NRA
Standing Guard: Vote For The Second Amendment
In just a few days, on November 4, gun owners will be presented with a very clear choice of a pro-Second Amendment versus an anti-Second Amendment Presidential ticket. John McCain and Sarah Palin versus Barack Obama and Joe Biden represents a stark contrast for the future of our freedom.
In that choice, one fact is foremost:
The next president, by filling inevitable vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court, will determine the continued existence of our Right To Keep and Bear Arms.
The landmark Heller decision by the U.S. Supreme Court--which struck down the D.C. gun ban and its attendant criminalizing of armed self-defense in the home--was decided by a one vote margin, in a 5-4 decision. The court's decision was aided by briefs filed by Congress and states--briefs signed by John McCain and by Palin's state of Alaska.
The next president, by filling inevitable vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court, will determine the continued existence of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden refused to sign in support of the Second Amendment. But for President George W. Bush's two high court nominations, it could easily have gone the other way. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Associate Justice Samuel Alito truly made the difference. Keep in mind that Barack Obama and the man who is now his running mate, U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden, voted against confirming both.
And Biden, one-time chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, was radically opposed and used every trick in the book including the threat of a filibuster to kill the confirmation process.
Gun owners have U.S. Sen. John McCain to thank for quashing Biden's filibuster moves and brokering the Senate agreement that allowed confirmation. If Biden had his way, the Senate could have stalled indefinitely, leaving two vacancies unfilled, and creating a seven-member court dominated by the very justices who opposed the Second Amendment as protection for a broad, individual right.
Biden told the NAACP during his own losing primary bid for the Democratic presidential nomination:
"The next president is likely to name at least one, if not three new Supreme Court justices. We should start this national debate by recognizing the truth--that Roberts and Alito have turned the court upside down . . I guarantee you that will change."
Turning "the court upside down ." As in upholding the Second Amendment.
Biden's pledge came in an important context. With funding from globalist gun-banner George Soros, the NAACP filed the most onerous litigation de-signed by our enemies to drive America's firearm industry into bankruptcy.
That suit, argued before Brooklyn, N.Y., U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, claimed that virtually all elements of the federally regulated and lawful firearm industry were collectively responsible for the totally unrelated illegal acts of armed, violent criminals. The suit ultimately was a loser, but cost consumers millions of dollars in legal fees. It was one of a string of serial, punitive lawsuits brought before lifetime-appointee Weinstein.
And on that score, the last such lawsuit before Weinstein was thrown out by the U.S. Court of Appeals, which ruled the litigation violated the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the NRA-backed 2005 law--a law vehemently opposed by Obama and Biden.
If the Obama and Biden team has its way, the nation will again be flooded with hundreds of such suits creating what one gun-ban lawyer called "death by a thousand cuts." Under an Obama-Biden administration, the lower federal courts would resemble cloned versions of Weinstein's Brooklyn star chamber.
During the remarkable Saddleback forum, Obama attacked the nominations of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, author of the brilliant Heller decision. Counted with his "no" votes against Roberts and Alito, that's an Obama thumbs down for four of the five justices who rendered the Supreme Court's definitive decision upholding the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right and recognizing the right to armed self-defense in the home.
In this last column before we go to the polls I must make an additional point. While we have disagreed in the past with Sen. McCain on a few specific issues, these disagreements pale in comparison to what the future would be like for gun owners if an Obama-Biden regime were to control all organs of federal power and land a one-two punch against freedom.
John McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is an NRA Life member, life-long gun owner, hunter and staunch Second Amendment supporter. She is an electrifying force for preservation and expansion of all the gains we have made in the past decades.
I found it remarkable that in every story announcing her selection she was described as a "lifetime" member of the NRA. She is indeed proud of her Life membership. Suddenly the phony poses of Obama and Biden wrapping themselves around the Second Amendment are stripped to their essence--a semantic trick designed to fool gun owners. You can't let that happen.
Your vote is a remarkable power that you must wield to preserve the Second Amendment. With all of this, there is a simple message. Vote. Get your friends, family and co-workers to vote. And vote for the only ticket that will uphold our Freedom. Vote for the Second Amendment. Vote for the McCain-Palin ticket!
In just a few days, on November 4, gun owners will be presented with a very clear choice of a pro-Second Amendment versus an anti-Second Amendment Presidential ticket. John McCain and Sarah Palin versus Barack Obama and Joe Biden represents a stark contrast for the future of our freedom.
In that choice, one fact is foremost:
The next president, by filling inevitable vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court, will determine the continued existence of our Right To Keep and Bear Arms.
