View Full Version : Your opinion please! (Semi Political)
As some of you know I am working on a Political Campaign. My Candidate is running for Congress (Republican of course) and is honestly a good guy. He recently filled out a gun rights questionnaire and I wanted your opinion on his answers.
He has caught a bit of flak for his answer to question 6 especially. I thought it was pretty clear cut but I wanted to ask others who may be a bit more neutral what they though.
1. Do you believe that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and that the Bill of Rights acknowledges our birthrights?
Yes.
2. If so, should these rights be proactively protected from infringement by all levels of government, including city, county and state?
Yes
3. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider constitutional.
Any law that infringes upon the rights of law abiding citizens is NOT constitutional. Most gun control laws do just this. I can think of no current gun control law that I see as constitutional with the possible exception of an instant and foolproof check to make sure the purchaser of a firearm is not a felon.
4. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider unconstitutional.
I would work to reverse the most oppressive section of the 1968 Gun Control Act. I believe the "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994 was bad legislation that needed to be repealed. Also, the "feel good" policies that create gun safe zones do more damage to our neighborhoods by inviting criminal elements that have no interest in attaining weapons legally, let alone using them for lawful purposes. Responsible citizens exercising their rights to gun ownership provides a necessary line of defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
5. Does the right to bear arms include the right for any peaceable citizen to carry them concealed without a permit, as in Vermont?
Yes, I support, and benefit from, state-level conceal carry and carry laws.
6. Do you believe that Americans have a right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern, and will you use the prestige of elected office to publicly promote that right?
The Second Amendment is the law of the land. It protects our right to keep and bear arms. To me, that could not be clearer. I will use the prestige of elected office to publicly promote that right.
7. Do you support or oppose registration of weapons? Why?
Oppose. Evidence shows that registration laws have had little effect on crime. Criminals will not register their weapons so registration laws only inconvenience law abiding citizens. I have concerns that registration will precede more draconian laws that further infringe upon our rights.
8. Do you support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms?
I do not agree with licensing requirements to own a firearm for the same reasons I oppose registration in question 5.
9. What specific gun laws will you work to get repealed?
Please see my answer to question 4.
10. If elected, will you back your words of support for firearms rights up with consistent actions? How?
I will always stay true to my word. People will not always agree with every decision I make in Congress, but you will know where I stand and why I believe what I believe. I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and will show this support through the votes I cast in Congress.
If people took the time to read the whole thing and see his answer to #4, it shouldn't be an issue.
Sounds like my kind of guy. I used to be more neutral but not now. Very good answers.
I don't get what people are upset about. He seems to support us...
I assume that you mean democrats are trying to use the answer to paint him as being not like them? I can't see how anyone pro-constitution could twist his answer to mean anything that we would find negative.
#6 answer reverts to the constitution, the constitution makes no mention of military pattern rifles.
I only wish it was the democrats.
http://ingunowners.com/forums/the_2nd_amendment/77237-todd_young_answers_the_gun_rights_questionnaire.html#post887676
Reading the INGO thread it appears to be a lot of scrounging for something to criticize. The candidate makes strong simple statements in support of 2A, carry, unconstitutional gun laws, etc.
Since even in that forum there is confusion as to his intent and exact position on detailed issues, I would recommend that your candidate write an article on his position regarding gun rights, in the context of other rights. Then any statement he makes on a detailed issue can also reference his comprehensive article.
When talking to non-gun-nuts :) we need to constantly link gun rights to other inalienable rights like speech, due process, etc. Any restrictions on those other rights are based on behavior (don't shout FIRE! in a theatre). The restrictions are not based on the technology used (radio versus full auto). The BOR is the law of the land and the rights protected need to be protected equally broad and vigorously or it weakens them all.
I could see how someone could read the question and answer to #6 (only question 6, no others) and say he didn't answer the question. All he had to say was Yes then add the rest of his current answer.
When taken in the context of all of his answers though, 6 doesn't stand out IMO. His views on guns and gun rights seem fairly clear.
#6 answer reverts to the constitution, the constitution makes no mention of military pattern rifles.
The Hell it doesn't. Those were the types of firearms the Brits correctly chose to try to confiscate... :rolleyes:
Thank God it didn't work out for the Red (Communist) Coats.
John_Wayne777
03-03-10, 13:37
I don't see anything worrisome from a gun rights perspective in that questionnaire. A guy who mentions the GCA of '68 as worthy of death sounds like he's hummin' my tune.
Thanks guys. being involved in the campaign and a friend of the candidate, I have an obvious bias. I really wanted to make sure I wasn't looking at it wrong.
