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
-
Im reading some posts and seeing that some are not happy with the NRA. Can someone summarize or show me a previous post that explains some of this.
Thanks0 -
Screw the NRA - I'm voting for Ron Paul. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by 2 tall
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.
.....
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.
Bunch of dumb ass clowns. Again, the NRA go with the "democrats will put gun grabbers on the courts" whine.
Is the NRA so shortsighted that they do not remember going to the Supreme court, to challenge John McPains "campaign finance reform"? Dont they remember slamming McPain for sponsoring a bill that put a muzzle on the NRA-restricting their speech rights during elections? Did they fail to notice what judges opined in favor of McPaigns anti first amendment legislation, and which judges dissented? The "radical" judges, those judges that the NRA opposes, all voted in favor of McPains anti first amendment legislation. The so called "pro gun" judges, that the NRA approve of, voted in dissent. McPains crowning achievement(in his mind), is his campaign finance reform. Is he going to nominate judges, "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas", who will shoot down his unconstitutional law, or is he going to nominate judges in the mold of Breyer Ginsburg, etc, who will uphold his unconstitutional monstrosity? It dont take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
The whole nomination issue is off the table-no matter who is president, you can count on radical judges. John has too much at stake to allow judges on the bench who would view his anti first amendment agenda as unconstitutional.0 -
quote:Originally posted by salzo
Bunch of dumb ass clowns. Again, the NRA go with the "democrats will put gun grabbers on the courts" whine.
Is the NRA so shortsighted that they do not remember going to the Supreme court, to challenge John McPains "campaign finance reform"? Dont they remember slamming McPain for sponsoring a bill that put a muzzle on the NRA-restricting their speech rights during elections? Did they fail to notice what judges opined in favor of McPaigns anti first amendment legislation, and which judges dissented? The "radical" judges, those judges that the NRA opposes, all voted in favor of McPains anti first amendment legislation. The so called "pro gun" judges, that the NRA approve of, voted in dissent. McPains crowning achievement(in his mind), is his campaign finance reform. Is he going to nominate judges, "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas", who will shoot down his unconstitutional law, or is he going to nominate judges in the mold of Breyer Ginsburg, etc, who will uphold his unconstitutional monstrosity? It dont take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
The whole nomination issue is off the table-no matter who is president, you can count on radical judges. John has too much at stake to allow judges on the bench who would view his anti first amendment agenda as unconstitutional.
NRAMBLA, gotta love em. John 'close the Gun-show Loophole' McCain is a lover of 2nd Amendment Rights. I would think, salzo, that McCain will appoint justices in the mold of Kennedy. Kennedy is, after all, similar to McCain in that there are time you just don't know, and both need your weatherman to see which way they should lean.0 -
Don- I could see that. Kennedy doesnt really have a philosophy-he bases his opinions on a roll of the dice, which is the absolute best the NRA can hope for. Put a few Kennedys (whatever that is) on the court, and hopefully when they role the dice on a second amendment case, the dice will fall in the second amendments favor. CRAPS!! 0 -
NRA. Pathetic bureaucratic joke perpetuating gun control to perpetuate themselves. Their greed will come back to bite them in the keester. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
NRA. Pathetic bureaucratic joke perpetuating gun control to perpetuate themselves. Their greed will come back to bite them in the keester.
If it were not for the NRA we would not have any gun rights.0 -
I became a NRA life member at 14 then a Patron member in my 30's. The NRA has become the "REPUBLICAN GUN DIGEST", it makes me sick.
I don't care what they say, I ain't voting for McCain. The republicans have screwed me silly on too many issues for too many years. GWB destroyed any remaining confidence I had in the republicans by leaving our borders wide open and telling me he was concerned about our safety.
The only thing the NRA and the Republican party care about is money and power, right or wrong free or enslaved never enters the picture.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jyjhnsn
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
NRA. Pathetic bureaucratic joke perpetuating gun control to perpetuate themselves. Their greed will come back to bite them in the keester.
If it were not for the NRA we would not have any gun rights.
OMG! You are ......just OMG!0 -
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
I became a NRA life member at 14 then a Patron member in my 30's. The NRA has become the "REPUBLICAN GUN DIGEST", it makes me sick.
I don't care what they say, I ain't voting for McCain. The republicans have screwed me silly on too many issues for too many years. GWB destroyed any remaining confidence I had in the republicans by leaving our borders wide open and telling me he was concerned about our safety.
The only thing the NRA and the Republican party care about is money and power, right or wrong free or enslaved never enters the picture.
The NRA has one goal and that is preserving our gun rights. They promote candidates that have the best record in terms of our gun rights. So of course they promote mostly Republicans.0 -
If it were not for the NRA we would not have any gun rights.
Bullschit. There is but one reason, and one reason only, that we still have the right to keep and bear arms. You wanna know what it is?
It's sitting in your safe, strapped to your side, in the nightstand drawer, or hanging in a rack in your vehicle. The mere fact that there are 80+ million gun owners is the only reason we have the RTKBA.
The NRA, the 'last line of defense for the RTKBA' (cringe)[:(!], has done nothing but undermine the RTKBA. They have supported all or part of every major piece of legislation; NFA34, GCA68, HR2640, and the list goes on.
Still think the NRA is the reason we have the RTKBA? Well, answer me this; Why has the NRA endorsed a candidate for POTUS in this election that does not believe in the RTKBA?0 -
The NRA has one goal and that is preserving our gun rightsmoney, money, and money. They promote candidates that have the best record in terms of a high probability and/or a past record of voting against our gun rights, just as they have done this year. So of course they promote mostly Republicans, but 'Republican' doesn't necessarily mean pro-RTKBA.
Fixed it. Won't cost you a thing.[;)][:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by jyjhnsn
If it were not for the NRA we would not have any gun rights.
Actually, that right is pretty clearly stated in the Bill of Rights. Americans today have forgotten where our rights come from and confuse your run-of-the-mill money grubbing PAC's for some sort last ditch defense.0 -
Bingo, Sardo!
quote:Originally posted by 2 tall
Standing Guard(The NRA? Hahahahahahahahahaha! Please! Ludicrous!): 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.
BS! I will determine the continued the continued existence of my right to keep and bear arms. I have yet to read in any text where the founders had the NRA there stabbing them in the back. They handled it themselves!
If you think the NRA is standing guard for you, you have done ZERO research on them. The only thing they guard is Wayne LaPierre's big fat bank account.[:(!]0 -
quote:If it were not for the NRA we would not have any gun rights.
Spoken like a New American;
You know...like those that voted in this last election for Marxism OR Socialism...obamacain.
Spoken like the emasculated, feminized, cowardly eunuchs the `men' in this country have become.
Not one sign of backbone...nor the concept of doing ones' duty as an American.
Defend AMERICA against enemies, foreign and domestic.
A gun controller IS THE ENEMY OF EVERYTHING AN AMERICAN OUGHT TO HOLD DEAR.
Plain and simple.
Those that advocate gun control are unfit to hold office;
They are unfit for polite company;
They are unfit to carry the title of `American';
They ought to be `untouchables'...NOBODY ought to sell, give, interact, or converse with them.
These actions need not be law...just the sensible actions taken by decent people sending a silent MESSAGE....BE AN AMERICAN..or be treated as the garbage you are.
They ought to banned from walking down the same street as decent people ..forced to step into the gutter as decent people walk by.
They deserve these measures because they are aiding and abetting in the death of this country.
They are traitors to America.0 -
NO MORE $$$ TO THE NRA. 0 -
The NRA no longer indentifies with the average gun owner.
By using scare tactics and partly true information, they manipulate and spread lies. Their propaganda insults me.
I think it hilarious how bad they say Obama is and then make McSame look like a savior for gun rights. Truth is, McSame is somewhat of a socialist himself thanks to his bailout and ties to Bush.
I voted for McSame, just because I trust his experience, not how he will make America better and more free.
I lost faith in the NRA over the 2007 scandal involving Texas Ranger
Joaquin Jackson who was a NRA board member. He is a true American,
and a fellow Texan with an exemplary record of law enforcement.
He said that he enlisted armed citizens during his career and was very appreciative of them when he had no backup. Anyway, people left the NRA by the droves because he said HUNTERS really dont need more than 5 rounds and that assault rifles were for the military. He never said he wanted to ban hi caps or prohibit ownership, just that he didnt think you needed them. I agree, I dont need that many rounds, but I wouldnt ban them either. That told me what the NRA is made of. When a true American makes a statement of common sense and half the NRA goes nuts, I lose total respect for them. If he had said that 50 years ago people would have said he was exactly right.
Now, he is a gun banner. In his service as a Ranger, he did carry fully auto weapons, but his main guns were the Winchester 94 30-30 and a 1911. Civilians would be excellently armed with that. Why now does everybody have to have and support the use of an AR15 to be a TRUE gun owner? If that is what the NRA has come to, then I will never join. My dad was a member- he left because of how they treated Jackson.
Why have we come to the point where we think an organization can save our rights? Ladies and Gentleman, your rights are preserved by your right to vote. If you lose your rights, you had your chance.
Vote and vote often as they say.
DOES THIS LOOK LIKE A GUN BANNER? - THE NRA THINKS SO -WHAT HAVE THEY COME TO?0 -
quote:Originally posted by breakerdan
Why now does everybody have to have and support the use of an AR15 to be a TRUE gun owner?
Valid question. You do not.
I believe that if you really love your country and you are able bodied, you should own and know how to use a firearm that puts you at least on par with the local law enforcement. Not so you can kill cops but so you have a check and balance against the use of those resources by a government gone awry. The 2nd amendment is not their so you can shoot clays, go hunting or play IPSC. It is there so we the people have recourse (albeit last resort) against the potential tyranny of our own government. Our founding fathers were quite brilliant when they divised a plan for governance based on the exchange of ideas and compromise through a ballot. They were smart enough to make sure that it was able to be backed up with force if need be. That is why I might take umbrage at the statement you attributed to this Ranger fellow.0 -
I believe that if you really love your country and you are able bodied, you should own and know how to use a firearm that puts you at least on par with the local law enforcement. Not so you can kill cops but so you have a check and balance against the use of those resources by a government gone awry. The 2nd amendment is not their so you can shoot clays, go hunting or play IPSC. It is there so we the people have recourse (albeit last resort) against the potential tyranny of our own government. Our founding fathers were quite brilliant when they divised a plan for governance based on the exchange of ideas and compromise through a ballot. They were smart enough to make sure that it was able to be backed up with force if need be. That is why I might take umbrage at the statement you attributed to this Ranger fellow.
Excellent point in the opening two sentences of the paragraph. As for the remainder, especially for those 'confused' about the Founder's intent, this post clearly explains what the second article to the Bill of Rights is about, and why it is in place.0 -
quote:Originally posted by breakerdan
The NRA no longer indentifies with the average gun owner.
By using scare tactics and partly true information, they manipulate and spread lies. Their propaganda insults me.
I think it hilarious how bad they say Obama is and then make McSame look like a savior for gun rights. Truth is, McSame is somewhat of a socialist himself thanks to his bailout and ties to Bush.
I voted for McSame, just because I trust his experience, not how he will make America better and more free.
I lost faith in the NRA over the 2007 scandal involving Texas Ranger
Joaquin Jackson who was a NRA board member. He is a true American,
and a fellow Texan with an exemplary record of law enforcement.
He said that he enlisted armed citizens during his career and was very appreciative of them when he had no backup. Anyway, people left the NRA by the droves because he said HUNTERS really dont need more than 5 rounds and that assault rifles were for the military. He never said he wanted to ban hi caps or prohibit ownership, just that he didnt think you needed them. I agree, I dont need that many rounds, but I wouldnt ban them either. That told me what the NRA is made of. When a true American makes a statement of common sense and half the NRA goes nuts, I lose total respect for them. If he had said that 50 years ago people would have said he was exactly right.
Now, he is a gun banner. In his service as a Ranger, he did carry fully auto weapons, but his main guns were the Winchester 94 30-30 and a 1911. Civilians would be excellently armed with that. Why now does everybody have to have and support the use of an AR15 to be a TRUE gun owner? If that is what the NRA has come to, then I will never join. My dad was a member- he left because of how they treated Jackson.
Why have we come to the point where we think an organization can save our rights? Ladies and Gentleman, your rights are preserved by your right to vote. If you lose your rights, you had your chance.
Vote and vote often as they say.
DOES THIS LOOK LIKE A GUN BANNER? - THE NRA THINKS SO -WHAT HAVE THEY COME TO?
In red above. I believe the gun owning world has mostly gone crazy. Many gun owners, gun owners right here on GB.com, refuse to support to the NRA because, according to them, the NRA does not support the right of citizens to own AR-15'a. Yet you are tellling me that you and others do not support the NRA because too many NRA members DO support the right of citizens to own AR-15'ss..
Man, if I ran the NRA I would just plain give it up. Too much crazy thinking when dealing with some gun owners.0 -
No confusion exists;
Except in the muddled brains of the dumbed down populace of this once great country.
Take the post from breakerdan above.
He is obviously one of yours Tr..just one tiny step further left.
The Second Amendment is PRECISLY about M-16s..and the need to own them by the general public, free of government interference.
All the Kings Men cannot change that.
All the weak-kneed, all the cowards, all the Quislings, all the compromisers CANNOT graft enough words on those few words that comprise the Second Amendment to change the meaning of it.
You see..from my prospective, You, Tr, are merely breakerdan LIGHT ..and neither of you understand the REASON for the Second Amendment.0 -
I swear this post could be a C&P from 5 years ago.
I predict in the next 18-months the NRA will broker a new Assault Weapons Ban with the Leftist Congress that we must now endure. The NRA will say it is the "best deal they could make" and will encourage all of their members to support it.
Except this time there will be no sunset, the AWB will be permanent. And Wayne LaPierre will serve it to America like a steaming turd on a silver platter.
-WoundedWolf0 -
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
I swear this post could be a C&P from 5 years ago.
I predict in the next 18-months the NRA will broker a new Assault Weapons Ban with the Leftist Congress that we must now endure. The NRA will say it is the "best deal they could make" and will encourage all of their members to support it.
Except this time there will be no sunset, the AWB will be permanent. And Wayne LaPierre will serve it to America like a steaming turd on a silver platter.
-WoundedWolf
WW -
I agree with your post, only I think it will be sooner than 18 months0 -
I give it no later than June. He'll want to do it early so by the time re-election approaches, the sheeple will have forgotten (just like clinton did - that !@#$ won re-election after the first AWB). 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
No confusion exists;
Except in the muddled brains of the dumbed down populace of this once great country.
Take the post from breakerdan above.
He is obviously one of yours Tr..just one tiny step further left.
The Second Amendment is PRECISLY about M-16s..and the need to own them by the general public, free of government interference.
All the Kings Men cannot change that.
All the weak-kneed, all the cowards, all the Quislings, all the compromisers CANNOT graft enough words on those few words that comprise the Second Amendment to change the meaning of it.
You see..from my prospective, You, Tr, are merely breakerdan LIGHT ..and neither of you understand the REASON for the Second Amendment.
I DO NOT SUPPORT A BAN OF ASSAULT WEAPONS NOR DOES THE RANGER I WAS DEFENDING!!!!!!! I DONT LIKE THEM OR NEED THEM- FOR WHAT I DO WITH A GUN THEY ARE USELESS, BUT I DO NOT SUPPORT A BAN. HE DOESNT THINK YOU NEED MORE THAN 5 ROUNDS, NEITHER DO I, BUT I WOULDNT BAN HI CAP CLIPS.
I hear crap that I am not a true gun rights advocate because of the above. I carry and use guns on a daily basis, they are an integral part of who I am. I just have no use for assualt rifles.
Just because I dont like these guns I am suddenly dumbed down too.
I have argued many times on blogs supporting Jackson. The older crowd, at least were I am from (ranching area in TX) have no use for assualt rifles and would look at you like you were nuts for using one. They simply have no use for them. AND THEY ALL LOVE GUNS- ONE IN EVERY TRUCK maybe more.0 -
I really don't give a damn about your personal 'feelings' about hi-caps, assault weapons, or the color of your eyes.
The problem remains, however...when a high-profile figure proclaims that those items are' useless, don't need, ect' ..they indicate that they are totally IGNORANT of the REASON for the Second Amendment !!
I never owned a black high capacity battle rifle IN MY LIFE ..preferring single shot rifles...until the day the government said that they intended restricting them.
On that day..I decided by GOD it was time to do my duty as a concerned American CITIZEN...and I fulfilled part of the mission as outlined by the Founders.
I am sorry you and the Ranger are unable to look beyond you personal prejudice to do what is right.0 -
quote:Originally posted by breakerdan
quote:Originally posted by Highball
No confusion exists;
Except in the muddled brains of the dumbed down populace of this once great country.
