PDA

View Full Version : Best way to get a 2A Friendly governor?


Super Spy
12-15-2009, 11:30 AM
I was just browsing Yahoo News and came across this http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_13995955?source=rss describing Steve Poizner's efforts to take out Meg Whitman in the Republican Primary for Governor. The scuttlebutt on Calguns seemed to be leaning towards Jerry Brown being a much better choice for supporting 2A rights than Meg Whitman. How does Steve Poizner compare? Are we better off supporting Poizner in the primary figuring it will give Jerry Brown an easier shot at wining the overall election? How does Steve Poizner stand on 2A? Discuss......

Super Spy
12-15-2009, 11:37 AM
I see Bwiese has already made public commentary on this subject, notice the comment at the bottom http://www.flashreport.org/blog.php?postID=2009091519351188

So is Poizner still for gun control, like the other two Rs?

He better say something one way or the other. Right now gunnies assume he's a Bradyite.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Go Bill!

davescz
12-15-2009, 11:47 AM
these three all we have to choose from???

bwiese
12-15-2009, 11:50 AM
these three all we have to choose from???

The Reps are gonna run Whitman, Poizner's fading fast even with an injection of his own money.

Some top talent defected from Poizner's campaign mgmt and jumped to Whitman which is an early sign of the stench of political death.

Tom Campbell is out there and not doing terrible for the amount of money he has, which is a nice way of saying he doesn't have much money or ability to raise it and will likely lose.

The Dems have (still-undeclared) Jerry Brown, currently our AG.

AndrewMendez
12-15-2009, 12:05 PM
bwiese for Governor!!!

Legasat
12-15-2009, 1:32 PM
Best way to get a 2A Friendly governor?

Move to another state ;)

Suvorov
12-15-2009, 1:57 PM
How can any citizen or free man trust a politician who does not trust him with arms :confused:

This has always amazed me - it is the clearest indication of how a politician views their constituents - everything else is secondary.

NightingaleforGovernor10'
12-15-2009, 6:53 PM
these three all we have to choose from???

No, there is an alternative. Chelene Nightingale holds a strict position with respects to what our Founding Fathers had understood to be constitutional freedoms. With that in mind, The Second Amendment is a constitutional right that all American citizens are entitled to. Further, it is a constitutional right that our Founders had understood to be necessary with respects to holding a check on abusive governmental powers by a free people.

“The 2nd Amendment strictly limits any interference with gun ownership by saying: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Moreover, the right to bear arms is inherent in the right of self defense, defense of the family, and defense against tyranny, conferred on the individual and the community by our Creator to safeguard life, liberty, and property, as well as to help preserve the independence of the nation.
The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; it may not properly be infringed upon or denied.
Chelene Nightingale upholds the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. She opposes attempts to prohibit ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens, and stands against all laws which would require the registration of guns or ammunition.

Chelene Nightingale emphasizes that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them. In such circumstances, the peaceful citizen's protection against the criminal would be seriously jeopardized.
Chelene Nightingale calls for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation, beginning with Federal Firearms Act of 1968.
She calls for the rescinding of all executive orders, the prohibition of any future executive orders, and the prohibition of treaty ratification which would in any way limit the right to keep and bear arms.

Chelene Nightingale has been a regular guest on many 2A radio talkshows such as the Second Amendment Radio Show with Host, Bill Carns on the Republic Broadcasting Network. The 2A Radio Show is the only daily talk show with a dedicated platform for 2nd Amendment supporters & advocates as well as sport shooters.

Chelene Nightingale is California's only hope for gun owner's rights.

To learn more about Chelene Nightingale and her stance on other issues visit:

www.nightingaleforgovernor.com


She is running for Governor under the American Independent Party banner. This is California's Constitution Party. To learn more about the Constitution Party visit www.constitutionparty.com or www.aipcalif.blogspot.com

**http://www.nightingaleforgovernor.co...orgovernor.com


A recent Rasmussen Poll showed that the American people are ready for third party candidate. That Tea Party they are reffering to is the Constitution Party. This party has been at the forefront of bringing constitutional principles back to responsible government-THIS INCLUDES 2A RIGHTS!

Chelene Nightingale DOES HAVE A CHANCE! See for yourself http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...generic_ballot

wildhawker
12-15-2009, 8:04 PM
We'll have three choices come 2010: vote for pro-2A Brown, vote for anti-2A Whitman or waste your vote on a candidate with virtually no chance of being elected.

NightingaleforGovernor10'
12-15-2009, 8:15 PM
We'll have three choices come 2010: vote for pro-2A Brown, vote for anti-2A Whitman or waste your vote on a candidate with virtually no chance of being elected.

Again, here is proof to the contrary that Chelene Nightinagle DOES HAVE A chance. A recent Rasmussen Poll showed that the American people are ready for third party candidate. That Tea Party they are reffering to is the Constitution Party. This party has been at the forefront of bringing constitutional principles back to responsible government-THIS INCLUDES 2A RIGHTS!

Chelene Nightingale DOES HAVE A CHANCE! See for yourself http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...generic_ballot
You know Einstein onced defined insanity by choosing the same path, expecting a different outcome.

That is a lot like voting DEM/GOP nowadays.

www.nightingaleforgovernor.com

Josh3239
12-15-2009, 8:16 PM
Move to another state ;)

I was gonna say that, beat to it.

trashman
12-15-2009, 9:52 PM
I heard one of Meg Whitman's radio spots while waiting at the dry cleaners last night.

OMFG she is unbelievably uncharismatic...it's difficult to listen to...

--Neill

NightingaleforGovernor10'
12-16-2009, 12:34 PM
www.nightingaleforgovernor.com

OlderThanDirt
12-16-2009, 3:06 PM
No, there is an alternative. Chelene Nightingale holds a strict position with respects to what our Founding Fathers had understood to be constitutional freedoms. With that in mind, The Second Amendment is a constitutional right that all American citizens are entitled to. Further, it is a constitutional right that our Founders had understood to be necessary with respects to holding a check on abusive governmental powers by a free people.

“The 2nd Amendment strictly limits any interference with gun ownership by saying: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Moreover, the right to bear arms is inherent in the right of self defense, defense of the family, and defense against tyranny, conferred on the individual and the community by our Creator to safeguard life, liberty, and property, as well as to help preserve the independence of the nation.
The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; it may not properly be infringed upon or denied.
Chelene Nightingale upholds the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. She opposes attempts to prohibit ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens, and stands against all laws which would require the registration of guns or ammunition.

Chelene Nightingale emphasizes that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them. In such circumstances, the peaceful citizen's protection against the criminal would be seriously jeopardized.
Chelene Nightingale calls for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation, beginning with Federal Firearms Act of 1968.
She calls for the rescinding of all executive orders, the prohibition of any future executive orders, and the prohibition of treaty ratification which would in any way limit the right to keep and bear arms.

Chelene Nightingale has been a regular guest on many 2A radio talkshows such as the Second Amendment Radio Show with Host, Bill Carns on the Republic Broadcasting Network. The 2A Radio Show is the only daily talk show with a dedicated platform for 2nd Amendment supporters & advocates as well as sport shooters.

Chelene Nightingale is California's only hope for gun owner's rights.

To learn more about Chelene Nightingale and her stance on other issues visit:

www.nightingaleforgovernor.com


She is running for Governor under the American Independent Party banner. This is California's Constitution Party. To learn more about the Constitution Party visit www.constitutionparty.com or www.aipcalif.blogspot.com

**http://www.nightingaleforgovernor.co...orgovernor.com


A recent Rasmussen Poll showed that the American people are ready for third party candidate. That Tea Party they are reffering to is the Constitution Party. This party has been at the forefront of bringing constitutional principles back to responsible government-THIS INCLUDES 2A RIGHTS!

