• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Got email from Scott Brown: H.R. 823

Trying to keep up on things from the Republic of Georgia. Has he been contacted regarding Senate bill 1867? The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012?
 
So other than the satisfaction of keeping dead teddy's seat away from the "D's" can anyone tell me how settling for Scott Brown is better than Marsha?

He enjoys support from both sides of the aisle because he speaks out of both sides of his mouth, just like most MA "R's". In truth they're not "R's" at all.

This is 2011, there is NO difference between "D's" and "R's". That ship sailed long ago. STOP SETTLING! Vote the issues, not the party. If a Libertarian is what you want FIND one and vote for him/her...
 
sportycliff said:
So other than the satisfaction of keeping dead teddy's seat away from the "D's" can anyone tell me how settling for Scott Brown is better than Marsha?

He enjoys support from both sides of the aisle because he speaks out of both sides of his mouth, just like most MA "R's". In truth they're not "R's" at all.

This is 2011, there is NO difference between "D's" and "R's". That ship sailed long ago. STOP SETTLING! Vote the issues, not the party. If a Libertarian is what you want FIND one and vote for him/her...
Click to expand...

I think of William F. Buckley's famous quote (paraphrasing here) about voting for the most conservative person who you can actually get elected. Although we disagree with his position on this one, we will most likely find ourselves aligned with him on many more issues than the alternatives like Warren or Coakley. If we adopt an "all or nothing" approach and insist on Barry Goldwater, we get nothing. Half a loaf is better than none.
 
Emoto said:
I think of William F. Buckley's famous quote (paraphrasing here) about voting for the most conservative person who you can actually get elected. Although we disagree with his position on this one, we will most likely find ourselves aligned with him on many more issues than the alternatives like Warren or Coakley. If we adopt an "all or nothing" approach and insist on Barry Goldwater, we get nothing. Half a loaf is better than none.
Click to expand...

Like which issues? I've not seen any good out of him.

Someone asked if anyone mentioned the NDAA to him. I and several others called his office. He still voted for it. Guess he forgot his oath.
 
davemata said:
Like which issues? I've not seen any good out of him.

Someone asked if anyone mentioned the NDAA to him. I and several others called his office. He still voted for it. Guess he forgot his oath.
Click to expand...

Supreme court justice confirmations, for one.
 
Perspective:

This is an election year. SB is facing the Queen of Libtardia next November. He's not gonna stick his neck out and do anything controversial.

He criticized the GOP about the payroll tax. It's like his handlers are ticking off the boxes - yup, on record supporting the stop gap payroll tax deal, so Warren can't use that against me. On record about the firearms license reciprocity so Ole Liz can't use that against me to (not to mention the state's rights spin).

The D or R next to the name is a false dillema. It's all about surviving and staying in office. They're not out to change jack shizzle. The status quo is the goal. If you're gonna criticize the junior senator, criticize him for that.
 
Emoto said:
Supreme court justice confirmations, for one.
Click to expand...

That remains to be seen...He was still a newbie for the Kagen vote, and even then he formally introduced her before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Re-elect the messiah, and see how he votes on the next one. He's gonna blow the way of MA voters, "R" or "D" Lib, or Conservative. He likes he perks. He's totally spineless like most MA "R's".

Not sure that it matters anyway. The SCJ has distorted/aborted the Constitution anyway. My favorite is Wickard v. Filburn. It's been used and abused so much it's sickening.

Hey, it's your right to vote any way you want, as it is for all of us, (in MA and other states that includes the dead, and illegal) but I won't waste one of my precious votes on anything less than what I believe is the best candidate, regardless of whether he/she has a chance of winning.
 
sportycliff said:
That remains to be seen...He was still a newbie for the Kagen vote, and even then he formally introduced her before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Re-elect the messiah, and see how he votes on the next one. He's gonna blow the way of MA voters, "R" or "D" Lib, or Conservative. He likes he perks. He's totally spineless like most MA "R's".

Not sure that it matters anyway. The SCJ has distorted/aborted the Constitution anyway. My favorite is Wickard v. Filburn. It's been used and abused so much it's sickening.

Hey, it's your right to vote any way you want, as it is for all of us, (in MA and other states that includes the dead, and illegal) but I won't waste one of my precious votes on anything less than what I believe is the best candidate, regardless of whether he/she has a chance of winning.
Click to expand...

For the record, I think he did vote against Kagan.

Given that there is ZERO chance of MA sending a hardcore conservative to the senate, I think even a republican who isn't hardcore is better than the moonbat alternative. Remember that the voting agenda is controlled by the party with the majority.
 
Bill Nance said:
He's absolutely right to oppose the bill. This is a blatant federal intrusion onto state's rights.

CCW is NOT a federally recognized right. -And it's not likely to be anytime soon. This is a state issue. The feds need to butt out.
Click to expand...
I partially agree with that. However, the problem is that some states are not giving everyone the opportunity to be licensed (CCW). Many states are still May Issue and some don't accept non-resident applications (unless you own property in the state). Some states (MA) makes it very difficult for non-residents to even apply. If all states were Shall Issue and there was a simple process of applying as a non-resident, I agree this is somehting the Feds should stay out of. However, we all know this is not the case. It's not a perfect bill, but it's much better than the alternative we have today.
 
NHAtHeart said:
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you have trouble with? This is one place where the feds should have stepped in decades ago and said "he guys, you can't do ANYTHING that infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the fed gov mandates a background check for purchases (questionable) but the states shouldn't be creating their own laws to restrict federal rights.

To put it another way, it's like having the first amendment then each state saying "well you can have your free speech, but you need to take a training class, and ask for permission whenever you publish something, and if we decide it's inflammatory or against the good of the state we can deny your publication"

That is EXACTLY what they are doing here, there is no other right in the Bill of Rights worded as strongly as the 2A and yet you Bill sit on your high horse and declare "The states should be allowed to give it to people in the tailpipe if they chose, it's their right as a state"

No Bill it's not their right as a state.
Click to expand...

There exists, at present, NO right to bear concealed arms under the constitution as recognized by the courts.
Nor is there likely to BE such a recognized right anytime in the near future.

So you're for forcing individual states to recognize a license (that's permission from ONE state) in their state, even when their state is wildly different and has seperate standards for such licenses.


That's exactly the same thing as the Federal Government telling Alabama it has to recognize gay marriages from Mass.

There is no difference.

If sips hit Montana wants to have a ridiculous law about licensing nose-hair removers, that's their business. NOT the Federal government.

But I don't expect you "small government conservatives" to get it. You outed yourselves a long time ago as being in favor of "small government" only when it was convenient.
 
Bill Nance said:
CCW is NOT a federally recognized right. -And it's not likely to be anytime soon. This is a state issue. The feds need to butt out.
Click to expand...

It's a Constitutionally protected natural right that many of the states are infringing upon. According to the Constitution the feds MUST step it.

Bill Nance said:
If sips hit Montana wants to have a ridiculous law about licensing nose-hair removers, that's their business. NOT the Federal government.
Click to expand...

Right, because the right to keep and bear nose-hair removers is not enumerated in the BoR.

Bill Nance said:
But I don't expect you "small government conservatives" to get it. You outed yourselves a long time ago as being in favor of "small government" only when it was convenient.
Click to expand...

Come on.... How is this idea that supporting a state's "right" to trample on our natural rights anything but big government? Our natural rights are inalienable and protected (at the federal level) by the BoR. This is what the framers of the document intended. It's not about federalism - it's about protecting our natural rights from any government, large, medium, or small.
 
Last edited:
Bill Nance said:
He's absolutely right to oppose the bill. This is a blatant federal intrusion onto state's rights.

CCW is NOT a federally recognized right. -And it's not likely to be anytime soon. This is a state issue. The feds need to butt out.
Click to expand...

I 100% disagree with you here, Bill. How can states determine whether or not you can defend yourself? The issue of self-defense doesn't stop at an imaginary line in the sand, but states like Ma, Ca, Hawaii, Illinois, DC, Maryland, NJ, NY, etc seem to believe that. And notice the states that are bitching about this? They're the same states that "May Issue" and will destroy you if you ever actually needed to use said defense. Again, look to Swampscott, Lowell, Wilburham, etc.

No, Bill, the legislative a**h***s on Beacon Hill can kiss the darkest part of my lily-white ass if they continue to lie about this being a "state right". It's anything but the right of a state to determine whether we're allowed to defend ourselves or not. Remember, it "shall not be infringed", yet with your statement, you're validating their infringing. Look to England for how far that infringement went...
 
Bill Nance said:
There exists, at present, NO right to bear concealed arms under the constitution as recognized by the courts.
Nor is there likely to BE such a recognized right anytime in the near future.

So you're for forcing individual states to recognize a license (that's permission from ONE state) in their state, even when their state is wildly different and has seperate standards for such licenses.

That's exactly the same thing as the Federal Government telling Alabama it has to recognize gay marriages from Mass.

There is no difference.

If sips hit Montana wants to have a ridiculous law about licensing nose-hair removers, that's their business. NOT the Federal government. If it's an Amendment, then yes, they do.

But I don't expect you "small government conservatives" to get it. You outed yourselves a long time ago as being in favor of "small government" only when it was convenient.
Click to expand...

They don't seem to have an issue with Driver's Licenses, yet the requirements for NH and Ma vary greatly. Yet, there's no issue in reciprocity here. And the difference being................? Hoplophobia and ignorance, nothing more.

And the gay marraige thing is about religious jackasses pushing their views on folks, nothing more.
 
Bill Nance said:
There exists, at present, NO right to bear concealed arms under the constitution as recognized by the courts.
Nor is there likely to BE such a recognized right anytime in the near future.

So you're for forcing individual states to recognize a license (that's permission from ONE state) in their state, even when their state is wildly different and has seperate standards for such licenses.


That's exactly the same thing as the Federal Government telling Alabama it has to recognize gay marriages from Mass.

There is no difference.

If sips hit Montana wants to have a ridiculous law about licensing nose-hair removers, that's their business. NOT the Federal government.

But I don't expect you "small government conservatives" to get it. You outed yourselves a long time ago as being in favor of "small government" only when it was convenient.
Click to expand...

The feds already allow this under H.R. 218 LEOSA for police and retired police. Why is this such a problem to extend this to the rest of us?
Police training is not the same, the laws they have to enforce in each state are different why should this be OK for someone with no training in a hicktown who has a badge but not someone who trains officers in gun safety and has years experience?

Going back to the Driver's license analogy, we are not asking for a Firearm license version of the Commercial Driver's License. Only that they extend the same curtesy to civilians that they do to Active and retired police.

States will still have their own laws to follow which everyone passing through would have to follow. I do not view this as removing State's rights but giving the citizen's of every state more freedom.
No more multiple firearms licenses, fewwer getting arrested for a plane flight layovers getting lost when hiking or leaving a box of ammo in your car when crossing state lines.
Fewwer court cases, licensing boards, arrests, less government.
 
Bill Nance said:
There exists, at present, NO right to bear concealed arms under the constitution as recognized by the courts.
Nor is there likely to BE such a recognized right anytime in the near future.

So you're for forcing individual states to recognize a license (that's permission from ONE state) in their state, even when their state is wildly different and has seperate standards for such licenses.


That's exactly the same thing as the Federal Government telling Alabama it has to recognize gay marriages from Mass.

There is no difference.

If sips hit Montana wants to have a ridiculous law about licensing nose-hair removers, that's their business. NOT the Federal government.

But I don't expect you "small government conservatives" to get it. You outed yourselves a long time ago as being in favor of "small government" only when it was convenient.
Click to expand...

I think a certain recent SCOTUS decision leaves most of your post in error.

From the decision:

"Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense"

"(a) Petitioners base their case on two submissions. Primarily, they argue that the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the Slaughter-House Cases' narrow interpretation of the Clause should now be rejected. As a secondary argument, they contend that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment right."

"Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,15 and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at56) (stating that the "inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right"). Explaining that "the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" in the home, ibid., we found that this right applies to handguns because they are "the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family," id., at ___ (slip op., at 57) (some internal quotation marks omitted); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at 56) (noting that handguns are "overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [the] lawful purpose" of self-defense); id., at ___ (slip op., at 57) ("[T]he American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon"). Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted "to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense."
Click to expand...

Now, does it say specifically CCW only? No, but the intent is pretty clear and most that carry, CCW.

So, just to sum up, the 2A is now every bit as equal as any other civil right. Unbound by state line.
 
I sent Brown an angry email back when I got his canned reply. To sum up what I said, I said he does not understand what MA gun law is about. I said that I doubted he knows how much things like suitability are abused, and how non violent crimes such as DUI are a DQ to own a firearm. I told him that I suspect if I dropped a banana peel on the ground and someone fell on it, I would lose my gun license. I told him he needs to do the right thing, and stop playing the political game.

He won't be reelected, anyway. I won't support him. I don't play the "its better him than Warren card."
 
Bill Nance said:
That's exactly the same thing as the Federal Government telling Alabama it has to recognize gay marriages from Mass.
Click to expand...

Yeah! Its just like telling people that Blacks can't marry Whites!

Bill, get off your bullshit train. People have the right to self defense, CCW included, and its covered by the 2nd amendment. This bill would force states to recognize that.

Homosexuals have the right as two adults to marry whoever they want. Is not up to the state to decide if they want to acknowledge that. Your sad example is the same mindset that held inter racial marriage back.

Time to move out of the cave, and put a stock on that M240.
 
Last edited:
Scott Brown needs to go just to show that we shouldn't be taken for granted and that we did a great deal to elect him in the first place.
 
Brown ------> Warren. The longer HE stays in office, the more I'm convinced that it won't be a tremendous change going from one to the other.
 
joeendris said:
Any convict from San Quentin. They're about as honest as either of these two moonbats.....
Click to expand...

"that we can elect" means "that it would be possible to elect." Sorry I wasn't more clear. Pick a number and call Brown "with us" 60% of the time. Who would it be that we could actually get elected who would be with us 60% of the time or more?
 

Similar threads

H.R. 5135
Replies
1
Views
341
Agnotology
Agnotology
Went to purchase first firearm and got delayed from NICS
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
2K
upcountry
upcountry
you got a pet firearm?
Replies
12
Views
530
pinefd
pinefd
Shipping gold chain from Fla to Ma?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
957
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Democrat Ruben Gallego Would Prohibit Arizonans From Buying AR-15s
Replies
6
Views
230
Lank
Lank
Back
Top Bottom