Take the post from breakerdan above.
He is obviously one of yours Tr..just one tiny step further left.
The Second Amendment is PRECISLY about M-16s..and the need to own them by the general public, free of government interference.
All the Kings Men cannot change that.
All the weak-kneed, all the cowards, all the Quislings, all the compromisers CANNOT graft enough words on those few words that comprise the Second Amendment to change the meaning of it.
You see..from my prospective, You, Tr, are merely breakerdan LIGHT ..and neither of you understand the REASON for the Second Amendment.
I DO NOT SUPPORT A BAN OF ASSAULT WEAPONS NOR DOES THE RANGER I WAS DEFENDING!!!!!!! I DONT LIKE THEM OR NEED THEM- FOR WHAT I DO WITH A GUN THEY ARE USELESS, BUT I DO NOT SUPPORT A BAN. HE DOESNT THINK YOU NEED MORE THAN 5 ROUNDS, NEITHER DO I, BUT I WOULDNT BAN HI CAP CLIPS.
I hear crap that I am not a true gun rights advocate because of the above. I carry and use guns on a daily basis, they are an integral part of who I am. I just have no use for assualt rifles.
Just because I dont like these guns I am suddenly dumbed down too.
I have argued many times on blogs supporting Jackson. The older crowd, at least were I am from (ranching area in TX) have no use for assualt rifles and would look at you like you were nuts for using one. They simply have no use for them. AND THEY ALL LOVE GUNS- ONE IN EVERY TRUCK maybe more.
Wonderful, but do you and they, support the unrestricted right of other to keep and bear those type arms, regardless of whether them/you "like" them, or have "use" for them, or not?0 -
[/quote]
Wonderful, but do you and they, support the unrestricted right of other to keep and bear those type arms, regardless of whether them/you "like" them, or have "use" for them, or not?
[/quote]
I do support the unrestricted right of lawful citizen to own Assault rifles. As I said, I dont like em and dont need em, but I would not ban or restrict them. Last I checked, the second amendment did not specify that an assault rifle was any different than a 2 shot derringer. As firearms, I believe in the ownership and use of them.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
I really don't give a damn about your personal 'feelings' about hi-caps, assault weapons, or the color of your eyes.
The problem remains, however...when a high-profile figure proclaims that those items are' useless, don't need, ect' ..they indicate that they are totally IGNORANT of the REASON for the Second Amendment !!
I never owned a black high capacity battle rifle IN MY LIFE ..preferring single shot rifles...until the day the government said that they intended restricting them.
On that day..I decided by GOD it was time to do my duty as a concerned American CITIZEN...and I fulfilled part of the mission as outlined by the Founders.
I am sorry you and the Ranger are unable to look beyond you personal prejudice to do what is right.
Got the dont give a damn part, but how am I not doing what is right?
"Feelings" aside, I have already stated that it is your right to own assault rifles and I would not ban or restrict them if in a political office. I understand the reason for the second amendment: PREVENT TYRANNY! I just dont understand how I am wrong when we agree on your right to own assault rifles. I obviously can look beyond my prejudice-read above very carefully.0 -
While bolt guns play a very important role were war to come to this land... assault weapons will be necessary to win such a war.
Like it or not ..I believe that to be fact. So too does the government ..witness their unending attacks on them, and their ever more restrictions on silencers/full autos/semi autos.
I do NOT believe in giving comfort to the enemy...and I regard gun controllers as domestic enemies.
Therefore ..I own a black gun or two. I believe strongly in poking a stick in the eye of my enemy, if it is possible to do so without all-out war...and legally owning black weapons DOES so.
The day all-out war begins...those evil black weapons will carry the day...IF enough decent citizens own them and are prepared to use them.
I have no problem at all with your stand concerning black weapons; I share, believe it or not, much of your repugnance with the genre.
That being said ..I would personally prefer that one that feels that way remain silent ..so as not to give the enemy a club with which to beat we gun owners with.
As a gun owner ..your opinion in the matter is powerful to the unwashed masses that have been taught to despise weapons of ANY stripe ..and black weapons especially.
Now;
I apologize for the rabid dog attack.
That is my job today...to rapidly separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to gun Rights. I no longer have the time or the patience to be polite in the matter.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
49 comments