Chelene Nightingale DOES HAVE A CHANCE! See for yourself http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...generic_ballot

I'm guessing that Chelene Nightingale has a lot of baggage from her days at SOS (Save Our State), not only with Hispanics, but even within the anti-illegal immigration community. While she works hard and is passionate about her beliefs, the sociopolitical climate in CA is not conducive for a successful run for Governor.

steadyrock
12-16-2009, 3:10 PM
I'm guessing that Chelene Nightingale has a lot of baggage from her days at SOS (Save Our State), not only with Hispanics, but even within the anti-illegal immigration community. While she works hard and is passionate about her beliefs, the sociopolitical climate in CA is not conducive for a successful run for Governor.

So? If she lines up with your feelings and opinions, then vote for her. If she doesn't, then don't. What's hard about that?

Or are you among the "vote only for a person who can win" camp of vote-wasters?

Eckolaker
12-16-2009, 3:11 PM
Run for Governor.

Kestryll
12-16-2009, 3:14 PM
Or are you among the "vote only for a person who can win" camp of vote-wasters?

Oh yeah, it's SOOooo much better to be one of the "I'm voting third party to send a message even if it assures that we go down in flames types...

:rolleyes:

steadyrock
12-16-2009, 3:23 PM
Oh yeah, it's SOOooo much better to be one of the "I'm voting third party to send a message even if it assures that we go down in flames types...

:rolleyes:

Be sarcastic if you want, but I've wasted enough votes in my life and I won't do it any longer. I mean, I actually voted for McCain, for Pete's sake. If that isn't enough to make someone believe in temporary insanity, I don't know what is.

To me, voting is a precious right to be undertaken very seriously. The chance to voice my opinion about who should be our leader is something I have to do right, and if I think one way but act another then it's just a waste (at best) and a lie to my countrymen (at worst).

Will I vote for Nightingale? Who knows. Do I expect her to win if I do? Of course not. But I'm sick and tired of re-electing the same old blowhards just because "they can win". There's just no sense in that choice.

ETA - Stop pigeonholing me. I don't vote "to send a message", other than my opinion. I vote my conscience and that's it. If enough people had the courage to do that, maybe things would be different.

Kestryll
12-16-2009, 3:29 PM
Be sarcastic if you want, but I've wasted enough votes in my life and I won't do it any longer. I mean, I actually voted for McCain, for Pete's sake. If that isn't enough to make someone believe in temporary insanity, I don't know what is.

To me, voting is a precious right to be undertaken very seriously. The chance to voice my opinion about who should be our leader is something I have to do right, and if I think one way but act another then it's just a waste (at best) and a lie to my countrymen (at worst).

Will I vote for Nightingale? Who knows. Do I expect her to win if I do? Of course not. But I'm sick and tired of re-electing the same old blowhards just because "they can win". There's just no sense in that choice.

ETA - Stop pigeonholing me. I don't vote "to send a message", other than my opinion. I vote my conscience and that's it. If enough people had the courage to do that, maybe things would be different.

Wow.

Quite the reaction to an off the cuff little comment, one just like the one you made...

So if it hits a nerve and stings enough to warrant that kind of response maybe next time you'd be well served to remember that BEFORE you throw out your little barbed comment.... maybe??

Or do we just stop the pigeonholing in regards to you and say it's okay when you do it?

steadyrock
12-16-2009, 3:32 PM
Wow.

Quite the reaction to an off the cuff little comment, one just like the one you made...

So if it hits a nerve and stings enough to warrant that kind of response maybe next time you'd be well served to remember that BEFORE you throw out your little barbed comment.... maybe??

It's not just like the comment I made. My comment asked if he was one of a group - yours insinuated that I was. That's a big difference in my book.

joelberg
12-16-2009, 3:32 PM
Dale Ogden

wildhawker
12-16-2009, 3:34 PM
Steady, let me ask this a different way:

If we intend to vote for the person we feel most firmly represents our views on policy, we wouldn't we write in ourselves? Because we know that there is no rational basis for doing so- we'll just throw our vote away. Some may do just that, or a close approximation; however, make no mistake- the vast majority of voters recognize this and choose to elect those candidates who a) they perceive best represent their current worldview and b) give that worldview the highest probability of success in our system of government.

CaliforniaCarry
12-16-2009, 3:38 PM
The answer is quite simple really: Vote Brown.

Kestryll
12-16-2009, 3:40 PM
Or are you among the "vote only for a person who can win" camp of vote-wasters?

Oh yeah, it's SOOooo much better to be one of the "I'm voting third party to send a message even if it assures that we go down in flames types...

:rolleyes:

It's not just like the comment I made. My comment asked if he was one of a group - yours insinuated that I was. That's a big difference in my book.

You're right, they are different.

Mine was a generic reference without any singular identifiers:
"...to be one of the ... types..."

Yours was a specific accusatory statement:
"Or are you among the ... vote-wasters?"

Yup, very different indeed.

steadyrock
12-16-2009, 3:51 PM
Steady, let me ask this a different way:

If we intend to vote for the person we feel most firmly represents our views on policy, we wouldn't we write in ourselves? Because we know that there is no rational basis for doing so- we'll just throw our vote away. Some may do just that, or a close approximation; however, make no mistake- the vast majority of voters recognize this and choose to elect those candidates who a) they perceive best represent their current worldview and b) give that worldview the highest probability of success in our system of government.

Thanks for articulating it differently.

I won't write myself in because frankly, I'm busy and don't want the job. Further, I recognize the futility of voting for someone who isn't even backed by a party and has no political background. I didn't vote for Gary Coleman in 2003, after all.

I certainly see your point, Wildhawker. However, the nagging question in my mind is why do these major candidates stand the highest probability of success? Partially, it is because the current electoral system is set up to favor a two-party system on a national level, but given that we have seen third-party candidates elected to the Governor's office in recent years that kind of goes out the window as an end-all excuse. That leaves nothing else but the voters and the votes they cast as the primary factor in who gets elected. So given that, we are back to a group mentality of "Candidate X can win because enough people think they can." I believe that a sufficient amount of likely voters in California agree with the platform of a third-party candidate, and that if they would only vote their conscience that candidate would have a high probability of success.

Said differently, the Democratic underpinnings of our electoral system are in place to ensure that we get the government who best represents the will of the majority of the people. If too many people feed false input to the system (by voting for a candidate they don't really support, but "isn't as bad as the other guy" or "stands a chance to win, at least") we'll get a false outcome. I don't favor that false input, in fact I view it as dishonest if the person you're voting for doesn't represent your views as closely as another choice does.

stormy_clothing
12-16-2009, 3:52 PM
change the game bombard whitmans site with common sense

12/16/09 3:45pm PST circuitsports
I find your claims to be contrary - you expect well informed decent people to vote you into office in a majority fashion but are willing ignore that 70% of those same people do not want stricter gun laws ?



Which is it ? do you think people are smart enough to chose you as there leader but not smart enough to chose how to protect themselves ?



Perhaps you could tell us how so called assault weapons have made such an impact in your personal life that the voices of almost 3/4 of the nation can be drowned out in light of them.



Perhaps you unlike many previous governors can respect the actual will of the people, everytime.



If not I can tell you that you've lost several hundred thousand votes to at least 1 of your democratic contenders already from people who consider this issue greater than there republican party ties.

choprzrul
12-16-2009, 3:58 PM
I heard one of Meg Whitman's radio spots while waiting at the dry cleaners last night.

OMFG she is unbelievably uncharismatic...it's difficult to listen to...

--Neill

I hit her up at a meet/greet event with the question "Do you personally view the 2A as an individual or collective right?" Deer in headlights. Eventually came back with "I am for the 2A". NO CLUE.

choprzrul
12-16-2009, 4:02 PM
these three all we have to choose from???

I would assume OP has ruled out a coup.

IrishPirate
12-16-2009, 4:05 PM
Doesn't matter what party the Gov runs under, we need to get out ultra liberal reps out of the state legislature because they are the ones running the show. Arnie is a Republican and Reps are "supposed" to be pro 2A. He even does competition shooting! He's just a political puppet because the Liberals out-number him by a huge margin and if he doesn't do what they want, they will make him look bad. School yard bully type bullsh*t basically.

stormy_clothing
12-16-2009, 4:24 PM
You talk about puppets, but what school did you graduate from that told you democrats are liberals are anti constitutional ?

Supporting 2a is a personal choice not a party choice, I voted democrat but have done more than most people I've known to get them to join the NRA to learn how to shoot and ultimately purchase there own firearms, in speaking to a shop owner yesterday I realized they have sold several hundred rifles in the last year through people I've brought in. Not including the dozen or so I've gone through myself.

wildhawker
12-16-2009, 4:28 PM
Irish has a valid point wrt Leg; the gov in CA is fairly powerless.

audihenry
12-16-2009, 4:47 PM
Meg couldn't run eBay, let alone a state. I am curious whether you are looking at other qualifications beyond gun control stance.

cj cake
12-16-2009, 5:12 PM
I certainly see your point, Wildhawker. However, the nagging question in my mind is why do these major candidates stand the highest probability of success? Partially, it is because the current electoral system is set up to favor a two-party system on a national level, but given that we have seen third-party candidates elected to the Governor's office in recent years that kind of goes out the window as an end-all excuse. That leaves nothing else but the voters and the votes they cast as the primary factor in who gets elected. So given that, we are back to a group mentality of "Candidate X can win because enough people think they can." I believe that a sufficient amount of likely voters in California agree with the platform of a third-party candidate, and that if they would only vote their conscience that candidate would have a high probability of success.

Said differently, the Democratic underpinnings of our electoral system are in place to ensure that we get the government who best represents the will of the majority of the people. If too many people feed false input to the system (by voting for a candidate they don't really support, but "isn't as bad as the other guy" or "stands a chance to win, at least") we'll get a false outcome. I don't favor that false input, in fact I view it as dishonest if the person you're voting for doesn't represent your views as closely as another choice does.

I get where you are coming from here! I agree 100%. I recently changed my party affiliation to "NONE OF THE ABOVE" for this very reason. Its time we vote for a representative and not a politician!

wildhawker
12-16-2009, 5:40 PM
However we feel about it, stability of the system requires some dynamics which return relatively consistent results.

Super Spy
12-16-2009, 5:44 PM
Can we have a serious political discussion here without getting into a pissing contest? Maybe without bashing a slightly different belief system?

IMHO we ALL need work to together and focus our efforts on what brought us to Calguns in the first place. Guns, Gun Rights, Gun Training, Gun Safety and being a unified front against tyranny, socialism, and erosion of our rights. Maybe Nightingale would be a great governor, but without deep pockets and some kind of track record doesn't stand serious chance of winning Governorship this election. If we all get together and support the candidate that has a decent chance of winning and a track record of supporting the 2nd amendment, we improve the chances of getting back more of our RKBA. Brown seems to have that covered.

Until Chelene Nightingale can pull 1/3 of the votes in polls, the chances of her winning in a 3 party election just aren't there. She may be a great choice based on her platform, and she'd be California's first GILF..... but until she can get the popular support, it just isn't gonna happen. I'm not willing to gamble my 2A rights, we've already lost too many of them.....too often to supposedly conservative Republicans.

I'm going to make my vote count the fullest, and accept the fact that Brown will make other decisions I don't like. He'll be a lot better than E-B!tc#!

cbn620
12-16-2009, 6:14 PM
Running Whitman is going to be political genius for the party. I have 5 women I know in my every day life that are relatively pro-gun that I will probably NOT be able to convince not to vote for her. It's going to be very difficult to supplant logical reasoning onto these type of bourgeois high dollar Republican women when we've got a veritable "conservative Oprah" on television.

I don't mean to sound sexist, but have you ever seen a man successfully get a word in edgewise on The View? That's what we're going to be dealing with.

cbn620
12-16-2009, 6:17 PM
Can we have a serious political discussion here without getting into a pissing contest? Maybe without bashing a slightly different belief system?

IMHO we ALL need work to together and focus our efforts on what brought us to Calguns in the first place. Guns, Gun Rights, Gun Training, Gun Safety and being a unified front against tyranny, socialism, and erosion of our rights.

I'm sorry but since when has Calguns had an agenda that has anything to do with combating "socialism"? I didn't know that Calguns was into economics.

cbn620
12-16-2009, 6:21 PM
Irish has a valid point wrt Leg; the gov in CA is fairly powerless.

Sure but let's not forget Arnie could have vetoed 962.

bodger
12-16-2009, 6:27 PM
Move to another state ;)


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yep, truth be told, that's probably the only way.

What's our best shot right now? Jerry Brown? Talk about having to kiss your sister.

wildhawker
12-16-2009, 7:22 PM
cbn, let's remember *why* he did so. Hint: it's our (read: "the gun people") fault.

AndrewMendez
12-16-2009, 7:25 PM
Anyone have a link, so one can make an educated opinion besides the Candidates Websites?

bwiese
12-16-2009, 7:56 PM
Anyone have a link, so one can make an educated opinion besides the Candidates Websites?

I'm voting for Brown, because I want to reward his RKBA behavior while AG, and I believe he'll continue it while Governor.

We got a whole lotta Republicans in CA that haven't done much for RKBA.

bodger
12-16-2009, 8:58 PM
I'm voting for Brown, because I want to reward his RKBA behavior while AG, and I believe he'll continue it while Governor.

We got a whole lotta Republicans in CA that haven't done much for RKBA.

Other than vetoing anti-gun legislation at every opportunity, what can a pro-gun CA governor continuously do that would have the most positive impact on preserving and promoting gun rights?

Super Spy
12-16-2009, 11:42 PM
I'm sorry but since when has Calguns had an agenda that has anything to do with combating "socialism"? I didn't know that Calguns was into economics.

I'm sorry to hear you’re not down on Socialism. I think taking away individuals rights and property is something we need to fight against. What does every Socialist government do prior to oppressing the people and committing horrendous acts? I'll give you a hint....What did the Nationalist Socialist Party do in 1938?

cbn620
12-17-2009, 1:47 AM
I'm sorry to hear you’re not down on Socialism. I think taking away individuals rights and property is something we need to fight against. What does every Socialist government do prior to oppressing the people and committing horrendous acts? I'll give you a hint....What did the Nationalist Socialist Party do in 1938?

The national socialists were not socialists to be socialists (Have you read Mein Kampf?), they were fascists which is a corporatist economic model; fascism is a right wing government political and economic theory. The defining feature of gun grabber despotic governments is authoritarianism/totalitarianism, which is not tantamount to socialism. It certainly is that the majority of so called "socialist" governments or governments that named themselves "socialist" were gun grabbers but it is not an exclusive trait of socialism as a theory. Theocracies, monarchies, and even republics with non-socialist economic models have implemented civilian disarmament. Gun grabbing started in this very country long before even the most paranoid considered our government socialist, and probably before the word "socialism" was invented.

This is not a unique feature of "socialism" and socialism can be enacted without despotism or totalitarianism. So called "libertarian socialism," "anarchism," or as it was originally called, simply "libertarianism" has sprung up at various points in history all around the globe with no central government, no central planning, and virtually no authority.

I'm sorry to hear that you have almost no idea what socialism is, and furthermore that you would straw man me in such a ludicrously disingenuous fashion.

But all this aside I repeat my question, because the definition of socialism is almost meaningless within the constraints of our discussion: Since when has combating "socialism" ever been on the agenda at Calguns? I hesitate to speak for this site, and won't, but other than some guys on the off topic board I do not presume this is the Glenn Beck show, or for that matter Countdown with Keith Olbermann. This seems to me a 2nd amendment organization. At least ever since I've been here.

Werewolf1021
12-17-2009, 2:40 AM
And Godwin's law strikes again....