NRA really is run by gun nuts

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
CNN

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.
---
In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

These people (NRA) really are dangerous. Next thing you know they will claim that people with a history of mental illness shouldn't be prohibited from buying guns . . . oh nevermind.

"Right now, law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it."

Under normal circumstances, this guy would be out to lunch. But he's made a pretty accurate assessment of Gonzales.

A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.

I hope these people are under surveillance. Granted, the feds are pretty busy with their porn, voter fraud, and religious liberty investigations.:roll:

But I bet you are perfectly ok with the ACLU protecting NAMBLA's right to teach older men how to seduce and rape little kids?

We support your right, we just don't support you going out and practising it.

So are you bashing the NRA for doing basically the same thing, which is defending the 2nd amendment for EVERYONE?

Where am I bashing it? There must be some hallucinogens in that Kool Aid you are drinking.

Did you miss the question mark at the end of my question? My original comment was directed at BaliBabyDoc who IS bashing the NRA for defending the 2nd amendment.......

And my statement was that I support the ACLU fighting for your right to free speech no matter how disgusting it is.

Ok, thats great,

I was referring to the people that support the ACLU defending NAMBLA but hate the NRA.

 

[Jhhnn]

Too bad the NRA didn't speak up in defense of other people's rights when the chance presented itself... they'd probably have more support for their own.

Having said that, I also have to say that they're right, but only in the narrowest sense. There's no legal penalty for being a suspect, of anything, nor should there be.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Too bad the NRA didn't speak up in defense of other people's rights when the chance presented itself... they'd probably have more support for their own.

Having said that, I also have to say that they're right, but only in the narrowest sense. There's no legal penalty for being a suspect, of anything, nor should there be.

The NRA's sole political mission is to protect the 2nd Amendment. The reason they have become so powerful is that there is no other major organization willing to put up the fight. The ACLU has made it pretty clear that the 2ndAmendment to them means virtually nothing outside of authorizing a National Guard (which looking at the document in historical context is complete bullsh!t). They fight tooth and nail on ever other Amendment but not this one.

Supporting the Constitutional right of the people to bear arms would alienate too much of their membership.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
So do libs support a blank check removal of Muslim?s rights cause they?re all arbitrarily on a ?watch list?? Guess racism is acceptable when it?s in your interests.

The 2nd amendment isn't in their version of the Bill of Rights so its ok.

How about you cram it with walnuts? I'm a liberal (at least compared to you jokers) and I don't support taking away the rights (from the 1st amendment on down) of anyone who's simply suspected of being a terrorist (or suspect of anything else). Our system of justice is based on being innocent until proven guilty, and I think your continued rights under our constitution is fundamental to that principle.

But while I know you guys can't pass up an opportunity to bitch about "libs", you might want to be careful. While it might be broadly true that some liberals don't like the 2nd amendment, you righties seem to argue at every possible opportunity for taking away the REST of the rights guarenteed in the constitution when it comes to suspected terrorists or even Muslims in general. I don't know how many threads I've seen on here with righties, including you two, suggesting that freedom of religion might not apply to practicing Islam, and that "but he might be a terrorist" is a valid argument for bypassing the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments.

I might admire your fight in favor of the 2nd amendment if I thought it was about standing up for what makes this country great instead of an opportunity to take a cheap shot at the left.

Really? Could you show me some proof please?

I know I've seen it, but with the state of the search here, I'm not sure how to go about finding those posts.

But fair enough, I'll stipulate that you two are perfect little angles who would NEVER suggest that...but your ideological peers might not agree. And let's not bullshit here, you know damn well what I'm talking about...

Yes, I know exactly what you are talking about, but I have never said that people should not be allowed to practice Islam, no matter how disfunctional I may think the religion is. My problem comes in when they start blowing people up in the name of their religion and people saying that it doesn't have anything to do with the religion, or the people that insist that we search 80 year old women for explosives in airports. Practice your religion all you want, but when it becomes violent that changes things just a bit.

Every gun thread you say the same thing, you label people that defend the 2nd amendment as gun nuts and make the same argument you did in this thread, about them not defending the other amendments with as much passion. That goes both ways, I don't see the liberals that b1tch about the patriot act and warrantless wiretapping fervently defending the 2nd amendment, why aren't you calling them out?

Everyone has their hot button issues, you only seem to have a problem with people that passionately defend the 2nd amendment, why?

I find them hypocritical and annoying, far more so than their counterparts who defend every right BUT the 2nd amendment. Gun nuts seem to be so much more self-righteous about their supposed "culture of freedom", yet turn around and support gutting the rest of the constitution. While I support the 2nd amendment, I don't think all amendments are created equal...and I think the NRA crowd is obsessed with a symbol of freedom to the detriment of a lot of our actual freedom. And on a more personal note, I find the hyper-masculinity culture extremely irritating, and my experience with a lot of gun nuts has suggested those folks are among the worst offenders.

However, while it's easy for me to justify my feelings on this issue, I'll admit that I don't entirely like how my thought process here works. I know I'm being unfair to a lot of gun enthusiasts, probably even the majority of them, who DO respect the other amendments and wish they didn't have to make a political choice on which they support more. And while I doubt I'll ever be a participant in gun culture, I think the ACLU crowd and the NRA crowd probably have a lot more in common than we think, and I don't like the mistrust and dislike between the two groups (of which I fully admit I play a part). While we might not all agree all the time, I think we could agree on a lot of things if we really thought about what's at the core of our ideologies...that protecting the 1st amendment or the 2nd amendment means you should probably fight for all of them.

And for what it's worth, although I don't mention it very often, the anti-gun views of the left are pretty annoying to me as well. The fact that I'm not a card carrying member of the ACLU is mostly due to their "meh" stance on gun rights. I see no need to carry a gun personally, but I don't like civil liberties organizations being selective in terms of which rights they care about. If I don't mention this very often, it's because I find this group less annoying...but still annoying nonetheless.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Too bad the NRA didn't speak up in defense of other people's rights when the chance presented itself... they'd probably have more support for their own.

Having said that, I also have to say that they're right, but only in the narrowest sense. There's no legal penalty for being a suspect, of anything, nor should there be.

The NRA's sole political mission is to protect the 2nd Amendment. The reason they have become so powerful is that there is no other major organization willing to put up the fight. The ACLU has made it pretty clear that the 2ndAmendment to them means virtually nothing outside of authorizing a National Guard (which looking at the document in historical context is complete bullsh!t). They fight tooth and nail on ever other Amendment but not this one.

Supporting the Constitutional right of the people to bear arms would alienate too much of their membership.

Fair enough, but why rake the ACLU over the coals for being selective in their defense of civil liberties if the NRA is apparently allowed to do the same thing?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
For the knuckle draggers . . .

Although the Bill of Rights outlines the fundamental freedoms of people within the United States, the Supreme Court has upheld limits on those rights . . . even the ones that appear to be rather open-ended.

Most people with common sense (naturally that excludes JD50 and his ilk) would realize there's a fundamental difference between secretive and clear violations of the Constitution in the Patriot Act and legitimate law that places limited (and subsequent to appeal) restrictions on a certain class of people.

I treat people (primarily children) with serious mental illness. Although few of them would ever be a harm to others, they are certainly a harm to themselves. It's quite prudent that they NOT have LEGAL access to firearms. I don't care that NAMI disagrees.

ACLU

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

Be happy the ACLU is out there defending the fundamental rights that ALL Americans actual need.

Which has nothing to do with your OP. So are you going to explain why you believe that Bush and Co should restrict the rights of American citizens, simply because their last name has ended up on some overzealous, fear-mongering list?

You're not being consistent there. I know you think the current administration is evil, incompetent and corrupt, and that they've made hugely over-reaching policies and implications, so why is it now that you concede that they are now competent enough to restrict citizens rights based on mere "suspicion?"

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
For the knuckle draggers . . .

Although the Bill of Rights outlines the fundamental freedoms of people within the United States, the Supreme Court has upheld limits on those rights . . . even the ones that appear to be rather open-ended.

Most people with common sense (naturally that excludes JD50 and his ilk) would realize there's a fundamental difference between secretive and clear violations of the Constitution in the Patriot Act and legitimate law that places limited (and subsequent to appeal) restrictions on a certain class of people.

I treat people (primarily children) with serious mental illness. Although few of them would ever be a harm to others, they are certainly a harm to themselves. It's quite prudent that they NOT have LEGAL access to firearms. I don't care that NAMI disagrees.

ACLU

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

Be happy the ACLU is out there defending the fundamental rights that ALL Americans actual need.

Which has nothing to do with your OP. So are you going to explain why you believe that Bush and Co should restrict the rights of American citizens, simply because their last name has ended up on some overzealous, fear-mongering list?

You're not being consistent there. I know you think the current administration is evil, incompetent and corrupt, and that they've made hugely over-reaching policies and implications, so why is it now that you concede that they are now competent enough to restrict citizens rights based on mere "suspicion?"

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Indeed. If the list is stupid (and boy do I ever think it is), the list is stupid. End of the story.

 

[miketheidiot]

why should the aclu spend money on gun rights when there is an organization dedicated specifically towards it, the nra?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
why should the aclu spend money on gun rights when there is an organization dedicated specifically towards it, the nra?

