The Result of the NRA Sellout
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071219/ap_on_go_co/congress_guns
remember the secret negotiations that the NRA had with democrats ? well looks like they made a deal and helped to further erode gun rights.
remember the secret negotiations that the NRA had with democrats ? well looks like they made a deal and helped to further erode gun rights.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
Tr, enough is enough. I am sick to death of the supposed ignorance you have of the NRA. After all of the 100's of logical discussions that have taken place here, you have gone from 50/50 not sure to 110% for the NRA. This makes no sense and is illogical. You must have a mental defect and therefore have no right to a firearm!!!!!!!(Hey I based this on your own defense, and I am as qualified as one of those quacks, believe me)
Pay attention cause I'm only going to say this once Tr.
IT IS NOT SCIENCE! It's closer to some sort of whacked out religion! 90% of psychologists have a psychologist. It's NOT real but is given credibility and deserves NONE OF IT! Now they want to base a constitutional right on it!?!? BS, and you, defending it! What is your problem?
As far as NRA, Go back and read some of your thoughts from 4 years ago on this subject.
+100 TR Fox...I was getting ready to post something not quite so nice, but jpwolf said it better...WAKE UP!!!!
I'm begining to think you have something more at stake with the NRA...Are you on their paid staff???? There has got to be some reason for the blind ignorance you profess....???0 -
Dan, calling a spade a spade, is being a hypocrite? Quite the opposite! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by dan55362
Its funny when you think the NRA agrees with a anti gun group everybody here goes crazy and thinks the NRA is evil. But by thinking the NRA is evil you are agreeing with the anti gun groups also. (Just an my observation of Hippocrates.}
Seems as if you may need to read some more "Hippocrates".
While you are at it, check the definition of "shall not be infringed". You may also want to read the Bill of Rights and then, when you have finished, you should correlate all that with this "current" action by the vaunted NRA AND their past actions of a similar nature.
Get back to us when the research is done.
Just an observation.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dan55362
Its funny when you think the NRA agrees with a anti gun group everybody here goes crazy and thinks the NRA is evil. But by thinking the NRA is evil you are agreeing with the anti gun groups also. (Just an my observation of Hippocrates.}
Using your logic
If the NRA agrees with anti-gun groups, doesn't that make the NRA an anti-gun group also?0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by freemind
Now now CR, you know over here in GD, most love the NRA.
Why, they even think the only reason we have gun rights is BECAUSE of the NRA, Bill of Rights be damned.
But you ARE correct, the NRA sells its members and NON members down the river alike.
Why is it when some people want to bash the NRA they attribute tremendous power to the NRA? Power such as the NRA being able to "sell members and non-members and their rights down the river?" Since the NRA does not own those members/non-members nor does it own their gun rights, just how can the NRA "sell them?"
In addition, if such claims of NRA power are truthful, (as opposed to lies) then that would mean the NRA is very, very powerful. If that is the case, wouldn't it make more sense to work towards reforming the NRA from within instead of agitating for it's demise? And then use that power in a manner that might finally make some people here happy?
Also, who here is in favor of citizens who have "documented mental health problems" to be able to purchase a firearm just as quickly and easily as someone without such a handicap?
It is simply because of blind, willfully ignorant support of the NRA that they have taken on the mantle of "staunch defender" of "YOUR Second Amendment Rights" as they like to trumpet. Support much like you offer up.
America's gun-owners are by and large morons in the political and constitutional sense.
Most gun-owners have guns because they hunt, because Uncle Skippy left them a couple, because they grew up with a couple in the house and so did Dad and Gramps.
Generally they are clueless of RTKBA issues and like you tr, they rely on someone else to advise them on constitutional issues, such as our esteemed NRA. They don't have a good understanding of the meaning and intent of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, or of the proper role of the Federal Government.
As to the last point in your post.....the Federal Government has ZERO Constitutional authority to make ANY determination as to which of America's Citizens can, or can't, purchase, own, carry or use a firearm, period.
You know, that whole "right of the people" keeping and bearing arms and "shall not be infringed" thing.
States may arguable impose certain reglations and set certain sanctions for misuse of a firearm, dependent on their particular State Constitution of course.
The Fed has ZERO authority to do so under the US Constitution.
If someone buys a gun from an individual or retailer who makes the CHOICE to sell them one and then that person misuses that firearm....you punish the act committed, swiftly and surely, without imposing regulations on an inanimate object or the rest of "free" American Citizens. It falls under the umbrella of an overall concept that can be described as "the price we pay to live in a free society".
