Sunday, July 16, 2006

Scott MacLean is in fact anti-gun and no Republican

Following in order is the exhange between Scott MacLean and Doug Hageman.

Doug's a member of Republican State Central


Note that in his reply to Doug, MacLean does in fact say:
"... am in favor of enacting handgun control legislation.."

It interesting to also note that MacLean (the "truth" campaign) wasn't even registered to vote until after this entire exchange.


1st Congressional District Candidate
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 07:42:40 -0400

Dear Fellow Republicans:

The folks at the CT Republican Office in Hartford were kind enough to give me your name and e-mail address because I wanted to contact all the Chairpersons from the various Republican town committees in the 1st Congressional District, the State Central Committee members, Mayors and Selectmen.

My name is Scott MacLean, I live in East Hartland and I am seriously considering a run for the 1st Congressional District Seat in Congress. I think John Larson is beatable so I am asking for your help in setting up my campaign organization. Since I am just beginning this process, I need to fill every position on the campaign staff, from Treasurer to Campaign Manager to Web Guru; everything.

I realize that you folks are gearing up for your local races in November but I cannot afford to wait until 2006 to set this campaign in motion and I wanted to get started as soon as most people got back from their August vacations.

I have scheduled the first meeting of my exploratory committee for Sunday, September 11th at 12:30 pm. If you know of anyone who would like to participate in a Congressional Campaign, could you please forward this e-mail to them as my invitation to join us.

Let me tell you a bit about myself. I will be running as a Progressive Republican. I chose this general description for my position because it is a throwback to Theodore Roosevelt’s brand of Republican activism. The Progressive’s of his era were both Middle Class and middle ground which is a pretty good description of many Republicans here in New England. I am more Conservative on fiscal issues than the Democrats and yet I am more Progressive on social issues than many Republicans, especially the Republicans from the West and Midwest.

I bring to this campaign my experience from two distinct careers. I am currently the early morning Newscast Director at WFSB-TV, Channel 3. Over twenty years of experience in television news has given me a great perspective on the issues. But I also got away from TV for many years when I decided to go to theological seminary. So I am also an Ordained Minster in the United Church of Christ (also known as the Congregational Church) and for ten years I was the Pastor of a church. So if Values and Principles are important to Americans (and the polls show, they are) then I am well equipped to run a Values/Principles based campaign and take on the Democrats who aren’t quite sure what they believe in. And since my theological beliefs are of the “big tent,” inclusive variety, I hope to bring together an eclectic mix of Conservative and Progressive Republicans, Independents, African-American Protestants and Reagan Democrats. I think it’s a winning combination.

Since East Hartland is in the Northwest Corner of the 1st Congressional District and somewhat of a drive for many people, my hope is to move towards an Internet based campaign organization which won’t be limited by time or distance issues. But until that web based system gets set up (an immediate priority) we will have to have our meetings face to face.


Directions:

The good folks from the First Church in Hartland-Congregational (my home church) have graciously let me use the Parish Hall for campaign meetings. It is located at the intersection of Rt. 20 and Rt. 179 in the center of East Hartland, right across the street from the church itself. For those of you who want to print out a map from Map Quest, the actual address is 5 Hartland Blvd., East Hartland, CT.

From the East: take Interstate 91 to Rt. 20 West. Follow Rt. 20 past Bradley Airport, thru Granby and into East Hartland. The Church will be on your right, Parish Hall on your left, about 50 yards before the intersection of Rt. 20 and Rt. 179.

From the South: take Rt. 202 or Rt. 44 to Rt. 179 North and into East Hartland. Take a Right on Rt. 20 and the Church is on your Left, Parish Hall on your Right, about 50 yards from the intersection of 179/20.

From the West: take Rt. 8 to Rt. 20 East and into East Hartland. Rt. 20 makes a hard left turn at the intersection with Rt. 179. The Church will be on your left, parish hall on your Right, about 50 yards East of the intersection of 20/179.


My phone number is: 860-653-3072.

My address is: P.O. Box 82, East Hartland, CT 06027.

My e-mail address is: smaclean@localnet.com.


Again, that first meeting to set up my campaign organization (exploratory campaign) will be: September 11th, at 12:30 pm. Location: 5 Hartland Blvd, East Hartland, CT in the Parish Hall of the First Church in Hartland - Congregational.


Thanks for all your help; I appreciate it!



Hope to see you there.


Sincerely,


The Reverend Scott G. MacLean




Hageman's reply:



To: Scott G. MacLean
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 10:28 PM


Rev. MacLean -


Nice to hear from and you sound fine to me, save for one area:

>>.... .. United Church of Christ (also known as the Congregational Church) and .....

Which as a former (10+ generations) Congregationalist makes me a little nervous; where are you regarding the Second Ammendment? (After the UCC donated 50,000 to Sarah Brady as a speaking honorarium, I changed churches.)

I'm hoping you're in agreement with Rob Simmons on most issues.


Thank you for your time.


-Doug Hageman

16th District (Southington, Cheshire, Wolcott, Waterbury)



MacLean's reply; hence Hageman's opposition to him as a Republican Candidate:

Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:37:30 -0400

Dear Doug,

Thanks for getting back to me.

If I intend to run a Values/Principles based campaign, I need to do a little teaching on the matter first because most folks don't really know what that means. In short, a Value or Principle is the place where you start; it's the bedrock of your Ethics, it's the place from which all your specific beliefs, opinions and positions emanate. Values can be either Positive or Negative. An example of a Negative Value was when the Nazi's promoted the idea of a Master Aryan race. So if they were the Masters, then, by definition, everyone else was somewhat lower on the scale. So their specific policy, to eliminate the Jews, naturally flowed from their Values or Principles on a Master race.

But Positive Values also work the same way. As a Christian, my Values are rooted in the Person and Ministry of Jesus Christ. So any specific position I make in my campaign needs to first connect with that Value and, in a wonderful phrase the Evangelicals use, we need to ask ourselves, "What would Jesus do?" That's a Values based approach so my answer to your question will flow from that bedrock understanding.

The interesting part is that people of good faith, people who start with a Values based approach, can often come up with different answers to any particular issue. So I don't see it as inconsistent that 2 Christians, each using a Values based approach, can come up with a different position regarding the 2nd amendment.

So what's my position? Starting with the Value of "What would Jesus' answer be to this question?" I have come to the conclusion that, had the technology existed back in the 1st Century, Jesus would not have owned a gun. The handgun of the 1st Century was the Roman sword so when the High Priest sent the Roman guards to arrest Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter, trying to protect Jesus, took out his sword and cut off the ear of the High Priest's slave. "Jesus said to Peter. "Put your sword back into its sheath. Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?" (John 18:11.)

The other Value I bring to this discussion is one where we let the text, be it a Biblical text or Legal Text, speak with it's own voice. To let the text speak to us and not we speaking to it, we need to understand as much as we can about the historical context, the authors, the language of the day, in short, as much context as we can. So when I read the 2nd Amendment, I see that it was written in the context of a State Militia, not something we think of too much now in the 21st Century. But that really mattered a whole lot back in the 18th Century when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Because a lot of people in that day didn't like the idea of the Federal Government funding and equipping a standing army, it was important for the individual States to maintain their State Militias. So the right to keep and bear arms was established, not as an individual's right to own a gun, but as a State's Right to maintain it's Militia.

Let me include some material I found on the internet written by Sanford Levinson of the Univ. of Texas Law School.
"I begin with the appeal to text. Recall the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." No one has ever described the Constitution as a marvel of clarity, and the Second Amendment is perhaps one of the worst drafted of all its provisions. What is special about the Amendment is the inclusion of an opening clause -- a preamble, if you will -- that seems to set out its purpose. No similar clause is part of any other Amendment, [38] though that does not, of course, mean that we do not ascribe purposes to them. It would be impossible to make sense of the Constitution if we did not engage in the ascription of purpose. Indeed, the major debates about The First Amendment arise precisely when one tries to discern a purpose, given that "literalism" is a hopelessly failing approach to interpreting it. We usually do not even recognize punishment of fraud -- a classic speech act -- as a free speech problem because we so sensibly assume that the purpose of the First Amendment could not have been, for example, to protect the circulation of patently deceptive information to potential investors in commercial enterprises. The sharp differences that distinguish those who would limit the reach of the First Amendment to "political" speech from those who would extend it much further, encompassing non-deceptive commercial speech, are all derived from different readings of the purpose that underlies the raw text. [39]
A standard move of those legal analysts who wish to limit the Second Amendment's force is to focus on its "preamble" as setting out a restrictive purpose. Recall Laurence Tribe's assertion that the purpose was to allow the states to keep their militias and to protect them against the possibility that the new national government will use its power to establish a powerful standing army and eliminate the state militias. This purposive reading quickly disposes of any notion that there is an "individual" right to keep and bear arms. The right, if such it be, is only a state's right. The consequence of this reading is obvious: the national government has the power to regulate--to the point of prohibition--private ownership of guns, since that has, by stipulation, nothing to do with preserving state militias. This is, indeed, the position of the ACLU, which reads the Amendment as protection only the right of "maintaining an effective state militia...[T]he individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated [state] militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." [40]

Therefore, my position on the 2nd Amendment is that the Constitution did not establish an individual's right to gun ownership and Congress or the Individual states are therefore free to enact whatever legislation they see fit to pass. But to take it a step further, Because I don't believe Jesus would have owned a handgun, I am in favor of enacting handgun control legislation but I would not include rifles or shotguns in that bill.

Thanks Doug, we'll be in touch.

Sincerely,

The Reverend Scott G. MacLean



Hageman in an attempt to salvage what could have been a viable GOP candidate trys to tactfully straighten MacLean out on the 2nd ammendment issue:




Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005



Subject: You need to re-think one position


Undoubted you're very close to the perfect candidate - unfortunately most Republicans will be looking to support someone who believes in the Constitution in it's entirety and someone's clearly sold you a bill of goods as it applies to the Bill of Rights.

If you recall history, we were losing the war, the Continental Army was pretty much getting it's head handed to them left & right by the Redcoats until the Brits made the error of inciting the citizenry at large via a handfull of what would now be considered terrorist acts. THEN the population at large (the "militia!") was motivated, took up arms and in concert with Washington (the man not the place) handed England their only defeat in about 1000 years.

The militia *is* the citizens - NOT the Army and since it pre-dates the Nat'l Guard by around a century certainly not that either.


That's not opinion on my part that's the law:


US Code Title 10 section 311 militia: composition and classes


(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and


(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



A "well-regulated" Militia



From: http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm



The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary,
and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated
Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the
world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of
time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun
dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated
person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to
do so that the founders wrote it.



Thus any perspective that the 2nd was intended to do anything less than protect the individual's right to keep and bear arms is intellectually dishonest.

Certainly most Republicans hold Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel who has the integrity to speak against firearms while stateing that it will take an amendment to reverse the 2nd in higher regard than those who wish to make believe the 2nd doesn't say what it does say so clearly. He is considered honest regarding the issue, at least.

There are dozens of quotes available online from the Founders regarding the 2nd as well and in concert with a literal reading of the 2nd makes their intention more than obvious.

You should be aware that I'm neither a hunter nor shooter, indeed I can't recall the last time I even handled a firearm and am by no means any sort of so called gun nut. It's the perversion of the Constitution that I as well as 1000's of others find offensive.

Predicably you'll wind up facing a very vocal minority of CT Republicans (we are as a group last I looked about 68% pro-choice) that are rabidly anti-abortion as well (abortion is not a constitutional issue) and they'll make your life as miserable as possible as will their allies the
gay-bashers (that's not a constitutional issue either).



I would strongly suggest you re-think your position on firearms and align yourself not with the ACLU (which most of us recognize as a communist organization as were their roots (I can back that up)) but with the NRA which is not who or what you think it is at all I can assure you of that. (They are the only bonafide source of any firearm safety training for example)



To take out Larson without the clout of the NRA is probably not going to happen. You need the intensity of their members, those members work and donations, and their 80%+ voter turnout. If you're looking for a bunch of tattooed pickup driving beer swilling characters that will NOT be who shows up - I'm well aware of the picture painted by the left of the average NRA
supporter but have found that picture to be laughably erroneous.

This is not to say you need to come out and even bring up any firearm issues at all - in fact you probably should not. However when asked directly you should have the correct answer and that answer is not a matter of opinion but rather one of law.
ie: "I don't think anyone needs a
handgun but the 2nd amendment is clear on the issue, and I intend to support
and defend the Constitution of the United States of America regardless of my
own beliefs as it is not my position to substitute my opinion for
that of the Founders."



I would like to work with a candidate that could win and look forward to doing so.



Best regards;



-Doug Hageman 16th district State Central

MacLean's response? A terse:

"Doug, Thanks for your input."
sgm

6 comments:

  1. If we had known this before May 10th there's no way we would have nominated this creep.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ah. To me, this looks like one more reason that we try to separate Church and State.

    I applaud someone who brings their religious ideals into their daily life, but I don't like those people enforcing thier religious ideals on me or my family.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tom Accuosti said... "...
    I applaud someone who brings their religious ideals into their daily life...



    I agree, up to where those ideals include the financial support of terrorist groups such as Hamas.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And that's the back end of the point I was trying to make. We all like people with the same ideals and moral values as our own, and ingeneral we tend to elect politicians with what we beleive to be the same ethics.

    Unfortunately, some pols pander to more than the basic sets of morals of their consituency; running as anti-abortion or pro-gun or anti-war or pro-environment sympathizers creates an socio-political environment in which voters, confused by the issues, elect representatives based on a mere one or two issues - issues which for the most part are not even constitutional in nature.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This guy is scary. Can anyone see the parallel between Scott MacLean and Martin Sheen's character in The Dead Zone?

    ReplyDelete

Please keep it clean on topic.
If you are trying to send ACR a message use email instead:

authentic.CT.republican@gmail.com