Pennsylvania Gun Owners support Hillary before Obama?

[lysander]

So I get up this morning and the talking heads on most of the 24 hour news channels are going on about how Pennsylvania gun owners (who plan to vote in the Democratic primary) support Hillary over Obama.

I understand that neither candidate is "good" for gun ownership. But are voters really so dumb that they are falling for this clearly designed media push about Obama, bitterness and gun ownership?

I mean really, Hillary lays a couple of lines on real thick about learning to shoot with her Pappy...then has her media machine go on the offensive spinning Obama's "bitter" speech...and all of the sudden she is the candidate for gun owning PA Democrats?

The news story can be found in various places on the web...here is one:
Belleville News Democrat
and here is another:
Editor and Publisher

 

[wcb]

Yes they are that dumb. But here's the good news, if Hillary is on the ballot, she will be easier to defeat than Obama by McCain. The bad news; I dont think it will make a difference since I believe the Democrats are so determined to win the White House that which ever is the presidential candidate, the other will be the VP running mate. Just my opinion/fear.

 

[Mr. Designer]

I'm voting for Hillary. Then again, I'm part of Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos.

 

[eric.cartman]

Rush is talking about it right now...

Operation Chaos.

 

[wcb]

Good man, I wish I had re-registered so I could. Thank you.

 

[esmith]

My boss is a part of operation chaos. Anyway if you believe in hilary then im sorry, your a mindless tool. The only thing a clinton cares about is a clinton. By the way im not capitalizing her name as she is not worthy of it.

 

[wcb]

Unfortunately this election we have the lessor of three evils to choose from, none of them are gun owners friends.

I hope the NRA is ready for this. We might actually be better off to rather than buy our next gun, send the money to NRA instead so we can keep the ones we have.

It's not going to be good.

 

[lysander]

Look...I'm actually one of those optimistic types who believes that the last round of gun banning (i.e. 1994-2004) has been evaluated by all concerned and found lacking.

....the empirical evidence doesn't help the antis.

....the public support is not favorable for the antis.

....and most of the Democrats have been very mum on the issue.

I think that, except in the most extreme cases, the antis are on the run. They have recognized the fact that banning guns is a kind of "third rail" for them. They know it cost them the majority back in 1994 and they aren't interested in repeating that mistake.

I live in Illinois, clearly one of the worst places to be a gun owner in America...and even after a shooting at NIU, a mass murder at a Lane Bryant store, and a "Weekend of Rage", the anti-gunners face an uphill climb to get any traction with their meme. I see pro-gun letters to the editor, I hear pro-gun talk on the radio from major hosts, etc., etc...

I'm not saying the coast is clear and we can all go back about our business...but I think we are doing well.

 

[wcb]

I SO hope you're right.

 

[k_dawg]

There could be another reason:

They think McCain will have an easier time winning against Hillary, rather than Obama.

 

[Deanimator]

That's one of those Hitler/Stalin choices.

I choose "none of the above".

 

[Hokkmike]

Obama made his statement "bitter" mocking gun owners to friends at a private gathering where he though he would not be quoted much less revealed in the press. In other words, he spoke truth from his heart instead of campaign gibberish. Those, you can be sure, ARE sentiments of his heart. Don't discount his disdain for gun owners, especially pistol shooters, as media hype. If he is elected you will see changes in what you can and cannot do gun-wise. Be warned.

Hillary has at least conceded that the political process will probably forstall action as severe as she wants. She is not wehat we want either.

 

[Princi]

Mr. Designer, I did the same thing in Texas. However, we don't register in a party. What happens is they stamp our voter registration card after we vote. So now my voter registration card says: Democrat.

Suppose I die and my kids are going to go through my effects and find the card. They are going to think dad was living a secret life.

 

[bogie]

If we HAVE to have either Hillary or Obama in the White House, I think that Hillary is going to be more pragmatic about the second amendment.

Why?

SHE ALREADY WANTS A SECOND TERM.

I think that Obama would be far more dangerous to gun rights, because he sees himself as a crusader.

FWIW, I'd encourage anyone with a chance in PA to vote Hillary - at the very least it'll continue the infighting among the party, and may actually help aid a split toward a "middle of the road" party in a future election.

 

[moewadle]

Lysander, et al

I think maybe many members here miss one point....Many people do not vote a one-issue vote. I suspect that many gun owners who lean to Democrat side would vote for McCain if guns were the only issue. There are many other serious issues, issues which affect our national wellbeing, beyond the issue of firearms. I suspect that many members of THR are one-issue voters. That is, whomever seems the least anti-gun candidate will get their vote. For myself, I am conflicted. Gun rights are very important to me but so are other issues, and except for guns, I lean heavily toward voting for a Democrat in the fall. I would not call those people dumb. They think differently than do you perhaps. That does not make them dumb.

 

[JCMAG]

There are indeed many important issues at stake come November...

But for this American, there are issues and then there non-issues.

Issues are arguable, like the economy and the environment, both important and both real concerns.

Non-issues are non-arguable, like our essential liberties and civil rights.

A step backwards on an issue can be corrected with another election. A step backward on a civil right takes generations to correct, if ever.

I vote based on civil rights first and contemporary issues second.


That said, I'd take Hillary over Obama. I'd take Juliani over Hillary. I'll take McCain over all of them.

But I take my vote very, very seriously. It is a matter of my integrity as much as my signature or my word. I will not participate in this little sneak tactic called "operation chaos" even if it results in a favorably political environment in November. Not to criticize any of you folks who are partaking in it, but to me and my perception it is dishonest.

More than likely, Pennsylvania voters may once again be seduced by the swan song of fraudulent promises of instantaneous prosperity following a simple change of address at the White House...

God preserve this great nation in our time of need.

 

[Standing Wolf]

That's one of those Hitler/Stalin choices.
I choose "none of the above".

Yep. I've come to believe totalitarians are totalitarians are totalitarians. I used to think it made sense to try to choose the least among evils; the nature of evil, however, includes endless unpredictability.

 

[Beamish]

...if Hillary is on the ballot, she will be easier to defeat than Obama by McCain.

That is the logic.

Regardless I could not bring myself to change my registration to "Democrat" to vote for Hil-Dog. I cannot cast a vote "for" either of them. I guess my voting behavior is not strategic enough.

 

[wcb]

Have you ever read the publication "Gun Facts"? It's a fact based argument for keeping guns in the hands of innocent people to protect themselves and has the source of every fact listed.

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.2/GunFacts4-2-Screen.pdf

Pay particular attention to the pages at the end where it describes how when you lose your gun rights, you WILL lose all your freedoms because then government is an unchallenged power; it gives examples.

For me and it ought to be everyone, there isn't a more important issue than the basic right to defend ourselves and our homes. "Give me liberty or give me death" wasn't just a catchy phrase; life isn't worth living if you lose your freedoms and when they get our guns we will lose our freedoms.

That environmental garbage is just that, garbage. Any scientist worth half his weight in salt doesn't agree with any of that crap. This Green movement is nothing but a distraction while they continue signing agreements with other countries and screwing us. (you do know about the North American Union signed done deal dont you? http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...+american+union+cnn&ei=zPYMSNj_K6X0rALZm5GxBA ) These temperature changes have been going on forever; if you pay attention and watch the right programs on National Geographic Channel you can see graphs for yourself that as long as they have charted global temperature, we are at the top of the fourth time the temperature has risen. If there was really a problem would they shut off unnecessary lights in cities for just an hour so 200,000 SUV's can spew dirt or would they demand unnecessary lights shut off between certain hours? Think about it. They teach how you could only wash your hair 2 or 3 times a week maximum and how to fix your hair to cover the dirt...last time I looked water was an indestructible element except industry pollutes it. What does washing your hair have to do with it or global warming? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that con.

 

[Rachen]

You know what people?

Instead of not voting or voting for someone that is the lesser of the evils, lets still vote for Ron Paul. He is a true hero of America, and by giving him all our votes, we will show the world how strong we Ron Paul supporters are and how strongly we are united for a common cause.

It is this that will make the liberals uneasy. Obama and Hillary are opportunistic pathogens who want to take advantage of Americans who are so divided amongst each other. Even our gun owning community is not free from the same lines that divides society in general.

In Chinese, there is a saying: WANG ZHONG YI XING!

It means everybody together and sharing one heart will accomplish the impossible. So we all know who to vote for now, do we? He still has not dropped out of the race yet, because he knows that there are many, many people who support him, but needs to be persuaded.

 

[wcb]

There's no harm in voting Ron Paul, it's either him or McCain who's the slam dunk.

 

[bogie]

Well, in my opinion, if you abstain, or vote non-electable third party, you are essentially voting for whoever wins, be it McCain or Hilbama - because this, as were most other presidential races which have been held during my lifetime, is not a matter of which is the better candidate, but of which is the worst candidate.

I don't think McCain will buck the party.

I don't think Hillary will forget about what happens to Democrats when people get tense about gun control.

Obama, on the other hand, is gonna get one heckuva honeymoon in office, and, if elected, will likely be seen as "doing no wrong," well into his second year of office, at which point the wheels will fall off and there'll be major problems.

 

[Rachen]

I don't think Hillary will forget about what happens to Democrats when people get tense about gun control.

Obama, on the other hand, is gonna get one heckuva honeymoon in office, and, if elected, will likely be seen as "doing no wrong," well into his second year of office, at which point the wheels will fall off and there'll be major problems.

I think all these two care about is their own money and fame, and they don't have one ounce of caring about those who follow them. Their followers are misguided sheep being herded into cattle cars and they don't even know it.

Once they achieve what they want, meaning wealth and fame and luxury, they will stomp on the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights with steel toed boots.

 

[jackmead]

Isn't that that like anti-abortion catholics for hillary? It doesn't make much sense to me

 

[ronnyreagan]

At least one person keeps it High Road

I would not call those people dumb. They think differently than do you perhaps. That does not make them dumb.

I wholeheartedly agree. I see so much frothing at the mouth in any political threads here that I usually avoid them. I just don't understand what people expect to accomplish by calling their political opponents morons, sheep, or power-hungry zealots. :banghead: People do not respond well to that, even if they are wrong!