Why is Scott Brown rated "A" on gun rights?

You can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps: Rudy Giuliani (supports assault weapons ban and nationwide licensing along with gun control), was here stumping for him and Mitt Romney is his bud, (hello? forced healthcare and assault weapons ban anyone?). brown's first visit was to John McCain's office...Hint, hint?

I'd bet Mitt and Rudy were part of a political calculation from the GOP. EG, some guy called up brown and said "We can get Mitt and Rudy up there, do you want them to come?" What is he gonna say? No? I probably would say NO, personally, but that's why I'm not running for office... I wouldn't get many votes doing what I wanted to do... at least not in MA. Yeah, he could be a typical RINO, probably is. The proof will be in the pudding, I guess.

The problem on the ground is, that any non-dem who wants to win here has to at least pretend they believe in that crap in order to get elected. There's no other way around it. You know as well as I do that MA does not have the base required to elect a real conservative, or for that matter, a libertarian leaning conservative. The demographics of this state just don't support it- the numbers are literally not there. It's mostly dems and so called "independents" that mostly swing dem. We got lucky this time because the voters were pissed and Martha is flaming douchebag. [laugh]

-Mike
 
He doesnt believe in government run health care-he believes the states should be left to provide it-not the federal government. Which I think is rational. I think that the option should be left to individual states, NOT the federal govt!

Wrong, the option should be left to THE INDIVIDUAL PERSON with no mandate forcing them to pay for someone else.
 
Anyone know if he's an NRA, GOA, JFPO or GOAL member? Just curious...I didn't see any affiliations with those organizations when I was doing research....

Senator Brown will have a long road ahead. I personally, would not want his job. He's announced his free-thinking bipartisanship to the masses - now the cows will come home to roost, (or is that chickens?). He'll have to appease essentially three parties in Massachusetts and work to balance not losing any of them, or his will be a short stay. I wish him well and will be anxious for the day when he's questioned directly on some of his positions - the answers will tell all....Or will they?
 
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Scott_Brown_Gun_Control.htm

Rep. Brown indicated he supports the following principles concerning gun issues:
-Allow citizens to carry concealed guns.
-Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks on guns.
-Require background checks on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows.
-Require a license for gun possession.


Typical MA RINO... and yes, definitely better than Coakley. I guess it's a start [hmmm]

Those are already requirements in MA and that is where he was running for office. To the uneducated anti-gun voter they think these requirements are fantastic. They don't know they are already in state law. In actuality, selling guns w/ locks, requiring background checks, and licensing for guns are probably good things. That way kids don't blow their heads off and scumbags can't buy guns. I know it hurts to hear that for all of us. Also, it doesn't say he thinks it should be required that you use the lock that the manufacturer provides. Nowhere in there do i see anything about large cap mags or "black guns".

Look at how our rights have been whittled away by the other side. It was a gradual, creeping process over decades, but it's been extremely successful. The same gradual process is needed to regain everything we've lost.

EDIT: To clarify what I mean by that, I'm saying that I don't think MA is ready for a true A candidate. An A candidate would most likely be unelectable. You can try in the vain attempt to "send a message", but you can just save yourself the time by unplugging your phone then calling up Beacon Hill to voice your displeasure. You don't go from a 0.1 GPA to a 4.0 overnight.

I disagree. Our gun rights were not chipped away gradually. The assault weapons ban was a massive blow to gun rights in one fell swoop, as was MA adopting it as state law.
 
Last edited:
He had King RINO on stage with him...What do people expect? I'm thankful for Scott Brown's victory over Let Em Eat Cake Coakley, but underneath the major Scott Brown ass-kissing festival, remains the FACT that he supports government sponsored healthcare, (said so this very morning on Fox) and he supports gun control measures...Let's not kid ourselves....Much like HR 2259, he's better than what we have now, but what lies underneath the surface is more of the same-o-same-o...Take a sniff of the coffee and wake the hell up folks....

Yup..Scott Brown believes in government run healthcare. He supported the debacle in Massachusetts....He supports gun control measures...Surprised? I'm not - I knew this going in, but like many in Massachusetts, we get used to voting for "better than what we have now"...Wonder how he'll vote if another AWB slides into the Senate? Like said - I'm glad that he won. I literally sent my checking account into the red donating to his campaign. Hopefully it's a sign of things to come. However, any illusions that Scott Brown is somehow this savior of Republican ideals, is simply euphoria from from the ass-kissing festival....

