Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 68

Thread: National Carry Measure . . . Senate to vote . . . ' Road Runner ' homepage

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post



    Fired up the computer and was happy to see this revolverphoto and great article on my Road Runner homepage .

    http://www.rr.com/news/politics/arti..._carry_measure


    Is this measure a good or bad deal ?



  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    It lost by two votes . . .

    Elections have concequences . . .

    UNITE & VOTE * * * 2010 & 2012

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post



    So do not think you can cross state lines with your Concealed Carry ...

    Two Republicans ,George Voinovichof Ohio and Dick Lugar of Indiana , voted against the bill .

    58 to 39 . . . 2 votes short of winning



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    222

    Post imported post

    Rolling Stone has a "with us... against us" column, in which a crude line graph is used to depict whether certain policy decisions are helpful or hurtful.

    A recent issue put the recent amendment to Tennessee law allowing carry in alcohol serving establishments as firmly "against us."

    Since I wanted to comment on the defeat of national reciprocity yesterday, and in the spirit of being proactive, I wrote the following note to their editor:


    Dear Editor:

    I can see it now: the July 22nd failure of the Senate to pass national Concealed Carry reciprocity will
    show up in your next issue as "for us."

    I'm not psychic: I know the slant of your publication. And nothing could be further from the truth.

    Concealed carry permit holders are a law-abiding bunch that have lower rates of criminality
    than average citizens, and even police officers in general.

    However, these people become lawbreakers when they dare to venture into a neighboring state
    that doesn't honor this piece of paper, while carrying their lawfully obtained weapon.
    A CCW should be treated no differently than a driver's license. It's not right that people should face
    a choice of disarming while crossing an internal United States border, or becoming felons.
    Scores of decent people over the years have accidentally crossed a poorly marked state line,
    and had their lives permanently ruined because they were caught with their gun.
    They are criminals by technicality, not by intent.

    And keep in mind that Vermont, one of the safest states to live in the US, requires no
    "government permission slip" whatsoever to carry openly or concealed.





  5. #5
    Regular Member Prophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    R a Z o R wrote:
    *

    So do not think you can cross state lines with your Concealed Carry ...

    Two Republicans ,*George Voinovich*of Ohio and Dick Lugar of Indiana , voted against the bill .

    58 to 39 . . . 2 votes short of winning

    *
    And two democrats CHANGED their vote when they realized that it wouldn't pass cloture even if they voted for the measure. Either way, it wasn't going to pass. By all means hold the Republicans to the fire if you wish, but don't think that it was because of them that this measure wasn't passed.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    Prophet wrote:
    R a Z o R wrote:

    So do not think you can cross state lines with your Concealed Carry ...

    Two Republicans ,George Voinovichof Ohio and Dick Lugar of Indiana , voted against the bill .

    58 to 39 . . . 2 votes short of winning

    And two democrats CHANGED their vote when they realized that it wouldn't pass cloture even if they voted for the measure. Either way, it wasn't going to pass. By all means hold the Republicans to the fire if you wish, but don't think that it was because of them that this measure wasn't passed.
    Who were those 2 dems?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Does anyone see the flip-side of this issue? If that bill passed, you're then putting the licensing of carrying into the lap of the fed. You're giving the fed the power to tell states what they have to accept, even though it has nothing to do with inter-state commerce.

    To support this bill, simply because it's in your favor, is a bit hypocritical. I want my permit to be honored in all states just as much as the next guy, but this is not how I want it to happen.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    303

    Post imported post

    The Second Amendment should be the only permit you need.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Prophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    Skeptic wrote:
    Prophet wrote:
    R a Z o R wrote:
    *

    So do not think you can cross state lines with your Concealed Carry ...

    Two Republicans ,*George Voinovich*of Ohio and Dick Lugar of Indiana , voted against the bill .

    58 to 39 . . . 2 votes short of winning

    *
    And two democrats CHANGED their vote when they realized that it wouldn't pass cloture even if they voted for the measure. Either way, it wasn't going to pass. By all means hold the Republicans to the fire if you wish, but don't think that it was because of them that this measure wasn't passed.
    Who were those 2 dems?
    Mark Pryor of Arkansas. From Politico: "Both Arkansas Democrats voted yes, but Mark Pryor had initially voted no and then changed his vote at the very end to "yes" when it was clear he wouldn't be a decisive vote. Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln voted "yes" as well."

    I had misread that to believe that BOTH senators had changed their vote when in fact apparently only one did. So maybe it would've passed if the 2 republicans voted for it...but there might have been other dems who were like Pryor. Regardless, it would've been close and not at all certain.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Huntersville, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    231

    Post imported post

    Is this something that can be brought up again to vote? I mean Gay Marriage bills get revoted on all the time as well as other votes. Why can't they just rearrange the wording and try again? I don't understand. please explain.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Huntersville, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    231

    Post imported post

    Is this something that can be brought up again to vote? I mean Gay Marriage bills get re-voted on all the time as well as other votes. Why can't they just rearrange the wording and try again? I don't understand. please explain.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    303

    Post imported post

    The "Gay Marriage" vote is actually one worth voting for.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Does anyone see the flip-side of this issue? If that bill passed, you're then putting the licensing of carrying into the lap of the fed. You're giving the fed the power to tell states what they have to accept, even though it has nothing to do with inter-state commerce.
    No you are not.

    It is also based on the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution - just like marriage and driving.



  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Skeptic wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Does anyone see the flip-side of this issue? If that bill passed, you're then putting the licensing of carrying into the lap of the fed. You're giving the fed the power to tell states what they have to accept, even though it has nothing to do with inter-state commerce.
    No you are not.

    It is also based on the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution - just like marriage and driving.

    Care to explain?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    Check out this article describing the cowardly, repulsive actions of several senators:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

    Absolutely disgusting behavior. I don't know how guys like this can look at themselves in the mirror. Especially this Pyne idiot from Arkansas.



  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    ScottyT wrote:
    Check out this article describing the cowardly, repulsive actions of several senators:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

    Absolutely disgusting behavior. I don't know how guys like this can look at themselves in the mirror. Especially this Pyne idiot from Arkansas.

    You mean to tell me that American politics is just one big joke, both sides are in it together, and the people are getting fleeced? Say it ain't so!!! My world is crumbling before my eyes! I don't believe it!! How could politicians besodishonest???



    /sarcasm

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Does anyone see the flip-side of this issue?* If that bill passed, you're then putting the licensing of carrying into the lap of the fed.* You're giving the fed the power to tell states what they have to accept, even though it has nothing to do with inter-state commerce.

    To support this bill, simply because it's in your favor, is a bit hypocritical.* I want my permit to be honored in all states just as much as the next guy, but this is not how I want it to happen.
    Well, we don't need to use the commerce clause to constitutionally justify such legislation.

    Article IV Section 1 provides:

    Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
    The commerce clause should be repealed by amendment, IMO. However, driver's licenses should be valid from state to state, if they're going to exist at all. And why not carry permits?

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    Article IV Section 1 provides:

    Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


    I wonder why more people aren't pointing to this. It's either too obvious to be seen or more complicated than it appears.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Well, that I can't answer. I don't think very many people have read the thing, though.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Godscreation wrote:
    Is this something that can be brought up again to vote? I mean Gay Marriage bills get re-voted on all the time as well as other votes. Why can't they just rearrange the wording and try again? I don't understand. please explain.
    This is something that is still in the legislative process as H.R.197 and S.371/S.845.

    The recent attempt was to place the wording on the existing bill as an amendment. The amendment failed. The other bills are still in the process, IF they move through it.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    Il_Duce wrote:
    The "Gay Marriage" vote is actually one worth voting for.
    Riiiiight. What's next - people who like to **** animals will be able to marry their pets too?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    Article IV Section 1 provides:

    Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


    I wonder why more people aren't pointing to this. It's either too obvious to be seen or more complicated than it appears.

    That right there. It's already on the books (just like 2nd amendment), government just ignores it when it's convenient to do so.


  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    Il_Duce wrote:
    The Second Amendment should be the only permit you need.
    Exactly

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Chaingun81 wrote:
    Il_Duce wrote:
    The "Gay Marriage" vote is actually one worth voting for.
    Riiiiight. What's next - people who like to @#$% animals will be able to marry their pets too?
    Why not? Who's it hurting?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    Chaingun81 wrote:
    Il_Duce wrote:
    The "Gay Marriage" vote is actually one worth voting for.
    Riiiiight. What's next - people who like to @#$% animals will be able to marry their pets too?
    Wow. This is still considered a valid argument against gay marriage?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •