Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Nation Association for Gun Rights Report on the 2012 Candidates

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Nation Association for Gun Rights Report on the 2012 Candidates

    Link.

    It's important we all know exactly where our candidates stand on the Second Amendment.

    You might be surprised:

    Stonewallers:
    Mitt Romney - refused to respond. As governor of MA, he signed a bill that banned an entire class of firearms.
    Newt Gingrich - has a long history of supporting gun control. Openly championed the Lautenberg Gun Ban when it first passed.

    Anti-gun:
    Barak Obama - wants to ban the private sales of all firearms between American citizens; ban certain hunting and self defense ammo that meets arbitrary conditions; ban standard magazines that hold more than 10 rounds; ban semi-auto rifles and ALL handguns; implement the UN Small Arms Treaty, giving them the power to GUT our Second Amendment rights.

    Known Pro-Second Amendment:
    Ron Paul
    Michelle Bachman

    The remaining candidates have remained silent.
    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.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    It looks like an attempt for NAGR to generate fear to genreate donations. Half of the video was about soliciting money.

    It bothers me when these groups use these tactics, the 2A is the only reason to vote for a president. Based upon NAGR, Harry Reid is a great candidate. His support of the 2A is actually quite good. As for the rest of his politics, uh....aint no way.

    So if a candidate fails to turn in the survey, they will be castrated by NAGR as not supporting the 2A? It appears that is their implication. Geesh!

  3. #3
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Having looked up how Newt voted when he was congress I'd say he's pro-gun. As well as things I've heard him say.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    "Say?"

    Who believes ANYthing these people SAY?

    I'm glad you checked what they DID (voting) but as for what they SAY, I never believe a word of it...
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 12-08-2011 at 05:47 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    The Lautenberg misdemeanor DV law , just like the felony prohibition may be well intended, but unfortunately both disablements are too broadly applied.

    The key word in DV is VIOLENCE. If the DV offense warrants disablement of the firearm right, the offense should be prosecuted as the violent felony that it is rather than a misdemeanor. That would address the DV problem without expanding the envelope.

    I wonder why Rick Perry was "over looked" in this report ? Probably due to his not responding to the NAGR 2A survey.

    Perry is still the best choice concerning respect for the 2A, but he is going to have to produce some traction real soon with his TV ads for that fact to even matter.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    National Association for Gun Rights? Must be made up of house wives.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    National Association for Gun Rights? Must be made up of house wives.
    So true!!


    There was a gun group that comes out every election cycle that solicits money and indicates they are the pro 2A, but promote gun control and other issues. IIRC, they were out in 2008 wanting the 'loophole' fixed, wanted to stop hunting in certain areas (Sierra supporters) and such. For some reason I thought is was this group. I may be wrong about it being this group, but I know there was one out there.

    Anyone else recall this group(s)?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South Chesterfield, VA
    Posts
    315
    I believe its the National Hunters and Shooters Association, or something similar to that. Wolf in sheepdogs clothing.

    Sent from my PG06100 using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Greenville
    Posts
    58
    Wasn't Jim "Obama won't take your guns" Shockey part of National Hunters and Shooters Association? I could be wrong, but talk about a ******... He needs to stay in Canada, and he doesn't even belong there - the UK maybe.

    Gingrich has been pro-gun and pro- go along to get along to the detriment of gun owners. He's very good Constitutionally from what he "says". But as was indicated very correctly above, what politicians say is irrelevant. What they do is critical.

    Gingrich is clearly a light year ahead of Obama on the Second Amendment, but if he gets the nomination gun owners MUST hold his feet to the Gun Rights fire.

    This means that anything and everything that comes up regarding the Second Amendment MUST BE RESPONDED to by all of us with emails and telephone calls. If he gets elected and strays from the Second he must be made to pay the only way free citizens can make politicians pay - money and votes - and millions upon millions of phone calls, emails and personal visits.

    Politicians hate inconvenience almost as much as losing money and votes.
    Last edited by Doble Troble; 12-10-2011 at 11:32 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Wolfgang1952's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mt Hermon / Franklinton,La ,
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Doble Troble View Post
    Wasn't Jim "Obama won't take your guns" Shockey part of National Hunters and Shooters Association? I could be wrong, but talk about a ******... He needs to stay in Canada, and he doesn't even belong there - the UK maybe.

