100% PRO GUN for US SENATE REBECCA SINK-BURIS ANSWERS GOA QUESTIONNAIRE

[Rebecca Sink-Burris]

If she'll come back and oppose Dick Lugar when he runs again, I'm on her team.

LOL You mean you don't want him to live to 100 and die in office as Senator Byrd just did? But seriously I wold have to think on your suggestion.

 

[dross]

States don't have "rights." They have the police power.

Yes, technically you are correct on this point. I'm using the common term for the principle that holds that the States reserve certain powers.

Nothing in the bill of rights, as of today, prohibits a state from using this police power to ban the carrying of firearms outside the home unless a state constitutional guarantee applies. Illinois, obviously, does not..

I think it is arguable as to whether the 2nd Amendment provides for being armed outside the home.

 

[Scutter01]

I am trying not to speak for Rebecca .. but I am trying to stand up for her honor .

I apologize if I misconstrued where the statement was coming from. Again, I'm not trying to disparage Ms. Sink-Burris' character. I'm just trying to get some straight answers.

I know you're angry .. hell I am too .. you're not the only one that has been lied to here .... .

I think it safe to say the Rebecca is Pi$ that she has been lied to from the Uni-Party system just like us ...

I'm not angry. I'm...disappointed. We've been lied to for so long that I'm now far too cynical to take any politician at face value.

The United States Senate is about far more than simple Yes or No votes.

With all due respect you are wrong ... it is just that simple .
There is right and there is wrong .
The Constitution allows and forbids certain things .
If it's not in there you don't do it / vote for it .

It's true that when it comes right down to it, it's all about the Vote, but you're kidding yourself if you think that the general outcome of a given vote isn't known to a reasonably close degree before the issue gets put up. Deals are made in the back room to get bills passed. That's called politics. I want to know how good she is at playing the game. Consider the following excerpt taken from The Chattanoogan and written by former Tennessee State Representative Chris Clem:

This "Incumbent Protection Bill" was the final bill. We debated it for hours. The Democrats did not have the votes to pass it in either chamber. Finally, around 8 p.m. they were able to pass this bill in the Senate. They moved it to the House. I attempted to call for "the Rule." "The Rule" simply requires all members to sit in their chair and not push the vote botton for anyone else. In other words, only members sitting in their chair should vote while under "the Rule."

I realized that 10 members were not in the chamber. Six of them had gone home and were no longer in Nashville. Democrat Speaker Jimmy Naifeh refused to recognize me and allow me to call for "the Rule." Republicans then objected to calling for a vote. We raised the required five hands. Naifeh claimed he saw no hands. He then allowed the vote.

In order to pass there must be 50 votes. The bill received 58 votes. Ten of the members who voted for the Incumbent Protection Bill were not even in the chamber when someone voted for them. Six of the 10 were not even in Nashville. Ironically, if I had been allowed to call for "the Rule" then the Incumbent Protection Bill would have fallen two votes short of passage.

(source: 5/28/2006 - Chris Clem: My Last Day In The Legislature - And Reply - Opinion - Chattanoogan.com)

This is just one example, but I've read stories and seen video of this exact thing happening in many other places including Florida, Texas, and right here in Indiana. This sort of thing disgusts me to the point that I want to vomit. It's not right and it's not ethical. But it's How Stuff Works. Yes, it comes down to the Vote, but you have to get there first and you have to get there at the right time.

 

[andrewhorning]

My friends, elections have almost nothing at all to do with candidates. It's all about you. You get one day for it to be all about you, and Election Day is it.
You choose.
We've made elections into idolatry, and that's fatally stupid. Celebrity and ruling class should be your enemy. Principle and fact should be your guide.
I believe, in fact that you've got some explaining to do if you vote for any major party candidate right now.
I've been one, you know. I've seen the beast from inside, and it's uglier there than even you probably imagine.
Two key facts worth remembering:
1. If people weren't generally and inherently corrupt, we wouldn't need/tolerate politics at all.
2. So it's not that people get corrupt when they get power; they start that way. And of the people who even sound non-corrupt, I've not met one yet who changed with power.
This last is maybe the most important point.
I have personally met and come to know several politicians who don't get worse and have, in some cases, gotten even more upright in their restraint and morality.
But those compromise principle to win (e.g., most Republican politicians) are the enemy...sort of.

