NRA Spy Infiltrates Highest Level of Gun Control Lobby for 10 Years

[Nebor]

http://www.motherjones.com/new...gun-lobby-nra-spy.html

I guess it's reasonable to assume this kinda stuff happens all the time, because of how open and free most organizations are in this country, but nevertheless, I found this a little shocking. Corporate espionage practiced on non-profits.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I like her. The anti-movement is very deliberate in not stating their real goals with "gun control". They wont say in public that they want all guns stripped from everyones hands, but that's what they want based on information gathered from them. The NRA and others goals are right there on the table: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
They don't want anything else.
It's pretty sad that we have groups dedicated to defending a specific Amendment of the Constitution, because many groups selectively oppose the Constitution.

To bad it didn't mention if she was packing heat at any of the anti- rallies in states where her Florida CHL is honored under reciprocity.
All those people fearing guns, but never knowing one of them had one on her all that time.

 

[StageLeft]

They don't want anything else.

Really? I imagine they'd be upset if the law was that only people actually PART OF a militia could have guns, wouldn't they?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

They don't want anything else.

Really? I imagine they'd be upset if the law was that only people actually PART OF a militia could have guns, wouldn't they?

Well, yes they'd be upset with that because that's not what the amendment says.

And, technically, if you're male, over 18, and a US citizen, you are part of the militia.

ZV

 

[cumhail]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
They don't want anything else.

So the "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part gets ignored altogether by those who argue for free and open access to firearms, citing only the part that reads "right of the people to keep and bear arms." And yet in your estimation, only those in favor of gun control are disingenuous in how they interpret the amendment and present their positions and arguments.

Just as amusing, the amendment spoke to the rights of the states to govern themselves without undue interference by any central government body. Their concern, of course, was that they'd going from the tyranny of one throne, in England, for another, right here. And yet while those who argue so strongly in favor of gun ownership are quick to agree with that point when it means preventing the federal government from "infringing" on their right to "keep and bear arms," they are all too willing to have the federal government block any states' attempts to pass any limiting laws or regulations.

So when it all comes down to it, it's a state's rights issue if that helps their cause, a reason for the federal government to get involved if that does, and a God-given right, if all else fails. Is that about right?

 

[Nebor]

I find it amazing that people who want to talk about gun control haven't read the SC majority opinion on the matter in it's entirety. It addresses both clauses of the 2nd amendment.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Skoorb

They don't want anything else.

Really? I imagine they'd be upset if the law was that only people actually PART OF a militia could have guns, wouldn't they?

Well, yes they'd be upset with that because that's not what the amendment says.

And, technically, if you're male, over 18, and a US citizen, you are part of the militia.

ZV

Right up front - I have nothing against guns, but I'm curious - who or what is regulating this militia? It's supposed to be "...well regulated..." right? So, who's our fearless leader?

 

[NeoV]

"So the "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part gets ignored altogether by those who argue for free and open access to firearms, citing only the part that reads "right of the people to keep and bear arms." And yet in your estimation, only those in favor of gun control are disingenuous in how they interpret the amendment and present their positions and arguments.

Just as amusing, the amendment spoke to the rights of the states to govern themselves without undue interference by any central government body. Their concern, of course, was that they'd going from the tyranny of one throne, in England, for another, right here. And yet while those who argue so strongly in favor of gun ownership are quick to agree with that point when it means preventing the federal government from "infringing" on their right to "keep and bear arms," are all too willing to have the federal government block any states' attempts to pass any limiting laws or regulations.

So when it all comes down to it, it's a state's rights issue if that helps their cause, a reason for the federal government to get involved if that does, and a God-given right, if all else fails. Is that about right? "

Careful cumhail - you are actually making sense in opposition to the 'pry my guns from my dead hands circle-jerk" crowd - they won't know how to handle that.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: cumhail

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
They don't want anything else.

So the "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part gets ignored altogether by those who argue for free and open access to firearms, citing only the part that reads "right of the people to keep and bear arms." And yet in your estimation, only those in favor of gun control are disingenuous in how they interpret the amendment and present their positions and arguments.

Just as amusing, the amendment spoke to the rights of the states to govern themselves without undue interference by any central government body. Their concern, of course, was that they'd going from the tyranny of one throne, in England, for another, right here. And yet while those who argue so strongly in favor of gun ownership are quick to agree with that point when it means preventing the federal government from "infringing" on their right to "keep and bear arms," they are all too willing to have the federal government block any states' attempts to pass any limiting laws or regulations.

So when it all comes down to it, it's a state's rights issue if that helps their cause, a reason for the federal government to get involved if that does, and a God-given right, if all else fails. Is that about right?

It was an individual state issue since the SC hadn't ruled on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to this degree, thus there was open legal ground to be fought over.

Arguing that unreasonable restrictions and outright bans on firearms are justifiable under the 10th Amendment is patently absurd since the 2nd Amendment is a individual right itself protected by the constitution.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: cumhail

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
They don't want anything else.

So the "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part gets ignored altogether by those who argue for free and open access to firearms, citing only the part that reads "right of the people to keep and bear arms." And yet in your estimation, only those in favor of gun control are disingenuous in how they interpret the amendment and present their positions and arguments.

Uh, we don't ignore the first part. We take it for exactly what it says.

A well-trained militia, composed of the whole of the people, is necessary for the security of a free state. Therefore, the right to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed.

You may disagree with this interpretation, but you'd be wrong.

It is the anti's that want to ignore the actual message of the 2nd amendment (right to bear arms shall not be infringed) or order to focus on the wording of the preamble. And they mangle the meaning of the preamble in order to justify their position. That is disingenuous.

I'd like to add that furthermore, the anti's entire strategy of trying to do away with the 2nd amendment is disingenuous in itself. If you really thought guns were dangerous and unnecessary, you should lobby for the repealing of the 2nd amendment. Trying to brush it aside, by saying it doesn't mean what it says so it can be ignored, is counter to the purpose of the constitution. The reason why anti's try to redfine the 2nd, instead of repealing it, is because they know there is no popular support for its removal whatsoever.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: NeoV
"So the "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part gets ignored altogether by those who argue for free and open access to firearms, citing only the part that reads "right of the people to keep and bear arms." And yet in your estimation, only those in favor of gun control are disingenuous in how they interpret the amendment and present their positions and arguments.

Just as amusing, the amendment spoke to the rights of the states to govern themselves without undue interference by any central government body. Their concern, of course, was that they'd going from the tyranny of one throne, in England, for another, right here. And yet while those who argue so strongly in favor of gun ownership are quick to agree with that point when it means preventing the federal government from "infringing" on their right to "keep and bear arms," are all too willing to have the federal government block any states' attempts to pass any limiting laws or regulations.

So when it all comes down to it, it's a state's rights issue if that helps their cause, a reason for the federal government to get involved if that does, and a God-given right, if all else fails. Is that about right? "

Careful cumhail - you are actually making sense in opposition to the 'pry my guns from my dead hands circle-jerk" crowd - they won't know how to handle that.

Care to explain why the Bill of Rights are the Rights of People EXCEPT the 2nd Amendment, which states, Right of the People.

You have to read the whole thing, not take what parts you want.
The intent of the 2nd Amendment is so that people can defend themselves against the Federal Government if need be.
Of course now that I say that you'll claim that we can't defend ourselves from the might US military because they have laser guided bombs and tanks and airplanes, but we see how good they are at finding Osama and how they have stopped the insurgency in Iraq.