    Gingrich has been pro-gun and pro- go along to get along to the detriment of gun owners. He's very good Constitutionally from what he "says". But as was indicated very correctly above, what politicians say is irrelevant. What they do is critical.

    Gingrich is clearly a light year ahead of Obama on the Second Amendment, but if he gets the nomination gun owners MUST hold his feet to the Gun Rights fire.

    This means that anything and everything that comes up regarding the Second Amendment MUST BE RESPONDED to by all of us with emails and telephone calls. If he gets elected and strays from the Second he must be made to pay the only way free citizens can make politicians pay - money and votes - and millions upon millions of phone calls, emails and personal visits.

    Politicians hate inconvenience almost as much as losing money and votes.



    How true you are.
    Pres. Florida Parishes Chapter of LOCAL www.laopencarry.org

    .308 Isn't an area code, but it can still make long distance calls.
    How may I help you? Press '1' for English. Press '2' to disconnect until you learn to speak English.


    Wolf

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    The Lautenberg misdemeanor DV law , just like the felony prohibition may be well intended, but unfortunately both disablements are too broadly applied.

    The key word in DV is VIOLENCE. If the DV offense warrants disablement of the firearm right, the offense should be prosecuted as the violent felony that it is rather than a misdemeanor. That would address the DV problem without expanding the envelope.

    I wonder why Rick Perry was "over looked" in this report ? Probably due to his not responding to the NAGR 2A survey.

    Perry is still the best choice concerning respect for the 2A, but he is going to have to produce some traction real soon with his TV ads for that fact to even matter.
    Sure. He may appear pro 2A, but he is anti-4A. In the future when your gun ownership gets you classified as a suspected terrorist your 4th amendment will be violated because you practice your 2nd - because rick perry supports the patriot act. Rick Perry can go take a flying leap.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    So true!!


    There was a gun group that comes out every election cycle that solicits money and indicates they are the pro 2A, but promote gun control and other issues. IIRC, they were out in 2008 wanting the 'loophole' fixed, wanted to stop hunting in certain areas (Sierra supporters) and such. For some reason I thought is was this group. I may be wrong about it being this group, but I know there was one out there.

    Anyone else recall this group(s)?
    the NAGer is a group of one person who sends out emails in hopes of getting donations. That is the extent of the "organisation".
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    It looks like an attempt for NAGR to generate fear to genreate donations. Half of the video was about soliciting money.
    So what? The other half is about the candidates and how they stand on the issues.

    It bothers me when...
    Why are you stumbling over the inconsequentials instead of seeing the bars of gold?

    So if a candidate fails to turn in the survey, they will be castrated by NAGR as not supporting the 2A? It appears that is their implication.
    First, your terminology is intentionally negative and grossly out of proportion to the NAGR's response.

    Second, if a candidate refuses to respond to a major 2A organization such as the NAGR, then they are either stonewalling, in which case their 2A position is suspect, or they're totally unaware that the NAGR is a major 2A organization, in which case their 2A position is suspect.

    Either way, their 2A position is suspect. That's the NAGR's position.
    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.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Doble Troble View Post
    Gingrich is clearly a light year ahead of Obama on the Second Amendment, but if he gets the nomination gun owners MUST hold his feet to the Gun Rights fire.

    This means that anything and everything that comes up regarding the Second Amendment MUST BE RESPONDED to by all of us with emails and telephone calls.
    Why start behind the eight ball? Why not elect a candidate who is clearly pro-2A, as it is written, not as it's commonly and incorrectly misinterpreted? If someone says they're pro-2A then pushes a concealed carry bill while not supporting OC, they're not pro-2A, as forcing people to CC is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. They're mindful that 2A is important to their voters and are merely throwing them a bone.

    Politicians hate inconvenience almost as much as losing money and votes.
    If a candidate finds returning a simple, half-page survey "inconvenient," they don't have what it takes to run a country.
    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.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    True !! Why NOT reply. When someone asks me about how I feel or believe in something, I am very passionate in my answers, regardless of who it might offend. No reply = no passion on the subject. Only those that will spell out the reason for the 2nd Amend. are the ones that will stand up. Screw the rest.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    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.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    So what? The other half is about the candidates and how they stand on the issues.
    Actually, drama is the theme of the message. It quotes the bill Romney signed and Newts 'allegedly' support of the Lautenberg gun ban; which do you know what this law did? It didn't ban guns, it banned 'convicted' domestic violence offenders (including misdemeanors). NAGR allude the others aren't pro 2A because they didn't respond to their little survey, they used the term 'stonewalled'. Just because they don't respond, doesn't mean they are anti 2A. Have you seen the survey? It's propaganda.

