I have seen and read several reviews regarding Rick Santorum and his stand on the Second Amendment and guns. Overall, I had not been terribly impressed, but that may be about to change.
I offer these next few paragraphs, not as an endorsement, or in an attempt to detract from Rick Santorum in ANY way. I am merely hoping that some of the folks that read here actually have MORE information regarding Santorum, guns and his views on the 2A than I do.
Rick Santorum on Second Amendment Rights
“He [Rick Santorum] was the most effective advocate of bringing it [legislation to protect gun companies from frivolous lawsuits] to the floor and getting a vote scheduled. He used his influence to get it to the floor. Without that, we would have lost every American gun company.”
– Wayne LaPierre, CEO – National Rifle Association, October 25, 2006“On behalf of NRA members across the country, I want to thank Senator Rick Santorum for his support of the hunters and fishermen, and his work to preserve our country’s strong outdoor traditions.”
– Chris Cox, Executive Director – NRA-ILA, February 7, 2006Coming from Pennsylvania, a state with a rich heritage of hunting and fishing, Senator Santorum understands firsthand the importance of preserving our constitutionally protected rights found in the 2nd Amendment. Senator Santorum fights to preserve this tradition, and will work to ensure these rights are not infringed upon.
As a Senator, Rick Santorum opposed frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry by supporting legislation (The Protection of Lawful Commerce Act) that would protect law abiding firearms manufacturers and dealers from frivolous lawsuits attempting to hold them liable for criminal acts of third parties.
Rick Santorum vehemently opposed the Assault Weapons Ban because he believes that there are more effective ways to stop gun violence, such as stricter enforcement of existing laws, than taking away the rights of law abiding gun owners.
Senator Santorum was also the proud author of legislation to eliminate the requirement that all hunters and fishermen furnish their social security numbers when getting a license. It was estimated that this legislation would help save 16 million hunters and another 24 million fishermen who buy their licenses every year from falling victim to identity theft. Firearms Today
Then there’s this from the National Association for Gun Rights, but please, read this piece all the way to the end, there is a conflicting opinion at work here I believe. Santorum may not have returned the survey by NAGR, but he DID respond to, and return the one from Gun Owners of America, and I have it linked towards the bottom of this post.
Rick Santorum’s anti-gun history
Rick Santorum is stonewalling gun owners.
He is refusing to tell gun owners in Iowa where he stands on important Second Amendment issues.
Despite repeated attempts for Rick Santorum to return his National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey 100% in favor of our gun rights, he has time and time again remained silent.
Please call Rick Santorum right now and demand he return his National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey — at once. SOURCE
This next part gives the reader the same impression of Rick Santorum that I have had, it tends to send mixed signals.
Santorum’s Second Amendment Issues
Senator Santorum’s record on the second amendment is somewhat mixed. Some of Senator Santorum’s record indicates that he supports strong second amendment rights. In 1993, Senator Santorum voted against the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, the Brady Bill. In 2004, he also voted against an extension of the Assault Weapons ban, and against an amendment to require background checks at gun shows.
On the other hand, much of Senator Santorum’s record shows support for gun control to deter crime. In 1997, he voted for an omnibus spending bill that included the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban. This legislation would have made it illegal for men convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence or who have a restraining order to own a gun. In 2004, Senator Santorum also voted for legislation to require child locks on all weapons.
in 1996, Senator Santorum co-sponsored legislation to increase mandatory minimum sentences for criminals possessing firearms. Specifically, the legislation would have increased penalties regarding using or carrying a firearm and using or carrying a firearm while in possession of armor piercing ammunition during and in relation to a crime of violence or drug trafficking.
In addition to these items, Senator Santorum has repeatedly supported Project Exile. Project Exile was a federal program started in Richmond, Virginia in 1997. The project was designed to shift the prosecution of illegal technical gun possession offenses from state courts to federal court, where they carried a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in federal prison under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968. In 2000 and 2001, Senator Santorum co-sponsored legislation to implement this program. Specifically, that legislation would have amended the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to provide firearms sentencing incentive grants to eligible States that: ~MORE~
I don’t like Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich, I am trying hard to like Rick Santorum, I hope some of my readers have an insightful and positive message that they can share.
EDIT TO ADD: I got this late last night from my friend and neighbor, Rowlett City Councilman Michael Gallops.
