I Am a Gun Owner

Wendy

See all of the “I Am A Gun Owner” portraits here.  Please send your statement photo to guntruth@me.com with the word PHOTO (all caps) in the subject bar. Let us know if you want us to use your name, a screen nic or remain anonymous.

180 Responses to I Am a Gun Owner

  1. avatarRab says:

    Being an attorney and an Obama voter proves that there is a difference between educated and smart.

    • avatarKKB says:

      ^ This.

      • avatardaveR says:

        ^not this

        Why insult someone who is a) on our side in this and b) is the kind of person Obama cannot afford to loose as a supporter?

        Is our mission to insult or to persuade?

        • avatarKKB says:

          To persuade. But if you’re dumb enough to vote for Obama twice, why wouldn’t you do it again? Fortunately, that’s not possible at the moment.

        • avatarGA EMT says:

          Someone is not “on our side” if they don’t realize that their votes have consequences. That’s like saying Feinstein is on our side because she has a CCW.

        • avatarJonathan says:

          Correct. With friends like her, who needs enemies, excuse me, I mean, adversaries? Epic fail for posting this phony, planted “I Am A Gun Owner” pic.

        • avatarNot Your Mother says:

          Um, ever heard of consequences? That vote is NOT on our side.

          What’s up with so many liberal “I am a gun owner” pictures? Are only the liberals the ones that want their faces plastered on TTAG? Or is that the editors’ way of saying “see, it’s not only conservative/libertarian types that like guns.”

    • avatarBruce says:

      OK, you guys win. I’ll start writing and calling the President, senate, etc and telling them they must pass the anti-gun bills. Maybe even say we need to take the evil guns from peoples hands. After all, the Bill of Rights says you can own them, we can just let the government hold on to them for you.

      Try to remember there are a few of the evil “Ds” in the senate that are going vote against the Feinstein bill. Should we tell them how bad they are?

      • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

        Hi Wendy! We appreciate your photo and bio, though you may soon regret your coming out party. With your pedigree, you would have been one of the Overlords in Barack and Michelle’s New Progressive Society. Now, you will be housed in the FEMA re-education camp’s general population, with the rest of us disarmed gun folk.

      • avatarHal says:

        Hey Bruce,
        don’t be butt-hurt that you voted for tyranny and now you have buyers’ remorse. While I agree that there are a small number of D’s that have a conscience/souls, they are few. The ease in which you turn your back on us just because we hurt your wittle feelings is an indication of both your conviction and your character. I am a LEO. My type get lambasted on this site almost every d*mn day. You don’t see me running away and crying. I stand up for the individual, natural rights of others every day regardless because I am grown-up and I have a thick skin. I am not so vindictive that I would turn my back on doing what is right simply because I am a part of a sub-class that is demonized.

        A note to liberals and D’s who get upset at the way they are portrayed on this site: Tough.

        If the VAST majority of D’s/liberals/progressives/Statists were not attempting to infringe on the human rights of the armed citizen, then you would be treated differently. But they are. So you won’t. Regardless of what you THINK, your votes for progressive statists are part of the problem. And as such YOU are part of the problem. You cannot be “for” the RTKABA and also be progressive. You might want to live in a world where that is possible, but I want to live in a world with magical bl*wjobs on demand and an armory full of AR-10’s in my house. We can’t always get what we want.

        Do us a favor and take a stand. Either stand up for all rights, or none at all. And before you toss me some turd of an argument about republicans being bad too, I am libertarian. We believe in and support all rights and individual liberties. You see, I understand that I can’t cherry-pick those rights I care about while simultaneously trying to take others away from people. Do you?

        • avatarJason says:

          So you’re a libertarian, but voting for Republicans is the only right thing to do? If only life were as simple and as black and white as you think it is.

        • avatarHal says:

          Frankly, as a libertarian, every vote for a non-libertarian candidate is a loss in some form. Republicans on the whole oppose abortion and other social liberties. While I personally believe the practice of abortion to be abhorrent, I support a woman’s ability to make that choice. You see, simply because I disagree doesn’t mean I go trouncing around trying to get it banned. I also personally disagree with a host of things that people say/do that I do not support banning. I really don’t support banning… well, anything.

          Also, as a libertarian I believe that the only group which is more evil than republicans are democrats. Both parties suck and both parties expand the size and scope of the government. However that expansion is greater with D’s, and more varied. Additionally, my main areas of disgust with the republican party are primarily social in nature. The disarmament of the American Citizenry is *not* a social issue. It is a matter of principle and long-term survival. Democrats are currently the primary party pushing for such disarmament and while that is not to say that republicans have never sought to limit arms (they have), democrats are ones who seek it eagerly/gladly/fervently.

          I believe that Romney was a weak candidate from a conservative perspective. However, if forced to choose between a douche and a turd sandwhich, is it better to:

          1) Choose a candidate who is center-right and work toward getting him further right?
          OR
          2) Choose a candidate who is far left and try to work him towards the center?

          Governor Romney in Massachusetts had the pressure of a radical state legislature as well as a population of supportive, gun-hating M@ssholes when he pushed for gun laws in that State. While that hardly makes him the poster boy for the RTKABA, that is a fundamentally different situation than the presidency. He would have been forced to tow the republican party line drawn by the house and he would not be considering signing off on any and all gun laws that slide across his desk.

          I have also read a lot of chatter about “well the president doesn’t want this, he’s always said he isn’t going to push for new gun laws, it wasn’t part of his platform, blah blah blah.” Anyone who thinks this way is willfully ignorant. His record in Illinois, his affiliations, his own party’s platform and his choice of appointed cabinet members is pretty clear.

