Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I almost picked VT when deciding to leave CT. I had a sheet of all the states the Brady-Bunch hated and VT ranked higher than TX or NH. Ny concern was that the socially liberal would turn any day toward totalitarian liberal and VT would adopt draconian gun legislation like CT, MA or CA.
Now I'm watching NH bend over and take it from a guy who promises to not only reinstate the Clinton era AWB, which only result was to royally **** me off, but make it permanent.
I'm sick and tired of living in a "blue" state and not because of nonsense like gay-rights. Let anybody marry anything I really couldnt care less. I'm sick and tired of it because "Blue" is synonymous with an dover-bearing mommy saying "no, you can't have that" and when you ask why they reply with "because I said so."
I'm not giving into any more "assault weapons" bans. Not state level and not federal level. I'm so sick of this crap.
lol...Vermont has less gun laws than NH. Did you know that you can carry concealed without a permit in Vermont? It's true. You shouldn't let the gun issue determine how you vote, though. Even if a president wanted to ban all guns they will never be able to do it. Howard Dean is the head of the DNC and he has been working really hard to address those issues that cause people to vote against their own best interests...like guns. Did you know the NRA always endorsed him for governor of Vermont?
Also, a president can't just take away guns without Congress and the Senate wanting to do it. There are too many hunters in this country who would boot their state reps out of office if they were to make more gun laws. Then they would elect someone to change the law back.
I have the same views on guns...my dad used to hunt to help feed our family every year. I can see needing some extra laws for big cities where you have a lot of gun violence but stuff like that should be addressed locally based on what the people need and want, not federally.
I imagine you are kinda torn politically this time around, though. I remember a very different McCain from the 2000 race. I really liked him back then. He sounds very different. With what the Republicans have done with the economy with the reckless spending if you elect McCain you might end up having to sell off your guns to feed your family or pay your mortgage. Things are too unstable to vote just about guns this time. It's just too important. With the mess this country is in I honestly think guns will be the last thing Congress will be thinking about. I've never even heard Obama talk about wanting additional gun control. I don't think it's very high on his list.
Have you figured out which way you are going to vote yet or are you still mulling it over?
Have you figured out which way you are going to vote yet or are you still mulling it over?
I'm well aware of VT gun freedom. I'm jealous of it. I'm just not willing to risk moving there for a freedom that could be revoked at any minute. It's sad that in state and federal Constitutions I can't take comfort in clearly written rights to bear arms. If those rights had any value states like CA, CT and MA wouldnt be able to get away with what they do and the fed certainly wouldnt have been able to get away with what it has as far as regulations, restrictions and registrations go.
Clinton decided for me in 1994 how I would vote for the rest of my life. I will always vote against any firearms regulations, registrations or bans. Right now on Obamas website it states that he and Biden seek to reinstate and make permanent the AWB so I can't vote for him. Even if I agreed with everything else. You say it shouldnt be my only issue but it is. I dont care at all who the politicians think they need to murder on the other side of the world, or how low they wish to devalue the dollar or any of these other things. My life runs just the way I want it to regardless. I'm worried about my guns and my kids guns and my kids, kids guns.
That being said H.R.6257 was introduced by Republicans and is currently only backed by Republicans so I'm not safe with them either. Shays is a Republican from my former state of CT and this is his idea to reinstate the AWB per H.R.6257. Even though CT already has banned any and all things fun he feels the need to imposed his will on the rest of the country.
I'm going to vote for Palin and hope McCain and his "common sense" gun crap die early on. I can't vote for the man who authored the AWB (Biden) and Obama when the part platform clearly calls for an AWB.
That's been my single issue since 1994 and it will be until either I die or politicians drop it altogether and let me and my guns be in peace.
I hear that obama is ahead in the NH polls, but thats likely out of what 3000-6000 people? What are you guys hearing on the street? In your place of work? Is race ( Color ) becoming an issue there in NH? Here in Nevada the race problems have started months ago and getting worse. I hear it daily! obama must win because its the Blacks man to rule America- now thats racist, I cant say much because the persons saying that are from my job.
Anyway besides polls who do you feel will win NH?
Yes Obama has taken the lead in recent polls. Let me tell you something about polls. Over the past few years, several of the polls that I have been called on when asked what I am registered, I said "republican" because that is what I was registered. I have been told on more than one occasion that they have "too many republicans " they say thanks and hang up. After I voted in the republican primary in September, I went to town hall and reregistered as an independent because quite frankly as an independent real conservative I have no party. Well every poll I have been called on since then-about 3 or 4- I have never been told "we have too many". However my husband-who is still a registered republican was home on a Saturday while I am in Florida and he was told they already have enough republicans. I guess I am saying this just to remind you that polls can be asked in any way they want to ask them. I was kept out of several phone polls because I was a registered republican.
