Why so anti-McCain?

U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) is featured in two television spots in support of Colorado and Oregon ballot initiatives to close the "Gun Show Loophole."

"Despite the tragic lessons we have learned, it is still far too easy for a convicted felon to buy firearms at a gun show. That is wrong," said Senator McCain in a recent press release. "This is not about what's conservative and what's liberal, what's Republican and what's Democrat. It's about what's right and what's wrong. And quite simply, closing this loophole is the right thing to do."

"I believe law-abiding citizens have the right to own guns, and I have steadfastly fought for those rights for many years. But with rights come responsibilities. I strongly support the Colorado and Oregon ballot initiatives that help close this dangerous loophole," said the Senator.

http://www.campaignadvantage.com/services/websites/archive/ags/ad_mccain.html
 
Last edited:
Hats off to John McCain effort to close gun-show loophole

Wednesday, December 5, 2001

WASHINGTON -- Gun-control advocates have a powerful new voice in the Senate who is seeking to close a loophole that allows weapons to be sold at gun shows without background checks.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who cited cases in which suspected terrorists were caught with weapons bought at U.S. gun shows, says he will try to "force Senate consideration" early next year of the measure.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/49274_helen05.shtml
 
I'm against illegal immigration. But,you can't put all the milk back in the bottle. If you send them all back tomorrow then you could expect dirty motel rooms, a bottleneck in painting, sheetrock, concrete, carpentry, road construction, most all domestic work. Then, if you want to pay $30 an hour wages for that work that everbody accuses immigrants of depressing, then you can pay that much more for everything. If you send them all back then be prepared for the recession that will occur until the economy adjusts for this new cost and lack of labor.
 
OK, did some Scroogle work here and found information about provision of the bill McCain sponsored to "close the gunshow loophole". Highlights belong to the poster.

http://www.bloomfieldpress.com/McCainLieberman2.htm
SHOULD CONGRESS CLOSE DOWN GUN SHOWS?

Do you want to help preserve gun shows?
You can, you know, but
you have to actually do something.

Print out the letter below and send it to your local newspapers and broadcasters. You don't have their addresses? Well for Pete's sake! How are you going to fight for your rights if you don't keep contact info for your local media handy?

That's one of the great secrets of the people who manage public policy -- they keep a simple media list up to date and handy. Next time you read or hear a gun-related story, jot down who and where it came from, and add that address, fax and email to your file by calling the source. Little could be easier, and nothing is more effective. Even if they refuse to run your story, they have to read it themselves, and you have an impact.
----------------------------------------------

Dear Editor,

The letter below knocked me flat.
In the interests of accuracy, would you consider running it?

Thanks,
(your name, address and phone number)

Dear Editor,

Maybe it would be a good idea to close down gun shows instead of merely closing the gun-show loophole. A lot of people I know certainly think so. But Congress and the public should make that choice consciously, not get stuck with it secretly by a deceptively crafted bill.

As currently written, the so-called gun-show loophole is the most minor aspect of the McCain-Lieberman gun-show bill (S.890). The news media have reported on the bill widely -- but clearly, reporters have failed to read it. As the author of six books on gun laws I'm used to reading the bills themselves. I've just finished studying these eight pages of convoluted legalese, and here is what it calls for:

1. Currently legal gun shows are outlawed without prior federal permission. Gun show promoters must agree to warrantless searches in order to operate. The right to assemble peaceably at a gun show -- or even to plan or promote one -- carries stiff prison terms unless federal licenses are issued in advance.

2. Anyone who attends must be centrally registered, whether they buy anything or not. We're talking about millions upon millions of federal records annually, only on the innocent.

3. All vendors -- not just gun vendors -- must be pre-registered. If I were to sell my books at a show without being federally registered, I could be imprisoned, and the gun-show operator could go to jail too.

4. Massive new bureaucracy is created because all shows and their exhibitors must be registered 30 days before the show, then again 72 hours before the show, and again five days after the show. That's in addition to anyone who walks in, plus "any other information" the Secretary of the Treasury decides, by regulation, is necessary on vendors, attendees, and the show itself.

Isn't this supposed to be about requiring background checks? What's going on here? None of this even deals with the criminals for Pete's sake.

