Well, I held my nose and voted for Obama in Texas Primary...

[SteveM]

After all, Michelle O. said Barack can get "snorey and stinky."

My reasons: while Obama has a bad record on the Second Amendment, he does seem more open to change as evidenced by his recognition of 2A as an individual right. Of course, this leaves open the "common sense" regulations which often mask the most grotesque forms of gun control, and leaves open a kind of "states' rights" fall back to excuse the gun control measures of D.C. and Chicago. But Obama must realize (and all of us must concede) that once you accept the individual right position, then regulations cannot be anymore onerous than those on, say, the First Amendment. There is an apples/oranges question as to what constitutes regulation from right to right; but one could say that about any right in the BOR. The problem anyone has with this question is that the Second is unique in that an icon or object (arm), is involved, whereas the other rights are concepts which defy regulation, save for another concept. (The "press" may be an exception, but even here, this icon dissolves into pixel dust.)

Obama must also realize that the 14th Amendment (1868), largely concerned with the systematic disarmament of African-Americans, can be brought to bear upon any state, or locality acting in inferior partnership with a state, which seeks to (re)impose significant infringements upon the Second Amendment. While D.C. may argue that since it is not a state and the 14th does not apply, I see no reason why D.C., in its regrettable non-state status, should not be DIRECTLY subject to the Second, being, as it were, an entity of the United States. Put another way, perhaps the 14th is not needed in D.C.'s case.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has long imbued herself in anti-gun politics, and aggressively so. Her deep cultural identity with gun-controllers makes her less likely, IMO, to change her stance, lest she upset her relationship with the more hoary elements of the gun prohibitionist cause. If she makes no significant change in her position -- even as president -- the Second Amendment will once again surface as a significant issue in future presidential elections. Obama, on the other hand, has the flexibility to change or "grow" on the issue and thereby temper any reaction to gun-control efforts by Congress. Ironically, Clinton's criticism of Obama as inexperienced may in fact hurt her.

Finally, above and beyond the Second, Obama's strongest card is a superior campaign. Face it, even knowledgeable and active citizens learn very little from the campaign rhetoric of any candidate; we can only judge how a candidate will fare in office based on how his/her campaign is organized. I am struck by the speed and effectiveness of Obama in answering the increased number of attacks launched on him. Today, for example, McCain came down on Obama for supposedly not knowing that Al'qaida was operating in Iraq, and Obama -- within a few hours -- came right back, attacking McCain for not knowing that the terrorist group was NOT in Iraq before our invasion of that country. This is the kind of superior hard-hitting speed heretofore missing in Democratic candidates' campaigns. I'm afraid Hillary Clinton is part of the "don't make a move, don't make a ripple" milieu which breeds defeat and casts Democrats as unwilling to fight, unwilling to act quickly and decisively.

Having said that, Obama could be a complete failure, but we won't know that for a few years should he be elected. We are dealing with failure enough as it is. Sorry for the length of this.

[aquart]

1. So you tossed your vote on the celebratory bonfire.

Do you want applause for general gutlessness?

[jody]

2. Why characterize SteveM's vote as "general gutlessness"? Would you characterize your vote as

"generally stupid"?

[Lerkfish]

4. completely uncalled for, IMHO

I might not have the same key issues as the OP, but they have the right to vote as they please.

[Kittycat]

6. Wow. Totally out of line.

:(

[SteveM]

9. Who is Gen. Gutlessness? Someone you know? (nt)

[rocktivity]

3. Obama didn't win my state, and wasn't expected to

but because I held my head up high and voted for him anyway, I'll be able to hold my nose and vote for Hillary in November.

:headbang:
rocknation

[SteveM]

5. If It comes down to it, I can take another wave of stink in November!

[Jack_DeLeon]

7. I went the opposite way...

just because I think less people would be likely to follow through on Hillary's anti-gun agenda because she would probably face more scrutiny due to the fact that she is generally less well liked than Obama.

That being said I respect anyone's decision to vote for whomever they want as long as they've thought the issues through for themselves.

Regardless of who wins in November we are still going to have to continue to pressure all of our representatives to ensure that our right to keep and bear arms are protected.

[SteveM]

8. I agree, and I think both candidates are already feeling the heat.

[east texas lib]

10. Gen. Gutlessness.I think they were a Death-Metal Polka Band!

I might've jammed with 'em a couple of times back in my Electric Tuba days! You've
no idea how hard those damn things are to play with a Marshall attached!:hi:

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

11. We have to hope no gun-control legislation ...

reaches his oval office. Because he will sign it. I don't think he has a pro-2A bone in him. He seems to be just a product of Daley's Chicago political machine.

[spin]

12. In reality, no Presidential candidate can deliver on all

the promises they make during campaigns.

My hope is that we can see true change accomplished after the upcoming election. If we continue this constant bickering between the two parties and the politicians that comprise them, then we will remain mired in the status quo.

Unfortunately, Hillary, while very intelligent is very polarizing. Her ideas would be opposed by many people. Many politicians would sense that resisting her efforts might enhance their chances for reelection.

Obama seems to have a charisma similar to JFK. He just might be able to generate enough enthusiasm for his goals that to totally oppose him might prove to be political suicide. If he surrounds himself with competent advisers and formulates reasonable legislation, he should be able to accomplish a lot in his first term.

He has run an amazing campaign against an opponent who was supposed to be coroneted President. While Hillary claims great experience at the ability to lead from day one, her campaign shows weakness in adapting to challenge. If she manages to "rise from the ashes", and become the Democratic candidate without the use of suspicious back room deals at the Democratic convention, she will definitely impress me and gain my support.

I would like to see a reduction in violence in this country. Unreasonable gun control will fail to accomplish this. We need to address the root causes of the violence in our society and work to resolve them. In order to do this we will need a lot of people willing to work together to first define the causes and second to formulate legislation that will make a positive change.

It would be wonderful if I could merely enjoy shooting my weapons at the range and no longer feel the need to carry them for self defense. If I ever had to use a weapon to injure or kill a person who was threatening my life or the life of someone else, I fear it would ruin my enjoyment of shooting as a hobby.

Of course, if the Democrats gain the White House and the Congress and push for draconian gun laws that in the end will make honest citizens targets of criminals without the ability of self defense...then I will probably be forced to go back to the dark side again.

[jody]

13. "if the Democrats gain the White House and the Congress and push for draconian gun laws" the party

may lose the next several elections.

[spin]

14. Has happened before (nt)