Is Fred Thompson really against the Second Amendment?

Question

http://conservativesagainstfred.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/fred-thompsons-anti-gun-senate-record/

Conservatives get more liberal every day.

Answer 1

Fred Thompson is not a real conservative.

Conservatives who look to Thompson for salvation need to pause and consider his record—a record that includes these votes:

♦ FOR restricting the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public. See ACU’s vote 3, 1998.

♦ FOR allowing the IRS to require political and policy organizations to disclose their membership—a vote against the constitutional rights of free association and privacy. (The Clinton Administration used such IRS intimidation against conservative groups that opposed them.) See ACU’s vote 11, 2000.

♦ AGAINST impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, specifically the reappointment and reauthorization of managers (drawn from the Republican membership of the House Judiciary Committee) to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate. See ACU’s vote 1, 1999.

♦ AGAINST an accelerated elimination of the “marriage penalty.” See ACU’s vote 10, 2001.

♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically taxpayer funding of presidential campaigns. See ACU’s vote 6, 1995.

♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically congressional perks such as postage and broadcast time funded by taxpayers. See ACU’s vote 13, 1996.

♦ AGAINST restraints on federal spending, specifically the Phil Gramm (R-TX) amendment to limit non-defense discretionary spending to the fiscal 1997 levels requested by President Clinton. See ACU’s vote 6, 1997.

♦ FOR affirmative action in federal contracts. See ACU’s vote 9, 1995.

♦ FOR the Legal Services Corporation, the perennial liberal boondoggle that provides political activism disguised as “legal services” to Democratic constituencies. See ACU’s vote 16, 1995, and vote 17, 1999.

♦ FOR an increase in the minimum wage, which, of course, increases unemployment among the young and poor. See ACU’s vote 16, 1996.

♦ FOR President Clinton’s nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General. Among other things, Satcher opposed a full ban on partial-birth abortion. See ACU’s vote 1, 1998.

♦ FOR open-ended military commitments, specifically in regard to U.S. troops in Kosovo. See ACU’s vote 8, 2000.

♦ FOR corporate welfare, specifically the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). See ACU’s vote 23. 1999.

♦ AGAINST worker and shareholder rights, specifically the Hatch (R-UT) amendment to require unions and corporations to obtain permission from dues-paying members or shareholders before spending money on political activities. See ACU’s votes 4 and 5, 2001.

♦ AGAINST property rights and FOR unlimited presidential power, specifically by allowing President Clinton to implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which he established by executive order, without congressional approval. See ACU’s vote 20, 1997.

♦ FOR restricting the First Amendment (free speech) rights of independent groups. See ACU’s vote 23, 1997.

♦ FOR the trial lawyers lobby, and specifically against a bill that would put common-sense limitations on the medical malpractice suits that increase health costs for all of us. (Of course! He’s been a trial lawyer himself for some three decades.) See ACU’s vote 18, 2002.

And, last but not least:

♦ FOR limitations on campaign freedom of speech, by limiting contributions to national political parties to $2,000 and limiting the rights of individuals and groups to participate in the political process in the two months before elections. See ACU’s vote 7, 2002.

There you have it. The actor who talks like a tough conservative has, in his real political life, voted in all these ways to increase the power of the federal government, limit the rights of taxpayers and individual citizens, and shut grassroots activists out of the political process.

Ronald Reagan he is NOT!
http://www.conservativesbetrayed.com/gw3/articles-latestnews/articles.php?CMSArticleID=1827&CMSCategoryID=19

Also he is too liberal on immigration.
Americans For Better Immigration rated his voting record with a "C" grade.
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop1.html

Ron Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter all have much more conservative voting records on immigration.
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop2.html

I will be voting for Ron Paul.

Answer 2

It seems to be the fad to put some crap up on an internet website from people no one has heard of that no one can easily confirm, and then spread the crap all over. No one uses their real name, no sources that can be checked are used. Site is called "conservatives against...." How do we know these people really are consevratives? How do we know how truthful they are? How do we know what their agenda is? All of this is BS and very damaging to our country. It's getting nearly impossible to know what is fact and what is propaganda. I have a hunch just about anything on the internet is untrue. So, I stick with vetted sources for my info.


Kent in SD

Answer 3

No. People always take small things out of context.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=22003
says Thompson voted pro-gun 87% of the time.

Answer 4

I think it's great that Fred Thompson voted the way he did.

Answer 5

Yes, red pickup to the contrary, Thompson has liberal tendencies. In fact, the other first tier Republican candidates; Romney, Giuliani, McCain are all liberal on one or more issues.

Answer 6

I think he is a Reagan wannabe. I don't want him to run because he is a conservative but this is what separates from the other candidates. The GOP lawmakers want him to run and he is running. I just don't think he could do a lot of good. I think he is going to be another George Bush.

Answer 7

I don't know.

Why would the GOP even nominate an ambulance chasing trial lawyer turned paid lobbyist.
Not to mention the whole "Hollywood Elite" thing.

Answer 8

Fred Thompson is no where near as smart as he appears.

Answer 9

Maybe he isn't the second coming of Ronald Reagan after all.

Answer 10

Sorry you haven't been paying attention. Americans certainly have an inherent right to own guns, just as they have an inherent right to own any goods or services that are sold legally.

But that right is NOT found in the second amendment.

The second amendment says that states have the right to call you up for military service and you may have to provide your own gun and bullets. You out to read it now and then.

Answer 11

No he is not. This bill is about homeland security and has nothing to do with individual gun ownership.