It's so bizarre that many people don't believe it, so I posted the technical details and citations on my website, gunlaws.com. The most astonishing part was discovered by attorney Michael P. Anthony, my collaborator on the unabridged guide, "Gun Laws of America."

Here's the real hidden Catch 22. If a gun-show operator allows even a single unlicensed gun vendor to attend the show, federal agents can lock up the operator. They have a ton of extra money in this bill for exactly such enforcement.

If any person attending the show offers (not even sells, but offers) a gun to anyone else at the show -- even a gun they don't have with them -- they become, by the bill's definitions, an unlicensed vendor, and everyone is subject to arrest -- the seller, the buyer, and the gun-show operator. You don't even need a prohibited possessor (a criminal) involved. No one will run a show exposed to that kind of legal risk.

To protect against this, the only way a gun-show operator could safely run a show, would be to pre-register everyone in attendance as a vendor, not just as an attendee. That means personal ID and centralized registration at pretty much the level an FFL (licensed gun dealer) must endure.

The McCain-Lieberman gun-show bill, promoted as a way to prevent criminals from avoiding background checks, is instead a sneak attack on the very existence of gun shows, and crushes fundamental freedoms Americans hold dear. That's no way to run Congress. The promoters of this travesty should be ashamed.

It's my belief that reporters have an ethical duty to clarify the situation, and to call these Senators to task for their actions. Which would be worse -- the Senators don't know what's in their own bills, or that they knew all along and didn't say?

Sincerely,

Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America

Bloomfield Press, 4848 E. Cactus, #505-440 • Scottsdale, AZ 85254 • 602-996-4020 • alan@gunlaws.comhttp://www.gunlaws.com • "We publish the gun laws."

Here is an NRA-ILA search on the legislation.
http://www.nraila.org/Search/?keyword=mccain lieberman 890

I used the term "Stalinist" for good reason; not just rhetorical flourish. McCain was proud to put his name on this legislation and now miracles of all miracles, he is now a big supporter of the second amendment.
 
Then, if you want to pay $30 an hour wages for that work that everbody accuses immigrants of depressing, then you can pay that much more for everything. If you send them all back then be prepared for the recession that will occur until the economy adjusts for this new cost and lack of labor.

I do hope you don't really believe that,we subsidize the "cheap labor" of illegal immigrants with medical care, schools, food stamps, etc. Would it not be better to pay a citizen more.

If the McCain amensty had went through we would have received an additional 30-40 million family members of illegals another drain on our system.


I would not vote McCain for any office including local dogcatcher.........
 
Would it not be better to pay a citizen more.

I didn't say it wouldn't. But, it will make the cost of all the services I mentioned skyrocket. The homeowner/buyer doesn't directly pay that healthcare, food stamp, or whatever cost.

And you will find that the pro-immigration crowd will do a study and show very good cost/benefit ratio for the cheap laborers. The deportation crowd will have them responsible for half the cost and all the crime in the country.The truth, as usual, is somewhere in the middle.
 
The man spent years in the Hanoi Hilton. He aint going to take away your guns! He knows about unneeded wars, He knows about pain and losses! He is not going to be socialist like hilbillery!

He sounds "sound" to me! With the little options we have, I think he would be the best!

Remember, He will only be 1/3 of the system. Judicial, Legislative, and Executive. Some people forget the President is not the supreme power!

Some people still believe that the economy was so good because of Mr Clinton. He started the mess we are in now. It takes 5-10 years for the ramifications to manifest them selves. He gave the Chines things that have put us in the dirt. Preferred trade status, Systems to orbit and place objects and people in stable orbits in space. Now they can drop a wall nut on your head if they want too!


I would take my chances with him!
 
Ever heard of the McCain/Feingold Bill, aka campaign finance reform? It effectively gutted political speech as guaranteed by the first amendment. McCain spearheaded the effort to take away my right to free speech through political groups I belong to.

He may be a friend of the Second Amendment, but he's an enemy of the First and that makes him an enemy of freedom.
__________________
-Dave Miller

McCain/Feingold insinuates that We the People are so dumb that we cannot process WHATEVER information is offered before an election, and make a rational decision. No, we must be spoon-fed government-approved pablum-flavored information. What horse manure.

