I think this settles nra's anti 2nd amendment attitude about full autos

[Justme]

If full auto weapons weren't banned in 86 they would have been banned in 87 or 88. If the supreme court ruled that full auto weapons were protected under the 2A then the constitution would be amended virtually overnight and virtually every state would ratify the new amendment, I say virtually because the ignorance of the population of some states has to be considered, and the politicians in those states have to stand for election at some point in the future.

This is an argument you are never going to win and you need to move on to issues that actually have two sides to debate. That boat has sailed my friend and the culture that exists in the US today will never go that way again.

 

[Al Norris]

Justme, you simply don't get it, do you?

The Constitution is in place to also protect the minority from the majority. I shouldn't have to point this out to you. A right is a right, not because of what the majority thinks, but in spite of what the majority thinks. See all the case law on the 1st amendment free speech rights.

I could get numerous quotes from the founders on what "arms" the people should be free to keep and bear. But you've also seen all those arguments, and in one fell swoop, you've dismissed them because the "majority" (and going by your latest writings/rants, you yourself) no longer accepts the ideas and concepts of a free people.

If the supreme court ruled that full auto weapons were protected under the 2A then the constitution would be amended virtually overnight and virtually every state would ratify the new amendment,

If it was as easy as you think, then the 2A would already have been repealed. It hasn't and it's been tried many times. Amending the Constitution is hard to do. It was made that way for a specific purpose. So that changes to the government, could not happen willy-nilly.

Legally, there is nothing to stop the Congress from repealing any portion of the Bill of Rights. Nor is there any legal restriction that prevents the States from ratifying such an amendment.

And let's even assume that 38 of the 50 States (the 3/4 mandated by the same Constitution that you want to change) would ratify such an amendment. There are two ways to propose an amendment and two ways to ratify an amendment. Thus, there are four paths to an amendment:

• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

There are, of course, pitfalls in any method used.

However, there is one other consideration that you haven't taken into account. That is all those "ignorant" people still have one thing in common. Whatever their beliefs about what the 2A might mean, it is part and parcel of the Bill of Rights. Something that even those "ignorant" people still hold dear. Something that the vast majority still hold as almost sacrosanct. Even as bad as many say Public Education is, it is a fact that indoctrination to the BOR, as a statement of our freedoms and liberties is still taking place.

Actually attempting to repeal the BOR would be perilless to any legislator(s), State or Federal.

This is an argument you are never going to win and you need to move on to issues that actually have two sides to debate. That boat has sailed my friend and the culture that exists in the US today will never go that way again.

I'm glad that you've "come out," so to speak. It is much easier to deal with anti-gunners in the open, instead of merely remarking on the many innuendos you have made in the last few days.

Like it or not, the Parker decision is of real importance. It matters little, at this point in time, whether the Supreme Court grants cert in Heller or not. The die has been cast. The tide has turned. Sooner or later, 922(o) will be stricken.

 

[Justme]

You miss my point, as usual. The one way to ensure that the 2A get changed or removed altogether would be to insist that it includes such weapons as full auto and grenade launchers. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that citizens in this day and age should have full access to all weapons the govt has access to, to insist that this is what the 2A means is to paint the 2A into a very small corner that 'the people' would not tolerate.

Yes, it is very hard to amend or change the constitution, as well it should be. My point is that trying to make the 2A too encompassing is one way to ensure that the difficult task of changing the constition would become politically palitable.

In this day and age access to the internet is a more important right than access to firearms, at least as it applies to fighting govt tryanny. The right to own firearms has changed to become more important as it applies to self defense against criminals and/or insurgents. I don't want my right to arm myself in a reasonable manner to be in danger because some people want to play with around with full auto or cannons or grenade launchers or tactical nukes for that matter.

So, if because I don't agree that the 2A applies to crew based weapons, or whatever the wording is these days, that means I am anti gun...well, when it comes to expanding the types of guns currently considered OK under the 2A you might find that a lot of people you thought were on your side aren't any longer.

 

[FirstFreedom]

Thank you, Antipitas and Mike I - you guys speak very eloquently for the majority position - the NRA, while not perfect, does great work, and is a much-needed and much-appreciated asset. I'm a life member of both NRA and GOA - they have their places.

 

[Musketeer]

Just Me, Antipitas is right on target. Changing an Amendment is darn near impossible. Not 100% but very hard. The MG ban is unconstitutional. It clearly bans an arm intended for use by an individual and such as would also be used in war (if you included the horse manure excuse of a militia).

