Burtboomer
New member
Let me get this right. More laws . No disrespect but have you seen the idiots making these laws. I swear all they do all day long is figure out how to take good ideas and rights and put them to there own personal agenda.
Nation wide concealed carry.
- Thread starter whiteeagle-wpm
- Start date
jcreek
New member
wolf_fire
New member
Why are you trying to compare a privilege (driver's license) with a God given right (to keep and bear arms)? There should be no permit, since that is an infringement on a right. Therefore, there should be no NEED for a reciprocity plan since every state should be upholding the Constitution. Those states not upholding the Constitution should be held liable and the citizenry needs to take back their states.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Is traveling freely among the world God created not a God given Right as well? I touched on this earlier in another thread. From what I dug up, the first required drivers license was in 1913. The earliest automobiles were created around 1796, what then, made driving a privilege between those years? In 1913 our Right to travel went from a Right to a privilege. Lest we forget that, our 2A will follow suit. It's a good comparison, if we are to learn from our history of mistakes.
wolf_fire
New member
I haven't seen in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that traveling freely among the world was an inalienable right granted to us by our Creator.
That was the historic and legal answer.
If you look up Judaic law, traveling was indeed limited on the Sabbath, so I would have to say it was not a right.
That was the religious answer.
:smile:
You assume that there are only two choices, right or privilege. This is not the case. One can be free to do something without giving it the special distinction of classifying it as a right under the Constitution. Something only becomes a privilege when one has to ask permission for it. Also, you assume that just because there was not a driver's license that then made driving a right. I do not agree with this assessment. It is not a right unless it has been declared a right under the Constitution in this country. You may have been free to do so and had the liberty to gallivant in your new iron buggy, but driving was never given the special distinction as being a right. This was made ever clear by the inception of the driver's license; now we went from being free to do something to asking permission. However, using that same logic, the permit system has indeed TAKEN our right's away concerning the 2A.
Let me give another example. I love veal Romano. If a restaurant can cook it up well, I will invariably order it and let that tasty dish melt in my mouth. I love it. I am free to eat veal Romano anytime I wish. There is, however, no right granted to me to eat veal Romano. I am just free to do so and have the liberty to pursue my happiness in doing so. But this country hasn't granted us the right to eat veal Romano. If suddenly, the FDA decided that raising veal was illegal... could I demand that they stop this because they are stomping on my rights? The answer, no.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement on what a Right is. I do not believe a Right is granted to us by the Constitution or our country. I believe the Constitution recognizes certain Rights they felt strongly enough to write on paper, but I believe the founders knew we had more Rights than what they could list, hence the 9th amendment. There was a debate before the Constitution was even written as to whether or not it was a good idea, because there would be a mindset that the Constitution could be misconstrued as limiting, when it was not written in that manner.
But to address where is it written in the Constitution? The 9th Amendment.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[69]
The Ninth Amendment protects rights not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. "
I feel, the country can only oppress our God given Rights, and could never grant. I believe, everyone on this planet has the God given right to arms, to free speech, etc, and only the countries governments oppress and control those Rights. A middle eastern woman may be controlled more harshly on her freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the Right isn't there.
And I do agree, the permit system has taken away our 2A right.
As for eating certain foods. I feel it is a Right we retain to eat whatever food we want. The government doesn't grant us the Right to eat, we just have it, it's God given. There are countries though, and maybe the USA will become one herself, that rations out food. At which point, it becomes a privilege to eat, but that Right is still there, it's just ignored.
To each his own
whodat2710
New member
I disagree with ya Blues. In the America I live in a national law would be one that appeases the most restrictive states. Ergo, I do agree that it'll never happen. I think the only acceptable national gun law would be the one that reminds all the states that since guns are covered in the bill of rights, the 10th applies and all state laws are declared null and void.
wolf_fire
New member
I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement on what a Right is. I do not believe a Right is granted to us by the Constitution or our country. I believe the Constitution recognizes certain Rights they felt strongly enough to write on paper, but I believe the founders knew we had more Rights than what they could list, hence the 9th amendment. There was a debate before the Constitution was even written as to whether or not it was a good idea, because there would be a mindset that the Constitution could be misconstrued as limiting, when it was not written in that manner.
But to address where is it written in the Constitution? The 9th Amendment.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[69]
The Ninth Amendment protects rights not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. "
I feel, the country can only oppress our God given Rights, and could never grant. I believe, everyone on this planet has the God given right to arms, to free speech, etc, and only the countries governments oppress and control those Rights. A middle eastern woman may be controlled more harshly on her freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the Right isn't there.
