Will we see a 2A question in the Debates for Governor?

[Barbarossa]

I've watched two Brown/Whitman debates and haven't seen a single 2A question.

I want to see Whitman squirm a bit

[Browkaw]
"With California's dire financial situation, are there any departments which need serious cut backs? I'm specifically referring to the DOJ/BOF."

"Prop 19 is being touted as a source of revenue for California. In the light of recent Heller and McDonald Decisions from the supreme court, do you see Shall issue CCW as a less controversial revenue stream?"
[/Browkaw]

[Glock22Fan]

No. I'm sure neither candidate wants to answer those questions.

[loather]

That issue is like kryptonite to both candidates. They'll avoid the issue and drop it like a hot potato.

It, unfortunately, is still a very polarizing issue and would cost both candidates votes if they touched it, no matter how they answered the question.

[The Shadow]

That issue is like kryptonite to both candidates. They'll avoid the issue and drop it like a hot potato.

It, unfortunately, is still a very polarizing issue and would cost both candidates votes if they touched it, no matter how they answered the question.

That would make it an extremely important question that needs to be asked and answered.

[Barbarossa]

That would make it an extremely important question that needs to be asked and answered.

ABSOLUTELY.

[wash]

Not really, outing Brown as a pro-gun candidate does not help him.

[Barbarossa]

Not really, outing Brown as a pro-gun candidate does not help him.

Hearsay.

[cmaynes]

That would make it an extremely important question that needs to be asked and answered.

Both Candidates have already answered-

Whitman opposes gun rights- see Ebay.

Brown supports gun rights- see amicus brief to Supreme Court.

If you support gun rights, you cant support Whitman. period.

As far as outing Brown- bad idea- his Democratic Party base is anti- even though he acts against that wish. Making Brown take a public stance only hepls the anti-gun candidate.

Schwartzenegger clearly illustrated that Republicans cant be trusted on the 2nd Amendment.

[wash]

There are a lot of people who will vote for him only because there is a D behind his name. Some of those people may change their mind if they think he isn't following the party gun control line (as they see it).

[PEBKAC]

With any luck, we won't see one.

Given who both candidates are trying to court, jarring everyone with some statement we think is reasonable but the indoctrinated masses might not be so hot on is a terrible move politically as no matter what a candidate says some voting block will probably be alienated, and the voting blocks that aren't alienated probably won't be any more likely to vote for said candidate than before. You take a risk every time you make a statement about something, and with this certain something at best you'll break even and at worst you lose. That math just doesn't add up.

That may sound defeatist, but we have enough static to deal with as it is and do not need to add any more by giving antis something to work with.

Just my $.02...

[tacticalcity]

You are kidding yourself if you think EITHER of them want to see a 2A question. Brown would be squirming more than Whitman. As his semi-pro gun comments could be used against him with his base.

Early on the election process was fine showing his conservative side, just as Meg was fine showing her liberal side. As election day grows closer and the polls so a close race, both have begun pandering to their base big time.

If Brown got a 2A question today, I would be willing to bet good money he would give an anti-2A answer. Doing otherwise would cost him the election. He needs the far left to show up to get elected, and for them the gun issue is as critical to them as abortion.

Browns base radically opposes guns. So when the going gets tough, do not expect him to go out of his way to protect guns. He will give the same answer all politicans give as to his change in position. Different job title, different responsibilities, different time, different specifics on the issue he believes is only loosely related. To you and I it will look like a complete reversal, but he'll be able to spin it.

Brown has goals beyond the Governor's office. He wants to president. You do not get the Democratic nomination for president by being proactively in favor of gun rights. So if you think he will be, you are kidding yourself. He will only be pro-2A when it does not hurt him. He is not going to stick his neck on the line.

Translation? They are both iffy on gun rights. Making it a non-issue. Because both choices are a bad choice when it comes to the second amendment. That means you have to move onto to other issues. How do Brown and Meg stack up on other issues?

You can't make brown a gun toating red neck conservative like us just by wishing it so. Frankly, that is exactly what many of you are doing. One only need look at how Brown's message and tune has changed throughout this election process to see exactly what he is going to do if a gun issue gains national attention. He will toss us out with the bath water. No question.

Bear in mind Bill Clinton said he was pro-gun as well. Yet he pushed for and signed the most radical anti-gun legislation this country has ever seen. What they say when trying to get elected, and what they do once elected are usually two very different things. Push comes to shove they always pander to their base. Brown's base is anti-gun. Whittman's is pro-gun. So there is a possibility we could at least pressure her into defending our rights. If anybody is going to pressure Brown, it is going to be gun grabbers.

[berto]

Most people don't care. It's how 2A restrictions get passed as reasonable and common sense.

Neither candidate is going to say CA law stinks and should be rolled back. Neither will call for any new restrictions. The most either candidate would say is 2A is an important right as recognized in Heller and McDonald and that existing reasonable measures are groovy. Brown can only alienate his base by embracing 2A and Meg is focused on the middle where 2A just doesn't matter enough in her big picture.

[wildhawker]

Why would either candidate risk 100,000 votes for 100? It's simply not a wise political move in this race.

[Glock22Fan]

Brown has goals beyond the Governor's office. He wants to president.

I've seen this a few times lately.

How old will Brown be when he gets chance to be nominated? Another six years unless Obama throws in the towel?

Do you really think that even Brown thinks he will not be too old to get votes by then? He'll make McCain look like a spring chicken.

[tacticalcity]

Schwartzenegger clearly illustrated that Republicans cant be trusted on the 2nd Amendment.

As your own statement said, neither party can be trusted based on their party affiliation alone. Arnold does sit pretty far to the left on the political scale for a Republican, but you would be hard pressed to find a Democrat even remotely as conservative as he is. In California, you're going to see a lot of Republicans with liberal tendencies on what they feel are "social issues". Our state swings to the left in general. Our middle falls so far to the left on the political spectrum that it is the equivalent of other states far left. A die hard republican can't win here. Even Ronald Regan had liberal social tendencies. He was huge fan of FDR, and considered himself a Liberal Democrat right up until he started his own political career, at which point he realized he no longer identified with the party in which he was raised. He never lost all of his liberal beliefs, just look at his spending.

I do not see Arnold as anti-gun. Yes he signed some anti-gun legislation, but it was pretty minor stuff compared to what it could have been - and he did not champion or promote any of it. So your characterization of him is way too myopic. I know that is not a popular thing to say in room full of gun zealots (of which I am one) but it is the reality when placed in proper perspective. Anyone who did not eat, breath, and sleep guns would see it that way. In other words, someone objective. Which by any definition, none of us here are objective. We have a a really big dog in the fight.

We are arguably the most liberal state in the union, yet we had a major victory for gun rights go completely ignored by the left under Arnold's watch. If he were anything like the way you describe him, that would not have happened.

OLLs could have been stopped by the legislature, yet it has gone inexplicably ignored. Part of that has to be doubt on the left's part that Arnie would sign a revised ban that stopped the OLLs. Don't kid yourself, if they wanted to stop it, they could have found a way. The Supreme Court did not start issuing pro-gun rulings until well after the OLLs started coming in and bullet buttons hit the market. Same goes with rebuild kits. Just like with OLLs we legally found a way to have what the left previously took away with a gun pan, dealing the anti-gunners a serious blow. If Arnold anything like you characterize him, they would have exploited that and stopped us from getting OLLs, Rebuild Kits, and on and on. Yet they didn't.

Arnold did not champion gun rights, and make it a focus of his policy. However, it did not target them either. You and many others here act as if he did. The anti-gun bills passed during his term are nuisances at best. Possible stepping stones to more, but not necessarily. Definitely worth fighting, but not worth righting off the Republican Party over. We did not see a major gun ban during his term, and we gave the left plenty of reasons to consider one or more of them. Some of the credit for that should go to Arnold.

Just like Ike, the things he did right were the things he did not do at all. He treated OLLs like the 3rd rail, and so did everyone else. I for one appreciate that. Sacramento ignoring the OLL issue was exactly what we needed them to do, and they did it.

I get the impression we will get more of the same from Meg. She'll probably sign a few anti-gun bills that have a very narrow scope and impact, but because she's a Republican and needs her base they will keep the major sweeping gun bans off her desk. At least, that is what I am hoping will happen. With Brown, I think they left will press him to be more liberal than he or we want him to be on guns. In politics, you have to keep your base happy. I am just not convinced he'll tick off his base and ruin any possibility of holding office in the future for our benefit. That has never been Browns way. He is a career politician, not an idealist. Expecting him to be pro-gun just does not seem realistic to me. Best case, he signs the same nuisance bills Meg would have signed and maybe a few more. Worst case he backs a major ban.