Obama wants national ban on concealed carry

[SeanEdwards]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html

That position alone could almost make me vote for McInsane. Would you like to vote for evil, semi-evil, or absolute-evil? What a gagglef*ck of an election this is turning out to be.

 

[ronpaulblogsdotcom]

Wow. Talk about a state issue get ruled on at the national level.

 

[AJ Antimony]

Are you serious?

Do you know what a write-in is?

Why are you letting the TV tell you your vote either belong to McCain or Obama?

 

[itsnobody]

Ok so I'm voting for McCain

Obama really IS the most liberal Senator

 

[ronpaulblogsdotcom]

Ok so I'm voting for McCain

Obama really IS the most liberal Senator

Or you could you know vote for the guy whose name is the same as this forum.... Probably as a writein in a blank spot. Hopefully as the GOP guy somehow.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Are you serious?

Do you know what a write-in is?

Why are you letting the TV tell you your vote either belong to McCain or Obama?

A write-in is a throw away protest. No write-in candidate will win. I might as well stay home.

If the 'machine' asks me to choose between "gun-grabbing" Obama, and "nuke first, nuke often" McCain, I'm going to have a real dilemma. I could symbolically throw my vote away, or I hold my nose and vote 'against' one of the choices.

I'm hoping Paul runs as independent or something so that I have something to vote FOR, rather than against.

 

[tmg19103]

The key is the D.C. gun ban case the Supreme Court is ruling on this summer on whether the right to bear arms is an individual right or a collective right. The court is lined up to agree with an individual right.

This is prefect timing for the federal government to clear this up before a Dem gets to be president. Then, there won't be much regulation to do on a federal level and it wil be left up to the states. Fortunatley, I live in a gun friendly state, but a SCOTUS ruling in favor of the obvious idividual right will help those in CA and NY and other anti-gun states.

 

[Bubba]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html

That position alone could almost make me vote for McInsane. Would you like to vote for evil, semi-evil, or absolute-evil? What a gagglef*ck of an election this is turning out to be.

Ooops! Pardon moi. I thought I was on the Ron Paul Forums. Must have had my browser high-jacked. As in jack-off you jerk.

 

[jbuttell]

Come on everyone - you've played their game for how many elections now? End it NOW, do NOT vote for the lesser of two evils - what has it EVER gotten us?

 

[SeanEdwards]

Ooops! Pardon moi. I thought I was on the Ron Paul Forums. Must have had my browser high-jacked. As in jack-off you jerk.

The thread title pretty clearly spelled out the subject of this thread. If you weren't interested why did you open the thread?

 

[SeanEdwards]

Come on everyone - you've played their game for how many elections now? End it NOW, do NOT vote for the lesser of two evils - what has it EVER gotten us?

Well, in this case it appears that we may be pressured to choose between nuking Tehran, or turning in our personal firearms to the homeland gestapo. I can't decide which is worse. If I lived in Tehran, then the choice would be easy.

I just don't know if I can get on board with making a protest vote that ushers in an ultra-liberal gun-grabbing racist nitwit. I'm afraid I may have to express my condolences to the people of Iran in advance.

 

[mczerone]

A write-in is a throw away protest. No write-in candidate will win. I might as well stay home.

If the 'machine' asks me to choose between "gun-grabbing" Obama, and "nuke first, nuke often" McCain, I'm going to have a real dilemma. I could symbolically throw my vote away, or I hold my nose and vote 'against' one of the choices.

I'm hoping Paul runs as independent or something so that I have something to vote FOR, rather than against.

Please don't vote, then. A vote for a lesser evil is still a positive endorsement of evil.

It is more meaningful to vote what you believe with a 0% of winning, than to vote for someone with whom you fundamentally disagree, to keep someone with whom you fundamentally disagree more out of an office.

Only if you know that your vote can be the one to switch the winner, then it may have been worth it - but in a general election its the electoral college that counts, so your one vote has less chance of having meaning than Ron Paul has of winning.

Thanks!

 

[SeanEdwards]

The key is the D.C. gun ban case the Supreme Court is ruling on this summer on whether the right to bear arms is an individual right or a collective right. The court is lined up to agree with an individual right.

This is prefect timing for the federal government to clear this up before a Dem gets to be president. Then, there won't be much regulation to do on a federal level and it wil be left up to the states. Fortunatley, I live in a gun friendly state, but a SCOTUS ruling in favor of the obvious idividual right will help those in CA and NY and other anti-gun states.

I expect we'll all be dissapointed with the supreme court ruling. I predict they will make some vague ruling that resolves nothing. I certainly am not hopeful that the court will aggressively defend our 2nd amendment rights.

 

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

A write-in is a throw away protest. No write-in candidate will win. I might as well stay home.

If the 'machine' asks me to choose between "gun-grabbing" Obama, and "nuke first, nuke often" McCain, I'm going to have a real dilemma. I could symbolically throw my vote away, or I hold my nose and vote 'against' one of the choices.

I'm hoping Paul runs as independent or something so that I have something to vote FOR, rather than against.

Please stay home !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are obviously closeminded and malfunctioning.

 

[mikeInAZ]

Don't hate me for asking, but why does one need to carry a concealed firearm? I'm all for personal liberties, but that seems a bit extreme to me.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Please don't vote, then. A vote for a lesser evil is still a positive endorsement of evil.

It is more meaningful to vote what you believe with a 0% of winning, than to vote for someone with whom you fundamentally disagree, to keep someone with whom you fundamentally disagree more out of an office.

Only if you know that your vote can be the one to switch the winner, then it may have been worth it - but in a general election its the electoral college that counts, so your one vote has less chance of having meaning than Ron Paul has of winning.

Thanks!

To be honest, my vote is meaningless at this point. I live in California, and the demwit nominee is 99% certain of carrying this state. I guess I might as well write in Yosemite Sam for all the good it will do.

 

[mczerone]

Well, in this case it appears that we may be pressured to choose between nuking Tehran, or turning in our personal firearms to the homeland gestapo. I can't decide which is worse. If I lived in Tehran, then the choice would be easy.

I just don't know if I can get on board with making a protest vote that ushers in an ultra-liberal gun-grabbing racist nitwit. I'm afraid I may have to express my condolences to the people of Iran in advance.

Sean - first, its going to be one of those two anyway (right?), regardless of who you vote for, one of them or Paul, or nobody.

Your vote is more meaningless going to one of the general candidates than if you were to stay home or write in your own name and not give either of them numbers. You want to avoid war with Iran and keep your arms? VOTE RON PAUL

 

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

Don't hate me for asking, but why does one need to carry a concealed firearm? I'm all for personal liberties, but that seems a bit extreme to me.

It's not whether they should or not, but whether they CAN.

These shootings that we are having could be prevented if
responsible people carried weapons (concealed or not).

 

[SeanEdwards]

Don't hate me for asking, but why does one need to carry a concealed firearm? I'm all for personal liberties, but that seems a bit extreme to me.

On October 16, 1991, Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby's Cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, yelled "This is what Bell County has done to me!", then opened fire on the restaurant's patrons and staff with a Glock 17 pistol and later a Ruger P89. About 80 people were in the restaurant at the time. He stalked, shot, and killed 23 people and wounded another 20 before committing suicide. During the shooting, he approached Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby's Cafeteria that day, but had left it in her vehicle due to the laws in force at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms. According to her later testimony in favor of Missouri's HB-1720 bill[1] and in general [2][3], after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse, but "a hundred feet away in [her] car", her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him, only to be gunned down; a short time later, her mother was also shot and killed. (Hupp later expressed regret for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car, rather than keeping it on her person[4].)

 

[Shaun]

I agree with Obama on this.
This country is OUT OF CONTROL in terms of shootings and general violence.
NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD has the level of violence we do, no first world country that is.
I'm all for it. Ban the bastards.