Republican NRA Suckers Get Conned As Wayne LaPierre Spends $200K On Beverly Hills Suits

[sandorski]

No, no, no. You have to justify how any new gun legislation would help stop crimes without being an undo and unconstitutional burden on the law abiding. Not the other way around.

It's folly to think that when no easy answer presents itself that then somehow the unconstitutional is suddenly okay.

So, even if Crime can be significantly decreased, inconvenience to Gun Owners should prevent the Regulation?

 

[dank69]

No, no, no. You have to justify how any new gun legislation would help stop crimes without being an undo and unconstitutional burden on the law abiding. Not the other way around.

It's folly to think that when no easy answer presents itself that then somehow the unconstitutional is suddenly okay.

Undo and unconstitutional. You can argue against anything with those qualifications. How about you at least try to be constructive?

 

[thraashman]

what is unconstitutional about limiting the types of guns that are allowed?

For the same reason we're all allowed to own nuclear weapons and drive tanks with operational guns, duh!

 

[zinfamous]

Wonder if Slow is too busy to post in this thread because he's trying to get a refund on his ill-be-donated cash to the NRA.

 

[1prophet]

So, even if Crime can be significantly decreased, inconvenience to Gun Owners should prevent the Regulation?

Stop and frisk significantly decreases crimes too, just like relaxing some controls on police behavior will significantly reduce crime,

just like the old saying goes in order to make an omelet you need to crack some eggs.

Only question is how many innocent eggs are you willing to crack on the way there to make your gun free omelet.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Stop and frisk significantly decreases crimes too, just like relaxing some controls on police behavior will significantly reduce crime,

just like the old saying goes in order to make an omelet you need to crack some eggs.

Only question is how many innocent eggs are you willing to crack on the way there to make your gun free omelet.

Increased police presence reduces crime. Stop and frisk... not so much.

https://crim.sas.upenn.edu/fact-check/does-stop-and-frisk-reduce-crime

https://www.econ.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/nathaniel_barlow_thesis.pdf

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/8/16865730/national-review-stop-and-frisk-police

 

[HomerJS]

Stop and frisk significantly decreases crimes too, just like relaxing some controls on police behavior will significantly reduce crime,

just like the old saying goes in order to make an omelet you need to crack some eggs.

Only question is how many innocent eggs are you willing to crack on the way there to make your gun free omelet.

I always said I'm in favor of stop and frisk as long as white 50 year old males are stopped leaving their banks and Wall Street brokerage houses. Police frisks the individual forces him to open their briefcase and say "were looking for shenanigans".

If they did that how soon before the Mayor and police chief get phone calls. That practice would stop by the next day.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Oh, wait. It’s actually the conservative CEO of the NRA, the association that pretends to be about everyday gun owners but really represents the bloody greed of gun manufacturers

No shit. If the NRA was about protecting the rights of gun owners instead of the profits of big gun manufacturers they would have fought Trump on the bump stock ban. After all this fearmongering about Obama it actually ended up being Trump coming for peoples' guns.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

They are a little sensitive over at the NRA today.

Literally all I said was in response to her saying no lobbying organization should have tax exempt status.

Replying to @[B]DLoesch[/B]
Ummmm.... so just so I'm clear on this... you think the organization that pays you should be stripped of it's tax exempt status? Have I got this right?
10:32 AM - 6 May 2019

 

[uclaLabrat]

I'd have blocked you too, should've been "its", not "it's"

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I'd have blocked you too, should've been "its", not "it's"

Yeah well... ahh I got nothing. Carry on.

 

[Jhhnn]

They are a little sensitive over at the NRA today.

Literally all I said was in response to her saying no lobbying organization should have tax exempt status.




View attachment 5981

She's a serious piece of work, huh? I always wonder how much is sincere & how much is just amoral pitchmanship.

Oh, and stop persecuting them with the facts, you big meanie.

 

[senseamp]

Nice, $20K in sales tax for California

 

[kage69]

They are a little sensitive over at the NRA today.

