An NRA member for Obama

[ronbok]

I NOTED the National Rifle Association's recent endorsement of John McCain with disappointment, but not with surprise ( Campaign Notebook, Page A7, Oct. 10 ). But I hope the American public understands that the NRA does not speak for all of its members. Some of us appreciate the NRA's excellent resources for teaching gun safety or furthering the sport of ...


The Boston "Democrat" Glob

My response was posted:

Not ONE of you can stick to the issue at hand to discuss a "supposed” NRA Member (probably a Brady Campaign sympathizer) spouting off about the NRA.

It doesn’t take much to join either group ($25.00) and then espouse to be a member. I can join any anti-gun group I want and then write an editorial about why I’m disagreeing with the Brady Campaign’s endorsement of Senator Obama – a little fact left out of this editorial.

God forbid that the Socialist Obama Administration come to power and your Second Amendment Rights are attacked under the false premise of “Common Sense Gun Control” that hasn’t worked in over 400 years. When a new “Assault Weapons Ban” (proven not to reduce firearm related crime) is brought to the floor of the House and Senate and they attempt to take your rights away to own a simple Ruger 10/22 semi-automatic rifle you can go whine to yourself in the mirror.

The Globe wouldn’t publish an editorial if it were the other way around and as a Life Member of the NRA, I can tell you that the NRA does speak for its Life Members…the fly-by-nighters like GREG BURDWOOD of Dover, N.H. who don’t have a clue shouldn’t renew and should instead turn in their firearms and head on over to the Brady Campaign. We don’t need you or your money.

 

[mikem317]

Well, I've seen just about everything now. However, I do agree with the author:

I NOTED the National Rifle Association's recent endorsement of John McCain with disappointment, but not with surprise (Campaign Notebook, Page A7, Oct. 10). But I hope the American public understands that the NRA does not speak for all of its members.

The NRA doesn't speak for all it's members. I was hoping that they would not endorse anyone, and if they did, perhaps they would've given the nod to Barr, Baldwin or Paul. Obama and McCain have done diddly for gun-rights. Obama being more of a threat because he doesn't recognize the true meaning of 2A and believes that city-dwelling individuals should not own firearms (reference the "Cheyenne and Chicago" comments). Obama also had made it clear his disdain for semi-automatic weapons.

Obama will protect Mr. Burdwood's guns. Provided that Mr. Burdwood moves to Cheyenne and owns single-shot rifles and uses them only for "sporting purposes", whatever that means.

 

[bpm990d]

Somewhere in Dover NH, there is a gun club missing its idiot.

B

EDIT - Video of Mr. Burdwood competing in local sporting competition.

 

[pgozew]

Well, I've seen just about everything now. However, I do agree with the author:



The NRA doesn't speak for all it's members. I was hoping that they would not endorse anyone, and if they did, perhaps they would've given the nod to Barr, Baldwin or Paul. Obama and McCain have done diddly for gun-rights. Obama being more of a threat because he doesn't recognize the true meaning of 2A and believes that city-dwelling individuals should not own firearms (reference the "Cheyenne and Chicago" comments). Obama also had made it clear his disdain for semi-automatic weapons.

Obama will protect Mr. Burdwood's guns. Provided that Mr. Burdwood moves to Cheyenne and owns single-shot rifles and uses them only for "sporting purposes", whatever that means.

A vote for Barr, Baldwin or Paul, is a vote for Obama or Nader ....

It is just that simple!!!

 

[mikem317]

Stop excusing the political monopolists.

The NRA hasn't always endorsed a presidential candidate, AFAIK.

 

[bpm990d]

Here is an open letter from Richard Pearson, Executive Director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. He knows him well, and at least he is calling it like he sees it.

The Obama I know sees you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what he wants

B

 

[BOBKATT]

The NRA endorsed McCain because his opponent is one of the most dangerously anti-gun, most persuasive, liberal, anti-constitutional, lack of respect for the Bill of Rights, candidates to run with a high likelyhood of winning and a congress run by his female counterpart and made up of his majority, to run in a long time. His past record on this issue and his future outlook of being able to influence his agenda on a federal level is a scary thought for people who wish to preserve the 2A such as the NRA.

