Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Some politicians dodge gun question in magazine survey
Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 3 January, 2010 | David Codrea

Posted on 01/04/2010 4:16:37 AM PST by marktwain

Here are some responses politicians holding national office provided to GUNS Magazine when asked to comment on the Second Amendment.

An Arizona senator:

"THE SECOND AMENDMENT, which guarantees the right of a free people to the possession of arms, is as important today as ever. We who enjoy the pleasure and the challenge of hunting and marksmanship appreciate also that there must be legislation which, effectively administered, will continue to make possible our enjoyment of this privilege while providing protection from those who would abuse it."

A Georgia congressman:

"IT IS OF VITAL importance that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. For Federal, State or local authorities to impose undue restrictions and regulations on legitimate ownership and use of legal firearms constitutes a threat and menace to a free society. Every effort should be made to penalize unlawful use of guns; but mass punishment or restrictions imposed upon law abiding citizens and criminals alike would be used to the benefit of criminals and would unduly restrict legitimate ownership and use of firearms. Incidentally, my two sons and I enjoy GUNS Magazine very much and look forward to receiving every issue."

A Florida congressman:

"I DO NOT feel qualified to comment on the Second Amendment of the Constitution. I am sure that other Members of Congress will respond in a way which will serve your purpose."

A Vermont senator:

"I WISH IT WERE possible for me to submit a statement for your magazine. As a matter of fact, I have had several similar requests this year and have had to turn them all down because I have a hard time keeping up with even my Legislative work."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 1959; banglist; examiner; guns; survey
Yes, this is from 1959. It shows how deep the rot was, even then.
1 posted on 01/04/2010 4:16:38 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Politicians that dodge questions about fundamental rights should never be trusted.

We have all heard the double-talk too many times.

We have all seen John Kerry goose hunting.

We have all heard the qualifiers being given before.

We will not trust blindly.

2 posted on 01/04/2010 4:34:49 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

...our enjoyment of this privilege...

It is NOT a priviledge. It is an inalienable RIGHT, secured to us by our CREATOR.

3 posted on 01/04/2010 4:52:00 AM PST by Paisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Roberts “Heller Decision” hailed as victory by NRA, demonstrates the true reality of that group.

Roberts included a new definition of “Arms”, see definitions in the pdf, relevant section begins” then, as now” and has no basis in history or fact, BUT, mirrors the language in the UN Treaty,”convention on light weapons”, within the catch-all OBAMA “Global poverty bill”, co-sponsored by Snowe.

Is it relevant to note young Obama mentored by gay pedophile, Snowe long time lesbian, and Roberts has rumors, as well as a moment of excitement (sexual?) when he flubbed the oath? Perverts have proclivity for perfidy.

NRA, GOA, JPOF all are ignoring this oncoming disarming.

@ pg 53? of PDF, new definition begins: “then, as now..”
and removes any firearm of any age manufactured for, copies of, or designs derived from any military weapon.

Kiss the pre-1898 antiques good by, and note all bolt action are design derived from military designs.

4 posted on 01/04/2010 5:40:10 AM PST by kendwell (The task.... is not yours to finish. Nor are you to refrain from it altogether)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
It always raises the red flags for me when a politician starts talking about hunting and sportsmen when asked a question about the 2nd amendment and gun rights. The 2nd amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting. That tells me that the politician either doesn't know what the h-— he's talking about, or is a gun grabber trying to pose a pro gun when his definition of gun ownership is limiting Americans to one single shot hunting rifle for sport purposes - AKA: The John Kerry definition of “pro gun” from the 2004 campaign.
5 posted on 01/04/2010 5:45:32 AM PST by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paisan
*** It is NOT a priviledge. It is an inalienable RIGHT, secured to us by our CREATOR. ***

If you want to have an aneurysm go to the White House website ( and scroll down to the bottom of the page, then click:

You'll see what Barry and his gang think.
NOTE: Be sitting down and put all dangerous objects away first.

6 posted on 01/04/2010 6:12:37 AM PST by Condor51 (The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

As a voter, question not only what they say, but also, and more importantly, what they do.

7 posted on 01/04/2010 6:18:37 AM PST by chainsaw (If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -- P.J..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.

This is it.

Blood heating up now...

8 posted on 01/04/2010 11:35:38 AM PST by Paisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kendwell
kendwell said: "Kiss the pre-1898 antiques good by ..."

From Heller:
"The term [ARMS] was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.

I think you are very much misunderstanding the decision. There is no implication that "Arms" as used in the Second Amendment consists ONLY of weapons that were not specifically designed for military use.

The Heller decision broadened the understanding of which "Arms" are protected and for which purposes such arms might be kept. There was no attempt to completely define the term. It was only necessary to establish that Heller's handgun was protected. It was thus necessary to show that "Arms" could include a handgun intended for self-defense.

9 posted on 01/04/2010 1:52:17 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson