PDA

View Full Version : Clearing up: Meg Whitman and 2A


stomper4x4
05-04-2010, 12:53 AM
I've read a lot of stuff about Whitman here, and I thought I would chip in to help clear things up.

Meg claims something along the lines that no NEW gun laws are needed in California. However she has stated publicly that she does support the laws that are already in the books and that this level of control is appropriate for safety yadda yadda.

Therefore with Meg, there is no chance of getting any existing laws repealed, modified, amended, changed, thrown out, trashed or anything else.

I can't find the links right now where this was quoted, but I will try to find them tomorrow and put them up.

My suspicion, however, is her statement that no new gun laws are needed is nothing but a platitude (as is the rest of her rhetoric) to get her elected. There is no doubt in my mind that Meg is a politician through and through, and you all know how trustworthy that is.

OleCuss
05-04-2010, 4:41 AM
No worries about finding the quote. It's been on a few threads already.

Personally, I don't think she is a typical politician. I think she is a big business and big government believer who has serious ethical issues.

big red
05-04-2010, 5:43 AM
But it still might help to link threads if possible so newcomers can see what has been shown or written. Just a thought.

ned946
05-04-2010, 5:47 AM
RINO

OleCuss
05-04-2010, 7:13 AM
OK, here is what Whitman's web site says:

Meg supports the second Amendment rights of lawabiding citizens, but she believes the right to bear arms can and should be balanced with responsible gun control laws. At this time, Meg believes that California does not need additional gun control measures.

Anyone who after carefully reading that thinks Whitman is committed to the RKBA isn't doing a very good job of parsing. Let me go to the part that really tells the tale:

At this time, Meg believes that California does not need additional gun control measures.

Clearly she thinks additional gun control measures may become necessary. What's more, she's not talking about maintaining the current violation of your rights, she's talking about additional gun control laws being a possible need in the future!

M. D. Van Norman
05-04-2010, 7:26 AM
If you want a governor with a pathological aversion to firearms, then vote for Meg Whitman.

bruss01
05-04-2010, 7:31 AM
I might be persuaded that she meant what she said if she added "I promise to VETO any new gun laws". Yeah, that'll happen...

ned946
05-04-2010, 8:34 AM
Just remember, words are hardly worth the paper they're written on in politics.

If you want to know the truth, look to past actions.



"the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior"

m1aowner
05-04-2010, 10:05 AM
Yeah a rino grille and melon.

RINO

ned946
05-04-2010, 10:38 AM
Yeah a rino grille and melon.

That would be "rhino" then. :smartass:

stormy_clothing
05-04-2010, 11:59 AM
Whitman believes in the assault weapons bill - I sent a very nice email asking her how she expected a majority to vote for her and then fall deaf when that same majority wants less restrictive gun laws. - I got no response and Im on her "personal" lol mailing list

GuyW
05-04-2010, 2:03 PM
...standard anti-gun BS for the weak-minded...

...Sheriff Kolender in San Diego always used that line.....and then supported all new gun laws of every description....

.

Barkoff
05-04-2010, 2:31 PM
I've read a lot of stuff about Whitman here, and I thought I would chip in to help clear things up.

Meg claims something along the lines that no NEW gun laws are needed in California. However she has stated publicly that she does support the laws that are already in the books and that this level of control is appropriate for safety yadda yadda.

Therefore with Meg, there is no chance of getting any existing laws repealed, modified, amended, changed, thrown out, trashed or anything else.

I can't find the links right now where this was quoted, but I will try to find them tomorrow and put them up.

My suspicion, however, is her statement that no new gun laws are needed is nothing but a platitude (as is the rest of her rhetoric) to get her elected. There is no doubt in my mind that Meg is a politician through and through, and you all know how trustworthy that is.

If it hits her desk, she'll sign it, bottom line.

EricFi1
05-04-2010, 3:56 PM
unfortunately via the media, guns are bad. so most of California is against guns and of course want to eliminate them 100%. dianne frankenstein I believe banned the .50caliber in california. It's not just the liberals who wants guns gone. the conservatives in my heart I know would uphold the 2nd amendment.. however, as a candidate, I would surmise that you have to cave in a little so you can try & sway the other side.
By her saying no new gun laws are needed, to me is a positive.. it means she doesn't want to mess with what's here now. It can ONLY get worse, not better.
if jerry brown gets put back in office, rest assured gun control laws will definetely be on his agenda, as he is a liberal, and a career politician who needs to go away.

