Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

Guess gun rights position wasn't his first consideration

http://www.onntv.com/live/content/onnne ... ml?sid=102" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dupe by two minutes. But I like your post better.

No, we're all wrong, only the PAC committee knows what is good for us... foolish general member!

Where's Deanimator to remind us of how much more gun friendly Strickland was compared to Kasich?

This is the exact reason I didn't vote for Strickland. "Passive pro-gun" is the best way I can describe him. He takes advantage of the pro-gun publicity IF/WHEN a bill reaches his desk. Until then, all of his appointments are anti-gun and he doesn't push for pro-gun legislation, and this is justanother example.

No worries, I didn't vote for Kasich either.

Strickland's appointee's, and his inaction on Senate Bill's 239 and 247, spoke volumes to me in Nov.

Many folks did not want to hear that Ted was only a "passive" supporter and that he has appointed many many anti-gun, anti 2nd amendment appointees. Now he has give great power to another one.

Four years ago I tried to tell people who Strickland truly is, and I got a real load of excrement for my troubles.

McM wrote:No, we're all wrong, only the PAC committee knows what is good for us... foolish general member!

...says the guy with no "MEMBER" or "SITE SUPPORTER" banner under his avatar...

GWC wrote:Four years ago I tried to tell people who Strickland truly is, and I got a real load of excrement for my troubles.

Same thing happened to me this year. *shrug* With this idiotic appointment I feel vindicated in my choice for governor. What puzzles me is that the fervent Strickland supporters never seemed to consider the ramifications of the appointment of one of the most left-wing politicians to the Ohio Supreme Court. There may well be challenges to CCW (and general 2A) issues that make it to the OSC - and how do you think Ms Brown will side on these issues?

Bottom line, if Strickland were soooo pro-2A, how on earth could he appoint someone who is so anti-gun to the supreme court?? At least we will be spared 4 more years of further damage.

evan price wrote:

McM wrote:No, we're all wrong, only the PAC committee knows what is good for us... foolish general member!

...says the guy with no "MEMBER" or "SITE SUPPORTER" banner under his avatar...

That really has nothing to do with anything, I was a member for quite some time before I figured out how to get that "member" button on the forums.

My concern with Ted was always what he would do as a lame duck...luckily we only get a few months of that status from him not 4 years. The shadowy "nobody knows who they are even if we ASK who they are" PAC committee is fortunate no doubt that Ted was not reelected.

evan price wrote:

McM wrote:No, we're all wrong, only the PAC committee knows what is good for us... foolish general member!

...says the guy with no "MEMBER" or "SITE SUPPORTER" banner under his avatar...

My membership (of two or three years) is still valid for a few days before the next renewal. The "high quality self-updating forum membership 'sticky' " is working well as usual I see.


MEMBER# 5976 expires 12/14/2010 <--my 2nd membership # after some odd thing during my first renewal.... plus donations of cash and time on other occasions (like the first Youngstown area M&G and gun shows...)

Plus at one time i asked that the 'forum supporter' tag be removed because I was getting tired of the 'editorial shenanigans' that were going on here at one time.

I don't blame the PAC for this. Hell Strickland lost, which makes it even harder to blame any of the PACs (NRA, OFCC, BFA, etc...). But I also have tried to trumpet my concern about appointments, which often have a much farther reaching effect than who is elected as governor. This is the second anti-gun appointment Strickland made to the Ohio Supreme Court (I am counting Brown, 'cause I have no doubt that when the Cleveland decision comes out, he will be ruling against us). Had it been one of the pro-gun justices that had died, Strickland's appointment likely would have cost us pre-emption.

Now yes I know, Kasich anti gun.... Kasich's appointment will be... blah, blah blah. In reality, I would be willing to bet the any Kasich appointment won't be anti-gun. This is simply because gun issues won't be at the top of Kasich's mind when he makes appointments, just like gun issues clearly are not at the top of Strickland's mind when he makes his appointments. Now Kasich may sign restaurant carry, or he may not. It would seem that he has told some of the Reps that he would sign it. Time will tell on that issue. If he does sign it, I suspect the anti-Kasich people will remain oddly silent just like they have so far in this thread. I, for one, couldn't bring myself to vote for either. However, that doesn't mean that the appointment issue was lost on me.

But back to the PAC's.... they did what they were supposed to do. They supported someone who has signed every pro gun bill that was brought in front of him. They supported a candidate who voted against the AWB, instead of supporting a candidate who voted for it. I can't blame the PAC's for that... I just didn't entirely agree with them, because of other issues such as appointments, help getting Obama re-elected, etc... That was my choice. It's not like the PAC's made you vote one way or the other - they simply offer a recommendation. With the impending Republican control of the House, if Strickland had been re-elected the PAC probably figured we would see pro-gun legislation for years to come. I completely understand why they endorsed the way they did - I just didn't agree with it. The PAC's don't make you vote a certain way - that choice was up to you, just like it was up to me. I took the PAC's recommendation into consideration, and then decided to agree to disagree without being disagreeable. I didn't vote for either one of them.

I was not part of the PAC process, and hold no position within OFCC except as a member. But I would be willing to bet they had a similar discussion amongst themselves, and in the end decided they should endorse based on actions... not what-if's. I agreed to disagree without being disagreeable. And you could have too.

A 'No endorsement' would have served our cause better, IMO.

McM wrote:A 'No endorsement' would have served our cause better, IMO.

I would agree with this. Same holds with the NRA. I'd preferred "We cannot endorse either candidate because one has a history of anti-gun voting and the other carries the current baggage of making anti-gun appointments that can/will affect 2A rights for Ohio citizens".

Saying that, I also concur with FormerNavy in that I understand the reasoning behind the PAC's endorsement of Strickland. I did not agree with it, all things considered, but I do understand why. I guess what I wonder now, after this recent, horrible appointment(s), would the PAC still endorse Strickland? It's all moot now, though. Election is over and I am hopeful that Kasich doesn't me regret MY vote.

FormerNavy wrote:I don't blame the PAC for this. Hell Strickland lost, which makes it even harder to blame any of the PACs (NRA, OFCC, BFA, etc...).

I do not blame them for his actions, but I do think his actions bolster some folks concerns about what Ted would do as a lame duck.

Bill