The landmark Heller decision by the U.S. Supreme Court--which struck down the D.C. gun ban and its attendant criminalizing of armed self-defense in the home--was decided by a one vote margin, in a 5-4 decision. The court's decision was aided by briefs filed by Congress and states--briefs signed by John McCain and by Palin's state of Alaska.
The next president, by filling inevitable vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court, will determine the continued existence of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden refused to sign in support of the Second Amendment. But for President George W. Bush's two high court nominations, it could easily have gone the other way. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Associate Justice Samuel Alito truly made the difference. Keep in mind that Barack Obama and the man who is now his running mate, U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden, voted against confirming both.
And Biden, one-time chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, was radically opposed and used every trick in the book including the threat of a filibuster to kill the confirmation process.
Gun owners have U.S. Sen. John McCain to thank for quashing Biden's filibuster moves and brokering the Senate agreement that allowed confirmation. If Biden had his way, the Senate could have stalled indefinitely, leaving two vacancies unfilled, and creating a seven-member court dominated by the very justices who opposed the Second Amendment as protection for a broad, individual right.
Biden told the NAACP during his own losing primary bid for the Democratic presidential nomination:
"The next president is likely to name at least one, if not three new Supreme Court justices. We should start this national debate by recognizing the truth--that Roberts and Alito have turned the court upside down . . I guarantee you that will change."
Turning "the court upside down ." As in upholding the Second Amendment.
Biden's pledge came in an important context. With funding from globalist gun-banner George Soros, the NAACP filed the most onerous litigation de-signed by our enemies to drive America's firearm industry into bankruptcy.
That suit, argued before Brooklyn, N.Y., U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, claimed that virtually all elements of the federally regulated and lawful firearm industry were collectively responsible for the totally unrelated illegal acts of armed, violent criminals. The suit ultimately was a loser, but cost consumers millions of dollars in legal fees. It was one of a string of serial, punitive lawsuits brought before lifetime-appointee Weinstein.
And on that score, the last such lawsuit before Weinstein was thrown out by the U.S. Court of Appeals, which ruled the litigation violated the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the NRA-backed 2005 law--a law vehemently opposed by Obama and Biden.
If the Obama and Biden team has its way, the nation will again be flooded with hundreds of such suits creating what one gun-ban lawyer called "death by a thousand cuts." Under an Obama-Biden administration, the lower federal courts would resemble cloned versions of Weinstein's Brooklyn star chamber.
During the remarkable Saddleback forum, Obama attacked the nominations of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, author of the brilliant Heller decision. Counted with his "no" votes against Roberts and Alito, that's an Obama thumbs down for four of the five justices who rendered the Supreme Court's definitive decision upholding the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right and recognizing the right to armed self-defense in the home.
In this last column before we go to the polls I must make an additional point. While we have disagreed in the past with Sen. McCain on a few specific issues, these disagreements pale in comparison to what the future would be like for gun owners if an Obama-Biden regime were to control all organs of federal power and land a one-two punch against freedom.
John McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is an NRA Life member, life-long gun owner, hunter and staunch Second Amendment supporter. She is an electrifying force for preservation and expansion of all the gains we have made in the past decades.
I found it remarkable that in every story announcing her selection she was described as a "lifetime" member of the NRA. She is indeed proud of her Life membership. Suddenly the phony poses of Obama and Biden wrapping themselves around the Second Amendment are stripped to their essence--a semantic trick designed to fool gun owners. You can't let that happen.
Your vote is a remarkable power that you must wield to preserve the Second Amendment. With all of this, there is a simple message. Vote. Get your friends, family and co-workers to vote. And vote for the only ticket that will uphold our Freedom. Vote for the Second Amendment. Vote for the McCain-Palin ticket!
0
-
What are you thinking JP, there are millions of them here illegally and I have personally watched them buy firearms from nice white guys at the Phoenix gun show.quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
Hmm, does lying to justify your gun control position, usually impress your young friends? Jose is here, illegally. That is where your lame analogy ends. What?
Next, have someone read the 2nd amendment to you. Although it is as clear as water, and easily understood by anyone over the age of 9 or 10, get some help deciphering it's cryptic meaning.0 -
quote:Originally posted by steve45
But Highball, Jose's brother speaks perfect english even though he's not a US citizen. If I have no right to check for ID how would I know his brother is a illegal gang member?
You as a private citizen can request his ID if you want. He can comply or refuse. His call.
It is the sellers call if he chooses to sell, or not.
What you keep skipping over, steve, is that government is prohibited from infringing upon the RKBA.
Obviously you do not like this simple fact, therefore, you keep attempting to offer rationalization or justification for perverting Amendment II.
