Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Bob Krausse

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Schriever, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    Iowan Gun Rights Advocates and Second Amendment Supporters,

    A friend of mine in Iowa contacted me to ote in a poll of candidates running for U.S. Senate. He asked me to vote for Bob Krausse in the poll.

    I am inquiring as to how Krausse stands on gun rights.

    A Patriot in Dixie,

    Erik

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Schriever, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    Reply from Bob Krause,



    From: bob.krause1@gmail.com <bob.krause1@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Position on "Second Amendment"
    Date: Thursday, April 29, 2010, 6:55 AM



    I support the Second Amendment as a protection of gun owners rights.
    Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device from U.S. Cellular

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    From his own web site:
    http://www.krauseforiowa.com/positio...osition_Papers

    Krause says Grassley Opposition to Sotomayer Follows Pattern of Anti-Women Votes July 27, 2009
    Krause says National Threat Created by Too Much Free Trade May 26, 2009
    Krause says Grassley Hurting Prospects for Health Care Reform May 18, 2009

    So he supports anti-gun USSC Justices, dislikes free trade, and likes socializing health care. I can't find any specific information that is either pro- or anti-2A on his site, but those 3 stances tend to go hand in hand with anti-gun positions. Also, his site seems conspicuously absent of any public support for gun rights:

    Zero google search results on his site for '2nd' or 'second amendment', only a single gang task force result for 'firearm' and 'gun'.


    My conclusion would be that he is yet another Democrat that pays just enough lip service to confuse his people about his stance. In more plain speaking circles, this is sometimes called stretching the truth or lying. I bet $5 that his definition of "Second Amendment" is different from ours.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    amaixner wrote:
    From his own web site:
    http://www.krauseforiowa.com/positio...osition_Papers

    Krause says Grassley Opposition to Sotomayer Follows Pattern of Anti-Women Votes July 27, 2009
    Krause says National Threat Created by Too Much Free Trade May 26, 2009
    Krause says Grassley Hurting Prospects for Health Care Reform May 18, 2009

    So he supports anti-gun USSC Justices, dislikes free trade, and likes socializing health care. I can't find any specific information that is either pro- or anti-2A on his site, but those 3 stances tend to go hand in hand with anti-gun positions. Also, his site seems conspicuously absent of any public support for gun rights:

    Zero google search results on his site for '2nd' or 'second amendment', only a single gang task force result for 'firearm' and 'gun'.


    My conclusion would be that he is yet another Democrat that pays just enough lip service to confuse his people about his stance. In more plain speaking circles, this is sometimes called stretching the truth or lying. I bet $5 that his definition of "Second Amendment" is different from ours.

    Given that Iowa Carry and the NRA now call politicians who vote to require state mandated training prior to getting permission from the governmentto carry a weapon for self-defense, and vote against a no-permit required law,"pro-second amendment," exactly how do you know if a politician is "pro-second amendment?" Exactly what is the standard, and how do you weigh that against such radical language as "shall not be infringed" (you know . . .as actuallycontained in the second amendment)?

    Seems like Krause might just qualifiy as "pro-second amendment," given today's changing definition.

    SS


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    Given that Iowa Carry and the NRA now call politicians who vote to require state mandated training prior to getting permission from the governmentto carry a weapon for self-defense, and vote against a no-permit required law,"pro-second amendment," exactly how do you know if a politician is "pro-second amendment?" Exactly what is the standard, and how do you weigh that against such radical language as "shall not be infringed" (you know . . .as actuallycontained in the second amendment)?

    Seems like Krause might just qualifiy as "pro-second amendment," given today's changing definition.

    SS
    That's a good question.

    Vander Plaats, like Krausehasn't DONE anything to support the 2nd Amendment. They both have SAID that they do support it though.

    Except that Vander Plaats supported "Shall Issue" for Iowa, so I'm not sure Vander Plaats actually supports the 2nd Amendment.







  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    Max G wrote:
    That's a good question.

    Vander Plaats, like Krausehasn't DONE anything to support the 2nd Amendment. They both have SAID that they do support it though.

    Except that Vander Plaats supported "Shall Issue" for Iowa, so I'm not sure Vander Plaats actually supports the 2nd Amendment.

    Hey Maxie the Village Idiot -

    Is is possible for you to comprehend that Krause has actually HELD public office where he affected the law as it relates to the second amendment, and Vander Plaats has not? . . .

    Nah! . . . . never mind . . . there I go expecting you to be capable of intelligent thought again . . . sorry for that.

    SS

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    Max G wrote:
    That's a good question.

    Vander Plaats, like Krausehasn't DONE anything to support the 2nd Amendment. They both have SAID that they do support it though.

    Except that Vander Plaats supported "Shall Issue" for Iowa, so I'm not sure Vander Plaats actually supports the 2nd Amendment.

    Hey Maxie the Village Idiot -

    Is is possible for you to comprehend that Krause has actually HELD public office where he affected the law as it relates to the second amendment, and Vander Plaats has not? . . .

    Nah! . . . . never mind . . . there I go expecting you to be capable of intelligent thought again . . . sorry for that.

    SS
    Ok, so you admit Vander Plaats has not advanced any legislation in support of the 2nd Amendment. Has he DONE anything other than TALK about supporting the 2nd Amendment?

    As for Krause, what is his voting record showing what he has DONE to support the 2nd Amendment?

    Amazing SS how you make sweeping recommendations for candidates based on their campaign promises alone.








  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    Max G wrote:
    Straight_Shooter wrote:

    Hey Maxie the Village Idiot -

    Is is possible for you to comprehend that Krause has actually HELD public office where he affected the law as it relates to the second amendment, and Vander Plaats has not? . . .

    Nah! . . . . never mind . . . there I go expecting you to be capable of intelligent thought again . . . sorry for that.

    SS
    Ok, so you admit Vander Plaats has not advanced any legislation in support of the 2nd Amendment. Has he DONE anything other than TALK about supporting the 2nd Amendment?

    As for Krause, what is his voting record showing what he has DONE to support the 2nd Amendment?

    Amazing SS how you make sweeping recommendations for candidates based on their campaign promises alone.


    Thanks for the continuing inspiring political insight as usual Maxie Mermidon . . . no doubt you will be voting for Culver, because he is the only gubernatorial candiate in your tiny brainthat "has done anything to support the second amendment" (which he hasn't, but that is lost on you of course).

    I really do appreciate you showing everyone who comes to this post exactly how the Iowa Carry "mind" (or rather "mindlessness") . . . "works:"

    You will support and vote for one of the most anti-gun governors we've ever had in Culver, who has NEVER said anything in support of the second amendment, let alone say that he would support Constitutional carry in Iowa, and who only signed your compromise bill under duress and the threat of losing his next election, and condemn the best shot we have in a pro-gun candidate in Vander Plaats, who has actually publically stated that he will SIGN a Constitutional carry bill if it is passed through the legislature.

    This is Maxie's brain . . . this is Maxie's brain on drugs . . .DUH!!! . . you are tragically beyond hope . . . .

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    Another Non-Answer from Straight Shooter.

    Questions too difficult for you SS?


    I won't vote for Culver, but I see there is not much difference between the 3 Republican candidates, and no evidence any of the 3 supports the 2nd Amendment more than any other.

    Vander Plaats - Dumb jock basketball player and schoolteacher. How is he different then Culver, other than pounds?

    Roberts - At least he has a legislative record for 10 years, but what is in it?

    Branstad - Is his heart still beating?

    To me, this election is again about voting for the lessor of 2 evils. There's no evidence any have an advantage on 2nd Amendment rights, though if that was your only basis for choosing a candidate, Culver might fit that Bill, though I'll not vote for a man who lead Iowa into a fiscal disaster.
















  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    To me, this election is again about voting for the lessor of 2 evils.
    Why do you say that? This is one thing that REALLY bothers me is that no one considers a minor party candidate because they are "unelectable". The minor parties will remain minor parties as long as people are not voting for their candidates. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. I know that is not necessarily what you meant but it struck a chord with me.

    If an election did come down to only two candidates, each one not really "good" in the eyes of the beholder, then it would seem to come to the voting for the lesser evil if only because the option of not voting leaves one's fate to the whims of others. When I look for a candidate to support I place their stances on self defense in a high priority.