I think we're better off with Meg Whitman vs. brown or poizner.
Meg might be about big business, but I owe her one.. when i was unemployed for a year, ebay kept me in my home! I owe meg for that. She gets my vote.

woodsman
05-04-2010, 4:57 PM
Vote your conscience or your pocket book.

Once in a while you can find a candidate that satisfies both.

BHP FAN
05-04-2010, 5:53 PM
I voted for Ahnuld because I didn't want Crazy Bustamonte,and I'll vote for Meg because I don't want Brown.Sometimes it really IS about the lesser of two evils...

bwiese
05-04-2010, 5:55 PM
I voted for Ahnuld because I didn't want Crazy Bustamonte,and I'll vote for Meg because I don't want Brown.Sometimes it really IS about the lesser of two evils...

Thanks for voting anti-gun.

Themandalorian
05-04-2010, 5:55 PM
Hasn't ebay always been very anti gun?

Fjold
05-04-2010, 5:56 PM
All you have to know about Meg's opinions of guns is look at the policies of the company that she runs. How gun friendly is EBay?

OleCuss
05-04-2010, 6:04 PM
I don't get it, why vote for Whitman? Forget the single issue gun rights voting for a moment. I can't think of any conservative issue which Whitman will advance or any Liberal/fascist issue which I think Whitman will slow even as much as Brown.

Whitman might even think that lower taxes would be good (as do I) but put her up against the legislature and she/we lose as taxes skyrocket. Brown won't be good on the issue but he's been around long enough to understand that he can't tax us to prosperity.

It goes on. I honestly can't think of any conservative issue which I think she will advance - or any fascist one she will even slow down.

Mike's Custom
05-04-2010, 6:09 PM
I've read a lot of stuff about Whitman here, and I thought I would chip in to help clear things up.

Meg claims something along the lines that no NEW gun laws are needed in California. However she has stated publicly that she does support the laws that are already in the books and that this level of control is appropriate for safety yadda yadda.

Therefore with Meg, there is no chance of getting any existing laws repealed, modified, amended, changed, thrown out, trashed or anything else.

I can't find the links right now where this was quoted, but I will try to find them tomorrow and put them up.

My suspicion, however, is her statement that no new gun laws are needed is nothing but a platitude (as is the rest of her rhetoric) to get her elected. There is no doubt in my mind that Meg is a politician through and through, and you all know how trustworthy that is.

Arnie said almost exactly the same thing about the existing laws.

Hogxtz
05-04-2010, 6:16 PM
I voted for Ahnuld because I didn't want Crazy Bustamonte,and I'll vote for Meg because I don't want Brown.Sometimes it really IS about the lesser of two evils...

Well thank god not many gunnies think this way, because if they did our gun rights would be screwed. How could ANY issue be so important that it causes one to vote for a person that doesn't believe in the Constitution?

Doug L
05-05-2010, 7:13 AM
I don't get it, why vote for Whitman?

Very good question.
No good answer.

I honestly can't think of any conservative issue which I think she will advance - or any fascist one she will even slow down.

She talks a good game in her commercials----just like Arnold did before he was elected after the recall----reducing taxes, reducing spending, reducing the size of state government, etc., etc.
Unfortunately, it's all campaign BS.
If she were ever to be elected, it would be Arnold II. That is, the Arnold who has morphed into a looney Democrat under our very noses!
As the old expression goes, if the Democrat legislature told her to jump, her response would be 'how high.'

The real solution lies not so much in who's governor, but, rather, who has the majority in our state legislature.

That's why our real aim should be to GET THOSE DEMOCRATS OUT OF OFFICE !!!

Like this: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=4085700#post4085700

Mute
05-05-2010, 10:59 AM
Real easy for her to claim she's all for this and that when she has no power to put those changes into effect beyond signing or vetoing certain things. She's a damned, two faced liar. I know, I know, politician. I'm not saying anything beyond the obvious.

vantec08
05-05-2010, 11:24 AM
Whitman has the typical politicians ego-need to be governor. If you want status quo and the inability to enforce her own vetoes, vote for her. I prefer not to.

johnthomas
05-05-2010, 11:39 AM
Calguns has a membership of about 50,000. In the scheme of things if everyone voted for a true 2a candidate, would that swing the election? Guys and Gals, we all go to gun stores and ranges. Carry a few slips of paper with Calguns website on it and don't be shy to ask the person looking at guns if they ever heard of it. Push this site, people need to know the truth about who we vote for. Calguns is becoming a voice to reckon with and will only get louder if we get bigger. Walk softly and carry a big stick, in our political climate, our big stick is Calguns.

