Brown to Vote Against Reciprocity Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
From Scott Brown's Facebook page:

Marc L said:
For what he's done so far, even though I am a southern Democrat and left-leaning, I support Sen. Brown. Not a Massachusetts voter, but I sure as hell am sending my money all the way from Afghanistan for his campaign. I do that because he's not the typical vote-by-party-line kind of politician. In fact, he's a thinker. I appreciate that fact, even though he's probably a Patriots fan.
Click to expand...

So I guess he's winning the left-leaning Democrat vote. Good for him.
 
Last edited:
At the risk of being the unpopular guy here...

To be fair, at least he gives a lucid reason for voting against it. If another state has less stringent requirements for having a carry license, should they still be allowed to carry in MA? I'm not so sure that's a good idea.

Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. Even if you disagree with the senator on this one, let me leave you with this thought: Would you rather have a moderate senator with whom you agree 75% of the time, or a moonbat liberal with whom you agree 1% of the time? This is not a perfect world and elections matter.
 
ab1ht said:
Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. Even if you disagree with the senator on this one, let me leave you with this thought: Would you rather have a moderate senator with whom you agree 75% of the time, or a moonbat liberal with whom you agree 1% of the time? This is not a perfect world and elections matter.
Click to expand...

It's a nice thought, but Brown is closer to 1% than 75%. He might be better than Warren, but he's more moonbat now than man, twisted and evil...
 
Boghog1 said:
so if some states have less stringent driving license requirements should they also be required to get a MA state license?
Click to expand...

This is the logical and thoughtful challenge to Brown's position (and, to be clear, I'm not firm on either side of this debate; just making (hopefully) thoughtful points). Various licenses are more important than others. If one gets a law, medical, or insurance license in one state, do they automatically transfer to another state? No.

Driver's licenses, on the other hand, don't require great skill to obtain nor do they impose an enormous amount of responsibility on the owner (like a law or medical license does).

The real question is: How much responsibility comes with a carry license? Does it carry significant responsibility or is it so trivial that anyone can get one? I don't know the answer.
 
we put far more responsibility into the ownership of the firearm than it should require. it is a tool, like most other tools if used improperly there should be consequences. The difference between a medical or law license it isn't a natural right to practice law or medicine, it is a right to keep and bear arms for defense of myself and my family, I should go so far as to include my property as well
 
Boghog1 said:
The difference between a medical or law license it isn't a natural right to practice law or medicine, it is a right to keep and bear arms for defense of myself and my family, I should go so far as to include my property as well
Click to expand...

Excellent point, my friend. You may be on your way to convincing me of your position. [grin]
 
ab1ht said:
This is the logical and thoughtful challenge to Brown's position (and, to be clear, I'm not firm on either side of this debate; just making (hopefully) thoughtful points). Various licenses are more important than others. If one gets a law, medical, or insurance license in one state, do they automatically transfer to another state? No.

Driver's licenses, on the other hand, don't require great skill to obtain nor do they impose an enormous amount of responsibility on the owner (like a law or medical license does).

The real question is: How much responsibility comes with a carry license? Does it carry significant responsibility or is it so trivial that anyone can get one? I don't know the answer.
Click to expand...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

The SC has affirmed that this is an individual right, not a collective right. UNLIKE the 1st amendment, nothing in this amendment limits the scope of who can and can't infringe to the federal level. IOW, the states ALSO have no power to infringe this right. The laws that require us to line up and be issued licenses to exercise this right are just as unconstitutional as the laws that made certain men property of others and prevented them from using the same drinking fountains.

So the REAL question is, why do we continue to allow our state, local and federal government to blatantly violate our Constitution? It is time to REPEAL these laws, not add to the confusion.

You'll note that nowhere in the Constitution does it affirm the natural right to drive OR practice medicine.

I doubt that many lawyers would agree with this point of view. That's because it is based on common sense, not a law degree.
 
Just got around to calling and got the answering service...I left a brief message but plan on speaking to someone tomorrow to go into in much greater detail.
 
