The RKBA was specifically put in place to prevent the US government from being able to become tyrannical again, without the citizenry having the means to prevent it.
"Hey, Yutz! Guns aren't toys! They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face!" Krusty the Clown
__________________
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, seven hours every day. That would be the sweetest thing of all.
"The promptings of the Holy Ghost will always be sufficient for our needs if we keep to the covenant path. Our path is uphill most days, but the help we receive for the climb is literally divine." --Elaine S. Dalton
On the UN premesis in NYC is a large statue of a revolver with a knot tied in the barrel. This represents the UN's stance against private ownership of guns, which is well documented by the NRA and the JBS. For this reason among others I like Ron Paul's idea of getting the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US - perhaps to a place like Moscow or Beijing. Mitt Romney would never think of doing such a thing.
Okay, so apparently I know nothing about RKBA, nor does anyone who doesn't say if you want to own a collection of AK-47's more power to ya.
There wasn't a significant difference between the gun as a frontier tool of necessity and the gun as the main military implement back 230 some odd years ago. You had muskets, swords, knives, and cannons. That was pretty much it. Today, there is a lot more out there. While it isn't that common, people can still have swords in their homes. Knives are still easily accesible, but you can't carry them with you all the time (or your employer will fire you for bringing it to the work place or your school will suspend or expel your kid for violating a zero-tolerance policy). And folks by and large are able to own a wide variety of fire arms, subject to the laws in place.
But, I see no flip-flopping as is being alleged on Mitt concerning this. He indicates that he supports the laws on the books. In other words, he supports the rule of law as opposed to the rule of mob (or whatever the current social agenda is). That does not mean he can not also state he supports the right for people to own firearms.
The two are not mutually exclusive, and those that are politically aligned more in the moderate-conservative viewpoint typically see that quite easily. That is all I was trying to say.
As to getting the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US, well, that all sounds great when talking rhetoric, but as long as we as a nation are able to still exert some level of righteous influence over the UN, it would be a mistake to burn those bridges. We can't afford to become isolationist from a diplomatic or trade standpoint. I don't think we would really be able to handle the fallout. Like him or not, I do think that is something Romney does consider on all his positions. What would the fallout be of doing this or that? What is the ROI?
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Mitt's a hard working individual who's smart enough to see that many of these issues that one claims will gain him popularity if he only gives a stronger endorsement--will ultimately be used against him to divide the country. I'm glad he is still in the running, even if it makes some people nervous that he hasn't officially sanctioned their chosen hobby.
Now if Mitt would only come out strongly in favor of weekend game-nights and Dungeons and Dragons, he'll definitely get my vote!
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
While it is true Cat that the impliments of war were different, so were many other things back then. There was no radio, television, internet back then. Should then the freedom of the press only apply to written speach or should apply to the generic term for all the press? The Constitutional protections are either absolute or they are not. It is dangerous to pick and choose and say that the protections of some amendments are absolute while others should be reinterpreted because technology has changed. And cat, people cannot have swords in their homes in Massachusetts. It is illegal to sell most of them there. What makes the gun owners nervous is that Mitt specifically referred to Massachusetts gun laws which are more restrictive on gun owners than any other state. If he had said this about Texas, most gun owners would not be concerned but gun owners everywhere fear the over the top restrictions that are in Massachusetts. Massachusetts overall places huge limits on weapons of all types beyond firearms making it difficult for law abiding folks to own these items. Unfortunately, the criminals live under no such restrictions. The restrictions on firearms are codified in hundreds of pages and take a law degree to understand. These laws often will limit one firearm because of how it looks but with a simple change you have the same firearm with it's full lethal capabilities legal to sell. So then politicians start regulating guns on how they look rather than anything to do with function. If it looks military or dangerous versus any real increased danger from it.
I have the highest respect for you Cat but frankly, non gun owners just do not get where gun owners are coming from on this because there really isn't a constant drum beat and laws pass restricting other constitutional freedoms such as assembly, press, speech, religion, etc. If there were you would be as paranoid as we are.
Mitt's a hard working individual who's smart enough to see that many of these issues that one claims will gain him popularity if he only gives a stronger endorsement--will ultimately be used against him to divide the country. I'm glad he is still in the running, even if it makes some people nervous that he hasn't officially sanctioned their chosen hobby.
Now if Mitt would only come out strongly in favor of weekend game-nights and Dungeons and Dragons, he'll definitely get my vote!
--Ray
There are no constitutional guarantees of weekend game nights, but there is for personal ownership of firearms. Mitt has, in the past, publicly stated that he supports the unconstitutional gun control laws in Massachusetts.
I will not support a candidate who so enthusiastically supports limiting or eliminating constitutional rights.
I think that Mitt would be more popular with gun owners if, instead of acting as if he has supported gun rights all along, would admit that he was wrong in the past and that he has now seen the light.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
BTW, what would be so bad about allowing personal ownership of military equipment? Switzerland has its reserve troops (also known as its entire adult population) keep an automatic weapon and ammunition at home. It's merely an expanded version of the argument used against relaxing concealed carry laws. There were anti-gun nuts saying that relaxed concealed carry laws in Florida would make gun crime there expand vastly; they said that there would be shootouts over minor traffic incidents, etc. That hasn't materialized at all. I don't think that 99.999% of people who would want a tank and could afford a tank if it was legal to buy one would misbehave with it. And for the .001% who did, there'd be the vast majority of law abiding tank holders who would take out the non law abiding .001%. Also, think about it this way: would you want to invade a country that allowed private ownership of tanks?
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
I think that Mitt would be more popular with gun owners if, instead of acting as if he has supported gun rights all along, would admit that he was wrong in the past and that he has now seen the light.
He said the same thing when it came to abortion, and people call him a flip-flopper for it. With the political atmosphere at the moment, any change in position is viewed as being taken for convienience sake. He's unpopular with certain people either way. (Personally I think Mitt Romney was conflicted about a bunch of things, and is pretty sincere now.)
Giuliani and McCain are more popular with some people because they appear to be sticking to their guns. Of course, whole chunks of the republican party refuse to vote for them for the same reason. It's a nearly impossible situation.
FTR, while I may not know how it feels to get the barrage of anti-gun stuff that makes all you gun owners feeling paranoid, I doubt many of you gun owners know how odd your zealousness come across to the rest of us (us naive, uninformed non-owners of guns) and if your zealousness is the result of true, personal convictions or the repeated conditioning of certain powerful lobby organizations' dogma. Being a non-gun owner does not equate to being anti-gun and desire for or apathy about taking away the constitutional right. I think it is a fair assumption to say that neither side really knows what it is like to walk a mile in the other's moccasins.
Like I said earlier, the two facets of the issue are not mutually exclusive, but I think the gun lobby has over the decades convinced everyone it is. It is much easier to acuse a candidate of being unworthy of serious consideration if you can create an illusion of changing stance on issues. And even if a candidate has changed stances on an issue, why does that always have to be viewed as a negative thing?
What is more important? What is more fleeting? Issues or the values and competency that gets applied to issues? Romney (and for that matter not a single candidate in the field) is never going to agree with every single demographic of the voting public. But are we supposed to be electing people based solely on issues, or is there also something about our responsibility to seek out those that will administer the law in equity and justice? (See D&C 134:3) I would rather have someone in office that will uphold the law, and do what is legal to change the law when in power when needed, even if I don't agree with the law, than to have someone in office that is going to pick and choose what law is worthy of upholding and perhaps create bigger problems by changing the law to match the wishes of those power brokers who helped him/her get in power.
While I was looking for that D&C reference (which section, by the way I find interestingly does not promote the RKBA, but actually seems to promote the rule of law that seems to be the basis for most laws on guns), I came across a couple interesting and old articles from the Ensign about politics and some sensible advice on how to approach the process as a Saint.
YMMV, but I prefer to not get overly passionate about any single issue or the charisma of lack thereof of a candidate. And it seems that ever increasinly, a lot of people miss seeing the forest because they are staring at the tree right in front of them...
p.s. Switzerland also has four official languages, a funky form of government, mountains, lakes, shrinking glaciers, cows and goats, and some pretty good chocolate and cheeses.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
"The promptings of the Holy Ghost will always be sufficient for our needs if we keep to the covenant path. Our path is uphill most days, but the help we receive for the climb is literally divine." --Elaine S. Dalton
For this reason among others I like Ron Paul's idea of getting the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US - perhaps to a place like Moscow or Beijing.
I like Cat's point -
As to getting the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US, well, that all sounds great when talking rhetoric...
Which is exactly what it is. Ron Paul can talk it all he wants but he won't be able to walk it and he knows it.
Nowadays unless everyone can have their own private nuke, their ability to protect themselves from their own government is... um... unlikely... So while I love the whole concept of bare arms... especially with a good mullet... I'm um... pretty sure that there's a penumbra of a penumbra in the Constitution for Role Playing Games...
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
In reference to 3 Nephi 4:33* President Hinckley said:
"While we must have science, while we must have education, while we must have arms, we must also have righteousness if we are to merit the protection of God" (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, 40).
*33 And their hearts were swollen with joy, unto the gushing out of many tears, because of the great goodness of God in delivering them out of the hands of their enemies; and they knew it was because of their repentance and their humility that they had been delivered from an everlasting destruction.
There is a Gaming Awareness Week. Something to do with casinos, though.
__________________
"The promptings of the Holy Ghost will always be sufficient for our needs if we keep to the covenant path. Our path is uphill most days, but the help we receive for the climb is literally divine." --Elaine S. Dalton
Don't know much about this guy or what sway he has, but here is an endorsement from someone who seems to have his head on straight and is honest enough to state that religion is not and should not be the delimiting factor, but shared values.
Yay for Bob Jones III... Yay for Mitt!
Except... after reading up on Bob Jones University and the guy at wikipedia... it sounds very much like the fundamentalist christian version of a madras... (I mean, they even burnt bridges with Billy Graham, saying he was a heretic, they've called Oral Roberts and the folks at other charismatic ministries phonies and hypocrites, and blah blah blah.)
So, maybe it is not such a great endorsement afterall... Maybe some of these other evangelicals and fundamentalist groups will start thinking 'What, you got the Bob Jones organization in your pocket? Well, I think we'll be looking elsewhere...'
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
"By the way a few of you may have heard that I'm a Mormon. I understand that some people think they couldn't support someone of my faith. That may be because they've listened to Harry Reid. "
__________________
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
It was a slim victory with the "values votors" but perhaps some folks in SouthCaroline will start taking him a little more seriously.
__________________
no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing... the truth of God will go forth till it has penetrated every website, sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done
I thought there might be a few interesting tidbits for discussion in this article, or atleast that some might find it interesting.
__________________
"The promptings of the Holy Ghost will always be sufficient for our needs if we keep to the covenant path. Our path is uphill most days, but the help we receive for the climb is literally divine." --Elaine S. Dalton