    There is an excellent essay floating around civil liberty sites like this one that explains the importance of a candidate's stance on the Second Amendment. I forget where I saw it but I took it to heart.

    Because the right to self defense, and the effort to curb that right, is such a hot button issue it is difficult to get a candidate to state outright and truthfully where they stand on those issues. If we can get any of them to so much as speak on self defense, or even acknowledge it as an issue, I consider that a victory. It is a minor victory but an important one.

    The first job of a politician is to get elected. The second job of a politician is to get re-elected. They will always be compared to the previous holder of that office. They will always be compared to the words and deeds of another candidate. We need to press the issue at every election so that the candidates will be forced to explain their interpretation of the Constitution, as amended, and shift that Overton Window to where our right to self defense is in proper view.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    IA_farmboy wrote:
    To me, this election is again about voting for the lessor of 2 evils.
    Why do you say that? This is one thing that REALLY bothers me is that no one considers a minor party candidate because they are "unelectable". The minor parties will remain minor parties as long as people are not voting for their candidates. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. I know that is not necessarily what you meant but it struck a chord with me.

    If an election did come down to only two candidates, each one not really "good" in the eyes of the beholder, then it would seem to come to the voting for the lesser evil if only because the option of not voting leaves one's fate to the whims of others. When I look for a candidate to support I place their stances on self defense in a high priority.

    There is an excellent essay floating around civil liberty sites like this one that explains the importance of a candidate's stance on the Second Amendment. I forget where I saw it but I took it to heart.

    Because the right to self defense, and the effort to curb that right, is such a hot button issue it is difficult to get a candidate to state outright and truthfully where they stand on those issues. If we can get any of them to so much as speak on self defense, or even acknowledge it as an issue, I consider that a victory. It is a minor victory but an important one.

    The first job of a politician is to get elected. The second job of a politician is to get re-elected. They will always be compared to the previous holder of that office. They will always be compared to the words and deeds of another candidate. We need to press the issue at every election so that the candidates will be forced to explain their interpretation of the Constitution, as amended, and shift that Overton Window to where our right to self defense is in proper view.
    Excellent post IFB . . . the only reason third party candidates are "unelectable" is because people won't vote for them . . . sounds silly I know, but that is the bottom line. I am firmly convinced that the refusal to vote for anyone outside of a particular political party is why we are in the trouble we are in. The "parties" are who control the country that way, not the electorate.

    If BVP doesn't get the nod from the "Republicans," I will likely be voting third party . . . Are you aware of any good 3rd party candidates at this point? The only one I am aware of is Johnathan Narcisse, and although I like Johnathan as a person, his politicsare all over the place.

    I am not aware of the Constitution party running a candidate this year, but they have in the recent past. I would happily vote for a CP candidate.

    SS

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    Max G wrote:

    Questions too difficult for you SS?

    For any folks who visit here other than the above cretin, I will make a few things clear. From day one of resonding to my posts, this "apologist" for Iowa Carry and the NRA (I wonder if they really claim him?) has made one thing clear: he is not here to discuss issues of substance, but simply to personally attack me to take the focus off of the problems inherent in the Iowa Carry / NRA legislation.

    He now apparently thinks that after months of attacking me and refusing to debate the issues / legislationfor their actual content, that I will consider entering debate with him. He has very conveniently refused to answer direct questions posed to him and others about the content of the NRA/Iowa Carry bills, and nowis attacking me for ignoring his questions. Where people from Iowa Carry and the NRA have entered reasonable and intelligent debate with me here on Open Carry, I have responded in kind. The above individual has proven with plenty of past experience that he is not capable of entering reasoned debate, but prefers to make personal attacks. As he has done so, I have responded in kind.


    For those who tire of the inability to have reasoned discussion here, I will hold out that I am fully willing to ignore "MaxG" at the point that he stops attacking me. . . .at this point in time, I will not lower myself to have any form of real debate with him, because he has proven his unwillingness and inability to enter into "give and take" debate.

    Bottom line . . . he is nothing but a troll . . . .

    SS

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    Max G wrote:
    I won't vote for Culver, but I see there is not much difference between the 3 Republican candidates, and no evidence any of the 3 supports the 2nd Amendment more than any other.

    Maxie! . . . won't vote for Culver? But he's the only one who has "supported the second amendment" - according to your pathetic standards anyway - he signed your silly bill into law . . . why wouldn't you support such a "stalwart pro-gun governor" compared to 3 Republicans who have "shown no evidenceof supporting the second amendment?!?" This is your requirement after all . . .

    And you acuse me of "talking out of both sides of my mouth!"



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    For those who tire of the inability to have reasoned discussion here, I will hold out that I am fully willing to ignore "MaxG" at the point that he stops attacking me. . . .at this point in time, I will not lower myself to have any form of debate with him, because he has proven his unwillingness and inability to enter into "give and take" debate.

    Bottom line . . . he is nothing but a troll . . . .

    SS
    Sometimes all I can do is shake my head.

    This is one of those times.

    Have you no mirrors?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    IA_farmboy wrote:
    To me, this election is again about voting for the lessor of 2 evils.
    Why do you say that? This is one thing that REALLY bothers me is that no one considers a minor party candidate because they are "unelectable". The minor parties will remain minor parties as long as people are not voting for their candidates. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. I know that is not necessarily what you meant but it struck a chord with me.

    If an election did come down to only two candidates, each one not really "good" in the eyes of the beholder, then it would seem to come to the voting for the lesser evil if only because the option of not voting leaves one's fate to the whims of others. When I look for a candidate to support I place their stances on self defense in a high priority.

    There is an excellent essay floating around civil liberty sites like this one that explains the importance of a candidate's stance on the Second Amendment. I forget where I saw it but I took it to heart.

    Because the right to self defense, and the effort to curb that right, is such a hot button issue it is difficult to get a candidate to state outright and truthfully where they stand on those issues. If we can get any of them to so much as speak on self defense, or even acknowledge it as an issue, I consider that a victory. It is a minor victory but an important one.

    The first job of a politician is to get elected. The second job of a politician is to get re-elected. They will always be compared to the previous holder of that office. They will always be compared to the words and deeds of another candidate. We need to press the issue at every election so that the candidates will be forced to explain their interpretation of the Constitution, as amended, and shift that Overton Window to where our right to self defense is in proper view.

    I'd vote for a 3rd Party if they offered a strong candidate.

    Is there a good 3rd Party candidate for Governor of Iowa?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    SigSauer232 wrote:
    Sometimes all I can do is shake my head.

    This is one of those times.

    Have you no mirrors?
    Shake all you want SS232 - you have proven your "troll-hood" here as well. All you Iowa Carry types have offered from the beginning is personal attacks, rather than discussion about the ISSUES AND CONTENTS OF THE LEGISLATION.

    So shake away . . . you're right in there with Maxie . . .

    SS

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    SigSauer232 wrote:
    Sometimes all I can do is shake my head.

    This is one of those times.

    Have you no mirrors?
    Shake all you want SS232 - you have proven your "troll-hood" here as well. All you Iowa Carry types have offered from the beginning is personal attacks, rather than discussion about the ISSUES AND CONTENTS OF THE LEGISLATION.

    So shake away . . . you're right in there with Maxie . . .

    SS
    You are a treasure..."troll-hood"? lol. I've never personally attacked you. I've taken issue with yourforum mannersbutI've never called you any names, I quit using thattactic in junior high. On the other hand, you have put words in my mouth, assumed what organizations I belong to, and insulted me regularly. I just find your indignation humorous.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    SigSauer232 wrote:
    You are a treasure..."troll-hood"? lol. I've never personally attacked you. I've taken issue with yourforum mannersbutI've never called you any names, I quit using thattactic in junior high. On the other hand, you have put words in my mouth, assumed what organizations I belong to, and insulted me regularly. I just find your indignation humorous.
    Laugh away . . . you and Maxieare two of a kind. . .

    And my "forum manners" wereacutely developed by the likes of you and Maxie and the rest of the Iowa Carry / NRA crowd - who from the very begining of my posts to try and get people (unsuccessfully) to work to eliminate the un-Constitutional big government provisions of the NRA / Iowa Carry legislationconstantly attackedme for simply putting downhere what was in the bill. That you are an ally to Maxie is clear: you have never bothered totake issue withHIS dispicableforum manners . . . no surprise I guess.

