Brown to Vote Against Reciprocity Bill

[Climbnsink]

By voting Democrat?

If you can't get rid of them in a primary- yes.

 

[Martlet]

If you can't get rid of them in a primary- yes.

You bumped your head if you think giving up ground to the Democrats helps us long term OR short term.

 

[cekim]

You bumped your head if you think giving up ground to the Democrats helps us long term OR short term.

We are winning battles (some of them), but losing the war. Do we continue giving up ground slowly, or do we make a strategic withdraw?

 

[Martlet]

We are winning battles (some of them), but losing the war. Do we continue giving up ground slowly, or do we make a strategic withdraw?

You make a strategic withdrawal if you have a plan. What's your plan?

 

[JimB]

i agree that this bill, while a good theory, is flawed... this country need a concise, clear, reasonable process for licensing law abiding citizens. our 2nd amendment is a national right, not a state right and a federal cc license makes the most sense. the difference form state to state with laws is disturbing, especially for those of us in northeast who can cross 4 borders in a few hours of driving. not to mention the expense. it costs me $200 to renew in ma & ct. which, while that isnt horrible, it is pathetic that we have to pay anything to observe a right that our forefathers felt was 2nd only to free speech... sen brown was sent to washington to represent the people of MA and in case noone has noticed, this state is very liberal. im politically independent and think the republican party is a joke almost more than the democrats. scott brown is gonna have a hard time winning ma because he puts a R next to his name and soo many in ma just blindly follow the D's.

you do not understand HR 822, it is not a federal license

 

[jasons]

Well, it look's like EC was right:


ETA: Link

GOA is wrong on this one. The study, while probably a waste of money, contains nothing overtly sinister:

SEC. 3. GAO AUDIT OF THE STATES' CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT OR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTS.

(a) The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an audit of--
(1) the laws and regulations of each State that authorize the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a person, other than a resident of such State, to possess or carry a concealed firearm, including a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each State that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than a resident of such State;
(2) the number of such valid permits or licenses issued or denied (and the basis for such denials) by each State to persons other than a resident of such State; and
(3) the effectiveness of such State laws and regulations in protecting the public safety.
(b) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).

As for GOA's other points:

* It forces Vermont residents (who do not need a permit to carry) to either obtain an out-of-state permit or to push their state to pass a more restrictive concealed carry law than it now enjoys;

I'd really like to understand GOA's argument here (beyond unsubstantiated talking points) because there's absolutely nothing in the text of the bill that does any such thing.

* By requiring permits for reciprocity, the bill undermines efforts at the state level to pass constitutional carry (i.e., Vermont-style carry);

Again, this appears to be baseless. It would be really cool if they would quote the section of the bill that they think does this. (The fact that they don't is interesting.)

* In restrictive “may issue” states, the bill allows for non-residents to carry firearms in the state while most residents would still be prohibited, and;

This is true in practice, but so what? It's "state's rights" to restrict the natural rights of their citizens, right?

* The bill is yet another example of Congress distorting of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

An interesting opinion, but if you subscribe to the fact that the 2A represents a natural right then it's not really relevant.

“If the Second Amendment protects my rights to carry my concealed weapon from state to state to state, I don’t need another federal law,” Rep. Woodall said. He went on to remind his colleagues of the original intent of the right to keep and bear arms.

In theory it does, but if that were true in practice I wouldn't have had to leave my PM9 at home when I went to NY for work last week. The sad fact is that it's going to take some sort of action at the federal level to compel certain states to recognize our natural right to keep and bear arms. HR822 is a step in that direction.

 

[cekim]

You make a strategic withdrawal if you have a plan. What's your plan?

It's pretty simple actually... Stop electing people who claim to support our desired system of government and start electing people who actually do.



Put as much or more time, energy and money into driving politics to our purpose as the obnoxious hippies do on the left.

 

[Martlet]

It's pretty simple actually... Stop electing people who claim to support our desired system of government and start electing people who actually do.



Put as much or more time, energy and money into driving politics to our purpose as the obnoxious hippies do on the left.

How does that equate to "vote Democrat"?

 

[Cardinal Ximinez]

You bumped your head if you think giving up ground to the Democrats helps us long term OR short term.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is not that great. Example: Republicans on the Super Committee offered their Democratic brethren a tax increase. So, Republicans are willing to raise taxes, just not as much as Democrats, and sending RINOs like Brown to DC won't help.

 

[Martlet]

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is not that great. Example: Republicans on the Super Committee offered their Democratic brethren a tax increase. So, Republicans are willing to raise taxes, just not as much as Democrats, and sending RINOs like Brown to DC won't help.

Really? You think sending will?

 

[cekim]

How does that equate to "vote Democrat"?

Not at all. It equates to stop voting for douchebags who claim to be Republican out of fear of whether the Democrats will give you permission to elect good people.

 

[Martlet]

Not at all. It equates to stop voting for douchebags who claim to be Republican out of fear of whether the Democrats will give you permission to elect good people.

Then what does this have to do with my conversation about voting democrat?

 

[cekim]

Then what does this have to do with my conversation about voting democrat?

