MEG's 2A Stand?

[shark92651]

And as far as Republicans running the economy -- do I need to say anything more than George W. Bush?

Politicians don't "run" the economy, they just meddle and get in the way. How about the stellar success of our current (D) run Congress, which has been in power since 2006? Doing a bang up job, eh?

I say that we should just abolish this incredibly silly and stupid party system.

I agree. People need to vote based upon the candidates voting records and/or their achievements or potential. Unfortunately, it is too much work for the masses to properly evaluate a candidate based upon their own merits. It is far easier to just vote for your "team".

[SupportGeek]

Absolutely. And I'll bet anyone $100 that Jerry Brown, if elected, will do absolutely nothing to improve gun rights in California.

He doesnt need to do anything to IMPROVE gun rights, we can improve our own situation as long as he doesnt make gun rights worse, indications are he wont, but if Meg gets in you can kiss your RKBA goodbye within a year, she rid e-bay of guns, she will rid CA of guns, no doubt on this.

By all means, vote whatever you feel is important to you, but dont call yourself a "gun rights supporter" when you vote for Meg.

Its NOT putting 2a first in your votes that got us in the RKBA mess we are already in, lets not vote in another anti, no matter what else she is promising you while you drink that Kool-aid

[negolien]

Yes be sure to vote for someone just because of one issues and then wonder why our State sucks...

[OleCuss]

He doesnt need to do anything to IMPROVE gun rights, we can improve our own situation as long as he doesnt make gun rights worse, indications are he wont, but if Meg gets in you can kiss your RKBA goodbye within a year, she rid e-bay of guns, she will rid CA of guns, no doubt on this.

By all means, vote whatever you feel is important to you, but dont call yourself a "gun rights supporter" when you vote for Meg.

Its NOT putting 2a first in your votes that got us in the RKBA mess we are already in, lets not vote in another anti, no matter what else she is promising you while you drink that Kool-aid

Then why not vote for one who is openly and truly pro-RKBA? That would be Chelene Nightingale or maybe Ogden?

If you truly vote single issue on pro-RKBA you will not vote for either Brown or Whitman.

Yeah, I know, I'll be told that Chelene is a nut - and I happen to share that opinion. But she is still very pro-RKBA and if one is truly single-issue RKBA she is obviously better than Brown or Whitman.

And I don't know of any evidence that Ogden is a nutcase (but I don't know all that much about him so I could be wrong). So again, if I go single-issue RKBA I'd vote for him before I'd vote Brown or Whitman.

One other point. I'm not at all sure that Brown and Whitman are better mentally balanced than is Chelene. Brown thinks AB32 is a great idea which does not speak well for his mental status - and Whitman is not clearly much better. Oh, and there is a local radio host who is pretty sharp and has repeatedly stated that the Whitman campaign just flatly lied to him - which would seem to put Whitman's staff behavior on a par with that exhibited by Chelene's staff on this forum.

OK, then there is the strategic argument that says that neither Chelene or Ogden are viable candidates so one should not vote for them.

But if you are a single-issue voter you've got problems here again. Even if one says that strategically backing a loser is a bad idea so you have to go with the choice which is more likely to advance your cause - it still means you are choosing candidates who do not as strongly support your cause.

Also, even if one assumes Brown is stronger pro-RKBA than is Whitman; someone who is pro-Whitman can very logically say that it is better strategy getting a Republican into the state-house who will have veto/influence over a redistricting plan which will both affect her chances at being VP or POTUS in the future and potentially affect her odds of being re-elected. Strategically that could actually be more valuable over the next several years than having someone in Sacramento who has better RKBA credentials.

And I know I've been assured that the MAWP bit of nastiness is being fixed - and I don't doubt that. But this does not speak well of Brown's management abilities. The idea that the BOF is allowed to effectively establish new regulations which violate law without clearance from the AG is ridiculous. Not saying it didn't happen, but it means that the wrong people are being allowed to run the wrong parts of policies and/or procedures - or they do, in fact, reflect Brown's policies and intent.

OK, now I expect to be told that the person in charge cannot be responsible for everything their underlings do and that they cannot control everything. But that, too, cuts both ways. Remember that Whitman is greatly reviled for the fact that eBay chose not to continue gun sales while she was employed there.

Whitman likely has a better excuse for eBay's actions than does Brown for the BOF's MAWP actions. It really may not have made good business sense for eBay to continue firearm sales - we don't know what kinds of hassles they'd experienced with their prior policy and, unlike the BOF eBay is a for-profit company not supported by tax dollars and public fees with the primary mission to serve the public and protect its rights.

Another point along that line is that a CEO frequently does not have full discretion over all the policies of their company. They have to answer to a Board of Directors and to their shareholders.

To the best of my knowledge, Amazon.com still doesn't sell firearms. Yet they do not suffer the same approbation for maintaining a policy which seems to me to be similar to that of eBay. In fact, Amazon is in tight with the NRA and you can link to Amazon through the NRA website with the NRA getting a kickback from that.

OK, I'll get off the rant. I still don't know for sure which I'll vote for but I'm leaning toward Whitman. And I'm tired of hearing Chelene called a nutcase when Brown thinks AB32 is a great thing.

[tacticalcity]

I'm not happy with either choice. However, this one has become a no brainer.

A year ago Brown was happy to pander to the right on a few issues and Meg to do the same for the left. However, now that the polls show them neck and neck both candidates are running to their base for support. Brown has become wacko liberal, and Meg full on conservative.

On non-powder cage issues where no one is making much noise, there is no telling what either will do. They've both demonstrated a willingness to think for themselves when the pressure is off. However, when the pressure is on they can both be counted on to pander to their base. In Brown's case, his base is anti-gun. In Megs case, her base is pro-2a. She may not be, but her base is.

Neither choice is ideal, but their need to pander to their base makes them somewhat predictable. I am making my decision based on that.

I am not going to vote for Brown, who I disagree with on every single issue, just because in an interview he said he believes in the second amendment. Heck, Bill Clinton said he believed in the second amendment when he was running for office and he pushed for and signed the Assault Weapon Ban.

When push comes to shove, they will abandon their principles (if they even have any) and appease their base.

[tacticalcity]

Then why not vote for one who is openly and truly pro-RKBA? That would be Chelene Nightingale or maybe Ogden?

If you truly vote single issue on pro-RKBA you will not vote for either Brown or Whitman.

Yeah, I know, I'll be told that Chelene is a nut - and I happen to share that opinion. But she is still very pro-RKBA and if one is truly single-issue RKBA she is obviously better than Brown or Whitman.

And I don't know of any evidence that Ogden is a nutcase (but I don't know all that much about him so I could be wrong). So again, if I go single-issue RKBA I'd vote for him before I'd vote Brown or Whitman.

One other point. I'm not at all sure that Brown and Whitman are better mentally balanced than is Chelene. Brown thinks AB32 is a great idea which does not speak well for his mental status - and Whitman is not clearly much better. Oh, and there is a local radio host who is pretty sharp and has repeatedly stated that the Whitman campaign just flatly lied to him - which would seem to put Whitman's staff behavior on a par with that exhibited by Chelene's staff on this forum.

OK, then there is the strategic argument that says that neither Chelene or Ogden are viable candidates so one should not vote for them.

But if you are a single-issue voter you've got problems here again. Even if one says that strategically backing a loser is a bad idea so you have to go with the choice which is more likely to advance your cause - it still means you are choosing candidates who do not as strongly support your cause.

Also, even if one assumes Brown is stronger pro-RKBA than is Whitman; someone who is pro-Whitman can very logically say that it is better strategy getting a Republican into the state-house who will have veto/influence over a redistricting plan which will both affect her chances at being VP or POTUS in the future and potentially affect her odds of being re-elected. Strategically that could actually be more valuable over the next several years than having someone in Sacramento who has better RKBA credentials.

