Quote:
Originally Posted by Army5339
The Democratic party in general is not a friend to legal firearm owners. Some individuals in Congress are, but the general momentum of the party is towards more restrictions on law abiding citizens. Not that the Republican party currently is that much better.
|
Tell you what. If I want to buy a hunting rifle or a handgun and keep in my home I don't want anything standing in my way that will prevent me from doing so. I don't like registration because that would make it easy for a tyrant to collect our guns, but I concede to the need to track gun ownership to help solve crimes.
From the quotes of his at that site, he seems incoherent on the subject, or at best, equivocal.
Quote:
|
He might shift his view around for the election, talking about hunting, tradition, and sportsmanship, but the Second Amendment is not about those things.
|
It's reassuring to see he's really just a calculating politician afterall.
Quote:
|
You would never hear a prominent Democratic politician, much less a Presidential candidate, acknowledge that it is about an independently armed citizenry thwarting tyranny from the state. It is difficult enough to get that from a Republican candidate.
|
Well, homegrown tyranny is just one threat a militia might respond to. At the time I suspect the framers had their eye on the native americans to the west and the threat of a re-run by His British Majesty to the east. (The Bill of Rights was written after the Revolutionary War). Also, it's less expensive than maintaining a large standing army. But the principle is adaptable over time. Even today, one can imagine the discouraging effect an armed citizenry would have on a homegrown, would-be dictator.
Quote:
|
If a politician either doesn't believe that the citizens have the right and responsibility to have the ability to forcibly overthrow tyranny, or doesn't believe that tyranny could come from their government, I could never find myself voting for them. Obama falls into that category.
|
A citizen militia is not about overthrow; it's about protection. There is no right of forcible overthrow in the Constitution, only the right to possess the
means of overthrow. That's why I believe "a well-regulated militia" (note "well-regulated") and the "right to bears arms" are two separate security mechanisms. A militia is an armed collective of citizens who may or may not own their weapons. But one step down, there is the individual citizen who can not only own a weapon, but has the constitutional right to bear one.
BTW, where do you read that Obama doesn't believe in revolution?