Speaking as a gun owner I'm not comfortable with the NRA's tendency to conflate 2nd amendment rights with the idea that everyone should have unfettered access to every type of firearm and be able to carry them everywhere they go.The NRA certainly doesn't say there should be no restrictions on who can obtain/possess firearms. They've been successful in getting laws passed to strengthen the penalties for felons caught with guns and to improve NICS so mental illness screening is more effective.It's fair to say that they think there should be some pretty high hurdles for denying someone gun ownership, but seeing as it is an individual right it very well should be high hurdles in that regard. You shouldn't have to prove you qualify to exercise a right, rather the government should have to prove you have lost it. Innocent until proven guilty.As for carrying... it says "keep and bear" for a reason. A self-defense firearm doesn't do you much good if you aren't allowed to carry it where you need to defend yourself. Some of us like to occassionaly leave our homes. I still haven't heard a good reason why your right to self-defense ends at your own doorway. I've seen lots of crime reports, very few of them happen in people's own homes... there's plenty of evidence that you need to be able to defend yourself outside your home too. Just ask the cabbie who was killed on the East Side of Detroit yesterday... he didn't live in his cab but he sure as hell was shot to death in a robbery in it. If I want to drive to my mother's hosue I go though... Detroit. It'll be a cold day in hell before I do so unarmed.Responsible gun owners are not "gun nuts", and many of them are people you would roundly lump into the category of "hard-core liberals" simply because they have a nuanced take on the issue.I didn't break them down into liberals, Gallup did. They do this survey every year. Hell, I invariably post it every year! Now I'll have to dig it up, sheesh.The fact of the matter is that Romney's own waffling on the assault weapons ban as Gov. demonstrates his clear lack of a principled stand on the issue. One can expect that on the issue of gun rights (or any other issue for that matter) he will bend to whatever pressures are presented to him.I saw 0bama try to make that case last night. That dog won't hunt with the NRA crowd of course. Why? Bush said he'd renew the AWB during his first election... but gun owners supported him anyway and were rewarded with justices like Alito and Roberts who were in the majority of the Heller and McDonald decisions. You can bet your bottom dollar that every voter who cares about this issue knows where Kagan and Sotomayor stood on these (well, one on both, both on one). Plus Bush didn't, of course, renew the AWB. Having a candidate say in no uncertain terms that he'll not support an AWB (which is a bit of a moot point, if 0bama couldn't get one passed when he had supermajorities in Congress the odds with a GOP House or even Dem control, but just barely, of passing it are nil) is just fine. If 0bama wants to go back to what Romney said about guns then Romney will be just as happy to go back to 0bama's various pronouncements on guns, like banning all gun stores within five miles of a school or park (rendering nearly all of the lower 48-states a "gun-store free" zone) or voting for the atrocious Kennedy Amendment that (despite Kennedy saying it wasn't the intent) would have banned rifle ammo capable of penetrating bullet-proof vests (which are rated to stop handgun ammo, NOT rifle ammo), etc. For every "anti-gun" pronouncement you can find for Romney there are five from 0bama. If he wants to play that game then game on!
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Ma