This is simply a concept called "personal accountability" and it fits into an overall theme of "individual liberty", which meshes with a governing system called a "Constitutional Republic".
Got it?
Since when does State law supersede Federal law? I thought you stood behind the 2nd???????0 -
Sounds like Communism- comrade. This is a bunch of fooey. All those liberal pieces of garbage need to go to hell. They need to stop fcking with the hard working Americans that enjoy our sport. 0 -
ECC Quote: "How about this question...Who here is in favor of the 2nd Amendment??? That is the question we should be asking. There is a price for freedom...and sometimes it is high. I'll take that price any day...as a matter of fact, I've already paid it. Give me my 2nd Amendment!"
I'll step up and announce for Amendment II, as written and as intended.[;)]
Pretty hard to get around it when you can hold the gun-control crowd's focus on it, IMO.[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by dan55362
Its funny when you think the NRA agrees with a anti gun group everybody here goes crazy and thinks the NRA is evil. But by thinking the NRA is evil you are agreeing with the anti gun groups also. (Just an my observation of Hippocrates.}
Using your logic
If the NRA agrees with anti-gun groups, doesn't that make the NRA an anti-gun group also?
I dont know I am start to get realy confused now.[:D]0 -
quote:Since when does State law supersede Federal law? I thought you stood behind the 2nd???????
Ummmm, only since the beginning of this nation!
And with this kind of ignorance, we wonder where all our feedoms are going?
The Fed has slowly taken authority from the state, and the states have slowly ceded their constitutionally given authority to the Fed. The Fed was more than happy to take it and use it for control of the whole population. The state was happy to cede it to the Fed because, hey, less responsibility means less work, right? LAZY states!
Wow! I guess they stopped teaching this in school in the early '80's. But this is no excuse as I graduated in '88.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Since when does State law supersede Federal law? I thought you stood behind the 2nd???????
Ummmm, only since the beginning of this nation!
And with this kind of ignorance, we wonder where all our feedoms are going?
The Fed has slowly taken authority from the state, and the states have slowly ceded their constitutionally given authority to the Fed. The Fed was more than happy to take it and use it for control of the whole population. The state was happy to cede it to the Fed because, hey, less responsibility means less work, right? LAZY states!
Who here ever thought that they would live to see America fall so far, so fast...I'm just glad that I am still able enough to enforce my oath...0 -
quote:Originally posted by dan55362
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by freemind
Now now CR, you know over here in GD, most love the NRA.
Why, they even think the only reason we have gun rights is BECAUSE of the NRA, Bill of Rights be damned.
But you ARE correct, the NRA sells its members and NON members down the river alike.
Why is it when some people want to bash the NRA they attribute tremendous power to the NRA? Power such as the NRA being able to "sell members and non-members and their rights down the river?" Since the NRA does not own those members/non-members nor does it own their gun rights, just how can the NRA "sell them?"
In addition, if such claims of NRA power are truthful, (as opposed to lies) then that would mean the NRA is very, very powerful. If that is the case, wouldn't it make more sense to work towards reforming the NRA from within instead of agitating for it's demise? And then use that power in a manner that might finally make some people here happy?
Also, who here is in favor of citizens who have "documented mental health problems" to be able to purchase a firearm just as quickly and easily as someone without such a handicap?
It is simply because of blind, willfully ignorant support of the NRA that they have taken on the mantle of "staunch defender" of "YOUR Second Amendment Rights" as they like to trumpet. Support much like you offer up.
America's gun-owners are by and large morons in the political and constitutional sense.
Most gun-owners have guns because they hunt, because Uncle Skippy left them a couple, because they grew up with a couple in the house and so did Dad and Gramps.
Generally they are clueless of RTKBA issues and like you tr, they rely on someone else to advise them on constitutional issues, such as our esteemed NRA. They don't have a good understanding of the meaning and intent of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, or of the proper role of the Federal Government.
As to the last point in your post.....the Federal Government has ZERO Constitutional authority to make ANY determination as to which of America's Citizens can, or can't, purchase, own, carry or use a firearm, period.
You know, that whole "right of the people" keeping and bearing arms and "shall not be infringed" thing.
States may arguable impose certain reglations and set certain sanctions for misuse of a firearm, dependent on their particular State Constitution of course.
The Fed has ZERO authority to do so under the US Constitution.