          So, to wrap up what I am saying, we didn’t exactly have a lot of options. You could vote third party (god I wish I had), vote Romney or Vote Obama. A vote for Romney was an uncomfortable compromise but would have certainly been the lesser of two evils. A vote for President Obama was an outright slap in the face to the right to keep and bear arms which is, frankly, a bigger/father reaching/more important issue than any of the other social issues we like to argue about (the debt aside). If you like your guns but voted for him then congratulations; you voted for citizen disarmament. You sold all of us (and possible future generations, great job sport) up the river for a bunch of lies and feel-good promises. I am genuinely glad that some folks who voted (Twice.) for the big guy are now pushing back on his “new (sarcasm)” stance on gun control. I really am. But please, forgive us if we’re frustrated that your little feel-good votes now have us one f*cking week into a brave new *four-year* world and we are ALL- F*CKING-READY ON THE DEFENSIVE REGARDING THE NATURAL, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Perhaps you could understand why those of us who aren’t so naïve and shortsighted to see the obvious might be a little frustrated with your namby pamby “oh, I can be a liberal and still be pro-gun” bu11shit. Trust me, I wish it could be that way. I wish there was a non-third party candidate who felt that everyone’s rights were special, not just their selected favorites. But it doesn’t work that way, so sometimes in life you have to roll the hard six and make tough choices. Which is to say, ignoring the flowery things that make us feel good so we can watch out for our collective survival and that of our republic. In that regard, Jason, you and your ilk have failed us all. And you’ve failed our children, and our grandchildren. When I do something wrong I am able to accept responsibility. What does it say about the character of all of the “buyers’remorse” liberals on this site that are angry with others who are pissed at them about this? You guys are truly angry at US?! Really?! Maybe you should take responsibility for your votes and while you’re at it apologize to each and every gun owner instead of being whiney and defensive. The nerve… hypocritical crap but considering the general qualities and characters of statists I don’t know why I am shocked. But I am. The nerve…

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          Best post of 2013 Hal. Ralph has a challenger to his string of titles.

        • avatarJason says:

          Hal, despite your assumptions about myself or anyone else here and my or their character, you’ve missed the entire point.

          “Romney was an uncomfortable compromise but would have certainly been the lesser of two evils” according to you.

          However, the rest of the world may have a different opinion. This is not black and white. There isn’t a “right” answer and a “wrong” answer. To imply that there is and then to insult others for not agreeing with you is ignorant and only hurts your cause. Sure, you may have your list of topics that you vote on, and good for you. However, my priorities are likely different from yours. Wendy’s are clearly different from yours. We can all agree on one topic (2A), but who are you to declare that anyone whose priorities differ from yours should apologize?

        • avatarHal says:

          Jason,
          I didn’t miss a f*cking thing. I understand exactly what you’re trying to say. Indeed, it is you who are not grasping what *I* am trying to say.

          I can “declare” anything I please. My LMT MWS is superior to my SCAR 17. See how that works? Let me declare something else: Any person who votes for a politician who upholds certain pet-project civil liberties with one hand while simultaneously smashing human/constitutional rights with the other can, by DEFINITION, fall into only one of two categories:

          1) The painfully ignorant and uninformed. This person spends absolutely zero time or effort figuring out who they are voting for, or why. Or, at best, they get duped into believing the candidate they’re voting for doesn’t stand for what they think he/she stands for. That is a tough claim in this particular situation because even a cursory scratch at the surface reveals the current CIC to be DEEPLY opposed to the concept of an armed citizenry.

          2) Those who *knew* that the politician in question would support citizen disarmament and voted for him anyway. Pro-gun… anti-gun… who cares? It’s a distinction without a difference in this case. Those falling into this category are irresponsible, short-sighted, historically ignorant, naïve, delusional, corrupt, foolish, vapid, selfish, arrogant or some combination thereof.

          So whether a particular person falls into category one or category two, they voted to disarm the citizenry which was a lousy choice that will have second and third order consequences. Deal with it. More importantly, do something about it the next time you’re in a ballot box. Stop being a bunch of whiney babies when the rest of us are upset with you. We’re upset because your AWFUL decisions have consequences that affect us. How can you not see that? Anyone who actually gives a d*mn about the RTKABA who voted for that man should be sheepishly reading the comments here and VOWING to never let this happen again on their watch. Instead of doing that, Jason, you and some others like you are defensive. Again. Still. You either fall into one of the aforementioned categories or you’re an apologist. As such, I stand by each and every comment I have made thus far. Your words speak for themselves. See how black and white that is?

          Your issue is one of priorities. Allow me to explain:

          Civil liberties are important. I fight for them every day. However, there is a difference between a civil liberty and a right. A lot of folks toss around terms such as rights, liberties and entitlements as if they are the same thing but they are functionally very different. That is a discussion for another time. However I am confident that most libertarians would agree that civil liberties should remain untouched by government except in the most extreme of circumstances. In this regard, I am happy that the CIC supports the expansion of certain, select civil liberties even if it is only for his own political gain or that of his party. What I don’t support, what I could *never* in good conscience support, is his attack on a right. In this case it is the RTKABA. It won’t be the last.

          A right is different. There is a line in the sand between rights and liberties. It might be a fine one, but they are not the same. Liberties are fluid and can be debated, even if those like myself believe it is wrong to meddle in the affairs of others. A right is not open for debate. A right takes precedence. A right is more important to the past, present and future of our society. Rights are unchanging. Rights are the philosophical fabric of a society. Rights are fundamental and self-evident. 1000 civil liberties are not worth the cost of a single right. It is the citizen’s duty put aside selfish things when rights are at stake, even if certain civil liberties and a veritable treasure chest of entitlements are dangled before them. It’s a hard decision at times but adults are oftentimes called upon to make tough choices.

          There IS a right and a wrong answer. This IS black and white. If you voted for an anti-RTKABA politician then you SHOULD apologize. Finally, Jason, if you think that your “priorities” are more important than our civil rights, then I “declare” that your process of prioritization would be greatly enhanced by cracking a f*cking history book open from time to time.

  2. avatarGA EMT says:

    Not proud enough to vote to keep your beloved firearms…

  3. avatarschizuki says:

    My jaw is on the ground.

    • avatarMr Pierogie says:

      I know. It’s great that she’s a gun owner, but she should understand that she voted for more government and less freedom. Her card might as well say “I voted for Dianne Feinstein.” Come on people, so what if you’re gun owners if you’re going to vote for people who want to disarm us?

      • avatarpro-choice, pro-gun says:

        “she should understand that she voted for more government and less freedom. “

        Maybe she voted for less government and more freedom….regarding her body.

        It is entirely possible to be pro-gun, but not have that be your #1 issue. I’d say that a lot of the conservatives on this site who happen to be hunters are pro-conservation, but that doesn’t make them tree huggers. Most of them have placed conservation a little lower on their hierarchy of political concerns.

        Short take home: I believe that she’s fully pro-2A, but some other issue is even more important to her….she voted her most important issue.

        • avatarHal says:

          Well then I sure am glad she put her freedom (it is not a right) to choose over the RTKABA and before her responsibility to safeguard the natural
          rights of the entire citizenry.

          Boy, I am so glad you cleared that up for me.

  4. avatarjwm says:

    Welcome, anyway. To atone for voting for barry maybe you can do some volunteer work with a pro gun group.

  5. avatarJWD says:

    Instead of insulting her for exercising her constitutional right to vote, how about we just welcome a fellow gun owner? Just sayin…

    Signed,

    a gay veteran gun owner

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Yep.

    • avatarJohn in AK says:

      I would not insult her for exercising her constitutional right to vote; I would insult her instead for her ignorance of just what the ramifications of her votes were.
      She may have voted for that man (We Do Not Speak His Name) because of his support for Liberal/Progressive causes; She surely couldn’t have understood the danger that that man poses to individual liberty, or perhaps simply didn’t care.
      Due to her employment and voting habits, we can clearly determine what she IS; What remains is to determine, ‘How much?’

      • avatarChris Mallory says:

        Unless you voted 3rd party every candidate for the past 30 years has been dangerous to individual liberty.

        • avatarJohn in AK says:

          True, but danger comes in varying degrees of severity.

          Unfortunately, the 3rd-Party candidates of my last 30 years (make that, the last 60) have been universally, and unequivocally, ‘loons.’ ‘Loons’ of varying degrees of severity, mind, but still ‘loons.’

        • avatarEsh325 says:

          I voted 3rd party this election, and I don’t necessarily agree with that statement.

    • avatarJonathan says:

      You want to know? Because she’s the sort who Lenin used to refer to as a “useful idiot”. First of all, I don’t believe for one second she’s legit, but even if she is, she’s just another go-along, get-along type who think this is all just so much inconsequential chit chat that doesn’t affect her. Reasonable men will differ, but only when and where there is even room to differ; areas whose nature and potential outcomes are hazy, unfamiliar and unpredictable. None of that applies to the gun issues of the day. The facts are all laid out for all who care to see and they support singular conclusions in the overwhelming majority of instances. So, no, I won’t give her credit being an alleged gun owner when her actions betray the entire 2nd amendment.

    • avatarRKflorida says:

      Hey! She brought the subject up. Don’t you get it? She identifies herself with Obama votes. How many of us identify ourselves with our past votes? Like this? “I’m a gun owner and I voted for Gerald Ford.” She is trying to stick this Obama idiot in our eye and should not be surprised when she is called out on it. The guy is a gun grabber and the king of the gun grabbers. He is an enemy of the bill of rights and someone is actually proud they voted for him? As a gun owner? Some of you tolerate your worst enemies in your camp and are then surprised when they turn on you and stab you in the back.

    • avatarRKflorida says:

      It has nothing to do with her right to vote. It has everything to do with her making the Obama vote a centerpiece of her life.

      Straight veteran gun owner

    • avatarGerard says:

      Yep. Oh wait, this is the internet. Eating your own and creating your own divisions is more important.

      • avatarHal says:

        She is not one of us.

        • avatarJason says:

          The fact that you’re creating a “them vs. us” is part of the problem in the first place. You’re turning people that might be on the fence into enemies.

        • avatarHal says:

          This is an issue of priorities. I’ll also refer you to my previous response to your other “comment.”

          If she wants to be “one of us,” with “us” being people who CARE for and SAFEGUARD the RTKABA, her sheet should have read something like this:

          “I am a mother

          I am an attorney

          I am a gun owner.

          I Voted for President Obama. Twice. I sincerely regret those decisions.

          I fully acknowledge that I traded feel-good platitudes for my civil liberties.

          For that, I apologize to the armed citizenry 1000 times over.

          I will rededicate my efforts to stopping current and future pushes for citizen disarmament.

          I will also vote accordingly.”

          All I hear these days is “waaaaaaaa, I’m a wiberal and I voted for the President but I like guns tooooooooo. Waaaaaaaa! Stop being so mean! Waaaaaa! I wefuse to accept wesponsibility for my poor choices!”

          When I start to hear “I voted for him and I sincerely apologize to all Americans. I should have considered the second and third order consequences of my vote more carefully, and I resolve to do so in the future.”

          Yet somehow, I never hear that. I just hear a bunch of whiney babies that don’t like being blamed for something that is their fault. Those types of comments sound like the words of *children* who still haven’t learned what it is to be responsible. Until I start to see that change, forgive me if I don’t consider inviting those “on the fence” folks over for drinks. Respect is earned. It is not an entitlement.

          For the record, any person who voted for an anti-gun politician this last election is A-okay in my book, provided that they can actually face what they did and resolve to change it. A single vote is not a indication of one’s character and people are always capable of learning from their mistakes and changing. If you’re not capable of that, however, then STFU.

    • avatarToo close to Chicago says:

      @JWD – right on!

  6. avatardaveR says:

    Before we all pile on to ridicule the person in the picture for voting for Obama consider this:

    The lady pictured is saying that even though she supported Obama, she does NOT support his actions in the matter of gun control. If she speaks for even a fraction of other Obama supporters, that’s actually one of the strongest messages we can send right now.

    • avatarJohn in AK says:

      I don’t see that here, not in the least. I DO see someone who owns firearms, but is willing to vote TWICE for a man that is willing, in the end, to see her firearms confiscated and melted down, ‘if it can save just one life.’ That is the end game, O-Voters; He may not succeed in the short term, but that is the goal. A hungry tiger is not to be trusted.
      It does not stop at EBRs; It will continue down the line to include the hunting rifles, the revolvers, the shotguns, and, eventually, to the muskets.

      • avatardaveR says:

        If gun control had been a major part of either of Obama’s campaign platforms then I’d agree that voting for him would be a de facto vote for gun control. But it wasn’t. So it’s hard to say that a vote for Obama was a vote for additional gun control–only people the hard-core 2A community were saying that…pretty much because that’s the only issue that they seem to think about…

        • avatarChris says:

          If you didn’t know Obama was anti-gun through his past words and the people he surrounded himself with like Eric Holder and Rham Emanuel you are ignorant. Doesn’t make you evil or stupid, you are just ignorant for not vetting this man more.

        • avatarJohn in AK says:

          How soon we forget . . EVERYONE knew that a vote for We Do Not Speak His Name, and his political party, was a vote for increased government interference in the lives of citizens. Surely, it is delusional to now claim that ‘gun control’ was not something that would come up at the first opportunity.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Respectfully, John, I feel the exact same way about the GOP after 8 years of watching GWB run roughshod over my civil liberties.

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          Of course, Obama went on to double down on everything GWB did, vigorously defending every action Bush took in court, and greatly expanding those civil libery shredding programs, to the point where he has made GWB look like a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

          Not that Romney would have been better on that front, but Obama’s been miles and miles worse than Bush on civil liberties.

        • avatarHal says:

          Lalala, if it wasn’t on hopeandchange.gov then he doesn’t stand for it. Lalala, forget his record in Illinois, or his affiliations, or his party. Lalala, or his support of this new push for citizen disarmament. Lalala, my fantasy world is filled with unicorns and skittles. Lalala, I like to bury my head in the sand.

    • avatarAzman says:

      Her statement is one sentence and non-specific. Drawing suppositions in any direction is foolish.

      • avatarJohn in AK says:

        I disagree–it is very specific. She is PROUD that she voted for We Do Not Speak His Name, TWICE. That tells me all that I need to know about her mindset.

        • avatarAzman says:

          Again you put your ideas in her mouth. The only mention of being proud there is about guns, and again I caution against drawing conclusions so direct from a half dozen sentences.

  7. avatardom says:

    I would be ashamed to say I voted for Obama once. Two times is a humiliation. Why not wear a sign that says “I am too stupid to think for myself”?

    I hope as a two-time loser at the voting booth she has turned in her firearm to Biden.

  8. avatarJWD says:

    ridicule, insults, and name-calling. It seems TTAG has deteriorated from being about guns to being about vitriol for fellow citizens. That’s a shame.

    • avatarAzman says:

      Surprisingly, I agree with you. This isn’t cool guys. It insults others who might otherwise have been willing to listen to you at some point. You do not help your own cause, or ours, with stuff like this.

      • avatarJWD says:

        +1 Thanks! :-)

        • avatarAzman says:

          We find it increasingly easy to demonize people who do not adhere to the admittedly narrow definition of what we consider gun rights, and here we are doing so over a poster of no more than a dozen sentences. And we consider those who favor gun control to be foolish and prone to knee-jerk reactions? Don’t flipping fight each other, guys. If she truly is against guns, then why would she state *proud* gun owner?

        • avatarHal says:

          Because unlike the rest of us that level of hypocrisy does not make her head explode?

    • avatarJonathan says:

      It’s still about the guns. What TTAG needs to start being more about it noncompromise with statist, anti-individualist, gun grabbers. You either believe in the Individual, or you don’t. Quibbling over mag capacities, rail accessories, and purchase frequencies all misses the point. My right is my God given right, and any discussion of whether and how best to limit my peaceful exercise of my God given right is philosophically intolerable, not wholesomely amenable.

    • avatarEl Chupacabra says:

      Whaaaaa…

    • avatarTaurus609 says:

      And if someone who has voted for Obama twice, is now willing to stand against him and the DiFis of the democratic party, than that holds more water than the folks who didn’t vote for Obama in the first place and never will! When they (the democrats) start seeing everyday folks (not just OFWGs) speaking their opposition to their anti-gun agenda, that will wake them up.

      It seems the republican party is starting to “get it” that they need to broaden their base, but you idiots can’t see how we need to broaden ours even more!

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        100% agree, and not just because you perfectly described my own situation. Dissent from your own base means a lot more to politicians than the knee-jerk “no” they get from the opposition’s base.

        • avatarHal says:

          You’ll earn the respect of other Gun Owners when that opposition actually translates into a vote. Until you’re ready to let the rubber meet the road, it’s all talk.

      • avatarJonathan says:

        Sounds great in theory, but it doesn’t really work like that. How many times in the 2012 campaign did we hear of the disaffected youth vote, disillusioned by the harsh economic realities the Anointed One was supposed to vanquish with the swipe of the national credit card? These people were supposed to vote GOP this time or at least stay home. As per usual, they lined up for Obama.

        Same with minorities. Blacks poll heavily against gay marriage and in favor of school vouchers, not to mention having the highest rates of unemployment. Important issues all. Yet, when it’s time to vote, 99% broke for Obama in exchange for Obama phones and lax welfare requirements. Most of the other 1% I bet just couldn’t figure out how to use the machine properly. Hispanics, the “hard working” minorities, were bought out with amnesty for illegals.

        Women? It’s the democrats waging a war on women; first by disarming them, then by raising their taxes. They were supposed to wise up and turn out for the GOP. Nope. Toss ‘em a packet of b.c. pills and they revert to democrat backers as quickly as Uncle Sam morphed into Sugar Daddy. What about everyone else on Obamacare? Overwhelming majority was against it, and particularly the kickbacks to get it passed. Yet, that outrage failed to materialize on election day.

        Face it, what passes for “dissent” these days is just idle chit chat and go-nowhere gripe sessions. When push comes to shove, or rather comes to pulling of the lever, the vast parasitic hordes of Taker Nation will vote democrat and keep the gravy train chugging along at full steam. We’ve already crossed the Rubicon.

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          If this comment is typical of how the Republicans view these demographics, then we’re screwed, because soon there won’t be any left in government to oppose gun control.

        • avatarChristoff says:

          A political party formed around the idea of putting the dang kids, the blacks, the Mexicans and the broads in their place would surely attract a strong majority of voters determined to take America back. We could call it the Get Off My Lawn Party.

        • avatarإبليس says:

          The electorate is for sale. What else is new?

    • avatarGerard says:

      Correct.

  9. avatarmongo says:

    hows hope and change working out for that woman who voted for obama…TWICE?

  10. avatarBobby says:

    Good for you Ms. Wendy. It took guts to post up! This woman is a fellow gun owner and shouldn’t be insulted. Sheesh.

    • avatardaveR says:

      You’re right.

      But some of the more vocal folks here think that a vote for Obama was somehow an automatic vote for new gun legislation…never mind the fact that all this has come to pass only because of an unusually dense patch of random shootings. I doubt Obama would have pursued the gun issue without the recent wave of public pressure. And I doubt that Romeny would have handled it much differently.

      • avatarAzman says:

        The extent to which Obama has actually done ANYTHING in his ability to limit gun rights as a president has been XOs, and those are quite limited compared to what certain senators propose. Do not equate voting for Obama to agreeing with Dianne Feinstein. Please. They are not the same person.

        • avatarJohn in AK says:

          You are correct to a certain extent. One is male and black, and the other is female and white. Other than that, however, I am unable to discern any other salient differences in them pertaining to the subject at hand.

      • avatarAzman says:

        Definitely right on Romney, if not more so.

        • avatarromcom says:

          I didn’t vote for Rom or Obam. Romney is weak on guns – his heart is definitely not in it. If he had won the election, I’m positive after inauguration that pandering doofus would have done the same thing he did in MA and would “think of the kids.”