 

[fskimospy]

What I find funny is that the gun rights people conveniently ignored the supreme court precedent that was in place for years and years up until this term that stated the 2nd amendment was a collective right, but now that the USSC has changed it's mind, NOW supreme court rulings are important! I agree with you guys that the 2nd amendment was designed for people to individually own weapons, I just am noting the selective acceptance of the supreme court.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
What I find funny is that the gun rights people conveniently ignored the supreme court precedent that was in place for years and years up until this term that stated the 2nd amendment was a collective right, but now that the USSC has changed it's mind, NOW supreme court rulings are important! I agree with you guys that the 2nd amendment was designed for people to individually own weapons, I just am noting the selective acceptance of the supreme court.

There was no precident that held the 2nd only a collective right.

That's selective interpretation by the anti-gun crowd.

-------------------------------------

But we're getting OT here.

I'm puzzled by this story. I think non-profits should be run in a pretty transparent way. I've been involved with many, I cannot see a need for spying. Obviously people felt there was. I'm just having trouble figuring out why the need, and what was to be obtained by spying?

Fern

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
What I find funny is that the gun rights people conveniently ignored the supreme court precedent that was in place for years and years up until this term that stated the 2nd amendment was a collective right, but now that the USSC has changed it's mind, NOW supreme court rulings are important! I agree with you guys that the 2nd amendment was designed for people to individually own weapons, I just am noting the selective acceptance of the supreme court.

Maybe you should do a little research before making such demonstrably false statements, which significantly weaken your argument.

a) The lower court prosecuting Miller of owning an unregistered short-barreled shotgun AGREED with the defense, that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional.
b) The prosecution appealed the case, which went to the supreme court. But, the defendant (Miller) had died prior to the case being heard. Thus, the case was heard in the supreme court, ONE SIDED, WITH NO DEFENSE.
c) U.S. v. Miller decided that regulations against short-barreled shotguns was not unconstitutional, on the grounds that a short-barreled weapon was not a weapon commonly used by the military. THAT'S ALL.
d) The decision was uninformed, because in fact short-barreled shotguns WERE used by the military, especially in trench warfare in WW1. However, because there was no defense for the case, the judges were not made aware of this fact.

Essentially, all the miller case decided was that it was not unconstitutional to require a tax stamp for certain weapons, because this tax stamp did not prevent people from owning the weapons.

The decision had nothing to do with the meaning or interpretation of the second amendment whatsoever. All of the judges in the case agreed that the 2nd meant that individuals had the right to own firearms. The issue at hand was whether the federal government had the right to regulate/tax ownership of certain weapons.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

They don't want anything else.

Really? I imagine they'd be upset if the law was that only people actually PART OF a militia could have guns, wouldn't they?

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
What I find funny is that the gun rights people conveniently ignored the supreme court precedent that was in place for years and years up until this term that stated the 2nd amendment was a collective right, but now that the USSC has changed it's mind, NOW supreme court rulings are important! I agree with you guys that the 2nd amendment was designed for people to individually own weapons, I just am noting the selective acceptance of the supreme court.

wow talk about ignorance.

 

[Triumph]

Unfortunately, the article merely talks about the woman as a person, who she is, what she does, and how she managed to live two lives, one inside the gun control lobby, and one out. But what I really want to hear is an account of what she really learned, which this article does not address. That's what I am interested in.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
I like her. The anti-movement is very deliberate in not stating their real goals with "gun control". They wont say in public that they want all guns stripped from everyones hands, but that's what they want based on information gathered from them. The NRA and others goals are right there on the table: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
They don't want anything else.
It's pretty sad that we have groups dedicated to defending a specific Amendment of the Constitution, because many groups selectively oppose the Constitution.

To bad it didn't mention if she was packing heat at any of the anti- rallies in states where her Florida CHL is honored under reciprocity.
All those people fearing guns, but never knowing one of them had one on her all that time.

Didn't realize you were a big ACLU advocate. Good for you.

 

[NeoV]

I'm really sick and tired of the pro-gun crowd leaning on the crutch of the 2nd amendment, which has ZERO relevance in today's world. Not a single one of you bought a gun thinking "boy, if the US government ever goes apeshit, I'm ready to join the local militia".