Honestly Todd shocked me when he mentioned the '64 GCA. It seems like so few people even know about it outside of hardcore shooters like us. Then again he is a Marine. Nothing should shock me with him!
Reading the INGO thread it appears to be a lot of scrounging for something to criticize. The candidate makes strong simple statements in support of 2A, carry, unconstitutional gun laws, etc.
I could see how someone could read the question and answer to #6 (only question 6, no others) and say he didn't answer the question. All he had to say was Yes then add the rest of his current answer.
When taken in the context of all of his answers though, 6 doesn't stand out IMO. His views on guns and gun rights seem fairly clear.
I agree completely.
Jay Cunningham
03-03-10, 18:09
The Hell it doesn't. Those were the types of firearms the Brits correctly chose to try to confiscate... :rolleyes:
Thank God it didn't work out for the Red (Communist) Coats.
Actually I agree with this. If you read the words, "military rifles" (arms) are *exactly* the kinds of firearms that the Constitution protects...
Actually I agree with this. If you read the words, "military rifles" (arms) are *exactly* the kinds of firearms that the Constitution protects...
Yes. Recall that the Revolution started when the Brits went to Concord and Lexington (as they already had at Salem) to confiscate CANNON, stores of powder, and any small arms they found stockpiled.
The patriots knew full well you don't fight a modern army with muskets alone. If you don't have artillery then you are toast. The 2A should be read to protect ALL arms, small and crew served. If the "militia" does not have access to full range of arms then it can not serve its purpose to protect against enemies foreign and domestic. :)
It should be harder to apply the 2A to purely hunting or target guns, and most easily applied ot military grade weapons.
ETA: The 2A protects exactly that which would strike fear into the heart of a tyrant.
Actually I agree with this. If you read the words, "military rifles" (arms) are *exactly* the kinds of firearms that the Constitution protects...
But the original comment by orionz06 is correct. The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of the type of arms, military pattern or otherwise. It simply says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not discriminate. Period.
Jay Cunningham
03-03-10, 20:29
Yes. Recall that the Revolution started when the Brits went to Concord and Lexington (as they already had at Salem) to confiscate CANNON, stores of powder, and any small arms they found stockpiled.
The patriots knew full well you don't fight a modern army with muskets alone. If you don't have artillery then you are toast. The 2A should be read to protect ALL arms, small and crew served. If the "militia" does not have access to full range of arms then it can not serve its purpose to protect against enemies foreign and domestic. :)
It should be harder to apply the 2A to purely hunting or target guns, and most easily applied ot military grade weapons.
I disagree with you. I think the 2nd pretty clearly spells out arms. That means infantry weapons. IMO the 2nd explicitly protects the M-16 series of rifles and M4 series carbines, the M9 pistol, and various other infantry weapons.
I do not believe that it protects the right to "bear" ships or artillery - as one cannot "bear" these. Crew-served weapons would be a gray area and one that I would need to think about a bit more.
That is my opinion, of course.
I think your candidate is good to go. No, he didn't come out and say "machine guns for everyone" but hey, baby steps folks. Attacking the GCA of 68' - I think we know where this guys heart lies.
I disagree with you. I think the 2nd pretty clearly spells out arms. That means infantry weapons. IMO the 2nd explicitly protects the M-16 series of rifles and M4 series carbines, the M9 pistol, and various other infantry weapons.
I do not believe that it protects the right to "bear" ships or artillery - as one cannot "bear" these. Crew-served weapons would be a gray area and one that I would need to think about a bit more.
That is my opinion, of course.
Think about it. What is the purpose of the 2A?
Over throw tyrants. What would be needed to do that?
If you think the 2A is purely about self defense or hunting you don't appreciate why we had a revolution. What was being seized at Concord and Lexington?
Compare 2A to 1A. Is any mechanism of producing or promoting speech prohibited? Why then guns?
If enthusiastic gun owners don't even understand this then God help our country because the avergae Joe certainly won't.
IMO he clearly hedged on question 6 with an evasive answer.
Why?
Because an affirmative answer to a question about military pattern arms would lead his opponent to take the quote out of context and claim he wants to allow people to own unregistered machine guns with grenade launchers.
He was smart to answer the way he did.
Jay Cunningham
03-03-10, 21:46
If you think the 2A is purely about self defense or hunting you don't appreciate why we had a revolution. What was being seized at Concord and Lexington?
Not what I said. Go read what I wrote.
parishioner
03-03-10, 22:22
IMO he clearly hedged on question 6 with an evasive answer.
Why?
Because an affirmative answer to a question about military pattern arms would lead his opponent to take the quote out of context and claim he wants to allow people to own unregistered machine guns with grenade launchers.
He was smart to answer the way he did.
Good point. We all know how they love to pull that shit. Remember the stupid woman on tv saying some .50 cal bullets are have heat seeking devices on them?
Belmont31R
03-03-10, 22:36
The common use of "arm" is of military usage, and the wording of the 2nd IE militia would lead a reasonable thinker using common sense to deduce the 2nd is aimed at protecting weapons ownership of military weapons.
Also people used to own artillery and cannons in the late 1700's, and up into the early 1800's.
Given the weapons in use at the time if military weapons were not to be included in the 2nd's meaning the founders would have excluded them specifically.
I would stand behind this guy 100%, back when the constitution was written a lot of civilian weapons were more efficient than the military weapons, so I don't see a prolblem. going forward 100yrs or more the military was still using the trap door remington single shot weapons when the a lot of civvies were using lever action repeater carbines. Hell Little Big Horn would have been a whole different story had Col Custer's troops been issued repeaters instead of the single shot trap doors they had. Even in more modern times there are plenty of cases in which civilians had to ablilty to purchase "better" more modern firearms than LEO and Military. It's not until the past 50yrs or so that we "civilians" have become the restricted in what we're allowed to purchase.
I think that around WWII or maybe a little earlier the Fed Gov't when it had gained some popularity used it's position the create Fed Agencies and laws to both make the gov't stronger and the individual stated and individual citizens weaker.
Now with the "threat" of terrorism they gov't seems to be attempting to usurp even more power from individuals and the indivudual states.
This has not always been the case, this has happened in the past 50-60yrs of the history of the great country and I don't see any reason a lot this cannot be reversed. We are a Dem Republic of United States in which the indivdual States are supposed to have the power over their own laws. The current oversixed Fed Gov't we are now dealing with is a perfect example of what happens when you let the Camels nose into the tent...it doesn't take long for the whole camel to get into the tent! IMO!
A true Multi party system, term limits, and clear boundaries between fed and state jursidiction could eliminate the Circus that is now running this country.
Not what I said. Go read what I wrote.
OK you were questioning whether crew served weapons should be covered under the 2A. What was a cannon in the 1760s? Did I miss something? Are you reading all what i wrote?
ETA: Just to show I am reading your entire post (my emphasis):
I disagree with you. I think the 2nd pretty clearly spells out arms. That means infantry weapons. IMO the 2nd explicitly protects the M-16 series of rifles and M4 series carbines, the M9 pistol, and various other infantry weapons.
I do not believe that it protects the right to "bear" ships or artillery - as one cannot "bear" these. Crew-served weapons would be a gray area and one that I would need to think about a bit more.
That is my opinion, of course.
I would stand behind this guy 100%, back when the constitution was written a lot of civilian weapons were more efficient than the military weapons, so I don't see a prolblem. going forward 100yrs or more the military was still using the trap door remington single shot weapons when the a lot of civvies were using lever action repeater carbines. Hell Little Big Horn would have been a whole different story had Col Custer's troops been issued repeaters instead of the single shot trap doors they had. Even in more modern times there are plenty of cases in which civilians had to ablilty to purchase "better" more modern firearms than LEO and Military. It's not until the past 50yrs or so that we "civilians" have become the restricted in what we're allowed to purchase.
...
This has not always been the case, this has happened in the past 50-60yrs of the history of the great country and I don't see any reason a lot this cannot be reversed.
...
Precisely true. Until the NFA of 1934 civilians could purchase and own any arm: cannon, machine gun, BAR, Tommy Gun, etc. So us arguing over the intended scope of the 2A is ridiculous. Up until 1934 it was well understood: shall not be infringed. It didn't take a lawyer to understnad what that meant. For the first 150 years of our country's history any citizen could own any arm: ship, artillery, machine gun, explosive, etc.
If we struggle with understanding this principle then the battle is lost already.
A better answer might be:
The looks of a firearm do not affect the function of the firearm. I support everyone's right to own, possess, carry, or transport any firearm of their choosing, within the constraints of state and Federal laws [I was thinking Class III weapons for the last part]
Look there are laws against killing people in cold blood and there are noise ordinances, and discharging of weapons in high pop areas... I can live with that. But if I feel safe with a freaking 105 in the backyard and I'm not brining the hurt down on my neighbor because his dog or duck or whatever pooped in my yard, then who cares! Dead is dead,,,,i can shoot you in the eye with a high powered pellet rifle a lot easier than finding the correct range of a moving target and then firing for effect on my 105 in the back yard........if you have murder in your heart.....and you want to kill someone then a #2 pencil will work as well as a silenced .45!
Guys, I think people are getting away from what the OP was originally asking in regards to his candidate.
Let's keep it on that please.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.