I say this to underline my major point: this is about you. And the past hundred years demonstrates well that we need no enemies other than ourselves to completely do us in.

 

[Duncan]

Former gubernatorial candidate Andy Horning

Libertarian Andy Horning leaving politics, Indiana | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star


Libertarian Andy Horning leaving politics, Indiana

 

[henktermaat]

Wait - because she filled out a GOA form, that makes her anti NRA, 2A, and freedom, right? After all, the GOA is good-for-nothing, correct?

 

[Rebecca Sink-Burris]

I'd like to see a voting record or a detailed plan for pushing through specific legislation rather than a yes/no questionnaire. I mean no disrespect to Ms. Sink-Buris when I say this, but I've heard all of these claims before and I'm a little (ok, a LOT) cynical when I hear candidates make promises. A bid for the US Senate warrants at least essay questions and not true/false.

Scutter01,

You sound just like my husband of 35 years, he can't stand politicians and rails against them on a regular basis. I can’t disagree; politics attracts those who think they have all of the answers and believe that if we would just do what they say the world would be perfect. They seem to think that if we just make enough rules we can get it "right", when actually the opposite is more accurate. To quote Lao-tzu: "I let go of the law and the people become honest."

Most Libertarians don't like politics, myself included, which is probably why the Libertarian Party has been such a well kept secret for so many years. Libertarians are driven to action because we see what is happening to our country because of politics. Most of us want to get in there and get the problem fixed so we can go on with our lives outside of politics. Unfortunately preserving liberty requires the crucial element of eternal vigilance, leaving me to believe that there is no quick fix, all of us who care about liberty will need to be in it for the long haul.

The established parties have failed us; they have disavowed the Constitution and have lost the moral right to lead. You know it, I know it and finally as evidenced by those in this group, the Campaign for Liberty and the Tea Parties, etc., the rest of the country is beginning to know it too.

But why should you believe that I will honor the oath to defend the Constitution when countless other politicians from the old parties have not? It is a valid question which I will strive to answer. A little history may help; you see I have been actively working in the libertarian movement since the early 70’s when the Libertarian Party was formed. Early on I collected signatures on petitions in order to get our first presidential candidate on the ballot, since then I have been active in party leadership roles at the state and national level and have run for office several times on the Libertarian ticket. I proudly vote Libertarian because I don’t believe voting for the lesser of two evils can ever bring back liberty to our country.

After spending the last 40 years building up the Libertarian Party and working to promote libertarian solutions, I am not likely to turn my back on these principles. “Republocrats” and “Demopublicans” can get away with saying one thing and doing another, but my party holds me to a higher standard. The track record of other Libertarians who have been elected to office bears this out and makes me very proud. In case after case, elected Libertarian’s have kept their word and their principles while in office, saving taxpayers money and making government smaller in the process. Even when we don’t win, a vote for a Libertarian candidate sends an unmistakable message to the” R’s” and the “D’s”, a message of dissatisfaction with the partisan maneuvering, interest group pandering and outright dishonesty that the established party has perpetrated on our country. I used the singular “party” on purpose as I see virtually no difference between the parties of Big Government. When you vote Libertarian, you are voting for limited constitutional government, the established party cannot escape that message. Far from being a wasted vote; it is the only vote they pay attention to. Vote for a “D” or an “R” and they take you for granted, vote for a Libertarian and they know they are in trouble, it may be our best way of getting them to actually pay attention and change their ways.

 

[dross]

Scutter01,

You sound just like my husband of 35 years, he can't stand politicians and rails against them on a regular basis. I can’t disagree; politics attracts those who think they have all of the answers and believe that if we would just do what they say the world would be perfect. They seem to think that if we just make enough rules we can get it "right", when actually the opposite is more accurate. To quote Lao-tzu: "I let go of the law and the people become honest."