I find a distinct difference between negativity and reality...I for one am elated that he's the new Senator from Massachusetts. I just don't happen to fall into line that he's some standard-bearer for liberty, freedom, a saviour of the Second Amendment and champion of smaller government....

God forbid anyone dissent from the euphoria....

Excellent posts Mark. I agree completely. I don't regret supporting Brown with my money and my vote. But we should not be under the illusion that we just elected Barry Goldwater. People should come to terms with this. Brown is far better than Coakley, and the message sent by electing a republican in Mass was far more important, in my view, than supporting Brown's political views, with which, in good part, I disagree.
 
Well it shouldn't matter what he believes in. . .

his entire platform was that "it's the People's Seat" when it comes time to vote on bills, make sure that WE, THE PEOPLE contact him and tell him how we want him to vote. If he doesn't, vote him out!

One of the things that stuck out to me during the Democratic(sic) primaries was a question asked. . .I'm paraphrasing "If there was an important topic that you were to vote on, and the people you support were against it, and you thought that it was best to vote for it, how would you vote?"

All of the Dems gave the same answer, It's a tough decision, they would take into consideration the opinions of the people, but would ultimately vote how they felt best served the country.

That's not what "our" Reps are for. . . They are to represent the voice of the people. his/her opinion should be one vote in the ballot of the approximately 4,000,000 voters in the state. If 51% vote "yea", their vote should be "yea", if 51% vote "nay" his vote should be "nay"


just my opinion
 
Those are already requirements in MA and that is where he was running for office. To the uneducated anti-gun voter they think these requirements are fantastic. They don't know they are already in state law. In actuality, selling guns w/ locks, requiring background checks, and licensing for guns are probably good things. That way kids don't blow their heads off and scumbags can't buy guns. I know it hurts to hear that for all of us. Also, it doesn't say he thinks it should be required that you use the lock that the manufacturer provides. Nowhere in there do i see anything about large cap mags or "black guns".



I disagree. Our gun rights were not chipped away gradually. The assault weapons ban was a massive blow to gun rights in one fell swoop, as was MA adopting it as state law.

Sure, but it didn't start with the AWB. It's not like everything was just hunky dory the day before the AWB went into effect. The tide was changing back in the 30's with the NFA.
 
I heard Larry Pratt say in an interview that "A crooked stick is better than nothing when a rabid dog is charging you."
To me, he is good because he will kill the healthcare bill. Other than that, I expect more of the same BS that we get from 99% of the politicians from both parties. More big government butting their nose into our lives and our wallets.
 
If we wait for the perfect ideological candidate, we'll be waiting for a very, very long time.
Yup. Contrast Scott Brown's record on gun control issues with Martha Coakley's. Which would you prefer as senator?

I will never completely agree with any candidate. Heck, I often don't agree with myself when I look back at some of the things I've said. That's life.
 
Well, at least now I can write to my senator and say "I have voted for you, support this or that...". It's better then "Oh well, useless anyway!!!"
 
Looking for the ideal candidate is like looking for the ideal spouse. You can find both of those for sale in the aisle with unicorns and pregnant virgins.

Realistically, we had a choice between Coakley and Brown. I absolutely loathed Coakley. In that regard, I guess that puts me in a sub-group of people who voted for Obama. Many folks who voted for Obama did so because they couldn't stand Bush, and they bought into the idea that McCain would have been another version of Bush. They weren't necessarily in love with Obama, but they hated Bush and everything connected with him.

If I had voted strictly on the basis of ideology than I would have joined the 1% that voted for Kennedy. If enough of us had done that we'd be watching the coronation of Queen Coakley. We made the best decision we could given the choices we had. I'm happy that Brown won; I'm even happier that Coakley lost.

There's a chance that Scott will listen to reason, there was absolutely no chance of that with "Marcia." [frown]
 
The current statewide ass-kissing of Scott Brown nearly rivals the same Obama ass-kissing from last year. How little some people seem to have learned from our liberal foes.

Is he far better than Coakley? Absolutely. But I'm going to remain skeptical of Scott Brown until he's actually done something of value for this state and this country.
 
To paraphrase John Kennedy
"Ask not what Scott Brown can do for Massachusetts and you, ask what YOU can do for Massachusetts"

If you guys were half as good at being pro-active and doing something as you are at being skeptical and bitching we'd be like Texas.
 
