steamburg]

Starts out to appear objective, then it turns into what it really is, a hit piece.

I don’t see any of the candidates as being particularly Pro-Second Amendment. Remember, with little provocation, Huckster, wanted the Federal Government to ban public smoking. I don’t think it would take much to panic that Nanny into an unconstitutional gun ban. Rudy, has always been Anti-Second Amendment. He seems to have only recently offered to mollify his position for the fly-over country. McCain seems to be part of the Kennedy wing of the GOP so we are back to Romney as being no worse and possibly better than his counterparts.

[Ancesthntr]

I don’t see any of the candidates as being particularly Pro-Second Amendment. Remember, with little provocation, Huckster, wanted the Federal Government to ban public smoking. I don’t think it would take much to panic that Nanny into an unconstitutional gun ban. Rudy, has always been Anti-Second Amendment. He seems to have only recently offered to mollify his position for the fly-over country. McCain seems to be part of the Kennedy wing of the GOP so we are back to Romney as being no worse and possibly better than his counterparts.

Agreed. I'm a very disappointed Fred Thompson/Ronald Reagan Republican but, then again, I've been that way since very early in 1989 when Bush 41 stabbed gun owners in the back with his EO banning imports, the elitist, opportunistic SOB. But SOMEONE is going to be President, and without a clear difference between any of the Republicans on guns, I'll side with the person who seems to make the most sense on other issues. Heck, even if you believe Huckabee on guns, he's so Carter-like and such a nanny-stater and has so little knowledge about foreign affairs that I simply cannot vote for him. As far as I'm concerned, he doomed Fred's campaign by stealing away a lot of otherwise conservative people that make religious/social issues their most important factor in voting.

And they are ALL better than the Democraps, even McStain or Julie-Annie.