JOHN MCCAIN--TURNCOAT

B

beemerb

Moderator
McCain ad urges checks at gun shows

By James Dao
New York Times
Oct. 5, 2000

WASHINGTON - In what gun-control proponents consider a major boost for
their cause, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has begun appearing in television
commercials promoting ballot initiatives in Colorado and Oregon that would
require people who bought firearms at gun shows to undergo criminal
background checks.

The 30-second spots, which began airing in the Denver area Wednesday, show
McCain saying into the camera: "I'm John McCain with some straight talk.
Convicted felons have been able to buy and sell thousands of guns at gun shows
because of a loophole in the law. Many were later used in crimes. That's wrong."

Gun-control advocates are hoping McCain will significantly broaden the
credibility of their cause among more conservative voters. Not only has McCain
been a reliable ally of the National Rifle Association in the past, but he is also a
decorated war hero with wide appeal among veterans who gained national
prominence this year in his insurgent bid for the Republican presidential
nomination.

The commercials are being financed by Americans for Gun Safety, a non-profit
gun-control group created in July by Andrew J. McKelvey, billionaire chief
executive of TMP Worldwide, a marketing company with holdings that include
Monster.com.

McKelvey has pledged to spend $8 million of his personal fortune on the group,
which has already opened chapters in 28 states.

"From our perspective, Colorado and Oregon are ground zero in the gun-safety
debate," said Jonathan J. Cowan, president of Americans for Gun Safety. "If
both states pass these common-sense initiatives, it will send a significant signal
that the momentum in this debate has shifted."

Cowan, a former chief of staff to Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo, said his
group's goal is to find a "third way" in the contentious world of firearms politics
that can unite gun owners and gun-control advocates around an agenda calling
for both new laws and stricter enforcement of existing regulations.

In the new commercial, McCain states the group's ethos this way: "I believe
law-abiding citizens have the right to own guns. But with rights come
responsibilities."

McKelvey, a registered Republican, recruited McCain to help promote his group
because he wanted to break free of the stereotype of gun-control advocates as
liberal Democrats. As recently as last year, McCain sided with conservatives in
Congress in voting against legislation intended to close the gun-show loophole.

But in an interview Wednesday, McCain said that mass shootings at places like
Columbine High School in Colorado, where one of the weapons was bought at a
gun show, had caused him to rethink his views.

"I do believe my view has evolved," he said. "It's appropriate to do so in light of
some of the terrible tragedies that have befallen our nation." He added that he will
push for passage of the gun-show bill in Congress next year.

Joe Sudbay, political director for Handgun Control Inc., said the McCain
commercials provide further evidence that the NRA is losing its grip over the
Republican Party.

"He's been a true advocate for the gun lobby," Sudbay said of McCain. "So I
think it's a big deal."

William Powers, a spokesman for the NRA, which is fighting the ballot initiatives,
declined to comment.

News on
azcentral.com
• Breaking News
• News From
Home
• AP Wire

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/articles/1005mccain05.html

Turncoats email address
senator_mccain@mccain.senat

I allready emailed him asking how much he charges to change his principals and telling him I will do my best to make sure he is never elected again.

------------------
Bob--- Age and deceit will overcome youth and speed.
I'm old and deceitful.

[This message has been edited by beemerb (edited October 05, 2000).]
 
I seen that slime on TV at 12:00 I never did like him. It made me want to Barf.
HE is one SORRY, SORRY, $@# :mad:

------------------
"Defiance"
And yet...it moves
(Galileo Galilie)

"Spay or Nuter your Socialist Pets"
 
Sad but no suprise. He has already demonstrated that he can be bought, and that he can buy his way out of trouble when caught.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
This guy is not a Conservative, not a Republican, he's a power whore.

No wonder he was the media darling who almost hijacked the party. He won his primaries on "independents" and Dems who were (for some moronic reason) allowed to vote in some state primary elections.

The McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform bill would absolutely de-tooth the GOP, and limit free speech. It would keep business and big spenders from spending their $ on political ads, while leaving the labor unions to spend freely on Dems and the liberl media to give us the "news" the way they see it. What a great idea.
 
Originally posted by beemerb:
McCain ad urges checks at gun shows
I've been following John McCain since he was a virtual nobody 2yrs ago. If you've known anything about him for the last year you'd know that he supports background check at GunShows and Trigger Locks being sold with Handguns. Its nothing new. I personally agree that EVERYONE should have a background check done on them no matter where you buy a gun. If I have to buy a trigger lock with every gun I own I don't care. John McCain is not an Enemy he is very much with us. This is a very minor thing as far as I'm concernced.

------------------
"Bring 'Em on.... I prefer a Straight Fight to all this sneaking around"
Han Solo
Click to expand...
 
I have some trouble myself with the gunshow thing, so maybe some of you can enlighten me. If a person cannot pass a Brady check to buy a gun from a gun store, in whose interest is it that such a person can go to a gunshow and buy one? Where is the benefit in allowing that kind of transaction? I don't want criminals and mental cases to have guns, because they misuse them and cause endless problems for law-abiding gun owners like me. Why aren't we taking the position that the appropriate reform is to make the NICS accessible to private sellers as well as dealers, maybe through an FBI or BATF booth at the show? The position against requiring background checks at gunshows sounds to the General Public like an argument for the right of bad buys and nutters to buy guns at these events. How can we expect McCain or any other politician to ally himself with that?
 
Byron,

The problem with any checks, and I dare say at the risk of being flamed the problem with ex-cons owning firearms, is that the Constitution already is clear on that: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

------------------
"Get yourself a Lorcin and lose that nickel plated sissy pistol."
 
Tecolote: So your position is that our Perfect Politician would be one who argues for the right of ex-cons to buy guns? I don't think I'd want to run on that plank.
 
Byron,

I would agree that criminal background checks were valid if they were not accompanied by the evils of registration. The Federal and State systems create a database of gun owners. Registration precedes confiscation, as we have seen in many countries, including parts of the U.S.

------------------
NRA/GOA/SAF/USMC

Oregon residents please support the Oregon Firearms Federation, our local "No compromise" chapter of the GOA. http://www.oregonfirearms.org
 
Longshot: But this isn't about background checks -- we already have those. The issue is whether those background checks should be done at gunshows, too. I just can't come up with an argument that would have any credibility with non-gunowners. We end up sounding like we are out to protect the right of criminals and loonies to go into a gun show and walk out with a gun. This is a political issue where people who have no strong personal investment (except they likely think guns are sort of icky) have to be persuaded. I can't even find the arguments to persuade myself about this.
 
The so called gun show loophole is a media term.There is no loophole period.You go to a gun gunshow and buy a gun from a dealer you have a background check.If you buy private party you do not have a check.What this is pushing is all private party sales have to go through a dealer so the background check can be made.Allso a 4473 will have to be filled out.Allso the dealer will get a cut.In KA I think they are charging as much as 100 dollars just to do the paper and make a telephone call(was a post on a dif forum).If you are ok with this its fine but when it comes will you pay for my FFL dealers fees to transfere a firearm.I think not.Please think below the surface of these things and do not take them at face value.Its called thinking.

------------------
Bob--- Age and deceit will overcome youth and speed.
I'm old and deceitful.
 
Here is the website of S.A.F.E. Colorado the group that is pushing the proposition for the "gunshow loophole". http://www.safecolorado.org/start.html

What people do not realize is that this legislation can turn your living room into a "gun show" when you attempt to sell your private property to an individual if you own too many firearms.

THEY ARE COMING INTO YOUR HOME AND SOME OF YOU ARE HOLDING THE DOOR FOR THEM.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
Well guys, like McCain, my views have also evolved on this issue. However, they have evolved in the right direction as far as I am concerned. Unlike McCain, I see nothing wrong with private party sales. In very few instances have guns purchased privately from law-abiding citizens been used in crimes. And in most high-profile shootings he mentioned, there is a good chance the bad guy could have been quickly stopped if a armed citizen had been there.

As far as ex-felons go, my views on this have also changed quite a bit. I would pose the question, which of an ex-felons other Constitutional Rights are permanently suspended after they leave prison? Are they now subject to a loss of any expectation of privacy? Can they no longer express their political views? Can they be subject to cruel and unusual punishment with impunity? Can they no longer attend the church of their choice? The answer is no. The problem is not with the concept of ex-felons having guns, which they should enjoy as a God-given right in the same way you and I do, rather the problem is with our justice system, which does not sufficiently punish (or rehabilitate, depending on your views) society's criminals. If a man has paid his dues dues to society, he should be considered legally redeemed. You might object and say "What, you would let a convicted murderer or rapist get a gun after they get out of prison?" My answer is no, because I don't believe these types of criminals should ever see the light of day, i.e., they would be executed, or at the very least, imprisoned for life with no chance of parole. Again, the problem is with our justice system, which is weak on criminals and in the case of gunowners, harsh on the lawful.
 
During the primary, it was apparent that McCain was about as conservative as Clinton. Even my wife, who's somewhat liberal but has a good sense of people, didn't trust him.

Let's change the debate slightly to, say, the "car show loophole." You see a 69 Camaro you'd like to buy. We all know that they're fast and can go over the speed limit. So let's require that, instead of buying the car privately, you have to take it to a car dealership. Naturally, the car dealer needs to make some money on the transaction, so the car's going to cost you a few hundred more. But the dealer also has to enter your name into a national database of owners of fast cars, because Algore wants to eventually get rid of such gas guzzlers. You don't want to go throught the dealership? Fine. You can go to jail. You don't want to give up your Camaro? Fine. He'll have someone shoot you. You thought this was a free country? Fine. Keep dreaming.

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.

[This message has been edited by Monkeyleg (edited October 05, 2000).]
 
Before I get flamed, let me clarify. I am voting NO on Oregon's measure 5. I've got the bumper sticker and everything (Big risk in this liberal town). I also financially support the local GOA chapter in my signature line. Unlike another organization, Oregon Gun Owners, these people will not compromise. They are the main reason we haven't gone the way of California, Maryland, and New York.

I don't want to regulate private sales. Period. I want things to stay the way they are, except I want to repeal features of the background checks that involve registration.

Having businesses initially check to see if a purchaser is a felon makes since to me. I just don't trust the government to keep a registry after the sale.

------------------
NRA/GOA/SAF/USMC

Oregon residents please support the Oregon Firearms Federation, our local "No compromise" chapter of the GOA. http://www.oregonfirearms.org
 
The issue here is whether private sellers at a gunshow should get a waiver on the background check that is required of dealers selling the same guns at the same show to the same buyers. Whether you call this waiver a loophole or a bunghole, the question is the same: How is this practice justified? I can't think of any justification that would be the least bit convincing to the average citizen who is concerned that nuts and creeps do not get access to guns, nor have I seen any presented in this discussion.

One way to solve this is to open up the NICS to private sellers and require them to use it. For example, have a place at the show (FBI or BATF booth?) where private sellers can do the background check, just like dealers do. A possible objection to that might be that neither agency has the manpower to cover all the shows, but at least that would put the onus on the government. Another possibility might be to require private sellers to buy a "dealer for a day" license that would give them access to the NICS system by phone via a code number, just like other dealers. The difference would be that this license would be very cheap, valid for a very limited time, and usable only to sell, not to buy.

There are no doubt many better ideas than these; I hope so. But we are going to get rolled on this issue if we don't come up with something besides digging our heels further into the ground. And anybody who thinks our whining about parochial side issues like dealer transfer fees and such is going to cut any ice is seriously deluded. The general public doesn't give a rat's ass about stuff like that, and would probably be happy if every gunshow in America disappeared tomorrow. This issue is providing the rationale for closing down gunshows all across the country, because they are seen as uncontrolled markets where hoodlums and goofs can buy guns. And with respect to sales by private sellers at these shows, they are, and every one of us who frequents gunshows has seen it happen. It's just not defensible, and we ought to admit it and come up with something we can live with before something we can't live with gets rammed down our throats.
 
Well Byron I know where you're coming from because at one time I was a willing compromiser on gun issues. I fell for the "reasonable control" ploy like you seem to be buying as well.
You have to understand that you have fallen for the fiction that there is some limit to the controls that the anti's want on guns. I can tell you from watching and participating in the process for thirty plus years is that there is no compromising with the anti's. We give and they take. They never give anything back or loosen any restriction.
I'll bet you've even fallen for the terminology that they and the media use as well. Words like "unlicensed dealer". That phrase is an oxymoron sort of like "unbiased journalist". You can't be a dealer and NOT be licensed by the Feds. You can be an individual selling your private guns, but you can't be a DEALER and be unlicensed. And if this IS a commonplace activity there are laws on the books and the (AT)F Troop in place to enforce them. The so-called "gun show loophole" really is about the ability of an individual to buy or sell private property which just happens to be a gun. With many newspapers refusing classified ads for gun sales, what is an individual to do but go to a gun show?
Now the anti's want to involve a Federal agency and bureaucracy along with the attendant complications and cost for a "legal transfer". Read the fine print and see what they are really asking for. There's a lot more to the legislation than a simple "background check". Which may be convenient at a gun show but how about for an individual sale from individual to individual. By the way, just how severe is the problem. What are the numbers? Where are the percentages? Is this like the .0001% of assault rifles that are used in crimes?
There are other points but think about this one. One aspect of the Brady legislation was the requirement to destroy records of the transaction. This was intentional so that the government could not have defacto registration. I guarantee you that Brady would not have passed without it. Now, the Feds in direct violation of that requirement (law) are retaining the information from the instant check and saying that they are not violating the law because they need it to "check the accuracy of the system". Obviously the legislators either don't have the strength, the will or both to force the Attorney General to abide by the law. So now we have that part of the government charged with law enforcement not only refusing to abide by the law but actively participating in contravening it. I know it. they know it and I'm sure in your heart of hearts you know it.
Now, taking all that into account, what additional compromises on my Second Amendments rights do you think I might be willing to make?


------------------
"The more perfect
civilisation is, the less occasion has it for government." Thomas Paine The Rights of Man 1792
 
Since when is sale of private property considered a loophole? I can put an ad in the paper to sell a gun, why not at a gunshow? I also agree with the car comparison, I'd hate to know my truck had to pass federal regulation before I could sell it to another private party.
Rock-jock hit it squarely on the head. We need to be asking our government two important questions:

1 Why are violent felons walking around free to begin with? If they are violent and have committed crimes then put them in jail or execute them.
2 Why, if they have been paroled, are they not considered rehabilitated and all rights restored?

Legislators need to get off the back of the public at large and put pressure where it belongs- on the violent criminals. As for McCain, he can just hold his breath and turn blue waiting for my vote.

Crowe

Crowe


------------------
Well I got 6 little friends, and they can all run faster than you.
 
It isn't about background checks, it's about closing down gunshows! Gunshows are usually on a Saturday and Sunday, the bigger shows run Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. All the government has to do is delay, delay , delay the approval for a check or shut down the system all together (MMM weekend bring back any memories?) and away goes business down the drain. Take for an example since I live in Orygun, say you want to go to the Expo for the big show and you have to travel from Medford to do it, well do you think if the check isn't approved INSTANTLY the buyer is going to rent a room for the night and come back the next day for the firearm? I guess the dealer at the show could send it to another dealer in Medford, which takes more time and money, but if that's going to be the case why in the hell go to the show to begin with. No, it's not about checks, it's about shutting down shows and that's what the gun control nazis have wanted all along.

What really pisses me off are these poor excuses for gunowners(Americans) that come on gun forums and say it's just fine with me if I have to prove my innocence(Governments permission, slaves) to buy a firearm that supposed to be a RIGHT to begin with. Remember the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges! Also, for those of you that are so concerned about gunowners that are against background checks at gunshows making us look like we are for criminals having guns, THE ANTIS THINK WE ARE THE CRIMINALS FOR OWNING FIREARMS TO BEGIN WITH!



------------------
"Gun Control is Only to Protect Those in Power"
 
Thanks walangkatapat! You saved me from having to write a long winded speach. I believe that there motives for the gun show back ground checks are two fold. One is to shut down the shows, the second reason is to stop all private gun sales. Don't be fooled by their lies people. Study the facts and find out the truth before you fall for their propaganda.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top