Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:16 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.  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Dare to Vote 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:33 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:04 pm
Posts: 1682
Location: Wright County
jrp267 wrote:
Try and do some research on his voting record before you spout. One vote to allow background checks at gunshows does not define a mans voting record.


John McCain on Gun Control
Republican Sr Senator (AZ




I know how to use guns; but I don't own one
Q: Tell us about your gun collection, roughly how many you own, what your favorite make, model and caliber is, if any of them require a tax stamp?
A: For a long time I used a lot of guns, including carrying a .45 as a pilot flying in combat over Vietnam. I know how to use guns. I don't own one now.

Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida Nov 28, 2007

Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership
John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals--criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.
Source: Campaign website, www.johnmccain.com, "Issues" Sep 1, 2007

Don't hold gun manufacturers liable for crimes
John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry. McCain says, "Neither justice nor domestic peace are served by holding the innocent responsible for the acts of the criminal."
Source: Campaign website, www.johnmccain.com, "Issues" Sep 1, 2007

Opposes restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition types
McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans.
McCain opposes bans on the importation of certain types of ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations.
McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing."
Source: Campaign website, www.johnmccain.com, "Issues" Sep 1, 2007

Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks
McCain favors outlawing cheaply made handguns called Saturday night specials, and favors mandating safety locks on certain guns. He said he is intrigued by new technology that electronically identifies a person handling a gun, allowing only the owner to fire it. McCain rallied Senate Republicans behind a Democratic measure requiring background checks at gun shows.

Source: Scott Lindlaw, Associated Press Aug 17, 1999

Supports ban on certain assault weapons
McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details.
Source: Los Angeles Times, “McCain Calls for Hearings” Aug 17, 1999


Voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban
McCain spoke generally of the need for some tighter gun controls on hardened criminals and children. In Congress, he pressured his colleagues to require background checks for buyers at guns shows, and he supported a requirement that trigger locks be sold with handguns. But the Senator opposed the two major gun-control measures of recent years, the 1994 ban on several types of assault weapons and the Brady Bill, which required a 5-day waiting period for handgun purchases.
Source: Todd S. Purdum, New York Times, p. A14 Aug 17, 1999

Guns are a problem, but so are violent web sites & videos
If you want to take every gun in and dump it in the ocean, I’ll still take you to a Web site where it teaches children how to build a pipe bomb. And I’ll take you to a Web site where the worst kind of hate language that is terribly offensive to all of us exists. I can take you to a video game being sold to our children where the object of the game is to kill police. I understand the importance of weapons, but to define that as being the major cause [of youth violence], there’s a whole lot of causes.
Source: Todd S. Purdum, New York Times, p. A14 Aug 17, 1999

Punish criminals who abuse 2nd Amendment rights
We need to focus on halting the spread of violent crime and punishing violent criminals who abuse their Second Amendment rights, while preserving those same rights for law-abiding Americans.
Source: www.mccain2000.com/ “Press Releases” May 10, 1999

Youth Violence Prevention Act restricts guns for kids
McCain has introduced the “Youth Violence Prevention Act.”
The legislation would:
prevent juveniles from illegal access to weapons and punish those who would assist them in doing so
prohibit juveniles who commit acts of gun violence from purchasing guns in the future
sentence juveniles convicted of violent crimes under adult guidelines
and punish juveniles who illegally carry or use handguns in schools.
Source: www.mccain2000.com/ “Press Releases” May 10, 1999

Repeal existing gun restrictions; penalize criminal use (criminal use is allready punished, it's a called crime for a reason) McCain supports the following principles regarding gun issues:
Repeal federal restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens.
Favor allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms.
McCain says, “There are penalties for criminals who use firearms.”
Source: Project Vote Smart, 1998, www.vote-smart.org Jul 2, 1998

Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005

Voted YES on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence.
Vote to pass a bill that would block certain civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms and ammunition, mainly those lawsuits aimed at making them liable for gun violence. In this bill, trade groups would also be protected The bill would call for the dismissal of pending lawsuits against the gun industry. The exception would be lawsuits regarding a defect in a weapon or ammunition. It also would provide a 10-year reauthorization of the assault weapons ban which is set to expire in September 2004. The bill would increase the penalties for gun-related violent or drug trafficking crimes which have not resulted in death, to a minimum of 15 years imprisonment. The bill calls for criminal background checks on all firearm transactions at gun shows where at least 75 guns are sold. Exemptions would be made available for dealers selling guns from their homes as well as members-only gun swaps and meets carried out by nonprofit hunting clubs.
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S.1805/H.R.1036 ; vote number 2004-30 on Mar 2, 2004