And I do agree, the permit system has taken away our 2A right.
As for eating certain foods. I feel it is a Right we retain to eat whatever food we want. The government doesn't grant us the Right to eat, we just have it, it's God given. There are countries though, and maybe the USA will become one herself, that rations out food. At which point, it becomes a privilege to eat, but that Right is still there, it's just ignored.
To each his own
I appreciated the way you commented when you disagreed with me because you made me think about my own position. I'm still mulling over what you have said and may at some point change my mind, but your comments spurred me to dig deeper and I found this page. Civil Liberties and Civil Rights [ushistory.org]
I thought you'd appreciate the read.
wolf_fire
New member
I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement on what a Right is. I do not believe a Right is granted to us by the Constitution or our country. I believe the Constitution recognizes certain Rights they felt strongly enough to write on paper, but I believe the founders knew we had more Rights than what they could list, hence the 9th amendment. There was a debate before the Constitution was even written as to whether or not it was a good idea, because there would be a mindset that the Constitution could be misconstrued as limiting, when it was not written in that manner.
But to address where is it written in the Constitution? The 9th Amendment.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[69]
The Ninth Amendment protects rights not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. "
I feel, the country can only oppress our God given Rights, and could never grant. I believe, everyone on this planet has the God given right to arms, to free speech, etc, and only the countries governments oppress and control those Rights. A middle eastern woman may be controlled more harshly on her freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the Right isn't there.
And I do agree, the permit system has taken away our 2A right.
As for eating certain foods. I feel it is a Right we retain to eat whatever food we want. The government doesn't grant us the Right to eat, we just have it, it's God given. There are countries though, and maybe the USA will become one herself, that rations out food. At which point, it becomes a privilege to eat, but that Right is still there, it's just ignored.
To each his own
I appreciated the way you commented when you disagreed with me because you made me think about my own position. I'm still mulling over what you have said and may at some point change my mind, but your comments spurred me to dig deeper and I found this page. Civil Liberties and Civil Rights [ushistory.org]
I thought you'd appreciate the read.
I like your 9th Amendment argument. And I would have to agree the 9th Amendment does make your case and I do agree with you, but in a limited fashion. Do you not have the right to drive your vehicle anywhere on your property? Do you not also have the right to drive your vehicle at any age on your property? The answer is yes, you are free to drive as much as you want at any age with no restrictions on your property as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights. Heck, you can even drive your vehicle without it being registered to the state or be inspected if you are driving on your property only. Therefore, agreeing with your assessment of a right, you still do have that right. What you do not have the right to do is drive your vehicle on someone else's property. The highway systems and roadways are not owned by you, but by state and local governments (yes, this is another argument for another time as to whether the road systems belong to the people). As such, they have the right to regulate how they are being used. That, my friend is how it is allowed to be a privilege. You do not have the right to travel on other owned property without permission. The driver's license then becomes permission.
whodat2710
New member
You have said nothing wrong. You are correct in your assessment. You are wrong in determining how this applies to the Constitution. Roads and bridges are not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Their administration is also not denied to the states. This means that the 10th Amendment allows the states to regulate these things. Guns are mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and the states should therefore be forbidden from regulating them.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
You have given me some material to read through and digest, which I will take some time to give it it's fair chance to settle in my mind. I am in search of a great article I read, that articulates my viewpoint extremely well. I'm having trouble finding it though :-(
I personally try to distinguish private property and public property when it comes to Constitutional Rights of the People. It's important to remember the Constitution was written to limit the government on public land (really all land), not the People on private land (I'm preaching to the choir on that one).
Because private property is owned by an entity that is not government, they do not follow the same limitations. No license gives me permission to drive on others private lands. On public (whether it's owned by the government or the People) lands though, the Constitution should have limited the power of our government.
I definitely agree it's allowed to be a privilege. We allowed the government to regulate (oppress) our Right to travel on public lands. Not because the government had the power, but because We let them pervert the Constitution into changing it from limiting them, to limiting Us.
Before 1913 we had the Right to drive on public lands. After 1913, a license was the permission slip to drive on public lands, it became a privilege after 136 years as a Right. That's how long ago, and how quickly, we started giving up our freedoms.
This same argument can be applied to the 2A. The Constitution went from limiting the government, to limiting the People. Hence why we have permission slips, public places that are off limits, and weapons bans.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
wolf_fire
New member
That's a cogent argument.