turbosbox
05-05-2010, 12:26 PM
She makes me uncomfortable. Meg was the secretary of ebay at it's inception, and she got to go along for the ride. Lucky person; right place at the right time. I hardly feel that makes her any better at decisions than a movie star from Terminators.
There have been many flaws in ebay, and she didn't do much to fix them. Scams, security issues, retaliatory feedback, no guns, and the list goes on.
She should switch to a Democrat in name and become a czar of something. She'd fit right in.

tombinghamthegreat
05-05-2010, 12:32 PM
Didn't Arnold say the same thing? Look at the laws he signed...

bwiese
05-05-2010, 1:04 PM
Calguns has a membership of about 50,000. In the scheme of things if everyone voted for a true 2a candidate, would that swing the election? Guys and Gals, we all go to gun stores and ranges. Carry a few slips of paper with Calguns website on it and don't be shy to ask the person looking at guns if they ever heard of it. Push this site, people need to know the truth about who we vote for. Calguns is becoming a voice to reckon with and will only get louder if we get bigger. Walk softly and carry a big stick, in our political climate, our big stick is Calguns.

It's much greater than 50,000.

There are 'viewing' folks that are not members/login users. Plus the 'Calguns bubble' that reaches out to likeminded folks - just like magazine ads carry communication out to far more than the subscriber (i.e, sit around in dentist's offices, whole family reads magazine, etc.)

Remember that 250K OLL number? It's more in that realm.

For the first time in awhile we have a
1. an antigun candidate trying to look progun (Meg)
2. an irrelevant antigun candidate trying to sell us his conversion (Poizner)
3. a fairly progun candidate who's been our best double-agent for years, and who's made pro-gun noises (even when not needed
politically) for the last 20-25 years
4. Meg's money vs. Brown's registration edge making close election.
5. Gunnies are relevant as long as they avoid party baggage.

OleCuss
05-05-2010, 1:30 PM
Right.

What I don't think most here yet understand is that if you compare Whitman to Brown, Brown is the conservative choice! Don't get me wrong, Brown won't be a conservative in the sense that I like, but California will be governed less from the Liberal/fascist left if Brown is in office than if Whitman is.

The other thing is that I've had the impression for years that Brown is one of the most honest politicians out there.

So to beat on a dead horse again, even if you don't vote pro-guns, vote Brown because if you're a conservative you won't like what you get from Whitman. (You won't like Brown too much either but it won't be as bad.)

Mike's Custom
05-05-2010, 3:00 PM
Right.



The other thing is that I've had the impression for years that Brown is one of the most honest politicians out there.

So to beat on a dead horse again, even if you don't vote pro-guns, vote Brown because if you're a conservative you won't like what you get from Whitman. (You won't like Brown too much either but it won't be as bad.)

I agree with Brown being honest. He was the one Governor that did't let the helmet law pass and was for choice. If you can say a politician can be "honest' I do believe that Brown believes in what he does. Unlike all the others that give lip service so they can be elected or reelected and then do what they want anyway.

GuyW
05-05-2010, 3:18 PM
I don't know who I will vote for (but not Meg)....

....but in all fairness, Brown is the only one I would consider to have a real working knowledge of politics and Sacto....I'd bet he's heads above Arnold on that, even today....

.

vintagearms
05-05-2010, 3:21 PM
I voted for Ahnuld because I didn't want Crazy Bustamonte,and I'll vote for Meg because I don't want Brown.Sometimes it really IS about the lesser of two evils...

Please dont vote. You obviously dont have a clue.

socalblue
05-05-2010, 3:33 PM
Whether one agrees with his views/politics or not Brown is very consistent. He says what he means & does his best to follow through.

FAR more critical is taking back control of the Legislature.

BHP FAN
05-05-2010, 3:54 PM
''Please dont vote. You obviously dont have a clue...''
and you obviously don't know me.I'm a VERY pro gun guy.It's the only thing [other than family and friends] that really IS important to me.I'll bet I own more guns than you do. But you guys aren't being very helpfull.Who SHOULD I vote for ?''Moon Beam'' Brown? I don't think so...

haveyourmile
05-05-2010, 4:25 PM
'I'll bet I own more guns than you do. But you guys aren't being very helpfull.

