GunBroker.com Message Forums
Review our Posting Guidelines
GunBroker.com Message Forums
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
 All Forums
 GunBroker.com Message Forums
 Gun Rights and Constitutional Law
 In case you NRA members didn't know

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert Image Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

 
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
   

T O P I C    R E V I E W
DirtyDawg Posted - 12/09/2011 : 10:27:36 PM
This survey by Frank Lutz indicates that you want to close the gun show loophole. It clearly states that you want to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment. It clearly shows that 85% of NRA member do not support the RKBA.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/luntz_poll_slides.pdf


If you go to the http://www.closetheloophole.org/

website....it will let you NRA members know what you condone and desire.

50   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Mr. Perfect Posted - 06/06/2012 : 4:14:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Perfect

quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus
I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?

The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.

You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.

All include restrictions.

All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.

While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.

You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?

I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.

The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.



You are showing your unwillingness to admit the obvious. The NRA is not an anti-gun organization. They are pro RTKABA'S. You and many here disagree with the way they go about it so you brand them as anti-gun. This is just plain silly and ignorant. The Communist and socialists are anti-gun so to use this analogy is ridiculous.
But I expect this type of reply from prejudice close minded people.
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and I give them hell on a regular basis, but to be as bitter and hateful as you and others here is just plain immature and silly.




Read for comprehension, Jim.

I have never said that the NRA is anti-gun. In fact, I have on many occasions stated that the NRA works to promote legislation that provides legal paths to gun ownership. This is pro-gun and pro gun ownership. I obviously recognize this; hell, I stated in the post above.

To equate these efforts, however, with the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is what is ignorant and silly. It also displays a profound lack of understanding of the concept of the individual right that has been and is being destroyed by the Brady Bunch, the U.S. Congress and yes, the NRA and the stooges that support them.

Perhaps someday you will drop the blinders and open your actual closed mind and realize the difference between pro-gun and pro 2nd Amendment. I won't hold my breath.

While not bitter and hateful, Jim, I am saddened that you and the other sheep here that support the NRA are willing to accept the destruction of 2nd Amendment protections for our children and grandchildren for the purely selfish act of your legislated access to firearms today. I then become a little angry when you pretend that these subversive efforts are actually in support of the 2nd Amendment.

They are anti-gun in many respects. They oppose automatic weapons, they oppose firearms which have magazines of capacity 11 or higher, they oppose weapons where it is possible to attach a bayonet or rifles with a pistol grip, and they regularly denigrate weapons with no "sporting purpose". I dare say they would oppose more types save for the ads and reviews they run in order to bring in money and fools.

I don't know where you get your info, but they do not support limited magazine capacity, they do not support the semi-automatic weapons (erroneously referred to as assault weapons)ban. As for their exact position on Full auto, I can't honestly say where they stand, and I don't care. When we get the rest of the important stuff addressed then I will look at full auto. There are places where the mere possession of a hand gun is considered unlawful. We need to address the basics first, you have the 'cart ahead of the horse' if you are worried about full auto as this point.

I get my info from having been a member and reading their articles and various publications. Don't care to believe those assertions how about these?

"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

Following are several telling quotes from the March 1968 American Rifleman — NRA's premier magazine, then and now — and brief analysis of a few of them. The complete article from which these quotes were taken can be found further below. Scanned images of this article are also linked below.

First, let's clear up the matter of NRA's support of NFA'34:

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22

Unless someone has evidence to prove that the NRA lied to its membership in its premier magazine, let the record show that the NRA got behind the first unconstitutional federal gun law in America and then bragged about having done so, many years later — decades after the law had been continually used to violate the rights of untold numbers of American citizens, including, surely, their own members.

The "Dodd" to which the above quote refers is the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd mimicked the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, applied the underlying principles to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and took a leading role in getting the bill signed into federal law.

"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (P. 22)

The term "interstate commerce" is the BATF's fundamental justification for its firearms branch — a "color of law" excuse for the many assaults of innocent people they've conducted.

"The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun." (P. 22)

That's one form of registration.

"In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns." (P. 22)

That's an extension of one form of registration to all types of guns not already under registration schemes at the time.

In order to "put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts," NRA management also pressed the federal government, in 1968, to:

"Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:

"a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;"

That's a registration list.

"b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;"

That's another registration mechanism.

"c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;"

Wait a week to exercise your inalienable rights.

"d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;"

That is called Age Discrimination. In essence, in 1968, the NRA was saying "You can go die over in Vietnam for your country at age 18, but you can't sell a constitutionally protected item to your own neighbors for three more years."

"e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;"

"Carrier" includes the U.S. Postal Service — another ripe opportunity for the federal government to collect names of gun buyers.

"f. increasing penalties for violation." (P. 22-23)

What do you think America's Founders would say about the NRA calling for "increasing penalties for violation" of unconstitutional gun laws?

At least as early as 1930, the NRA supported:

"...requir[ing] the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities..."

Historically noteworthy is the fact that the Germans were simultaneously doing the same thing, laying the groundwork for a Hitler to happen.

and

"...requir[ing] a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle..." [emphasis mine]

Ever heard of a license to carry a firearm in a vehicle? NRA has — over 70 years ago.

Not only has NRA management long supported gun owner registration, they've worked hard for it and still do. And NRA's current management still supports "penalties" for exercising your rights, which they now call "zero tolerance enforcement". (See Project Exile Condemnation Coalition and the Project Exile Archives for more information.)

"Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless." (P. 23)

"Worthwhile gun legislation"?

The "terrible indictment" of NRA, as you will see in the full text below, was that NRA didn't support gun control. NRA set that matter straight with a loud thud. NRA Management still to this day supports a wide variety of ever-complex gun controls. And despite taking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, they've still never managed a Supreme Court court victory based on the Second Amendment's historically-valid "individual right" argument. It's no wonder — their version of the Second Amendment is different than that of America's Founding Fathers.

Do notice the subtitle of NRA's 1968 article below. A "97-year record" of supporting gun control, to NRA's management, was a matter of pride. Some things never change:

"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud."

—NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Congressional Testimony, May 27, 1999
Hearing Before 106th Congress
House of Representatives
Committee On The Judiciary
Subcommittee On Crime
First Session
Hunter Mag Posted - 01/25/2012 : 12:30:55 PM
While reading through this thread there's a lot of common sense here and a lot of nonsense.

Since they say a picture is worth a 1,000 words, IMO perhaps 10,000.
This explains it quite well.

nunn Posted - 01/19/2012 : 2:04:35 PM
OK, now.
Jim Rau Posted - 01/17/2012 : 3:09:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by pickenup

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

Your venting may make you feel better, but other than that it accomplishes nothing.

Have to disagree here.
You call it venting, I call it "EDUCATING" and it has done a WORLD OF GOOD in waking people up to the TRUTH about the organization that they thought was fighting for their 2nd amendment rights.


The facts, their actions, speak for themselves, and yet.....some people still try to defend them.

Oh yes, these threads are WELL worth the educational value alone.




Yes they are!!! But do see a lot of venting going on!!!
wifetrained Posted - 01/12/2012 : 02:16:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by pickenup

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

Your venting may make you feel better, but other than that it accomplishes nothing.

Have to disagree here.
You call it venting, I call it "EDUCATING" and it has done a WORLD OF GOOD in waking people up to the TRUTH about the organization that they thought was fighting for their 2nd amendment rights.


The facts, their actions, speak for themselves, and yet.....some people still try to defend them.

Oh yes, these threads are WELL worth the educational value alone.






+1.

pickenup Posted - 01/11/2012 : 12:20:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

Your venting may make you feel better, but other than that it accomplishes nothing.

Have to disagree here.
You call it venting, I call it "EDUCATING" and it has done a WORLD OF GOOD in waking people up to the TRUTH about the organization that they thought was fighting for their 2nd amendment rights.


The facts, their actions, speak for themselves, and yet.....some people still try to defend them.

Oh yes, these threads are WELL worth the educational value alone.


Don McManus Posted - 01/11/2012 : 11:57:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

We are beating a dead horse here. We both agree the NRA has compromised our rights. BUT as stated above, some see those compromises as gains in the right direction others see it as a sell out. It is a matter of degree here. You all have given up on the NRA, some of us have not. Plain and simple. You can't change the NRA or any organization from the outside. So all you are doing is venting your frustration with them, nothing more. Your venting may make you feel better, but other than that it accomplishes nothing.
Nuff said, you all have a nice day and keep your powder dry, we may need it!!!



It is not a matter of degree, Jim. All compromise in this case is in a negative direction. Retreating to positions of ever increasing limits and restrictions; adding ever increasing legislation of privilege; empowering governments at all levels to add dictates as to where, when, and how, can never be viewed as positive but with one exception.

The man that is willing to sell out the rights of his children for the selfish desire of regulated possession today may think it positive. That man is a gun rights person who either knows nothing of the concept of individual rights, or more likely, selfishly cares nothing of that concept for future generations. I have no problem with someone compromising for himself. Compromising future generations while crowing that they are being done a favor is contemptible.
n/a Posted - 01/11/2012 : 10:49:57 AM
quote:
We are beating a dead horse here. We both agree the NRA has compromised our rights.
Yes they have, yet you continue to support them even in the face of over 80 years of doing so.

We, well we do not support a clear enemy...not...one...bit...

There is a clear distinction between positions, principle and ethic, here.

One side would remove the offending object, stop the hemorrhaging, clean, disinfect and sew-up the wound, then let it heal-over and move on into constitutional health.

The other side fails to remove the polluted object, to disinfect it, does not clean the wound and they allow it to fester and grow gangrenous in its putrid infection, NEVER regaining constitutional health.

Hmmmm.

Good plan.
Jim Rau Posted - 01/11/2012 : 08:48:55 AM
We are beating a dead horse here. We both agree the NRA has compromised our rights. BUT as stated above, some see those compromises as gains in the right direction others see it as a sell out. It is a matter of degree here. You all have given up on the NRA, some of us have not. Plain and simple. You can't change the NRA or any organization from the outside. So all you are doing is venting your frustration with them, nothing more. Your venting may make you feel better, but other than that it accomplishes nothing.
Nuff said, you all have a nice day and keep your powder dry, we may need it!!!
Don McManus Posted - 01/09/2012 : 10:13:06 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

Pro gun and Pro ownership (of guns) is anti-2nd Amendment?????
You lost me on that one!!!!