Voted NO on background checks at gun shows.
Require background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)50; N)50; VP decided YES
Reference: Lautenberg Amdt #362; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-134 on May 20, 1999

Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations.
The Hatch amdt would increase mandatory penalties for the illegal transfer or use of firearms, fund additional drug case prosecutors, and require background check on purchasers at gun shows. [A YES vote supports stricter penalties].
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)48; N)47; NV)5
Reference: Hatch Amendment #344; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-118 on May 14, 1999

Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows.
Vote to table or kill a motion to require that all gun sales at gun shows be completed by federally licensed gun dealers. Also requires background checks to be completed on buyers and requires gun show promoters to register with the Treasury.
Reference: Bill S.254 ; vote number 1999-111 on May 11, 1999

Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks.
Vote to table [kill] an amendment to make it unlawful for gun dealers to sell handguns without providing trigger locks. Violation of the law would result in civil penalties, such as suspension or revocation of the dealer's license, or a fine.


But if you want to define it otherwise thats your choice these are facts and frankly I dont think if I write myself in I will win so he has got to be better than billary. But hey if you want to be a one issue voter thats up to you. I love my guns and will fight for them but there are other issues to consider as well.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:20 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 2:39 pm
Posts: 124
Whats your point hillary is for South African style gun control. IE no guns for anyone.

_________________
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: Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:28 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:04 pm
Posts: 1682
Location: Wright County
jrp267 wrote:
Whats your point hillary is for South African style gun control. IE no guns for anyone.


And when the Dems bawk McCain holds their hands and reassures them.

I am sick to hell of career politicians, and the moderate rollover wouses that couldn't stand on a principal if they were tied to a post to hold them steady.

IT'S TIME TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM THESE TYRANTS.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:32 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:02 am
Posts: 1684
Location: St Louis Park
If McCain wants the conservative vote, he should consider some level of conservatism. More to the point, he should have considered that years ago, instead of being democrat-lite in his voting record.

He won't get my vote, and it is his own fault. The republican party is screwing themselves by fielding a stack of socialists and downplaying the actual conservatives until the conservatives can't maintain their campaigns for lack of support of from the political machine.

I won't vote for Hillary, Obama, Romney, or McCain. I can't vote for any of those authoritarian socialists with a clean conscience. Come November, I will vote R across the board for any congress seats, but for the president, I will either write in Fred Thompson or vote Libertarian. I won't make a difference, but neither will anybody voting for any of the listed candidates.

_________________
Of the people, By the People, For the People. The government exists to serve us, not the reverse.

--------------------
Next MN carry permit class: TBD.

Permit to Carry MN
--------------------

jason <at> metrodefense <dot> com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:47 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:04 pm
Posts: 1682
Location: Wright County
princewally wrote:
If McCain wants the conservative vote, he should consider some level of conservatism. More to the point, he should have considered that years ago, instead of being democrat-lite in his voting record.

He won't get my vote, and it is his own fault. The republican party is screwing themselves by fielding a stack of socialists and downplaying the actual conservatives until the conservatives can't maintain their campaigns for lack of support of from the political machine.

I won't vote for Hillary, Obama, Romney, or McCain. I can't vote for any of those authoritarian socialists with a clean conscience. Come November, I will vote R across the board for any congress seats, but for the president, I will either write in Fred Thompson or vote Libertarian. I won't make a difference, but neither will anybody voting for any of the listed candidates.


I like your thinking son. (voice of Lee R. Emery)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:40 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 10:49 am
Posts: 687
Location: South Minneapolis (Nokomis East)
With the electoral college, and this being Minnesota, a write in for Fred won't hurt McCain OR Romney anyway. But it just might send a message to the RNC if enough people do it. You can count my Fred vote now.

_________________
I smoke. Thanks for holding your breath.

"Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life." ~ unknown

Never been tazered. (yet).