If someone buys a gun from an individual or retailer who makes the CHOICE to sell them one and then that person misuses that firearm....you punish the act committed, swiftly and surely, without imposing regulations on an inanimate object or the rest of "free" American Citizens. It falls under the umbrella of an overall concept that can be described as "the price we pay to live in a free society".
This is simply a concept called "personal accountability" and it fits into an overall theme of "individual liberty", which meshes with a governing system called a "Constitutional Republic".
Got it?
Since when does State law supersede Federal law? I thought you stood behind the 2nd???????
I do.
Do you have an understanding of "Constitutional Republic" and of the structure and intent of the Federal Constitution?
I didn't say that I agreed with a state's having the ability to impose some regulation on the gun issue, merely that they "arguably" had that ability and that the Fed does not.
The most recent Supreme Court precedent, from 1875, is that the Second Amendment is only a limit on the power of the federal government (see United States v. Cruikshank). I do not agree with this.
I would personally contend that a free citizen, regardless of state citizenship, has the absolute RTKBA, period. This is based on the "God-given" rights theory that I hold to.
Regardless, the issue is a Federal Constitutional one.
My comment, which you obviously misconstrued, was related to the recent action (and discussion topic of the original post) by the Federal Government related to the RTKBA.
The "US Constitution" restrains the Federal Government. In our original system, the States were sovereign and the Fed had limited authority over their actions, period. This IMO, outside the original BOR.
You may want to do some reading up on the issue. Just a thought.0 -
Well Eric, we keep electing globalists whose agaenda has brought us where we are. If the voting public had a brain, one of two things would happen. Ron Paul would win potus with 100% of the vote, or rebellion. The founder would NOT have let it get this far.[:(!] We are lazy. Freedom takes vigilance, something only about 3% of the people are willing to have. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by jhimco
Sounds like Communism- comrade. This is a bunch of fooey. All those liberal pieces of garbage need to go to hell. They need to stop fcking with the hard working Americans that enjoy our sport.
It isn't about "sport". It is about the constitutional restraint on government, which prevents them from regulating an American's RTKBA, regardless of the purpose of exercising that RTKBA.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
Well Eric, we keep electing globalists whose agaenda has brought us where we are. If the voting public had a brain, one of two things would happen. Ron Paul would win potus with 100% of the vote, or rebellion. The founder would NOT have let it get this far.[:(!] We are lazy. Freedom takes vigilance, something only about 3% of the people are willing to have.
I've got it...I may have been mislead with voting in the past, but I've got the Constitution down rock solid. That 3% can claim America AGAIN.0 -
quote:Since when does State law supersede Federal law? I thought you stood behind the 2nd???????
Very limited lt., almost none. Basically the Fed was to provide for defense of the nation (without a standing army hence, another reason for BOR #2) and to assure that the rights stated in the BOR were NOT taken away from the citizenry by any state.
Instead, it is they, who destroy the BOR.
I don't mean to correct you lt., I know you know more about this than I. I just wanted more clarity than you did provide.
*As to your last post: Once again, I can't believe the ignorance of people. To think that at this point in time, anybody, especially here on the forum where the discussion is almost non-stop on RTKBA, would still think it is about "sport", is incredible to me!
Your quote:
quote:It isn't about "sport". It is about the constitutional restraint on government, which prevents them from regulating an American's RTKBA, regardless of the purpose of exercising that RTKBA.
In the system of checks and balances, it was the ultimate check to provide absolute balance because of who it was for. The citizen would have final "say" on everything. In essence, we are the 4th branch of the government.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Since when does State law supersede Federal law? I thought you stood behind the 2nd???????
Ummmm, only since the beginning of this nation!
And with this kind of ignorance, we wonder where all our feedoms are going?
The Fed has slowly taken authority from the state, and the states have slowly ceded their constitutionally given authority to the Fed. The Fed was more than happy to take it and use it for control of the whole population. The state was happy to cede it to the Fed because, hey, less responsibility means less work, right? LAZY states!
Wow! I guess they stopped teaching this in school in the early '80's. But this is no excuse as I graduated in '88.
How do you agree that that a State has the power to---("States may arguable impose certain regulations and set certain sanctions for misuse of a firearm, dependent on their particular State Constitution of course." ) That's regulations against my constitutional rights. The 2nd comes to mind. I am not referring to B.S. federal regulations, I will agree with you on that note.0 -
Dan, are you asking a question? If so, please read your post and make corrections to make it understandable, and I will try to respond. As it reads, it makes no sense. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
Dan, are you asking a question? If so, please read your post and make corrections to make it understandable, and I will try to respond. As it reads, it makes no sense.
