Todd Young Answers The Gun Rights Questionnaire

[kwelz]

I guess I can see how you would think he is trying to spin the answer. However you are incorrect. He means exactly what he says. The 2nd Amendment is the law of the land. Details beyond that such as the specific type of weapon we are talking about really don't matter. Maybe he could have worded it better however I have spoken with Todd about firearms and he has no issue with my many many ARs that is for sure.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

I think Lyud is also discussing NFA weapons and the type, without all the unnecessary legal stipulations involved, I.E. fully automatic weapons and suppressors. Would he stand to help eliminate the red tape on those?

 

[dukeboy_318]

well, further research is needed but its looking like I found where my vote is going this round

 

[CarmelHP]

I'm curious as to why Young chose to put a carefully crafted, vague spin on this answer. His answer is insufficiently specific to the question asked. He did not specifically address the part about "weapons of military pattern."

Beware of politicians who give such slippery answers.

I saw that and thought the same, but since I don't believe anything Todd says anyway, I just took it as another weaseling maneuver.

 

[Lyudmilla]

I guess I can see how you would think he is trying to spin the answer. However you are incorrect. He means exactly what he says. The 2nd Amendment is the law of the land. Details beyond that such as the specific type of weapon we are talking about really don't matter. Maybe he could have worded it better however I have spoken with Todd about firearms and he has no issue with my many many ARs that is for sure.

I am so tired of supporters telling me what a politician "mean't to say. If that is what he "mean't," then why did he answer a very specific question with a vague non-answer right out of the RNC playbook?

Also, question #6 has little to do with your "many, many ARs."

 

[kwelz]

I am so tired of lackey's telling me what a politician "mean't to say. If that is what he means, then why did he answer it with a vague non-answer?

Also, question #6 has little to do with your "many, many ARs."

I didn't tell you what he meant to say, I told you what he said. I wasn't aware that stating you believed the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land and protects the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is a non answer. But I am not going to get into an argument.

Todd has answered the questionnaire and his answers are pretty strait forward for everyone to read. There will always be those people who have made up their mind and will look for anything they can to pick apart what they don't like.

If people have real questions about Todd's stance on gun rights or anything else, I am more than happy to answer them. However I see no reason to get drug into an argument with a small number of individuals with an obvious dislike of someone I consider a friend.

That isn't my job on the campaign nor is it something I wish to do on my free time here.

 

[Lyudmilla]

Todd has answered the questionnaire and his answers are pretty strait forward for everyone to read. There will always be those people who have made up their mind and will look for anything they can to pick apart what they don't like.

Pick apart? I just said his answer to question #6 was a non-answer because it was broad and did not touch on the military part of the question.

Why do you get so uptight and offended with legitimate debate? Get a hobby man. You're wound too tight.

 

[CarmelHP]

Pick apart? I just said his answer to question #6 was a non-answer because it was broad and did not touch on the military part of the question.

Why do you get so uptight and offended with legitimate debate? Get a hobby man. You're wound too tight.

Whenever political staff gets huffy and takes umbrage at a question about the candidate and storms off in high dudgeon, it's usually a pretty good indication that you hit close to the mark, if not a bullseye.

 

[Rob377]

I guess I can see how you would think he is trying to spin the answer. However you are incorrect. He means exactly what he says. The 2nd Amendment is the law of the land. Details beyond that such as the specific type of weapon we are talking about really don't matter. Maybe he could have worded it better however I have spoken with Todd about firearms and he has no issue with my many many ARs that is for sure.

That's how I read it.

It seems like no matter what Todd said, the Sodrel fans would find something to quibble about.

"Young didn't use proper punctuation! He hates guns!!!!"
Good grief.

 

[mrjarrell]

6. Do you believe that Americans have a right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern, and will you use the prestige of elected office to publicly promote that right?

The Second Amendment is the law of the land. It protects our right to keep and bear arms. To me, that could not be clearer. I will use the prestige of elected office to publicly promote that right.

Sounds like a fairly straightforward answer to me. The questions does NOT address machine guns. It addresses "military pattern" firearms. That is commonly understood to mean semi-autos covered by any "assault weapons ban", like we had inflicted on us in the 90's. The question is about semi-autos, not machine guns. If David, (who created the questionnaire) had meant machine guns, I am sure he would have said machine guns or full auto.

 

[CarmelHP]

Sounds like a fairly straightforward answer to me. The questions does NOT address machine guns. It addresses "military pattern" firearms. That is commonly understood to mean semi-autos covered by any "assault weapons ban", like we had inflicted on us in the 90's. The question is about semi-autos, not machine guns. If David, (who created the questionnaire) had meant machine guns, I am sure he would have said machine guns or full auto.

Actually, No, Todd's answer sounds like John Kerry's answer, except John Kerry meant duck hunting and avoided answering specifically. He could have answered it broadly, "no gun laws ever, period." which would have answered the question. Instead, we're left to guess at what he thinks the 2nd Amendment means.

 

[kwelz]

How does -

Any law that infringes upon the rights of law abiding citizens is NOT constitutional. Most gun control laws do just this. I can think of no current gun control law that I see as constitutional with the possible exception of an instant and foolproof check to make sure the purchaser of a firearm is not a felon.

or

I would work to reverse the most oppressive section of the 1968 Gun Control Act. I believe the "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994 was bad legislation that needed to be repealed. Also, the "feel good" policies that create gun safe zones do more damage to our neighborhoods by inviting criminal elements that have no interest in attaining weapons legally, let alone using them for lawful purposes. Responsible citizens exercising their rights to gun ownership provides a necessary line of defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

or

I do not agree with licensing requirements to own a firearm for the same reasons I oppose registration in question

- Sound like any answer a Democrat would give.

The only way that you can not know what he means is if you look at this one question and this one question only. But as I said earlier, if you are coming at this looking for a reason to not like someone you will be able to find it when you dig hard enough.

 

[Rob377]

How does -


or



or



- Sound like any answer a Democrat would give.

The only way that you can not know what he means is if you look at this one question and this one question only. But as I said earlier, if you are coming at this looking for a reason to not like someone you will be able to find it when you dig hard enough.

It's called the "Ransom Note Method" Take little bits out of context, cut and paste them into some off the wall misrepresentation of the enemy's position.

Then again, given what I'm seeing on Fluhr's blog, this kind of misrepresentation is par for the course.

It's sad that those on the right are resorting to this, on each other no less.

 

[CarmelHP]

It was Todd's decision to run as the Indianapolis establishment ordained candidate, why should he complain now if anyone suspects he'll be like "Sportsmens Friend" Dan Coats.

 

[Lyudmilla]

It was Todd's decision to run as the Indianapolis establishment ordained candidate, why should he complain now if anyone suspects he'll be like "Sportsmens Friend" Dan Coats.

The same group of delicate Carmel frat boys running Dan Coats campaign are also backing Todd Young.

 

[kwelz]

So now someone who has never run for office before and is running on a stance that the Republican party has been irresponsible is the "establishment candidate". Wow.

So far the only people I have heard make that claim were Sodrel Staffers and insiders.

The same group of delicate Carmel frat boys running Dan Coats campaign are financially backing Todd Young.

I am curious as to who you think is financially backing us. Heck I would love to see some of this mythical money. If we had these big backers then we would not need to hold all these fundraisers.

Of course I see you took the financial claim out of the post.
Yeah we have backing from the Carmel area. We also have a huge support has in Washington County, Clark County, Harrison County, Well heck, every county.

people are tired of the same ole thing. They are tired of the same candidates matching off every election cycle. They are tired of a person who makes promises and then goes to Washington only to vote for more pork than we ever saw under Clinton. Myself, and others want a person in office who will vote with the party when it is right and against the party when they do wrong.

So far I have seen exactly two people on this board that go out of their way to attack Todd. I have told people who I am. They know why I stand behind him and what my position is in politics. Why don't you two do the same. What is your vested interest in attacking Todd every time his name is mentioned?

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

I have told people who I am. They know why I stand behind him and what my position is in politics. Why don't you two do the same. What is your vested interest in attacking Todd every time his name is mentioned?

Kwelz, if I may, my thought on this thread is that you need to decide for yourself if you are here as an INGO member that would like to see the success of a person running for office or if you joined simply to spread information about that campaign and are unofficially representing/defending that campaign.

One is holding a personal opinion, the other is political.

I am not accusing you of either position, just that you have said your piece and seem defensive about your friend/candidate having some unflattering things said about him. I'm not picking at you, I'm just not clear on your reasons for joining INGO. And yes, you owe me no explanation.

 

[kwelz]

You have a point there BTS. Normally I don't care as much but Todd is a friend as well as a boss, so yeah it is a bit more personal. I need to just stand by what I said earlier LOL. I will gladly answer honest questions that are asked, but don't need to get drawn into arguments with people.

Thanks for being a voice of reason.

 

[Rob377]

You have a point there BTS. Normally I don't care as much but Todd is a friend as well as a boss, so yeah it is a bit more personal. I need to just stand by what I said earlier LOL. I will gladly answer honest questions that are asked, but don't need to get drawn into arguments with people.

Thanks for being a voice of reason.

Frankly, I'm impressed you aren't getting angrier. You've got people comparing Young to John Kerry as an anti-gunner, which given where we're at is probably the worst thing you can say about a candidate. It's a complete misrepresentation, and I would think that the people making it would know better.

Kudos to you for keeping your cool. If people were saying that sort of thing about a personal friend of mine, I'd be pretty irate, to say the least.

 

[CarmelHP]

So now someone who has never run for office before and is running on a stance that the Republican party has been irresponsible is the "establishment candidate". Wow.

Isn't it Todd that's touting his endorsements from the Republican Indianapolis Establishment. I didn't make any financial claims before but I will now. Isn't that Bob Grand on his financial report? You know, Greg Ballard's handler from B&T, you can't get much more establishment than that. Carl Brizzi, isn't he on there? Tom John? John Hammond? Kevin Kellems who is Dan Coats campaign manager, isn't he on there?