I don't know if they should spend money on it, for that very reason, but their stance is pretty clear. And while the NRA is doing more than their fair share of the fighting, just a statement in favor of their cause would go a long way towards helping the ACLU on the 2nd amendment, IMHO.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
We support your right, we just don't support you going out and practising it.

So are you bashing the NRA for doing basically the same thing, which is defending the 2nd amendment for EVERYONE?

The NRA only supports freedom when it comes to the second amendment. Where is there support when the Patriot Act encroaches on all other rights?

The ACLU supports ALL rights - whether they agree with the actions taken under that right are good or bad is immaterial.

See the hypocrisy of the NRA and its supporters?

While I don't personally see the need to own a gun, I have no problem with the gun owners rights as long as no crime is committed with those guns.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
We support your right, we just don't support you going out and practising it.

So are you bashing the NRA for doing basically the same thing, which is defending the 2nd amendment for EVERYONE?

The NRA only supports freedom when it comes to the second amendment. Where is there support when the Patriot Act encroaches on all other rights?

The ACLU supports ALL rights - whether they agree with the actions taken under that right are good or bad is immaterial.

See the hypocrisy of the NRA and its supporters?

While I don't personally see the need to own a gun, I have no problem with the gun owners rights as long as no crime is committed with those guns.

Well as a financially supporting member of both the NRA and the ACLU, I think you're missing one important point:

NRA = National Rifle Association
ACLU = American Civil Liberties Union

Now think about that little fact and your post a bit more and point out this supposed "hypocrisy."

Or do you also believe that 7-11 convenience stores are "hypocrites" because they sell Slurpies, but not 5-course seafood dinners?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Too bad the NRA didn't speak up in defense of other people's rights when the chance presented itself... they'd probably have more support for their own.

Having said that, I also have to say that they're right, but only in the narrowest sense. There's no legal penalty for being a suspect, of anything, nor should there be.

The NRA's sole political mission is to protect the 2nd Amendment. The reason they have become so powerful is that there is no other major organization willing to put up the fight. The ACLU has made it pretty clear that the 2ndAmendment to them means virtually nothing outside of authorizing a National Guard (which looking at the document in historical context is complete bullsh!t). They fight tooth and nail on ever other Amendment but not this one.

Supporting the Constitutional right of the people to bear arms would alienate too much of their membership.

Fair enough, but why rake the ACLU over the coals for being selective in their defense of civil liberties if the NRA is apparently allowed to do the same thing?

The NRA has an expressly limited scope of action. The ACLU claims to support the protection of civil liberties in general. IMO the 2nd Amendment is a very important one so they catch some criticism from me on this issue. As a whole I think the ACLU does quite a bit of good work.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
For the knuckle draggers . . .

Although the Bill of Rights outlines the fundamental freedoms of people within the United States, the Supreme Court has upheld limits on those rights . . . even the ones that appear to be rather open-ended.

Most people with common sense (naturally that excludes JD50 and his ilk) would realize there's a fundamental difference between secretive and clear violations of the Constitution in the Patriot Act and legitimate law that places limited (and subsequent to appeal) restrictions on a certain class of people.

I treat people (primarily children) with serious mental illness. Although few of them would ever be a harm to others, they are certainly a harm to themselves. It's quite prudent that they NOT have LEGAL access to firearms. I don't care that NAMI disagrees.

ACLU

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

Be happy the ACLU is out there defending the fundamental rights that ALL Americans actual need.

Which has nothing to do with your OP. So are you going to explain why you believe that Bush and Co should restrict the rights of American citizens, simply because their last name has ended up on some overzealous, fear-mongering list?

You're not being consistent there. I know you think the current administration is evil, incompetent and corrupt, and that they've made hugely over-reaching policies and implications, so why is it now that you concede that they are now competent enough to restrict citizens rights based on mere "suspicion?"

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Try reading all the posts in a thread before commenting. One of the resident trolls asked if I defended the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA.

But for those that have difficulty with their fruit . . . the 1st and 2nd Amendment are apples and oranges. A weak defense of the 2nd would lead to expansive gun control laws which would be just as poorly enforced as current gun control laws. A weak defense of the 1st would lead to 'free speech zones', elected officials pushing 'faith-based initiatives', federal and local law enforcement keeping tabs on protesters, Secret Service intercepting people with T-shirts that don't endorse a particular politician, the feds opening your mail, the feds seeking internet search records, the feds intercepting multiple communications without a warrant . . .

For the record, I don't think the current administration is evil. All humans are capable of doing evil. The Bush Junta is indeed incompetent and corrupt. They've made hugely overreaching policies with deleterious implications for decades to come. I 'trust' them with the proposed legislation b/c it is inherently limited in scope and the natural impact of its application.

1) If you are denied the legal purchase of firearm b/c your name is on the suspected terrorist list, you would KNOW it.

2) Denial of gun sales is NOT automatic just because you are on the list.

3) Flagged individuals can challenge the denial of sale.


I haven't discharged a rifle in two decades but aside from BS like concealed carry, I'm a firm believer that US citizens should be free to purchase and own as many firearms and ammo as they like. But only the foolish consider 'gun rights' to be a paramount concern and not subject to 'reasonable' restrictions. Granted, people will certainly disagree on what constitutes a 'reasonable' restriction . . . age, citizenship, mental status, criminal history, etc.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
For the knuckle draggers . . .

Although the Bill of Rights outlines the fundamental freedoms of people within the United States, the Supreme Court has upheld limits on those rights . . . even the ones that appear to be rather open-ended.

Most people with common sense (naturally that excludes JD50 and his ilk) would realize there's a fundamental difference between secretive and clear violations of the Constitution in the Patriot Act and legitimate law that places limited (and subsequent to appeal) restrictions on a certain class of people.

I treat people (primarily children) with serious mental illness. Although few of them would ever be a harm to others, they are certainly a harm to themselves. It's quite prudent that they NOT have LEGAL access to firearms. I don't care that NAMI disagrees.

ACLU

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

Be happy the ACLU is out there defending the fundamental rights that ALL Americans actual need.

Which has nothing to do with your OP. So are you going to explain why you believe that Bush and Co should restrict the rights of American citizens, simply because their last name has ended up on some overzealous, fear-mongering list?

You're not being consistent there. I know you think the current administration is evil, incompetent and corrupt, and that they've made hugely over-reaching policies and implications, so why is it now that you concede that they are now competent enough to restrict citizens rights based on mere "suspicion?"

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Try reading all the posts in a thread before commenting. One of the resident trolls asked if I defended the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA.

But for those that have difficulty with their fruit . . . the 1st and 2nd Amendment are apples and oranges. A weak defense of the 2nd would lead to expansive gun control laws which would be just as poorly enforced as current gun control laws. A weak defense of the 1st would lead to 'free speech zones', elected officials pushing 'faith-based initiatives', federal and local law enforcement keeping tabs on protesters, Secret Service intercepting people with T-shirts that don't endorse a particular politician, the feds opening your mail, the feds seeking internet search records, the feds intercepting multiple communications without a warrant . . .

For the record, I don't think the current administration is evil. All humans are capable of doing evil. The Bush Junta is indeed incompetent and corrupt. They've made hugely overreaching policies with deleterious implications for decades to come. I 'trust' them with the proposed legislation b/c it is inherently limited in scope and the natural impact of its application.

1) If you are denied the legal purchase of firearm b/c your name is on the suspected terrorist list, you would KNOW it.

2) Denial of gun sales is NOT automatic just because you are on the list.

3) Flagged individuals can challenge the denial of sale.


I haven't discharged a rifle in two decades but aside from BS like concealed carry, I'm a firm believer that US citizens should be free to purchase and own as many firearms and ammo as they like. But only the foolish consider 'gun rights' to be a paramount concern and not subject to 'reasonable' restrictions. Granted, people will certainly disagree on what constitutes a 'reasonable' restriction . . . age, citizenship, mental status, criminal history, etc.

I might have missed it, if so please let me know, but you still have not answered my question. Do you support the ACLU in their defense of NAMBLA?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
We support your right, we just don't support you going out and practising it.

So are you bashing the NRA for doing basically the same thing, which is defending the 2nd amendment for EVERYONE?

The NRA only supports freedom when it comes to the second amendment. Where is there support when the Patriot Act encroaches on all other rights?

The ACLU supports ALL rights - whether they agree with the actions taken under that right are good or bad is immaterial.

See the hypocrisy of the NRA and its supporters?

While I don't personally see the need to own a gun, I have no problem with the gun owners rights as long as no crime is committed with those guns.

Well as a financially supporting member of both the NRA and the ACLU, I think you're missing one important point:

NRA = National Rifle Association
ACLU = American Civil Liberties Union

Now think about that little fact and your post a bit more and point out this supposed "hypocrisy."

Or do you also believe that 7-11 convenience stores are "hypocrites" because they sell Slurpies, but not 5-course seafood dinners?

Thats pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Too bad the NRA didn't speak up in defense of other people's rights when the chance presented itself... they'd probably have more support for their own.