Amend the Constitution if you can get it done. Otherwise, we are back to what it was meant to be.....
That being, free citizens making individual decisions and living with the results or the consequences coupled with punishing 'bad acts' as they may be committed by, you guessed it, individual citizens.
What a concept, huh?0 -
LT you and I have argued this before and I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I have personally watched illegal aliens buy firearms through a bilingual friend of theirs (and probably a US citizen)at the Phoenix gun show several times. They bought these guns from nice white guys who knew exactly who they were selling to. Your idea that people will just 'do right' if there were no firearms laws is beyond logical thought. quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by steve45
But Highball, Jose's brother speaks perfect english even though he's not a US citizen. If I have no right to check for ID how would I know his brother is a illegal gang member?
You as a private citizen can request his ID if you want. He can comply or refuse. His call.
It is the sellers call if he chooses to sell, or not.
What you keep skipping over, steve, is that government is prohibited from infringing upon the RKBA.
Obviously you do not like this simple fact, therefore, you keep attempting to offer rationalization or justification for perverting Amendment II.
Amend the Constitution if you can get it done. Otherwise, we are back to what it was meant to be.....
That being, free citizens making individual decisions and living with the results or the consequences coupled with punishing 'bad acts' as they may be committed by, you guessed it, individual citizens.
What a concept, huh?0 -
quote:Originally posted by steve45
I have personally watched illegal aliens buy firearms through a bilingual friend of theirs (and probably a US citizen)at the Phoenix gun show several times.
With all the gun laws combined, they have failed to stop this practice.
Now MORE gun laws are supposed to, somehow, mysteriously, magically make a difference?
The definition of insanity is.........0 -
quote:Originally posted by steve45
If you arent allowed to ask for ID or anything else (for fear of registration) how would anybody know?quote:Originally posted by Horse Plains Drifter
quote:Originally posted by steve45
Correct me if I'm wrong but your position is when buying a firearm there should be NO ID checks at all. No background no nothing NADA. If Jose speaks broken english who are we to check him out? According to your views we have to sell him a firearm, mortar tube , machine gun or whatever he wants.
If he is an US citizen then yes absoutely. Who are you to trash a citizen's constitution?
By him just being in this country he's a US citizen right? If not then I suggest that the people I pay to patrol the borders get on the stick.0 -
barbarians swarming this country are a failure of the government and the police agencies...NOT ME !!
One of the duties SPECIFIED in the Constitution is to SECURE THE BORDERS.
The UTTER failure to do so simply does not justify FURTHER laws DIRECTED TOWARDS WE THE CITIZENS...ESPECIALLY in an area totally denied the government.
Insistance that the governemnt has the authority to do so indicates a serious mental issue in the individual.0 -
quote:Originally posted by steve45
LT you and I have argued this before and I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I have personally watched illegal aliens buy firearms through a bilingual friend of theirs (and probably a US citizen)at the Phoenix gun show several times. They bought these guns from nice white guys who knew exactly who they were selling to. Your idea that people will just 'do right' if there were no firearms laws is beyond logical thought. quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by steve45
But Highball, Jose's brother speaks perfect english even though he's not a US citizen. If I have no right to check for ID how would I know his brother is a illegal gang member?
You as a private citizen can request his ID if you want. He can comply or refuse. His call.
It is the sellers call if he chooses to sell, or not.
What you keep skipping over, steve, is that government is prohibited from infringing upon the RKBA.
Obviously you do not like this simple fact, therefore, you keep attempting to offer rationalization or justification for perverting Amendment II.
Amend the Constitution if you can get it done. Otherwise, we are back to what it was meant to be.....
That being, free citizens making individual decisions and living with the results or the consequences coupled with punishing 'bad acts' as they may be committed by, you guessed it, individual citizens.
What a concept, huh?
Yes, Steve, I remember discussing issues such as this with you before.
Funny that you state that my position is logical thought being defied.......My thoughts and my positions are rock-solid AND based on our founding principles, our Constitution and the ethic & philosophy of 'Individualism', upon which this nation was founded.
I regularly go to Phoenix gun shows, Steve and I am fully aware of the infestation of illegals that Arizona and other parts of America is plagued with.
As I have seen before, I see that you mis-characterize what I said, so that it fits the picture that you wish to paint.
I did not claim that everyone will 'do right' in the absence of gun laws. I expect that many will do the opposite.
Of course, the part you always skip over, is the individual punishment of individual people who commit individual 'bad-acts'.
I find it mildly amusing that you also use the 'illegal alien/gang-banger' bogeyman to sell your brand of government infringement.
