Any real legitimate threat put out by the NRA?

[valnar]

Justices don't have to rule in favor of the constitution. Sadly this is a true statement. They can have an agenda as much as any other politician or private citizen. Don't let their legal-speak confuse you.

If Obama is re-elected, he will appoint somebody to turn the Pro-gun 5-4 vote over to 4-5. I don't care what side of the aisle you are on, but if you deny that fact, you deny reality.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Justices don't have to rule in favor of the constitution.

If they don't congress can override them. The House just did that very thing concerning their ruling on eminent domain.<http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/213129-house-votes-to-overturn-supreme-court-property-rights-decision>

 

[exbrit49]

Here we go again

I have been hearing and reading almost the same arguments for 40 years, This president or that president is going to ban guns or have the courts strike down the 2A.
All this type of post does is scare people in to buying more guns and more ammo.
I read this one just to look at the viewpoints and they are the same ones i have heard so many times before.
As far as my own personal 2 A rights , not one aspect of all these supposed changes have impacted me in all these years.
THink about it, the 2A is what keeps the 2A valid.
Saw the comments about Australia. Australia did not have a 2A in their constitution,
Enough already!

 

[cavman]

Enough already

I see it that we came within one vote of the 2nd Amendment not for individuals but for the govt. one vote.

Enough already exactly. Enough of the type of people who will look you straight in the eye and say up is down and black is white.

That four judges would read the 2nd as they did is so shocking to me that I now am firmly in the camp that vigilance is Eternal.

The threats are real to me and I believe that the non-elected routes and decrees by fiat are real and we have to continually work to prevent that from happening.

 

[JRH6856]

States are supposed to be soveriegn.

States have not been sovereign since the Civil War ended in 1865. Or technically, with the ratification of the 14th amendment. A sovereign state is one to which answers to no higher authority in the governing of its citizens. Since the 14th amendment made all citizens of each state citizens of the United States, this act made the Federal government sovereign to which the states are subservient. The Federal government has yet to exercise its full authority, but it is there and a complicit SCOTUS would make that exercise easier if not inevitable.

 

[BSA1]

I have been hearing and reading almost the same arguments for 40 years, This president or that president is going to ban guns or have the courts strike down the 2A.
All this type of post does is scare people in to buying more guns and more ammo.
I read this one just to look at the viewpoints and they are the same ones i have heard so many times before.
As far as my own personal 2 A rights , not one aspect of all these supposed changes have impacted me in all these years.
THink about it, the 2A is what keeps the 2A valid.
Saw the comments about Australia. Australia did not have a 2A in their constitution,
Enough already.

If you put a frog in a pan of hot water he will immediately jump out.

If you put that same frog in a arm pan of water and slowly increase the temperature he will just sit there and boil to death.

While you have being sitting Obama has appointed two anti-gun judges to the Supreme Court. We are only one vote in the court away from seeing our guns rights stripped away piece by piece.

 

[Neverwinter]

Two things are important to remember when talking about the United States Supreme Court.

1. The only way in which Obama could change the fundamental makeup of the Court is if a conservative Justice retires. Obama has appointed two Justices to the Court, none of whom will make a change for the worse in any future 2nd Amendment case. Why? Because the two Justices that retired, Souter and Stevens, both dissented in Heller. Again in McDonald (decided after Obama's election and a USSC appointment), Stevens and Sotomayor dissented. There was no real change in the Court. Then next Justice likely to retire seems to be Ginsburg, who again will be replaced by someone will similar views on the 2nd Amendment.

If a Republican is elected, it is highly probable that Scalia and/or Kennedy will retire during that Republican's term, only to be replaced by another conservative (unless it's a Romney whitehouse )

2. Supreme Court Justices don't act the way you think they will. If they did, Roe v. Wade wouldn't be in force any more, and would have been overruled in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). There, three "conservative" Justices appointed by Reagan and H.W. Bush (O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter) all voted to affirm the fundamental holdings of Roe.