      • avatarGerard says:

        Agreed.

      • avatarHal says:

        His record in Illinois was pretty clear, as are his affiliations and his cabinet choices.

        “some of the more vocal folks here CORRECTLY think that a vote for Obama was an automatic vote for new gun legislation… GLEEFULLY FOR THE PRESIDENT, all this has BEEN POSSIBLE DUE TO an unusually dense patch of random shootings. I doubt Obama would have pursued the gun issue without the recent wave of public pressure, BUT ONCE HE HAD A SCORE OF DEAD KIDS TO PARADE AROUND HE HAPPILY DANCED IN THEIR BLOOD IN ORDER TO PUSH THE IDEOLOGICAL AGENDA HE HAS ALWAYS DREAMED OF.”

        There. I fixed it for you.

      • avatarotalps says:

        Why would anyone possibly think voting for him was an anti gun vote? It’s not like he called for an AWB in the second debate or that it was a written goal in the official democratic party platform.

  11. avatarMilsurp Collector says:

    Round one I understand completely, but I will never understand how anyone could vote for an initial promoter of “transparency in government” who then signed the NDAA for round two. Forgive me for not grasping that logic. Let’s hope this woman and others like her are truly on our side and actively trying to persuade their anti friends to “see the light”.

  12. avatarChristoff says:

    Why don’t some of you jackasses who attack anyone who thinks differently from you, or better yet seek apologies from them, send in your your own little pictures instead of bashing those with the guts to do so? Of course if you did, unlike this lady, you’d be hindering rather than helping the cause of the 2nd amendment.

    Unless that whole “don’t mess with me because I’m crazy!” thing actually works. I don’t think it does.

  13. avatarToo close to Chicago says:

    Let’s unite, not divide. We all have different beliefs and points of view. It does no good to rail on someone that is a proud gunowner and brave enough to put her herself out there. She is on our side.

  14. avatarPete says:

    Why don’t sharks eat lawyers? Professional courtesy.

  15. avatarChris Mallory says:

    I wonder how many people attacking this woman for her vote instead cast one for this guy:
    “During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney had been a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban, and had also said he believed “in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms.”[128] On July 1, 2004, Romney signed a permanent state ban on assault weapons, saying at the signing ceremony for the new law, “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”[129] The law extended a temporary measure that had been in effect since 1998 and covered weapons such as the AK-47, Uzi, and MAC-10.[129] The same law also modified some other aspects of general firearms licensing regulations.[129]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Gun_control

    I seem to remember a wise man who once said something about casting the first stone. So either we have a whole lot of 3rd party voters here or a load of hypocrites.

  16. avatarDentalPrepper says:

    Good job Wendy! This post is a perfect example of why the “I am a Gun Owner” campaign is effective. Owning a gun can be a a rational decision for all Americans and anyone who goes after our RTKB will be very surprised with who they piss off.

  17. avatarChristoff says:

    It’s true what you say. I feel bad about it, but I do think those who excoriate 2nd amendment supporters who do not agree with them on a whole range of other issues are…. that term I used. And while I am not labeling anyone here “dumb,” I think anyone who would argue President Mitt Romney would be leading a fight right to safeguard ARs and 30 round mags does fit that definition. There would be slightly different rhetoric — less inflammatory to you, more inflammatory to others — and in the end the outcome would be identical.

  18. avatarcolby says:

    Not everyone pro-2a person is a one issue voter. For some, their one issue may be more along the lines of a woman’s reproductive rights or whoever’s right to marry whoever. Some of the things which came out from the Republic side during this past election cycle could easily push people towards Obama if their top priory is women or LGBT freedoms.

    The election is done already. You all tell me what is most the productive way to move forward.

    • avatarScott Henrichs says:

      Something the GOP still refuses to acknowledge. They still think they lost because they weren’t “far right” enough.

  19. avatarEATENG says:

    Some of the reactions here are why we are slowly losing the gun control fight.

    • avatarAzman says:

      Guns are not a political issue. They are based on freedom and are a nonpartisan and civil rights based issue.

      • avatarJohn in AK says:

        How wrong you are! Guns ARE a HOT political issue. It is extremely easy to see which side of the political spectrum is ready and willing to abrogate freedoms and civil rights for all of us, and not just on the subject of firearms, if it suits their ideology.

        • avatarChris Mallory says:

          The War on (some) Drugs. The Patriot Act. The creation of the TSA and DHS. Warrantless wiretapping. All republican creations.

          Both major parties are on the same side of the political spectrum, that of the tyrant and despot.

  20. avatarJericho941 says:

    The strongest thing Obama said in favor of gun control, the thing so many people harp on, was “seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.” That’s extremely wishy-washy, and you know what?

    George W. Bush: “I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban and was told the bill was never going to move.”

    And we all know Romney actually signed an AWB into law in Massachusetts.

    We have not had a particularly gun-friendly President in a long time. I am awfully tired of this nonsensical, Republican notion that an Obama voter who values gun rights must be a traitor to the idea of RKBA, or some kind of liberal plant.

    A liberal plant? Really? REALLY?! What benefit would the liberals you so despise gain from pretending to be “proud gun owner(s)”? Take off the tinfoil hat and get out of the house for a bit.

  21. avatarChris says:

    I’m curios to see why Wendy voted for Obama this second time. What is he doing so well that caused you to vote a 2nd time for him? Has your opinion changed? Would you still vote for him again if you had the choice? What do you think about Eric Holder’s operations arming Mexican drug cartels in order to manufacture a crisis on the border that was thankfully exposed? What about his former chief of staff urging banks to cancel credit lines of businesses that work with firearms?

    Please Wendy, give us some more information.

    • avatarAzman says:

      Yes, I second this. Understanding is key to discussion and debate.

    • avatarChristoff says:

      Chris (and anyone else who can answer,) just to be clear, are you this blog’s political commissar? Is a specific party orientation required to support the 2nd Amendment here, and a slate of issues we must hold correct opinions on? Just wondering.

      • avatarChris says:

        Nope, just weird you would flaunt you voted for Obama twice while being a proud gun owner. What other issues would you put above gun rights?

        • avatarChristoff says:

          Honestly, it’s only weird if you are a single issue person, and see everything through the lens of that single issue. If you are, more power to ya. But don’t expect everyone to be.