Rights and Such
I think there are rights that are expressed and protected by the Constitution, but it is clear that the rights are meaningless unless they are exercised and defended, and I think that's true whether we are talking about the 1st Amendment right, 2nd Amendment, or anything else.
But I also agree that there is a larger context of rights beyond the Constitution. The framework for this notion of rights devolving from the nation-state to the individual actually originated during the French Revolution ~ more or less at the same time that the Bill of Rights was being conceived. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen
According to this summary on the interwebs,
"Thomas Jefferson, primary author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, was at the time in France as a U.S. diplomat, and was in correspondence with members of the French National Constituent Assembly. James Madison's proposal for a U.S. Bill of Rights was adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives on 21 August 1789, that is 5 days before the French declaration. Considering the speed at which information crossed the Atlantic Ocean in the 18th century, it can be assumed that the French declaration was not directly inspired by its US counterpart in the sense that it was made after the American Constitution. However as far as it concerns the authorship and the people who influenced its content, it was exactly the same people who took part in shaping both documents, Lafayette admired Jefferson and Jefferson found him useful which shows the reverence Lafayette had for Jefferson. In Jefferson's own words(12.16.1786; Boyd 1950- 10: 602)"
So anyway, it is clear that things were evolving fast on both sides of the world regarding the notion of rights and the concept of states that would develop founding documents that would establish certain rights.
But what is also clear is that many of those rights were already broadly thought by many to be universal. I believe this is what Firefighterchen was getting at in mentioning that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" which happens to be a Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, and also as Firefighterchen mentioned, "I believe, everyone on this planet has the God given right to arms, to free speech, etc, and only the countries governments oppress and control those Rights." I generally agree with this statement. In fact, it seems to me that now more than ever, people are becoming more aware that their rights do not simply emanate from a nation-state, but rather, that the individual has certain natural rights, which the individual expresses and maintains in particular ways. We may even be coming into a time when, in part due to changes and advances in technology, the individual will eventually render the nation-state irrelevant. Be that as it may, I continue to support and defend the US Constitution; from a legal perspective it is the best way to express and clarify, whether before a representative or a court, that I have rights that can be recognized and defended. Nonetheless I agree, that the state can only attempt to oppress, but realistically can never remove natural, and we might also argue, God-given rights, which simply can not be removed from anyone by any force known. Oppression on a grand scale may indeed occur, but the truth is your ability to say inside of your mind and from your mouth that you would rather die than comply, even in the face of certain death, is evidence enough that nations lie prostrate before an abundance of free will employed and rights expressed.
I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement on what a Right is. I do not believe a Right is granted to us by the Constitution or our country. I believe the Constitution recognizes certain Rights they felt strongly enough to write on paper, but I believe the founders knew we had more Rights than what they could list, hence the 9th amendment. There was a debate before the Constitution was even written as to whether or not it was a good idea, because there would be a mindset that the Constitution could be misconstrued as limiting, when it was not written in that manner.
But to address where is it written in the Constitution? The 9th Amendment.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[69]
The Ninth Amendment protects rights not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. "
I feel, the country can only oppress our God given Rights, and could never grant. I believe, everyone on this planet has the God given right to arms, to free speech, etc, and only the countries governments oppress and control those Rights. A middle eastern woman may be controlled more harshly on her freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the Right isn't there.
And I do agree, the permit system has taken away our 2A right.
As for eating certain foods. I feel it is a Right we retain to eat whatever food we want. The government doesn't grant us the Right to eat, we just have it, it's God given. There are countries though, and maybe the USA will become one herself, that rations out food. At which point, it becomes a privilege to eat, but that Right is still there, it's just ignored.
To each his own
I think there are rights that are expressed and protected by the Constitution, but it is clear that the rights are meaningless unless they are exercised and defended, and I think that's true whether we are talking about the 1st Amendment right, 2nd Amendment, or anything else.
But I also agree that there is a larger context of rights beyond the Constitution. The framework for this notion of rights devolving from the nation-state to the individual actually originated during the French Revolution ~ more or less at the same time that the Bill of Rights was being conceived. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen
According to this summary on the interwebs,
"Thomas Jefferson, primary author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, was at the time in France as a U.S. diplomat, and was in correspondence with members of the French National Constituent Assembly. James Madison's proposal for a U.S. Bill of Rights was adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives on 21 August 1789, that is 5 days before the French declaration. Considering the speed at which information crossed the Atlantic Ocean in the 18th century, it can be assumed that the French declaration was not directly inspired by its US counterpart in the sense that it was made after the American Constitution. However as far as it concerns the authorship and the people who influenced its content, it was exactly the same people who took part in shaping both documents, Lafayette admired Jefferson and Jefferson found him useful which shows the reverence Lafayette had for Jefferson. In Jefferson's own words(12.16.1786; Boyd 1950- 10: 602)"
So anyway, it is clear that things were evolving fast on both sides of the world regarding the notion of rights and the concept of states that would develop founding documents that would establish certain rights.
But what is also clear is that many of those rights were already broadly thought by many to be universal. I believe this is what Firefighterchen was getting at in mentioning that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" which happens to be a Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, and also as Firefighterchen mentioned, "I believe, everyone on this planet has the God given right to arms, to free speech, etc, and only the countries governments oppress and control those Rights." I generally agree with this statement. In fact, it seems to me that now more than ever, people are becoming more aware that their rights do not simply emanate from a nation-state, but rather, that the individual has certain natural rights, which the individual expresses and maintains in particular ways. We may even be coming into a time when, in part due to changes and advances in technology, the individual will eventually render the nation-state irrelevant. Be that as it may, I continue to support and defend the US Constitution; from a legal perspective it is the best way to express and clarify, whether before a representative or a court, that I have rights that can be recognized and defended. Nonetheless I agree, that the state can only attempt to oppress, but realistically can never remove natural, and we might also argue, God-given rights, which simply can not be removed from anyone by any force known. Oppression on a grand scale may indeed occur, but the truth is your ability to say inside of your mind and from your mouth that you would rather die than comply, even in the face of certain death, is evidence enough that nations lie prostrate before an abundance of free will employed and rights expressed.
Seeya
New member
The right to use the public highways for private use requires no license. It is only a crime if you use the public highway for finaical gain (commercial use) without permission (license)
Title 18 is the criminal Code of The USA
I put the important parts in bold
Read and learn and stop being compliant.
If you are unwilling to stand tall for every right then how do you think you can defend one and not another and win anything.
I am tired of people trusting thier elected servant to tell them the truth and then beliveing thier bs and repeating the deception.
read the links I placed at the bottom
18 USC § 31 - Definitions
Current through Pub. L. 113-31. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
(a) Definitions.— In this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(1) Aircraft.— The term “aircraft” means a civil, military, or public contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, fly, or travel in the air.
(2) Aviation quality.— The term “aviation quality”, with respect to a part of an aircraft or space vehicle, means the quality of having been manufactured, constructed, produced, maintained, repaired, overhauled, rebuilt, reconditioned, or restored in conformity with applicable standards specified by law (including applicable regulations).
(3) Destructive substance.— The term “destructive substance” means an explosive substance, flammable material, infernal machine, or other chemical, mechanical, or radioactive device or matter of a combustible, contaminative, corrosive, or explosive nature.
(4) In flight.— The term “in flight” means—
(A) any time from the moment at which all the external doors of an aircraft are closed following embarkation until the moment when any such door is opened for disembarkation; and
(B) in the case of a forced landing, until competent authorities take over the responsibility for the aircraft and the persons and property on board.
(5) In service.— The term “in service” means—
(A) any time from the beginning of preflight preparation of an aircraft by ground personnel or by the crew for a specific flight until 24 hours after any landing; and
(B) in any event includes the entire period during which the aircraft is in flight.
(6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
(7) Part.— The term “part” means a frame, assembly, component, appliance, engine, propeller, material, part, spare part, piece, section, or related integral or auxiliary equipment.
(8) Space vehicle.— The term “space vehicle” means a man-made device, either manned or unmanned, designed for operation beyond the Earth’s atmosphere.
(9) State.— The term “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
(10) Used for commercial purposes.— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
(b) Terms Defined in Other Law.— In this chapter, the terms “aircraft engine”, “air navigation facility”, “appliance”, “civil aircraft”, “foreign air commerce”, “interstate air commerce”, “landing area”, “overseas air commerce”, “propeller”, “spare part”, and “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” have the meanings given those terms in sections 40102 (a) and 46501 of title 49.
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.
Right to Travel
Supreme Law School : E-mail : Box 036 : Msg 03678
18 USC § 31 - Definitions | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
Title 18 is the criminal Code of The USA
I put the important parts in bold
Read and learn and stop being compliant.
If you are unwilling to stand tall for every right then how do you think you can defend one and not another and win anything.
I am tired of people trusting thier elected servant to tell them the truth and then beliveing thier bs and repeating the deception.
read the links I placed at the bottom
18 USC § 31 - Definitions
Current through Pub. L. 113-31. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
(a) Definitions.— In this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(1) Aircraft.— The term “aircraft” means a civil, military, or public contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, fly, or travel in the air.
