Posted: 12/15/2006 6:06:37 AM EDT
|
It's about time somebody stepped in to say, the people have spoken!!! http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061215/POLITICS/612150369 This seemed to be a topic of discussion here during the election, so I thought I would post this update. |
|
Mike is the man. I hope you are as enthused with his acceptance to serve as John McCains campaign leader in Michigan. I'm not, but I have to respect his choice to do so. Also the choices suck. The 2008 Republican Presidential race is going to be the year of the RINO. Both McCain and Guiliani are both RINO's and they are going to be running against each other. And they will be your Republican choices. It's looking like it will be an open Republican primary election in February of 2008 in which we will have to hold our nose and probably puke in picking the lesser of the two evils. Hmmm. McCain Guliani  Not intended to hijack the thread - I'm glad Mike is sticking up for the civil rights initiative that we wrote into our state constitution. |
|
I'd vote for HillarySaddamBinLadin before I voted for McCain. That guy is a fucking asshole, why do we call him a republican, he sure isn't a conservative. He definitely doesn't approve of guns of any kind. I saw a clip of him saying he had enough of firearms in Vietnam and that he didn't see any need for them as a private citizen - wtf. Since when did an A4 jockey carry around and use small arms? - what a dick. McCain was all over the legitimacy of his campaign in 2k when he know the liberals were voting for him in the primary's so that they didn't have to face GW - what a dick. How many times have we seen McCain side with the libs on conservative issues? My opinion on Mike Cox, we should be wary. He interpretted the MG issue as it should be. He hasn't ruled on suppressors as he should have under the same curcumstances - Why would you say a form4 is a liscense for an mG but not a suppressor? You would think anything on a form4 would be legal in Michigan according to his first re-interpretation of the law. If Mike Cox was firearms/C3 friendly like we all would like to believe, we'd be screwing or 3lugging cans on our guns already. BO I can't support John McCain, he's a total used condom afaic..... |
|
Anybody who looks at politics as someplace where they can find perfection is going to end up crying in their beer. I remember pro-gunners whining and moaning about John Engler, because he wasn't particularly interested in pushing pro-gun legislation. In reality, he was the best 2A governor Michigan had had in decades. Why? Because he had no particular interest in firearm legislation, either pro or con. He simply wasn't an anti-gunner, which is the best anyone could hope for in this state, given the reality of it's political makeup. Mike Cox is far and away the best A.G. likely to get elected in Michigan. Anybody who doesn't think so must have a very short memory- you can't remember the "Eternal General" who roadblocked every thing he could for a half century? If Mr. Cox hasn't popped up everything on the pro-gun wish list on demand, look back to the campaign support he got just a couple of months ago, and ask yourself why. Of course you should be wary of any politician, but I never in my life thought an A.G. in this state would make any move toward full-auto anything. Mike Cox has stepped out from the safe party line positions on class 3, Proposal 2, and other things. If you think there's someone better with the remotest chance of getting elected in this state, please let us know who it is. |
|
Hey Clark I appreciate your opinion on McCain but fact is Giuliani is a gun grabber too although he has officially moderated his position to not be for an AWB! So who do you want the guy that says he's gonna screw you or the guy that said he was gonna but now he ain't? Oh yeah - like I said 2008 The Year of the RINO! As for the Cox comments the NFA community is small and anybody that sticks their neck out for mg's under any condition is taking a political risk and took that risk for a small group - bottom line, because we were right and we were being discriminated against. And to show our gratitude for such action a handful of mg guys showed up at a Cox Everybody's Irish Fundraiser Party and I'm counting the heads on the picture on my wall, beside me and Cox there's 3 guys in that photo and theotherdave from here not who's not in the pic. Now you know I asked guys to hook up on Cox's site and thank him, make a donation etc. And I'm sure some did, as I did see a few names I recognized looking thru the campaign finance reporting statements which is public information that can be found on the SOS website. Bottom line is we don't carry much in the line of leverage because most of our guys don't involve themselves in the political process. Cans prolly would have been ok if the MSP hadn't got with NFABATFE and said no forcing NFA lawyers to do what they did and that is refuse can transfers unless explicity stated legal under the same protocol even though it is OBVIOUS that the rest of the statute has to be interpreted under the same protocols. There could have also been other behind the scenes whining from some of these LEO's complaining they wouldn't be able to hear a gun shot and locate a shooter if he was using a can. Not that law abiding citizens would be using them for criminal purposes. Blah blah blah... |
|
BO, you and several others think that Mike Cox did something for the C3 community because he is pro or sympethetic to mg's and you are wrong. You asked an Attorney to examine an article of law and enterpret it. He looked at the kelly interpretation and said it was bunk. Thanks, but the next AG can come alone and say Cox was wrong - what then? My point is this, Mike Cox isn't some C3 advocate. Mike Cox re-evaluated a ruling by a previous AG and we can own MG's now. Why would Mike Cox say form 4's are liscenses for mg's, but not suppressors? BO I wouldn't ask anyone to praise or support the AG until he comes full circle on the form-4. There's no way his office is unnaware of what we are talking about as far as this subject is concerned 
|
Sometimes people get so wrapped up in their own importance, they're sure the rest of the world must be revolving around them. |
|
Clark- You are right Cox did his job for a legislator who asked a technical question about MG's and as a result we have new freedom we didn't have. If Cox didn't want to issue that opinion it never would have seen the light of day. Nothing says he must answer every question presented to him. The Kelly opinion was wrong due to a change in law after he wrote it so this opinion is strong and a new AG would have a hard time rewriting something that is legally correct. "Thanks, but the next AG can come along and say Cox was wrong - what then?" Courts, grandfathering etc. "Why would Mike Cox say form 4's are liscenses for mg's, but not suppressors?" He never said no to suppressors there is just no mention of the word suppressor in the new opinion. NFABATFE said no suppressors cuz the AG didn't say so. I'd be speculating which is why I ask guys like yourself to come along and ask the man himself as part of the group. "BO I wouldn't ask anyone to praise or support the AG until he comes full circle on the form-4." Lack of support don't help us make any friends. But then again maybe he don't want us to have cans so he didn't write that part of it in on purpose. Maybe because our request didn't have the word silencer in it so they didn't think it was important. Or because LEO's lobbied him to not write a silencer opinion. It's anybody's guess and the only guy that can tell you why we don't have a silencer opinion is Mike Cox. Do you want me to ask him for you? |
|
Mike Cox may not be pro-class 3 but he did interpret the law correctly and didn't listen to those who would push their anti-gun agenda. He interpreted the law instead of trying to make it fit with his or any lobbyist's views. That makes him one hell of a better man than most in government, IMO. The man gave us a right back and we should be grateful to have him. He has shown his integrity when it comes to this, why should we think he would do any different when it comes to the second ammendment down the line? Just because he is supporting McCain doesn't mean he's all of the sudden an enemy of gun rights advocates. If he was he'd be supporting Guiliani or even worse, Clinton. Let's wait and see what happens. The Primaries haven't even been held for Christ's sake. Calm down and let's not alienate or turn against our allies like we did in the last election. |