Perhaps some of these "liberal" Justices appointed by Obama will surprise us.

Also, don't underestimate the power of stare decisis. Each year Heller and McDonald become more entrenched, and can be a very powerful factor in the Court's future decisions, no matter who the Justice is.

It's like some people can't even see your post. How odd.

Sent from Tapatalk

 

[JohnBT]

"not one aspect of all these supposed changes have impacted me in all these years."

The NRA has been effective. The NRA didn't do it alone, but they have been effective. Have you thanked the NRA?

 

[jimmyraythomason]

The only way in which Obama could change the fundamental makeup of the Court is if a conservative Justice retires.

Or dies or is impeached.

 

[ZeSpectre]

The NRA has been effective. The NRA didn't do it alone, but they have been effective. Have you thanked the NRA?

You are welcome.

(I'm not making a joke here, I'm being serious. "the NRA" is it's members, especially the politically active ones such as yours truly not some big ivory tower group off someplace else).

 

[Carl N. Brown]

National Coalition to Ban Handguns constantly harped on the NRA using its clout with Congress to thwart its goal of, well, a national ban on handguns.

 

[Ford Prefect]

While you have being sitting Obama has appointed two anti-gun judges to the Supreme Court. We are only one vote in the court away from seeing our guns rights stripped away piece by piece.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by BSA1; Today at 04:54 AM.

No. The court does not "swing" back on isssues it's already decided. Certainly not because a justice dies. All future courts are bound by Heller, just as the Heller court of today was bound by Miller of the 1930's. Case law, and the courts are on our side.

Individuals are standing up for their rights against unjust laws, and the courts are agreeing with them. We should be thanking the courts for throwing out the unjust laws that the political hacks, we elected and paid for, in both state and federal governments have written, and with the direct help of the NRA. (Yes, they helped write every major gun control law ever written. Look it up for yourself.)
Then the NRA takes credit for any victories, collects money and writes more bad gun control laws. Just like every other gun control law that has been written since 1871, by the NRA. Run by people who openly promote gun control... except for legit "sportsmen". A vauge term that seems to change over time, but they always seem to find a few people or guns to ban every few years.
After they have helped to write the laws to have guns restricted to only "sportsmens" use; The NRA will still be there to scare the few remaining gun owners (I suspect with nothing but black powder single shots by then) and their "right to hunt", and take thier money.

If you want to expand government power to restrict who and what is "allowed"; then keep giving your money to the NRA and electing the politicians who have been voting for more laws in the last 10 years. Hint; the have both "R"s and "D"'s by thier names and worked directly with the NRA - everytime! And the NRA helped them with your money.
If you want it to stop that expansion, and instead roll back to a Constitutional right to ARMS; then stop giving the NRA your money and support real gun "RIGHTS" groups, not "sportsmens" clubs who are hell bent on banning everything except thier double barrels.

Your money is paying for lawyers to write the next gun control laws and lobby the politicians to pass it. They hope this will cause you to send more money to them, because it always has. Thier next $3,000 lunch depends on it.

 

[Colonel]

Every gun control law since 1871 has been written by the NRA.

Huh?

 

[JRH6856]

No. The court does not "swing" back on isssues it's already decided.

Except that more than one member of the "liberal" wing of the court has already expressed the view that Heller is an aberration that should be reversed and stare decisis does not apply.

Stare Decisis is a convenience that allows judges to move forward and not continually revisit past decisions. But it is not binding and past decisions can be revisited and reversed when the judges deem it necessary or desirable.

 

[Ford Prefect]

"no assault weapons for Civilians and get the capacity down to 5 rounds" - Joaquin Jackson is currently a member in the NRA Board of Directors

Lives the philosophy: "Say what you mean, mean what you say, and tell it like it is."

"no assault weapons for Civilians and get the capacity down to 5 rounds"

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/bios01/jackson.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE

 

[Ford Prefect]

Colonel

Quote:
Every gun control law since 1871 has been written by the NRA.

Huh?

They didn't tell you that in that pile of junk mail they sent you?

"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247 [/url]

 

[Colonel]

Ford, please enumerate all these 19th century gun control laws you speak of that the NRA has supposedly written.

 

[Ford Prefect]

Did you read the quote above? It even gives the time and place. What part of it was not clear to you, was it the NRA's own words or was it their specific actions that are not clear?

ETA:

'We believe that the machine gun, submachine gun, sawed-off shotgun, and dangerous and deadly weapons could all be included in any kind of a bill, and no matter how drastic, we will support it." ..."the association I represent is absolutely favorable to reasonable legislation.'

NRA Executive Vice President Milton Reckord
-House Ways and Means Committee, House Hearings on
National Firearms Act, (April/ May 1934)

 

[Ford Prefect]

Here, let me quote from the link for you.

-"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns
-"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (
-The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963
-In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.
-In order to "put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts," NRA management also pressed the federal government, in 1968, to:"Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
"a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;""b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;"

-"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act." . 1999

-CHARLTON HESTON: "We're in favor of the Brady Bill as it stands now. To a large extent, we drew it up in its current form".

-VirginiaTech?

 

[JRH6856]

was it the NRA's own words or was it their specific actions that are not clear?

I think there is a clear difference between "support" and "written". I still don't see any list of gun laws the NRA has written. and I doubt such a list would include all of the laws written.

 

[Ford Prefect]

Really? Who promised you a list? I even made one for you. Did you miss it? Like all the other evidence of their actions?
It's not clear that "support" in this case means sending it's paid (sorry, YOU paid) representitives to give sworn testimony before congress and even the admitted actual writting of the laws themselves, by sitting presidents and VP's is not clear as "support"? Parse much? Does it depend on what the definintion of the word "is" is?

Would publicly written letters and repeated statements to the press count? Do I need to post a list of those too?

How about current board members own words? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE http://www.nrawinningteam.com/bios01/jackson.html

 

[JRH6856]

Parse much? Does it depend on what the definintion of the word "is" is?

If you want to talk about definitions, look up the definitions of "support" and "write" and get back to me. While you're at at, look up the definition of "every" as in "every gun law...has been written."

 

[Ford Prefect]

With all that spare time I have, you could post a single major gun control law written since 1871 that was not written AND supported by the NRA. That should be easy right?

And by support, in this case, it means they took your money (support), and spent it on and office, pay a lawyer to sit in that office, pay of the paper for him to write the words on and then pay for lunch to hand the Congressmen the paper with the gun control law written on it. Then pay for lunch with your money and thank him for his support. Then send more of your paid NRA reps to testify before congress thier/your continued support.

Is that clear by what support means in this case?

 

[Byrd666]

YES slik pak, THERE IS A VERY REAL THREAT!

Please read the news, watch the news, and talk to people. Read some the information that is available about the Administration that's in office. Read and or watch videos of past votes and opinions of "elected" officials in office. Read about the plans of Obama and his cronies for our Second Amendment Rights. Read about the many different Mayors and states that want to abolish the possibility of any law abiding individual from owning, let alone using any type of firearm. Read about the Supreme "Justices" that want to strip of any and all Rights you hold now.

I mean no offense, but, are you really that naive, or uninformed?

 

[JRH6856]

Is that clear by what support means in this case?

Is it clear yet to you that I'm not talking about support? I'm talking about your claim that "Every gun control law since 1871 has been written by the NRA." There is a difference between writing and supporting. That is why I suggested you look up the definitions. Instead, in response to requests for a list supporting your claim (supporting, not writing. See? There is a difference) you claim to have posted one (you didn't) and then ask me for a list of laws the NRA did not write AND support. Sorry, I never made any claims that could be supported by such a list. You are the one that made the claim that you are apparently unable to support.