And I know I've been assured that the MAWP bit of nastiness is being fixed - and I don't doubt that. But this does not speak well of Brown's management abilities. The idea that the BOF is allowed to effectively establish new regulations which violate law without clearance from the AG is ridiculous. Not saying it didn't happen, but it means that the wrong people are being allowed to run the wrong parts of policies and/or procedures - or they do, in fact, reflect Brown's policies and intent.

OK, now I expect to be told that the person in charge cannot be responsible for everything their underlings do and that they cannot control everything. But that, too, cuts both ways. Remember that Whitman is greatly reviled for the fact that eBay chose not to continue gun sales while she was employed there.

Whitman likely has a better excuse for eBay's actions than does Brown for the BOF's MAWP actions. It really may not have made good business sense for eBay to continue firearm sales - we don't know what kinds of hassles they'd experienced with their prior policy and, unlike the BOF eBay is a for-profit company not supported by tax dollars and public fees with the primary mission to serve the public and protect its rights.

Another point along that line is that a CEO frequently does not have full discretion over all the policies of their company. They have to answer to a Board of Directors and to their shareholders.

To the best of my knowledge, Amazon.com still doesn't sell firearms. Yet they do not suffer the same approbation for maintaining a policy which seems to me to be similar to that of eBay. In fact, Amazon is in tight with the NRA and you can link to Amazon through the NRA website with the NRA getting a kickback from that.

OK, I'll get off the rant. I still don't know for sure which I'll vote for but I'm leaning toward Whitman. And I'm tired of hearing Chelene called a nutcase when Brown thinks AB32 is a great thing.

Because they do not have a chance of even making a dent. I truly wish they did, but they do not. So the message you are trying to make gets completely lost in translation.

In a state that is so overwelmingly Democrat, a vote for anyone but a Republican in a race where the Democrat and Republican are neck and neck is actually a vote for the Democrat. The fact that they are polling so closely is a real oddity, and could be a missed opportunity to send a signal to the Democratic Party that they are off base...if indeed you believe they are off base.

If it were going to be a blow out one way or the other, I would be all for a vote in protest. In a neck and neck race, a sense of reality need to kick in. It is called pragmatism. You vote for the candidate who you believe shares more of your views...rather than focusing on things you do not have in common with them, you seek out things you do.

Like it or not, a vote for anyone but Witman is throwing in your support for Brown. He's already got plenty of support.

I wanted to be able to vote for Brown in the beginning when he was trying to court conservatives, but he has demonstrated he is willing to run all the way to left when push comes to shove, as it has in this close election. He does not share any of my core values, or at least he is not willing to stand up for them. That is all I need to know.

I'm voting for Meg, because I do not want Brown to win. I don't think she'll make me happy or even think I agree with her more than 50% of the time. But that 50% is better than 0%. A vote for anyone but Meg, helps Brown win.

[greybeard]

I'm not happy with either choice. However, this one has become a no brainer.

A year ago Brown was happy to pander to the right on a few issues and Meg to do the same for the left. However, now that the polls show them neck and neck both candidates are running to their base for support. Brown has become wacko liberal, and Meg full on conservative.

On non-powder cage issues where no one is making much noise, there is no telling what either will do. They've both demonstrated a willingness to think for themselves when the pressure is off. However, when the pressure is on they can both be counted on to pander to their base. In Brown's case, his base is anti-gun. In Megs case, her base is pro-2a. She may not be, but her base is.

Neither choice is ideal, but their need to pander to their base makes them somewhat predictable. I am making my decision based on that.

I am not going to vote for Brown, who I disagree with on every single issue, just because in an interview he said he believes in the second amendment. Heck, Bill Clinton said he believed in the second amendment when he was running for office and he pushed for and signed the Assault Weapon Ban.

When push comes to shove, they will abandon their principles (if they even have any) and appease their base.

Did Arnold appease his base?

[dfletcher]

Given the above, she could assert I have the right to keep one gun at home because that's her understanding of the 2nd Amendment. It also means she supports the roster, the AW ban and all existing restrictions because those laws define our "current rights". And no "new restrictions" - like no "new taxes" - can be finnessed. Is the LCI and mag safety a "new restriction" or merely a refinement of an existing restriction?

