An anti-NRA thread..or "The NRA does NOT compromise"

The NRA ain't perfect but it's the best and biggest organization we have. They may have made some odd moves over the years that seem wacky with 20/20 hindsight, but they do the best they can. Every organization makes mistakes.

I like the NRA because it is not just a lobbying group. They promote the shooting sports, organize matches, promote gun safety, promote ethical hunting, try to get women involved with shooting and hunting, and a million other things along with organizing politicians with $$$ and guaranteed votes if they tow the line.

But I guess they have sacrificed our rights in some evil sort of way...

So who here thinks gun laws would be less restrictive if there were no NRA?
 
So who here thinks gun laws would be less restrictive if there were no NRA?
Click to expand...

If there were no NRA, this could very well be a non issue as our firearms would probably have been stolen long ago.
 
Danzig -- You've already stated that you vote. Good

Do you write letters to the editor? Do you write letters to your legislature and representatives? Do they read them or are the filtered through some lackey?

Can you get face to face time with your reps? Can you influence legislators, get influence on bills and wording, provide financial support for pro 2A candidates?

The NRA isn't perfect. It is a lobby and is run like a lobby. But its what we've got. It gives us a bigger voice, one that might be listened to. Many who are members probably agree with a no compromise stance, but that's not how politics work.
 
No such thing as a "God-given" right? I prefer to call them natural rights, if we are thinking of the same thing. I do believe there is such a thing. The right to self defense is one. It is not a devolution of the argument to bring the case of "the right to exist", to "breathe". It is an extension of that basic human right that gives many of us the perceived basic right to defend ourselves. And here we sit, knowing that the right to exist is not negotiable, yet the right to keep and bear arms and defend ourselves has very real limitations. That's part of the problem. Actually, I believe it defines the problem. This touches on the central issue of how what we may call a basic human right is actually derived from a basic human right and stands alone, treated as a separate right, limited by law, while the basic right itself is not.

I disagree that if there were such a thing that we wouldn't need to fight for it, it would just be recognized by everyone. Throughout history, men have fought to preserve there natural borne right to keep what they earned by their own efforts and defend themselves and their families. Since the dawn of organized society, these rights have been under attack.

The idea that what few rights we possess are "given" or "bestowed" by society is a foreign one to me and a strange mindset, but does explain some of the debates here of late.

Of course, there are rights that society does bestow on us as individuals and as groups. But I believe there are rights with which we are borne. I would not trust myself to attempt a comprehensive list of such rights, but the idea that there is no such thing is simply preposterous to me. The idea that many of our rights have been infringed and reduced in scope is true, IMHO. The idea that there are no "absolute" rights is grounds for fertile debate and I think many here would be disappointed in the outcome. Even a right I may consider a natural right, belonging to me on the grounds that I am a sentient being, with a conscience, could be construed to have limits.

I think a review of rights vs privileges are in order for some here. It's strange to me that it must occasionally be done. I guess that's part of the struggle.
 
the real problem is that neither side is willing to compromise. The anti-gun types will not accept ANY gun ownership and so in response the gun owning types will not allow any compromise either.
Personally I see nothing wrong with a waiting period for picking up a gun. I personally am a little skeeved out by the idea I can but a gun on my lunch break and go back to the office in a bad mood.
I do not see a problem with a person only being able to buy only 1 hand gun in a 30 day period.

BUT

since all too often these are used by anti-gun people as a spring board to further restrictions, no one wants to help them along.

After Columbine the anti gun types immediately proposed all new anti gun laws to prevent it. There were almost a dozen laws those punks broke before the massacre. They were not going to sweat a few more. The logicla thing to do would have been figure out why the existing laws didn't work. Instead the anti-gun types used the hysteria to try and advance their views rather than actually solve the problem.
 
I gotta agree with last post, I am willing to wait for a gun, limit monthly purchases, even agree to buying a cheap($5)per-gun permit from local LE.. but every time we give a little the anti's take more
 
Waiting period for what?

Here in Minn. we have to have an asinine pistol purchasing permit, every year.
It is required by law to be avalable within seven to ten days.

When I got mine this year, I found out it expired the day I applied, second time that has happened.
When I went to reapply, I asked when can I PICK it up, they said we MAIL them out.
Three weeks later I went back to find out where it was, and the desk sargent was kind enough to check around. It was found laying on the desk of the chick-cop who sadly does almost all signings.

Then when I pick up a gun, an instant FBI check is run, so why the hell should there be a waiting period?
Bob
 
BobR I can understand you frustration with that system but by comparrison if takes maybe 20 minutes top to bottom to buy a hand gun in PA.

BUT

My point is that the extreme actions by the anti-gun people is what stands in the way of any sort of compromise because they've given us cause not to trust them.
 
Bud, it is a shame that we have to go over some of this material every so often. Whenever I hear someone talking about our rights and how they are "granted" by the Constitution, it raises my hackles.

The Constitution grants only one thing. Powers that the Federal Government has. Further, the Constitution prohibits certain things to the States and certain other things to the Federal Government.

The first ten amendments, that we term "The Bill of Rights," is not a grant of power. It is a prohibition laid upon the Federal Government, if the BOR does anything at all. In listing certain "rights," it is not a grant of rights to the people, only an acknowledgment of the existence of of a limited set of pre-existing rights (ignoring the 9th amendment, for the moment).

Quick... Someone open a new thread to discuss this! :eek:
 
Amtipiatas,
I will say again. Other than rights afforded you by law the only other "rights" are those you can enforce by the strength of hand. It all comes down to natural selection. We are animals like any other animal. "Rights" are an abstract concept that we created. Do you think primitive man had "rights" or do you think he survived by banding together with his fellow homo sapiens and affording each other mutual protection and the strength of the pack? Noone stands back and acknowledges your "right" to exist. If it wasn't for the law and the society I live in preventing me from doing it there would be nothing to stop me from walking into your home, killing you, and then claiming your possessions as my own. Then the same could happen to me if some stronger, smarter and more prepared comes along and catches me off gaurd. The oldest wolf in the pack does not have the "right" to lead. he does so by fand and claw and once he can no longer do so he is killed and replaced.

Plain and simply stated, rights are an abstract that have no more power than the people enforcing them. To believe otherwise is just fooling yourself.
 
Anti; Antpas; Antipas; Amtipiatas... Can no one actually spell Antipitas? How about for the sake of brevity, everyone just use my real name? It's at the bottom of all my posts. Just call me Al.
Playboypenguin said:
Other than rights afforded you by law the only other "rights" are those you can enforce by the strength of hand.
....
Plain and simply stated, rights are an abstract that have no more power than the people enforcing them. To believe otherwise is just fooling yourself.
Click to expand...
And Law is what? An abstract concept that has no more power than what people are willing to abide by.

Government is what? Robber Barons or an abstract concept?

I've heard your screed before. Are we nothing more than creatures ruled by instinct? What then of art, poetry, music? Or even those things we call Law and Government? What other animal produces such things? Abstract things, one and all.
 
I've heard your screed before. Are we nothing more than creatures ruled by instinct? What then of art, poetry, music? Or even those things we call Law and Government? What other animal produces such things? Abstract things, one and all
Click to expand...
Did I say anything about being ruled by instict? I also never said we were not very advanced animals.

Art and poetry are not abstract. You can hold a work of art in your hand, you can see it, feel it, hear it, etc. There is abstract art but even that is a misuse of the term. Non-relative art is actually a better term.

I don't see what this has to do with the subject or "rights" though.

And Law is what? An abstract concept that has no more power than what people are willing to abide by.

Government is what? Robber Barons or an abstract concept
Click to expand...
Laws are also not abstract. They are concrete and based in reality. They are arbitrary but not abstract. The govt is also not an abstract. It exists. Ethics are an abstract concept. They do not actually exist in the physical plane. The govt does.
 
PlayboyPenguin,

Fine, right, whatever. Point in fact is this: The Constitution of The United States grants NOTHING to the people. It presupposes that humans inherently have certain unalienable rights. The Constitution does grant certain powers to the government and specifically forbids them ALL powers that it has not granted.

As the Constitution has NOT granted the government the power to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms and in fact prohibits such activity, the government is in violation of our rights.

Nobody has the authority to take away that which they do not grant. As NOBODY has granted us the right to keep and bear arms, eat, marry, procreate, etc..NOBODY has the right to take those things away. The NRA does NOT have the authority or the right to give up my right to keep and bear whatever firearms I wish. Neither does the government. But together they are doing just that. Give me back my machine guns!

If the Constitution is in error in presupposing that we as humans have inherent rights under natural law..then the government which was created with that document is also erroneous and therefore void.
 
Danzig,
Wow, you have never taken a course on logical thinking have you. You make a few giant leaps in your thinking there.

As NOBODY has granted us the right to keep and bear arms, eat, marry, procreate, etc..NOBODY
Click to expand...
Yes, someone did grant you that right. The founders felt that it was a right person should have and therefore wrote about it. Talk about a sheltered point of view. The vast majority of the world does not enjoy this priveledge. So if you want to use the word "unalienable" I think you might want to look it up first. It means "Not to be separated, given away, or taken away". So when you go to prison and lose the right to bear arms, vote, move about freely, etc that is proof positive that these rights can be removed and are therefore not "unalienable".
 
The idea that what few rights we possess are "given" or "bestowed" by society is a foreign one to me and a strange mindset, but does explain some of the debates here of late.
Click to expand...

Rights are inherint in the people. I had that discussion with someone from SIngapore jsut the other day. Her view was of course the complete opposite but I digress.

In the USA rights originate with the individual. The people though can hand over parts or all of those right to the government. The problem with Democracy though is that there is no stopping the stupid from voting in larger numbers than those who think...
 
Ok PP, then the Constitution is a lie and the government created by it is a sham. I serve in the military for a worthless piece of paper and an erroneous set of ideals. With nothing higher to live for than the scraps granted to us by other people I think we should all just hang it up now.
 
Rights are inherint in the people. I had that discussion with someone from SIngapore jsut the other day. Her view was of course the complete opposite but I digress.
Click to expand...
Exactely, that is because she is speaking from a viewpoint where she has not been granted the same priveledges you take for granted. You would find out how little any of your beliefs that you are somehow magically bestowed with certain rights just for being human meant if you found yourself in a foreign country where such "rights" do not exist.

Ok PP, then the Constitution is a lie and the government created by it is a sham. I serve in the military for a worthless piece of paper and an erroneous set of ideals. With nothing higher to live for than the scraps granted to us by other people I think we should all just hang it up now
Click to expand...
Once again, a very big leap...and one that does not make sense. My very point is exactly the oppisite. You have the rights you do BECAUSE of that document. You live the life you do because the founding fathers of this country and it's citizens fought to secure them for you and then sat down and established a system to protect those rights. The document does not exist because of inborn rights. It exists as a testiment to the work done to establish those rights and as a means to help keep them.
 
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

These ideas are what led to the founding of our nation. Rights come from a creator. God, if that is your preference. That is the notion that led to the founding of our nation. That is the notion that the Constitution is based on. The idea that rights are inherent to humans and that government's ONLY legitimate role is to protect those rights.

You may disagree with that concept for any number of reasons but the fact remains that the only reason we have our own nation is because the founders believed in inherent rights..not granted privileges. As that is the idea on which our nation was founded, that is the idea that I fight for, that is the idea to which I subscribe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top