          Secondly, I’m just blown away by the contention I see here that the Republican party is somehow the party of liberty and freedom. They are marginally friendlier on THIS issue but they want to control other things they shouldn’t be messing with as surely as the Dems want to control guns.

        • avatarJoey says:

          Christoff, the only people that mention the republican party are the liberals trying to make some sort of point. I would say there are more Libertarians here than Rep or Dem

  22. avatarBdk NH says:

    Wendy:
    Define “gun owner”. Until then I don’t trust you as far as I could throw you.

  23. avatarJoey says:

    I don’t know if I trust someone who is for individual liberties only when it might affect them personally ie. she’s a gun owner, so when her right to own guns is threatened she speaks up, but she had no problem with any other policy from the Obama admin (she didn’t say this, but a 2nd vote says it all). I won’t name call but I also won’t apologize for being skeptical of 2x Obama voters. So, once her gun rights are protected, what’s stopping her from voting for another liberal Obama next time? I’d like to hear more from these people and any change in philosophy or political views. Are they going to vote for freedom from now on? Are they changed? Or, are they only worried about freedoms that THEY exercise regularly?

    • avatarChris Mallory says:

      We haven’t had a major party candidate for president in my lifetime (43 years) that has been friendly to individual liberties.

      • avatarJoey says:

        I’m pretty new to the political world. Still in my 20′s, married with 2 kids. My seriousness came when I swore an oath to support and defend the constitution. It has taken me a few years to become a Libertarian, and I believe that it is the only answer to our country’s stupidity. Social liberals and social conservatives can come together with the idea of freedom. You do what you want to do, I do what I want to do, neither of us interferes with the other’s business, and most importantly, the government doesn’t either.
        I don’t know how we change from the two party system though

        • avatarJohn in AK says:

          No, they can’t. True Liberals and true Conservatives will never come together with the idea of ‘freedom,’ because ‘freedom’ is subjective. One person’s ‘freedom’ is another’s ‘tyranny.’ As well, the world is chock-full of self-righteous Pecksniffs ready and willing to ‘help’ you live your life by their standards, or kill you while trying.

          You may be confusing ‘liberal’ with ‘libertarian.’ Substitute ‘Libertarian’ in your sentence, and there is hope. Otherwise, there is none.

        • avatarChris Mallory says:

          The only option now is for the break up of the current empire. Let 50 new nations bloom where now THE United States holds power. At our founding we were known as THESE United States, but the tyrant Lincoln changed that and we suffer from the effects of his lawless rule to this day.

        • avatarJoey says:

          Not sure what you were trying to get at with your post, but freedom in the United States is defined in the Constitution. I don’t know what “true liberals” or “true conservatives” are, but I’m pretty sure I said “social liberals and social conservatives. I don’t care what you want to call yourself as long as you agree with the Constitution and it’s limitations on the Federal government.

  24. avatarTaurus609 says:

    Reagan (R) as governor abolished CC in CA over the Black Panthers
    Reagan (R) as president abolished carrying of firearms in National Parks
    Reagan (R) as a former president backed the Brady Bill
    Bush (R41) created the first AWB
    Bush (R43) let the 1994AWB expire, did nothing to abolish the law early when he had control of all three branches of government

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Footnote: Obama restored carry in national parks, and by my understanding, did have the opportunity to send down word that it was a deal-breaker while the bill was in House/Senate reconciliation. He didn’t object to the provision because it got him other concessions he valued, and signed the resulting act into law.

  25. avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    The polite term here is “low information voter”.

  26. avatararaomd says:

    Really people? While we should tolerate NO infringement on our second amendment rights, for many people that is not the only issue.

    Because the republicans did much to curtail Constitutional rights also:
    E.g., the Patriot Act,
    no right to trial for US citizens unilaterally deemed enemies,
    Foreign Intelligence surveillance act
    etc.

    • avatarJoey says:

      I haven’t read too many people defending the republicans on this page or this site. I’m guessing a large amount of us are Libertarians. I welcome social liberals who love freedom.

  27. avatarJames1000 says:

    While I disagree with her support of Obama, I won’t reduce myself to third grade drivel and insults. We are adults who can agree to disagree.

  28. avatarRalph says:

    Twice? You voted for that arrogant jackass twice? Good god woman, what the hell were you thinking?

    • avatarSCS says:

      Damn it, Ralph. I swear it is like you are inside of my head reading my thoughts most of the time.

      While I don’t agree with her choice, I defend the right that it is her choice.

    • avatarTaurus609 says:

      Twice? You voted for that dumba$$ Bush(43) twice? Good God man, what were you thinking?

  29. avatarBruce says:

    After reading all of this, I’m not sure I want to be associated with most of you. And I’m sure you don’t want to be associated with me.

    I’m glad Wendy reads The Truth About Guns, but she may have just stopped. I would think we would want to get everyone we can reading TTAG to learn the real truth. I thought the first AWB was a good idea, but then I was not effected by it, and didn’t really think about it. I now understand how dumb it was.

    The more people we can get truthful information to, the more that will be on our side no matter who they voted for.

    • avatarJoey says:

      Are you only interested in the 2nd Amendment? I won’t apologize for offending you because you seem more susceptible to offense than most, but the right and freedom to bear arms isn’t just about owning a gun; it’s about being free. I don’t buy into the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” garbage because once your right to bear arms is secured, you’ll just bail because that’s all you care about. This isn’t just about people learning to accept guns, it’s about people learning about their freedoms, and the responsibility that comes with them.
      While I don’t agree with name calling, I don’t think it’s a crime against humanity to question people who voted for obama twice.

      • avatarJohn says:

        It’s not a crime against humanity, it’s a vital necessity to question the motives of such people.

        Regarding your earlier post, you used the phrases ‘social liberal’ and ‘social conservative;’ I question the twain ever meeting on common ground, as the ‘social liberal’ thinks that our society is a failed structure in need of drastic revision, whereas the ‘social conservative’ thinks that our society is a successful structure occasionally in need of minor adjustments. There is a substantial difference between the liberal and the conservative, but far less between libertarian and conservative.
        Me, I’m a socially-conservative Libertarian.

        • avatarJoey says:

          There is hope and it’s through education. If a social liberal wants gay marriage, there are two ways to get it. Either through bigger government or through limited government. You take government completely out of marriage, it becomes a private institution with no government incentives. A church can marry whoever they do (or do not) want to marry. It becomes a contract between the persons (and between God if done that way). Freedom is the answer. I don’t believe in forcing people to live a moral life (I’m Christian, actually some would argue I’m not since I’m Mormon), but in the end, it is up to the individual to decide how they live. The 2nd amendment is a good start at uniting social liberals and conservatives, since anyone who values their gun can at least understand the Bill of Rights. So yes, I believe there is hope, yes to limited government!