Boghog1 said:
so if some states have less stringent driving license requirements should they also be required to get a MA state license?
Click to expand...

Speaking directly about concealed carry, history has proven people who receive a concealed carry license are not the problem in society. In my mind the point of requirements is meaningless.
 
Mr_Irritating said:
Speaking directly about concealed carry, history has proven people who receive a concealed carry license are not the problem in society. In my mind the point of requirements is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I wonder how the crime rates compare between licensed carry individuals in strict states vs shall issue compares? something tells me you are not going to see a drastic difference in those that commit crimes with a firearm.
 
exodious said:
That is exactly the kind of crap I am concerned with if HR 822 became law. Despite all the naysayers saying how this doesn't get the Feds involved with the permitting etc. etc., this is just the beginning. The Federal government didn't grow to its current size overnight.
Click to expand...

Give an inch and they will take a mile.
 
Defender said:
A cautionary perspective from Rand Paul and the National Association for Gun Rights, http://www.nationalgunrights.org/h-r-822-moves-to-the-senate/.
Click to expand...


NAGR said:
...it was passed with an amendment that would open the door to federal biometric requirements for concealed firearms permits and a federally-administered database of all permit holders.
Click to expand...

Having actually read the bill, I've seen nothing in there that does either of those things. It would be great if these organizations would quote the section(s) of the actual bill that they claim does these things. They don't because they can't.

Also I don't see Rand Paul's name anywhere in the text that you linked to.

Read it for yourself: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:3:./temp/~c112uOeXXd::
 
what is says currently and what it opens up the door to are two different things. add to that lots of last minute amendments could be added to it. I know the government is always looking out for our best interest and would never infringe on our rights but I am paranoid like that.
 
Boghog1 said:
what is says currently and what it opens up the door to are two different things. add to that lots of last minute amendments could be added to it. I know the government is always looking out for our best interest and would never infringe on our rights but I am paranoid like that.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that's a different argument. Stating "...it was passed with an amendment that would open the door to federal biometric requirements for concealed firearms permits and a federally-administered database of all permit holders." is factually incorrect. (Also known as a lie.) FUD at it's best.
 
Boghog1 said:
I would rather stop it before it gets passed with an amendment than try to stop it after.
Click to expand...

I'm not as worried as some are with regard to the two studies that got attached to the bill. While I do understand the "creeping crud" argument I don't really see how a couple of toothless studies that won't even be completed until a year after the bill becomes law are anything to freak out about. Frankly there's nothing stopping some random congressman from sponsering these studies anyway, and to jump to conclusions about scary stuff like "biometrics" and "national databases" is really just FUD.
 
Boghog1 said:
I am glad you put so much faith in the government to protect your rights. Kind of ironic considering where you live.
Click to expand...


Snarky DB comment aside, if that were the case this bill wouldn't be necessary. The fact is that some states are ignoring our Constitutional rights, and when they do that the feds have precedent that compels them to step in. In a perfect world the states would respect our rights and the feds wouldn't have to do get involved at all, but as we all know this world isn't perfect. Don't blame me, blame NY, IL, CA, MA, NJ, etc, etc, etc.
 
not blaming you at all, I look at state gov as a smaller version of fed gov, if all those above states are willing to poop on the constitution what stops the fed from doing so?
 
Boghog1 said:
not blaming you at all, I look at state gov as a smaller version of fed gov, if all those above states are willing to poop on the constitution what stops the fed from doing so?
Click to expand...

People like you and I refreshing the tree of liberty. Personally I'd rather explore all other reasonable avenues first.
 
jasons said:
I'm not as worried as some are with regard to the two studies that got attached to the bill. While I do understand the "creeping crud" argument I don't really see how a couple of toothless studies that won't even be completed until a year after the bill becomes law are anything to freak out about. Frankly there's nothing stopping some random congressman from sponsering these studies anyway, and to jump to conclusions about scary stuff like "biometrics" and "national databases" is really just FUD.
Click to expand...

Is that sort of like the worries some had about the contents of the healthcare bill they wanted passed before anyone could read it?

jasons said:
Snarky DB comment aside, if that were the case this bill wouldn't be necessary. The fact is that some states are ignoring our Constitutional rights, and when they do that the feds have precedent that compels them to step in. In a perfect world the states would respect our rights and the feds wouldn't have to do get involved at all, but as we all know this world isn't perfect. Don't blame me, blame NY, IL, CA, MA, NJ, etc, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

If the steering is loose on my car, I have the choice of adding more gizmos to the rack and onion, maybe a stabilizer bar that activates when it senses vibration and an adaptive strut that provides feedback into the vertical steering compensator, coming to $2,582, two months in the shop and it STILL won't steer properly.

Or I could take it to a mechanic and get it aligned for $40.

What we need is an alignment, not more crap added to the books.

(Rack & Onion wasn't a typo. I was being a wiseass)
 
namedpipes said:
Is that sort of like the worries some had about the contents of the healthcare bill they wanted passed before anyone could read it?
Click to expand...

The difference here is that you can read it. It's only about one page of text, and a lot of that is double spacing, tabs, and other formatting. It's nothing like the 100's of pages of healthcare bill nonsense. Not to mention we're talking about a Constitutionally protected individual right, not an unconstitutional healthcare mandate.



namedpipes said:
If the steering is loose on my car, I have the choice of adding more gizmos to the rack and onion, maybe a stabilizer bar that activates when it senses vibration and an adaptive strut that provides feedback into the vertical steering compensator, coming to $2,582, two months in the shop and it STILL won't steer properly.

Or I could take it to a mechanic and get it aligned for $40.

What we need is an alignment, not more crap added to the books.

(Rack & Onion wasn't a typo. I was being a wiseass)
Click to expand...


I think you're underestimating the problem, but I'm willing to hear ideas for alternative solutions. Frankly I don't think anything short of federal action is going to convince the handful of states who fail to recognize the 2nd to do so. Recent SCOTUS cases seem to support my theory. Put another way, it seems unlikely for IL, NY, MA, etc to come to some sort of epiphany on their own, unless you know something that I don't.
 
jasons said:
I think you're underestimating the problem, but I'm willing to hear ideas for alternative solutions. Frankly I don't think anything short of federal action is going to convince the handful of states who fail to recognize the 2nd to do so. Recent SCOTUS cases seem to support my theory. Put another way, it seems unlikely for IL, NY, MA, etc to come to some sort of epiphany on their own, unless you know something that I don't.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but as we've seen with FOPA and LEOSA, those states that are skirting the law are going to continue to do so until the law develops some teeth anyway. Until congress is willing to have the ATF throwing cops in prison for harassing citizens who are carrying legally, cops will harass citizens who carry legally in the problem jurisdictions.
 
jasons said:
Sure, but that's a different argument. Stating "...it was passed with an amendment that would open the door to federal biometric requirements for concealed firearms permits and a federally-administered database of all permit holders." is factually incorrect. (Also known as a lie.) FUD at it's best.
Click to expand...


Shill condemnations based on innuendo and/or outright lies coming from NAGR or GOA? No wai!
 
jar said:
Shill condemnations based on innuendo and/or outright lies coming from NAGR or GOA? No wai!
Click to expand...

I'm not all that familiar with either organization, but it is interesting that both are spreading similar FUD.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Hartford Connecticut Residents Form Armed Group To Defend Against Violent Crime
Replies
6
Views
223
SS1
SS1
3 House Democrats file bill to ban 50 caliber rifles
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
T-Unit
T
Maine: Only One Vote Needed to Kill Waiting Periods
Replies
7
Views
482
whacko
whacko
Scott signs VT Suppressor Hunting Bill into law
Replies
23
Views
885
1sern
1
Kennedy is a no vote.
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
2K
HARRYM
H
Back
Top Bottom