Race is not an issue up here, but I am sure if Obama loses the MSM will make it an issue like that criminal Donna Brazille did when Hillary beat Obama in February.
Do I think McCain will win NH in November? Despite everything going on with the economy and regardless of the polls, I still think that it is going to be close and I am currently campaining for other candidates. I still talk to a lot of people undecided for the presidential race. Of course there are factors that can come into play like the economy gets worse, or the voter fraud at the colleges-Michelle Obama led a slew of kids to register in Keene the other day which is disgusting as very few kids live legally in Keene and attend school there. How they can allow a kid who has a NY or other out of state license to register to vote is unbelieveable but it happens. A lawyer that my husband works with takes off every election day with the sole purpose of fighting for college kids "rights" to vote. Must be nice to be able to vote twice-where you go to college and the state that you actually live in. It is a shame that this type of voter fraud is accepted here. But when you see around the country people registering 70 times, people registering their cats, etc., I guess it should come as no surprise.
I am not voting for Obama nor McCain- I will be voting third party or a write-in. However, McCain winning NH would certainly benefit those in the local, state and federal races that I am in fact voting for. My concern is that again like 2006, people will vote all democrats because they are angry at Bush and company. Just remember that the dems in this state are chomping at the bit to give us an income tax-regardless of what they say. They increased the budget by 17.5% and many taxes and hidden fees, tolls, etc. were all increased in only two years. Even though Lynch is saying he will veto an income or sales tax, if enough dems and rhinos get in who are pro-income tax, they wll be able to override his veto. Anyone who thinks that their property taxes will go down or disappear were an income tax or sales tax implemented, really needs to educate themselves because they are wrong. Once politicians get a new revenue source or more of your money, they want more. They do not want less-ever.
You shouldn't let the gun issue determine how you vote, though.
Now you shouldn't. However a candidate's thoughts on whether or not you should have the right to own firearms tells you a lot about them. 9 times out of 10 a liberal/socialist will be outright against private firearm ownership. They will show their ignorance by wanting people to call the police when they are in danger instead of taking personal responsibility for their own and family's protection. Again this is their agenda, they want to make people depend on Daddy government. If they are against firearms they are usually for huge government and dictating how people live their lives.
I'm well aware of VT gun freedom. I'm jealous of it. I'm just not willing to risk moving there for a freedom that could be revoked at any minute. It's sad that in state and federal Constitutions I can't take comfort in clearly written rights to bear arms. If those rights had any value states like CA, CT and MA wouldnt be able to get away with what they do and the fed certainly wouldnt have been able to get away with what it has as far as regulations, restrictions and registrations go.
Clinton decided for me in 1994 how I would vote for the rest of my life. I will always vote against any firearms regulations, registrations or bans. Right now on Obamas website it states that he and Biden seek to reinstate and make permanent the AWB so I can't vote for him. Even if I agreed with everything else. You say it shouldnt be my only issue but it is. I dont care at all who the politicians think they need to murder on the other side of the world, or how low they wish to devalue the dollar or any of these other things. My life runs just the way I want it to regardless. I'm worried about my guns and my kids guns and my kids, kids guns.
That being said H.R.6257 was introduced by Republicans and is currently only backed by Republicans so I'm not safe with them either. Shays is a Republican from my former state of CT and this is his idea to reinstate the AWB per H.R.6257. Even though CT already has banned any and all things fun he feels the need to imposed his will on the rest of the country.
I'm going to vote for Palin and hope McCain and his "common sense" gun crap die early on. I can't vote for the man who authored the AWB (Biden) and Obama when the part platform clearly calls for an AWB.
That's been my single issue since 1994 and it will be until either I die or politicians drop it altogether and let me and my guns be in peace.
I lived in Vermont for 10 years and I loved it. I did rent, though, so I didn't have to worry about any property taxes. In my experience, the people in Vermont and NH are essentially the same in most basic ways. Guns are very important to both as is conservation and beauty. I lived right along the border so that I could enjoy tax free shopping and work in NH while having my kids in Vermont schools, which are funded better.
Even if a president would like to ban guns it's not something they can do by themselves. New laws need to begin in Congress and the chance of new laws being passed after 9/11 is extremely unlikely. There are only a handful of politicians in power who are gung ho about adding gun laws.
Palin is an interesting character and I knew she would have an appeal with NH voters. She really won't have any kind of influence, though. It would almost be better to send her back to Alaska for 4 years and then get her to run for President in 2012. McCain has become so out of touch he may ruin her future chances. There's certainly a lot to think about in this election. Even my 8 year old is paying attention.
