Mcain's VP NRA memebr... I'm sold.

Under normal circumstances, I'd be disgusted with 4 more years. But this time, we have an interesting unforeseen variable. Palin's an NRA member. Well, that's that. I'd say we're protected... Until another variable shows up that she may backtrack against that.

In any case, here's the source, and I'd like to hear your opinions on this fact. ARE we guaranteed our rights with an NRA member fighting for our rights to defend ourselves? Or could this just be a plot to soften us up?


www.newsday.com...

(half way down. use ctrl F)

[edit on 29-8-2008 by Gorman91]

[edit on 29-8-2008 by Gorman91]

[edit on 29-8-2008 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Gorman91

---

He's just doing this to get the single-issue voters onto his side. It's a political tactic. That's all.

Well. I'm not sure. She's a life time member and seems to love guns. How could she morally allow herself to see all her compatriots lose their rights?

Well, put it this way, Obama is totally against gun ownership. Voting for him will certainly warrent his Marxist policy for disarming the nation, yet arming his "Civilian Police Force".

reply to post by jetxnet

---

Wrong. To quote Obama's EXACT words.

"Do not tell me that we cannot uphold the 2nd amendment without keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

reply to post by Loki

---

Sure, give aks to the store owners. That way, out of fear, you don't steal. Fear is very useful.
I prefer the Switz method: Train ALL your civilians in the art of war and give them ALL gun operation knowledge.

An armed and trained populace, is a protected and self serving populace.

reply to post by Loki

---

Yeah your right. Jet just got completely pwned.

hate to burst your bubble, but becoming an NRA member is not exactly like joining MENSA.

reply to post by scientist

---

no, but I feel that if an actual member betrayed the NRA, it's be serious business.

reply to post by Gorman91

---

No. She'll pull a Pelosi and not defend us. Just like Pelosi was bought out.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by Soulstone]

First off it is "4" more years.....maybe you meant a "3rd" term.

but I shouldn't expect anyone that would vote for a President based soley on their misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment to know the difference.

It is all moot anyway......this is not the VP that will be on the ticket in November....this is a political stunt....her speech to drop out in order to take care of her "family" has already been written....then McCain will let you know who his real choice is.

"3 mor eyears" DOH!

fix'd

But no, she will be the VP.

I'm betting 2 years in he drops dead and she becomes president.





Indeed this is possible. But the difference is that Pelosi's supporters who she betrayed weren't trained in gun usage. In fact, most probably didn't have guns

[edit on 29-8-2008 by Gorman91]

[edit on 29-8-2008 by Gorman91]

Cough... well if Obama would come out and defend the 2nd... there wouldn't be an issue.

Criminals do not follow the law or gun bans (Look at DC)

Criminals will ALWAYS get weapons if they want them and we would be defenseless... no freeking thank you!

[TONS] of dope is smuggled into this country every day. Drugs that dogs can smell, etc.. Please don't even try to lie to us and say a gun ban would hinder criminals. (Yes... Tons, Tons, Tons)

The NRA is a joke. Rather than making valid points about the gun laws, they themselves have altered the meaning of the 2nd amendment and defend hunting, and kill other things for sport. Which has nothing to do with why we have the 2nd amendment.

I haven't really studied on her, and don't plan on it. There is still the painful fact that McCain is the nominee, not her. And of course, the fact you have to plan silly if you think she is going to make a difference in the direction of things. Afterall, McCain did choose her.

...I don't know if I'm just tired, so don't take offense if I seem short.

I am a third year law student, I am adament about protecting the Constitution, I hate our President for his abuse of it. I hate when people think.....scratch that.....DON'T think apparently, because there is no way to believe that Obama is anti-anthing amendment or Constitution. He was a Harvard Law graduate and knows more, respects more, the Constitution than anyone else running. But yet.....we have people that believe since he is a Democrat...(I'm not convinced of that) that he is soft on Constitutional issues......If he was, than I would attack him as well.

....These same people are going to say that he would appoint another Ginsberg the Court.....WRONG.....McCain will however appoint another Scalia....and if you feel the rest of the Country has follow your beliefs well than admit it.......Me, we have a Constitution and it IS the sovereign. I expect Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Socialist, Green Party, Blue Party....you name it......to uphold and protect the damn thing.

It is bad enough that the most powerful person in the United States is Justice Kennedy and to make matters worse, how many of you people even know who he is?

Obama would appoint Kennedy's to the Court....not partisan hacks.

I can't tell you how worked up I get when faced with ignorance about Obama and McCain.....We are at a time in our nations history that is so damn important that at the very least, people should care enough to be informed. This Republican---Democrat one issue polarizing obfuscations is sickening......Screw Abortion or Pro-Choice issues. Screw Gay marriage or anti gay marriage. We have bigger issues that effect us all and we will just have to get to that other stuff some other time.

Sure....I was for Ron Paul.....then Huckabee....I never disliked Obama but figured he was going to be a political hack like everyone else.....Have you heard that man's speeches? You will probably never again here anything that brilliant from any other politician in your lifetime.

For me, I want to stand and cheer and feel proud when our flag is shown...just like I did when I was a kid.....we have lost that through the years and the Bush taint and to some degree Clinton's as well....we stood for "hypocrisy" Obama is the only person that could turn this all around in a decade or less.

My suggestion is that you seriously "deny ignorance" and listen to what he says and what he stands for.

reply to post by Res Ipsa

---

Bravo!

But my problem is that I've been around long enough to just not care what they say in speeches, as by the first year in they rarely keep to it. I trust records much more, but even they can be totally flopped once in office.

I trust Obama could do an excellent job, but I don't know. He hasn't been in long enough to get a good record. he hasn't stood the test of cooperate time. By that I mean, I don't know if he'll stay independent when the corporations and the likes come to him with barrels of money.

Truth be told. Clinton and Bush made alot of speeches and made alot of promises. But how many did they keep faithful to.

Obama claims he's for change, but then goes and picks an old school VP. So how do I know he'll keep his change doctrine once in office?


And then there's the fact that McCain's VP, too, is inexperienced. But it's almost certain this old man is going to croak over. Just look at how white Bush's hair got in his 1st term. Imagine a dude decades older and already white haired ?!

I think we honestly have 2 choices. Obama, or Palin. Truth be told, I'd take the side of the young redneck over the young lawyer. Just my opinion.


I can't honestly believe either will end the war anyway. I can almost bet the war will continue for a number of years bast 08

I have a lackluster faith in politicians. But I have a theory. If Obama goes against what he promises, people will just claim he's inexperienced or something else. But if Palin goes against it, she's got half the country armed who are at the boiling point against here then. And I can honestly claim that I'm betting McCain isn't making it the full 4 years if elected.


well, That's what I think.



[edit on 29-8-2008 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Res Ipsa

---

How do you justify him and FISA? Where did he get the constitutional authority for that?

Why does he talk about keeping troops in Iraq for atleast another 4 years?

Why does he believe we need war in Iran?

How can this be the candidacy of someone who is about freedom and peace? Where is the hope?

If you care about the constitution, how do you justify the abuse of the general welfare clause?

[edit on 29-8-2008 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia

---

I don't recall him claiming 4 more years. That's a bit odd.

And he didn't say war on Iran. he said toughness against them. Now that could mean anything yea, but not necessarily war.

reply to post by Gorman91

---

Lol, good point.

very interesting point -- he might just as well have chosen Mickey Mouse, or, Paris Hilton.

Paris Hilton would probably be a better president than either of them.

It just goes to show how much a dog and pony show this all is -- however, it is knee-jerking gun lovers who live in fear of being deprived of their toys.