    The posts are still there, butI would never expect you to go back and review them andreally know who leveled the personal attacks first . . . you, as well as Maxie and others, continue to have one agenda: deflect the discussion away from the FACTS of CCW legislation and onto me personally. It must have worked, for now, because the POC passed and was signed . . . and now every person in the state who has had a CCW for years without the hassle of government training will now have to pony up money to the NRA for training to "exercise their second amendment rights." And that is not to mention that the sheriffs are already working together to figure out how they are going to deny permits with all the loop holes you jerks gave them.

    Yeah . . . you go right ahead and laugh . . . It won't likely last for long when folks start figuring out what you have done to them.

    SS

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    That you are an ally to Maxie is clear: you have never bothered totake issue withHIS dispicableforum manners . . . no surprise I guess.

    SS
    It's really pretty simple. Max G has never responded to a post of mine that I'm aware of. He certainly has never called me any names or claimed that I said things that I did not say.




  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    SigSauer232 wrote:
    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    That you are an ally to Maxie is clear: you have never bothered totake issue withHIS dispicableforum manners . . . no surprise I guess.

    SS
    It's really pretty simple. Max G has never responded to a post of mine that I'm aware of. He certainly has never called me any names or claimed that I said things that I did not say.


    The only responses to your posts that I have made were in defense of your attacks on mine . . . I attack no one in words or deed that haven't attacked me first.

    SS

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    i hope you guys are still in school. this is the mindset that the antis want. people condemned Bush for state of country but remember he ended the clinton gun bill. people said clinton was good but helped to push through a gun bill that could have destroyed this country. why do you think the gop took over. Bush wasnt perfect but at least he gave us gun owner back our firearms. yes the dems are sweating bullets because they have stepped on the wrong toes, the working man. i dont mean the 100k+ salaries. we have to say together no matter what and show the government that we will not take this lying down. forget the state issue laws amd make it federal then the states have to abide by it. i feel a national carry law is needed to put a stop to the so called protectors ofour great states, from making the rules fit their agenda. how would they feel if their family was wiped out at a diner only to find out someone had a firearm in their car because the sheriff refused to give then a carry permit. some are afraid that maybe someone else may do their job and get credit for it. We can call each other names, run down who we like, and many other things but the most important thing is we would like the same thing. the right to keep and bear arms without persecution from the MAN. REMEMBER TOGETHER WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    vanguard270 wrote:
    i hope you guys are still in school. this is the mindset that the antis want. people condemned Bush for state of country but remember he ended the clinton gun bill. people said clinton was good but helped to push through a gun bill that could have destroyed this country. why do you think the gop took over. Bush wasnt perfect but at least he gave us gun owner back our firearms.
    NOT TRUE
    Bush said that he would sign the AWB if the legislature renewed it.
    SOURCE: http://gunowners.org/a041403.htm
    SOURCE: http://www.thehighroad.us/archive/in...p/t-18114.html
    SOURCE: http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/geo...un_control.htm

    From the Bush/Kerry televised campaign 'debates':
    Q: You said if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you’d sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage Congress to extend it.
    BUSH: I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban

    Now if your overall point is that we should stop arguing here and try to continue the improvement of gun rights laws, I fully agree with that sentiment.




  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    amaixner wrote:
    NOT TRUE
    Bush said that he would sign the AWB if the legislature renewed it.
    amaixner-

    Bless your heart, you are priceless! . . . Thanks for pointing out the Bush hypocricy . . . you arequite right to do so . . just another example of how "conservatives" tell us that "their" politicians are the exact opposite of what they really are . . . (Branstad comes to mind as another current great example - all the "Republicans" are runnning around telling us what a great "fiscal conservative" he was as guv - yet the truth is his spending / taxing record is horrible - worse than Culver's in truth).

    However, I have to tell you that I laughed until I cried when I read this post . . You "fully agree with the sentiment that we should stop arguing" . . . right after you justgot donearguingwith Vanguard270!!!

    I guess whether or notsomething is acceptable is based on "who's saying what." Ya just gotta love what the "relevatism movement" has done to us . . Not "dissing" you . . . so don't take it that way . . you don't think much differently than most other Iowans.

    Take care and thanks for making my day . . .

    SS

Posting Permissions

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