• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

McCain gets a D on Gun Rights/2nd Amendment...

A

Anonymous

Guest
"Pragmatic vote"- is that like asking the ugly girl to the dance or her uglier seester.... :roll: :???: :wink: :lol:

Montana gun group endorses 'pragmatic' vote for McCain
By The Associated Press

HELENA - The Montana Shooting Sports Association says principled voters should vote for Ron Paul over John McCain or Barack Obama.

But the gun group recognizes such votes for Paul could help Barack Obama as the Democrat seeks to challenge in Republican strongholds like Montana.

The group gave Republican John McCain a D in its scorecard. Obama got an F. Paul, on the ballot under the Constitution Party banner in Montana, got a A from the group.

But the MSSA says "pragmatic" voters should choose McCain, because he is not as bad on gun issues as Obama.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/09/12/news/state/25-mss.txt
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TexasBred said:
At least McCain knows what to do with a gun if someone hands him one. Obama would probably hit a liquor store.

Someone would have to hand it to him - because he said in the debates he doesn't own any :roll: ...Just like an unloaded gun- an unowned one is worthless too..
Probably don't need any with his rich tootsie being able to hire bodyguards- and private security.. :wink:
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Obama supported the DC ban. His words were something to the effect that "communities should be able to enact common sense laws". I do not remember the exact words.

Here is the real problem with his thinking. He would take an oath to defend the constitution (and all amendments thereto) if elected. Yet he waives the second amendment? No dice. You either get rid of the second amendment or else you defend what you take an oath to defend.

If the second amendment can be waived, all others can be too - as well as the constitution.

The Supreme Court ruled correctly, even tho it was a marginal vote. The Consitution of the United States is exactly what it is. Amend it, or defend it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The country needs to have the ability to legislate gun laws within the 2nd Amendment- or else every 6 year old kid, released felon or mental patient with the money could walk in and buy a Kalishnikov or a Ma Deuce...

This years SCOTUS ruling was exactly what was needed as a precedent giving persons (not the militia) the right to own and bear arms- but also said government has the right to regulate that under certain conditions...
 

hopalong

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
Obama supported the DC ban. His words were something to the effect that "communities should be able to enact common sense laws". I do not remember the exact words.

Here is the real problem with his thinking. He would take an oath to defend the constitution (and all amendments thereto) if elected. Yet he waives the second amendment? No dice. You either get rid of the second amendment or else you defend what you take an oath to defend.

If the second amendment can be waived, all others can be too - as well as the constitution.

The Supreme Court ruled correctly, even tho it was a marginal vote. The Consitution of the United States is exactly what it is. Amend it, or defend it.

Actually gun control is what the county that oldtimer was sheriff of practiced,the gun they let him carry was a water pistol. didn't trust him with even a rubber band gun! :D
 

alice

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
At least McCain knows what to do with a gun if someone hands him one. Obama would probably hit a liquor store.

:???:

TexasBred, I'm surprised at you. I had truly hoped better of you...

Alice
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
alice said:
I had truly hoped better of you...

Alice

You have to bear in mind where things have been on this forum Alice.

LOL your posts tripled the I.Q. for the "other side". Most are like 3 year old cry babies.
 

alice

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
alice said:
I had truly hoped better of you...

Alice

You have to bear in mind where things have been on this forum Alice.

LOL your posts tripled the I.Q. for the "other side". Most are like 3 year old cry babies.

Well, that's a shame all the around, I guess. And, it could very well mean that I really don't have the stomach for any of this. :(

Ah well, such is life.

Alice
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The country needs to have the ability to legislate gun laws within the 2nd Amendment- or else every 6 year old kid, released felon or mental patient with the money could walk in and buy a Kalishnikov or a Ma Deuce...

This years SCOTUS ruling was exactly what was needed as a precedent giving persons (not the militia) the right to own and bear arms- but also said government has the right to regulate that under certain conditions...

I agree to a certain point, but the problem lies in that Liberals have an agenda to over legislate in this regard because they are looking to turn it upside down if they can! I have no problem with some bare basic gun ownership laws, like age and criminal record, but there has to a strong stopping point after a few things like this.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
alice said:
TexasBred said:
At least McCain knows what to do with a gun if someone hands him one. Obama would probably hit a liquor store.

:???:

TexasBred, I'm surprised at you. I had truly hoped better of you...

Alice

You joined 7 days ago, heck Texasbred has not been around that much longer, how can you be surprised and hope better of him? :shock: :?
 

alice

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
alice said:
TexasBred said:
At least McCain knows what to do with a gun if someone hands him one. Obama would probably hit a liquor store.

:???:

TexasBred, I'm surprised at you. I had truly hoped better of you...

Alice

You joined 7 days ago, heck Texasbred has not been around that much longer, how can you be surprised and hope better of him? :shock: :?

'Cause he's a Texan...and an Aggie...which normally equates to being a gentleman.

Alice
 

Steve

Well-known member
when ever some one wants to legislate away a right, I take try to explain that for one they have no right.. to take away my, nor any other Americans rights..


first start by looking at what a right is not..

Compare with duty, referring to behaviour that is expected or required of the person,

a convict was expected to behave (and didn't) do your taking away his (or her) ability to have and bear arms..

" it is you duty to act in a civil mannor so you can have guns"..

wrong.. it's a "right" while we may detain and lock up criminals can we take away their freedom of religion?,.. their freedom of speech?.. no because they are considered rights..

compare with privilege, referring to something that can be conferred and revoked.

it is a privilege to get an education in America.. yet we our courts and legislature confer it as a right. ever known a child to be denied an education because of a mental disabilty? .. yet we would allow the right to bear arms to be revoked?

if it is a right, can it be legislated? revoked or even regulated?

a right is a permission granted by our Constitution, a permission that can't be revoked.. no more then our citizenship, or birth..

we as Americans have rights, only we can "surrender them"..

I am not going to surrender my rights.. and as much as as it the idea of a madman with a gun repulses me I would never infringe on others rights to have and to bear arms.. no more then I would another's religion, liberty, or freedom of speech..

if they are that dangerous then lock them up.. or strip them of citizenship.. as taking away one right shouldn't stop us from taking several more..
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Steve said:
when ever some one wants to legislate away a right, I take try to explain that for one they have no right.. to take away my, nor any other Americans rights..


first start by looking at what a right is not..

Compare with duty, referring to behaviour that is expected or required of the person,

a convict was expected to behave (and didn't) do your taking away his (or her) ability to have and bear arms..

" it is you duty to act in a civil mannor so you can have guns"..

wrong.. it's a "right" while we may detain and lock up criminals can we take away their freedom of religion?,.. their freedom of speech?.. no because they are considered rights..

compare with privilege, referring to something that can be conferred and revoked.

it is a privilege to get an education in America.. yet we our courts and legislature confer it as a right. ever known a child to be denied an education because of a mental disabilty? .. yet we would allow the right to bear arms to be revoked?

if it is a right, can it be legislated? revoked or even regulated?

a right is a permission granted by our Constitution, a permission that can't be revoked.. no more then our citizenship, or birth..

we as Americans have rights, only we can "surrender them"..

I am not going to surrender my rights.. and as much as as it the idea of a madman with a gun repulses me I would never infringe on others rights to have and to bear arms.. no more then I would another's religion, liberty, or freedom of speech..

if they are that dangerous then lock them up.. or strip them of citizenship.. as taking away one right shouldn't stop us from taking several more..

By that reasoning then the 18th Amendment should still stand which abolished Alcohol.

Also you use the right to education, well if you misbehave then that right can be taken away from you! With rights come responsibility, if you do not act responsible then rights can be taken away from you!

Don't get me wrong, I am about as pro gun as you can be except for criminals and minors with out parental consent!
 

Steve

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Steve said:
when ever some one wants to legislate away a right, I take try to explain that for one they have no right.. to take away my, nor any other Americans rights..


first start by looking at what a right is not..

Compare with duty, referring to behaviour that is expected or required of the person,

a convict was expected to behave (and didn't) do your taking away his (or her) ability to have and bear arms..

" it is you duty to act in a civil mannor so you can have guns"..

wrong.. it's a "right" while we may detain and lock up criminals can we take away their freedom of religion?,.. their freedom of speech?.. no because they are considered rights..

compare with privilege, referring to something that can be conferred and revoked.

it is a privilege to get an education in America.. yet we our courts and legislature confer it as a right. ever known a child to be denied an education because of a mental disabilty? .. yet we would allow the right to bear arms to be revoked?

if it is a right, can it be legislated? revoked or even regulated?

a right is a permission granted by our Constitution, a permission that can't be revoked.. no more then our citizenship, or birth..

we as Americans have rights, only we can "surrender them"..

I am not going to surrender my rights.. and as much as as it the idea of a madman with a gun repulses me I would never infringe on others rights to have and to bear arms.. no more then I would another's religion, liberty, or freedom of speech..

if they are that dangerous then lock them up.. or strip them of citizenship.. as taking away one right shouldn't stop us from taking several more..

By that reasoning then the 18th Amendment should still stand which abolished Alcohol.