    • avatarJosh says:

      This.

  30. avatarNazgul says:

    It’s not good form to alienate liberal gun owners that believe in the 2nd Amendment on the Internet. That’s no better than a news outlet publishing the names and addresses of gun owners on the internet in an effort to vilify them.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      35% of US gun owners vote reliably for liberal candidates. We don’t have such overwhelming superiority of numbers or influence that it will ever be a good idea to reject over 1/3 of our potential allies in this fight.

  31. avatarCarl says:

    Wendy has the grit to tell the truth.

    Congrats to her.

  32. avatarMerits says:

    By their fruit you will know them. I don’t understand voting for someone who attacks what you support, unless other things are simply more important to you.

  33. avatarJohn Boch says:

    She voted for Obama.

    I voted for Clinton.

    The first time.

    I was young, naive and immature.

    Then I became engaged.

    Maybe the same will happen for this woman.

    In either event, welcome.

  34. avatarsparrowhill says:

    I voted for Obama twice too. I’m socially liberal and resent the religious extremists’ hijacking of the republican party. I’m also a certified firearms instructor who donates much time and money to promote 2A causes and have been doing so for nearly a decade. It’s nice to know that many on this forum consider me and instant enemy because of my voting record, against all evidence and reason. Our “community” needs to take a look inward. Shameful.

    • avatarJoey says:

      So you had no other option? You voted against the Repubs, not for the Dems? What do you have against the Libertarian party?

  35. avatarBiofire says:

    For all the insulting posts above, I think I’m done with this website.

  36. avatarToo close to Chicago says:

    Why did I vote for Obama (twice!)? I did because republicans are on the wrong side of so many of the social equality issues that are important to me. I want my gay family members and friends to be able to marry. I want my friends and family members to be able to control their own body and have an abortion if they are faced with that horrible decision. I want everyone to be able vote without worry about fraud and obstruction. I want women to be paid the same as men for the same work. I want “everyone is created equal” to be actualized, not just spoken.

    In so many ways I am the antithesis of a gun owner. I am a Jew, I am a moderate democrat, I am pro-choice, I am for anyone getting married because it is none of my damn business. I am a teacher. I am a union member. And yes I am a gun owner. I am politically active, I called my representatives when they were pushing unconstitutional gun laws in this state of mine. I belong to the NRA. I belong to ISRA. I love to shoot. I love to own guns. I feel it my g-d given right to do so. I want to be able to protect my family from the next Hitler comes a knocking.

    Yes, I am very concerned about my Second Amendment rights being infringed upon, very concerned. They will not take my guns from me. I will not register them, ever. I will buy more to gift to my children as soon as funds are available.

    If the republican party would stop infringing on so many other personal liberties, I would be more likely to vote for members of the party. But the likelihood of republicans doing that seems so out of the realm of possibility. It is hypocritical to scream bloody murder when the the second amendment is under attack, but be quiet (or actively promote) when other inalienable rights are denied.

    This is who I am, take it or leave it. I could care less.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Well said.

    • avatarBenny says:

      There are many like you.

    • avatarBiofire says:

      Well said.

    • avatarcolby says:

      I agree

    • avatarg2 says:

      Thank you…. this discussion was making me sad.

      My 2A rights are very important to me. So are a constellation of other issues…

    • avatarJoey says:

      Why do you only see the option as voting for the Republicans or against the Republicans? Libertarianism welcomes all Constitution loving people. There wouldn’t be this fight over gay marriage if the government wasn’t involved in saying who gets to marry. The government has overstepped its Constitutional powers way too many times. It’s happened on both sides, but you can’t hide the fact that only one party is calling for our guns, so the anger at any Obama or Feinstein supporter is understandable. The Libertarian party can unite social liberals with social conservatives, we can all agree to leave each other alone.

      • avatarToo close to Chicago says:

        @Joey, point taken I will take a closer look at the Libertarian party. It is plain as day that the Dems want our guns and the republicans don’t, but Wendy does not need to be vilified because of it.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        When the Libertarian party can field candidates who aren’t obvious fringe types, I’ll be willing to believe.

        Here in CA, I’ve seen the L party nominate an abolish-all-taxes extremist and (I shit you not) a woman whose primary qualification for office was working as coordinator of the Ferret Legalization Campaign. Really?

        This is why I call myself a small-L libertarian: because the public face of the LP is tax-dodging wackos, ferret activist, and other fringe types. If Heinlein were alive and running for office, I’d go LP in a heartbeat.

        Right now the Libertarians are the only legit party worse at candidate recruitment than the GOP, and that’s saying something.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          I personally liked Gary Johnson as a candidate and believe in abolishing the IRS and income tax ;)

          I say keep up the fringe candidates because a “normal” candidate will only cater to business as usual in DC.

          Btw, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” is one of my most favorite books.

      • avatarVorpalis says:

        Re: Too Close To Chicago, thank you for saying everything I feel about this. There’s more to my vote than one issue, because there’s more to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than one issue.

        Re: Joey, I actually agree with about 75% of the Libertarian principles, and I briefly considered switching teams, but then I heard that other 25%. It’s not that I disagree with that 25%, per se, it’s that it’s so ridiculously crazy that Libertarians might as well be the schizophrenic homeless lady with no pants howling like a wolf at passers-by, and I just want the necessary walk past them to be over already.
        The Truth About Libertarians is that the only way they have a chance is if they sway Ds and Rs, and that’s only going to happen if they suck-up their pride, compromise on the crazy, and moderate their wolf-howling to the point that Ds and Rs don’t feel awkward about it. Not going to happen? Well, then neither is the White House.

    • avatarJohn says:

      An excellent summation, Sir.

  37. avatarEsh325 says:

    I voted, but not for Obama. I don’t know what her reason was to vote for Obama, and I’m not going to ridicule for it. As much as I love firearms, there are more important things thing to me than firearms that influence my decision at the voting booth. Many people feel that way.

  38. avatarBeninMA says:

    Criticizing Wendy for voting for Obama makes about as much sense as criticizing a Constitutionalist-Republican for voting for Bush. At a certain point, everyone is a hypocrite unless they vote for themselves.