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:08 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm
Posts: 1419
Location: SE MPLS
Aquaholic wrote:
With the electoral college, and this being Minnesota, a write in for Fred won't hurt McCain OR Romney anyway. But it just might send a message to the RNC if enough people do it. You can count my Fred vote now.

The only message the RNC will pay attention to is losing.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:10 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:02 am
Posts: 1684
Location: St Louis Park
jdege wrote:
Aquaholic wrote:
With the electoral college, and this being Minnesota, a write in for Fred won't hurt McCain OR Romney anyway. But it just might send a message to the RNC if enough people do it. You can count my Fred vote now.

The only message the RNC will pay attention to is losing.


I can accept that. If they lose, and they look at the numbers and see votes for FDT could have tipped the balance, or the libertarian party took enough votes to cast the democrat party into the bowels of hell, maybe they will consider a return to conservatism as a campaign plank next time.

_________________
Of the people, By the People, For the People. The government exists to serve us, not the reverse.

--------------------
Next MN carry permit class: TBD.

Permit to Carry MN
--------------------

jason <at> metrodefense <dot> com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:11 pm 
Member

Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:09 pm
Posts: 34
mnglocker wrote:
This year, no one on this board will be voting for a candidate (excluding write in), they'll all be voting against the Hillabeast or Osamabama.


Sorry, but that's BS.

I always vote for the best candidate regardless of their likelihood of winning. I have never, nor will I ever vote for someone I don't like just because they have the best likelihood of beating some opponent.

Why? Because voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. And those that vote for evil deserve what they get.

If we want to make it gun specific.
-Candidate A will take away all gun rights right away.
-Candidate B will take away less of your gun rights.
Many people would probably vote for candidate B. But in the end we get to the same place. And in fact in a worse way. If candidate A tries to take away all gun rights, there is a small chance that the people will revolt and demand things to be changed back. While if candidate B gets in office, our rights will be lost so slowly that no one will remember what they were. Then when your rights are gone, they are gone for good. It's kind of like that story about cooking a live frog. Throw it in a boiling pot and he'll jump out. Heat up the water real slow, and he'll stay in the pot and die. So I'd say voting for Candidate B is even worse than voting for candidate A.

But either way if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are voting for evil, thus you are the cause of it. Voting for the lesser of two evils is how we got here today. We now have a Republican party that votes for more spending than many Democrats in the past could have ever dreamed of. There is no option in the Big2 for a party that will cut spending (except Ron Paul, and look and how poorly he is doing). And as long as people keep voting for them, they will think it's ok. And again this goes straight back to the frog example. People keep voting for the candidate that will increase spending by a smaller amount. Yet they can't seem to figure out how we got to where we are today.

And anyone who has ever voted and actually read a ballot should understand that there are more than two candidates to choose from for president.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:34 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 2:39 pm
Posts: 124
Never mind I am now running for president. Jeff peterson for president. I love guns and money and hate lawyers. anyone want to vote for me?

_________________
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: Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:47 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:04 pm
Posts: 1682
Location: Wright County
jrp267 wrote:
Never mind I am now running for president. Jeff peterson for president. I love guns and money and hate lawyers. anyone want to vote for me?


You do realize that there is a large populous of lawyers on here? :lol:


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:11 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 2:39 pm
Posts: 124
wow no sense of humor at all. Yes I do and they are very knowledgeable and helpful. It was very much ment in good humor. I am not actually running for president nor do I actually hate lawyers.

_________________
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: Re: Dare to Vote
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:15 pm 
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:02 pm
Posts: 818
Location: downtown Mpls
Tabsr wrote:
Would you vot for an anti 2nd Amendment candidate?

I did once. He was dead at the time.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:42 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:44 pm
Posts: 1525
Location: Isanti, MN
jdege wrote:
The only message the RNC will pay attention to is losing.


I don't know my friend, maybe or maybe not, hard to tell after the '06 election. But I can't help but think the one thing they may understand; MONEY - OR EVEN MORE - NO MONEY :!: :!: :!:

I really believe that's the ticket :twisted: :wink:

_________________
“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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:19 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:54 am
Posts: 1242
jrp267 wrote:
Never mind I am now running for president. Jeff peterson for president. I love guns and money and hate lawyers. anyone want to vote for me?


Sorry - NO - too willing to accept the 'lessor of two evils'... not willing to stand on your principles.

NEXT!

:twisted:

Mostly-


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

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 0 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:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group