Literally all I said was in response to her saying no lobbying organization should have tax exempt status.




View attachment 5981

Hey it's the brunette Tomi Lahren. Zero brains, heavy on the self-righteous indignation. Of course she couldn't handle you expecting her to maintain a consistent position. The magic (R) means you're allowed to take both sides of the argument, and if it's called out then the source hates America and good day sir.

 

[Paladin3]

what is unconstitutional about limiting the types of guns that are allowed?

We already have a very extensive set of state and federal laws that dictate what firearms are legal for a civilian to own, under what circumstances a person can loose their 2A rights, how to store and transport, and even a permit/licencing process in some places for things like automatic weapons, suppressors, short barreled weapons and concealed carry. If you want to include additional gun regulations or limits, those laws have to stand the test of constitutionality just like any other new law.

That means you can't make what is currently legal and in common use suddenly illegal in the hopes of casting that wide net to stop a tiny few individuals who misuse whatever you are trying to ban. At least that's exactly what the judge said in California when he ruled their 10-round magazine limit unconstitutional.

I've repeatedly explained this but the same argument "Well, you can't own a nuke. Duh!" keeps being offered up as some kind of wisdom. It's not.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice, $20K in sales tax for California

He might have used the NRA's tax exempt status to dodge sales taxes...

 

[Paladin3]

So, even if Crime can be significantly decreased, inconvenience to Gun Owners should prevent the Regulation?

If you believe stripping someone of their constitutional rights just an inconvenience then why not suspend the 1A to stop hate speech and bullying.

But, actually, yes. If you can provide compelling evidence that a gun ban or whatever you new law you are proposing will significantly decrease crime without being an undue burden on the 2A rights of the law-abiding, then it would stand the test of constitutionality and likely be enforceable. But can you? The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban did nothing to reduce crime. Why would it work any better this time? Show me your compelling evidence it will.

You guys can't throw out everything the rule of law is based on just because of feels that it will help.

 

[Paladin3]

Undo and unconstitutional. You can argue against anything with those qualifications. How about you at least try to be constructive?

I never said any and all new gun regulation would absolutely be an undo and unconstitutional burden on the law-abiding and their 2A rights. I simply said you would have to craft such new legislation and provide compelling evidence that it wouldn't be. It's on those proposing new laws to show at least some evidence the new law is actually necessary and would likely work.

What's so hard to understand about that? We don't pass laws in this country on feels. At least we shouldn't, and those laws that are passed on feels are often found unconstitutional.

 

[sandorski]

If you believe stripping someone of their constitutional rights just an inconvenience then why not suspend the 1A to stop hate speech and bullying.

But, actually, yes. If you can provide compelling evidence that a gun ban or whatever you new law you are proposing will significantly decrease crime without being an undue burden on the 2A rights of the law-abiding, then it would stand the test of constitutionality and likely be enforceable. But can you? The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban did nothing to reduce crime. Why would it work any better this time? Show me your compelling evidence it will.

You guys can't throw out everything the rule of law is based on just because of feels it will help.

Is a waiting period or licensing requirement Unconstitutional?

 

[Paladin3]

Is a waiting period or licensing requirement Unconstitutional?

Are you talking about current waiting period or licensing requirement laws? Not unless a particular law is challenged and a court rules it so. That's how the constitutionality of *any* law is determined. Not according to your feels or my feels. Checks and Balances 101.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I never said any and all new gun regulation would absolutely be an undo and unconstitutional burden on the law-abiding and their 2A rights. I simply said you would have to craft such new legislation and provide compelling evidence that it wouldn't be. It's on those proposing new laws to show at least some evidence the new law is actually necessary and would likely work.

What's so hard to understand about that? We don't pass laws in this country on feels. At least we shouldn't, and those laws that are passed on feels are often found unconstitutional.

The 2A only allows the right to bear arms to a well regulated militia. It does not automatically allow anyone to own guns with no restrictions. That was just an interpretation of the 2A, we could, and should, reinterpret it to make the words 'well regulated' and 'militia' important again.