Poll: GOP a danger to your gun rights?

republican_debate002_16x9Hey, all! It’s time for another fun Zelman Partisans poll. Today we are asking you which remaining GOP candidate would be the most dangerous for your gun rights.

We previously asked you who inย the GOP clown car would best protect your right to keep and bear arms. Now, that the field has narrowed, we want to know who would be the worst.

What I tried to do in parentheses is give you guys a taste of each candidate’s Second Amendment views. It’s not a complete report card, and I’ve tried to include Gun Owners of America ratings where appropriate.

Now, go vote!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

12 thoughts on “Poll: GOP a danger to your gun rights?”

  1. I voted “Other” and typed in “All of the above”. Politicians and the government they call themselves are genetically inimical to liberty. As several wags have said, “There’s no government like no government.” I wholeheartedly agree.

  2. I voted Rubio because he seems to be stealthy about it. People might vote for him under the impression he’s a good guy on this issue.

    (Of course I am assuming this stuff accurately conveys what’s really going on. I note that Cruz the the only one you could find nothing bad about, and that I don’t see how some of the others could get an A rating from what you report.)

    Trump would be worse in many ways…but a lot of people don’t expect much from him. A 2Aer would be unlikely to pick him in the primary for this reason.

    I think even Trump would probably be less hazardous than Sanders, and certainly less so than Hitlary Clinton.

    On a side note, I took a friend shooting yesterday; he owns a decent number of handguns but hadn’t fired them in years. He did respectably well for being caked in rust. (He did better than many of the people there who shoot regularly–they need some teachin’ methinks.)

  3. Actually come to think of it, I’ve changed my mind.

    I’d be in favor of reasonable restrictions on the 2A. If such were possible.

      1. A valid point, but different from the one I was trying to make. To me a “reasonable restriction” would be reasonable whether or not the 2A forbade it. But I can’t think of any valid reason to even want to restrict the right, hence no reasonable restrictions, even if 2A were to vanish off the parchment tomorrow.

    1. Well, that’s mildly encouraging. Or maybe it’d be better to say “not discouraging” Of course, even if perfect, even if he’s planning to rescind all those stupid executive orders and issue pardons for conviction on anything gun related that should never have been a crime (that would be what a hard core pro-2A person would do)…he’s awful on a lot of other issues. (You do know that this is a Christian nation, right? Better go to church! /sarc) But I ignored those for the purposes of this poll which was 2A specific, and didn’t consider him to be the worst of the bunch based on that criterion.

      This election does look like it’s going to be a contest between “Oh, $#i+!!!” and “Hell, NO!!!”

    1. I did notice the graphic seemed to be willing to let you check multiple boxes (it’s checkboxes, not radio buttons). I don’t know if it would actually tabulate them when you hit “vote”

      Failing that you can write “All of the Above” under “other.” ๐Ÿ™‚

        1. Yikes. I guess that’s the hazard with writeins in general. I doubt they get tabulated in any meaningful way, unless it’s for a declared write-in candidate. (I have no idea if WY even does things that way, and somehow I get the strong impression it doesn’t matter to you. ๐Ÿ™‚ )

          Hopefully it did at least show up as a vote for “other.” (Can’t check while writing a comment since “view results” doesn’t have an open in other tab option.)

  4. They are all a danger to every bit of our Liberty. Nothing but a bunch of big government loving politicians pandering to different cronies. D’s or R’s, they never saw a law , regulation or tax they didn’t like (as long as THEY were in charge of administering it).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *