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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
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?
Using Senator Brown's logic, maybe we shouldn't recognize the drivers licenses that are issued by the other 49 states as well. Just put a damn wall around the state and be done with it.
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...
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.
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.
Supreme court justice confirmations, for one.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For the record, I think he did vote against Kagan.
.
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.
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.
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."
That's exactly the same thing as the Federal Government telling Alabama it has to recognize gay marriages from Mass.
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.
And who do you propose to be as good or better that we can elect?
Any convict from San Quentin. They're about as honest as either of these two moonbats.....