Rick Nolan, the DFL nominee for the 8th Congressional District seat, responded Friday to statements his opponent, Rep. Chip Cravaack, R-Minn., made Thursday in a campaign stop in Baxter.
Cravaack said Thursday Nolan believes government is the solution to problems and that the DFLer is in favor of more regulation and debt.
Nolan responded that he wants to lower taxes for the middle class and Cravaack wants to lower taxes for the super-rich. He said independent analysts have shown that trickle-down economics doesn’t work.
“It’s not about big government or small government, it’s about good government,” Nolan said.
Cravaack said earlier he disagreed with Nolan’s position that assault rifles should be banned. He also disagreed with Nolan’s pro-choice stance on abortion.
Nolan said he’s a big Second Amendment supporter and a hunter but that he doesn’t want people going to schools or movie theaters with assault rifles.
Commenting on his pro-life position, Nolan said: “I don’t believe it’s the proper role for government to be interfering with a woman’s birth control or reproductive rights.”
Comments (25)
Add commentImmediate and clear response to Cravaack
Nolan was quoted in a debate as saying he did not need an assault weapon to hit a duck.
At one time he was pro-life but he began to see government interfering with women's rights.
People who dislike government in our personal lives had better examine where they stand.
Rick Nolan won the primary because people know he is the best man to challenge Cravaack and this response is proof.
Tarryl Clark outspent Rick and littered our mailboxes with her mailings, but the grass roots (it's called VOTERS WHO SHOW UP) still won and prevailed over big money.
No one needs one for a duck and
no one has the right to take them away from law abiding citizens either.
You have the right to not have one.
OK, This one [filtered word]
OK,
This one [filtered word] me off to no end Mr. Nolan.
First off, the word " assault" in law is a crime which involves causing a victim to apprehend violence.
So, with that in mind, a rifle cannot commit an "assault", Criminals do. Let's get THAT squared away once and for all.
Secondly, the purpose of the Second Amendment is NOT for "hunting". The second amendment was put into place to protect the people from their government if that government goes "rogue".
I suggest you watch this of Dr. Suzanna Hupp Testimony to Congress on the purpose of the Second Amendment Mr. Nolan!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTO-y-B2YM
Aurora, Colorado
Columbine, Colorado
Cold Spring, Minnesota
Red Lake, Minnesota
Was the government going rogue in those schools and the theater?
The NRA have mega lobbyists to protect their interests.
They have most politicians in fear of losing their support.
Some day we will wake up and say, "Who is speaking for the children? Where are their lobbyists?"
The NRA, a wing of the GOP has done their work
so much now that America cannot have a sensible conversation about guns.
It's all or nothing apparently.
? I lay awake at night worrying about our country going rogue.
NO - I lay awake a night and worry about sitting in a theatre and getting shot, or one of my kids getting shot at school.
That's The Reality.
The NRA is NOT a wing of the
The NRA is NOT a wing of the GOP. It's a group who adheres to the Constitution of the United States regarding the 2nd Amendment! They comprise people of all walks of the political spectrum. However, if you suggest that they are, then you must acknowledge that the anti-second amendment group is a wing of the Democrats. Which would suggest that they(you) do not believe in the constitution! would go on to say, that even our resident poster (Joe Radinovich) supports it. But I cannot speak for him.
Don't think for a second that I don't recognize your sentiments regarding the mass shootings. However, if there was at least ONE person that was armed civilian in those areas, the outcome would have been different.
Did you know that Iraqi civilians are allowed to have at least 1 fully automatic ak-47 in their homes at all times? Did you know that they need NO licensing or other laws or regulations in order to keep them? I guess you could say that OUR government and (the late) Saddam trusts them a LOT more than they trust us!
On another note. The reason why NO country has ever invaded America is because THEY know that there would be a rifle behind EVERY blade of grass. So, it is in YOUR best interest to make sure that YOU are armed. Not just for your own personal safety, but your countries safety. Are you starting to catch my drift? Any regulation put forth and passed by Congress regarding the 2nd amendment is another step forward for another country coming over here to take over YOUR country!
The reason no one has invaded the US is our guns?
Might it rather be that we spend more on war materials than the next 100 or so nations?
Well, I am all for citizen armament, but the laws that prevent kooks from buying arms, need to be enforced. And citizens need to report suspicious activity. And that old fable that if only one person had been armed these tragedies would have been prevented is wishful thinking.
LOL< Mav you are too amusing
While some of you think that candidates (of either party) are on here trolling and posting all day.....well, get a grip. They're not. They are running for office, literally RUNNING all day.
(well, a few that posted on here lost because they were not campaigning enough!)
By the way, Rick Nolan hunts, fishes, maple syrups, wild rices. He's a man's man!
The fact is that a gun is more likely to be used against you than an attacker. When everyone has guns that provides easy access to steal them by criminals.
