She did do an interview somewhere where she complained she couldn’t get a CCW in Hawaii. This was due to some relative, or something, that was victimized in a violent crime, if I remember correctly.

But still, I’d need to see some kind of solid proof of a change of heart to constitutionality.

She did do an interview somewhere where she complained she couldn’t get a CCW in Hawaii. This was due to some relative, or something, that was victimized in a violent crime, if I remember correctly.

But still, I’d need to see some kind of solid proof of a change of heart to constitutionality.

Maybe in this thread, maybe somewhere else, she tells her story of a threat by a guy to cut off her head... using her connections she spoke to a "high ranking official" in HPD and he told it would be highly unlikely that she would get a license to carry. Capitol police found the threat credible, and provided her with security in D.C. The guy was arrested and served time.

The only kind of "solid proof" you could ever get is if she were again in a position where she either made/approved or voted for policies and laws. She has ALWAYS said "I support the Second Amendment". Then she would vote FOR an "assault weapons ban" and AGAINST "national reciprocity". She will say whatever she needs to say (like virtually all politicians) to further her personal ambitions. Only if she is in a position of making actual decisions on policy will her real positions be revealed. "Yes, I DO support the Second Amendment, BUT it doesn't apply to THAT situation ("assault weapons", "reciprocity", etc.,etc., etc.)".

It would be better if she accepted a Vivid contract.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I was trolling through the comments and I literally burst out laughing at 4am and still mostly asleep when I read this.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Maybe in this thread, maybe somewhere else, she tells her story of a threat by a guy to cut off her head... using her connections she spoke to a "high ranking official" in HPD and he told it would be highly unlikely that she would get a license to carry. Capitol police found the threat credible, and provided her with security in D.C. The guy was arrested and served time.

The only kind of "solid proof" you could ever get is if she were again in a position where she either made/approved or voted for policies and laws. She has ALWAYS said "I support the Second Amendment". Then she would vote FOR an "assault weapons ban" and AGAINST "national reciprocity". She will say whatever she needs to say (like virtually all politicians) to further her personal ambitions. Only if she is in a position of making actual decisions on policy will her real positions be revealed. "Yes, I DO support the Second Amendment, BUT it doesn't apply to THAT situation ("assault weapons", "reciprocity", etc.,etc., etc.)".

Comelian, changes her stripes to fit!

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

I was trolling through the comments and I literally burst out laughing at 4am and still mostly asleep when I read this.

4am? More like immediately googled after reading in case I was right.

I've read her social media comments and many people bring up her AW cosponsoring and stuff like that.  Here's what would solve the issue, if she simply stated she was wrong to support it.  People can change toward their views on anything.

I remember a guy on SSH who was very anti 2a, he would post often. Then the realtor who was murdered and her kid tied up in North Shore was a close friend. He very shortly bought an AR and admitted he was wrong about the 2a. It's been years since he's posted anything anti 2a.  I'm sure he was happy to already have his AR during the 2020 BLM riots and Covid lockdowns.

I've read her social media comments and many people bring up her AW cosponsoring and stuff like that.  Here's what would solve the issue, if she simply stated she was wrong to support it.  People can change toward their views on anything.

I remember a guy on SSH who was very anti 2a, he would post often. Then the realtor who was murdered and her kid tied up in North Shore was a close friend. He very shortly bought an AR and admitted he was wrong about the 2a. It's been years since he's posted anything anti 2a.  I'm sure he was happy to already have his AR during the 2020 BLM riots and Covid lockdowns.

It would be easy for her to make a POLICY shift without saying she's changed her personal beliefs and position.

In light of the recent Bruen decision, as well and the previous Heller v. DC and other gun rights case opinions, it's clear the majority of Americans support the right to own AR-15s and to carry firearms in public.  More than half the states now offer "permitless" or Constitutional carry.  No license, no extra background checks, and no CCW training classes.  If you are legally able to own a firearm, you also have the legal right to carry it in public should you ever have to defend yourself or others.

If she would give that as the context, and then say she supports the Constitution and respects the decisions of the courts, in particular the Supreme Court, therefore, any so-called Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional, and she cannot and will not support one.

There are plenty of politicians who give their honest PERSONAL opinions as well as the "I intend to follow and uphold the law as it exists," caveat.  Everyone can disagree with a law (we disagree with a BUNCH on here), but we follow them and respect the authority of the government to enforce them.  If and when the law changes, we expect the same from anyone who disagrees with the changes.

There's belief, and then there's reality.  Sometimes they coincide, but many times they oppose each other.

It would be easy for her to make a POLICY shift without saying she's changed her personal beliefs and position.

In light of the recent Bruen decision, as well and the previous Heller v. DC and other gun rights case opinions, it's clear the majority of Americans support the right to own AR-15s and to carry firearms in public.  More than half the states now offer "permitless" or Constitutional carry.  No license, no extra background checks, and no CCW training classes.  If you are legally able to own a firearm, you also have the legal right to carry it in public should you ever have to defend yourself or others.

