Lugar at it again!!!

[Gun Bunny]

Saw this earlier and got my blood boiling!

Democratic Lawmakers Urge Obama to Veto Gun Measure - NYTimes.com

Two Republicans senators, Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, have said that they oppose the latest measure.

Just doesn't make any sense to me, he comes from a State that recognizes all licenses/permits from all States and Countries, but not nationally?

 

[rdg]

I usually agree with Lugar on most of his stances, but have to disagree on this one. Only thing I can think is he may fear a state with lax guidelines for Licensing to cause a problem, but the way I read the bill it is for residents of another state to have same rights we have when they are in our state. If you are a resident of IN then you would have to conform to our laws, right?

 

[Expat]

I usually agree with Lugar on most of his stances, but have to disagree on this one.

So you were for the assault weapons ban?

You were for requiring background checks at gun shows?

 

[Gun Bunny]

I usually agree with Lugar on most of his stances, but have to disagree on this one. Only thing I can think is he may fear a state with lax guidelines for Licensing to cause a problem, but the way I read the bill it is for residents of another state to have same rights we have when they are in our state. If you are a resident of IN then you would have to conform to our laws, right?

You are from a State with lax gun laws, you do know that, right? We already accept all other States and Countries, so you are worried that we make it nationally?

Please check his voting record, you will find that he is way out of touch with Indiana residents.

 

[hooky]

Lugar vs Mourdock | Richard Mourdock


SECOND AMENDMENT

LUGAR STANCE

Dick Lugar earns a “D+” rating from the NRA and an “F” from the Gun Owners of America for being a strong advocate of gun control. Lugar has voted for the “assault weapons” ban, the Brady Bill, the DC handgun ban and other gun control legislation.


MOURDOCK STANCE

Richard Mourdock previously earned an “A” rating from the NRA. He understands that gun control does not equal crime control and that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[jgreiner]

Saw this earlier and got my blood boiling!

Democratic Lawmakers Urge Obama to Veto Gun Measure - NYTimes.com

Just doesn't make any sense to me, he comes from a State that recognizes all licenses/permits from all States and Countries, but not nationally?

Lugar needs to go

 

[TopDog]

Yes Lugar needs to go. Not just because of his Liberal stance on guns. Because he is more Liberal than most Democrats. When you say RINO I think Lugar.

 

[PistolBob]

Yes Lugar needs to go. Not just because of his Liberal stance on guns. Because he is more Liberal than most Democrats. When you say RINO I think Lugar.

He needs to go because he's too old to be in Washington DC carrying out the will of the people. The guy is a fossil that should have retired a dozen years ago.

He's a gun grabber and a globalist...and has been for decades.

GET rid of him while you can.

 

[24Carat]

? years ago I forwarded an email response from Sen. Lugar to the NRA/ILA. I had inquired about his position on Gun Control and associated legislation and how he had voted. Thus we have the D+ rating. He was downgraded a month after my contact. Or several contacts they received. Dickie Poo has to go.

 

[Dorky_D]

I just sent him a very pointed, but polite expression of my dissapointment in his stance. He says he supports the second ammendment, but he cannot have the integrity to back it up. I was taught that my actions should back up my words. Perhaps he missed that. I would call that a lack of integrity, when your words do not match your actions.

I would urge you to contact him regarding this. Do it often...all the cool gun owners are doing it (ok, so I may not be cool, but please do it).
U.S. Senator Dick Lugar

 

[Expat]

Hopefully rdg checks back and reads more about Lugar. I think he is like most Hoosiers. They don't know what Dick is up to when he is in Washington, so they assume he is doing a pretty good job. We have to get the word out that Dick is not now (nor has he ever been) a Hoosier conservative. He talks a good game to the voters but he was bought and paid for by the liberals in DC a long time ago.

 

[Hoosier8]

The real question on this law is whether the power should rest with the State or with the Federal Government. If you are for States rights, you would have to side with Lugar.

 

[spec4]

IMO 2A means constitutional carry. Individual states don't (again, IMO) have the right to mess with the Bill of Rights. I eagerly await the day I can vote against Lugar.

 

[Hoosier8]

IMO 2A means constitutional carry. Individual states don't (again, IMO) have the right to mess with the Bill of Rights. I eagerly await the day I can vote against Lugar.

Yet each State has rules around carrying which you now abide by in this State. What you are saying is that States should give up their rights to regulate to abide by Federal Control. 2A is incorporated but it is still up to States to draft the laws around them, same as the death penalty.

Do you believe that Roe v Wade was Federal overreach? It was based on very shaky constitutional grounds.

 

[Smokepole]

IF you are a Constitutional purist then you would be with Lugar on this and leave it up to the states to negotiate reciprocity agreements with the remaining states. Eventually they would work it out.

On the flip side, one can go with the 14th amendment re: equal treatment by all of the states for all of each others legislation. That would include the right of gays to marry and others that you may or may not like. Unless you are for equal treatment as far as the B o R is concerned and not for other state legislation.

Obviously, the less intrusion by the Fed. Gov't. the better. But it comes down to if you want to be a purist or not. The way the Constitution is written, basically you are either all in or all out. Just, many of our Congress Critters think that they have license to play around with it all they want to and are free to make whatever inferences they see fit. I don't see it that way.

Lugar was a better Conservative as a Mayor than as a Senator and his time should have been over at least a decade ago. My vote will go to Mourdock.

As far as the law in the OP is concerned I am still unsure where I sit. Need to ponder this one a while.

 

[gunowner930]

Lugar against gun rights? No that can't be true. It's time to get this joker out of Washington. Mourdock may not be perfect but at least he recognizes the 2nd Amendment.

 

[2A_Tom]

Call, wright, e-mail, Bug the heck out of him.

Don't just cut and paste.

the more, original, notes he gets the better.

Sir,

First, I am not a member of the organization oath keepers, however, I did affirm an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States, from all enemies foreign and domestic.

This may sound familiar to you. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." According to wikipwdia that is the oath that you have taken on several occasions.

You may not be up on current events, so allow me to inform you that about two years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment affirms the unalienable right of the individual to keep and bear arms. I am surprised that you have not been briefed by your staff about that yet. Maybe they will get around to it soon, hopefully.

In my humble opinion when you ask the president to veto any bill that strips your constituents of any portion of a civil RIGHT, you violate your oath.

Sir, you are supposed to be a representative of the people. Your State has laws that "ALLOW" your constituents to practice their supposedly unalienable RIGHT. All we gun owners want is to have all of the citizens of this Great country to be able to enjoy those same Rights.

You may want to check with the FBI, may be they will brief you personally, about their statistics of violent crime dropping when citizens Civil Rights are not infringed. All across the country cities are losing funding because of the poor economy. You will see rises in violent crime in the places where Police are cut and citizens have no right, and therefore no means of self defense. Where criminals are allowed to posses firearms (by their inherent lawlessness) and citizens are prohibited by Unconstitutional laws, WHO WINS.

The Constitution Grants Powers to the Federal Government, Enumerates Unalienable Rights of the PEOPLE, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Thank you for your time considering my thoughts. I do realize that the Senator will most probably not even hear of this message. Maybe one staffer can be influenced to reconsider the liberal position foisted upon them by a man who claims to be a Republican but seems to always side with the democrats.

Do it right now before you forget. PLEASE.

Pretty Please with a Cherry on top.

 

[Smokepole]

IMO 2A means constitutional carry. Individual states don't (again, IMO) have the right to mess with the Bill of Rights. I eagerly await the day I can vote against Lugar.

Gotta consider the whole of the picture. Remember, the Constitution is the foundation for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. It spell out what the Fed can and cannot do. And in the 10th Amendment reserves any unspecified rights to the people and the STATES. It was not written to limit or bind the states. They all have their own Constitutions.

 

[spec4]

Yet each State has rules around carrying which you now abide by in this State. What you are saying is that States should give up their rights to regulate to abide by Federal Control. 2A is incorporated but it is still up to States to draft the laws around them, same as the death penalty.

Do you believe that Roe v Wade was Federal overreach? It was based on very shaky constitutional grounds.

Yes, each state, other than the few which have consitutional carry, has its own rules. In Illinois, no provision at all for open or concealed carry, in other socialist states such as NJ, CA, NY, there are very severe restrictions on citizens being armed. 2A says "shall not be infringed". It doesn't say; "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, each State shall be able to make its own rules about the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

It's time for Lugar to retire. Mourdock is the man. He needs your vote and could also use a little bit of your dough...Richard Mourdock |