Tuesday, November 08, 2011

"A Stunning Defeat for Gun Control Extremists"

You know, having the guy you rallied behind tell you to go screw yourself and siding with said extremists. [Read]

Look, being a Constitutional Carry advocate, I'm not wedded to the national concealed carry reciprocity bill, but this is just another of many examples of what kind of loving you should expect when you chip in to rent a whore.

8 comments:

Robert Fowler said...

When the original race was on, I got the impression that voting for Brown was the "lesser of 2 evils". It's a shame when you have to vote that way. Of course it's also a shame that I have to beg permission from some bureaucrat to be able to carry my gun.

jon said...

concur. the outpouring for this "useful idiot" was all so horrifying in its short-sightedness. i did not vote for him, and i'm glad i left.

his justification is a valid argument in and of itself: "I believe that the people of Massachusetts are best positioned to decide what is best for Massachusetts." fine.

nonetheless, the people of massachusetts have no right or power to enforce prior restraint on this matter. that is not "deciding what is best for massachusetts." that is deciding what is best for a visitor to massachusetts.

W W Woodward said...

I guess I’m just an old die hard but, the Constitution is specific as to the right to keep and bear arms (2nd Amendment) and is equally specific as to how that right is to be observed by the states (14th Amendment). The very idea of any governmental body in this United States establishing a permit system in order that citizens may exercise any right should be considered an anathema to every American.
[W3]

BrianF said...

I've been trying to get brown to offer an opinion on Gunwalking by the ATF. I have only recieved a canned response, the same response my avowed socialist representative sent me (no word yet from john effin' kerry).
brown's position on this does not surprise me in the least, as I know he is just another douchbag pol.

Pat H. said...

I think David's statement, this is what you get when you rent a cheap whore.

Y'all in MA need to teach this guy a lesson, he depended on your vote to get across the threshold, without Gun owners votes, he's toast. It does not matter if his opponent is the same, he needs to be remove from that exclusive club and sent home in disgrace.

Make it so.

Ed said...

It is time for every single citizen to demand their civil rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. There is no justification for any individual state or the United States to deprive you of any of these rights. No state among them can best determine how to deprive you of these rights, even though many have tried by legislation or executive order. While Constitutional Carry may be what is appropriate and is the goal, in the meantime it is not appropriate that crossing a state line deprives you of any of your rights. As a citizen of State A, it is inappropriate that you may not assert your rights because you have traveled to State Non-A. Hopefully, this legislation may reduce the restriction of your rights, even though it does not eliminate the restrictions.

What other right, other than that described in the Second Amendment, would you find tolerable to be denied or restricted? Why would anyone be justified in denying or restricting any of your rights? Why should any of these rights vary by whatever state is your location?

Schism said...

Not sure I'm with you on this one. Not blowing any horn for Brown, but he is coming down solidly on the side of state's rights. Would it be better if Massachusett's laws were imposed on Texas? Then why is it OK to impose Texas principles in Massachusetts? We've been winning the war on a state-by-state basis for years now, and it's been working, albeit more slowly than we'd like. Why mess with a proven, effective strategy?

One thing that must be remembered is that even though our side stands for more freedom for the individual, the other side, standing for the security of the group, is almost as large in numbers as we are.

Trying to "do it all, and do it now" would be as big a mistake as SCOTUS made with Roe vs. Wade.

Anonymous said...

So Schism - if, say, Georgia, wanted to reintroduce slavery you'd be OK with that? It's a states rights matter after all.

I agree with Jon that other states have no business abrogating my rights when I travel "freely" about the country.

Still, any time the feds have a hand in something like this it gives me the willies.