Now, not all gunowners are supporters of the 2A. There are a lot of fudds and weekend trap warriors who really could care less and in fact do not really want to preserve the rights of Amerians to own firearms unrestricted from the government. These folks often need a place to shoot to zero in their deer rifle or for enjoyment every now and again, so they join a club. A lot of clubs require NRA membership, mine does. So here you have an anti-2A fudd joining a club and becoming an NRA member. It's that simple.

Also, a lot of these types of people being the type who do not vote to preserve the 2A are going to be voting on issues that are more important to them. Maybe they like socialized medicine, maybe they want to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, maybe they like vouchers for grade schoolers. Who knows. But it isn't far fetched to think that the soicialism lovers are also against individual rights is it? And there you have an NRA member who supports an anti-gun candidate. Atleast that moron still has to pay the twenty some odd bucks a year to someone who does.

 

[Raoul Duke]

A vote for Barr, Baldwin or Paul, is a vote for Obama or Nader ....

It is just that simple!!!

If you're a simple person, then yes, yes it is.

Oh, I understand the premise of what you're saying and it's easy rhetoric to get behind. But, parse it and it falls apart.

For instance. In a battleground state then yes, its likely that a vote for a third party candidate will take away a vote from a conservative candidate. In a non battleground state like MA which has only gone Republican once in the last 60 years (Regan) then no, a third party candidate vote is worth either something or nothing depending on how you see it. Either way it is not "a vote for Obama," because the structure of our electoral system is such that all votes go to the winner. Thus, McCain has virtually NO CHANCE of winning MA. Nor does he expect to. Nor was his plan for winning EVER predicated on a victory in MA. Which is why he hasn't campaigned here.

Further, without voting for a third party candidate at some point, we'll keep getting stuck with the same two dog shit options every four years ad nauseam. So, a vote for a third party candidate is an American Citizen expressing his/her valid preference for something other that dog shit vs dog shit with a kick in the nuts.

Leave the simple minded hyperbole to the masters (aka candidates). If you wish for people to vote for McCain, that's fine. I agree. But, make sure you know the rules of the state before you make blanket statements obviated by our electoral system.

 

[Acujeff]

".....McCain have done diddly for gun-rights" is just plain wrong.

Let's not forget what the Republican leadership and McCain have accomplished -

Reversing the AW Ban and preventing a new one, frivolous Gun Industry Lawsuits, Gun confiscation during emergencies, UN Gun Control , gun bans in National Parks, ATF abuses, the DC Gun Ban, affirming the Tiahrt Amendment, and getting 2 new conservative/constitutionalist judges to the Supreme Court resulting in the Heller decision success. Any one of these successes would be a good reason to vote Republican.

Also, as a result, creating RKBA progress in states for more Shall Issue Licensing, Preemption Laws, Castle Doctrine and Emergency Powers Laws. The Repubs initiate no negatives to gunowners, only benefits.

Document anything positive the Democrat leadership and Obama have done for the RKBA? Can't do it - can't spin it - so trolls are trying to convince us McCain and the Republican leadership are just as bad, not worth voting for, or vote third party.

Gun owners are not foolish and self destructive to believe any of that.

Obama and the Dem leadership are a definite threat to our RKBA and are already sponsoring new and improved gun control, especially a worse AWB and closing gun shows. Remember, Obama has voted 100% of the time with the Dem leadrship. If they get the white house and legislative majorities we'll be fighting, on the defense, a long expensive difficult battle. They will acknowledge the 2nd Amendment while they regulate it out of practical existence.

SC Justices Stevens and Ginsburg will need to be replaced soon. What kind of judges do you think the Democrats will put in, given the chance? McCain voted for the nomination of consistent conservatives Roberts and Alito and uses them as models for future nominations. Obama opposed Roberts and Alito and has mentioned consistent liberals Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer as models for his future picks.

Given the choices, our best hope for the RKBA is electing McCain/Palin and as many Republican legislators as possible.

Here's what McCain's official campaign website says:

John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.

Gun Manufacturer Liability
John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry.


"Neither justice nor domestic peace are served by holding the innocent responsible for the acts of the criminal."

-Senator John McCain




Assault Weapons
John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans. Most recently he opposed an amendment to extend a ban on 19 specific firearms, and others with similar characteristics.

Importation of High Capacity Magazines
John McCain opposes bans on the importation of certain types of ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations.

Gun Locks
John McCain believes that every firearms owner has a responsibility to learn how to safely use and store the firearm they have chosen, whether for target shooting, hunting, or personal protection. He has supported legislation requiring gun manufacturers to include gun safety devices such as trigger locks in product packaging.

