McCain Plays Dirty By Choosing a Woman as His VP

You will have to learn to use the quote feature or we won't know what you are talking about.

 

The 'large' stance IMHO is a weak gutted watered down stance and is next to useless besides 'primarily' those who want hunting guns, this does not equate to anything remotely being what the 2nd was created for, IMHO totally equaling nothing more than a sell out. Using the 2nd to keep weapons for hobbies and not it's intended purpose.

 

Tell us what you are talking about. You keep saying that the NRA is weak and watered down, etc...

I don't know what you are talking about.

 

Have you not read this thread at all?

The NRA uses stances such as 'guns can be used for hunting' etc when if you read the true intent of the 2nd it is for guns and OTHER weapons that kill people. Using the 'hunting' gun stance to try to claim 'oh but this assault rifle can be used for hunting' is watered down. The people should be able to have anything the military has short of nukes and the like, I don't see the NRA trying to make sure we can have fully auto 50 calibers, oozi's, tanks, rocket launchers and the like do you?

 

OK, Thanks. And now weak and watered down makes sense. The NRA has just chosen the path of least resistance.

 

"path of least resistance' does not equate to protecting a constitutional right, especially when it comes to the 2nd.

They have mad it about 'hobbies' and not much more, that's far from being pro 2nd amendment, that is being selfish for ones owns hobbies.

 

I think this is generalization. Not everybody who want to keep our rights to bear arms are gun loving hobbyists. Some of us want the right to shoot that bastard who breaks in our houses in the middle of night to protect our families. Which I believe is most people's stance.

Canada's crime skyrocketed when the right to bear arms was amended from the constitution. Even though the bad guys still had guns.

 

Is the NRA's 'large stance' anything like Larry Craig's 'wide stance'?

(I couldn't help myself)

 

Ahh that is a right that is guaranteed under the 2nd to an extent, that however is far from the main purpose of the 2nd.

I will stick up for your right to have a weapon to protect your home, stopping at that point alone though is selling out IMHO and takes away from the true intent of the 2nd.

Don't get me wrong, yet again I fully support your right to defend your home, however if you allow the 2nd's purpose in it's entirety to be watered down, how long will it be until more water is added making the 2nd nothing more than a flavored water with no real substance, meaning or power?

---BTW I was not generalizing as to the members of the NRA, more how the NRA appears to fight for the so called rights of gun owners in today's modern time, from what I have witnessed at least.

 

The purpose of the 2nd amendment has been perverted over time. Pretty much it was a measure to keep the government from having too much control. Keep the people armed and what not. The framers of the constitution knew people were afraid of big government.

 

Yes it has been, I 'at least believe' hold a stance similar to what was the original intent. Of which I usually try to have what I consider is the original intent of the constitution and it's amendments.

 

I wish that more citizens would take the concealed weapons permit class. I have never read of a crime being committed from someone with a permit(I am sure someone has).

 

Well, the convention is over, "The Maverick" has spoken. Now back to the campaign trail and then The Debates. I look forward to the debates. Osama is a great talker, but I believe experience is going to play a big roll in the debates, and i feel that will work in McCain's favor.