-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Mike Cox joins the AG of California in supporting the 2A
- Thread starter autosurgeon
- Start date
Yooper
Regular Member
imported post
AG Cox is THE reason I will switch my party affiliation from "independent" to republican. I want to do what I can to make sure he gets the nomination as the republican candidate for governor.
I hope he becomes governor, and we can get a strong pro gun majority in the state house and senate to get rid of some stupid gun laws
AG Cox is THE reason I will switch my party affiliation from "independent" to republican. I want to do what I can to make sure he gets the nomination as the republican candidate for governor.
I hope he becomes governor, and we can get a strong pro gun majority in the state house and senate to get rid of some stupid gun laws
autosurgeon
Regular Member
imported post
Yep I couldn't agree more. He has his personal problems but I don't think those would keep him being a good leader.
Yep I couldn't agree more. He has his personal problems but I don't think those would keep him being a good leader.
Yooper
Regular Member
imported post
Everybody has issues....some have the whole subscription, but what I've seen from him in his official capacity has me hoping he gets elected governor
Everybody has issues....some have the whole subscription, but what I've seen from him in his official capacity has me hoping he gets elected governor
autosurgeon
Regular Member
imported post
I measure people by there output... not their personal life.
I measure people by there output... not their personal life.
Yooper
Regular Member
imported post
Have you heard the positions of the other republican candidates?
I saw this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP1GmX6uHBY ) where Mike Bouchard (Oakland county sheriff) states he supports the 2nd amendment.
I sent an email to him asking if he'd sign a bill that eliminated the handgun registration as well as get rid of "gun free zones"........I'll wait for a respone.
Haven't been able to dig up much on the others though, but I'm just now getting started on them.
Have you heard the positions of the other republican candidates?
I saw this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP1GmX6uHBY ) where Mike Bouchard (Oakland county sheriff) states he supports the 2nd amendment.
I sent an email to him asking if he'd sign a bill that eliminated the handgun registration as well as get rid of "gun free zones"........I'll wait for a respone.
Haven't been able to dig up much on the others though, but I'm just now getting started on them.
Michigander
Regular Member
imported post
Yooper wrote:
He is definitely very pro gun. He took great steps to make sure we don't get detained or harassed by his deputies again. His exact statement about open carry was that he is "philosophically in line with what we're doing".
Even still, getting a politician to say on the record that carrying on school grounds should be a right, now that's a tall order. Yes, we all know that being in a place of learning doesn't automatically make you stupider, and anyone who would think that probably needs more of said schooling, but still, it's a pretty controversial thing for a politician to say. :?
Yooper wrote:
I did talk to the Sheriff on the phone after the Boston Market debacle, and also again later saw him at one of Mark's martial arts seminars.
He is definitely very pro gun. He took great steps to make sure we don't get detained or harassed by his deputies again. His exact statement about open carry was that he is "philosophically in line with what we're doing".
Even still, getting a politician to say on the record that carrying on school grounds should be a right, now that's a tall order. Yes, we all know that being in a place of learning doesn't automatically make you stupider, and anyone who would think that probably needs more of said schooling, but still, it's a pretty controversial thing for a politician to say. :?
Veritas
Regular Member
imported post
I've long been fans of Bouchard and Cox. I think they both got their heads screwed on properly to do their jobs without playing politics.
To me, it should be simple: If something doesn't violate the Constitution, then leave it the hell alone. The problem with many politicians is that they make short stops in certain positions while campaigning for "bigger and better" things. You've got city Mayors hoping to be State Reps some day... Governors hoping to be President, etc, etc. These politicians are dangerous, as they begin cementing themselves early with special interest groups in order to secure long-term financing.
I truly believe that Bouchard and Cox are both men who do their job to the best of their ability without emphasizing their next career moves. For them to progress... well I think that will occur naturally; as a result of capable leadership skills.
And no, I'm not even a Republican. Nor am I Democrat, or Independent, or Green. I'm Libertarian... and even that means little; considering I vote for anyone, in any party, that I think is qualified for the duty. The only time that I blindly vote Libertarian is when I believe that all of the candidates suck... so I "throw my vote away" by scoring one for the red-headed stepchild of political parties.
I've long been fans of Bouchard and Cox. I think they both got their heads screwed on properly to do their jobs without playing politics.
To me, it should be simple: If something doesn't violate the Constitution, then leave it the hell alone. The problem with many politicians is that they make short stops in certain positions while campaigning for "bigger and better" things. You've got city Mayors hoping to be State Reps some day... Governors hoping to be President, etc, etc. These politicians are dangerous, as they begin cementing themselves early with special interest groups in order to secure long-term financing.