Now you shouldn't. However a candidate's thoughts on whether or not you should have the right to own firearms tells you a lot about them. 9 times out of 10 a liberal/socialist will be outright against private firearm ownership. They will show their ignorance by wanting people to call the police when they are in danger instead of taking personal responsibility for their own and family's protection. Again this is their agenda, they want to make people depend on Daddy government. If they are against firearms they are usually for huge government and dictating how people live their lives.
I have been listening to the speeches of all the candidates. I actually heard Obama speak about guns once. He said that he doesn't want to take guns away from hunters and that if people want to hunt they have every right to hunt. He also said that in a lot of Urban areas there are drug sellers, gang members and criminals with assault rifles who are better armed than law enforcement which is something that should be addressed somehow as well. He's not anti-gun. He lives in Chicago, though, which is urban and has a lot of gun violence.
This really is a very tricky issue. NH doesn't need any gun control because people there are raised and taught to respect firearms and people there want the Assault Rifles for different reasons. Country people like to collect guns, hunt, shoot at targets as a hobby, etc. That's not what people in cities use Assault Rifles for, though. Some have handguns for protection but for the most part, people with big fire power are involved in crime. The population and attitudes towards guns are so immensely different between rural and city areas. Now, I would not want to see those guns banned from rural people who collect and shoot at ranges and at targets for a hobby. I don't think I'd have a problem with them being banned from urban areas, though. Maybe something like an assault rifle ban from 20-30 miles outside large cities (NYC, LA, Chicago, BIG cities). Something like that would address the problems in big cities while leaving the country gun owners alone. Would you be strongly opposed to something like that as well?
I'm just curious because guns are such a dividing issue in politics and it's a real shame because I don't think they should be. I'm a country gal myself, and I know how important guns are in the country. I've also lived in cities as well and know the culture is entirely different there and guns really can be a huge problem in hands of punks, drug dealers and criminals. Isn't there a reasonable middle ground to be had that is respectful to everyone?
I have been listening to the speeches of all the candidates. I actually heard Obama speak about guns once. He said that he doesn't want to take guns away from hunters and that if people want to hunt they have every right to hunt. He also said that in a lot of Urban areas there are drug sellers, gang members and criminals with assault rifles who are better armed than law enforcement which is something that should be addressed somehow as well. He's not anti-gun. He lives in Chicago, though, which is urban and has a lot of gun violence.
This really is a very tricky issue. NH doesn't need any gun control because people there are raised and taught to respect firearms and people there want the Assault Rifles for different reasons. Country people like to collect guns, hunt, shoot at targets as a hobby, etc. That's not what people in cities use Assault Rifles for, though. Some have handguns for protection but for the most part, people with big fire power are involved in crime. The population and attitudes towards guns are so immensely different between rural and city areas. Now, I would not want to see those guns banned from rural people who collect and shoot at ranges and at targets for a hobby. I don't think I'd have a problem with them being banned from urban areas, though. Maybe something like an assault rifle ban from 20-30 miles outside large cities (NYC, LA, Chicago, BIG cities). Something like that would address the problems in big cities while leaving the country gun owners alone. Would you be strongly opposed to something like that as well?
I'm just curious because guns are such a dividing issue in politics and it's a real shame because I don't think they should be. I'm a country gal myself, and I know how important guns are in the country. I've also lived in cities as well and know the culture is entirely different there and guns really can be a huge problem in hands of punks, drug dealers and criminals. Isn't there a reasonable middle ground to be had that is respectful to everyone?
How about locking up criminals and throwing away the key? How about no more slaps on the wrists? Instead of punishing lowlifes who use guns, our government goes after law abiding citizens? I do have a real problem with that. Look at the case in Wisconsin where a law abiding gun owner lent his gun to a friend who took the gun to a range. Even though the semi had been fired 800 times without problems, when the friend at the range used it, the gun malfunctioned, fired two rounds and jammed. Law enforcement officers-who were there that day-notified ATF and the gun owner was charged with illegal transfer of a machine gun. No one was hurt, nothing happened, yet again another responsible gun owner was sent to jail and lowlifes roaming the street who use guns will probably be out before him. Look at Ramos and Compean who received sentences based on a law our congress wrote which was really meant for criminals not law enforcement officers. Why should a law abiding gun owner who lives in an urban area be punished because dirtbag criminals use guns they should not have? Why is so often the answer to cleaning up crime and dealing with lawbreakers is to take rights away from law abiding citizens?