I give her a pass on Ebay, but her remarks on current gun laws, sidestepping questions and hijinks at the Cow Palace are enough for me.

[OleCuss]

Did Arnold appease his base?

Yes. But his base never was conservative.

I don't know anyone who voted for Ahhnold - but plenty who voted against Davis. And Ahhnold doesn't get to run for VP or POTUS whereas there are many of us who believe Whitman has interest in that.

If some of us are right and Whitman wants a VP or POTUS job then she is going to have to at least slightly mollify the conservatives - especially since they are in the ascendancy. Also, if she does not apply conservative policies to the state it will go bankrupt in all but name and her reputation and political opportunities will be trashed. I think she is smart enough to realize this.

She has been underestimated by many. Interesting to remember that some of us thought she would fall apart in a debate but she has at least held her own each time.

In many ways I think Whitman may still be undefined and that is the scary part. The undefined can yet be defined and it may not happen as I would wish.

[OleCuss]

Given the above, she could assert I have the right to keep one gun at home because that's her understanding of the 2nd Amendment. It also means she supports the roster, the AW ban and all existing restrictions because those laws define our "current rights". And no "new restrictions" - like no "new taxes" - can be finnessed. Is the LCI and mag safety a "new restriction" or merely a refinement of an existing restriction?

I give her a pass on Ebay, but her remarks on current gun laws, sidestepping questions and hijinks at the Cow Palace are enough for me.

I'm kinda curious.

What does Brown say about current gun laws? So far as I can tell, his campaign is totally silent on the issue. If you parse that as we have Whitman's statements you could suggest that he may want to totally ban all firearms in the state.

Net effect is that you shouldn't go to far on Whitman's lack of a clear statement of support for the full RKBA. Brown isn't going there either - and his underlings are acting to gut the MAWP. And yes, I know the MAWP has been in the process of being fixed for some weeks now. . .

[SupportGeek]

Because they do not have a chance of even making a dent. I truly wish they did, but they do not. So the message you are trying to make gets completely lost in translation.

In a state that is so overwelmingly Democrat, a vote for anyone but a Republican in a race where the Democrat and Republican are neck and neck is actually a vote for the Democrat. The fact that they are polling so closely is a real oddity, and could be a missed opportunity to send a signal to the Democratic Party that they are off base...if indeed you believe they are off base.

If it were going to be a blow out one way or the other, I would be all for a vote in protest. In a neck and neck race, a sense of reality need to kick in. It is called pragmatism. You vote for the candidate who you believe shares more of your views...rather than focusing on things you do not have in common with them, you seek out things you do.

Like it or not, a vote for anyone but Witman is throwing in your support for Brown. He's already got plenty of support.

I wanted to be able to vote for Brown in the beginning when he was trying to court conservatives, but he has demonstrated he is willing to run all the way to left when push comes to shove, as it has in this close election. He does not share any of my core values, or at least he is not willing to stand up for them. That is all I need to know.

I'm voting for Meg, because I do not want Brown to win. I don't think she'll make me happy or even think I agree with her more than 50% of the time. But that 50% is better than 0%. A vote for anyone but Meg, helps Brown win.

Im actually most interested in reading your justifications, since Im assuming you are owner of Tactical city. If Brown gets in, it may or may not lead to more problems with small business, that would be tough times for you Im guessing?
Yet if Whitman gets in, there is hope that small business situations MAY improve in CA (business overall I suppose) but shes likely going to throw 2a down the crapper, and this would destroy your business completely.
I know you said its a no-brainer, but I was thinking it cant be an easy choice for you no matter what. Or are you just falling back to the party line in the end because it IS a hard choice, and grabbing at the conservative offering. (assuming she can actually be called a true conservative)
If you prefer not to get into it here, just PM me, I try to have an open mind when listening to others opinions as long as they dont get too out of control lol.

