John McCain Pro-Gun?

I had to read this a couple of times. My guess is that there are a lot of conservatives who would voted for McCain if they could really be convinced that he had these views, but he has a lot of baggage on these topics and it really comes across as an election induced conversion (or at least a conversion back to views that he held a decade or so ago).

McCain's aides say the conservative concerns are unfounded. He has an 80-plus percent approval rating from the National Tax Limitation Committee. He enjoys similarly high marks from the Christian Coalition. His legislative record is pro-life and pro-gun, his aides say. "Has he ever not voted for a conservative jurist? There may be one or two cases," says McCain's chief of staff, Mark Salter. . . .

Despite being a genuine hero during the Vietnam war, the difficulty for McCain is that he has problems on lots of issues: taxes, campaign finance, guns, and other topics. Conservatives might be able to put up with a couple of these positions, but there are just too many for most conservatives. On guns, take McCain's links to Americans for Gun Safety. Also take McCain's regulations on Gun Shows. I personally found many of his arguments on guns quite misleading. Possibly McCain's strategy makes sense for him getting elected (that is normally take positions that are popular with the media and many liberals and then say that you are "pro-gun" during a Republican presidential primary), but either this is calculated or McCain honestly doesn't know what conservatives view as pro-gun or anti-gun. I wish that he could convince me that he would be arguing as forcefully after the Republican primaries that he is "pro-gun."

McCain on Oil

Just for the sake of discussion, I thought that I would check out how conservative McCain is on other issues, such as the claimed price gouging by oil companies.

Motorists paying up to $3.50 a gallon for gasoline castigate oil companies and their executives with a growing list of high-octane epithets: Greedy. Un-American. The new robber barons.

On Wednesday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) invoked the harshest image yet. "I think they have the least PR sensitivity of any group outside of satanic cults," he said. . . .

McCain, referring to pending gasoline price-gouging legislation, said "Americans are understandably upset when they see the former CEO of Exxon-Mobil getting $400 million or something similarly obscene." . . .


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know much about him; my opinion is he's incompetent as a politician.

He fought in Viet Nam, suffered major injuries, but supports the Iraq invasion and occupation. This war has many similarities to Viet Nam; I would think McCain would have learned valuable lessons from it.

Bush's war makes interest rates rise almost every month, adds to high fuel prices, and is destroying our freedoms. But McCain supports the war on terror (along with most other politicians.) To me he's just another dictator. Never trust anyone that opposes unlimited gun rights; the 2nd amendment says nothing about limits on gun possession, and neither should McCain if he wants public office.


5/14/2006 8:54 AM  
Blogger Dad29 said...

Let's put it this way. McCain would make a fine middle-of-the-road Democrat.

Using the (R) label is functionally appropriate for getting (and remaining) elected; but his idea of 'conservatism' is far, far removed from that of others.

5/14/2006 9:01 AM  
Blogger John Lott said...

Well, I think that Dad29 is right, but Anonymous seems to be coming someplace out of left field. Anonymous might not be happy, but it is hard to think of an economy that could be growning faster, that has only 4.7 percent unemployment, where inflation overall is very low, and where interest rates are still low.

"Never trust anyone that opposes unlimited gun rights; the 2nd amendment says nothing about limits on gun possession . . . " Possibly you should actually read the 2nd amendment. If you don't think that the 2nd amendment says nothing about limits on gun possession, what do the words "shall not infringe" refer to?

5/14/2006 6:12 PM  
Anonymous Brian said...

I've find McCain to be a bit scary, all the more so after I read about his comments on the Don Imus' show. Specifically, he said he'd "rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had a choice, I'd rather have the clean government."
The Washington Examiner rightly toasted him first, here: http://tinyurl.com/zpnua
Then, George Will wrote a scathing column here: http://tinyurl.com/gtoe7

5/14/2006 6:19 PM  
Blogger John Lott said...

Thanks for the links.

5/14/2006 6:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If you don't think that the 2nd amendment says nothing about limits on gun possession, what do the words "shall not infringe" refer to?" [John Lott]

They (the words) refer to a right that already exists and are not to be violated (the right to keep and bear arms.) Well, are you agreeing with me - that the amendment implies no limit on our right to keep and bear arms ?

Am I unhappy with the economy ? I was happy with my home equity loan (acquired several years back). Because of the war it's interest rate has doubled, and will continue to rise! When banks pay more to borrow so do all other businesses, and that raises costs which are passed on to consumers.
The government's costs for war will be passed on to Americans, and for a long time into the future, including long after the war is over, if the occupation does ever come to an end and the violence ends too.


5/14/2006 8:30 PM  
Blogger John Lott said...

I think that we were accidentally talking past each other. To me at least, "shall not infringe" means that they would not allow the rights to be limited.

5/14/2006 9:03 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home