Do a simple Google search about gun deaths in other countries. The USA looks like the old wild wild west vs. civilized nations.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#...
Well, snow, you sure got fnb worked up.
You must have said something right.
I know you have him blocked, but kudos to you for that post.
Was it around 10,000 gun deaths in the US to 50 or so in Great Britain? They are more in danger of invasion than us, for sure! And as I recall, they kept the Nazis at bay with a brave group of pilots.
Red Lake
Is a sovereign nation within the U.S. and our State of Minnesota. If you wish to keep this on your list southie, why not include Mexico and ask the same questions.
Will do.
Thanks for the reminder. And as I recall, there was an armed guard at the Red Lake HS.
Stopping gun deaths in the U.S.?
Start by analyzing the percentage of gun deaths due to illegal gun purchases as compared to legal purchases. I would bet that the percentages of deaths due to illegal purchases far out number the percentages of death due to legal purchases and that the higher rate of death will show up at the hands of criminal organizations in our metro areas that have the highest amount of uneducated, single parent families that are receiving the higher percentage of government assistance and are being preached to by multi millionaire talking heads who "Feel the Pain."
Actually...
the entire "rez" is well armed but that didn't stop an individual from committing this act of violence. Matter of fact, organized crime (gangs) is at a high rate due to control of "turf" on the "rez." Once again, high drop out rates, single parent families, high federal government assistance and the highest earners telling others that they "feel the pain."
Yeah southie,
it's sure funny how she responds to every comment I make without ever unblocking me to see what to respond to.
Why don't all you anti-gun people put signs in your yard saying you are anti-gun?
Step right up and prove to everyone how serious you are about it.
P.S.
One of the current crop of DFL candidates used to post day and night on here and probably still does, under another name. Lot's of people would probably love to see some of those posts and some would also frown a bit.
South, If guns are so bad,
South,
If guns are so bad, How do people manage to get out of a gun show ALIVE?
yeh, missing all the fun
of seeing fairly unbalanced posting and the those comments removed routinely -- from what others are saying, LOL :)
Where did I say that, MAV?
I am in favor of enforcing the gun laws we have.
Remember that undercover video exposé of gun shows and people buying them without any background check to see if they had a felony conviction?
That is the type of enforcement to which I am referring.
Here ya go south, A
Here ya go south,
A classic
Intruder calls 911, afraid homeowner may have gun
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-08/justice/oregon.intruder.911_1_homeown...
Needless to say, this intruder was likely in full favor of more gun control and less Second Amendment. And in your way of thinking, the home owner would be a Republican and the intruder would be a Democrat.
Gun Sale Law Enforcement
Well then southie, we are in agreement on illegal sales and on the same page as Fast & Furious then.
Good luck there Myeye.
She totally backs Obama's criminal AG and the Regime's communist agenda.
Nolan is a pinko jerkwad and Cravaak is a true American
You guys up on the Northern Tier (MN, WI, MI) really need to kick the progressives out of your states and rejoin the real world. Take a page from Scott Walker's playbook, and squash the commies into the ugly stains they really are. You could even amend your state constitutions to proscribe progressivism as treasonous, i.e. they could speak it and meet about it and even worship it if they wanted, but they couldn't ACT on it just as they couldn't scream fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
Get RID of 'em. The sooner, the better.
Gun control
With all due respect to both candidates, on one side I'll agree that we need to look at ways to try to reduce gun violence in the United States. That being said we need to look at the problem with an open mind. Every time someone says we need to do something about gun violence, the only thing anyone ever wants to try is to restrict the ability of law abiding citizens to own guns. There are two reasons why we need to look for a different solution.
The first is it just isnt working. Restricting firarms ownership just doesnt result in the outcomes they were supposed to. For examples I'd invite you to look at Chicago and Washington DC. Both cities had such restrictive gun laws that they were declared unconstitutional bt the US Supreme Court. Yet both cities continue to have very high levels of firearms violence.
Counter this with Switzerland, which has a very high incidence of ownership of military grade selective fire weapons kept in the home. Yet they have a very low level of firearms violence. So what are they doing that we arent?
The second reason is that it's unconstitutional. The supreme court has affirmed that the second amendment is an individual right and not a collective right of the state to form the national guard as was previously pushed. If enough people want to change that, there is a procedure right in there to change it.
We should be very careful about wanting to bargain away a liberty for a perceived greater good. Once you set that precedent, then you run the risk of someday finding a libery you value up for negotiation.
I've heard one of the candidates and many on this forum comment that "no one needs that kind of gun". What happens when someone says "no one needs to write a book like that" or perhaps "no one needs to know what the government is doing".
Chip Cravaack
Speaking of Chip, why is it he is never photographed with his wife?
who cares? kinda a minor
who cares? kinda a minor thing to worry about.