    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Why are you stumbling over the inconsequentials instead of seeing the bars of gold?
    Bars of gold? Really? Please fell free to show me them.

    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    First, your terminology is intentionally negative and grossly out of proportion to the NAGR's response.
    Actually, NAGR states those who haven't turned in their 'survey' as "Refused to Respond"; again, a flair for the dramatics.

    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Second, if a candidate refuses to respond to a major 2A organization such as the NAGR, then they are either stonewalling, in which case their 2A position is suspect, or they're totally unaware that the NAGR is a major 2A organization, in which case their 2A position is suspect.

    Either way, their 2A position is suspect. That's the NAGR's position.
    First, NAGR is not a major 2A organization. I had forgot about them until you posted the link. If one sees their video and thinks their sole purpose is to not raise money....well I have a bridge for sale.

    Secondly, here is a link to the survey. Notice those who have turned theirs in are in no way shape or form of getting the nomination. Signing it could do more harm to those who may be on the fence. You may solidify many on the right; but, in politics, you also have to get the moderates and fence sitting libtards to win. Signing this would more than likely push those fence riders over to Obama. the libs would have a field day. It could also solidify their base even more. Signing these 'surveys' or 'pledges' always have a double edge. You have to see which blade hurts the most.

    Unfortunately, there are many who will not vote for a candidate that doesn't support the 2A as they do. This is very similar to those who will only vote for a politician who will ban abortion; they don't care about the rest of what they do. Therefore, some won't vote that may otherwise choose a conservative candidate. This obviously limits your selection. Although, it is good a candidate votes the way you believe, there is a broader picture to selecting the candidate.

    Politics is not black and white, as many would like it to be. But, in reality, it hasn't ever been that way nor will it.

    I have a candidate to support in the primary. If they do not obtain the nomination for the GOP; I will support the nominee. Anything is better than the current leader. My biggest hope is for more local elections go conservative, i.e. state senates/houses and federal senate/house.

    So I say all this, the survey that NAGR wants to dramatize as extremely important, is as baseless as the anti-abortionist extreme. In other words, it is extremely small in the grand scheme of things. JMHO

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    NAGR allude the others aren't pro 2A because they didn't respond to their little survey, they used the term 'stonewalled'. Just because they don't respond, doesn't mean they are anti 2A.
    If they're not willing to stand up and be counted, they're not pro-2A, either.

    Bars of gold? Really? Please fell free to show me them.
    Here's your word for today: metaphor

    Actually, NAGR states those who haven't turned in their 'survey' as "Refused to Respond"
    Are you claiming it was lost in the mail?

    Signing it could do more harm to those who may be on the fence.
    As between 3/5 and 4/5 of all Americans, including many liberals, support gun rights, I seriously doubt it.

    This is very similar to those who will only vote for a politician who will ban abortion...
    Not at all. Most Americans support abortion.

    I have a candidate to support in the primary. If they do not obtain the nomination for the GOP; I will support the nominee.
    That's wise. Some folks here are bound and determined to waste their vote writing in the name of a certain candidate even if he doesn't get the nomination.

    Anything is better than the current leader.
    I agree that any of the Republican candidates would be far better than Obama. I've never considered him a "leader."

    My biggest hope is for more local elections go conservative, i.e. state senates/houses and federal senate/house.
    Provided the candidates support a balanced budget, that'll help.

    So I say all this, the survey that NAGR wants to dramatize...
    I understanding their use of a dramatic flare, as it's followed by a fund-raising page. The use of drama itself, however, has zero bearing on the fact that only two candidates chose to respond. It's like the difference between saying "fire" and shouting "FIRE!" If there's a fire, then there's a fire. The level of drama has zero bearing on the fact that there is a fire.

    Your claim that it does is a common logical fallacy.
    Last edited by since9; 12-13-2011 at 03:07 PM.
    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.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    If they're not willing to stand up and be counted, they're not pro-2A, either.
    It maybe they are pro 2A, but politically, the survey is very risky. I would bet at this particular time, it's too volatilel to handle. It could be they send it in later. This is politics and you would be very hard pressed to remove politics from politics.


