Wednesday, July 20, 2016

The Republican Platform & The 2nd Amendment

From the 2016 Republican Party Platform, as adopted on July 18...
We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a natural inalienable right that predates the Constitution and is secured by the Second Amendment. Lawful gun ownership enables Americans to exercise their God-given right of self- defense for the safety of their homes, their loved ones, and their communities.

We salute the Republican Congress for defending the right to keep and bear arms by preventing the President from installing a new liberal majority on the Supreme Court. The confirmation to the Court of additional anti-gun justices would eviscerate the Second Amendment’s fundamental protections. Already, local officials in the nation’s capital and elsewhere are defying the Court’s decisions upholding an individual right to bear arms as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald. We support firearm reciprocity legislation to recognize the right of law-abiding Americans to carry firearms to protect themselves and their families in all 50 states. We support constitutional carry statutes and salute the states that have passed them. We oppose ill-conceived laws that would restrict magazine capacity or ban the sale of the most popular and common modern rifle. We also oppose any effort to deprive individuals of their right to keep and bear arms without due process of law.

We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and the current Administration’s illegal harassment of firearm dealers. We oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners, registration of ammunition, and restoration of the ill-fated Clinton gun ban. We call for a thorough investigation — by a new Republican administration — of the deadly “Fast and Furious” operation perpetrated by Department of Justice officials who approved and allowed illegal sales of guns to known violent criminals.
Contrast that with Hillary's view of the 2nd Amendment...
"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
As with most on the left, there's no part of the Constitution she doesn't seek to destroy.


  1. The platform statements are like the pirate code; more like guidelines.

    I have been profoundly disappointed at the NRA-ILA and Senator Cornyn in particular putting forward bills that are not what gun owners would call supporting the 2nd Amendment. Cornyn is not the only one to endorse using the secret no guns list for prohibiting gun ownership too.

    The platform is a good first step. Now we need the republicans to back up the platform words with deeds.

    1. I hear you! At least the guidelines are better than the planned promised destruction from the hildebeast. The weakness of so many Republicans is why we ended up with Trump.


  2. At the same time, however, the GOP has put in language about transferring public lands to the state, an idea which is massively unpopular in most Western states and which amounts to slitting the throats of sportsmen as we know that the states would end up selling the land pretty quickly. Trump, on the other hand, has stated he doesn't support this idea.

    Stuff like this just makes this election depressing. A person can't vote on moral grounds, or 2nd Amendment grounds, without knowing they're also voting against their self interest on something like this. Most of us will do it, but I also know that the Democrats sound good in this region because of things like this for the first time in years.

    1. Thanks for explaining the local concerns around that one. Very interesting. I will try tio watch for news on that issue; the west being one option for my "later" years.

      Indeed, there's a conundrum for voters around many issues this year. Keeping focus on the bigger picture will help. Before fed vs state lands will be moot, if we don't have a free country.

    2. Indeed.

      Around here I've heard at least several die hard Republicans be very vocal on this, and I've heard at least a couple of registered Republicans, one who is very strong on 2nd Amendment issues, openly indicate that they were considering the Democratic candidate for the House, which is open. Basically, they'd rather lose some 2nd Amendment rights than lose the right to hunt and fish where they have their entire lives.

      All politics is local, of course, which the parties need to remember. Going after the public lands puts the GOP in jeopardy. Going after the 2nd Amendment here makes the Democrats nearly un-electable. If there was a 3d party here that was in tune locally, both parties would be having a bad time.


Comments on posts over 21 days old are held for moderation.