You want a gun for hunting? Fine.

You want a gun for self defense? Fine. Concealed carry? There are pro's and con's to that one.

You want to collect guns? Fine.

You want a gun(s) to protect yourselves from your own government? Give me a F'ing break - it's complete and utter BS.

The amendment should be thrown out and re-written, and the crappy laws we have in place for selling guns need to be re-written and actually enforced as well.

note - even though plenty of you are going to come charging in saying ridiculous things - I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to own guns as long as you are a law-abiding citizen.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: NeoV
I'm really sick and tired of the pro-gun crowd leaning on the crutch of the 2nd amendment, which has ZERO relevance in today's world. Not a single one of you bought a gun thinking "boy, if the US government ever goes apeshit, I'm ready to join the local militia".

You want a gun for hunting? Fine.

You want a gun for self defense? Fine. Concealed carry? There are pro's and con's to that one.

You want to collect guns? Fine.

You want a gun(s) to protect yourselves from your own government? Give me a F'ing break - it's complete and utter BS.

The amendment should be thrown out and re-written, and the crappy laws we have in place for selling guns need to be re-written and actually enforced as well.

note - even though plenty of you are going to come charging in saying ridiculous things - I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to own guns as long as you are a law-abiding citizen.

That whole argument is illogical. A decent argument could be made that the framers of the First Amendment never thought whether it would (or should) protect the activities of people like Larry Flynt, so should we just decide the First lacks relevance to the modern world and ignore it?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: NeoV
I'm really sick and tired of the pro-gun crowd leaning on the crutch of the 2nd amendment, which has ZERO relevance in today's world. Not a single one of you bought a gun thinking "boy, if the US government ever goes apeshit, I'm ready to join the local militia".

You want a gun for hunting? Fine.

You want a gun for self defense? Fine. Concealed carry? There are pro's and con's to that one.

You want to collect guns? Fine.

You want a gun(s) to protect yourselves from your own government? Give me a F'ing break - it's complete and utter BS.

The amendment should be thrown out and re-written, and the crappy laws we have in place for selling guns need to be re-written and actually enforced as well.

note - even though plenty of you are going to come charging in saying ridiculous things - I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to own guns as long as you are a law-abiding citizen.

I don't really see much use for all my battle rifle caliber armor piercing ammunition other than to protect myself from the government. And all the guys out there that own crew served machine guns (for suppressive fire,) rocket launchers, anti-tank rifles, grenades, etc....

It's not just protecting yourself from the government, it's against protecting yourself from anyone who would choose to use force against you instead of reason. A well armed person can only be reasoned with, not forced. A well armed society can only be reasoned with, not forced.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
The NRA and others goals are right there on the table: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
They don't want anything else.

I've seen the NRA and others try to stop the "well regulated" part of the constitution. It is as if they pretend it isn't in there.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
The NRA and others goals are right there on the table: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
They don't want anything else.

I've seen the NRA and others try to stop the "well regulated" part of the constitution. It is as if they pretend it isn't in there.

Sounds like you have confused yourself by pretending that "well regulated" doesn't refer to militias, but rather the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Sounds like you have confused yourself by pretending that "well regulated" doesn't refer to militias, but rather the right to keep and bear arms.

It is one statement, not two. The people are the militia.

States v. Miller, 307 US 174 [1939] says that if the weapon isn't for a militia, it can be regulated.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Sounds like you have confused yourself by pretending that "well regulated" doesn't refer to militias, but rather the right to keep and bear arms.

It is one statement, not two. The people are the militia.

States v. Miller, 307 US 174 [1939] says that if the weapon isn't for a militia, it can be regulated.

You realize the SCOTUS says that it's two phrases, right?

But even if we follow your idea of what the 2nd says, and what Miller says, where are my machine guns? My RPGs? Why are these things regulated? As a member of the militia, I demand them, as they are applicable for militia purposes.