[choprzrul]

Absolutely. And I'll bet anyone $100 that Jerry Brown, if elected, will do absolutely nothing to improve gun rights in California. And of course, his support of AB32, which will probably kill 1,000,000+ jobs in the state and increase energy costs for all of us shows what a left-wing, tree-hugging loonie he really is. I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling about Whitman's stance on gun rights either, but she is clearly the lesser of two evils IMO as she is much more likely to have a positive impact on the state's economy. Remember, you won't be able to by guns if you get laid off because your employer was forced to close it's doors due to increased taxes and government regulation.

BTW-if you care about the economy of this state at all you MUST VOTE YES on prop. 23!!!

Another point that I have been pondering: There is more than one way to deprive the general populace of their guns. Consider, given the current economy and 13% unemployment rate, how many California citizens have sold their guns to make ends meet? Those people, economically, cannot exercise their 2A rights. Now consider which candidate's policies are going to exacerbate this economic neutering of 2A rights?

If Jerry Brown is standing in front of me telling me that he is the bedrock upon which the 2A is built, but his policies have left me unemployed and broke; then he might as well have just kicked me in the nuts and taken my guns from me. At least I might have a job, house, and some money in the bank, albeit some sore nuts.

Random thoughts.

.

[dfletcher]

I'm kinda curious.

What does Brown say about current gun laws? So far as I can tell, his campaign is totally silent on the issue. If you parse that as we have Whitman's statements you could suggest that he may want to totally ban all firearms in the state.

Net effect is that you shouldn't go too far on Whitman's lack of a clear statement of support for the full RKBA. Brown isn't going there either - and his underlings are acting to gut the MAWP. And yes, I know the MAWP has been in the process of being fixed for some weeks now. . .

The people Brown brings with him (on guns and other issues) are a concern to me as is the thought that if he does well the Democratic Party is made stronger and in CA, I'm not at all enthusiastic about that eventuality. I'd prefer to see it on life support. Every time I see a public union advert for him, my enthusiasm wanes just a bit.

I don't want to speak inaccurately and am certain others will specifiy what actions Brown has taken as AG. He did file a brief supporting gun ownership (Heller or McDonald or both, don't recall) so he believes it is a fundamental right, no banning. Beyond that, so far as stated positions go, I don't think there is much difference. Part of it may be party affiliation - Whitman's a Republican, she's "supposed" to be progun and anything less comes across as suspect, that could be a factor.

But I do give a certain weight to the opinions of others here with better first hand experience and they speak well of Brown on guns. Whitman asserted the AW ban "is right for CA" and I don't think Brown has affirmed a ban as being appropriate. One of our posters asked Whitman a question on guns and she more or less said "well, I'll look at it if it comes up" - and I very much do not like the Cow Palace episode.

[Lifeofahero]

Let's throw party titles aside here. We have an extreme liberal, Jerry Brown and a middle of the road conservative, Meg Whitman... the choices do suck but I won't vote for moonbeam the career politician. He's had his chances look at his record! He appointed people like Rose Bird.. She over-ruled 64 consecutive death penalty verdicts and upheld none. Apparently no judge or jury could ever give a murderer a trial perfect enough to suit Rose Bird.. but the liberals want to spin this to say he's pro-2a and won't hurt our cause.. As far as ebay and meg go, it's quite a spin to say she herself is anti because of ebay and their business decision.. but liberals love to spin stuff lets also throw in that she's pining for a VP or Pres seat.. Truth is, she's a business woman looking at issues through a business woman's paradigm. Maybe that will save CA instead of half-truths and lies from a career politicians mouth.

[Mstrty]

All you need to know................

...........
eBay CEO in power when eBay banned guns and gun components for Republican Governor!
Meg Whitman was the CEO of eBay from March 1998 to March 2008.
She became the CEO in 1998. They stopped selling guns in 1999:

http://news.cnet.com/No-guns-on-eBay..._3-221898.html

February 19, 1999
Quote:
Online trading community eBay today announced that it is ending user listings of all firearms and ammunitions on the site.

