Quoted: He might be on our side. Depends on if his views only extend to "sporting" rifles and shotguns.-Ben
|
Big +1. This is why it is important to learn the
whole truth about any self proclaimed "pro-gun" political candidate. George Bush (41) was "pro-gun" and gave us an EO that banned import of "non-sporting" rifles. That EO was the foundation for the 1994 AWB. And although the 10 year AWB expired the EO still stands. George Bush (43), also self proclaimed pro-gun, has the authority to recind the EO but won't.
Some will claim that Bush 43 has done a lot for gun owner's rights. What a sham. All he did was sign a bill that everyone else did the leg work on. If that's your idea of "pro-gun" we have different understandings of the rights of free Americans.
Gun enthusiasts don't need a passivist "pro-gun" president. What does the prefix "pro-" mean. "Pro-" means "to move forward, advancing towards." A
Pro-gun candidate means a
pro-active gun candidate.
We had two such candidates in the last presidential election.
TWO candidates swore to recind all previous anti-gun presidential EO's and actively pursue repeal of the GCA and NFA. Neither of these candidates won the election and the majority of voters, even so-called pro-gun voters, never even heard of them.
Am I ranting again? You bet. These are the words of a single issue voter. Because without the right to defend yourself, defend yourelf
well, none of the other rights matter. Rights to speech, peaceful assembly, privacy, due cause, representation, et-cetera ad nauseum don't matter if you don't have the teeth to bite the hands that will take away. Guns are liberty's teeth.
{/rant}
The good news in the posted CNN story is that Scalia carried a [military training] rifle and was educated a military school.