Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: NRA is restless despite its political clout.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    why?
    Posts
    432

    NRA is restless despite its political clout.

    Last edited by scott58dh; 06-30-2014 at 11:02 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by scott58dh View Post
    NRA members are so worried about President Obama that they are rooting for Mitt Romney, who once supported stiff gun restrictions.
    I've not seen anything, other than his own empty words, to indicate that his views have changed.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Rules violation

    I don't vote for democrats or republicans .. they are too far left for me...
    Last edited by John Pierce; 05-21-2012 at 11:01 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137
    Obama, if reelected, will be an instant lame duck and will have a difficult time passing controversial legislation, even among his own party members that will be concerned about political suicide for following this lame duck.. But, the real problem will be obama's supreme court nominees. We are one vote away from having the same supreme court that gave us Heller and McDonald strike down both decisions with one vote, and one swipe of the pen. I believe that Americans would backlash to the point of physical civil unrest if such an overturning should take place. Nonetheless, Obama's supreme court of judicial activists will continue to destroy this country long after this deceptive, arrogant, and incompentant president is out of office. Will Romney's choices for supreme court nominees be any better? That is a question that will debated until such time Romney shows his cards regarding such nominees.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by c45man View Post
    I believe that Americans would backlash to the point of physical civil unrest if such an overturning should take place.
    I'm not sure that would be a bad thing...
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    I do not share in your confidence regarding the American public. The vast majority of our fellow 2A supporters are FUDDS. Those that carry would likely have little influence.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Regular Member NoTolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    297
    http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt...un_Control.htm

    Like most politicians, his support seems to go wherever he needs support from at the time.

    His official stance for the 2012 election:

    http://www.mittromney.com/issues/gun-rights

    As the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed, the Second Amendment protects one of the American people’s most basic and fundamental individual rights: “the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” The Second Amendment is essential to the functioning of our free society. Mitt strongly supports the right of all law-abiding Americans to exercise their constitutionally protected right to own firearms and to use them for lawful purposes, including hunting, recreational shooting, self-defense, and the protection of family and property.

    Like the majority of Americans, Mitt does not believe that the United States needs additional laws that restrict the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. He believes in the safe and responsible ownership and use of firearms and the right to lawfully manufacture and sell firearms and ammunition. He also recognizes the extraordinary number of jobs and other economic benefits that are produced by hunting, recreational shooting, and the firearms and ammunition industry, not the least of which is to fund wildlife and habitat conservation.

    Mitt will enforce the laws already on the books and punish, to the fullest extent of the law, criminals who misuse firearms to commit crimes. But he does not support adding more laws and regulations that do nothing more than burden law-abiding citizens while being ignored by criminals. Mitt will also provide law enforcement with the proper and effective resources they need to deter, apprehend, and punish criminals.

    As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt was proud to support legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners. He worked hard to advance the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase and own firearms, while opposing liberal desires to create bureaucracy intended to burden gun owners and sportsmen. As governor, he also designated May 7th as “The Right to Bear Arms Day” in Massachusetts to honor law-abiding citizens and their right to “use firearms in defense of their families, persons, and property for all lawful purposes, including common defense.”

    As president, Mitt will work to expand and enhance access and opportunities for Americans to hunt, shoot, and protect their families, homes and property, and he will fight the battle on all fronts to protect and promote the Second Amendment.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I do not share in your confidence regarding the American public. The vast majority of our fellow 2A supporters are FUDDS. Those that carry would likely have little influence.

    The vast majority here are not 2A supporters, they are "Right To Keep And Bear Arms" supporters. You yourself have said you ignore the concept of the first part of the 2nd Amendment and feel it would have been better if the Founders had left that part of it out. Wouldn't supporting only part of the 2A fall into the classification of FUDD?

    You would get rid of half the 2A, Antis would get rid of all the 2A. That would mean, you and the Antis agree 50% of the time.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  9. #9
    Regular Member DangerClose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The mean streets of WI
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    The vast majority here are not 2A supporters, they are "Right To Keep And Bear Arms" supporters. You yourself have said you ignore the concept of the first part of the 2nd Amendment and feel it would have been better if the Founders had left that part of it out. Wouldn't supporting only part of the 2A fall into the classification of FUDD?

    You would get rid of half the 2A, Antis would get rid of all the 2A. That would mean, you and the Antis agree 50% of the time.
    Does that mean the Supreme Court are FUDDs since they "ignored" the first part of the 2A too?