I am inclined to believe that anyone who holds the First Amendment in such disregard, will soon sell out on rest. McCain already has demonstrated a willingness to sell out OUR freedom for the sake of 'bipartisan harmony'. "See...we worked together to pass this legislation. Isn't that just wonderful?"

Next, McKain wants what might as well be 'open borders'. Hell, this guy is practically a one-man United Nations. If this RINO is the best the Republicans can come up with, then they need to lose. Gun owners can survive four years of Hitleretta, particularly with the '94 azz-whoopin' we gave Kongress still fresh in their memories-and Rudy worries me just as bad as she does.
 
Last edited:
The 2008 presidential election campaign is on track to spend a record $1 billion.
Seems like there is still a lot of "free" speeech going on.
 
"Gun owners can survive four years of Hitleretta, particularly with the '94 azz-whoopin' we gave Kongress still fresh in their memories-and Rudy worries me just as bad as she does.'

+1
 
He's too liberal for conservatives and too conservative for liberals. Either side can come up with a dozen examples of when McCain has "sold them out," ranging from the perfectly valid to the downright petty. McCain/Feingold being one of the more high-profile valid ones.

He does have a lot of cross-aisle appeal, which as long as he didn't alienate the Republican base might give him a better chance at being elected than some of the other candidates on that side. Still, that appeal has been waning of late so it might not work out as well as he hopes.
 
McCain is no friend of gun owners. All you have to do is watch him and see the contempt he has for gun owners.

He shut down free political speech before elections. He is also for closing down gun shows. With his history of continually compromising basic freedoms and rights, he can not be trusted. He would definitely sign anti-gun bills.

This guy has sold out Americans and conservatives continually. How can anyone seriously consider him? Just because he is the "best" of the"worst"?

He is the democrats best friend.
 
It seems he discussed crossing over to the dems. But, it seems he chose to destroy the freedom and constitutional values the Republicans are "SUPPOSED" to value from the inside. I won't vote for a traitor.
 
Why so anti-McCain?

Probably because he will make a formidable opponent against Hillbama. ;)

The libertarians don't like him. The demi's don't like him, either. Which makes me like McCain even more. :cool:
 
If you're a democrat, there is nothing wrong with Senator McCain at all. If you live in Arizona, you would know it doesn't matter what he says. His actions usually speak much louder than his words, and he always leans left. Don't be surprised if a Hillary-McCain ticket emerges. I've been predicting it for several years - two peas in a pod...
 
"Why so anti-McCain?"

I might be wrong but I've never thought he came 'all the way back' from Hanoi. There's something about him that makes me think "Manchurian Candidate." As I said, I might be wrong... but what if I'm right?
 
Sarge said:
McCain/Feingold insinuates that We the People are so dumb that we cannot process WHATEVER information is offered before an election, and make a rational decision. No, we must be spoon-fed government-approved pablum-flavored information. What horse manure.

I am inclined to believe that anyone who holds the First Amendment in such disregard, will soon sell out on rest. McCain already has demonstrated a willingness to sell out OUR freedom for the sake of 'bipartisan harmony'.
Well said, Sarge. Well said indeed.

Creature - Have you an answer to opening post's question now?
 
And...

Next, McKain wants what might as well be 'open borders'. Hell, this guy is practically a one-man United Nations. If this RINO is the best the Republicans can come up with, then they need to lose. Gun owners can survive four years of Hitleretta, particularly with the '94 azz-whoopin' we gave Kongress still fresh in their memories-and Rudy worries me just as bad as she does.

Very well said SARGE!
 
McCain is bad on immigration, but Romney is the only real competition he has, and I don't see how he would be any better.

Could someone explain to me exactly why Romney would be better than McCain on immigration?
 
Could someone explain to me exactly why Romney would be better than McCain on immigration?

If Romney wins Florida, he'll become the frontrunner and then we'll tear him a new one as well. The Republikans suck.... He would definitely be better than McCain on immigration, but not sure about 2A. The party of Reagan is dead and we are left with the Communist Party aka Dems and Socialists = Republicans..

It is only a matter of timing, one will destroy our nation quicker than the other and is more upfront about their globalistic plans. We're on the downhill slide and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. Examine the history of great nations - moral decay, greed and lack of concern about the greater good of society are all signs of decline. Everyone is in it for themselves and what feels good at in the current minute.
 
Back
Top