NRA members are so worried about President Obama that they are rooting for Mitt Romney, who once supported stiff gun restrictions.
I believe that Americans would backlash to the point of physical civil unrest if such an overturning should take place.
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.
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.
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.
Your attempts to paint me as a anti and a FUDD is noted.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.
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.
I can not be any more clear on this subject.<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>NRA Deception or oversight?<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.
Your attempts to paint me as a anti and a FUDD is noted.
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.
NRA members are so worried about President Obama that they are rooting for Mitt Romney, who once supported stiff gun restrictions.