    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Here's your word for today: metaphor
    Appreciate the word for the day; however, I still don't see your bars.


    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Are you claiming it was lost in the mail?
    Just claiming NAGR hasn't received it and in doing such, they want to label them something other than what it is.


    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    As between 3/5 and 4/5 of all Americans, including many liberals, support gun rights, I seriously doubt it.
    But what gun rights do they support? Their definition of gun rights and our definition are two different things. I have friends that support the 2A; however, they feel everyone should register their gun and have training. That's their definition of gun rights. So, when they sign this survey that pledges to undo potentially what they support, do you think the media and the libs will let that slide?


    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Not at all. Most Americans support abortion.
    Actually, this is a common tactic of the media and politicians (both sides); they want to paint a candidate as either pro-life or pro-choice. Depending on how it may help them. Similar to this survey.


    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    That's wise. Some folks here are bound and determined to waste their vote writing in the name of a certain candidate even if he doesn't get the nomination.
    Good we agree on this. However, this bothers me to see people who make these kinds of absolute statements, basically saying it's my candidate or we all suffer. We all should be on the same side, eventually. How we get there may be different, but in the end, the effort to out the King should be paramount.


    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I agree that any of the Republican candidates would be far better than Obama. I've never considered him a "leader."
    100% concur!!


    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Provided the candidates support a balanced budget, that'll help.
    100% agree. I wish all states and cities had to abide by this. Unfortunately, there are not enough.


    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I understanding their use of a dramatic flare, as it's followed by a fund-raising page. The use of drama itself, however, has zero bearing on the fact that only two candidates chose to respond. It's like the difference between saying "fire" and shouting "FIRE!" If there's a fire, then there's a fire. The level of drama has zero bearing on the fact that there is a fire.
    Their attempt to yell fire parallels those of the SAF/CCRKBA....everything is FIRE...send money now!!!!!! It makes a difference if the fire is a cigarette burning or the theater is in full flames. So drama does play a part. Those who have chosen to respond are not candidates who have to worry about getting elected, so it doesn't matter what they do. All three candidates who have sent theirs in are at the end of the pack.


    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Your claim that it does is a common logical fallacy.
    Actually, it called politics....generally there is nothing logical to politics. Therefore, supporting my claim.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    It maybe they are pro 2A, but politically, the survey is very risky.
    Yet two of the seven candidates had no problems responded to it.

    Appreciate the word for the day; however, I still don't see your bars.
    Well, I can point you in the right direction. Beyond that, it's up to you.

    Just claiming NAGR hasn't received it and in doing such, they want to label them something other than what it is.
    Interesting claim. I trust this guy, though:


    Dear Since9:

    Just a quick note to let you know how important your membership is in the National Association for Gun Rights.

    NAGR is the fastest growing and most effective gun rights group in America.

    I’m a member, and you should be too!

    Sincerely,

    For liberty,

    The Hon. Rand Paul
    U.S. Senator (R-KY)


    ...they feel everyone should register their gun and have training...
    The NAGR? Cite, please.

    Good we agree on this. However, this bothers me to see people who make these kinds of absolute statements, basically saying it's my candidate or we all suffer. We all should be on the same side, eventually. How we get there may be different, but in the end, the effort to out the King should be paramount.
    Personally, I think any one of about three of the Republican candidates would make suitable Presidents. The beauty of our system is that everyone has a choice!

    100% concur!! ... 100% agree. I wish all states and cities had to abide by this.
    Yep.

    Their attempt to yell fire parallels those of the SAF/CCRKBA....everything is FIRE...send money now!!!!!! It makes a difference if the fire is a cigarette burning or the theater is in full flames. So drama does play a part. Those who have chosen to respond are not candidates who have to worry about getting elected...
    Ron Paul responded. Seen the latest polls? He's catching up to Gingrich, fast, and Gingrich has slid somewhat in the polls.

    Actually, it called politics....generally there is nothing logical to politics.
    It's actually a science, but the way it's practiced is usually more like an art.
    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.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Yet two of the seven candidates had no problems responded to it.
    Three candidates, one who just recently dropped out, Cain. Again, politically, they are not viable candidates at this time or probably will be.


    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Well, I can point you in the right direction. Beyond that, it's up to you.
    Thanks!


    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Interesting claim. I trust this guy, though:
    Dear Since9:

    Just a quick note to let you know how important your membership is in the National Association for Gun Rights.

