Posted on 08/15/2012 6:12:20 AM PDT by marktwain
Gun owners now have one of their own on a presidential ticket. Rep. Paul Ryan recalled “deer camp over in Fairchild in Eau Claire County” in his remarks after being chosen as Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential running mate. The Wisconsin Republican is an avid hunter who’s been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights.
Mr. Ryan, who owns a rifle and a shotgun, is a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA). “I know firsthand Paul’s commitment to the Second Amendment,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, to The Washington Times. “We’ve given him an A rating and endorsed him every cycle he’s been in Congress.”
-----------------------cut---------------------------
Unlike Obama administration officials, there is little doubt a Vice President Ryan would oppose policies like the so-called “assault weapons ban” or prohibiting ammunition sales by mail. He said on Sunday in Waukesha, Wis., that America was founded on the idea that “our rights come from nature and God, not from government.” Mr. Ryan understands self-defense is a right, not a privilege.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd
Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd
Neither does the treasonous nra giving out political endorsements to democrats, regardless of their position on guns. The rest of the democrat political agenda is sufficiently perverse to deny any such recognition by
anyone to anyone pursuing the destruction of the Republic.
One of the MANY reasons I cannot justify membership and or
contributions to such an organization that cannot bring itself to really get serious about “shall NOT be infringed”.
Holy crap....Ryan “owns a rilfe and a shotgun”......! Ryan is a real and avid sportsman and I would venture to guess that he owns several guns, just like most hunters. Probably make those poor weenie libs inside the beltway wet themselves.
"A" rifle? "A" shotgun??
That all?
Slacker ...
;'}
Past but never again NRA member here as well.....
Do not disparage hunting. It is covered by the Second amendment just as are all legitimate uses of arms. Hunting is why we have 320 million private guns in America. Hunting serves as a gateway to introduce people to the right to bear arms.
We are now in a transition where self defense will become the primary reason to own guns. But for decades, hunting served as the most significant reason for citizens to remain armed.
There seems to be a lot of that, lately. The rivers of this Great Republic will soon be running red with all the rust.
Not disparaging hunting at all, I even have a lifetime hunting license.
But when we let the anti gun crowd equate hunting with legitimate gun use, then we are playing into their hands. All they have to do is ban hunting (or hunting ammo), and no more legitimate use for firearms. Look at how much of the US already bans hunting (mostly state and federal property, and all lane in city limits) and the amount of asses able hunting land is cut every year.
I remember a push several years ago by several cities to justify banning all firearms ownership in the city limits as there was no legitimate place to shoot them in the city.
As mentioned, hunting is a legitimate use of firearms, but it isn’t what the 2nd covers.
Not disparaging hunting at all, I even have a lifetime hunting license.
But when we let the anti gun crowd equate hunting with legitimate gun use, then we are playing into their hands. All they have to do is ban hunting (or hunting ammo), and no more legitimate use for firearms. Look at how much of the US already bans hunting (mostly state and federal property, and all lane in city limits) and the amount of asses able hunting land is cut every year.
I remember a push several years ago by several cities to justify banning all firearms ownership in the city limits as there was no legitimate place to shoot them in the city.
As mentioned, hunting is a legitimate use of firearms, but it isn’t what the 2nd covers.
I think you are in sharp disagreement with the recent Supreme Court Heller decision.
The Heller Court properly recognized that the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, which is protected by the Second Amendment, includes the use of arms for self-defense in the home.
Our Founders were very intelligent people and recognized that there was a risk in enumerating specific things that the government could not do. The risk was that people might assume that everything not prohibited explicitly was therefore allowed. That is not the case at all.
One example of our Founder's caution was the wording of the Second Amendment. The mention of the "Militia" was to prevent future interpreters of the Constitution of claiming, "Well, of course, the Founders never intended to arm the people to enable them to oppose their own government!" That is exactly what our Founders did intend.
But the wording of the prohibition makes plain that the Second Amendment does not create any rights. It simply bars infringement of a pre-existing right.
That pre-existing right most certainly includes the right to take game in order to feed, clothe, and protect our families.
We take for granted the incredibly efficient marketplace which delivers food to our local supermarkets. This efficient mechanism is not guaranteed to exist tomorrow. If there should be a breakdown in our economic system, you will have a right to take game with arms in order to feed your family rather than see them starve.
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.