Why is the owner of ARMS giving money to Coakley?

[Admin]

First of all, Coakley, unique among her Democratic opponents, said specifically she does support the 2nd Amendment: she just doesn't interpret that support in the same way that you or I do, but any three people in a room are likely to disagree in some detail of what that means, anyway.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Coakley has not done a damned thing for gun owners....

One could argue that she was just to chicken to change the regulations once in office for fear of political backlash. That argument became flawed once she sent two attorneys to the EOPS hearing to request that the EOPS target roster contain a statement that presence on the roster does not mean a gun meets the AGs regulations (which is a stretch, since "designed an manufactured solely for formal targetshooting competition" is not only the requirement for the EOPS target roster, but a specifically enumerated exemption within the CMR)

 

[CLMN]

Direct From Scott Brown's website: http://brownforussenate.com/issues

Gun issues

I support the Second Amendment and believe that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms as a basic constitutional liberty. I support safe and responsible gun ownership.

CLMN

 

[Mike S]

First of all, Coakley, unique among her Democratic opponents, said specifically she does support the 2nd Amendment: she just doesn't interpret that support in the same way that you or I do, but any three people in a room are likely to disagree in some detail of what that means, anyway.

Coakley will do everything in her power to strip citizens of their 2A rights. Have you read her Amicus brief in the Runyan case?

Her three opponents would not even state they supported the 2nd Amendment, so in that sense she is the most evil. This means Ms. Coakley may be open to a dialog: remember, if she gets elected, she will have an obligation to support her constituents, and we will have to make the case for the right direction should she be elected.
Fixed it for you

Perhaps most troubling of all is that turnout for the primary was less than 10% of registered voters in some districts, and the highest turnout was around 20%. It was 10% in Boston compared to 39% for the Mayoral race. If gun owners turn out in force Mr. Brown can win.

The low turnout is a good thing for people in support of Brown, if we can get enough "I's" and "R's" out and voting we might just win.

 

[GOAL C.M.]

Scott Brown is rated A+ by GOAL.

He is a friend of gun owners and the 2A.

 

[drgrant]

Look where THAT got them in Massachusetts.

Glock tried to sell guns here but failed. My impression is they got sick of the CMR940 BS.

Ironically they're still selling a lot of guns here, so they probably don't care
much.

-Mike

 

[garandman]

So you,by association, support NAMBLA and their right to free speech.

Nice.

Why did this topic bring your mind go to the North American Man Boy Love Association or whatever it is? No, I am not a supporter of theirs, but I do support putting their bumper stickers on non-handicapped people who park in handicapped spots....

You should do a little more research,there is no Libertarian candidate running.

I thought from the thread that Joe Kennedy was running as a Libertarian, but I see he's running as "The Tea Party Candidate."

 

[Gadsden]

The fact that they support the collectivist argument is laughable. They take that position because the ACLU generally does not like guns, because most of its member base is flaming moonbats. Only the Nevada? chapter has openly come out in support of RKBA, I believe.
Mike

They did step up to bat for us in the "Mosby v. McAteer" case in RI.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2004_06_13_archive.html

 

[FalArAk]

Why did this topic bring your mind go to the North American Man Boy Love Association or whatever it is? No, I am not a supporter of theirs, but I do support putting their bumper stickers on non-handicapped people who park in handicapped spots....


I thought from the thread that Joe Kennedy was running as a Libertarian, but I see he's running as "The Tea Party Candidate."

Why did NAMBLA come to mind ?

Because the ACLU defending them in court was just about the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard them doing.

So ya,you donate money/support the ACLU,you support what they do,everything.Up to and including men who want sexual relationships with pre-teen boys "legalized".Now I am not saying you agree with NAMBLA,but if you support them(ACLU) you are enabling them(NAMBLA) to prosper.

As far as the Kennedy thing,last I heard he was running as the Liberty party candidate,now it's the Tea Party candidate..whatever,I think he is running to take votes away from Brown.

 

[pdm]

Coakley, unique among her Democratic opponents, said specifically she does support the 2nd Amendment: she just doesn't interpret that support in the same way that you or I do, but any three people in a room are likely to disagree in some detail of what that means, anyway.

Dude, seriously, with all due respect what kind of crack are you smoking?

I don't care what he's smoking as long as he keeps up the good work on the avatars. Bravo, sir. And holiday themed, no less.

 

[jasons]

While they say they interpret the 2nd Amendment as a collective right, they also say that they take no position for or against gun ownership:

One might argue that interpreting the 2nd Amendment that way is taking a position....

I don't care what he's smoking as long as he keeps up the good work on the avatars. Bravo, sir. And holiday themed, no less.

+1 Where do you find those?

 

[jasons]

Why did NAMBLA come to mind ?

Because the ACLU defending them in court was just about the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard them doing.

So ya,you donate money/support the ACLU,you support what they do,everything.Up to and including men who want sexual relationships with pre-teen boys "legalized".Now I am not saying you agree with NAMBLA,but if you support them(ACLU) you are enabling them(NAMBLA) to prosper.

To be fair the ACLU wasn't arguing for legalizing sexual relationships with pre-teen boys, they were defending NAMBLA's 1st amendment right to make that disgusting argument themselves. Splitting hairs? Maybe, but it's a distinction worth mentioning for the sake of accuracy.

As far as the Kennedy thing,last I heard he was running as the Liberty party candidate,now it's the Tea Party candidate..whatever,I think he is running to take votes away from Brown.

I agree there.

 

[TomH]

Coakley, unique among her Democratic opponents, said specifically she does support the 2nd Amendment: she just doesn't interpret that support in the same way that you or I do, but any three people in a room are likely to disagree in some detail of what that means, anyway. I don't think telling her that no gun owners are ever going to vote for her is a very good way of getting any visibility for those issues.

Every time you post I am more convinced you are out of touch with reality. She doesn't care about your 2nd Amendment rights. Liberal politicians just SAY they support 2nd Amendment rights, to fool all the FUDDs into thinking they are safe. Someone who believes in rights, doesn't need to say they support the 2nd Amendment... it's obvious. They are our RIGHTS, and someone running for office saying they specifically support a right is suspect, because of course they should support the people's rights as they are applying for the job of SERVING the people.

 

[MassMark]

The official t-shirt for the sheep among us...

 

[garandman]

Every time you post I am more convinced you are out of touch with reality. She doesn't care about your 2nd Amendment rights. Liberal politicians just SAY they support 2nd Amendment rights, to fool all the FUDDs into thinking they are safe. Someone who believes in rights, doesn't need to say they support the 2nd Amendment... it's obvious. They are our RIGHTS, and someone running for office saying they specifically support a right is suspect, because of course they should support the people's rights as they are applying for the job of SERVING the people.

I'm not naive, and not blind to the fact that GOAL gives Ms. Coakley a D rating.

But we also have to deal with the political realities and because I live in this state, I have to try and act in a way that will create results. Hopping on my high horse and preaching about my rights doesn't create an atmosphere for change.

I emailed her campaign and asked her about 2A because I want the campaign to know it's an important issue. If every gun owner in the state had emailed her campaign, you can bet her handlers would have taken note.

He showed up and spoke at the hearings last month...Did you?

~Zipgun

Thanks.

For 2010 I've set the goal of attending at least five committee meetings to testify in person, write letters to support GOAL positions for 10 pieces of legislation, increase contributions to GOAL 10X, and meet with my state representatives twice each to talk about this and other issues. I've also set up an appointment to speak with my US rep in person about a number of issues.