Most Libertarians don't like politics, myself included, which is probably why the Libertarian Party has been such a well kept secret for so many years. Libertarians are driven to action because we see what is happening to our country because of politics. Most of us want to get in there and get the problem fixed so we can go on with our lives outside of politics. Unfortunately preserving liberty requires the crucial element of eternal vigilance, leaving me to believe that there is no quick fix, all of us who care about liberty will need to be in it for the long haul.

The established parties have failed us; they have disavowed the Constitution and have lost the moral right to lead. You know it, I know it and finally as evidenced by those in this group, the Campaign for Liberty and the Tea Parties, etc., the rest of the country is beginning to know it too.

But why should you believe that I will honor the oath to defend the Constitution when countless other politicians from the old parties have not? It is a valid question which I will strive to answer. A little history may help; you see I have been actively working in the libertarian movement since the early 70’s when the Libertarian Party was formed. Early on I collected signatures on petitions in order to get our first presidential candidate on the ballot, since then I have been active in party leadership roles at the state and national level and have run for office several times on the Libertarian ticket. I proudly vote Libertarian because I don’t believe voting for the lesser of two evils can ever bring back liberty to our country.

After spending the last 40 years building up the Libertarian Party and working to promote libertarian solutions, I am not likely to turn my back on these principles. “Republocrats” and “Demopublicans” can get away with saying one thing and doing another, but my party holds me to a higher standard. The track record of other Libertarians who have been elected to office bears this out and makes me very proud. In case after case, elected Libertarian’s have kept their word and their principles while in office, saving taxpayers money and making government smaller in the process. Even when we don’t win, a vote for a Libertarian candidate sends an unmistakable message to the” R’s” and the “D’s”, a message of dissatisfaction with the partisan maneuvering, interest group pandering and outright dishonesty that the established party has perpetrated on our country. I used the singular “party” on purpose as I see virtually no difference between the parties of Big Government. When you vote Libertarian, you are voting for limited constitutional government, the established party cannot escape that message. Far from being a wasted vote; it is the only vote they pay attention to. Vote for a “D” or an “R” and they take you for granted, vote for a Libertarian and they know they are in trouble, it may be our best way of getting them to actually pay attention and change their ways.

You seem sincere, as are most Libertarians. My question, which Scutter also touched on, is how do you intend to have an effect? Politics is about pragmatism, not principle. Will you just be a symbol, or do you have a plan to actually get your agenda passed in the real world? The refusal to understand the nature of politics is what has kept the Libertarian Party on the margins.

 

[rambone]

So Rebecca, what do you carry?

 

[Scutter01]

Scutter01,

Thank you for the response. As Dross mentioned just above me, you seem sincere, and I appreciate that.

The truth is that I won't be voting R or D any more. The Dems never had me, and the Reps have lost me, both through a combination of deceit and inaction. I've been blown off or ignored by more politicians in the last 18 months than I can count. I would very much like to vote Libertarian going forward. I note, however, that none of the previous questions asked in this thread have been answered with any substance. I understand that it's difficult to take a public stand as a candidate and risk painting yourself into a corner, or risk making promises that you can't keep, but you seem to be asking me to trust you based on the fact that other Libertarians are trustworthy (and that's a fact I would debate). Frankly, I will no longer compromise my vote. I would rather stay home on election day than vote for "the lesser of two (or three) evils". I'm not asking for my candidates to promise me things that they may not be able to deliver. I'm just asking for them to tell me what their plan is. I'm asking for specifics and not platitudes.


ETA: In re-reading this, I think it sounds kind of combative. I'm really not trying to be, so I apologize if that's how it comes off to you. I respect and appreciate you taking the time to have a discussion with us.

 

[3gunshooter]

So Rebecca, what do you carry?

You are right with that question, unless someone that runs for office has guns, involved in shooting sports or is a member of the NRA. What makes anyone think you can trust them? People will say anything or write anything for a little power.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

You are right with that question, unless someone that runs for office has guns, involved in shooting sports or is a member of the NRA. What makes anyone think you can trust them? People will say anything or write anything for a little power.

Did you miss the thread were she invited everyone at INGO to a BBQ and range shoot.

 

[3gunshooter]

Did you miss the thread were she invited everyone at INGO to a BBQ and range shoot.

I must have, its something to think about anyone running for office not just her.

 

[Duncan]

I must have, its something to think about anyone running for office not just her.

Libertarian Candidate for U.S. Senate
Rebecca Sink-Burris
Hosts Annual
Target Shoot
Barbecue & Pool Party
Saturday August 7th
Family Barbecue
2 - 8:00PM
Target Shooting*
11-2:00pm
Optional: Side Dish, Salad or Dessert to Share
Barbecued Meats & Soft Drinks Included
$ Donations for Beer or Wine
Suggested Donation:
$40.00/Family, $20.00/Individual,
Target Shooting $10.00/Person
Hosted by Rebecca Sink-Burris and Mark Burris
At their farm in the hills of Monroe County
Call or e-mail to RSVP and get directions
812-339-6988, rebecca.sinkburris@gmail.com
Do not rely on GPS
​

 

[Rockhound]

A couple of things to think about:

1. Dan Coats has been a Senator and voted FOR the AWB. Not good.

2. Dan Coats has been a lobbyist in DC since leaving the Senate and has spent little time in Indiana. Is he still a Hoosier? or is his Hoosier status maintained just by a convenient address here?

3. The Dem, Brad Ellsworth has already been in Congress and has a very left voting record. Ask any of the 2nd Amendment Patriots in Evansville who have fought tooth and nail to get rid of him.

4. Ellsworth has been caught *lying* about his Sheriff's dept service in Vanderburg county-in his own ad. The Associated Press: GOP: Ind. Senate ad distorts Democrat's background

5. Principles do matter. Without principles rooted in honesty(among other things), nothing matters. And that's just what we are seeing in the District of Criminals right now-no principles=anything goes.

So which of the three candidates do we think we can trust to follow the Constitution? It ain't Coats or Ellsworth. Both have proven that.

Sure, we need to keep the Dem out to get back a 'conservative' (ehem) majority, but when it comes to a squeeze play on our Constitutional rights, where has Coats lined up in the past? His record speaks volumes about what he'll likely do in the future. And do you suppose his attitude has improved any while being a lobbyist in DC?

As far as 'what Sink-Burris will get passed'...It's important to understand who she intends to caucus with. If she caucus' with the Repubs, it will help in getting or maintaining a majority over the destructiveness of the Dems. Beyond that, let's be realistic, if Repubs get the majority in the Senate, BO ain't likely to sign anything of a Constitutional/Liberty orientation anyway. To get around BO at this point would take 2/3 veto override votes in the House and the Senate. Even if operation of the two houses flip, overrides are unlikely. Let's remember that this midterm election is realistically about bringing the Socialist train to a halt-at best. If we are successful in 2010, then we have to have a strong follow-up in 2012 to get any of this socialist bilgewater purged...

If this all fails, we may be forced to vote from a rooftop. Let's hope not.

Disclaimer: I am not part of the Sink-Burris campaign or even a registered Libertarian. Heck, I'm just a Constitutionally Conservative voter without a party.

 

[SavageEagle]

I appreciate the response from Rebecca. Like Scutter, I've contended staying home on election day or casting an empty ballot. However, after researching a lot of Libertarian stances and votes, I'm fairly convinced that they, for the most part, stick to their stances and vote how they promised or vote the way of the Constitutional authority. I know that there will be almost no "D" or "R"'s getting my vote this year.

I'm of the mindset that I will not vote for any career politicians, but that is based on those, like Dick Lugar and Evan Bayh, who consistently break their oath's. Reading that you have been in politics for a couple decades does give me pause, especially since there's not much in the way of a voting record for you. However, I'm more willing to cast my vote for you because, well, what have I got to lose? With the alternative, well, everything. With anyone with an "L" behind/in front of their name, to me, it's a crap shoot at this point. But I'm more inclined to give Libertarians a chance than anyone else.

What I don't like is Libertarians that would rather try to get on the D or R ticket instead of running under their own party's ticket. I understand the need to become recognized, but that's a marketing problem. It's like with Richard Behney. When I learned he chose to run as a "R", I was very, VERY disappointed and made that known. I continue to hope that no one else makes that mistake. To me, it's almost like lying.

 

[downzero]

It's not a federalism problem, it would be one of the very few legitimate exercises of Congress' power to regulate commerce.

Well that's certainly an eloquent position. How convenient to use the weapon of our enemy against them. Obviously I disagree with you, because I have studied the original meaning behind the commerce clause. It had nothing to do with "regulating" anything in the modern sense. It was intended to keep commerce regular. It would certainly be a stretch to suggest that any original meaning of the commerce clause would give Congress such a power. I say this while conceding that I'd be open to counterarguments.

Resorting to activist judicial methods to reach your desired conclusions is the weapon of our enemy. My suggestion is that you be much more careful when you make such arguments. I doubt you'll heed my advice, but I'm sure you understand why I take this position nonetheless.

I think it is arguable as to whether the 2nd Amendment provides for being armed outside the home.

I agree. Perhaps I should have been more careful to say that no currently existing legal doctrine supports that conclusion. I'll also predict that none ever will, while leaving open its possibility.

 

[SavageEagle]

If we are successful in 2010, then we have to have a strong follow-up in 2012 to get any of this socialist bilgewater purged...



Disclaimer: I am not part of the Sink-Burris campaign or even a registered Libertarian. Heck, I'm just a Constitutionally Conservative voter without a party.

First part, the problem is, if the Republicans come to power next year and don't do or keep the status quo, the vast majority will see it as an "I guess it doesn't matter" kind of thing and could very well turn back to the Dems come 2012. The Libertarians have to get out there and convince the people why they are better or they will never have a chance. It's easier to reach out to the Tea Party and gun owners like us, but you still have to convince a majority of the voter base and apparently that's not yet the Tea Party and gun owners alone.

Second part,

 

[CarmelHP]

Well that's certainly an eloquent position. How convenient to use the weapon of our enemy against them. Obviously I disagree with you, because I have studied the original meaning behind the commerce clause. It had nothing to do with "regulating" anything in the modern sense. It was intended to keep commerce regular. It would certainly be a stretch to suggest that any original meaning of the commerce clause would give Congress such a power. I say this while conceding that I'd be open to counterarguments.

Resorting to activist judicial methods to reach your desired conclusions is the weapon of our enemy. My suggestion is that you be much more careful when you make such arguments. I doubt you'll heed my advice, but I'm sure you understand why I take this position nonetheless.

Yes, to keep commerce regular, like providing for free travel with one's guns throughout the country. It's a free trade and travel agreement among the states. You can't see how preventing people from defending themselves places a burden on that travel and trade? How travelers should not have to contend with a confusing patchwork of state laws in order to protect themselves while traveling or be put in legal jeopardy? If that is not making making commerce regular, then the term simply has no meaning whatsoever. Again, it would be one of the few legitimate uses of the power. My suggestion is that you give some more consideration to it than merely dismissing it out of hand with no careful analysis to what is actually at issue.

 

[Duncan]

First part, the problem is, if the Republicans come to power next year and don't do or keep the status quo, the vast majority will see it as an "I guess it doesn't matter" kind of thing and could very well turn back to the Dems come 2012. The Libertarians have to get out there and convince the people why they are better or they will never have a chance. It's easier to reach out to the Tea Party and gun owners like us, but you still have to convince a majority of the voter base and apparently that's not yet the Tea Party and gun owners alone.

Second part,

With respect .. YOU have to help do that with your time your money and your vote ... The Libertarians can do more than the R & D's .. but what do they have the L's don't ... manpower and money
thanks
Duncan