NRA now bestowing responsible citizenship with a paid-up membership? Reminds of Groucho not wanting "to belong to any club that will accept me as a member," considering what a full-badge member is broadcasting on this board.
Again with the dishonesty and twisting of words, eh King? Please tell us who ever said that the NRA bestows responsible citizenship?
I clearly stated that I feel it is the responsibility of a U.S. Citizen to protect the Constitution. Here on a firearms Forum, it is quite natural that sort of responsibility would pertain much more to attacks upon, and perversions of, the 2nd Amendment such as those posted very often by you.
I further stated that I feel it is even more important for an NRA Member to do more than the average citizen when it comes to protecting our Rights from insidious and dishonest attacks on the 2nd Amendment... and most especially when they come from devious Trojan Horses like you who solemnly proclaim to be pro-gun, but persistently eat at the foundations of our Constitutional Right through anti-gun, anti-NRA, and anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric... punctuated by totally dishonest denial of your own damn words.
These responsibilities to protect our Constitutional Rights certainly trump any silly notions that selective and faux civility and manners should supercede that.
Membership in NRA is, or certainly should be, more than a card in the wallet, a slogan on a hat or tee shirt, a lapel pin on your shooting jacket, or a tag line. Attacks on our gun rights are relentless. Defense against those attacks needs to be more relentless, and at least one step better.
Hey King, can you identify who said this:
Looked up Levin in Wikipedia. Seems like some of my conservative friends. His book on the Court confirms my loosey-goosey characterization of its deliberations. Change and change again, nothing sacred or inviolable, eh?
"Men In Black: How The Supreme Court is Destroying America
Levin authored the 2005 book Men In Black: How The Supreme Court Is Destroying America, in which he advanced his thesis that activist judges on the Supreme Court (from all parts of the political spectrum) have "legislated from the bench." In a review of Men in Black, Commentary magazine's Dan Seligman wrote that Levin asks readers "to identify with 'originalists' who look to the text of the Constitution and the intent of its framers, and to reject the 'activists' who construe the Constitution broadly and are more concerned with getting to their own 'desired outcomes'."
That seems to put him at odds with the NRA-promoted amendment. Senator Stevens, a Republican appointee who served for 35 years on the Court with mostly Republican appointees and under three Republican chief justices, argues for amendments that would reduce the role of federal courts in American political life; in other words, amendments to entrench judicial restraint.
Levin and Stevens, on this evidence, appear to believe that the Second amendment should only apply only to those who keep and bear arms while serving in the militia, and not as an individual right. Stevens goes further in his book, saying democratic processes should decide on the matter, not the judges, as a remedy for "what every American can recognize as an ongoing national tragedy."
All from a Reagan conservative and a Nixon-appointed jurist.
Gee, I do believe that was you King... once again dishonestly attempting to portray Justice Stevens as a Conservative. And you lied about Constitutional Scholar Mark Levin's beliefs too King.
Want to hear what Mark Levin really has to say about the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment? Take 5 minutes to listen to this:
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-the-...cal-government/Hands up- Don't shoot,
Selby Lowndes