I have real concern for any further restrictions on gun ownership as I believe this opens up the door for even more and more errosion of my 2nd ammendment rights. Criminals not responsible citizens need to be punished.
I think the answer is a much tougher crackdown on the lowlifes who have or use guns illegally not taking more rights away from law abiding gun owners regardless of where they live. Just my two cents.
That's not what people in cities use Assault Rifles for, though.
This is hysterical. The FBI crime stats have shown all rifles to be involved in less than 3% of homicides. Which means that the scary "assault" weapons are used in even less homicides. That 3% number is by leaps and bounds lower than the number of homicides related to handguns which is leaps and bounds lower than the number of homicides attributed to bare hands and feet. If keeping people "safe" was the concern they would be pushing to ban bare hands or even handguns not bayonet lugs and pistol grips.
The "we need to ban assault weapons to keep us safe" argument is bunk now and was bunk before Clintons ban and was certainly bunk during the ban.
I come from a city and have friends and relatives in cities and these punk gangster idiots are not shooting each other with collapsible stock ARs, Ak-47s, shotguns with barrel shrouds, and they certainly arent running around bayoneting people. They're using crappy, rust covered handguns that registration and BS ballistic fingerprinting cannot trace or keep track of.
I also dont buy for an instant the "dont worry the president cant do alone" argument. No, he cant do it alone but he wont drop it from his platform either so it remains a threat.
Sating Obama respects gun rights is like saying Clinton respects them or CT's Chris Shays respects them. It's bull.
Besides, lets assume everything I've said is a complete lie (which it is not). If keeping people safe was the issue then why not ban murder? Oh, it's already baned? Since bans work so well to keep criminals from breaking the law then there really isnt any problem at all and we're all perfectly safe.
It's not cool at all for any politician coming out of a city to even attempt to dictate to the rest of the country how they should live and vice versa.
How about locking up criminals and throwing away the key? How about no more slaps on the wrists? Instead of punishing lowlifes who use guns, our government goes after law abiding citizens? I do have a real problem with that. Look at the case in Wisconsin where a law abiding gun owner lent his gun to a friend who took the gun to a range. Even though the semi had been fired 800 times without problems, when the friend at the range used it, the gun malfunctioned, fired two rounds and jammed. Law enforcement officers-who were there that day-notified ATF and the gun owner was charged with illegal transfer of a machine gun. No one was hurt, nothing happened, yet again another responsible gun owner was sent to jail and lowlifes roaming the street who use guns will probably be out before him. Look at Ramos and Compean who received sentences based on a law our congress wrote which was really meant for criminals not law enforcement officers. Why should a law abiding gun owner who lives in an urban area be punished because dirtbag criminals use guns they should not have? Why is so often the answer to cleaning up crime and dealing with lawbreakers is to take rights away from law abiding citizens?
I have real concern for any further restrictions on gun ownership as I believe this opens up the door for even more and more errosion of my 2nd ammendment rights. Criminals not responsible citizens need to be punished.
I think the answer is a much tougher crackdown on the lowlifes who have or use guns illegally not taking more rights away from law abiding gun owners regardless of where they live. Just my two cents.
Yes, locking up criminals would be good. They do have to catch them first, though, lol. I have known A LOT of gun collecters, hunters and gun hobbyists in my lifetime. None of them lived in a big city. In fact, crowded city life is just inherently inconsistent with the desired lifestyle and surroundings of people who would be adversely effected by any new gun laws. The values are just very different in my experience. Surely there has to be a middle ground that can make everyone happy. I mean, someone in NYC views guns entirely differently than you or I do. We are coming from a completely different perspective and reality. Having federal gun control laws is just retarded, because in rural NH it would be punitive and have a negative impact on the quality of life there. In NYC it would probably be something most people would actually want.
Having federal gun control laws is just retarded, because in rural NH it would be punitive and have a negative impact on the quality of life there. In NYC it would probably be something most people would actually want.
Your premise makes sense on the surface but the reality has proven it flawed. Just recently Bloomberg was suing some gun shop in Virginia (I think it was VA) because Bloomberg believed that guns purchased from that shop under that states laws were being used to commit crimes in NY.
You cant have a place like D.C., Philly, Detroit or even New Haven (all of which have strict gun laws as well as the most out of control gun crime) and have loose laws just outside the city. Those within the city will blame their troubles on those outside of the city until a national level law is passed that makes every area equally strict. Of course, should that happen the crime levels will most likely rise for everyone everywhere because no longer will the citizen be able to fight back.
Didn't you know that every time some thug in Boston shoots a kid it's New Hampshire's fault? That's the logic of the gun-banning crowd.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