That does not mean MGs for everyone. The SCOTUS (if of constructionist leanings) would never toss restrictions on automatic weapons. RESTRICTIONS meaning things like registration and background checks. The outright ban in place on anything made after 86 though is a death sentence to automatic weapons in civilian hands. After Parker is decided (in our favour I believe) the 86 ban should also be attacked.

With restrictions as discussed above in place, which would be passed about 15 minutes after the SCOTUS tossed the 86 ban, there would not be the will to muck around with one part of the BoR. Don't forget, most of this nation is not made up of Chicago, NYC and LA. Ratification by the STATES. TWO THIRDS of the states. Utah cancels out NY and CA. FL cancels NJ and IL. An assault on the BoR is something we certainly could win. Imagine the publicity on it... "Today they want to remove the Second Amendment so that tommorrow they can remove the First..."

Not going to happen.

 

[Musketeer]

..well, when it comes to expanding the types of guns currently considered OK under the 2A you might find that a lot of people you thought were on your side aren't any longer.

They are generally called FUDDS and are akin to Zumbo. They tend to own very nice deer rifles and Berretta O/U shotguns and believe nobody would ever want to take their guns. The antis have no better friends than the Fudds.

 

[Al Norris]

You miss my point, as usual.

No, I don't think so.

The NFA was put into place to keep certain full-auto firearms out of the hands of criminals. Regardless of how exorbitant the tax was at that time, it did not prevent people from owning them. But, and here's the kicker, most politicians knew that the criminal wouldn't pay the tax.

Even by todays standards, the criminal isn't gonna jump through the hoops to register the firearm and pay the tax. So the NFA can still provide a check on that kind of criminal activity.

By a strict reading of Miller full-auto firearms are protected by the 2A. No way to get around that, without the Supreme Court knocking down Miller. That isn't gonna happen (for the exact political reasons I gave in my last post). It will most likely be expanded to include firearms for self-defense, ala the Parker decision.

Now, as to whether or not the NRA will back a play to have 922(o) removed, they will have to be dragged, albeit kicking and screaming, to the table. But it will happen.

With an open market, the artificial pricing will drop. Some few others will get the chance to "play" with these things. It still won't be a huge segment of the population, nor will it increase violent crime.

Just to set the record straight, I don't want or need such firearms. But I most certainly don't want the Feds or the States telling me what I can have or not have, when faced with a presumptive right, just because some blissninnys decide it's too dangerous in the hands of common citizens.

That road leads to the path that Britain is on now. Do you really want to see that happen?

That argument (too dangerous in the hands of the common man) can also be made for a printing press. Should we have the same requirements on printing presses?

Your argumentum absurdum over crew served weapons and Nukes, is just that, an argument taken to its absurd limits, a logical fallacy. At some point, the Court will decide on the limits of the 2A. That reality appears to say that such things might well be beyond common ownership. Note the wording, however. Any real militia, authorized by the State Governments, will not have the same restrictions.

As for the Internet, who are you kidding? It can be shut down in a nanosecond. Then where will you be?

 

[Justme]

Your argumentum absurdum over crew served weapons and Nukes, is just that, an argument taken to its absurd limits, a logical fallacy

An argument taken to it's absurd limits is not a logical fallacy, it is actually a good way to remind yourself that you have lost sight of the original argument. The fact is nobody in their right mind suggests that the 2A doesn't have limits, to do so is indeed absurd. My point was that if we try to draw the limits too far one way there will be a backlash that will have horrible consequences for gun ownership in all shapes and sizes.

I think the NRA does a remarkable good job of reigning in the excesses of the more radical fringe in the gun ownership community. Wasn't it the american legion who garnered so much bad publicity when one of their fund raising letters called the ATF agents "jack booted thugs"?

I am much more concerned about the political assault on semi auto rifles than any restrictions on machine guns. I think the move toward less restrictive concealed carry is a good sign but am worried that people will overplay the hand.

 

[rgates]

In regards to the interview with Mr. Jackson, I wrote a letter to the NRA to express how I felt about it. I can't believe he said what he did in a taped interview. However, Mr. Jackson is just one individual. A weak link yes, but still just one.
I will continue to support the NRA, respond to their mailing and fax requests, write my representatives, and attend public meetings with them when they have one and vote. Is the NRA perfect? #*/! NO! What organization that size is? They are still the strongest voice and force out there defending our right to remain armed. Anyone who actually thinks they do nothing doesn't follow the real world closely enough. It's easy to do. Pay attention to the news. Sign up for and read the NRA-ILA alerts. When they send you a mailing request--do it! There are links you can go to to see how every Congressman and Senator votes on a bill. Talk to your representatives. Make your opinion known.

Or just sit back and do nothing but bitch about the NRA not doing enough.