    NAGR is the fastest growing and most effective gun rights group in America.

    I’m a member, and you should be too!

    Sincerely,

    For liberty,

    The Hon. Rand Paul
    U.S. Senator (R-KY)
    Congrats on your membership and your personal message from Mr. Paul. IIRC, NAGR boasted having 300,000 members; the NRA 4.3 million. What has NAGR done?


    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    The NAGR? Cite, please.
    No, not NAGR. I was responding to your allegation that
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    As between 3/5 and 4/5 of all Americans, including many liberals, support gun rights, I seriously doubt it.
    I then responded with
    But what gun rights do they support? Their definition of gun rights and our definition are two different things. I have friends that support the 2A; however, they feel everyone should register their gun and have training. That's their definition of gun rights. So, when they sign this survey that pledges to undo potentially what they support, do you think the media and the libs will let that slide?
    See, a survey of gun rights is sometimes misleading, without knowing what they mean by 'gun rights'.

    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Ron Paul responded. Seen the latest polls? He's catching up to Gingrich, fast, and Gingrich has slid somewhat in the polls.
    The only poll he is out of single digits is the single state Iowa polls. Not necessarily a barometer for anything, since it changes daily significantly.


    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    It's actually a science, but the way it's practiced is usually more like an art.
    It's more like a baseball game (you could also use football), you are either on offense or defense; you hope your hits score for your team.....but then you hope you can prevent the long ball and catch the others to prevent a score. You want to score more against them then they score against you.

  22. #22
    Regular Member DangerClose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The mean streets of WI
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    Perry is still the best choice concerning respect for the 2A,
    Why's that? Because he says he shot a coyote while jogging?

    Ron Paul says straight-out he wants to get rid of the ATF.

  23. #23
    Regular Member ken243's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Clio, MI
    Posts
    141

    E-mail from Mitt

    Hey folks, I wondered about this too so I sent out a email to all the canidates asking about their 2A views. This is the only response I have had. They were sent out November 2nd. I got this back on Nov. 30th.



    Thank you for contacting me about the important issue of gun ownership and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I appreciate your interest in my campaign for president and would like to thank you for taking the time to share your views with me.

    First, I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American. The right to bear arms is essential to our functioning free society. I am proud to count myself as one of the many honest, law-abiding citizens who uses firearms responsibly.

    I do not believe in adding any more laws to restrict the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. I resolutely believe in the significance of proper gun ownership and sales. I understand that there are those in this country who wish to remove all guns from our society, but understand I stand firmly against that view. While many in Washington do not, I recognize that there is a difference between law-abiding gun owners and criminals that wish to do harm. Those who choose to use a firearm during the commission of a crime must be punished to the full extent of the law. With that said, we should provide law enforcement with the proper resources to punish and deter criminals, not inconvenience lawful gun owners.

    As governor of one of the most liberal states in the country, I was proud to support legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners. I worked hard to advance the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase and own firearms. I stood against liberal desires to create bureaucracy intended to burden gun owners and sportsmen.

    I believe that the support of pro-Second Amendment and sportsmen’s groups in my previous runs for office are a testament to my support of the Second Amendment. As governor, I designated May 7th as “The Right to Bear Arms” Day in Massachusetts to honor law-abiding citizens, like yourself, and their right to “use firearms in defense of their families, persons, and property for all lawful purposes, including common defense.” As president, I will fight the battle on all fronts to preserve the Second Amendment.

    I am running for president because I believe in America and know that our best days are still ahead. I believe that the principles that made America the leader of the world today—freedom, opportunity, and free enterprise to name just a few—are the very principles that will keep America the leader of the world tomorrow. These last few years have not been the best of times. But while we’ve lost a couple of years, we can still get back on the right track.

    Again, thank you for contacting me. I encourage you to visit my website at www.MittRomney.com for updated information on other issues that may be of interest to you. I look forward to hearing from you in the future and earning your support.



    Sincerely,



    Mitt Romney

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Sounds like Mitt's done some on-the-job-training.
    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.

  25. #25
    Regular Member DangerClose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The mean streets of WI
    Posts
    570
    Here's some more words from Mitt:
    The 2004 bill enacted a permanent ban on assault weapons -- reportedly the first such state law in the country. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense," the Boston Globe quoted Romney as saying at the time. "They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
    Just another case of guns are fine as long as you're wearing orange, I guess.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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