HAHAHA. This made me laugh out loud, literally. Are you 5?

OleCuss
05-05-2010, 4:31 PM
Whether one agrees with his views/politics or not Brown is very consistent. He says what he means & does his best to follow through.

FAR more critical is taking back control of the Legislature.

True. And you're right. If we had a conservative legislature it would be an amazing start toward making things work well.

nitrofc
05-05-2010, 4:33 PM
Didn't Arnold say the same thing? Look at the laws he signed...

Arnold is delusional. What a nightmare that guy has caused soo many people in this State.

We're basically screwed.......no matter which way you turn.....they all suck.

Period.

BHP FAN
05-05-2010, 4:43 PM
have your mile wrote: ''are you 5?''
I'm 51.And I own about that many guns,I'm not trying to brag,they're not expensive guns,and they were bought over a lifetime...but the point I'm trying to make is that they ARE important to me.I'm often accused of being a ''one issue voter'' ..and I AM.2A is my litmus test.I'm just not seeing a better choice. educate me.

Sgt Raven
05-05-2010, 8:10 PM
I agree with Borwn being honest. He was the one Governor that didn't let the helmet law pass and was for choice. If you can say a politician can be "honest' I do believe that Brown believes in what he does. Unlike all the others that give lip service so they can be elected or reelected and then do what they want anyway.

And at the time California was the only state that still stood up to the Feds and didn't have a M/C helmet law.

Corbin Dallas
05-05-2010, 8:49 PM
have your mile wrote: ''are you 5?''
I'm 51.And I own about that many guns,I'm not trying to brag,they're not expensive guns,and they were bought over a lifetime...but the point I'm trying to make is that they ARE important to me.I'm often accused of being a ''one issue voter'' ..and I AM.2A is my litmus test.I'm just not seeing a better choice. educate me.


Then by all accounts you've had 30 years to educate yourself on the happenings of CA.

No one is telling you who to vote for, but if you're voting for the lesser of two evils, maybe it's time to consider what is more important to you.

You're rights as a US citizen in this country, or the level of rights you're willing to abolish in order to be safe.

I don't remember the Reagan years to be that bad, but there are those out there who think it was horrible.

Personally, I will NEVER vote for Whitman. She and people like her are power mongers only interested in one thing...

Control

Whether that control is by persuasion or force all depends on what she does with it. After seeing what she has done with ebay and the people who made her billions of dollars, I am frightened at what she could do to the state of California.

But by all means, vote for the lesser of two evils. If you are successful in getting her in office, buy stock in Budget, Hertz and Uhaul. I'll be renting one of those three trucks to GTFO of CA.

thebronze
05-05-2010, 10:02 PM
Not that anyone cares, but I'll be voting for Poizner.

If it comes down to Brown or Whitman, I won't vote for either one.

motorhead
05-06-2010, 12:52 AM
meg creeps me out! i truly believe she's arnold in drag. if she's elected we can look forward to the needs of the people being based on global warming and endangered cockroaches.

BHP FAN
05-06-2010, 1:19 AM
You guys are making me reconsider.I can see that in this political climate it would be easy to make a mistake,but I don't want to split the party by voting for another Ross Perot.that didn't work out well at all...

M. D. Van Norman
05-06-2010, 7:28 AM
Though vetoes won’t matter much after June, I suspect that Jerry Brown would be far more likely to veto a gun-control bill than would Meg Whitman. They’re both Democrats anyway, but at least AG Brown is honest about it.

stag1500
05-06-2010, 9:00 AM
It's much greater than 50,000.

There are 'viewing' folks that are not members/login users. Plus the 'Calguns bubble' that reaches out to likeminded folks - just like magazine ads carry communication out to far more than the subscriber (i.e, sit around in dentist's offices, whole family reads magazine, etc.)

Remember that 250K OLL number? It's more in that realm.

For the first time in awhile we have a
1. an antigun candidate trying to look progun (Meg)
2. an irrelevant antigun candidate trying to sell us his conversion (Poizner)
3. a fairly progun candidate who's been our best double-agent for years, and who's made pro-gun noises (even when not needed
politically) for the last 20-25 years
4. Meg's money vs. Brown's registration edge making close election.
5. Gunnies are relevant as long as they avoid party baggage.

Bill, that just about sums it up perfectly. You should make this post a sticky until after the November elections.