Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Sat Apr 27, 2024 11:49 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 12 posts ] 
 Senator Tom Bakk (attn Joel) 
Author Message
 Post subject: Senator Tom Bakk (attn Joel)
PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:26 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 2:39 pm
Posts: 124
Tom Bakk and I had an interesting conversation last night. And anyway we spoke about how he helped out during the days before mppa and now he is running for Govenor. Yes Thats right a PRO GUN Democrat is running for Govenor and he will need our support. You can send the candidate of your choice 100.00 per couple or 50.00 per individual and he will send you the reciept and you get reimbursed by the state in 5 weeks. So I guess I am hoping for support for Tom. http://www.TomBakk.com

_________________
But if “bear
arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the
Opinion of the Court
carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply
cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to
carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game”
is worthy of the mad hatter.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:39 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
He's a good guy on gun issues, no question. I like him.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:53 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 2:39 pm
Posts: 124
Good , cuz he says you guys could have at least said thanks. But now he needs to raise money for his campaign in 10 so start sending the cash.

_________________
But if “bear
arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the
Opinion of the Court
carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply
cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to
carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game”
is worthy of the mad hatter.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:37 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
jrp267 wrote:
Good , cuz he says you guys could have at least said thanks.
Interesting. Since I -- in person -- went up to him and thanked him for his vote both in 2003 and 2005, I'm not sure who these "you guys" are he's talking about. That said, I don't speak for anybody else but me; I guess I wasn't that memorable. *sniff*

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:51 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 2:39 pm
Posts: 124
Actually I think you where excluded from the last part of not saying thanks. And as soon as I mentioned the name Joel He immediately knew who you where. Then He asked if I would post up here to help garner some support for him from the gun owners. Which to me means he see's this group as a powerful lobby. Good for you guy's. I regularly see him at diffrent union events and discuss diffrent issues. He truley is a great guy. I did talk to him a little about the reciprocity mess although I am not as well versed as others on the board. Its hard to keep up with everything these days.

_________________
But if “bear
arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the
Opinion of the Court
carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply
cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to
carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game”
is worthy of the mad hatter.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:25 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:56 pm
Posts: 1109
I've never heard of the guy. Tell him thanks anyways thou.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:18 am 
Member

Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:00 pm
Posts: 40
Location: Saint Paul
Aside from his stance on guns, what are his views on taxes, abortion, spending, smaller government, global warming, etc. You know some times Satan comes as a man of peace.

_________________
You Know, Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:42 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Bagman wrote:
Aside from his stance on guns, what are his views on taxes, abortion, spending, smaller government, global warming, etc. You know some times Satan comes as a man of peace.
He's a pretty mainstream, moderate DFLer, otherwise. About what you'd expect from up north.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:43 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
jrp267 wrote:
Actually I think you where excluded from the last part of not saying thanks. And as soon as I mentioned the name Joel He immediately knew who you where.
Hey, that doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks kindly of me. :) You could ask lots of folks.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:23 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:20 am
Posts: 1317
Location: Racine, MN
jrp267 wrote:
Good , cuz he says you guys could have at least said thanks. But now he needs to raise money for his campaign in 10 so start sending the cash.


I sent every representative and senator who voted for the MCPPA a postcard thanking them. Of course, I don't expect him to remember me either. :shock:


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:51 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
I'm going to bend over backward a bit, here. While most of the heavy lifting on the MCPPA was done by Republicans, it wouldn't have passed -- either time -- without the votes of DFL Senators; there just weren't enough Republicans, and not all of them voted for it, anyway.

I wasn't closely wired in to it, but even from my vantage point, I could see that the DFL senators on our side were getting a lot of pressure from the Metrocrats. A lot.

(They also, to be accurate, were getting a lot of pressure from their pro-gun constituents, as some of us were helping to both arrange and point out.)

I'm really, really glad that the DFL Senators who voted our way in 2003 -- and 2005 -- did. I think it was the right call, in lots of ways.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:34 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:44 pm
Posts: 1525
Location: Isanti, MN
I myself greatly appreciate that the Senator voted (twice) to pass a law that I feel should have been an easy call based upon principal.

I do believe that (as Joel pointed) there was intense pressure from the Metrocrats in their effort to extort others to vote the bill down. IIRC the WI carry bill missed an over-ride of the Gov veto because the Rep who was the original sponsor of the bill voted against the over-ride. For his resistance to that pressure I would like to express my appreciation with a heart felt Thank You to Senator Bakk.

I will keep an ear open to hear what his stand(s) are on other issues as the next Gov election cycle comes around. I would be very interested to hear of his take on the reciprocity issue.

_________________
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
- Winston Churchill -


WITHOUT LIBERTY THERE IS NO FREEDOM


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 12 posts ] 

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group