March 19, 2018

Question 3 Proponent’s Lies Revealed During Debate

Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine

To those that will be listening to the rebroadcast of the MPBN debate on Question 3 between David Trahan and Bobby Reynolds tonight at 8pm, there was a blatantly incorrect statement by Bobby Reynolds that needs correction. Link to MPBN to listen to rebroadcast:…

Bobby Reynolds claimed that Kittery Trading Post does free firearm transfers (background checks). This claim is absolutely FALSE. After calling Kittery Trading Post and confirming that the statement is false they sent us their rates below for background checks:

KTP Firearm transfer fees:
New Guns: $50
Used Guns: $20

Kittery Trading Post is already getting inquiries about free background checks. Bobby Reynolds and the Yes on 3 campaign owe Kittery Trading Post an apology.

In addition, Bobby Reynolds made claims that David’s statements about states having the power to establish gun registration databases, was false. Since the debate David has contacted a lawyer from Portland and confirmed that Bobby Reynolds was incorrect in this statement as well.

Maybe in the future the Yes on 3 campaign should get their facts straight.

Perhaps Maine voters should contact the Yes on 3 campaign and tell them to keep the debates honest.







Question 3 Debate



Lawmakers take aim at EPA ‘sue-and-settle’ collusion

Faced with President Obama’s vastly expensive Clean Power Plan to remake the U.S. electrical system and other looming regulatory decisions that dramatically affect energy supplies, Republican lawmakers have renewed their offensive against alleged under-the-table legal collusion between the Administration and environmental lobbyists in the cascading anti-carbon agenda.

Source: Lawmakers take aim at EPA ‘sue-and-settle’ collusion | Fox News


Dr. Soon Speaks Out Against Personal Attacks Over Global Warming Science

“In recent weeks I have been the target of attacks in the press by various radical environmental and politically motivated groups. This effort should be seen for what it is: a shameless attempt to silence my scientific research and writings, and to make an example out of me as a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming.

I am saddened and appalled by this effort, not only because of the personal hurt it causes me and my family and friends, but also because of the damage it does to the integrity of the scientific process. I am willing to debate the substance of my research and competing views of climate change with anyone, anytime, anywhere. It is a shame that those who disagree with me resolutely decline all public debate and stoop instead to underhanded and unscientific ad hominem tactics.”<<<Read More>>>


Televised Maine Bear Debate: Camuso and Cote vs. Pacelle and Gray


Maine Bear Hunting Poll Question

The Bangor Daily News has an article about the debate over the upcoming referendum to effectively end bear hunting in Maine. The article discusses science versus ethics. In addition there is a poll question that mimics the one that will appear on the ballot in November: “Do you want to ban the use of bait, dogs or traps in bear hunting except to protect property, public safety, or for research?”


Dem Candidate Refuses to Shake Hands With Rep Candidate

Is this a racist act, when a white democrat candidate for Lt. Governor of Virginia refuses to shake hands with a black republican candidate at the conclusion of a debate? Or is he just an asshole?


Why Elevating the Debate on Gun Control is Ceding Rights

Everywhere I go I hear and read the same old malarkey about how gun rights advocates will not “rationally” and “reasonably” join in a national debate to limit access to guns. Those making the demands for such “debate” as they wish to misrepresent their cause, attempt to paint a picture that anyone not wishing to lay down and play dead are “extremist” or “right wing”, along with many other descriptive titles of which I’ll refrain from posting. Gun rights is NOT a left/right issue. Even fascists like Sen. Dianne Feinstein and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg believe in THEIR right to guns for their own protection but seemingly aren’t interested in yours.

From an intelligent perspective, isn’t demanding that others join in THEIR debate on gun control akin to demanding that people sit down and rationally and reasonably debate the need to prohibit the police from entering your home at anytime for any reason just to have a look around? After all, if the police could come into your home anytime, people will be safer – won’t they? Of course the brainwashed masses will immediately say it’s not the same thing. But aren’t they?

Those who say the two are not related do so because they actually believe that because guns exist, mass murders occur. Isn’t that the same as saying that because private homes exist, they are subject to invasion, i.e. robbery, random crime, etc.? And one could further argue that if the people are disarmed, all the more reason cops should invade your home anytime they want because you are not capable of taking care of yourself; just as government wants it.

Most people who advocate for the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment believe this right is necessary for self protection and the warding off or tyrannical governments, both foreign and domestic and rightfully argue that the presence of guns, no matter the type, is not responsible for mass murders, or killings of any kind.

I’m not attempting to censor the free speech of those seeking bans on guns. It’s disingenuous to demonize people who strongly believe in their right to protection, while at the same time presenting themselves as somehow about the fray because they want to compromise away those rights. This tactic is common throughout all political debate and comes up when one side doesn’t have any fact, truth or data to support the eagerness for dictatorial rule, which is what they are advocating whether they know it or not.

I’m so tired of hearing the ignorance, cultivated through mind manipulation, that comprise is a necessary thing. Compromise is good for things like trying to decide what brand of soda pop to buy for the party but has no place when it comes to the fundamental and inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Before anyone should be talking about further destruction of the Bill of Rights, maybe the “rational” and “reasonable” debate should be about what has happened in our society that ends in things like Sandy Hook.

Guns have been prevalent in the United States at least since the Pilgrims used the blunderbust. Maybe the transformation of a God-fearing, respectful citizenry, founded with a sense of moral duty and responsibility, into a liberal, progressive, decadent, immoral, Sodom and Gomorrah-like culture has something to do with why. Dare we not address that?