This would be a good out for her to change her position. 

This would be a good out for her to change her position.

That's the idea of my post. 

Politicians are often caught flip-flopping on issue positions with nothing more than a "Well, I changed my mind," and we are supposed to believe that.

If someone has a belief and wants to actually change that belief, they need to elaborate on the circumstances that made them reconsider their opinions. 

She could have had a situation that made her realize she was wrong before, such as a stalker threatening her life.  Realizing not everyone is in a position like she was to get 24/7 personal armed protection, she might have had an epiphany.  Without the right to keep AND BEAR the arms of their own choosing, they might be vulnerable to a stalker, rapist, home invasion or any random crime in which they just happen to be unlucky enough to be intended victims.

Also, in light of actual facts, CA and NY with all of their strict gun laws were unsuccessful at stopping any of the recent mass shootings.  The best outcome was when a good  guy with a concealed carry pistol took out a would-be mass shooter in a mall.  An ordinary person doing an extraordinary act of bravery.  Without the proper tools and SELF-motivation to train (not some gov't mandated course), he might not have had the skill to make that number of hits from such a distance.

These are examples of REALITY that should signal to her that her narrowly focused belief system based on "war experience" should be reexamined.

Government is the reason the 2A exists.  Government should not be dictating how the 2A is exercised.  If they really want us to be safe, they would offer these mandatory concealed carry classes for free to everyone legally able to own a firearm.

She’s a hack in my personal opinion.
I did like that she kinda stood up to the Democrat establishment, although it may have all been for her own gain.

Anyone know how much she weighs?  Just wondering how far i can trust her.
I would seem she flipped when they(Hilldog Clinton) decided to come after her.  Remember when they were calling her a russian asset?
"In October 2019, false and later corrected stories[174] claimed that former Secretary of State and 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said that Russia was "grooming" a female Democrat to run as a third-party candidate, who would help President Donald Trump win reelection via a spoiler effect.[175][176] The media understood Clinton to be referring to Gabbard, which Nick Merril, a Clinton spokesperson, seemed to confirm to CNN by saying: "If the nesting doll fits"; however, Gabbard repeatedly said she would not run as a third-party candidate in 2020 and did not do so."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard
This might have been the stimulus to turn her back on the DNC when they tried to scapegoat her but does that mean her views changed or her appearance has to change for the people she panders to.  There are reasons to doubt her sincerity.
I found this as well, best I can tell it is a list of her donors and associations. 
https://littlesis.org/person/117239-Tulsi_Gabbard

I don't trust any politician.  Too many behind-the-scenes schemes for me to ever know that they are planning to do officially.

What I do watch is who their enemies are.  If they are ostracized, attacked and defamed relentlessly by the people I distrust completely, it does raise my trust in them considerably. 

The people with their eye on winning elections know to say and do whatever is needed to APPEAR trustworthy or in sync with your ideas just to win votes.  It's why the Dems love to pander to each ethnic, racial and societal group -- to become the champions of the group's most challenging issues.  In fact, once elected, they give lip service and excuses back in return.

I'd rather have someone I believe is telling the truth even if I disagree with their opinions.  That way, I know what to expect from them going forward.  Someone like Hillary who always has 2 positions -- one for the public and one that's private -- has but one objective:  win at all cost, even if you have to lie about your positions.

Once in office, those kinds of people must become slaves to the party leaders, or risk being out of a job next time they run for reelection.  That puts a fork in their promises to vote their conscience. Nature of the beast.

Gee, who didn't see this coming?! LOL! Right on cue, after laying extensive groundwork... these political hacks never sleep, always planning 5 steps ahead...

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/breaking-tulsi-gabbard-leaves-democrat-party-elitist-cabal-warmongers/

So, waddayathink? Senate? Governor? Network commentator? Thinktank?

The Clintons has shown me how evil politics can be.

Tulsi may or may not follow in these steps.

Gee, who didn't see this coming?! LOL! Right on cue, after laying extensive groundwork... these political hacks never sleep, always planning 5 steps ahead...

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/breaking-tulsi-gabbard-leaves-democrat-party-elitist-cabal-warmongers/

So, waddayathink? Senate? Governor? Network commentator? Thinktank?

My bet would be Senate against Crazy Mazie.
She'll run as an Independent like "Independent" commie Bernie.
She will caucus with the Republicans, but stab them in the back on guns.
She is an officer and all officers want their troops disarmed when in Garrison.
 

My bet would be Senate against Crazy Mazie.

She would still be a much better choice than Crazy or anyone else currently in office.

My bet would be Senate against Crazy Mazie.
She'll run as an Independent like "Independent" commie Bernie.
She will caucus with the Republicans, but stab them in the back on guns.
She is an officer and all officers want their troops disarmed when in Garrison.
 

She was also prior enlisted if memory serves me correctly…

Tulsi leaves the Democrat party