Banning Ammunition
John McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing."

DC Personal Protection
As part of John McCain's defense of Second Amendment rights, he cosponsored legislation to lift a ban on the law abiding citizens of the District of Columbia from exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms.


Criminal Background Checks
John McCain supports instant criminal background checks to help prohibit criminals from buying firearms and has voted to ensure they are conducted thoroughly, efficiently, and without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.

Background Checks at Gun Shows
At a time when some were trying to shut down gun shows in the name of fighting crime, John McCain tried to preserve gun shows by standardizing sales procedures. Federal law requires licensed firearm sellers at gun shows to do an instant criminal background check on purchasers while private firearm sellers at gun shows do not have to conduct such a check. John McCain introduced legislation that would require an instant criminal background check for all sales at gun shows and believes that such checks must be conducted quickly to ensure that unnecessary delays do not effectively block transactions.

The Firearm Purchase Waiting Period
John McCain has opposed "waiting periods" for law abiding citizen's purchase of firearms.

The confiscation of firearms after an emergency
John McCain opposes the confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency. He voted in favor of an amendment sponsored by Senator David Vitter prohibiting such confiscation.

Stiffer Penalties for Criminals who use a Firearm in the Commission of a Crime
John McCain believes in strict, mandatory penalties for criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a crime or illegally possess a firearm. Enforcing the current laws on the books is the best way to deter crime.

 

[Raoul Duke]

....McCain have done diddly for gun-rights" is just plain wrong.
Document anything positive the Democrat leadership and Obama have done for the RKBA? Can't do it - can't spin it - so trolls are trying to convince us McCain and the Republican leadership are just as bad, not worth voting for, or vote third party.

Ok, Acujeff. I'll assume you're referring to me since no one else claims that they are both big steaming piles's of dog shit one of which has a better record on guns.

1. Check yourself before you call me a troll- that's just silly.

2. Your cut and paste skills are fabulous. Your critical thinking skills not so much

3. No one, myself included, ever said that any democrat has been better or even acceptable on guns. I'll be the first to say that Obama MUST not be in office. BUT, if you live in MA and you think there is a chance in hell that McCain will take MA, then by all means, tell us how he's going to accomplish that given the structure of the MA electoral college. Please, enlighten me, I am, afterall, an ignorant troll.

 

[wahsben]

A vote for Barr, Baldwin or Paul, is a vote for Obama or Nader ....

It is just that simple!!!

Voting for the lesser of 2 evils still leaves you with evil.

Those who continue to compromise will continue to be compromised.

Also a quote from doug.huffman "Compromise is failure on the installment plan."

 

[Mass-diver]

That editorial made me sick to my stomach. Typical Bullshit that prick should vote for Obama. How about this quote from the editorial "Let's leave the Wild West in the history books and the movies." That's a slam on concealed carry. And people wonder why so many of Us hate left leaning, FUDs. I can understand why people don't want to vote for MCain, but I will NEVER understand how anyone who believes in the 2nd amendment could ever support Obama.

 

[BOBKATT]

Wether or not the right thing is to vote the lesser of two evils is an argument that I will let you guys hash out. I will say this: obama will win the election because people are voting democrat that are obama supporters, while the majority of republican voters are not McCain supporters but simply anti-obama voters.

 

[EC1]

BUT, if you live in MA and you think there is a chance in hell that McCain will take MA, then by all means, tell us how he's going to accomplish that given the structure of the MA electoral college. Please, enlighten me, I am, afterall, an ignorant troll.

To quote a familiar line "What you tolerate, you validate; what you put up with - you DESERVE!" , keep this in mind.

 

[Acujeff]

Raoul Duke -
I was responding to your specific "trollish" statement ".....McCain have done diddly for gun-rights". I did not call you ignorant - that is what you labeled yourself - but I do agree it was an ignorant statement.

Your response does not challenge any of my facts. So are you willing to admit McCain does a lot for gunowners or wish to remain a troll?

Mass. is locked for Obama, as it was for Gore and Kerry, but the rest of NE is in play. Since the MM is biased, would you not agree that gunowners have to depend on the NRA and gun boards like this one to get the facts.