The company said its decision was based on the belief that the Internet is not an appropriate venue for that kind of merchandise. Beginning March 5, firearms will not be listed in any categories, including the "Firearms," "Antique," "Collectibles," and "Sport" categories.

"While we acknowledge the gun collectors and sports enthusiasts among our users, eBay takes its role as a responsible member of the online community very seriously," Steve Westly, eBay's vice president of marketing and business development, said in a statement.

"After careful consideration of the issue, we believe the process of buying and selling firearms online is sufficiently different from the offline world, and it is appropriate for us to end the user listing of firearms on eBay," he said.

Westly added that online sellers cannot readily guarantee that buyers meet all the qualifications and comply with the laws governing firearm sales.

The company tried instituting changes to the firearm category but after investigating a variety of alternatives, eBay concluded that, in consideration of current technology and laws, no alternative met its standards.

"We realize that the sale of firearms is a controversial issue, and our stance will spark support as well as criticism," added Westly.

"A private enterprise can decide to sell or not sell anything they want," said a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, an organization that fights for the right to own firearms. "This has no effect on the right to own guns."

Sales of firearms were miniscule, representing less than one quarter of 1 percent of sales, said an eBay spokeswoman.

The company said that firearms-related items, such as holsters, literature, clothing, and scopes, may still be sold on eBay, but only listed in the "Collectibles: Western Americana," "Collectibles: Militaria," and "Miscellaneous: Sporting Goods: Hunting" categories.

eBay members who posted messages on the site's community boards were evenly divided among those supporting the company's decision and those against it.

"The way this venue is created, there is no way to absolutely guarantee that anyone is who they say they are--credit cards and id's can easily be copied--and there is no 'face to face,'" wrote one member. "Rather than have kids, sickos, and criminals buying guns via the Internet, everyone has to suffer!"

Another member said that he would no longer visit eBay because of the decision.

"Your new policy is ill advised, anti-freedom and anti-American," wrote one member. "I will personally quit eBay, advise everyone I know to avoid eBay and its stock."

The company plans to hold public forums on next week to answer questions from community members about the firearms policy.

She was also the CEO when they upgraded the anti-gun policy in 2007:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3186

Quote:
eBay Expands Its Anti-Gun Policy

Friday, August 03, 2007


Years ago, eBay banned the sale of all complete firearms on its online auction and shopping website. However, they did continue to allow the sale of parts and many accessories. This week, a spokesman for eBay announced that the company would ban the sale of all gun-and-ammunition-related parts and components.

The ban is set to begin in mid-August, when eBay will prohibit the listing of “any firearm part that is required for the firing of a gun.” This prohibition will include, according to eBay, “bullet tips, brass casings and shells, barrels, slides, cylinders, magazines, firing pins, trigger assemblies, etc.” In explaining the decision to restrict these items, Matt Halprin, eBay’s Vice President, Trust & Safety, said, “After much consideration, the Trust & Safety policy team – along with our executive leaders at eBay Inc.– have made the decision to further restrict more of these items than federal and state regulations require.” [emphasis added]

With this action, eBay sends the message that they don’t want, or appreciate, law-abiding gun owners’ business. By banning these legal products, eBay is adopting the anti-gun movement’s opposition to all legal gun ownership. Fortunately, gun owners and sportsmen have alternatives.
She now campaigns to be the Republican Governor of California.
Does anyone have some more detailed information on her stance on firearm rights?

This is such a pile of crap. No right minded CEO, including all the surrounding lawyers would want to be on the evening news explaining to some reporter how Ebay enabled Party A and Party B to exchange ammunition or guns to some ineligible person, who in turn destroyed your child. As a Pro Gun guy myself, my multi-million dollar trading company would have the EXACT same policy. Even a policy where members have an FBI background check on file (much like frontsight does) would make very little business sense for a profitable company like Ebay. Ebay is a money making machine, and if you owned it your lawyers would tell you the same thing, Your guns or your wallet. Stop spreading Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
OK.... rant finished