NRA endorses Donald Trump at national convention nbcnews.to/1Tp8tG0
Well, not like there was much choice, what with Hillary wanting to confiscate all semi auto rifles, shotguns, pistols, and pump action shotguns. Kinda makes it easy.
Until today, I was thinking I would probably vote for Trump this fall. Now my vote for Hillary is pretty much locked in.
Pretty much a no brainer I would imagine for the NRA. Hillary has made her intentions clear.
“So I’m going to speak out. I’m going to do everything I can to rally people against this pernicious, corrupting influence of the NRA, and we’re going to do whatever we can. I’m proud when my husband took them on and we were able to ban assault weapons but he had to put a sunset on it so, 10 years later, of course, Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them. We’ve got to go after this. Here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment and I am going to make that case every chance I get.” HRC
:rolleyes: I thought Obama was going to do that. He better get on it. He only has 8 mos to go door to door to take away everyone’s guns.
Oh come on, that’s clearly not gonna happen.
I didn’t support her in 2008 nor in this primary season but mine is locked in for her in the general coming up. And I know you’re not Catholic but if it’s any consolation, even Catholic Bishop Gerald Kicanas has said voting decisions are never easy slam dunks. That we must weigh issues, consider the character of the candidates and how we think they would actually affect society, and then make our choice. Peace be with you. God bless.
I don’t find there’s much character to consider from either party’s candidate.
Well it’s not the first election where I’ve heard that scare tactic and it hasn’t happened yet. So yeah my money would definitely be on it not happening.
The Supreme Court upheld gun rights by a narrow 5-4 decision.
If Scalia (pro-gun rights) is the lone justice replaced in the next four years, the pendulum would swing from 5-4 in favor of gun rights to 5-4 against.
It’s a big election year from a gun ownership standpoint on both sides of the issue.
I suppose the NRA did not have to endorse either candidate. But given the choice between Trump and Clinton, I am not surprised by their pick.
Here we go again. One would think that the sum total of Catholic teaching on abortion was contained in a single interview with Bishop Kincanis. Of course the good Bishop in no way sates that one can ignore Church teaching on NOT voting for pro-abortion candidate but people figure it they say it enough it must be so.
So lets try again-how do you interpret what Bishop Kincanis says and can you back up your personal interpretation with a quote from any member of the magestrium or any Church document? Something clear and direct like this would be helpful:
*No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,"
“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone”
I really don’t know how the Orthodox see this, and there might be a difference between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox too when it comes to abortion.
But just for reference and to avoid misunderstanding, neither Bishop Kicanas nor any other Catholic leader has said Catholics can vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless to oppose an equally grave or greater intrinsic evil. Since Catholicism considers unborn children to be human beings with an equal right to life as that of anyone else’s, it’s hard to imagine a greater evil than the killing of a million children per year, which Hillary Clinton supports.
What is your neighbor having a pistol to a million dead?
Exactly. As always its best to turn to the Magestrium:
*Note that proportionate reasons does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions
Bishop Joseph A. Galante*
I do think if Hillary Clinton is elected, she will do her best to criminalize millions of Americans. How will she do that? Well, a lot of people have guns they bought without them being registered, perfectly legally. A lot of guns have been inherited or traded, etc, again, quite legally. If she gets through a law (like they did in Australia) requiring that people turn in all non-permitted guns, millions of people won’t do it, and they’ll thereby be criminals.
Think it can’t happen? It can. It’s legal right now to own a no-kidding machine gun. You just have to go through a special, very rigorous, background check, buy from a permitted dealer and pay a pretty hefty fee to the government for the permit. So hardly anybody ever does it.
But after WWII, Korea and Vietnam, lots of servicemen brought back or sent back automatic weapons as souveniers; the automatic pistol taken from a surrendering German officer; the AK-47 taken from a dead NVA soldier, etc. Nobody thought anything of it at the time, but when the regulations changed, it criminalized every one of those soldiers, and did in a way that none of them can ever be legalized. So there are probably a million or more of those out there that nobody dares to try to register because it can no longer be done. But if it was the automatic pistol grandpa took from the German, they’re not going to turn them into the feds, either. Completely unnecessary.
And if Hillary gets a similar thing passed for, let’s say, semi-automatic rifles or pistols of a certain caliber, or all guns, there are going to be a lot of entirely innocent people criminalized because people won’t turn them in, and they won’t do it because the Constitution says they have the right to bear arms and everybody knows it.
Solzhenitsyn said it well “The state must not be so excessively fierce that it turns the people to deception…”
And if Hillary Clinton is so totalitarian that she insists we must change our religious beliefs to suit her views on abortion, outlawing guns would be, to her, a trifle.
I’m no longer Catholic, but I know enough to know that one bishop is not “the Magisterium”.
But the bigger point is that the statement assumes that the vote in opposition to abortion and euthanasia would not simply be for an anti-abortion position, but for action against abortion. In the case of the contemporary GOP and especially Donald Trump, that would be a specious assumption.
First of all, the Second Amendment clearly premises the right to bear arms on the need for a “well-regulated militia” which was necessary at that time to repel foreign invasions in the absence of a standing army. That hasn’t been the situation for over 200 years. I don’t care what 5 corrupt Supreme Court justices said about it. The same Supreme Court has said that two people of the same sex can marry, and that corporations are “persons”. :shrug:
I doubt that Hillary Clinton would do the above, but if she did, with regard to semi-automatic weapons, I would support her 100%. Even under the interpretation of the Second Amendment you no doubt favor, the right to bear arms doesn’t include a right to possess any weapon whatsoever. Or perhaps you think private citizens have a right own bazookas. Bazookas are “arms”, after all.
Of the Repubs on the Court, one (Kennedy) voted for “same sex marriage” along with all of the Dem justices. Four Repubs voted against it. But even Kennedy couldn’t stomach partial birth abortion and voted with all other Repub appointees to uphold bans on it. All four Dem appointees voted to keep partial birth abortion on demand.
As little as some might think it of any value, every man in my state between (if I recall correctly) the ages of 18 and 60 is, by reason of his residency, a member of the state militia, subject to being called out at any time by the governor or adjutant general to do whatever we’re ordered to do, and to bring arms if so ordered. Undoubtedly other states have that as well.
And there was a standing army at the time the Constitution was adopted. Militia were expected to do more things than repel a foreign invader. They were very heavily relied on during the Civil War, for example.
And every deer rifle in the country is a semi-automatic, as is nearly every pistol. And you can own a bazooka legally. All it is is a pipe with batteries. Machine guns are legal to own. It’s just hard to get a permit. Criminals don’t bother with permits, so they can have them any time they want them.
And, of course, if criminals can bring tons of illegal drugs into this country, what would make anyone think they couldn’t bring guns for their own use? So really, what the left wants to do is disarm all the non-criminals. I’m sure the criminals would be for that.
As far as I know Kicanas is as much a member as is Burke.