(2) Aviation quality.— The term “aviation quality”, with respect to a part of an aircraft or space vehicle, means the quality of having been manufactured, constructed, produced, maintained, repaired, overhauled, rebuilt, reconditioned, or restored in conformity with applicable standards specified by law (including applicable regulations).
(3) Destructive substance.— The term “destructive substance” means an explosive substance, flammable material, infernal machine, or other chemical, mechanical, or radioactive device or matter of a combustible, contaminative, corrosive, or explosive nature.
(4) In flight.— The term “in flight” means—
(A) any time from the moment at which all the external doors of an aircraft are closed following embarkation until the moment when any such door is opened for disembarkation; and
(B) in the case of a forced landing, until competent authorities take over the responsibility for the aircraft and the persons and property on board.
(5) In service.— The term “in service” means—
(A) any time from the beginning of preflight preparation of an aircraft by ground personnel or by the crew for a specific flight until 24 hours after any landing; and
(B) in any event includes the entire period during which the aircraft is in flight.
(6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
(7) Part.— The term “part” means a frame, assembly, component, appliance, engine, propeller, material, part, spare part, piece, section, or related integral or auxiliary equipment.
(8) Space vehicle.— The term “space vehicle” means a man-made device, either manned or unmanned, designed for operation beyond the Earth’s atmosphere.
(9) State.— The term “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
(10) Used for commercial purposes.— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
(b) Terms Defined in Other Law.— In this chapter, the terms “aircraft engine”, “air navigation facility”, “appliance”, “civil aircraft”, “foreign air commerce”, “interstate air commerce”, “landing area”, “overseas air commerce”, “propeller”, “spare part”, and “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” have the meanings given those terms in sections 40102 (a) and 46501 of title 49.
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.
Right to Travel
Supreme Law School : E-mail : Box 036 : Msg 03678
18 USC § 31 - Definitions | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
whodat2710
New member
Thank you.
-
I was thinking of replying with "he said 'cogent' he-he-he" but I thought that might sound childish
Nightmare45
NRA LIFE MEMBER
The 2nd Amendment is the law of the Land and we the people don't need no stinking badge or ccw permit. Already covers America.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I don't know if it will be a compliment or an insult to sdprof to be mistaken for me, but I agree with everything he said in any case. LOL
I also happen to agree with you, and don't think you and I would be in disagreement if I had made the post you attributed to me. I don't see yours and sdprof's comments as being mutually exclusive. What sdprof was speaking of was what the OP was speaking of, a national permission slip law. What you're talking about is not passing another law, but of demanding recognition by Congress that the supreme set of laws controls the issue. It will require a very all-encompassing SCOTUS ruling to ever achieve what you're proposing. Congress, nor the Executive, have any constitutional authority whatsoever to declare all state-level gun laws "null and void." SCOTUS wasn't constituted with that much authority either, but the usurping began so early in our history that Marbury v. Madison insured the collective perception that it does have it, and that perception persists to this day. The sad part is that of the three "equal" branches of government, only that false perception allows SCOTUS to rule as an autonomous, unopposed oligarchy.
I would oppose a national conceal carry law of any description on the basis that it validates Congress' authority to even touch the issue that the 2nd Amendment specifically and uncompromisingly prohibits them from infringing on in any shape, manner or form. Whether the least restrictive or the most restrictive state laws that a national CC law might conform itself to, neither would be acceptable to any 2nd Amendment or Constitution purist, of which I am decidedly and unapologetically one.
Blues
whodat2710
New member
Wow, my bad! I should have noticed that it was too short to be one of your posts!:laugh: I have already let my representatives know that I will not support any law regarding guns unless they specifically repeal the infringements currently in place, with NO concessions given to appease the grabbers. What I think is interesting is that I get monthly (weekly when in session) updates from the offices of Senator Tim Scott and Representative Mark Sanford, along with detailed info on what they have voted on and why. I never get those from Congressman Lindsey Graham...
mappow
New member
Tim Scott is the REAL THING.............Have had breakfast with him on many occasions. Meet him, get to know him, attend functions that he attends. He will just amaze you on his devotion to God and the work he strives to accomplish for the 1st district. REALLY need more leaders like him, a true Statesman and a man of God.
whodat2710
New member
Good news, he doesn't represent the 1st district any more, he is the only black member of the Senate, and represents our southern state (go figure). 1st district now has the horndog with the good voting record (Mark Sanford)
