The piece is particularly striking coming from Clinton, who has been seen for most of her career as a firm advocate of gun control, but more recently has emerged without dramatically shifting her stance on specific issues, as a defender of the Second Amendment who fondly recalled being taught to shoot by her grandfather in Scranton.
I wouldn't trust either one of them with any of my rights. They have both let the country know where they stand on gun control, and one is as bad as the other. Heck, let's write in George Soros for Prez! He's donated money to both of them, in the hopes of getting more gun control in this country. I don't understand that man. He's not even an American(is naturalized), and yet wants to control the way we live our lives! And he seems to think, that because he has money to burn, he can buy his way of thinking, and screw all of us who were born and raised here. All I can do, is hope that we don't have to go thru more BS over our rights.
Scotty, I hate to tell you this, but as a naturalized citizen George Soros has exactly the same rights (and obligations) as any native-born US Citizen. He has the right to donate his money anywhere he wishes (even if it's to nincompoops I wouldn't trust with a toy boat in a bathtub), and say anything he wants, just as we do.
And yes, I agree that the pot is definitely calling the kettle in this case. The pair of them are hypocrites when it comes to the Second Amendment. Obfuscatin' Obama's true persona was exposed at that rally in San Francisco, and Slick Hillary is on record as wanting to permanently install the Slick Willy Gun Ban as the law of the land, with no sunset provision this time. Those of us who believe in the Second Amendment should not want to see either one of these turkeys in the Oval Office, now or any other time. Personal freedoms once taken from you are incredibly difficult to get restored to you.
Cyrano, I know the man has the same rights as any of us, but it still leaves a foul taste in my mouth. The SOB thinks he's smarter than anybody else, and I truly believe that he hates the USA, and would do anything to help take it down. He believes that a few rich a'holes oughta run the whole world, and tell us peons what we can and cannot do. We are the last bastion of freedom, and he wants us gone!!!
I don't think I can trust either of these opportunistic morons. But, at this point, just based on guns, if I HAD to choose between Obama and Clinton, God help me...I'd take Clinton.
__________________
If the Founding Fathers were alive today, they'd probably rather be dead.
Neither one has shown ANY support of our second amendment rights. They mumble some hooey about how they support the rights of hunters, but nothing about supporting their right to bear arms. Maybe they figure we can kill a deer with a slingshot, or a lucky right cross!
Neither one has shown ANY support of our second amendment rights. They mumble some hooey about how they support the rights of hunters, but nothing about supporting their right to bear arms. Maybe they figure we can kill a deer with a slingshot, or a lucky right cross!
They will say anything, to win over voters!
__________________
NRA Life Member
God Bless the United States Military
Cyrano, I know the man has the same rights as any of us, but it still leaves a foul taste in my mouth. The SOB thinks he's smarter than anybody else, and I truly believe that he hates the USA, and would do anything to help take it down. He believes that a few rich a'holes oughta run the whole world, and tell us peons what we can and cannot do. We are the last bastion of freedom, and he wants us gone!!!
I don't think he hates the country, Scotty. He just has different ideas about what would be good for it, and some of the ideas are wrong. And I don't think he has nearly the power and influence the commentators on the right like to attribute to him. Listening to some of them, you'd think George Soros was the bogieman, hiding in every closet and behind every bush.
When it comes to Hillary lambasting Obama about guns, I'd say it's an act of desperation. She had to know it could boomerang on her and just start people laughing at her. But she (or her advisers) figured she's so far behind in the delegate count, she has nothing to lose.
Look at the way she's pandering with her proposal for a moratorium on gas taxes: it would only save the average person three to ten dollars a month, and since the fuel tax is what the government uses for matching funds on highway projects, it would screw them up all over the country. I'd rather see the !@#$%^ I-95/215/60 interchange finished this summer, instead of dragging it on for another year because they ran out of money. And I suspect the prices would just mysteriously rise enough to put that money in the oil industry's pockets instead of the government's pockets anyway; I bet we'd never see the savings.
I'm shocked, shocked to find out there's been gambling here (your winnings, sir).
It's klintonesque for her to try to slam o for something she's been doing all along; when it comes to the 2A (IMHO) they're both gun banners, elitists, and advocate exactly the same policies. It is the pot calling the kettle. It's also telling how she would speak out, acting like she in some way cared for firearms owners.....patronizing in a way--would she really think us to be that stupid ?
As for Mr. Soros, again IMHO, he's part of the problem, but we're limited in how we can fix it. No One can stop him from spending all of his $ funding sophisticated propaganda and speaking out trying to be the string puller behind a "puppet" that in his perfect world, as king, he'd appoint. This is a constitutional right--freedom of speech and the press. We can cut this funding from backing any particular party or candidate (i.e. a party or candidate acting as a focal point for money and its distribution). We can fight to preserve our constitutional form of government to the letter, and recoginze this individual for who he is. We can keep him and his resources (and his surrogates) from whittling away at our constitution and individual liberties.
__________________
God gives us free will; the statist tries to take it away
This is just another case of a lying liberal desperate to win.
Remember a few weeks ago it was running for safety with
the comic Sinbad. So now it is just another shot in the dark
(so to speak) to give her a chance for a few more votes to take
to the convention.
Klinton and Obama are against the 2nd Amendment, period. I shudder to think of their gun policies IF either of them get elected...
Actually, Obama is more liberal than Klinton. Obama is more of a threat since he has the backing of the Liberal Left.
Plain and simple here... this is a huge gamble for Klinton as she has a long history of gun control legislation and support for gun control, even more than Obama. I actually have to agree with Troy2000 here in saying this could seriously backfire against Klinton as well as expose the truth about Obama's feelings on gun control.
I'd love to see the Democrats attempt to wiggle off this hook of their own. How can the proof of anti-gun legislation and a career of anti-gun support be taken out of context?
This is straight from Democrats.Org ... I'd like to see them argue this being taken out of context:
Democratic state legislators went into one of the most conservative counties in the Pennsylvania and announced plans to submit a package of bills on gun control during a day-long special session of the House on crime near the end of the month. The state issues about 1 million hunting licenses each year. As a result, gun control legislation has been hard to pass because most legislators represent the rural areas of the state where there is a high rate of gun owners and sportsmen.
Legislative proposals would include limits on the sale of handguns to one per month; a ban on military-style assault weapons statewide; additional funding for police and police equipment; and a requirement that gun owners report a lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours.
Democrats are pushing the legislation forward as a result of new polling data showing that suburban residents have a concern with gun violence. The poll shows that 80 percent of rural voters said they support a statewide limit on handgun purchases to one gun a month. Nearly 75 percent of the Republican voters surveyed supported the one-gun-a-month limit as well. The group of Democrats were led by State Representative Dwight Evans of Philadelphia.
There have been more than 260 homicides in Philadelphia this year, and more than 1,200 shooting victims, Evans said. More than 80 percent of the city's homicides were committed with guns, according to statistics on the city's Web site.
With momentum for gun control at a high level, this may be the best shot Democrats have to establishing gun control in the state. Some critics say this legislation may not be the best option, but Democrats understand that reform takes time and are trying to fix the problem instead of just recognizing that there is one.
Frankly, I seriously doubt these numbers, not to mention, they fail to speak of the percentages in the overall population, nor do they compare to deaths from other causes.
Speaking of, this crap about McCain's comments on the "100 year war" was and is taken well out of context. (imagine that?) Has anyone ever heard of the Korean War? When was that? Is it over and are we still there? It didn't end. there was a ceasefire that stopped the fighting on July 27, 1953. There was an armistice signed by North Korea, China and the UN but not South Korea. So, the war continues... a total of 58 years since it started. This is what he was saying and the Democrats (for individual, personal gain, of course) took the comments out of context in yet again, another dirty tactic professionalized by the Democratic National Committee.
__________________ You don't scare me! Work on it!
Like I've said before, I think it seriously hurts the dems to back the failed horse of gun control (not only doesn't it work and makes things worse, it's against the constitution and gun control has its roots in racism). PA has pretty sane firearms laws and CCW laws in general--despite Fast Eddie's demagogery (IMHO he's a political hack and thug and is wholly unqualified to be governor of that great Commonwealth) PA will continue to be pro-gun. The dems will go down politically if they try to jump on this--despite some irrational pockets in the state, there are alot of balanced thinkers.
The one gun a month numbers there are just plain wrong, and probably result from either being pulled out of someone's behind, polling a certain sector of the population only, or phrasing the question so that the answer will always be "yes" -- i.e. "if limiting handgun purchases to one gun a month could be shown to reduce crime 90% would you be in favor of this."
Sorry Troy, I get worked up, sometimes. I think George Soros is one of those rich guys, who think they oughta run everything on earth. They figure, what the hey, we make lots of money, so it proves we are better at managing affairs. The only problem is we, the people of the US won't sit still for it. He wants us disarmed, and defenceless, so they can further the agenda of bringing this country in line with the rest of the world. Geez, Troy, these are the richest folks on earth, and they STILL don't have enough money and power to suit them. We talk about greed occasionally, but we can't comprehend the greed of these people. I've heard about, and read about these ultra rich, who think they are the salvation of the world. As far as I'm concerned, they would become the worst despots this world has ever seen. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Look at our candidates, they'll say or do anything to gain power. And if the wrong one gets the power, George will be right there, throwing money to further HIS agenda of disarming the population of this nation. He funded the antigun agenda while Bill was in office, and continues his crusade today!
Larry, That's correct, at least in the urbanized blocks in PA--sometimes wonder where they find the jokers. True in WI as well. I don't know why they continue to equate the 2A to solely hunting (or collecting), or guns to rural/hunting areas--CCW in urban areas is one of the most effective forms of reducing crime and self defense. This is an inherent right as well. Furthermore, people don't like things that don't work -- no matter where or who you are.
I really don't know why some of the dems are so dedicated to backing losing policy--if I do something that doesn't work, after a while I change. Bill Richardson may say some silly things at times, but he was a decent congressman when I was in eastern NM, and has been a fairly pro-gun GOV from what I understand -- overall (and I could be wrong) seems like a relatively stand-up guy. He could've gotten us pointed toward nukes while he was energy secretary, and that was one of his failings (to be fair to him, I don't know what his boss was telling him), but in general he seems to have been doing pretty well. So there are some dems that are worth something; I can't fathom why they just don't come out and say "you're stupid" at times to their breathern who push GC, "assault weapons" bans, 1 gun a month (not sure if I could afford this--that's 12 guns a year and some serious money),microstamping, handgun bans, ammo control, ballistic fingerprinting, etc--these policies have all failed--even the experts say they don't and won't work. I learned at the beginning of my career that flying into thunderstorms is stupid, unnecessary, and a bad idea; I don't have to go out and do it again to prove it's still a bad idea. Same as for gun control.
__________________
God gives us free will; the statist tries to take it away
