Where do they stand,....... moreover where do you stand?

[Oldshooter]

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.
 

Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen's God-given right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court's decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents.
 

Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012

 
Can you ignore the policy of your party,( if you have one), when you vote next time. Will that make any difference in how you vote ?

[yellowtail3]

It makes a difference. Me? I voted for the only candidate on the ballot, who I could trust to make a forceful defense of 2nd Amendment in the face of hysteria....

[Doublebass73]

The party policy makes no difference to me. Too many Republicans don't follow it for it to matter. I vote based on the candidates actual record on guns and gun control, not according to the party policy. If they have an anti-gun record I don't vote for them, plain and simple.

[KAC1911]

Party does make a difference to me because if we keep giving away everything there will be nothing let to give. so I know which party is giving away stuff for votes.

I also vote for who supports my 2A & Constittional Rights first because once we loose them all the rest is moot.

[jimster]

Well, actually I did not support the last federal legislation that was written to expand my carry rights to other states...they were messing with the commerce laws in that one, and I do not want the feds involved in state permits either, because they can regulate the laws to make them all "the same" and make a data base, and who knows what else. I actually do not trust the federal government to write anything on expanding my state permit to other states unless I read it myself. Our representative Justin Amash read the last one, he said it reeked.
So I guess I almost agree with the rep platform, as long as they toss out the last thing they wrote. I don't trust the feds to get involved or write anything into legislation concerning my state permit at this time, they failed on the last one.

[Doublebass73]

The Republican party ignored their own 2nd Amendment policy during the last presidential election by nominating a candidate who signed an assault weapons ban in his home state, was graded D- by the GOA and said this:

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Why should I take their policy seriously when they don't even follow it themselves?

[LONGTOM]

I will add one more thing into this that might make you stop and rethink your position.
 
An elected person is suppose to do what the majority of the people who elected him wants him to do most of the time.
That being said, if an elected person votes for or against something and that is what the majority of the people who elected him wants even though he himself may feel differently does that make him a good person for doing what his electors wants or a bad person for going against his own feelings?
If he votes against their wishes and goes with his own feelings is he doing what he was hired to do?
Remember, he works for them.
 
Just because someone votes one way or the other doesn't mean that is how they may truly feel.
What about the law.
A person may be against abortion for example but the law says it is legal and maybe the majority of the people that elected him are also for it.
If he votes or goes against them and the law is he really doing what he was hired to do?
Should he ignore his own feelings?
Hard questions for sure!
 
 

I tend to vote for someone who I feel is best for the job, tends to follow my way of thinking and hopefully will be honest.
I will always give a good consideration to the one who defends our CONSTITUTION but he has to have more going for him then just that alone.
Not always easy to find someone that meets all those traits.
If part of those traits are missing do I just stay home and not vote?
H--- no, I vote who I feel is the lessor of the two or three evils.
I have to admit, the last two elections I let some of those traits slide and did vote for who I saw as the lessor of the two evils because I did not want THE LIAR IN THE WHITEHOUSE to get elected.
There have been times when I have voted third party but the one running this time was no better then my choice in my eyes and he didn't stand a chance at all of winning so he was dismissed.
In my state he didn't get registered in time and wasn't even on the ballot.
You have to research back as far as possible to find out where a person stands on something and take that into consideration also, not just what they are saying at the time.
 
We all knew where THE LIAR IN THE WHITEHOUSE stood from the beginning on many of the top issues.
We just didn't know how radical he was going to be before being elected the first time.
The second time everyone knew what he really was so how did he win again is beyond me.
If this country survives and I am still around in 2016 I will again look for someone with the traits I like and vote for them.
That is all anyone can do.
Until then, I will hate what THE LIAR is and has done to us and our country.
In my mind, anyone who will not do their duty to uphold our US CONSTITUTION and the BILL OF RIGHTS (both legal documents written by our forefathers and that so many have fought and died for) deserves no respect and should be loathed by all.
 
 
 
LONGTOM

 

[powderman]

OS. Thanks for the comparison. This proves to me that the dncs finest here knew of and openly supported the bans and wants of hussein as his co conspirators. They are not shooters, hunters, etc, simply here to divide us. POWDERMAN. 

[Oldshooter]

It makes a difference. Me? I voted for the only candidate on the ballot, who I could trust to make a forceful defense of 2nd Amendment in the face of hysteria....

REALLY? 

[Doublebass73]

I will add one more thing into this that might make you stop and rethink your position.
 
An elected person is suppose to do what the majority of the people who elected him wants him to do most of the time.
That being said, if an elected person votes for or against something and that is what the majority of the people who elected him wants even though he himself may feel differently does that make him a good person for doing what his electors wants or a bad person for going against his own feelings?
If he votes against their wishes and goes with his own feelings is he doing what he was hired to do?
Remember, he works for them.
 
Just because someone votes one way or the other doesn't mean that is how they may truly feel.
What about the law.
A person may be against abortion for example but the law says it is legal and maybe the majority of the people that elected him are also for it.
If he votes or goes against them and the law is he really doing what he was hired to do?
Should he ignore his own feelings?
Hard questions for sure!

We have a Constitution that makes these decisions easy. If the majority of the people of Massachusetts want gun control laws and the governor goes along with it then it's mob rule. The founding fathers knew this so they put limits on the power of government so we don't have mob rule.

[SharonAnne]

the majority does not rule in America. If that was so then blacks could not carry guns or vote. Women could not vote. However we ARE a nation of laws. Just because you say something not popular you cannot be silenced. You have a right to free speech.  We have a right to our own religion. Congress may not establish a national religion. However we have freedom OF religion. Freedom FROM religion is not a right as the atheist claim. We may have a Nativity scene on the White House lawn. After all this country was founded by Christians fleeing government established religions such as the Church of England.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is established as a basic tenent of our government because tyranny was why our Country was formed. Tyranny by a standing and legal government. We have the right and duty to dissolve any government that acts in a lawless manner, such as that of the Liar-in-Chief now illegally infesting the Oval Office. It has used the Office of President to write Executive Orders infringing our Second Amendment rights. Since we have a Senate of cowards who will not tell him NO the lawlessness of Executive Orders go on.

If it comes to it We The People might have to take up arms to defend the Country of the United States of America from the greatest of domestic enemies. All soldiers, sailors and law enforcement officers swear an oath to defend the Constitution. Some need to be reminded of their duty. Sadly too many.

Where do I stand? Simple answer, I stand with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Armed if necessary.

[LONGTOM]

I will add one more thing into this that might make you stop and rethink your position.
 
An elected person is suppose to do what the majority of the people who elected him wants him to do most of the time.
That being said, if an elected person votes for or against something and that is what the majority of the people who elected him wants even though he himself may feel differently does that make him a good person for doing what his electors wants or a bad person for going against his own feelings?
If he votes against their wishes and goes with his own feelings is he doing what he was hired to do?
Remember, he works for them.
 
Just because someone votes one way or the other doesn't mean that is how they may truly feel.
What about the law.
A person may be against abortion for example but the law says it is legal and maybe the majority of the people that elected him are also for it.
If he votes or goes against them and the law is he really doing what he was hired to do?
Should he ignore his own feelings?
Hard questions for sure!

We have a Constitution that makes these decisions easy. If the majority of the people of Massachusetts want gun control laws and the governor goes along with it then it's mob rule. The founding fathers knew this so they put limits on the power of government so we don't have mob rule.

In a way, isn't our general voteing system mob rule?
Where the majority of the votes decides who wins!
I am not talking about the electorial votes, just the general votes.
I understand what you say but,
since we do not have mob rule by a majority in this country then when THE LIAR jamed OBCARE down the throat of every citizen it was OK even though it was against the wishes of pretty much the whole country?
Doesn't seem right either!
 
 
LONGTOM

[Doublebass73]

Neither is right. Neither party follows the Constitution. There are only a few Republicans who even mention the Constitution.

I have and will vote for candidates solely based upon their record on the 2nd Amendment. Party means nothing to me. If they don't respect my right to bear arms then I don't vote for them, it's that simple. There are many others who feel the same way that I do and vote the same way that I do. If the Republican party can ever grasp this concept then they might do better in future presidential elections.

[Oldshooter]

Yep!

[P.A. Myers]

I believe in the Constitution of the United States. It was caused to be written by God  as a framework for Free people. It is the core of everything legal.  The meaning of it does not change. The hard fact is, without allegiance to The Constitution of the United States you are not a citizen and deserve neither the protection or wealth it affords. 
 
 
 
                      P.A.