Gunowners need to see the risks of Obama, and acknowledge the importance and value of McCain's record and platform ,for RKBA.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Raoul Duke -
I was responding to your specific "trollish" statement ".....McCain have done diddly for gun-rights". I did not call you ignorant - that is what you labeled yourself - but I do agree it was an ignorant statement.

1. No, I didn't label myself ignorant. You implied it-don't back away from it now. I simply acknowledged your veiled accusation. If your going to insult someone have the balls to stick with it when you're called out.

2. The idea that I am a troll is just absurd...

3. I didn't challenge the "facts" you cut and pasted up because I haven't the time or the inclination to argue with you because all your doing is regurgitating. IF you could explain to me how MA has any chance of going to McCain, then I will discuss the rest of your issue with you. IF you can't, then nothing else you've said matters to a MA resident.

4 You still haven't shown me how you think McCain will win in MA.

So...how will McCain win in MA?

Your response does not challenge any of my facts. So are you willing to admit McCain does a lot for gunowners or wish to remain a troll?

No I am absolutely not willing to admit that "McCain does a lot for gun owners." I'm simply saying that he wouldn't be the tragedy that Obama will be. And the idea that if I don't "admit" that McCain "does a lot" for gun owners I am a troll is as absurd as the rest of your flimsy argument. Child, you are ignorant. Sit down while the adults speak.

Mass. is locked for Obama, as it was for Gore and Kerry, but the rest of NE is in play. Since the MM is biased, would you not agree that gunowners have to depend on the NRA and gun boards like this one to get the facts.

I'm not sure how this is salient? Particularly considering that you, too, live in MA.

Gunowners need to see the risks of Obama,

Yes.

and acknowledge the importance and value of McCain's record and platform ,for RKBA.

No. His support for gun rights has been tepid at best. It's just that he looks good standing next to Obama because everyone does. He still remains a Socialist dirt bag bent on stripping the last remaining vestiges of capitalism from our "free market." Tragically, he'll likely loose in 4 weeks.

 

[Raoul Duke]

To quote a familiar line "What you tolerate, you validate; what you put up with - you DESERVE!" , keep this in mind.

Is your font size messed up because I certainly don't participate in pointless font abuse with such alarming glee.

Just like Acujef you're adept at cutting and pasting other people's work, but I'm not sure what on earth you're trying to communicate. Why don't you work with an original thought and see if it can get your point across in a cogent manner before quoting people, like Scrivener, completely out of context.

Really, he's going to be chuckling at the context of your quote when he gets back from vacation.

Yet still.....no one can tell me how they are going to affect change by voting for McCAin in the State of MA. Sure, it's what many will do because none of us would vote for Obama. But we might as well spend the entire month of November writing:

"I will learn how the electoral college system works"
"I will learn how the electoral college system works"
"I will learn how the electoral college system works"
"I will learn how the electoral college system works"

For all the good it's going to do us.

 

[BOBKATT]

Your response does not challenge any of my facts. So are you willing to admit McCain does a lot for gunowners or wish to remain a troll?

Mass. is locked for Obama, as it was for Gore and Kerry, but the rest of NE is in play. Since the MM is biased, would you not agree that gunowners have to depend on the NRA and gun boards like this one to get the facts.

Gunowners need to see the risks of Obama, and acknowledge the importance and value of McCain's record and platform ,for RKBA.

The Duke is no troll. McCain has not done anything for gunowners. What has he done? Anything that one could say that McCain has done could either:

A.) Be disregarded for what he's done against gunowners, think gunshows.

B.) Be disregarded by the simple fact that he has done nothing for gunowners, he just hasn't supported as much anti-gun legislation as his opponent.

And if you are under the impression that CT, RI, and VT are battlegrounds you are not paying attention. VT elected a senator from the socialist party for crying out loud.

 

[mikem317]

McCain:

# Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks. (Aug 1999)
# Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)

Source: ontheissues.org

 

[mikem317]

The Duke is no troll. McCain has not done anything for gunowners. What has he done? Anything that one could say that McCain has done could either:

A.) Be disregarded for what he's done against gunowners, think gunshows.

B.) Be disregarded by the simple fact that he has done nothing for gunowners, he just hasn't supported as much anti-gun legislation as his opponent.

And if you are under the impression that CT, RI, and VT are battlegrounds you are not paying attention. VT elected a senator from the socialist party for crying out loud.

