General Categories > Laws and Legislation
who to vote for in primary
depserv:
--- Quote from: Sandhillian on April 18, 2016, 12:03:32 PM ---I read that Les Spry's registration as a Republican is a fairly recent occurrence. Evidently he has voted as a Democrat for 42 previous elections.
--- End quote ---
somehow I'm not surprised...
GreggL:
--- Quote from: Sandhillian on April 18, 2016, 12:03:32 PM ---I read that Les Spry's registration as a Republican is a fairly recent occurrence. Evidently he has voted as a Democrat for 42 previous elections.
--- End quote ---
Perhaps one of his potential constituents should ask for his understanding of LB 289 and how he would vote on it.....
parker20:
Jim Gordon believes in registration as well
RICHARD D LONG:
In Buffalo County, for Legislature, be aware that Bob Lammers holds the following position on concealed carry. This is an excerpt from an email he sent to me: "I am opposed to people being able to carry a concealed weapon. I have been a fairly active hunter during my lifetime, especially water fowl and have nothing against the right to bear arms. I do however have a problem with concealed weapons and assault rifles, or weapons of that nature".
depserv:
--- Quote from: RICHARD D LONG on April 20, 2016, 03:30:14 PM ---In Buffalo County, for Legislature, be aware that Bob Lammers holds the following position on concealed carry. This is an excerpt from an email he sent to me: "I am opposed to people being able to carry a concealed weapon. I have been a fairly active hunter during my lifetime, especially water fowl and have nothing against the right to bear arms. I do however have a problem with concealed weapons and assault rifles, or weapons of that nature".
--- End quote ---
This guy is a fool and so is anyone who votes for him. He says he supports the right to bear arms, but only as long as you don't carry them concealed. Does that mean he supports open carry in public places? I doubt it. So it looks to me like what he is saying is that he supports our right to bear arms, but only as long as we don't bear arms. This is a logical impossibility: a only if not a.
The same thing applies to his view on so-called assault weapons. We have a right to bear (and presumably also to keep) arms, but only if what we keep and bear are not arms. The slogan assault weapon (and its derivatives) means 20th Century arms, and their being arms is part of the reason they should supposedly be outlawed. So according to this guy there is no right to have arms for defense of ourselves, our families, and our communities, but apparently there is some right to have devices that are just as lethal like long range rifles and shotguns, but only as long as their purpose is trivial (sport in other words).
What is more dangerous than gun control is such outlandish lies being so commonly told by the political class, over a period of decades, and the liars keep getting elected.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version