The current statewide ass-kissing of Scott Brown nearly rivals the same Obama ass-kissing from last year. How little some people seem to have learned from our liberal foes.

Is he far better than Coakley? Absolutely. But I'm going to remain skeptical of Scott Brown until he's actually done something of value for this state and this country.
Right on. I wish they would all chut up about filibusters and start talking about getting some work done.

Yup...I'd like to see someone like you describe make a run for Kerry's seat...I just got done watching Brown hanging out in Kerry's office...made me throw up in my mouth a little....
Eh, once they're in the Senator's Club, they're never the same.
 
Last edited:
Wait wait wait....


How is requiring manufacturers to provide a child saftey lock make you rage?

I'd gladly pay the extra $10 dollars so one idiot that normally wouldn't store his gun properly thinks twice (hell, maybe even save his childs life). Grasping at straws a bit hard for my tastes.
 
Wait wait wait....


How is requiring manufacturers to provide a child saftey lock make you rage?

I'd gladly pay the extra $10 dollars so one idiot that normally wouldn't store his gun properly thinks twice (hell, maybe even save his childs life). Grasping at straws a bit hard for my tastes.

Requiring any private business to provide something the customer doesn't want or need is bad news.
 
Right on. I wish they would all chut up about filibusters and start talking about getting some work done.

Just about everything the government touches is worse for the effort. If they do nothing but filibuster for a few years, I think we'll be better off.
 
Requiring any private business to provide something the customer doesn't want or need is bad news.

With the alternative being some kid getting shot or shooting another kid, which would give the anti's even more fodder, why is this a bad idea? If nothing else, supplying a lock makes the parent more personally responsible for an accident and taking the heat off the gun manufacturer.
 
Absolutely! The best government is a government in perpetual gridlock.

No thanks. A government in gridlock isn't going to get rid of SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. I'll take the government in gridlock over the government that passes socialist policies with ease, but that doesn't mean its the best.
 
With the alternative being some kid getting shot or shooting another kid, which would give the anti's even more fodder, why is this a bad idea? If nothing else, supplying a lock makes the parent more personally responsible for an accident and taking the heat off the gun manufacturer.

False dilemma. Millions of guns are sold without any lock. There aren't millions of kids being killed by guns.

I agree that we ought to try to minimize unnecessary child deaths as much as possible. But I don't believe the solution to that problem is by requiring dealers to sell locks with handguns.
 
I hope Kentucky elects Rand Paul (Ron Paul's Son) this November! It would be nice if CT could get Peter Schiff in our senate seat..but I am not sure that has any chance...


Open letter to the voters by Peter Schiff
America was founded by free individuals; individuals like you who have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.

For the first time in human history, the individual took precedence over the state. Brave American men and women have shed blood ever since to preserve this principle.

Yet, today, it is apparent that our government has forgotten this sacrosanct principle. From bailouts to mandates, every day Washington imposes increasing legislation designed to transfer more control of your life to bureaucrats. Why should one hundred senators in DC have so much power in dictating the lives of more than 100 million working Americans?

It is time to send a loud message to Washington; we are capable of making our own decisions, living our own lives, and bearing the responsibilities for our actions. Stand up to corruption, favoritism, cronyism, and corporatism. Remind your leaders that they are accountable to you, the voter.

I was attacked for my accurate predictions on the economic crisis and I remain steadfast in my beliefs; make no mistake, unless we change course the consequences for your freedoms and your pocketbooks will be immense.

The solutions to America’s problems exist not in two thousand page bills or trillion dollar bailouts, but rather within the heart of each individual hardworking American.

You are the answer. Your drive, your competition, your fearlessness, and your entrepreneurship are what built this country and made it great. It is that everlasting character of America which will rebuild it again.

Join me in this effort to reawaken the spirit of America and reverse the momentum of history at SchiffforSenate.com

Peter Schiff--Right for the Economy, Right for Connecticut, Right for America, Right Now.
 
Last edited:
False dilemma. Millions of guns are sold without any lock. There aren't millions of kids being killed by guns.

I agree that we ought to try to minimize unnecessary child deaths as much as possible. But I don't believe the solution to that problem is by requiring dealers to sell locks with handguns.

+2

How can a gun without a trigger lock kill someone? Supplying the lock make the parent LESS personally responsible. If the only thing keeping your child from grabbing one of your guns and shooting someone is a trigger lock, well the trigger lock is the least of your concerns.
 
Back
Top Bottom