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

[Duncan]

Libertarian Candidate for the Indiana US Senate has answered the
Gun Owners of America 2010 Congressional Candidate Survey




Note : She is not able to answer a survey from the National Rifle Association.
They will not give one out .

I personally called the NRA and requested this on her behalf .
They do not give out any surveys to any non republicans or democrats .
Irrespective of office sought . County , State or Federal .
They cited space constraints . I have an opinion on this I will save for another thread as to not distract from Rebecca .
Thank you .
Duncan

Rebecca Sink - Buris



http://www.electrebecca.com/

Who is Rebecca : Who is Rebecca | Rebecca Sink-Burris - U.S. Senate (IN)

2010 GOA Survey​

 

[Benny]

That questionnaire looks easier to fill out than a 4473.

 

[Scutter01]

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.

 

[downzero]

I oppose her answer to question #11 on grounds of federalism. As a Libertarian, she should, too.

 

[Duncan]

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.

Sir Your point is taken and valid from the aspect that we .. the citizen tax payer have been lied to for 60 years now .

 

[Duncan]

I oppose her answer to question #11 on grounds of federalism. As a Libertarian, she should, too.

Yeah I thought about that too .. it's damned if you do and damned if you don't in answering it .
I would say this .. states have the privilege to issue permits ... the full faith and credit clause is already there ... to pass a reciprocity law is redundant .. but the elected officials don't recognize the constitution now so we have to put it in law ... IE go to Illinois with your glock and permit and see how far you get with the full faith and credit clause ..

 

[Scutter01]

Yeah I thought about that too .. it's damned if you do and damned if you don't in answering it .

And this is a perfect example of why true/false is not a good way to deal with questions like that. We don't live in a black and white world.

 

[Duncan]

And this is a perfect example of why true/false is not a good way to deal with questions like that. We don't live in a black and white world.

Well .. that's what they handed her .. hey at least they sent one the all powerful we're here for your membership fee NRA would not do it .
Space constraints .. ok maybe in the written form .. but electrons on websites are cheap .
Thanks
Duncan

 

[Scutter01]

Well .. that's what they handed her .. hey at least they sent one the all powerful we're here for your membership fee NRA would not do it .
Space constraints .. ok maybe in the written form .. but electrons on websites are cheap .
Thanks
Duncan

I'd like to hear her opinions on how she would address the comments in Question #16, and I'd also be interested in what, specifically, she will do to address (and by "address", I mean "repeal") the illegally-passed Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

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

 

[Duncan]

any of you can too

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

You know any of you guys here in the forum can run against Dick Lugar ..
You don't have to wait for some woman to do it ... join the Libertarian party and just do it ...

 

[T-rav]

Im just glad to see someone that is running for a elected office, on a board standing on the same level as we do as they should!

 

[dross]

I oppose her answer to question #11 on grounds of federalism. As a Libertarian, she should, too.

States' rights don't trump the Bill of Rights, or natural rights.

The full faith and credit clause also applies. Or do you think that one state should retain the power to refuse to recognize another state's driver license?

 

[downzero]

States' rights don't trump the Bill of Rights, or natural rights.

The full faith and credit clause also applies. Or do you think that one state should retain the power to refuse to recognize another state's driver license?

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

States have reciprocal agreements to recognize other states' driver's licenses. They do retain the power to refuse to recognize the licenses of other states, they just don't exercise it other than in certain carefully drawn circumstances (learner's permits, underage people, etc.).

The full faith and credit clause does not require Illinois, for example, to recognize your driver's license.

The only enumerated power in Article I that could be construed to give Congress the power to demand national reciprocity is the one we all hate--the same one that the Democrats claim gives them basically unchecked power. That power is the commerce clause, and it's the only possible way one could attempt to justify that position under currently understood constraints on congressional power.

Remember, a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away. The solution to having different states having different carry laws is to encourage states to adopt similar statutes and demand that they recognize other states' licenses. This has to be done at the state level, unless you're willing to throw federalism out the window.

Get the Supreme Court to declare that a total ban on carry permits violates the Second Amendment and then we have room to talk. Otherwise, your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

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.

We have all heard it before from democrates and republicans, but the question is have you ever heard it from a libertarian?

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

I oppose her answer to question #11 on grounds of federalism. As a Libertarian, she should, too.

Are you also opposed that a marriage license and drivers license should not be valid in other states than your own?

 

[Scutter01]

We have all heard it before from democrates and republicans, but the question is have you ever heard it from a libertarian?

Does it matter? An "L" in front of her name doesn't intrinsically make her any more trustworthy at her word than a "D" or an "R". As far as I'm concerned, all politicians are automatically liars until they prove me wrong through actions. I no longer give any of them the benefit of the doubt. I apologize to Ms. Sink-Burris if that sounds harsh or unfair. It is. But you've chosen to associate yourself with thieves and liars (hopefully with the intention of changing things) and there's just no way you'll be able to avoid getting their stink on you.

How about this hypothetical question:

You have two pieces of legislation. They both have a decent chance to pass, given a small number of swing votes. The first repeals the Hughes Amendment and the second will bring 5000 jobs to Indiana. She's approached by a member of the Senate Joint Economic Committee and he says "I'll vote for your jobs bill if you vote against the gun bill" (or vice versa, it doesn't matter. The point is that she can only get one passed and she has to do it by compromising her principles and her stated platforms.) If she ignores him and votes Yes on both, they'll both fail by a thin margin. If she takes his offer and gets one to pass, then she's (theoretically) either anti-gun or anti-economic recovery. What action does she take? Her "Yes" votes would allow her to claim she's both pro-gun and pro-jobs, while at the same time being completely ineffective at both. In fact, this is exactly what many ostensibly pro-gun politicians do right now and it's exactly why a yes/no questionnaire is virtually worthless. The United States Senate is about far more than simple Yes or No votes. I'd rather know what specific legislation she plans to introduce and what her plan is to get it passed. I want to know what kind of politician she is, not just how she'd vote on a given issue.

I'm also concerned at her response regarding the NRA. She says that they didn't give her anything to do, and then blames the NRA for that inactivity. Is she going to say that when she's in the Senate? Will she wait until someone gives her legislation to pass and then vote on that, or will she actively introduce new legislation on her own?

 

[Duncan]

Dear : Scutter

I'm also concerned at her response regarding the NRA. She says that they didn't give her anything to do, and then blames the NRA for that inactivity. Is she going to say that when she's in the Senate? Will she wait until someone gives her legislation to pass and then vote on that, or will she actively introduce new legislation on her own?

I am not sure if you are referring to my comments at the beginning of the post with the GOA survey :

Note : She is not able to answer a survey from the National Rifle Association.
They will not give one out .

I personally called the NRA and requested this on her behalf .
They do not give out any surveys to any non republicans or democrats .
Irrespective of office sought . County , State or Federal .
They cited space constraints . I have an opinion on this I will save for another thread as to not distract from Rebecca .
Thank you .
Duncan

If you are i would point out that I signed my name to the comment .
These are not the words of Rebecca .

Or if you are combining it with some of her own words or comments .
I am not sure.

I put that in there , the NRA comment , to let people know that .
1. That they are not as detailed as I think they should be and that GOA is
a head of them in this area .
2. So people would know that she did not shirk the NRA survey .
3. My Frustration with the NRA .


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

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$$ed that she has been lied to from the Uni-Party system just like us ...

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 can be done ... it has been.
Ron Paul

Thank you .
Duncan

PS. Why not come to the BBQ and lay it on her... you don't have to give any money to show up ..

 

[CarmelHP]

I oppose her answer to question #11 on grounds of federalism. As a Libertarian, she should, too.

It's not a federalism problem, it would be one of the very few legitimate exercises of Congress' power to regulate commerce. In regard to the other poster's comment regarding "full faith and credit," that clause only requires that state's recognize the official acts of other states, not that those acts are to be given the same effect in their state. For example, Illinois recognizes that Indiana issued you a carry license, they don't dispute it, but their law will not give the same effect to it in Illinois as Indiana does. That's not a violation of "full faith and credit," if it were, that would mean that any state could effectively change the internal laws of sister states. Now that would be a federalism problem!

 

[dross]

In regard to the other poster's comment regarding "full faith and credit," that clause only requires that state's recognize the official acts of other states, not that those acts are to be given the same effect in their state. For example, Illinois recognizes that Indiana issued you a carry license, they don't dispute it, but their law will not give the same effect to it in Illinois as Indiana does. That's not a violation of "full faith and credit," if it were, that would mean that any state could effectively change the internal laws of sister states. Now that would be a federalism problem!

I stand corrected. Thanks for the deeper understanding.