Having said that, I also have to say that they're right, but only in the narrowest sense. There's no legal penalty for being a suspect, of anything, nor should there be.

The NRA's sole political mission is to protect the 2nd Amendment. The reason they have become so powerful is that there is no other major organization willing to put up the fight. The ACLU has made it pretty clear that the 2ndAmendment to them means virtually nothing outside of authorizing a National Guard (which looking at the document in historical context is complete bullsh!t). They fight tooth and nail on ever other Amendment but not this one.

Supporting the Constitutional right of the people to bear arms would alienate too much of their membership.

Fair enough, but why rake the ACLU over the coals for being selective in their defense of civil liberties if the NRA is apparently allowed to do the same thing?

The NRA has an expressly limited scope of action. The ACLU claims to support the protection of civil liberties in general. IMO the 2nd Amendment is a very important one so they catch some criticism from me on this issue. As a whole I think the ACLU does quite a bit of good work.

Well, to be fair, while the NRA only has ONE civil liberty to deal with, the ACLU defends quite a number of them (even if they leave one out). "ACLU" is shorter than any reasonable alternative that describes what they do, and it's not like they make a secret of their stance on guns.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
We support your right, we just don't support you going out and practising it.

So are you bashing the NRA for doing basically the same thing, which is defending the 2nd amendment for EVERYONE?

The NRA only supports freedom when it comes to the second amendment. Where is there support when the Patriot Act encroaches on all other rights?

The ACLU supports ALL rights - whether they agree with the actions taken under that right are good or bad is immaterial.

See the hypocrisy of the NRA and its supporters?

While I don't personally see the need to own a gun, I have no problem with the gun owners rights as long as no crime is committed with those guns.

Well as a financially supporting member of both the NRA and the ACLU, I think you're missing one important point:

NRA = National Rifle Association
ACLU = American Civil Liberties Union

Now think about that little fact and your post a bit more and point out this supposed "hypocrisy."

Or do you also believe that 7-11 convenience stores are "hypocrites" because they sell Slurpies, but not 5-course seafood dinners?

Thats pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

If you look past the name, the ACLU tends to be pretty open about their stance of guns (when they aren't calling themselves generally a civil liberties protection organization) and the NRA tends to suggest they support a culture of freedom when they aren't being extremely selective about guns in particular. Neither party is really totally innocent of false advertising.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

if they are US Citizens.... they have the right

 

[The Yeti]

:roll:
That pesky freedom sure is a b!tch. I bet if the NRA were sticking up for the 1st amendment this would not even be an issue. Please let me know what crime these people have committed. It does suck sometimes, but that?s the price you pay for living in a free society. Take it or leave it.

Y

PS - By the way, what, exactly, is a gun nut? Is it someone that owns a gun?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
if they are US Citizens.... they have the right

Again, the rights granted by the Constitution have NEVER been substantiated by USSC as being ABSOLUTE! Maybe the Court has been wrong but they clearly believe the Congress can pass laws that restrict our Constitutional rights.

The typical law-abiding individual has no reason to believe they will lose their ability to play warrior on the weekend as they stalk rabbits, turkey, and Bambi's daddy. Despite my flippancy, I don't believe people need good reasons (self defense) to own guns. But clearly the Court has established that the 2nd is no different from any other item in the Bill of Rights . . subject to limitations.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Shivetya
if they are US Citizens.... they have the right

Again, the rights granted by the Constitution have NEVER been substantiated by USSC as being ABSOLUTE! Maybe the Court has been wrong but they clearly believe the Congress can pass laws that restrict our Constitutional rights.

The typical law-abiding individual has no reason to believe they will lose their ability to play warrior on the weekend as they stalk rabbits, turkey, and Bambi's daddy. Despite my flippancy, I don't believe people need good reasons (self defense) to own guns. But clearly the Court has established that the 2nd is no different from any other item in the Bill of Rights . . subject to limitations.

This has little to do with the 2nd and more to do with the 14th, and 6th.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Shivetya
if they are US Citizens.... they have the right

Again, the rights granted by the Constitution have NEVER been substantiated by USSC as being ABSOLUTE! Maybe the Court has been wrong but they clearly believe the Congress can pass laws that restrict our Constitutional rights.

The typical law-abiding individual has no reason to believe they will lose their ability to play warrior on the weekend as they stalk rabbits, turkey, and Bambi's daddy. Despite my flippancy, I don't believe people need good reasons (self defense) to own guns. But clearly the Court has established that the 2nd is no different from any other item in the Bill of Rights . . subject to limitations.

If limitations on constitutional rights is a good thing, then why all the fuss about the Patriot Act? Perhaps because history has shown us that the slippery slope is true?