Also you use the right to education, well if you misbehave then that right can be taken away from you! With rights come responsibility, if you do not act responsible then rights can be taken away from you!

Don't get me wrong, I am about as pro gun as you can be except for criminals and minors with out parental consent!

the 18th amendment was not a right, given but privilege taken, .. and is not the same reasoning...

I said the education was and is a privilege.. but is conferred as a right. not a right but often perceived as a right.

if a right is about responsibility, then why can't we take away a persons freedom of speech and religion? surly some of these nuts act irresponsibly in what they say and believe?

I would even agree on the criminal not having access to guns.. , but not when your fighting for a right, there should be no revoking it. no restricting it, it shouldn't be able to legislated away. or infringed.. after all it is a right..
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Steve said:
aplusmnt said:
Steve said:
when ever some one wants to legislate away a right, I take try to explain that for one they have no right.. to take away my, nor any other Americans rights..


first start by looking at what a right is not..

Compare with duty, referring to behaviour that is expected or required of the person,

a convict was expected to behave (and didn't) do your taking away his (or her) ability to have and bear arms..

" it is you duty to act in a civil mannor so you can have guns"..

wrong.. it's a "right" while we may detain and lock up criminals can we take away their freedom of religion?,.. their freedom of speech?.. no because they are considered rights..

compare with privilege, referring to something that can be conferred and revoked.

it is a privilege to get an education in America.. yet we our courts and legislature confer it as a right. ever known a child to be denied an education because of a mental disabilty? .. yet we would allow the right to bear arms to be revoked?

if it is a right, can it be legislated? revoked or even regulated?

a right is a permission granted by our Constitution, a permission that can't be revoked.. no more then our citizenship, or birth..

we as Americans have rights, only we can "surrender them"..

I am not going to surrender my rights.. and as much as as it the idea of a madman with a gun repulses me I would never infringe on others rights to have and to bear arms.. no more then I would another's religion, liberty, or freedom of speech..

if they are that dangerous then lock them up.. or strip them of citizenship.. as taking away one right shouldn't stop us from taking several more..

By that reasoning then the 18th Amendment should still stand which abolished Alcohol.

Also you use the right to education, well if you misbehave then that right can be taken away from you! With rights come responsibility, if you do not act responsible then rights can be taken away from you!

Don't get me wrong, I am about as pro gun as you can be except for criminals and minors with out parental consent!

the 18th amendment was not a right, given but privilege taken, .. and is not the same reasoning...

I said the education was and is a privilege.. but is conferred as a right. not a right but often perceived as a right.

if a right is about responsibility, then why can't we take away a persons freedom of speech and religion? surly some of these nuts act irresponsibly in what they say and believe?

I would even agree on the criminal not having access to guns.. , but not when your fighting for a right, there should be no revoking it. no restricting it, it shouldn't be able to legislated away. or infringed.. after all it is a right..

Freedom of speech can also be taken away and is many times. Just look at the Republican convention, they removed people that wanted to stand up and speak at the same time that McCain was speaking. Go into a movie theatre and yell fire and see if you will be punished.

And my point on the 18th Amendment is that they are Amendments and can be Amended! I would also argue that I should have the same right not privilege to drink a beer if I chose so and thankfully in the 21st Amendment they gave me that right to do so back.

I also have no problem with a Criminal having his rights taken away, rather that is the right to freedom, right to vote, right to wear shoes with shoe strings or the right to own a gun! I say this not because I believe it will stop crime, but because the rights laid out in the constitution can be revoked based on our citizenship, and guns should not be the exclusion!
 

TSR

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Oldtimer said:
The country needs to have the ability to legislate gun laws within the 2nd Amendment- or else every 6 year old kid, released felon or mental patient with the money could walk in and buy a Kalishnikov or a Ma Deuce...

This years SCOTUS ruling was exactly what was needed as a precedent giving persons (not the militia) the right to own and bear arms- but also said government has the right to regulate that under certain conditions...

I agree to a certain point, but the problem lies in that Liberals have an agenda to over legislate in this regard because they are looking to turn it upside down if they can! I have no problem with some bare basic gun ownership laws, like age and criminal record, but there has to a strong stopping point after a few things like this.

But do the conservatives even have any common sense on this issue? BTW I own quite a few guns but I don't think just anyone should be able to go into a store and buy an 50 cal machine gun? Again some common sense!
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
alice said:
TexasBred said:
At least McCain knows what to do with a gun if someone hands him one. Obama would probably hit a liquor store.

:???:

TexasBred, I'm surprised at you. I had truly hoped better of you...

Alice

Alice now why does that comment by you not surprise me at all? You said exactly what I expected. Better not wander off into his "Hood".
 
Top