• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NRA is restless despite its political clout.

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Rules violation

I don't vote for democrats or republicans .. they are too far left for me...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

c45man

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
137
Location
, ,
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

NoTolerance

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
292
Location
Milwaukee, WI
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Gun_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.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
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.
 

DangerClose

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
570
Location
The mean streets of WI
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. :mad:
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
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. :mad:


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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
<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>
<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.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
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:
Top