I truly believe that Bouchard and Cox are both men who do their job to the best of their ability without emphasizing their next career moves. For them to progress... well I think that will occur naturally; as a result of capable leadership skills.
And no, I'm not even a Republican. Nor am I Democrat, or Independent, or Green. I'm Libertarian... and even that means little; considering I vote for anyone, in any party, that I think is qualified for the duty. The only time that I blindly vote Libertarian is when I believe that all of the candidates suck... so I "throw my vote away" by scoring one for the red-headed stepchild of political parties.
autosurgeon
Regular Member
imported post
Veritas wrote:
well said!!!
Veritas wrote:
well said!!!
ghostrider
Regular Member
imported post
autosurgeon wrote:
If your not interested in the other candidates, supporting statistics for a third party is a good idea. Only problem is too many people disagree.
autosurgeon wrote:
I disagree. I don't think it's throwing your vote away.
If your not interested in the other candidates, supporting statistics for a third party is a good idea. Only problem is too many people disagree.Veritas
Regular Member
imported post
ghostrider wrote:
I do find, much of the time, that I end up voting Libertarian only because said candidate is within my political spectrum. But when it comes to certain candidates, sometimes I'm willing to forgo a minor issue in favor of a larger one... and this is what will cause me to vote for a major party (Republican or Democrat).
For instance, let's say a race comes down to Democrat A or Republican B... I am going to probably choose one of the two major parties if one of them are strongly supporting a major issue. Even though the Libertarian may also support that issue, I might feel strongly enough to help "secure" the ideal by voting for the candidate who has a higher chance of success.
But again, it's not often this comes up.
On the subject of "throwing votes away", I'm of the opinion that our votes in federal matters are non-existent anyway. We do not directly elect the President or Vice President... the electoral college does this. There have been several cases (most recently in the 2000 Bush vs Gore election) where an electoral voter did NOT vote in accordance with the People. In 26 States (a majority of the nation) there are NO laws punishing, or cancel ling the votes of, these faithless electors. And while there hasn't been a case YET where faithless electors have changed the outcome of an election; the fact is that it COULD happen. So we, the People, do not have the control we think we do. In the 2000 case, the faithless elector was one of DC's total of 3 electors. Her decision to abstain from voting (rather than vote for Gore, as the People instructed with their votes), she, in effect, canceled out 1/3 of Washington DC voters. That means that thousands of people turned out to cast their vote, but were not represented.
We, the People, really have no control in federal matters. We control our respective States, only. For instance, in Michigan, we directly elect Michigan delegates to represent our State interests in the United States Congress. But since we have no control over the other 49 States (50 if you include DC), then we, in effect, have NO control over federal powers. It's not like we, in Michigan, can vote out some idiot in another State.
I shake my head every time a Presidential election rolls around and all these people start getting patriotic all of a sudden. I get irritated when the media campaigns the importance of "being heard by voting". I wonder how many of these people actually paid attention in their high school civics class. In that we do not directly elect Presidents and we have no control over federal matters... then how the hell are our "voices heard"? At best, our "recommendations" are heard... but just like any Monarch, they can easily ignore us.
It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who have not ever read the full text, including all Amendments, of our Constitution. I've read it so many times, forward to back, that I have large parts of it committed to memory. Because I understand my Constitution so well, I resent the idea of being referred to as a United States citizen. I consider myself a resident of the United States, but a citizen of Michigan. Our individual States are our sovereign States... collectively, we form the UNITED States.
Pay particular attention to the use of the word "States" in the Constitution. More particularly, pay attention to how it is ALWAYS referred to as "the United States" as a plural entity, rather than "The United States" as we know it (a singular entity).
THE United States sounds an awful like THE United Nations or THE European Union. None of which are a sovereign, singular, entity... but rather a collection of individual sovereign entities UNITED under one umbrella for a common purpose. Kind of like a marriage... just because you promise to love, honor, and obey each other does not mean you lose your self identity. You are still two separate people... and even more importantly, you still have the right to separate if the union proves to be unfavorable to one or both of you.
I wish the South would have given up the issue of slavery and stuck, exclusively, to the subject of State rights. This country would probably have been in a much better condition today. Losing that war just empowered the federal government to steamroll the American people even harder. FDR's "New Deal" was the icing on the cake. And now, more recently, the implementation of the PATRIOT Act was the box that packaged us up nice and neat as good little subjects.