 

[Al Norris]

An argument taken to it's absurd limits is not a logical fallacy, it is actually a good way to remind yourself that you have lost sight of the original argument.

Reductio Ad Absurdum is in general a reasonable argument, but only if the issue is extremely clear. However, even by your own statements, the issue is far from clear. Therefore your argument does not apply to all cases within the issue. The issue is, "What is the Scope of the Right in Question." We must wait for the cases to come before the Court. At which point, we will begin to see what limitations the right may have.

At the moment, we have Miller. Which set a limit as those weapons (arms) common to the militia of the time. So I ask you, what are the common weapons of our soldiers (a form of the militia), today?

Unless or until the Supreme Court redefines this, it's a pretty open field. Whatever they (soldiers) carry, the common man should be able to also possess (keep) and carry (bear).

 

[Northern Sod Breaker]

Forgive me if this has already been siad here but: HERE WE GO AGIAN

 

[rgates]

I considered it settled an obvious a long time ago that the NRA is anti 2nd amendment when it comes to machine guns, but this settles it even clearer (as if that was even possible).

You've got to be kidding. :barf:

The NRA doesn't give a flip about the 2nd Amend.

You too....:barf:

Well i am not a member of the NRA, and the NRA wont be able to help if there is a gun grab, though they may be a good organization i just dont see where i would fit in and benifit from it

Even without your help, they may be the reason you can still own a firearm years from now. The extra help would be good though.

Among politicians and the liberal media (I know, that's redundant) the NRA is recognized as having considerable clout. I wonder how much more influence it would have if the benchwarmers in our community would join up. Oh well, some would rather sit on the sidelines and sound off about how they could do it better, all the while accomplishing little or nothing.

AMEN !

Bottom line, I was born with the Freedom to use any weapon necessary and handy to defend both my person and my liberty from ALL enemies. If our government thinks any differently then THEY become the enemy and should be delt with swiftly.

WOW-- just WOW

The only thing talk like that accomplishes is giving the Brady Bunch plenty of ammo.

 

[Justme]

Bottom line, I was born with the Freedom to use any weapon necessary and handy to defend both my person and my liberty from ALL enemies. If our government thinks any differently then THEY become the enemy and should be delt with swiftly.

From the less than brilliant legal mind of Ted Nugent, there is another one of his rants posted over in the general forum. People who believe things like this scare me. I used to think they must be antigun people being sarcastic or causing trouble. Alas the longer I am here the more I realise that there is a certain pretty large minority of gun owners who hold beliefs that are radical enough to ensure that the general population of our country would be worried enough to take action against all gun owners.

 

[tooltimey]

I considered it settled an obvious a long time ago that the NRA is anti 2nd amendment when it comes to machine guns, but this settles it even clearer (as if that was even possible). -me

You've got to be kidding. -rgates

Only saying that I've "got to be kidding" is a weak diversion. I think it's very telling mr rgates that you wouldn't or couldn't tell me how I'm incorrect in what I said. You only said that I must be "kidding."

It's funny that you didn't even attempt to refute what I said, probably because you simply do not LIKE what I said. Hmm. Typical.

The facts are on my side and you know it. The nra has helped ban full autos so many times (1934 and 1986 come to mind) it's hard to keep track. NRA executives have clearly vocalized their support for gun control/bans on full autos so many times it's comical that you would deny it. There have been two instances just recently.

Just accept the fact that the nra does not support and has never supported the rights of full auto owners. To say otherwise in the face of so much evidence is pure denial.

 

[xd9fan]

The NRA is as moderate as the GOP on guns. period.
(and I'm a benefactor member)

Get more guys that think like Ron Paul on guns....and you will see a change.
(For those that don't understand all this Ron Paul talk........basically get people that are real conservatives in the Congress and you will see the NRA follow suit........do it right and one day the NRA will just be a teaching assoc.......imagine)

 

[Al Norris]

The facts are on my side and you know it. The nra has helped ban full autos so many times (1934 and 1986 come to mind) it's hard to keep track. NRA executives have clearly vocalized their support for gun control/bans on full autos so many times it's comical that you would deny it. There have been two instances just recently.

Gee, here we go again... So many times, and all you can come up with is two? You've had plenty of time to research more, if there are any, why not tell us all exactly how many times and when they were?

However, you should start by knocking the '34 NFA off your list, as it was not a ban. Still isn't.

The '86 FOPA nightmare is an outright ban, I'll grant you only that much. 'Cause it certainly didn't happen the way you said it did. You, regurgitating that same old tired lines won't make it true.

And tooltimey? I'm still waiting for your response to my last post to you.

As I said before, quit your ranting and give us some solid, tangible proposals that will turn this around.

Now if you don't have any valid ideas, just say so. We can all understand the need to rant without having any alternative suggestions to go about helping.

 

[tooltimey]

However, you should start by knocking the '34 NFA off your list, as it was not a ban. Still isn't.

Really.

Not a ban huh?

Really. (Let's play "really" with Seth and Amy for those of you who watch SNL ).

Say it's "not a ban" to all the people who didn't register their full autos that were purchased or made after 1934.

Really? Not a ban? Really. Their guns were confiscated yet you say it's "not a ban." Really.

Say it's "not a ban" to those who didn't have the astronomical amount of money to register the gun they made after 1934. Really. Gee, it seems to me that their full autos were BANNED! You can play word games all you want but the indisputable fact remains that in 1934 all unregistered full autos were completely BANNED and an extremely expensive exception was created that did not exist before ($200 in 1934 dollars translated into 2007's ultra weak dollars would buy you a small house today).

Not a ban? REALLY. Then why were/ARE unregistered full autos confiscated if there was no ban in 1934?

Anitpitas you remind me of these people who do not realize that 48 states have concealed carry BANS, but they have a narrow exception if you pay lots of $$$ and go get a permit. The ban is still there just because you have the stupid and insulting "permit." 1934 NFA is still a full blown ban even IF you got it registered and paid the ransom (you simply fall under the narrow exception TO THE BAN which is still there whether you like it or not).

 

[Al Norris]

The fact that you won't recognize the difference between a tax and a ban, says a lot. Same goes for the difference between a tax roll and outright gun registration.

It is also obvious that you can't see that regulation of styles of carry is well within the States general police power, as long as it abides by the States own Constitution. Hint: Some States Constitutions say it is and some say it isn't.

But we can just forget about those pesky little things, like the rule of law, correct? Dem Judges don't no nuttin! Anybody can interpret the law, however they see fit, yes?

It's awfully hard to hold any kind of meaningful discussion with folks who want the law to mean what they want it to mean, and not what it is.

I said it once before, but let me say it again... King Baby Syndrome: I want what I want and I want it now!

 

[Oldphart]

I spent entirely too long on the phone this morning talking to "Eric" at NRA-ILA. I started the conversation by asking him what it would take before the NRA would withdraw its support for H.R. 2640. He replied that the support would be withdrawn if some sort of gun-control amendment were attached.

I'm not a supporter of HR 2640 so you can only imagine how the conversation continued. I finally decided that I wasn't going to change the minds of the officers of the NRA with a simple phone call so I politely ended the call.
Afterward though, I kept playing the record over and over and dwelling on the part where 'Eric' kept saying that the membership just needs to be educated as to the true benefits of the bill.

Perhaps.

But isn't that a reversal of how the NRA is supposed to work? Isn't the NRA supposed to represent the members? Since when does the NRA (or at least the NRA officers) consider education of the membership part of the job? Are we so ignorant of the political machinations of congress that we need to be "educated" by those elites who cater to movie and rock stars in order to bolster their own public images? Isn't this the same problem we have with our "representatives" in congress?

I'm sure there are a lot of issues that divide the GOA and the NRA and HR 2640 is just the most recent, but 'Eric' couldn't complete a paragraph without telling me how the GOA had lied about the Bill and how they spend most of their budget on mailings asking people to leave the NRA and join the GOA.

Well, I get a lot of GOA stuff in the mail and he's right in that they point out the difference between the two organizations but any plea to leave the one and join the other is remarkably low-key. Instead they ask their members to write their congresscritters in an effort to pass or defeat some legislation. The NRA, OTOH, is content with letting the ILA do all the lobbying (obviously the members are to stupid to do anything like that.)

Now then, a bunch of guys are going to call me an "NRA-basher." Fair enough, but I am a member. I'm just not a blind member. I don't like someone peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining and that's what the NRA is trying to do here.

 

[Eghad]

Read the bill for yourself and go to the US Code and verify it.

The NRA has helped to draft some good legislation and make the NICS system better. It charges the Federal Government and States to keep record current and up to date. It provides that NO Federal Agency shall not provide records of people who have not given due process. It also provides due process for getting an erroneous record out of the system.

As I read the bill I was amazed that the NRA actually got the Democrats to put some of the stuff in the bill. The bad news is if you are a felon or have been adjudicated as mentally defective you will make the list and that list will be kept current if done as the bill is written. The good news is that if your name is on the list erroneously you have a means for getting it off the list and having your rights restored. I can see why the NRA supports this bill as written.

I would like to have some of that kool aid the GOA is drinking. I have read the bill and cant find what they are talking about

I fully support the legislation as drafted with the NRA.