I thought we were talking about voting for Brown? Which is the same thing...

 

[Martlet]

I thought we were talking about voting for Brown? Which is the same thing...

A: Brown isn't a Democrat.
B: Read the thread, then comment when you catch up.

 

[cekim]

A: Brown isn't a Democrat.
B: Read the thread, then comment when you catch up.

It was a joke, I think I conflated the two threads basically on this same topic of how we stop banging our head against the RINO's ass...

 

[dixidawg]

It's pretty simple actually... Stop electing people who claim to support our desired system of government and start electing people who actually do.



Put as much or more time, energy and money into driving politics to our purpose as the obnoxious hippies do on the left.

I don't know how that will ever happen. The majority of people in this state believe Brown is too far RIGHT. That is not going to change in my lifetime. There is no way in hell we will get what we consider a TRUE Republican in this state. It is FAR better to have Brown, who gives us some wins (including the SCOTUS vote) than someone like Lizzie where we lose on EVERY front. The phrase "Cutting your nose off to spite your face" comes to mind...

 

[dixidawg]

Not at all. It equates to stop voting for douchebags who claim to be Republican out of fear of whether the Democrats will give you permission to elect good people.

Is it better to vote "True Republicans" and lose every election in this state?

 

[Martlet]

I don't know how that will ever happen. The majority of people in this state believe Brown is too far RIGHT. That is not going to change in my lifetime. There is no way in hell we will get what we consider a TRUE Republican in this state. It is FAR better to have Brown, who gives us some wins (including the SCOTUS vote) than someone like Lizzie where we lose on EVERY front. The phrase "Cutting your nose off to spite your face" comes to mind...

That's crazy talk. You must be a troll.

 

[yanici]

Ask yourself this. Is there a Republican that is challenging Scott Brown to try to become the party's candidate? If not, what are your choices? As bad as Brown is he is far better than Lizzie. It's up to someone to step forward and challange Brown if you want a different Republican Senator from MA. It doesn't appear likely at this time.

 

[cekim]

Is it better to vote "True Republicans" and lose every election in this state?

If we don't get "true Republicans" we loose anyway...

The key is understanding that mediocre candidates have an opportunity cost of drowning out a better candidate.

At some point in the election you have to !@#$ or get off the pot, but the phase we are missing in this state is getting good people in the primaries. We beat ourselves before they even spend a dollar fighting us...

 

[Billsail]

I've seen too many elections here, where Democrats run totally unopposed, to think we could ever field a true Republican (with ANY chance) as an alternative.

 

[jasons]

I can just imagine Scott's people reading this thread and saying "Hey look, we can screw these shooter guys over and all they'll do is post about how being marginally better than a moonbat is good enough!"

 

[yanici]

I can just imagine Scott's people reading this thread and saying "Hey look, we can screw these shooter guys over and all they'll do is post about how being marginally better than a moonbat is good enough!"

Yeah, that is so true. But, I'd be surprised if he gets any more $$$ from the gun community. This whole scenario just plain sucks.

 

[Climbnsink]

Bunch of tough guys that have been swindled by a rino and still support him. Amazing. We should start calling him Stockholm Brown.

 

[Martlet]

Bunch of tough guys that have been swindled by a rino and still support him. Amazing. We should start calling him Stockholm Brown.

Need a shovel?

 

[cekim]

I've seen too many elections here, where Democrats run totally unopposed, to think we could ever field a true Republican (with ANY chance) as an alternative.

An unopposed candidate is the clearest demonstration of where we are failing - NO ONE EVEN BOTHERED TO RUN.

 

[Martlet]

An unopposed candidate is the clearest demonstration of where we are failing - NO ONE EVEN BOTHERED TO RUN.

Those workshops they've been holding have turned out many candidates in previously unopposed districts. We're slowly gaining ground. I think a few of them won last time around.

 

[JRyan]

I can just imagine Scott's people reading this thread and saying "Hey look, we can screw these shooter guys over and all they'll do is post about how being marginally better than a moonbat is good enough!"

this. WTF do you guys think will happen if he loses? There will never be an other libertarian or conservative candidate? We have to pay short term to gain long term. No more ****ing RINO's.

Also, I agree with EC regarding this bill, I'm pretty sure. I'm still thinking it over a little.

 

[Martlet]

this. WTF do you guys think will happen if he loses? There will never be an other libertarian or conservative candidate? We have to pay short term to gain long term. No more ****ing RINO's.

Also, I agree with EC regarding this bill, I'm pretty sure. I'm still thinking it over a little.

You're delusional if you think handing the seat to Warren is going to result in a Massachusetts Libertarian Senator next election.

 

[dixidawg]

If we don't get "true Republicans" we loose anyway...

The key is understanding that mediocre candidates have an opportunity cost of drowning out a better candidate.

At some point in the election you have to !@#$ or get off the pot, but the phase we are missing in this state is getting good people in the primaries. We beat ourselves before they even spend a dollar fighting us...

"Good people" to you or I would have NO chance in an election in this state. There are an awful lot of people here that believe Obama is too far right.