History is so insightful. And it's all right in front of our faces. And yet we, the People, are more concerned with who Paris Hilton is banging these days than with the fact that the federal government, for the last 150 years, has been slowly executing a political coup upon the States and the People. Even the States are becoming corrupt.
Case and point: We need to undergo background checks to exercise rights. Try buying a pistol without it... you won't get very far. The Constitution was written in plain English (of the time) and is purposefully not complicated. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's an obvious infringement when I have to request PERMISSION to do it. "Excuse me sir, may I purchase a pistol please?" "Hello good citizen, you may purchase one only after you jump through these hoops." One of those hoops, incidentally, is not to piss off your local police clerk. If he/she is deputized (and believe me, any clerk issuing purchase permits IS deputized), they can simply say "I think you could be dangerous... so I'm denying you." It happened to me. No clinical psychologists, no mental evaluations, no convictions... NOTHING. All she was had was a "suspicion" because, I guess, she is not only a PhD, but also omniscient. The reality is that the assertion of my rights didn't sit well with her, so she invoked the legal ability to deny based on a BS "suspicion". I went all the way up the chain to the Captain... and he told me that if I didn't like it, I could go get a lawyer and sue. It's good to know that in order to exercise a right anymore, that you have to spend $3,000 (non-refundable, by the way) to sue someone. It took me MONTHS to get my gun.
But hey... no infringement there. Right?
Bottom line... we live in a land of legal matrices. It's not totally different than the movie (The Matrix). Take away the machines and replace them with government... and there you have it. We, the People, are oblivious to what's going on behind the scenes of this world that we think exists.
ghostrider wrote:
I was being facetious when I said "throwing my vote away" (hence the quotation marks).I disagree. I don't think it's throwing your vote away.
I do find, much of the time, that I end up voting Libertarian only because said candidate is within my political spectrum. But when it comes to certain candidates, sometimes I'm willing to forgo a minor issue in favor of a larger one... and this is what will cause me to vote for a major party (Republican or Democrat).
For instance, let's say a race comes down to Democrat A or Republican B... I am going to probably choose one of the two major parties if one of them are strongly supporting a major issue. Even though the Libertarian may also support that issue, I might feel strongly enough to help "secure" the ideal by voting for the candidate who has a higher chance of success.
But again, it's not often this comes up.
On the subject of "throwing votes away", I'm of the opinion that our votes in federal matters are non-existent anyway. We do not directly elect the President or Vice President... the electoral college does this. There have been several cases (most recently in the 2000 Bush vs Gore election) where an electoral voter did NOT vote in accordance with the People. In 26 States (a majority of the nation) there are NO laws punishing, or cancel ling the votes of, these faithless electors. And while there hasn't been a case YET where faithless electors have changed the outcome of an election; the fact is that it COULD happen. So we, the People, do not have the control we think we do. In the 2000 case, the faithless elector was one of DC's total of 3 electors. Her decision to abstain from voting (rather than vote for Gore, as the People instructed with their votes), she, in effect, canceled out 1/3 of Washington DC voters. That means that thousands of people turned out to cast their vote, but were not represented.
We, the People, really have no control in federal matters. We control our respective States, only. For instance, in Michigan, we directly elect Michigan delegates to represent our State interests in the United States Congress. But since we have no control over the other 49 States (50 if you include DC), then we, in effect, have NO control over federal powers. It's not like we, in Michigan, can vote out some idiot in another State.
I shake my head every time a Presidential election rolls around and all these people start getting patriotic all of a sudden. I get irritated when the media campaigns the importance of "being heard by voting". I wonder how many of these people actually paid attention in their high school civics class. In that we do not directly elect Presidents and we have no control over federal matters... then how the hell are our "voices heard"? At best, our "recommendations" are heard... but just like any Monarch, they can easily ignore us.
It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who have not ever read the full text, including all Amendments, of our Constitution. I've read it so many times, forward to back, that I have large parts of it committed to memory. Because I understand my Constitution so well, I resent the idea of being referred to as a United States citizen. I consider myself a resident of the United States, but a citizen of Michigan. Our individual States are our sovereign States... collectively, we form the UNITED States.
Pay particular attention to the use of the word "States" in the Constitution. More particularly, pay attention to how it is ALWAYS referred to as "the United States" as a plural entity, rather than "The United States" as we know it (a singular entity).
THE United States sounds an awful like THE United Nations or THE European Union. None of which are a sovereign, singular, entity... but rather a collection of individual sovereign entities UNITED under one umbrella for a common purpose. Kind of like a marriage... just because you promise to love, honor, and obey each other does not mean you lose your self identity. You are still two separate people... and even more importantly, you still have the right to separate if the union proves to be unfavorable to one or both of you.
I wish the South would have given up the issue of slavery and stuck, exclusively, to the subject of State rights. This country would probably have been in a much better condition today. Losing that war just empowered the federal government to steamroll the American people even harder. FDR's "New Deal" was the icing on the cake. And now, more recently, the implementation of the PATRIOT Act was the box that packaged us up nice and neat as good little subjects.
History is so insightful. And it's all right in front of our faces. And yet we, the People, are more concerned with who Paris Hilton is banging these days than with the fact that the federal government, for the last 150 years, has been slowly executing a political coup upon the States and the People. Even the States are becoming corrupt.
Case and point: We need to undergo background checks to exercise rights. Try buying a pistol without it... you won't get very far. The Constitution was written in plain English (of the time) and is purposefully not complicated. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's an obvious infringement when I have to request PERMISSION to do it. "Excuse me sir, may I purchase a pistol please?" "Hello good citizen, you may purchase one only after you jump through these hoops." One of those hoops, incidentally, is not to piss off your local police clerk. If he/she is deputized (and believe me, any clerk issuing purchase permits IS deputized), they can simply say "I think you could be dangerous... so I'm denying you." It happened to me. No clinical psychologists, no mental evaluations, no convictions... NOTHING. All she was had was a "suspicion" because, I guess, she is not only a PhD, but also omniscient. The reality is that the assertion of my rights didn't sit well with her, so she invoked the legal ability to deny based on a BS "suspicion". I went all the way up the chain to the Captain... and he told me that if I didn't like it, I could go get a lawyer and sue. It's good to know that in order to exercise a right anymore, that you have to spend $3,000 (non-refundable, by the way) to sue someone. It took me MONTHS to get my gun.
But hey... no infringement there. Right?
Bottom line... we live in a land of legal matrices. It's not totally different than the movie (The Matrix). Take away the machines and replace them with government... and there you have it. We, the People, are oblivious to what's going on behind the scenes of this world that we think exists.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
imported post
I am happy Mr. Cox gave support to 2A in the Chicago/ McDonald Case and has stated that he does not support a renewal of any type of "assault weapons" (sic) ban BUT I wish he would look a little closer to home and see that Michigan's pistol registration is in fact an almost complete ban of pistols for out-of-state visitors.
If Mr. Cox would push for the repeal of pistol registration, and support "OC in a vehicle" as legal for Non-licensed individuals, I would actually begin to believe that he supports the 2nd amendment. (There are some AG opinions that further bring his support of the 2nd Amendment into question too, but that's for another time)
My fear is that like almost ALL politicians, it's easy to garner support by advocating for or against things that are far removed when trying to "cater" to a certain group of voters, but when it comes to a more "local" issue, all of a sudden the politician's support seems to falter a bit. Not a criticism of Mr. Cox as I don't know where he stands, just politicians in general:republicans, democrats, libertarians, etc. Now, what about Michigan Pistol Registration and 2nd Amendment rights; does AG Cox support the law or is he willing to publicly state that it is contrary to 2A rights?
I am happy Mr. Cox gave support to 2A in the Chicago/ McDonald Case and has stated that he does not support a renewal of any type of "assault weapons" (sic) ban BUT I wish he would look a little closer to home and see that Michigan's pistol registration is in fact an almost complete ban of pistols for out-of-state visitors.
If Mr. Cox would push for the repeal of pistol registration, and support "OC in a vehicle" as legal for Non-licensed individuals, I would actually begin to believe that he supports the 2nd amendment. (There are some AG opinions that further bring his support of the 2nd Amendment into question too, but that's for another time)
My fear is that like almost ALL politicians, it's easy to garner support by advocating for or against things that are far removed when trying to "cater" to a certain group of voters, but when it comes to a more "local" issue, all of a sudden the politician's support seems to falter a bit. Not a criticism of Mr. Cox as I don't know where he stands, just politicians in general:republicans, democrats, libertarians, etc. Now, what about Michigan Pistol Registration and 2nd Amendment rights; does AG Cox support the law or is he willing to publicly state that it is contrary to 2A rights?
Veritas
Regular Member
imported post
DrTodd wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
Good questions.
springerdave
Regular Member
imported post
What about that Mr. Cox?springerdave.
What about that Mr. Cox?springerdave.