Yes, and since it was my statement, which I regrettably tossed in to separate the issue from what the Federal Government clearly just did, I'd like a chance to respond also.0 -
Correct lt., I believe this goes to you, not me. Also lt, please my post (2 above). I edited it and would like to know if you agree with those things I added. 0 -
[:)]Ok fair enough.
With what you said and I quote "States may arguable impose certain regulations and set certain sanctions for misuse of a firearm, dependent on their particular State Constitution of course." Are you trying to tell me that the States have the power to further restrict my constitutional rights, as in the 2nd? I don't feel the States should have any regulations that take away from our constitution. As far as the States giving up to much power to the feds I couldn't not agree more. Your statement was right on[;)].0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:Also, who here is in favor of citizens who have "documented mental health problems" to be able to purchase a firearm just as quickly and easily as someone with such a handicap?
Me.But then..I believe in the Constitution...instead of the NRA and government.
The POWER of the NRA we that support the Constitution speak of is the power to defuse and weaken strong, principled support for the Second Amendment..in effect, proving to the world that the voice for gun freedom is a weak sister.willing to lift her skirts for whomever is powerful at this moment.
Yours and the NRAs' voice are defeating America..turning a strong, free country into a vassal state.
High ball, this doesn't make sense?
quote:by HighballI guarandamntee you..when I was running gun shows...I refused to sell to MANY tattoed, baggy pants creeps..ANY thing that didn't smell right, and the deal was off. A few bucks aren't worth selling a gun to a crook or psycho.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:Also, who here is in favor of citizens who have "documented mental health problems" to be able to purchase a firearm just as quickly and easily as someone with such a handicap?
Me.But then..I believe in the Constitution...instead of the NRA and government.
The POWER of the NRA we that support the Constitution speak of is the power to defuse and weaken strong, principled support for the Second Amendment..in effect, proving to the world that the voice for gun freedom is a weak sister.willing to lift her skirts for whomever is powerful at this moment.
Yours and the NRAs' voice are defeating America..turning a strong, free country into a vassal state.
High ball, this doesn't make sense?
quote:by HighballI guarandamntee you..when I was running gun shows...I refused to sell to MANY tattoed, baggy pants creeps..ANY thing that didn't smell right, and the deal was off. A few bucks aren't worth selling a gun to a crook or psycho.
That is about personal choice and decision...not a GOVERNING body making these qualifications for you!!! Come on folks! Wake the hell up!!!0 -
So I have the right to decide who doesn't have the right to bear arms but the goverment doesn't?
Hmmmmmm....0 -
Wow, confusion reigns.
You have the right to choose who you would sell a gun to. And you are just as/more qualified than some whack job psychologist.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
Wow, confusion reigns.
You have the right to choose who you would sell a gun to. And you are just as/more qualified than some whack job psychologist.
Amen!0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
Wow, confusion reigns.
You have the right to choose who you would sell a gun to. And you are just as/more qualified than some whack job psychologist.
Now that I agree with.
But how do I know if some "whack job psycologist" is in front of me in a suit wanting to buy a gun that's a felon for shooting his family but got off cause one of his buddys found him psyco? LOL
That's where I would need help from the government.0 -
I would rather rely on your judgment, than the govt.'s
And if you are wrong, we are still free of govt. control, overall a much better situation. I don't buy into the "but if saves just one life" philosophy that allows the govt. to control us more everyday. I would rather be free and pay the price. Besides, if the judicial wasn't so screwed up, this wouldn't even be talked about. There's a lot that needs fixing, but taking my freedom, or in this case a law abiding veterans freedom, just makes it more broken, and is plain and simple an infringement. BOR #2 denies them that choice, but we sheeple allow them that choice. 20,000 infringements and counting and it just keeps getting more broken. Huh?0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Since when does State law supersede Federal law? I thought you stood behind the 2nd???????
Very limited lt., almost none. Basically the Fed was to provide for defense of the nation (without a standing army hence, another reason for BOR #2) and to assure that the rights stated in the BOR were NOT taken away from the citizenry by any state.
Instead, it is they, who destroy the BOR.
I don't mean to correct you lt., I know you know more about this than I. I just wanted more clarity than you did provide.
*As to your last post: Once again, I can't believe the ignorance of people. To think that at this point in time, anybody, especially here on the forum where the discussion is almost non-stop on RTKBA, would still think it is about "sport", is incredible to me!