    Everyone is in the militia. My state even has that in its constitution.

    As for the NRA and Romney, if the NRA had a pair, they'd have endorsed the most pro-gun candidate from the start: RON PAUL. ...if I write what I really want to write about that, a mod will just delete it anyway.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by DangerClose View Post
    Does that mean the Supreme Court are FUDDs since they "ignored" the first part of the 2A too?

    Everyone is in the militia. My state even has that in its constitution.

    As for the NRA and Romney, if the NRA had a pair, they'd have endorsed the most pro-gun candidate from the start: RON PAUL. ...if I write what I really want to write about that, a mod will just delete it anyway.

    I can't say that the Supreme Court ignored the first part of the 2A, since the scope of the cases before them didn't cover that section. They could not have ruled on that part of the 2A in Heller or McDonald anymore than they could have ruled on the right to carry a firearm concealed. In both cases the only aspect of the 2nd Amendment up for determination was the "Right To Keep And Bear Arms". One centered on Federal enclaves(Heller) and one centered on States(McDonald). They didn't even open the scope of their decision to affirm areas outside of the home, so yes I would say that is Fuddish.


    My remarks were more to the fact that there are plenty of people here, who will beat their chest and shout their support of the 2nd Amendment. They vow to support and defend it and put down any who they feel threaten it. When, however, it is pointed out that on this very forum, discussion of the full text and meaning of the 2nd Amendment(in a sub forum specifically designated for topics that are somewhat off-topic to OC) is prohibited they suddenly lose their passion and fall silent. That is why I said the vast majority here don't support the 2nd Amendment, they support the Right To Keep And Bear Arms.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    The vast majority here are not 2A supporters, they are "Right To Keep And Bear Arms" supporters. You yourself have said you ignore the concept of the first part of the 2nd Amendment and feel it would have been better if the Founders had left that part of it out. Wouldn't supporting only part of the 2A fall into the classification of FUDD?

    You would get rid of half the 2A, Antis would get rid of all the 2A. That would mean, you and the Antis agree 50% of the time.
    Your attempts to paint me as a anti and a FUDD is noted.

    Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. 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.
    This is what I stated.
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    <snip> As to the 2A, it would be better, from as a academic discussion point, if the Founders had not included the word militia. I ignore that concept because their intent, as described in their various writings on the subject are clearly in the realm of a individual citizen's right, not a collective right. <snip>
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    <snip> That subject is boring and, in Missouri anyway, already codified into law.

    A citizen refusing to 'aid the civil power' when lawfully called can face criminal penalties.

    Discussions regarding 'A well regulated Militia' will neither promote nor hinder our efforts to restore our individual right to keep and bear arms as the Founder's originally intended.
    NRA Deception or oversight?
    I can not be any more clear on this subject.

    Discussions regarding 'unregulated militias' are obviously not tolerated.

    Discussions regarding 'A well regulated Militia' seem to be tolerated.

    In Missouri, discussions of 'A well regulated Militia' contributes nothing towards our efforts for the individual citizen to regain his unfettered right to keep and bear arms.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Your attempts to paint me as a anti and a FUDD is noted.
    Would that be with the same brush you painted "the vast majority of our fellow 2A supporters" with?


    This is what I stated.
    I can not be any more clear on this subject.

    Discussions regarding 'unregulated militias' are obviously not tolerated.

    Discussions regarding 'A well regulated Militia' seem to be tolerated.

    In Missouri, discussions of 'A well regulated Militia' contributes nothing towards our efforts for the individual citizen to regain his unfettered right to keep and bear arms.

    Strange you wish to use the historical writings of the Founders, but wish to use a more modern definition of "regulated". This article might help to put the term "regulated" in a proper historical view.


    http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html


    I can't say what is or isn't tolerated, since, with the exception of a few general points, I have seen no actual discussion on the topic. I can only go by the Administrator's edict that militia issues are not to be addressed here. Your points are unlikely to draw any rebuke from the powers that be, in light of your defense of the Administrator's decry. I am not certain others would be as lucky, if they were to explore the subject more deeply.

    I will again say, however, I hope that someday the Administrator will allow full and open discussion of the 2nd Amendment.
    Last edited by SavageOne; 05-11-2012 at 08:42 AM.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by scott58dh View Post
    NRA members are so worried about President Obama that they are rooting for Mitt Romney, who once supported stiff gun restrictions.
    Are you saying you'd rather they support Obama, whose czars are mostly, and most vehemently, anti-gun?
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •