NRA endorses Romney, Ryan

[copsnrobbers]

Young girls are sluts these days.. No ******* morals or sense of responsibility. No one's gonna marry them. They're used up by the time they're 25... Fucked 100 guys or more.
So, we better Make sure abortion stays legal.. We don't need more down trodden, we have enough already.
They cost to much $ and aren't good examples for society.

There parents are first Generation dumb *****.

 

[hazlnut]

Go NRA!!​

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And yet the gun control issue isn't really on either candidate's agenda.

Given that one wonders why the NRA would support either candidate.

Just as it’s not about abortion for social conservatives, so too is it not about guns for the NRA.

Unlike conservatives and abortion, liberals have wisely accepted Heller/McDonald as settled law and moved on to other issues.

With liberals no longer taking the ‘gun grabber’ bait, the NRA must work that much harder to keep the rabid right engaged, even if that involves lying.

Go to NYC, liberals here still think Heller didnt settle anything.

And unlike Roe, the word "arms" is actually in the consitution, and the court is doing what it supposed to, clarifying an already written statement, not as in Roe, where they made up a right based on thier own opinions.

Neither the words ‘individual’ nor ‘self-defense’ are in the Second Amendment, yet the Court ruled that they are. Which is fine, that’s the role of the Supreme Court in the context of judicial review, authorized to interpret what the Constitution means.

But before Heller the Second Amendment was perceived as a collective right, and arms guaranteed only for service in the state militia.

To oppose Griswold/Roe/Casey is to oppose Heller/McDonald; to oppose one in support for the other is therefore inconsistent.

And New York lawmakers do not determine National policy, nor are they representative of lawmakers Nationwide.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Well, of course, the NRA supports those who respect the 2ndAmendment!

You have to wonder why Obama (the enemy within) is scared of those who are legally armed.

tut tut

 

[rightwinger]

Well, of course, the NRA supports those who respect the 2ndAmendment!

You have to wonder why Obama (the enemy within) is scared of those who are legally armed.

tut tut

NRA makes more money fear mongering off of Obama

A reelection of Obama is in their best interests

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, of course, the NRA supports those who respect the 2ndAmendment!

You have to wonder why Obama (the enemy within) is scared of those who are legally armed.

tut tut

NRA makes more money fear mongering off of Obama

A reelection of Obama is in their best interests

True, Heller/McDonald was the worst thing to happen to the NRA.

 

[JoeB131]

You're in the dark, wake up Joe.

Nope. I used to be. WHen I used to buy the NRA bullshit.

Then I realized that the criminal might be a bit of a pain in the ass when he breaks into my car or my apartment and takes a couple things...

But the Plutocrats stealing my middle class lifestyle was a far bigger threat to my well-being.

 

[EriktheRed]

NRA endorses Romney, Ryan

And in other news, paper has a tendency to burn when you touch it to a flame.

 

[martybegan]

And yet the gun control issue isn't really on either candidate's agenda.

Given that one wonders why the NRA would support either candidate.

Just as it’s not about abortion for social conservatives, so too is it not about guns for the NRA.

Unlike conservatives and abortion, liberals have wisely accepted Heller/McDonald as settled law and moved on to other issues.

With liberals no longer taking the ‘gun grabber’ bait, the NRA must work that much harder to keep the rabid right engaged, even if that involves lying.

Go to NYC, liberals here still think Heller didnt settle anything.

And unlike Roe, the word "arms" is actually in the consitution, and the court is doing what it supposed to, clarifying an already written statement, not as in Roe, where they made up a right based on thier own opinions.

Neither the words ‘individual’ nor ‘self-defense’ are in the Second Amendment, yet the Court ruled that they are. Which is fine, that’s the role of the Supreme Court in the context of judicial review, authorized to interpret what the Constitution means.

But before Heller the Second Amendment was perceived as a collective right, and arms guaranteed only for service in the state militia.

To oppose Griswold/Roe/Casey is to oppose Heller/McDonald; to oppose one in support for the other is therefore inconsistent.

And New York lawmakers do not determine National policy, nor are they representative of lawmakers Nationwide.

the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" does not mean a state militia. If it did they would have stopped before this statement.

Roe created something out of nothing, heller is clariifcation of an already stated point.