#BoycottNRA

#926
#926
luthervol said:
Not much. First and foremost, I do not believe that anything that hurts the NRA is a negative. Quite the opposite, I would tend to view it as a positive.

I believe the NRA has knowingly and purposely misrepresented the gun debate. Just look at how many of you guys believe the objective of the left is to disarm everyone and strip you of your 2A rights. It's complete nonsense that is believed to the core by gun lovers. Why? Largely because of the NRA. The NRA has ONE objective, sell as many guns and paraphernalia as possible. They represent the gun industry, not you.
Click to expand...

Gun owners don't take what we're force fed like liberals do with regards to CNN, MSNBC, and the like.
 
#929
#929
evillawyer said:
Well, it makes a big logical difference.

This is really just the difference between more and most. If one thing is more dangerous than another thing, it doesn't follow that that thing is the MOST dangerous thing.
Click to expand...

It makes zero logical difference in the context of this discussion. You're answer leads me and I'm sure others to believe that you think the AR15 is more dangerous than something like a AK47 or Mini 14, etc.

You would lose in court if you got caught up on the word ANY.
 
#930
#930
SLICKYINC said:
This should be a good discussion.
Click to expand...

By "firearms" I assume you're referring to guns of the type possessed by our military, many of which are not currently available to the general citizenry. But I'm assuming that you are not referring to the other type of "weapons" possessed by our military (tanks, fighter jets, nuclear subs, etc).

If that's the case, there's always going to be a vast discrepancy in firepower between private citizens and the government, so having military grade guns is not going to allow you to overthrow a tyrannical government, which I assume is the rationale underlying your question.
 
#931
#931
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#932
#932
evillawyer said:
If that's the case, there's always going to be a vast discrepancy in firepower between private citizens and the government, so having military grade guns is not going to allow you to overthrow a tyrannical government, which I assume is the rationale underlying your question.
Click to expand...

You would be surprised what lightly armed insurgents can do. Take a look at our escapades in the Middle East.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#933
#933
SLICKYINC said:
You will not win an argument with a person who has been brainwashed into believing the government is on their side and here to help them.
Click to expand...

I'm simply offering arguments with premises and conclusions. The way the game is normally played is you explain why a premise is false or why a conclusion does not follow from the premises.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#934
#934
SLICKYINC said:
You will not win an argument with a person who has been brainwashed into believing the government is on their side and here to help them.
Click to expand...

He’s still here and it’s civil it isn’t an argument to me anyway. This isn’t OBV or Luther. I’m not trying to win. I’m just trying offer a difference of opinion and show info supporting my stance.
 
#937
#937
Never had any interest in joining the NRA until the past few days. Just did for three years for $100. **** it, I did it out of spite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#939
#939
Rasputin_Vol said:
You would be surprised what lightly armed insurgents can do. Take a look at our escapades in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

Without a doubt, insurgents can be pesky, but they've never posed an existential threat to the US government. Additionally, these insurgents had things beyond military grade guns to work with.
 
#941
#941
evillawyer said:
Without a doubt, insurgents can be pesky, but they've never posed an existential threat to the US government. Additionally, these insurgents had things beyond military grade guns to work with.
Click to expand...

Would you please review the link I posted on the second amendment? Also you might be rolling your eyes with your background on a opinion web piece. I submit this one is different. I book marked it. It contains references to source data from the original framers supporting the proposed intent and has a decent bibliography.
 
#942
#942
NorthDallas40 said:
Would you please review the link I posted on the second amendment? Also you might be rolling your eyes with your background on a opinion web piece. I submit this one is different. I book marked it. It contains references to source data from the original framers supporting the proposed intent and has a decent bibliography.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the link. But that commentary is not binding. Remember the role of the Supreme Court under Marbury v. Madison. Effectively, federal law (including the Constitution) means what the Supreme Court says it means. The Heller case, which everyone celebrates here and which I believe we discussed a few days ago, links what is permissible in terms of privately held guns to what is in "common use at the time" by the citizenry. Military-only guns are, by definition, not in common use, so even Scalia would say that the government gets to have better guns.

None of this should be taken to suggest I agree with Heller, but until overturned, distinguished or limited to the facts at issue in that case, it is the law of the land wrt what the Second Amendment means.
 
#943
#943
Boston Vol said:
Never had any interest in joining the NRA until the past few days. Just did for three years for $100. **** it, I did it out of spite.
Click to expand...

I suspect the attempted joins has exceeded their website planning, as the site was unresponsive for quite some time this afternoon as i went out to join for the first time ever in response to this stupid boycott.
 
#945
#945
Rasputin_Vol said:
OK, lets not assume that. But what was said earlier was that they want to partially hold someone responsible for not reporting a gun stolen from them that is later used in a crime.
Click to expand...

True. Why would someone not report a theft of valuable property? Seems suspicious on the surface. A condition of purchasing a gun should be an agreement to report a lost or stolen gun withing 48 hours (or a week) What is wrong with that?
 
#946
#946
evillawyer said:
I appreciate the link. But that commentary is not binding. Remember the role of the Supreme Court under Marbury v. Madison. Effectively, federal law (including the Constitution) means what the Supreme Court says it means. The Heller case, which everyone celebrates here and which I believe we discussed a few days ago, links what is permissible in terms of privately held guns to what is in "common use at the time" by the citizenry. Military-only guns are, by definition, not in common use, so even Scalia would say that the government gets to have better guns.

None of this should be taken to suggest I agree with Heller, but until overturned, distinguished or limited to the facts at issue in that case, it is the law of the land wrt what the Second Amendment means.
Click to expand...

No it isn’t binding. But it’s a great and informed opinion and captures my thoughts precisely.

And don’t just lean on Heller or other rulings. We all know SCOTUS opinion is final until SCOTUS decides it isn’t. Do you disagree with that opinion piece? I think you do since you stated we shouldn’t have the same technology. I believe based on the rights granted to individuals in the constitution and the BOR which basically told the federal government the following items are off limits I should be able go buy a tank or fighter if I wanted to. And current firearm regulations are actually in contest with my interpretation.

I don’t want or believe I should be able to buy an Abrams tank. But our founding fathers did I believe and they are way smarter than me so I see no reason to piss that right away.

Cheers. Back to the race for real this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#948
#948
luthervol said:
True. Why would someone not report a theft of valuable property? Seems suspicious on the surface. A condition of purchasing a gun should be an agreement to report a lost or stolen gun withing 48 hours (or a week) What is wrong with that?
Click to expand...
OK. You make that that the law. Then what. I have my gun stolen and report it immediately to the cops? What else are you expecting to happen? What is your end game with this?
 
#950
#950
Rasputin_Vol said:
OK, so he reports them stolen. Then what?
Click to expand...

That's it. See no big deal. If the same person reports stolen guns again two months later, add a red flag to his name. If the same person reports stolen guns a third time....something is up.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top