Your quote:
quote:It isn't about "sport". It is about the constitutional restraint on government, which prevents them from regulating an American's RTKBA, regardless of the purpose of exercising that RTKBA.
In the system of checks and balances, it was the ultimate check to provide absolute balance because of who it was for. The citizen would have final "say" on everything. In essence, we are the 4th branch of the government.
Yeah, I know. I was into my third glass of wine and pissed off. My mind was not translating thought to word very well. I did an edit last night to try to clarify, but probably only made it worse, since by then I had finished the third glass, it was approaching midnight and I was still pissed.
* Note to self.....Don't post on hot topics when angry and boozy.[:I]0 -
Read and heed. The NRA is not there to protect your gun rights it is there to generate money for itself. The NRA I joined a long time ago is a dead critter.
The NRA's Main Target? Its Members' Checkbooks.
By Richard Feldman
Sunday, December 16, 2007; Page B03
The bulletin came over the radio as I was driving home on Dec. 5: "Nine dead, five wounded in shooting massacre at an Omaha mall."
It was tragic news. But even as I lamented the lives lost, I was hearing the questions I knew would immediately arise as the two sides in the endless debate on guns in America squared off once again. "Why don't we ban all military-style rifles?", one side would ask, while the other would demand, "Why did the mall prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying guns for self-protection?"
I've been down this road more times than I care to count. But the truth is that much of the public debate over gun rights and gun control is disingenuous. Gun owners of every stripe -- liberal, moderate, conservative -- and non-owners alike can and do agree that violent criminals, juveniles, terrorists and mental incompetents have no right to firearms. Federal and state laws, despite poor enforcement by the courts, underscore that. Further, there's no significant debate -- nor should there be -- over private ownership of guns for lawful purposes such as target shooting, hunting, self-protection and collecting.
What we do have, though, is an organization whose senior leadership is dedicated to keeping the gun debate alive and burning in the American consciousness, for its own self-serving and self-preserving reasons. That organization is the National Rifle Association.
Unfortunately for American gun owners, the nation and the NRA itself, this major lobbying group has become intoxicated with money and privilege. The leadership has lost sight of its mission. Safeguarding the rights of gun owners has become secondary to keeping the fundraising machinery well greased and the group's senior staff handsomely compensated.
I know, because I once worked for it.
In 1984, I landed my dream job as Northeast regional representative of the NRA. I was a young lawyer, keen on politics and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This post promised to indulge both passions, and for a time it did. But soon enough, I was watching with growing dismay as the NRA morphed from a reasonable, responsible voice of sportsmen and firearms owners into a giant money machine that provides more benefits to its insiders than to its 3 million-plus members.
During my tenure at the NRA, the theme was "We're not in the business of fundraising; we fundraise to stay in business." The "business" of the NRA then was defending the Second Amendment rights of a considerable number of Americans (if pollsters are correct that guns are kept in almost one of every two American homes). But today, the association's primary business is fundraising. And nothing keeps the fundraising machine whirring more effectively than convincing the faithful that they're a pro-gun David facing down an invincible anti-gun Goliath.
In the NRA's lexicon, "compromise" is a dirty word, code for gun owners' surrendering their rights while getting nothing in return from gun-control advocates. Compromise is all give and no get. That definition echoes and re-echoes in the NRA's fundraising letters, which whip the membership into the check-writing frenzy that built the association into the impressive grass-roots political juggernaut it is today.
It stands to reason that cooperation among parties is the way to find solutions to deep-seated societal problems. Given its size, resources and influence, the NRA could and should be a force in solving firearms-related problems. But it is not leading such efforts even when Second Amendment protections are being denied.
Take the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, now pending before the Supreme Court. It was the libertarian Cato Institute, not the NRA, that took up the plight of D.C. residents who seek firearms for personal protection. Before the case reached the high court, the NRA did its best to derail it. Why? Because the District gun ban is one of the reddest flags the organization could wave to inflame its membership. If the NRA were to "solve" the D.C. gun-ban problem, it would lose some powerful talking points for getting the check-writing machinery rolling. Now that the case looks like a winner, the association has climbed aboard the bandwagon and will be asking for "emergency" donations to defray its legal costs.
The NRA needs dragons to slay. It's a heady feeling, striding off to battle the bad guys, whether they're Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Rosie O'Donnell or the anti-gun groups that clamored for the hide of Bernhard Goetz, the geeky New York subway rider who used a pistol to fend off what he believed to be a threat to his life in 1984. I used to love it myself. I never dreamed that one day I'd be one of the dragons.
