If you got 'em, pack 'em, if not, git one and then pack 'em...
My recommendation for the weapon of choice for those candidates...
Good rundown here from Think Progress. By this article it sure seems like this GOP field is working on their “short pee-pee syndrome” with the kind of lingo that follows they are flinging around. To wit:
Republican presidential candidates lining up for 2016 are eager to flaunt their support for the Second Amendment, whether it’s by speaking to pro-gun groups, talking up their own experience with guns, or literally posing with guns.
The latest issue these early GOP presidential contenders are tackling is how far they would extend gun rights and how easy it should be to carry a firearm in public, literally anywhere, anytime, and for any reason.
Expanding where people can carry guns and how — concealed or open — has become a controversial issue between gun owners and groups attempting to put limits on those rights they perceive as absolute.
Pro-gun activists argue that having people carry arms would better protect them from potential shootings, while others cite research showing more guns would lead to more violence.
The NRA is pressing Congress to pass legislation which would allow people to carry their concealed weapons across state lines (in essence make states follow Congressional mandates – neat, isn’t it for the “less government/not more” crowd.”
The NRA is counting on the support of 53 Senate Republicans — including a number of presidential candidates to get that kind of bill passed, and the candidates are eager for the NRA’s support (read: money and endorsements).
The NRA spent $18.6 million in the 2012 election, an amount that dwarfs that of any gun control group. Not being on the receiving end of that kind of dough could substantially hurt a candidate’s chances of winning and certainly the NRA can’t have any of that, now can they?
More at the story link. Enjoy... a bit scary, but we've gotten used to these tactics, right? Yeah, sure we have.