Michael is a gun person, a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and I appreciate him sending me this. It’s from the Santorum camp and Ladies and Gentlemen, I am taking them, and Mr. Rick Santorum, at their word.
Defending 2nd Amendment Rights
Rick Santorum fully supports the 2nd Amendment rights of gun owners in the United States, and has completed the Gun Owners of America 2012 Presidential Candidate survey. You can download the survey and read Rick’s responses here.
Defending 2nd Amendment Rights
For his work on behalf of gun owners and sportsmen across the country, Senator Santorum consistently received the highest possible ratings from the National Rifle Association and gun owners groups from around the country.
Defending 2nd Amendment Rights Rick Santorum for President
Rick Santorum has an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association for his stand on the Second Amendment and gun owners RIGHTS!
I hope that you, the readers, have some positive things to add. I really want to support Rick Santorum, and unless something can be offered that can prove there is something wrong with him, NOT just an opinion, I mean something that is sourced to a mainstream political site, one with a stellar reputation and immaculate credentials, I am starting to believe that Rick Santorum may have a chance here.
Having lived in PA during Santorum’s tenure, I believe it was his Conservative Social values that caused him to lose his election. I am trying hard to believe in him as well. Regardless of our personal positions, he must stay away from God, Guns, and Gays if he is to make it. This alienates folks as he tends to be bombastic about it.His tendency as well is to harp harp harp on this. That was his issue in PA and early this year as he ran. Not to worry about the Guns. The rest will fall into place, IMO.
I’m not a single issue guy, but if there is an issue that will lose my vote this is it. Without the second amendment, there is no guarantee of freedom.
Keep your powder dry
If a candidate can’t, or won’t support the 2A and gun rights, they won’t support the rest of the Constitution.
I’m not a single issue guy either, but it was time to lay out the 2A story and put any issues about it, and Santorum’s suppost for it to rest..
Just read the GOA questionaire. Except for #9, Santorum is 100%.
Keep your powder dry.
I knew that eventually there would come a time when we didn’t agree on something..
I have NO problem with Federal background checks at a gun show. We have to do them at a dealer, why not there too?
Guess I see it as just the opposite. Not at a gun show, so why at a dealer?
Keep your powder dry
Well, neither should be the rule…
Living in Pa., four years ago. I received my CC in ten minutes, not the hours plus here in Colo.
Mine only took about an hour…
Computers down, or just because the Adam’s County Sheriff told them to issue it?
Being a SWAT Paramedic does have it’s perks after all!
I am a NRA member. NRA fully investigates! NRA give him A+.
THAT’S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME.
Unless Obama leaves office before the election due to his current “qualification investigation” eligibility,, I will vote for the Republican that will be most likely to defeat Obama!
I hope enough information comes out that can impeach Obama, make him ineligible.
This way anything he did will be thrown out.
I agree! I agree! I agree! The NRA gives Santorum an A + !!! That should be enough “proof” for the doubters on Rick’s stand on the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: “Santorum is a firm advocate of a citizen’s right to bear arms. He is also a staunch defender of gun manufacturers, and voted in favor of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (Bill S 397), which among others, prevents civil suits from being brought against gun manufacturers for criminal acts perpetrated using their weapons. The NRA has called Rick Santorum “Kryptonite to Liberals” and states that “We Need his Kind”. He is the ONLY candidate with an A+ rating from the NRA.
the Second Ammendment.”
1. Not responding to the NAGR survey is a non-issue.
2. If you beat your wife and kids, should you really own a gun? See #6 below.
3. Responsible gun ownership = safe or child lock if there are kids in the house. See #6 below.
4. Stiffening the penalties on gun-toting violent criminals. If you don’t agree with this one, you’re part of the problem in this country. See #6 below.
5. Illegal possession of a firearm should carry a stiff sentence. As far as I know, the only folks that can illegally possess a firearm are convicted criminals. See #6 below.
6. Is it ok to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater? No, because by doing so, you may violate someone’s unalienable right to life. So your right to free speech is trumped in that case to preserve another’s unalienable right to life. Remember that the purpose of government is to secure our unalienable rights against others. As far as I can tell,. Senator Santorum’s votes adhere to that foundational principle without infringing on a citizen’s right to bear arms.
Well Chris, the DV issue isn’t simply about wife beaters, it is about ex post facto law, and the fact that these people can NEVER (caps intended) have their rights restored. Unlike felons. It is also about the sexist enforcement and prosecution of those laws.
What if the place is actually on fire Chris? You just going to sneak out and watch all those people burn to death like some did at that night club on the east coast a few years ago..?
NAGR and GOA have done more to insure, protect and expand Second Amendment rights in the past twenty or so years than the NRA has and this is a voting Life Member making that statement, and you say that it is a non issue..?
Response to Point #1:
The Domestic Violence Gun Ban provides the following relief to individuals subject to the ban:
“A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.”
Since various states offer an automatic restoration of civil rights upon full completion of a sentence, individuals subject to the ban are not necessarily permanently deprived of their right to bear arms. So it’s really up to an individual state to determine whether individuals under its jurisdiction are permanently subject to the ban.
In the case of United States v Emerson, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held the restraining order aspect of the ban to be Constitutional when it was challenged under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. At the same time, the Court reaffirmed a citizen’s right to bear arms. The court explicitly called out the fact that Emerson was only subject to the ban while the restraining order was in effect.
1: Show me a state, any state that has that on “automatic.” Especially when it comes to misdemeanors, and Domestic Violence. Wyoming has the closest with restoration possible after a period of five years. With the permission of the Prosecution that tried the case. Fat chance of that happening.
2: See number one.
3: Emerson, as well as another case only applied to those cases. Not to mention that anyone can, based upon anything politically correct, get a restraining order on any other person. This has been proven over and over in California and Colorado as well as Virginia too many times to even bother citing.
4: Icing on the cake; Please name a single person that has had their rights restored for a non felony DV conviction that was not a celebrity of some sort.
Your argument is against unjust or nonexistent state laws and not the Lautenberg ban.
California’s “automatic” expungement of a domestic violence misdemeanor does require a judge’s approval, but the approval must be granted if the individual has fulfilled his or her probation requirements without violation as long as the offender is not serving a sentence for another crime.
By the way, Rick Santorum supports restoring the voting rights of all citizens who have served their time and successfully completed their parole/probation. I would imagine he supports restoring their Second Amendment rights as well based on his reasoning. I’ll let Rick Santorum speak for himself as he explains his reasoning, while at the same time demonstrating considerable rhetorical skills as he destroys Mitt Romney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE1Zo7zamsA
So, who pray tell actually gets probation? Other than celebrities of some sort, and females…
The Lautenberg Ban was snuck into the law after all the bugs had been worked out.
Stop with your baseless thoughts and obvious misogyny.
In California, the court must dismiss regardless of your celebrity status or sex in the following instances:
When are you eligible for a dismissal?
You are eligible for dismissal of a conviction, and the court will dismiss your conviction, if:
• You received probation for that conviction and:
1. You successfully completed probation or obtained early release;
2. You also have paid all the fines, restitution, and reimbursements ordered by the court as part of your sentence;
3. You are not currently serving another sentence or on probation for another offense; AND
4. You are not currently charged with another offense.
• You never received probation and:
1. Your conviction was a misdemeanor or an infraction;
2. It has been at least 1 year since the date you were convicted;
3. You have complied fully with the sentence of the court;
4. You are not currently serving another sentence;
5. You are not currently charged with another offense; AND
6. You have obeyed the law and lived an honest and upright life since the time of your conviction
THE END.
Stop with your obvious misandry. It’s been a while since I was a Deputy, but what you have cited appears to be from section 1203 CaPC, and that applies only to felonies and only toward those granted probation. It, the crime, is not expunged, the accusation is withdrawn. Again, the ex post facto thing kicks in. My Mother and Stepfather got into an argument in 1957, and were cited for Public Disturbance. They paid a fine, and went on their merry way. Until 2005 when my mother tried to buy a shotgun to go hunting with the grand kids. Nope, some lunatic City Attorney classed it as DV and she was denied. Tell me that was not an additional punishment. And no, there were never any other incidents.
Response to Point #1 (cont’d):
The DV gun ban does not violate the Ex Post Facto clause of the constitution as it does not impose an additional punitive penalty (i.e. jail time) for the domestic violence crime for which the individual was convicted. But the ban does regulate individuals convicted of domestic violence similar to the way that sex offenders are regulated by the Adam Walsh sex offender registration law. Under that law, sex offenders convicted prior to the passage of the law are in violation of the law only if they don’t register. In the case of the DV gun ban, domestic violence offenders convicted prior to the passage of the ban are in violation of the law only if they have a firearm in their possession.
So, losing ones rights is not an additional punishment..?
Registering as a felon or otherwise does not take away any civil rights. Much less forever.
The Federal government can regulate who owns and/or possesses firearms as long it can provide a rational basis for the regulation. In this case, the rational basis may be the protection of the life of its citizens. This is why there have been no serious challenges to federal gun purchase age provisions and gun possession restrictions placed on felons and domestic violence offenders. The DVGB may be repealed altogether or narrowed to remove the restraining order provision, because one could argue that an individual doesn’t receive due process when a restraining order is issued against him. Although Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) squarely establish an individual’s right to keep and bear arms primarily for self-defense purposes, the real or imagined rationale that a convicted felon or domestic violence offender will use a firearm to kill someone will always trump the right of self-defense by firearm of an individual who falls into either of these restricted groups. So that brings us full circle to the Ex Post Facto argument which I’ve already addressed.
THE END.
There have been, and are ongoing challenges to the age ban. The NRA is doing that right now. As for your piss ant response about the ex post facto portion you must be one of those people that don’t believe that losing ones rights is an additional punishment.
Response to Point #1 (cont’d):
So why regulate DV offenders and sex offenders? Because in most cases, they still pose a threat to other citizens’ unalienable rights. It may not be fair that in some states, the laws are so poorly written that “innocent” citizens are convicted under the domestic violence or sexual offender laws of those states, or that some states don’t have a legal path to the restoration of civil rights. But in those states, the laws can be challenged in the courts or changed by the state legislatures. In applying federal law however, the federal government has no obligation to determine whether a state law is just or unjust.
Then why the hell force them to undergo, at their expense 36 weeks, 3 times a week, counseling, and still not be able to have their rights restored..?
The federal government may have no obligation but we the people do have one to keep them out of state issues.
Heller (2008) and McDonald (2008) firmly establish the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right necessary to maintain “ordered liberty,” precisely for the reason of protecting us from the abrogation of those rights by the individual states, so I don’t know what you are talking about here.
What constitutes a misdemeanor and the rules for its expungement are an individual state’s business. Take it up with them.
THE END.
When the Federal government adds to penalties for state misdemeanors it is an infringement on the states and needs to be taken care of at the federal level. BTW, in two such cases rights were restored because of Heller, and the ex post facto portion of the law.
Response to Point #1 (cont’d):
There is no provision in the ban that discriminates based on sex. There are many women to whom this law applies, most of whom have been convicted of child abuse. But in cases of spousal/partner abuse, men are predominantly the offenders.
Take a look at the way the laws are written, and enforced. Women are just as likely to be a spousal abuser as are men, but it is men that overwhelmingly go to jail. Women are hardly ever tried for actual DV, they are given a plea deal, and go to 12 weeks of parenting classes. Then, the accusations are set aside. i.e. probation.
Check this out, and this lady is an actual expert not some politically correct practitioner of misandry.
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf
Oh BTW, yes, I do, and have had a dog in this fight. My stepson got the crap beat out of him, in public, by my Daughter in law. He got the conviction, and still has no SA rights…
And the FBI statistics for 2010 show a far greater percentage of men than women committing these offenses even though over 10,000 women were arrested in 2010 for domestic violence.
Even if the report you cited is correct, it’s a state issue. Take it up with your state.
And let’s not forget our own sordid history in which women were getting the $#%# kicked out of them, and in many cases law enforcement turned a blind eye to it.
THE END.
Again, it’s the feds that need to correct it. Again, the charges are nearly always changed when it comes to women, hence the skewed statistics. I don’t know where you are from. But wherever I have lived if he seriously beat the crap out of her he went to jail on a felony charge. Not to mention usually getting his own ass kicked by the responders.
Response to Point #2:
I made the assumption that anyone reading my post knew that I was referring to situations in which the crowded theater wasn’t really on fire.
Never assume Chris; this actually did happen one night in Northglenn. We were able to evacuate the entire movie theater without a single injury.
Response to Point #3:
Not responding to the NAGR survey is different from refusing to respond. NAGR’s modus operandi appears to be hyperbole from what I’ve garnered by exploring the organization’s website. Although I may agree with many of the positions of the NAGR, I certainly don’t agree with the organization’s rhetoric. I’m not surprised Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry steered clear of them. My guess is that each of these candidates had a run-in with an overbearing NAGR lobbyist at one time or another.
The NAGR has NEVER piqued my interest, in fact, I have read things from them, and their supporters that has made me shake my head in wonderment…
I don’t hold it against any candidate that didn’t reply to NAGR, I only included it in the original story because they were the ones crying about Santorum being anti-gun…
Seems I remember Dudley calling you some years back Fred, and it didn’t go to well! LOL! I do like some of their positions, but for the most part I think it is yet another begging for bucks organization that is based on the NRA’s tried and true disaster of the month model.
We DID have words…
Bunkerville, you miss the point. Santorum is on the rise because of his principles. Our society is unraveling economically because our Nation’s moral compass is being replaced by an anything goes, no responsibility, sitcom, sound-bite, I want it now mentality. And when anything goes, everything goes. I believe it was John Adams who said that our Nation under the Constitution would only survive as long as the people were a moral people. I’d encourage everyone to watch Rick Santorum on Faith and the Constitution over at YouTube. That 1:31 minute video should put all of your minds at ease.
Chris, first, WELCOME, glad to read your perspective.
I set the YouTube video instead of just the link, and I have to say, it got MY attention.
One favor to ask though; if you want to reply to a particular comment, I have a REPLY set that allows you to specifically target that comment, please use it, it makes tracking comments, and responses TO those comments a lot easier.
Great opening here Chris, carry on!
Having seen so much out there on Santorum, and much of it being put out there by other candidates, it is good to read your post and comments. Reading the survey was informative as far as the questions that have been plaguing me lately. Thanks for posting. I’ve been leaning toward him since before the South Carolina Caucus. I just like the values he demonstrates. I will do some more digging though. It’s hard to trust a politician of any ilk, but I think this open format really helps.
I have heard conflicting stories on Santorum’s second amendment credential as well, but he did have a B- rating from GOA while GIngrich got a C and Romney had a D, so he is a better alternative to either of these candidates when it comes to the second amendment. Meanwhile Ron Paul received an A+ from GOA, but I know how you feel about him.
Santorum got an A+ from the NRA… Ron Paul IS Pro guns, but he’s Pro pot and drugs and everything else that Conservatives stand against…
As Texasperated said, it’s not a one trick pony, and that’s all Paul and the Paultards are… In Liberty, pass the doob Bro…
Ron Paul is a goofball period. He’s not even a good Libertarian either small l or big L.
As an NRA member the fact that Santorum received an A+ from that organization works for me.
Like Fred, I am still not sure about Santorum, and not just about Second Amendment issues. I myself fear that I will once again be holding my nose as I vote. I am sick of compromise when it comes to our most closely held values.
Said a lot with few words Patrick and Amen on that. I’ve already got the clothes pin in my pocket for election day.
It’s axiomatic that there are three types of Conservatives:
- Fiscal Conservatives;
- Defense Conservatives;
- Social Conservatives
These days, those are my priorities in that order. If we don’t get a handle on the budget we are, literally, gone as a nation. Defense, to my mind, would not only include the security of the United States but the security of the individual as well and that is where the Second comes in. Socially, now, in my mind, this has to take a back door to the top two.
BZ
On the GOA 2012 Presidential survey, on number sixteen (16), concerning the Lautenberg Misdemeanor Gun Ban, Ricky boy voted for it, but when it comes time to brainwash the people in a Presidential election, he states he would “support a repeal”. Why didn’t he vote against it to begin with if he is the A+ rated Pro-Second Amendment person he represents himself to be?
On number eighteen (18), concerning “trigger lock or other locking device when not in use”, he claims he would veto legislation attempting to force this upon gun owners, but, here again, he voted with his Communist buddies in the Senate in an attempt to make gun locks the law. Again, why didn’t he vote against it to begin with if he is the A+ rated Pro-Second Amendment person he represents himself to be?
The above proves one thing, Rick Santorum is a liar, and his voting with democrats (Communists) to bring about forms of gun control proves he is a danger to our Republic.
Rick is a BIG Government stooge, and all BIG government stooges, democrat COMMUNISTS are anti-gun.
Rick can go to hell. He’s hiding behind religion, just like all these political TRAITORS, to hoodwink the public into believing he is a Conservative.
If you are a true Pro-gun statesman, you don’t support anti-gun fake Republicans like he did while in office.
Rick Santorum is a liar, just like all of them.
Bottom line, we’re screwed, because all of these FAKE RINO b******s are anti-gun. That makes them TRAITORS.
Buy more ammo.
OK, I *get* the idea that you really don’t like Santorum, but other than *buy more ammo* you offer NO alternative.
You planning on an armed revolution Top?
You can’t offer an alternative when there really isn’t “any” alternative. Every highly intelligent person qualified to solve the problems want no part of the job, and every corrupt liar who wants you to believe they are qualified does want the job.
It all comes down to who can lie the best, and who can pretend to be a patriot, after you scrape the bottom of the barrel for candidates.
Just a bit of history Top. The Lautenberg Amendment was added in after all the bugs had been worked out with the House. In other words, he snuck it in. Originally, it would only have applied in the case of true violence, the restrictions would have been removed after a person completed counseling, the ex post facto portion was never to be included, and a conviction by a jury of twelve was required. No guilty pleas, six person juries, or loss of rights forever. Although I don’t remember how long the time period was concerning that loss, I believe it was something along the lines of two years. For the record, I would not have had a problem if it had been written as it was originally put together.
Then we have the separate issue of politicians voting for things that they have not actually read which allows for such shenanigans to happen.
Fred, if Obama is reelected, armed revolution may be inevitable as it might be the only way to get our country back. Just sayin.
Minuteman26,
Please re-read the Declaration of Independence. We are so far from what you suggest because we are not even close to living under absolute despotism.
From the Declaration:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
So while we have the Right, we must also have Reason.
Obama/Soros and their Communist minions are the reason Chris.
Santorum is a firm advocate of a citizen’s right to bear arms. He is also a staunch defender of gun manufacturers, and voted in favor of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (Bill S 397), which among others, prevents civil suits from being brought against gun manufacturers for criminal acts perpetrated using their weapons. The NRA has called Rick Santorum “Kryptonite to Liberals” and states that “We Need his Kind”. He is the ONLY candidate with an A+ rating from the NRA.
He also got an A from GOA since returning their survey.
Dumb question for all the NRA supporters here. How many of you are Life Members, or higher? I am.
All,
Put your anger to good use and become an activist like Texas Fred. The Left gained the upper hand in this country, because they worked their butts off doing the heavy lifting while most of “us” sat around and did nothing. Passion and emotion are great, but only when they are attached to coherent arguments and useful actions. Please don’t make yourself and the rest of us easy targets for the Left to attack.
By most accounts, Rick Santorum is the guy who led the fight to save the gun industry in this country a few years back. And in previous comments I’ve presented what I believe is a reasonable defense of the former Senator regarding his vote for the Domestic Violence Gun Ban.
Rick Santorum certainly isn’t perfect. But I have yet to hear the man give anything but direct answers and in my opinion acceptable answers, when he is challenged on his voting record. Watch today’s editions of “Meet the Press”, “This Week”, and “State of the Union” if you don’t believe me.
I’m 100% for Rick Santorum.
Based on some of the responses that I’ve read and had to respond to, I suspect that some of you are 100% for another candidate, if truth be told.
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I’ll never look into your eyes…again
Can you picture what will be
So limitless and free
Desperately in need…of some…stranger’s hand
In a…desperate land
Lost in a Roman…wilderness of pain
And all the children are insane
All the children are insane
Waiting for the summer rain, yeah
There’s danger on the edge of town
Ride the King’s highway, baby
Weird scenes inside the gold mine
Ride the highway west, baby
Ride the snake, ride the snake
To the lake, the ancient lake, baby
The snake is long, seven miles
Ride the snake…he’s old, and his skin is cold
The west is the best
The west is the best
Get here, and we’ll do the rest
The blue bus is callin’ us
The blue bus is callin’ us
Driver, where you taken’ us
The killer awoke before dawn, he put his boots on
He took a face from the ancient gallery
And he walked on down the hall
He went into the room where his sister lived, and…then he
Paid a visit to his brother, and then he
He walked on down the hall, and
And he came to a door…and he looked inside
Father, yes son, I want to kill you
Mother…I want to…fuck you
C’mon baby, take a chance with us
C’mon baby, take a chance with us
C’mon baby, take a chance with us
And meet me at the back of the blue bus
Doin’ a blue rock
On a blue bus
Doin’ a blue rock
C’mon, yeah
Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
It hurts to set you free
But you’ll never follow me
The end of laughter and soft lies
The end of nights we tried to die
This is the end
Glad to know he is a Doors fan!
I suppose it was, after all;
The End!