In 1997, after I'd left the NRA, I was running a legislative trade association for the firearms industry (Colt, Glock, Remington et al.). That's when I did the unforgivable, at least in the NRA's eyes: I found a workable solution to the problematic issue of child-safety locks on guns.
I shortstopped proposed gun-lock legislation predicted to be another slam dunk for the anti-gun movement by offering an option that made everyone happy. Well, almost everyone. In the White House Rose Garden -- standing before the NRA's bete noire, President Bill Clinton -- I announced that the firearms industry was instituting a voluntary program to include a gun lock with every handgun sold. As the television news cameras rolled, Clinton announced that he was satisfied and that no mandatory gun-lock law was needed. But NRA commanders were up in arms. They denounced me as a traitor to the sacred cause of the Second Amendment. Compromise was not good for fundraising, the NRA's lifeblood.
H arlon B. Carter, who created the modern NRA in the 1970s, earned about $70,000 a year (about $200,000 in today's dollars) as executive vice president and was driven to meetings in the company Chevrolet. Wayne LaPierre, who currently sits upon the executive vice president throne, pocketed about $950,000 in 2005. The parking lot at the association's twin-glass-towered headquarters off Interstate 66 in Virginia is filled with shiny new BMWs and Mercedes-Benzes.
What's unseemly about the stratospheric six-figure salaries flowing into NRA leadership wallets is that the cash comes from hundreds of thousands of members who are hard pressed to write $35 annual membership renewal checks or send an extra $10 or $20 to the NRA Political Victory Fund to protect their guns.
Then there's the question of the millions paid to outside lobbyists (including an ex-employee and personal friend of LaPierre's). And the millions more doled out to LaPierre's friends at the Mercury Group ad agency. Who knows how much cash, thanks to the NRA, has found its way to the company that arranges the association's travel tours, allows members to buy a home through NRA real estate brokers, finance it via an NRA mortgage, save with NRA banking services, take out NRA insurance, get laser eye surgery and shoes resoled by an NRA-affiliated vendor, then pay for everything with an NRA credit card. The association claims it was only coincidence, but LaPierre's wife happened to be the vice president for marketing for the firm that set up that bonanza of member-discount services.
The media and anti-gun politicians make a mistake by engaging with the NRA, penning inflammatory headlines, threatening to crush the organization and salt the earth beneath its headquarters. They are just reminding the NRA faithful that they're surrounded by enemies who threaten to batter down their doors and snatch their firearms. And all it results in is the constant "ka-ching" of cash rolling into NRA coffers.
If the threat to honest citizens' right to own firearms ever dipped below the radar, so too would the association's political might. That's why the NRA leadership will never tolerate the give-and-take that makes up real problem-solving. It would be bad for business.
ricochet@usa.net
Richard Feldman is a public affairs lawyer and the author of "Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist."0 -
quote:Originally posted by dan55362
[:)]Ok fair enough.
With what you said and I quote "States may arguable impose certain regulations and set certain sanctions for misuse of a firearm, dependent on their particular State Constitution of course." Are you trying to tell me that the States have the power to further restrict my constitutional rights, as in the 2nd? I don't feel the States should have any regulations that take away from our constitution. As far as the States giving up to much power to the feds I couldn't not agree more. Your statement was right on[;)].
Ok. I am up, sleepy and somewhat hung-over, but let me attempt to clean this up.
The US Constitution's Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land IMO.
I was attempting to address the actions that the FEDERAL Legislature just took, in the passage of the recent abortion which is the subject of the OP.
Since the "Federal" Legislature operates expressly under the US Constitution (at least arguably) and the many states also enact unconstitutional regulation on firearms, outside of the Federal Constitution, but arguably within their own, I was trying to keep it cleanly on the Federal action, since it was "Fed" legislation we were talking about and there is no argument there, period.
Big "F" up obviously.
I referred to Cruishank to illustrate this differing and oft argued issue, to separate State action from Fed action only to head off the argument about the various states and their differing forms of gun control.
This because the Fed clearly has ZERO authority to regulate the RTKBA, but there are differing arguments about the state's ability to regulate the RTKBA, which I do not happen to agree with by the way.
Hence the "arguable" terminology.
My bringing this up was born of good intent and a desire to knock down a side argument. It seems as if I made the issue more cloudy and screwed the pooch of my point.[:I][B)]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
91 comments