You can't just walk into a committee hearing looking like you slept in your clothes and spouting off about your rights and accomplish anything. You've got three minutes to speak. The committee members may be in your favor, neutral, or against you, and you can't tell beforehand. So you have to figure out how that testimony will help accomplish your goal, and you have to practice it enough that you make a coherent argument and keep them listening and engaged. And I touched base with the GOAL rep first to make sure we were "on message." That's how change happens, not by ranting to the like-minded in interwebz forums.

BTW, another organization who has endorsed Scott Brown is the State Police Association of Massachusetts.

 

[Big_Red]

I have spoken to a source very close to the Swan family about this donation and have been told that neither Dick nor his wife have made any contributions to Coakley's campaign fund. Dick is a "card carrying" Republican supporting Scott Brown. Why his name is listed in Coakley's donation documents is not known.

I am not defending anyone here; simply passing on the info.

 

[MassMark]

I have spoken to a source very close to the Swan family about this donation and have been told that neither Dick nor his wife have made any contributions to Coakley's campaign fund. Dick is a "card carrying" Republican supporting Scott Brown. Why his name is listed in Coakley's donation documents is not known.

I am not defending anyone here; simply passing on the info.

Good to hear...Now if people close to Dick Swan can convince him to (A), stop building crap, (I mean MIM throw-levers???) and (B), stop being a sue-happy douchebag, the world will be a better place....

 

[M1911]

I have spoken to a source very close to the Swan family about this donation and have been told that neither Dick nor his wife have made any contributions to Coakley's campaign fund. Dick is a "card carrying" Republican supporting Scott Brown. Why his name is listed in Coakley's donation documents is not known.

I am not defending anyone here; simply passing on the info.

Count me as highly skeptical

 

[vellnueve]

Count me as highly skeptical

+1.

He probably owns the number "1000" as well.

 

[FalArAk]

I have spoken to a source very close to the Swan family about this donation and have been told that neither Dick nor his wife have made any contributions to Coakley's campaign fund.

No offense,but I talked with a source very close to the source of your source that is very close to the Swan family source,that said your source is lying because one of the sources found out the Swan family source was actually a family member that has it out for the original source of the Swan family for leaking information about secret sources.

 

[Big_Red]

No offense,but I talked with a source very close to the source of your source that is very close to the Swan family source,that said your source is lying because one of the sources found out the Swan family source was actually a family member that has it out for the original source of the Swan family for leaking information about secret sources.

I AM offended because what you wrote gave me a headache.

 

[kevin9]

I have spoken to a source very close to the Swan family about this donation and have been told that neither Dick nor his wife have made any contributions to Coakley's campaign fund. Dick is a "card carrying" Republican supporting Scott Brown. Why his name is listed in Coakley's donation documents is not known.

I am not defending anyone here; simply passing on the info.

State election records show that both he and his wife made campaign contributions to Martha Coakley in 2006, 2007 and 2008. No contributions are shown from them to either Coakley or Brown in 2009, i.e. for the current Senate race. There are reports online from Coakley but none yet from Brown. It would appear they have not donated to Coakley in this race, but may or may not have to Brown.

 

[ISOTOX]

So Great headlines...Coakley taking money from Gun Dealers...so what is the issue with that? looks like an advantage if exploited.

 

[terraformer]

So Great headlines...Coakley taking money from Gun Dealers...so what is the issue with that? looks like an advantage if exploited.

They would never try to exploit a falsified donation. If they did they would have a PR nightmare on their hands. They double check the donations when they exploit them.

 

[Scrivener]

So Great headlines...Coakley taking money from Gun Dealers...so what is the issue with that? looks like an advantage if exploited.

The donor in question is not a "Gun Dealer."

Which is not to say that gun dealers would not contribute to her, as the edict against mail order ammo purchases is a restraint of trade local dealers profit by.

 

[Coyote33]

The donor in question is not a "Gun Dealer."

Which is not to say that gun dealers would not contribute to her, as the edict against mail order ammo purchases is a restraint of trade local dealers profit by.

So, has anyone cross-checked THAT list?