Wrong, Tully. No one’s convictions changed here. McCaskill’s “convictions” are abortion on demand (with zero Constitutional authority to support it) and taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding Americans (a right ensconced in the plain language of the Constitution). To these ends, an elitist bit*h like McCaskill can be expected to be dismissive of states’ rights for one purpose and an advocate for states’ rights for the other. This is to be expected from the representatives of a party that is so vile that it actually equates abortion with “medical care.”

It is pretty simply why GOProud supported the Thune Amendment. The right to bear arms is an actual right specified in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does trump state laws. And the Constitution says that all matters not spelled out by the Constitution shall be the domain of the States.

Liberals have it all ass-backwards.

All of a sudden Dems are all for state’s rights when it comes to concealed carry. Just like Republicans are all for free choice in medical care unless abortion is involved.

Claire, you open your mouth and remove all doubt – as most libtards do.

Regards,
Peter H.

She used you to get in office and then sticks it to you. Who’d didn’t see this one coming from a mile away? Why, most gays of course! who willingly will let Dems do it again and again but claim Repubs are the ones blocking them from rights. Much like Bamabi whinning that it’s Repubs blocking everything when his own party can pass things without a single republican vote. It isn’t lost on anyone

McCaskill is a disgrace. I lived in the KC area back when she was elected, I was appalled at some of the firebombs that came out of her mouth during the campaign. I remember that she told a black congregation in St Louis that the government’s response to Katrina was lacking because GWB wanted to kill blacks.

I sent her a letter stating that if she actually believed that then she’s far too stupid to serve in government and that if she was just making it up for votes then she was evil. I then asked her which of the two it was. No response of course.

Peter: Pams House Blend has already condemned the Senator’s remarks and The Advocate has comments on this up as well. This is one that will bring condemnation from both the left and the right as her remarks touch “third rails” on both sides. Now will this cost the Senator support in the next election from her liberal allies? Probably not. Then again, the President is stirring up a lot of discontent so who knows?

My limited understanding of the bill is that carrying across state lines only applies to another state with concealed carry laws.

So her example is all the stranger! If she’s going with gay marriage analogy than what it means is that a couple from New Hampshire can move to Mass and still be married. Then if they want to get divorced in Mass. they can because both state recognize gay marriage.

She is twisting things and now is trying to wiggle out of it.

McCaskill’s office issued the following statement Thursday to clarify her remarks: “In talking about my recent vote against the gun provision offered in the Senate, I wasn’t clear when I stated that my vote against that provision was because it came down to a states’ rights. I was expressing my frustration in that some who argue that states shouldn’t respect the laws, certificates, or permits from other states when it’s convenient, like with gay marriage, but then argue that they should when it’s convenient on another issue, like gun rights. They can’t have it both ways,” McCaskill said.

Typical.

Regards,
Peter H.