That's my point. McCain has been a softie. He's not anti-2A like Obama, but he's not exactly 2A's knight in shining armor either. There are two other candidates, Paul and Baldwin, that would be exceptionally better choices if we were to focus our decision-making process on gun rights.

Paul has a pretty good idea of how to fix the economy and our foreign policy too.

 

[Raoul Duke]

That's my point. McCain has been a softie. He's not anti-2A like Obama, but he's not exactly 2A's knight in shining armor either. There are two other candidates, Paul and Baldwin, that would be exceptionally better choices if we were to focus our decision-making process on gun rights.

Paul has a pretty good idea of how to fix the economy and our foreign policy too.

Yup.

That's all we're saying. NOW, if MA was a battleground state with even a hairs chance of going to McCain, I would absolutely agree that a vote or a third party candidate is a vote for Obama. In any other state that is a Battleground state, I would also say that's true. BUt that's not the case here in MA where it's a "winner take all" electoral process.

 

[BOBKATT]

Paul has a pretty good idea of how to fix the economy and our foreign policy too.

I do like Ron Paul. I'm up in the air on this one and I won't know if it's a McCain vote until election day. There are a lot of good points being made here about not voting for the lesser of two evils. Even if McCain gets elected, which I have my fair share of doubts about happening, we would all rejoice for a minute or two that obama didn't get elected followed by a disappointment that McCain will be our next president. Although, I think we would all feel a whole lot better off with that than with the democratic nominee being elected.

The internal struggle lies with the decision to not vote for someone because I believe they have no chance of winning anyway(McCain), and wether or not that mentality will contribute to that candidate losing. I struggle with the thought of that happening, and compare it to logic of the folks who sit at home in november because "one vote does not matter anyhow". Well, the obvious argument for that is that if all of those people voted the outcome of the election could indeed be affected. That being said, I'm always up for a good subplot, and if it is inevitable that we will be reduced to on obama presidency I do feel that it would be a good idea to try to get someone to represent us better in '12 that is not a republican or a democrat. But I am not a man who knows the future and unfortunately we all have to take our chances and hope that our decisions pay off in the long run. We shall see.

 

[Raoul Duke]

I do like Ron Paul. I'm up in the air on this one and I won't know if it's a McCain vote until election day. There are a lot of good points being made here about not voting for the lesser of two evils. Even if McCain gets elected, which I have my fair share of doubts about happening, we would all rejoice for a minute or two that obama didn't get elected followed by a disappointment that McCain will be our next president. Although, I think we would all feel a whole lot better off with that than with the democratic nominee being elected.

The internal struggle lies with the decision to not vote for someone because I believe they have no chance of winning anyway(McCain), and wether or not that mentality will contribute to that candidate losing. I struggle with the thought of that happening, and compare it to logic of the folks who sit at home in november because "one vote does not matter anyhow". Well, the obvious argument for that is that if all of those people voted the outcome of the election could indeed be affected. That being said, I'm always up for a good subplot, and if it is inevitable that we will be reduced to on obama presidency I do feel that it would be a good idea to try to get someone to represent us better in '12 that is not a republican or a democrat. But I am not a man who knows the future and unfortunately we all have to take our chances and hope that our decisions pay off in the long run. We shall see.

The reason you're struggling with this is that you are a thoughtful person who, after parsing the facts of the situation, has come to the conclusion that there is just no way to feel "good" about this election. Balancing that, is the notion that things could become really, really bad if Obama wins. Together, it's enough to make even the brightest among us hang their head in ethical confusion.

Oh but for a Republican that would unabashedly stand up and say. "I support the second amendment as the founding fathers wrote and intended it. Thus, I will make no laws restricting lawful purchase, sale or use of any firearm during my tenure."

WTF is so complicated about that?

 

[EC1]

Is your font size messed up because I certainly don't participate in pointless font abuse with such alarming glee.

Just like Acujef you're adept at cutting and pasting other people's work, but I'm not sure what on earth you're trying to communicate. Why don't you work with an original thought and see if it can get your point across in a cogent manner before quoting people, like Scrivener, completely out of context.

Really, he's going to be chuckling at the context of your quote when he gets back from vacation.

Yet still.....no one can tell me how they are going to affect change by voting for McCAin in the State of MA. Sure, it's what many will do because none of us would vote for Obama. But we might as well spend the entire month of November writing:

"I will learn how the electoral college system works"
"I will learn how the electoral college system works"
"I will learn how the electoral college system works"
"I will learn how the electoral college system works"

For all the good it's going to do us.