One would think, Steve, that an easily discernible 'skunk in the woodpile' would have presented itself to you. It certainly did to me.
Here we have Amendment II, a fundamental, inviolate, Natural-right, enumerated in the Bill of Rights and part of the Supreme Law of The Land.
Contrasted, we have 'illegal alien invaders', sometimes grouped together in a criminal enterprise.
Yet, rather than hold dear to our Constitution/BOR's, you propose to infringe upon a fundamental Right, guaranteed to every American citizen, rather than to demand that 'illegal alien invaders' be rounded up and deported, along with the requisite closing of the border to illegal immigration and yes, even dramatically reducing 'legal' immigration.
Puzzle it out, Steve......Destroy a fundamental, constitutionally enumerated, Natural-Right -vs- look to and fix the 'actual problem' that YOU bring to the table AND ignore the other dirt-simple precepts of a free society that I once again point out.
I'll take what is behind 'Door # 1', Monty, that being, the Constitution and its limitations on government.
That is the only 'Let's Make a Deal' that is going to be made, with me.
Collectivism -vs- Individualism, Steve; the true battleground for freedom, sovereignty and individual liberty.
Collectivism inevitably leads to totalitarianism, Steve.
You are supporting collectivism.
It is as simple as that.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by steve45
I have personally watched illegal aliens buy firearms through a bilingual friend of theirs (and probably a US citizen)at the Phoenix gun show several times.
With all the gun laws combined, they have failed to stop this practice.
Now MORE gun laws are supposed to, somehow, mysteriously, magically make a difference?
The definition of insanity is.........
And with a crack of the bat that one is outta here. First homerun of spring training. (looking forward to local HS baseball season, gotta get a head start on baseball analogies)0 -
So Rex, you find what you needed to know. Jump in, what is your opinion. BTW, welcome to GB. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by IdahoRedneck
I came here......A staunch supporter of the NRA
So did I IdahoRedneck.....so did I.
I had been supporting/promoting them for YEARS.
Then I was challenged by someone to "do some research" for myself.
The end result is what has been posted in those threads.
I REALLY DO WISH my research would have had a different outcome.
If they are our "best bet" we are in SAD SHAPE.
Just because they are the big dogs, does NOT mean they are the right ones.
People/members are waking up.
yep that was me too. I have opened my eyes, and refuse to close them again.0 -
I came here knowing everything there is to know, fully confident in my beliefs, and fully aware that any who believe differently were fully of crap.
All this is still true, though many of my positions are significantly different.[:)]0 -
Thank you all for the comments. I have always hated that NRA seems to never be satisfied with my membership fee and seemed to be in constant need for more money. I can only imagine that some people send money to the NRA money that the poeple cannot afford to give, but really believe in them. That irks me.
Having said all that. I will take this more serious and get more informed. I can also say this: there are risks involed in being free. Things like being able to drive in the mountains of Colorado and enjoy the view where you could drive off a road and fall 3000 or more feet can be a dangerous. Gun control is another place. The second amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms. That means some stupid people will get them. That doesnt mean we shouldnt have guns or that we shouldnt be able to drive in Colorado. We cannot allow ourselves to become too protected by the government.
We need a voice that really will stand for us in Washington. If its not the NRA, then who? Can we do something to get the NRA on track where it is off? Is there a place where I can see a list of wrong things the NRA has done and the good?0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by IdahoRedneck
I came here......A staunch supporter of the NRA
So did I IdahoRedneck.....so did I.
I had been supporting/promoting them for YEARS.
Then I was challenged by someone to "do some research" for myself.
The end result is what has been posted in those threads.
I REALLY DO WISH my research would have had a different outcome.
If they are our "best bet" we are in SAD SHAPE.
Just because they are the big dogs, does NOT mean they are the right ones.
People/members are waking up.
As did I pick...and you probably remember that thread...0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rex Mahan
Thank you all for the comments. I have always hated that NRA seems to never be satisfied with my membership fee and seemed to be in constant need for more money. I can only imagine that some people send money to the NRA money that the poeple cannot afford to give, but really believe in them. That irks me.
Having said all that. I will take this more serious and get more informed. I can also say this: there are risks involed in being free. Things like being able to drive in the mountains of Colorado and enjoy the view where you could drive off a road and fall 3000 or more feet can be a dangerous. Gun control is another place. The second amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms. That means some stupid people will get them. That doesnt mean we shouldnt have guns or that we shouldnt be able to drive in Colorado. We cannot allow ourselves to become too protected by the government.
We need a voice that really will stand for us in Washington. If its not the NRA, then who? Can we do something to get the NRA on track where it is off? Is there a place where I can see a list of wrong things the NRA has done and the good?
If you seek alternative organizations to support, try:
JFPO.org
GOA
the Second Amendment foundation
To name three.0 -
Belonged and paid dues for years. Had a minor problem with one of thier agents calling constantly regarding overdue dues...
Oh my God. The NRA has some strange practices.
Unless you are a gun manufacturer the NRA could care less about you.0 -
quote:Originally posted by steve45
I have personally watched illegal aliens buy firearms through a bilingual friend of theirs (and probably a US citizen)at the Phoenix gun show several times. They bought these guns from nice white guys who knew exactly who they were selling to. Your idea that people will just 'do right' if there were no firearms laws is beyond logical thought.
Holding to your belief in gun control, did you do more than just watch your favorite laws being broken? Do anything to stop it any of the several times you witnessed it?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rex Mahan
Thank you all for the comments. I have always hated that NRA seems to never be satisfied with my membership fee and seemed to be in constant need for more money. I can only imagine that some people send money to the NRA money that the poeple cannot afford to give, but really believe in them. That irks me.
Having said all that. I will take this more serious and get more informed. I can also say this: there are risks involed in being free. Things like being able to drive in the mountains of Colorado and enjoy the view where you could drive off a road and fall 3000 or more feet can be a dangerous. Gun control is another place. The second amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms. That means some stupid people will get them. That doesnt mean we shouldnt have guns or that we shouldnt be able to drive in Colorado. We cannot allow ourselves to become too protected by the government.
We need a voice that really will stand for us in Washington. If its not the NRA, then who? Can we do something to get the NRA on track where it is off? Is there a place where I can see a list of wrong things the NRA has done and the good?
Rex, check out this web site. www.nrawol.net
As said above -
Gun Owners of America
Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership
Second Amendment Foundation
Also check for Texas Gun Owners, we have Rocky Mtn Gun Owners here in Colorado.0 -
If you're runnin with tha rest o-tha-herd, mor'nlikely your headed fer tha slaughterhouse. 0 -
we need all the 2nd amend organizations, all of them 0 -
I have been doing research on the differences between a federal government versus a national government. The Constitution and the Founding Fathers created a federal system. Under this system, the states delegated (not transferred)certain specific powers (Article 1, Section 8)to the federal government and reserved all others to themselves (10th Amendment). In addition, in order to win ratification, the drafters spelled out what they meant by the word "regulate" in relation to commerce (not what Congress says today) and also that the enumeration of powers in Article 1, section 8 IS THE definition of "general welfare." In short, unless a power is specified to the feds, it belongs to the states. As a general rule, any action taken by the feds that involves states, is illegal because it violates the federal nature of the Constitution. Now here is where I get "radical." It would seem to me that the authority to "regulate" firearms does not belong to the feds (keeping in mind their oft misuse of the commerce clause)but only to a given state. Therefore, the ATF and all federal firearms laws, license requirements, etc. would be illegal. Just my take on this. 0 -
Notpars ;
EXCELLENT summation !!
From this vantage point.hard-won...you will look about you and find that the federal government is a usurper government.
They jacked up the REAL government..."we the people". and replaced us with a criminal enterprise.
Back about the late 1860's, I believe...0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Rex ;
if compromise,gun control,fear, and government control is your bag...you will find yourself in the company of the NRA, the TRfoxes, and the selectfires of the world.
We that value personal responsibility, freedom, and limited government will look upon you as a foreign agent, however.
Back in 1994, when it became obvious to EVERYONE that Bill Clinton's so called assault weapons ban could not be stopped, gun rights supporters COMPROMISED by having the "sunset clause" inserted into the bill. Now to some who have no understanding of politics, or of how things work in the real work when you do not have total power, that looks like a compromise. Actually it was a last ditch effort on the part of gun right supporters. And it worked.
10 years later, when that "sunset clause" time limit was reach, THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON WE DO NOT STILL HAVE IT ON THE BOOKS! Because it expired automatically! Even if we had it to do over again, if it was obvious that the AWB could not be stopped regardless of what we did, I would still SUPPORT THAT COMPROMISE.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Back in 1994, when it became obvious to EVERYONE that Bill Clinton's so called assault weapons ban could not be stopped, gun rights supporters COMPROMISED by having the "sunset clause" inserted into the bill.
tr fox,
WRONG AGAIN.......as usual. [V]
It was the backers of the bill
(you know, the ones trying to get the bill PASSED)
that inserted the sunset clause.
Because without the sunset clause,
THE BILL DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SUPPORT TO PASS.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
53 comments