  39. avatarBenny says:

    I voted for obama this past election because in my opinion, he had a better idea of what he wanted to do. Romney looked like a deer in headlights during every debate and didn’t even have much of a plan of action if he won! You all forget that Obama didnt propose the ban, nor would he have any real chance with gun control had these shootings not occurred. Stop being so belligerent to someone who obviously wants to help our cause. I voted for him, so now I’m an enemy too? Regardless of how many contributions i make to our cause??? Funny, I thought I was out of high school.

  40. avatarSilver says:

    You all saying you’re “leaving the site” because a few people post responses you don’t agree with are being quite immature.

    Be an adult. This woman proudly puts her views out there, and what…you expect everyone to agree and pat her on the back? Welcome to the real world: you put your views out there, you’ll get dissenting counter-views. Varying viewpoints, sometimes very spirited and terse ones, are a fact of life. If you can’t handle it, don’t put your views out there.

    You applaud her for posting her views, then lambast those you don’t agree with for posting theirs in response? Shame on you. Maybe you’re better off leaving the site after all. This is a site about the foundations of the 2A, which is LIBERTY.

    You want everyone to have the same views? You want this to be a site where discussion, exploration, and the attempted reconciliation of opposing viewpoints amidst a common goal should not be addressed? You want this to be a sounding board of preaching to the choir like the antis think we are? If so, GTFO.

    Grow up. If someone posts a response in disagreement, respond with your view. If you think they’re being insulting, tell them as such. Then get on with your life and stop crying when people don’t act like you want them to.

    Wendy, welcome.

    • avatarChris Mallory says:

      Insults are not “dissenting counter-views”.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Silver, perhaps the more effective means of responding would be for folks to send in their own pictures with THEIR views clearly articulated. Then, in the comments, they can promote their values and try to persuade others to join them.

      That’s how free speech is supposed to work: the cure for speech you disagree with is MORE speech representing an opposing view, not vilifying someone and trying to shame them. Far too much of what I’ve read starts off contemptuous and insulting and goes downhill from there.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      ^^^THIS

      i will also extend a olive branch and welcome Wendy.

  41. avatarJim says:

    Just because she is a gun owner doesn’t mean she is on our side. There are plenty of gun owner(fudds) that are going to sell other gun owners(those with ar’s and over ten round mags) down the river. Just remember Feinstein is a gun owner. So is Joe Biden and apparently the POTUS “goes skeet shooting all the time”.

    • avatarJim says:

      I suspect she votes Dem because of her sexual orientation (bad reason IMO)

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        I wasn’t aware that “female” was a sexual orientation.

        • avatarJim says:

          From her responses I suspect she homosexual (which is fine by me, I truly don’t give a shit; that is her business not mine)with that being said I think it is a horrible reason to vote for someone for POTUS because that is a state issue. when you get married it is the “power of the state of x” not the US. I have a very close friends that is gay and he is about as conservative as it comes (aside from his SEXUAL ORIENTATION) but he realizes what is best for the country (R. Vs. D.) in a presidential election. This is also echoed from the fact that he is a successful small business owner. So Mr./Mrs. Alphageek don’t bring your righteous indignation upon me; because I don’t give a fuck about your social issues (aside from abortion) I took an oath to uphold the constitution and that hasn’t expired.

      • avatarWendy says:

        I vote Dem because I’m straight? Hm, thought it was because I care about all people’s individual rights and dignity, not just bigoted white dudes who couldn’t get a date if they were the last man on earth.

        (I’ll be here all week. Be sure to tip your server.)

        • avatarJohn in AK says:

          No, you vote Dem because that’s how your mind works. Most on the other side cannot fathom how you people turn out that way, and I’m sure that the reverse is true, but it’s probably a great deal like homosexuality–it’s the way you are, you can’t help it, I can’t change you and won’t try to do so, so I gladly welcome you as a fellow life-traveller even though I may dislike what you stand for, so long as your life choices don’t interfere with mine.
          Also, calling people who disagree with you ‘bigoted’ because they disagree with YOU is rather small-minded. In fact, it makes YOU ‘bigoted.’ The same with the pejorative ‘white’ and ‘dude’ and the comment about dating problems. If you truly profess to care about all people’s rights and dignity, you should show some class.
          (No tip. I don’t like the quality of your service.)

    • avatarJericho941 says:

      And until she says she only wants FUDD-friendly crap, there’s no reason for us to assume she does.

      • avatarJim says:

        Didn’t assume anything just reminding people there is a difference . I used the examples of the top three people that are attacking our god given rights, two or which she voted for twice . See what I am saying? Just because some says they support the second amendment doesn’t make true. Joe Biden and company.

  42. avatarDavidInAustin says:

    Just like Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot, Obama sees her as nothing more than a “Useful Idiot”. She will be one of the first to be rounded up for re-education and/or liquidation if her heroes get the power they desire.

  43. avatarWLCE says:

    lets speak on a matter of principles

    she is bombarded with negative reception because she voted for obama. obama did nothing to pursue more gun legislation during his first term and the entire gun debate right now was started due to a unforeseen event in CT galvanizing anti-gun sentiment, which aligns with what obama believes. talk about hindsight bias.

    Sure, she may have voted for a statist, corporatist fool but the same argument can be applied to romney. thats right, if you voted for romney, you also voted for big government and a candidate desperate to hide his anti-gun history during his term as governor. There is no amount of spinning and bullshit that can convince a reasonable american otherwise.

    No lawful gun owner that voted for obama once or twice could have foreseen the political shit storm that followed the Sandy Hook massacre or the massacre itself for that matter. Faulting them for voting for him due to his actions following a unforeseen event is a bad case of hindsight bias. they couldnt have possibly predicted Sandy Hook happening and the calls for more gun control. Anyone who says otherwise is full of it.

    I welcome those that voted for obama into the world of gun ownership. Just because they voted for obama or romney doesnt mean they are the same as those creatures. Hopefully they will (im also talking to you republicans and conservatives on here!) realize the error of their ways and vote in a matter to end the repub/demo paradigm and actually get some tangible work done on improving this country.

    like it or not, alienating and ostracizing gun owners that vote differently from you is childish and absurd. say it aint so, republicans actually have a horrible history of infringing upon the constitution too (bush, cheney, bush sr, etc). Bombarding a gun-owning obama voter is a classic case of hypocrisy.

  44. avatarMy name is Bob says:

    You lost me at the “twice” part, but welcome aboard anyway!

  45. avatarLeo338 says:

    Is Wendy AlphaGeek???

  46. avatarjerry says:

    We are so screwed.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.