If you accept your premise before the election is over, why vote at all; remember "Dewey Wins"?

PS I do understand the electoral college system. It was specifically put in place so that the states elect the president not just a "simple" majority of the electorate.

 

[mikem317]

If you accept your premise before the election is over, why vote at all; remember "Dewey Wins"?

PS I do understand the electoral college system. It was specifically put in place so that the states elect the president not just a "simple" majority of the electorate.

How about a plurality? The Constitution would have to be changed, of course, but this would allow us to break the "less of two evils" mold.

 

[RUT]

>>If you accept your premise before the election is over, why vote at all; remember "Dewey Wins"?<<

Most of the folks here are probably too young to remember that.

 

[EC1]

>>If you accept your premise before the election is over, why vote at all; remember "Dewey Wins"?<<

Most of the folks here are probably too young to remember that.

It's not necessary to have lived it (though it was close), but a bit of study of history (which seems all too lacking in todays' educational system). I can still remember the photo which was in one of my history books from grammar school, showing that headline from a newspaper.

 

[Raoul Duke]

If you accept your premise before the election is over, why vote at all; remember "Dewey Wins"?

PS I do understand the electoral college system. It was specifically put in place so that the states elect the president not just a "simple" majority of the electorate.

That's a tired and inaccurate metaphor but I'll play. In a war not all battles are equal. No army so strong that it can afford to fight even the battles it knows it will loose (defense of the"home" notwithstanding). You fight where and when it is tactically wise. I do not think that McCain can win in MA. I base my understanding of the situation on this evidence.

1. Historical Data: Massachusetts reliably voted democrat in all but two elections in the last 75 years.

2. Current Data: Today US News and World Report reported that Obama leads McCain 59% to 35% in Massachusetts.

3. Knowledge of Electoral System: Because MA operates on a winner take all basis, it's virtually impossible, baring a stunning gaff or discovery of wrongdoing by the Senator, that he will not take MA.

So...I'll leave you to your clinches. I prefer facts, figures, and analysis.

 

[EC1]

That's a tired and inaccurate metaphor but I'll play. In a war not all battles are equal. No army so strong that it can afford to fight even the battles it knows it will loose (defense of the"home" notwithstanding). You fight where and when it is tactically wise. I do not think that McCain can win in MA. I base my understanding of the situation on this evidence.

1. Historical Data: Massachusetts reliably voted democrat in all but two elections in the last 75 years.

2. Current Data: Today US News and World Report reported that Obama leads McCain 59% to 35% in Massachusetts.

3. Knowledge of Electoral System: Because MA operates on a winner take all basis, it's virtually impossible, baring a stunning gaff or discovery of wrongdoing by the Senator, that he will not take MA.

So...I'll leave you to your clinches. I prefer facts, figures, and analysis.

you're the one with the cliches. I guess you're just going to accept hopelessness, enjoy it. I can't and won't.

 

[clinotus]

Ahh...the McCain as a friend of the second amendment discussion... it’s a waste of time and effort. Just because he is not a direct enemy of it doesn’t make it his friend, more so when you look as he has suggested to, look at his voting record.

Obama on the other hand, could be labeled as an enemy of the second amendment though it may be surmised that with Chicago always having being ravaged by gun violence, he likely did as any politician, responded to what was going under the push of his constituency.

Then we look at McCain’s voting record on firearms and see as mikem317 mentioned his support of locks and certain weapons. If you remember McCain also enjoyed going up against the NRA a few times in the past. Gun.Show.Loophole.

Both candidates have in fact not been a friend of the second amendment and those who put forth that either of them will be are fooling themselves. You have a constitutional scholar versed in the constitution who may distort it, which is the highest abomination of a scholar, more so one that panders..and who may return to his Illinois ‘banishment for the sake of the community’ mindset or you have Maverick McCain who may ‘reach across the isle’ to his Democratic colleagues who run both the house and senate and sign a new ban on something for the sake of ‘working together’.

So while some fight on the issue of single voting for the gun issue, recognize that no matter which one of them is in, things may not really go the way that you are expecting.

This all goes without saying, we are all obviously unsure of just what may occur. One of them could wind up in the White House and become a stalwart of the Second Amendment. With the recent Supreme Court decision the die is obviously cast in our favor. But that took over 70 years, you however only have 21 days.