They need to push harder to get more concessions from the 'lawmakers' who have passed all of these unconstitutional laws for sure, but to say they are anti 2nd Amendment is just plain silly and childish.
Many here remind me of a 'child' having a temper tantrum because they did not get there way. We have to continue to work at getting these unconstitutional laws over turned ANY WAY WE CAN!!!! The NRA has backed many laws which are a compromise and many call that selling out, but unless any of you here are capable of 'leading a tall building in a single bound' we need to try and get to the top one step at a time and for some that is not good enough. So be it, but I will continue to keep trying to get there one step at a time because, unlike most of you, I am not Superman!!!!



Copied from my previous post, Jim:

'We cannot afford to confuse legislated privileges with rights, and such confusion is one of the results of the actions and publications of the NRA-ILA.'

You have either been compromised by the NRA efforts to equate the two, have not spent sufficient time thinking about the difference, or simply don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the distinction.

FWIW, a person who is 'lost' by such a simple and obvious statement of fact doesn't have the mental standing to call anyone childish or silly.

Think about crafting legislation that requires people to apply for the privilege to own a firearm.

Now think about the individual right stated in the Second Amendment.

If you don't see the problem, you are a part of it.


USN_Airdale Posted - 01/09/2012 : 09:57:03 AM
quote:
The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record?


i agree, those 80 years of compromising my/our rights. the illegal gun laws should have been shelved by conservative politicians, BUT !! the whining and crying minority won over the majority of gun owners......,

SORRY....., i lost my train of thought here so i will just check out !!
wifetrained Posted - 01/08/2012 : 10:50:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Johnson

I found the solution for this impossible conundrum right here on these forums!

I had it explained to me exactly what the NRA was up to, I took the only logical option available to me...I cancelled my membership (cut off their money) and joined GOA.

Simple.



Did the same thing, but be prepared to get a buttload of mail from the NRA pleading for money.
Removed at users request. Posted - 01/08/2012 : 7:40:45 PM
I found the solution for this impossible conundrum right here on these forums!

I had it explained to me exactly what the NRA was up to, I took the only logical option available to me...I cancelled my membership (cut off their money) and joined GOA.

Simple.
buffalobo Posted - 01/08/2012 : 6:56:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by wifetrained

The NRA didn't compromise on the Uniform Firearms Act, they openly pushed for it's enactment. They didn't compromise on the National Firearms Act, they testified before congress in full support of it. They didn't compromise on the 68 Gun Control Act, again they testified before congress pushing for it's enactment. They stated that anyone not supporting it was unamerican, bragging about it's support of the GCA in the Mar 68 issue of their flagship publication The American Riflrman.

The list can go on and on, and the only conclusion one can realisticaly arrive at is that the NRA is neither pro gun or pro 2nd ammendment. Their support of politician's who are hostile to gun ownership and anti 2nd is pretty long and notable.

The NRA has, for decades, pushed for "reasonable" gun control. Reasonable is a pretty subjective term, so what would be "reasonable"? How reasonable does one need be in order to exercise a constitutional right.




But if the NRA had not done those things it would have been worse and you wouldn't even know what a gun is and if you don't support them you are gonna lose the gun rights the NRA has fought for.
wifetrained Posted - 01/08/2012 : 6:07:16 PM
The NRA didn't compromise on the Uniform Firearms Act, they openly pushed for it's enactment. They didn't compromise on the National Firearms Act, they testified before congress in full support of it. They didn't compromise on the 68 Gun Control Act, again they testified before congress pushing for it's enactment. They stated that anyone not supporting it was unamerican, bragging about it's support of the GCA in the Mar 68 issue of their flagship publication The American Riflrman.

The list can go on and on, and the only conclusion one can realisticaly arrive at is that the NRA is neither pro gun or pro 2nd ammendment. Their support of politician's who are hostile to gun ownership and anti 2nd is pretty long and notable.

The NRA has, for decades, pushed for "reasonable" gun control. Reasonable is a pretty subjective term, so what would be "reasonable"? How reasonable does one need be in order to exercise a constitutional right.
Jim Rau Posted - 01/08/2012 : 3:06:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

Don,
MANY here are down right hateful, but you nailed it when you said the NRA is not against the RTKABA'S, but they do not fully support the 2nd Amendment!!!! I agree with you. But my approach is not to simply set around at the computer and make ridiculous, silly, hateful comments about this, I prefer to try and get their ear and let them know they need to 'bend' less and use their numbers to push those in power to start aligning the statutory laws closer to the Constitution!!! This has been my pet peeve from the local level to the national level since day one.
Some here remind me of those I worked with over the years who simply bitch and complain but when you ask them for the solution for the problems they are complaining about they shrug their shoulders and just keep on complaining. It's called venting, and I think that is what MANY here use this forum for. And I don't have a problem with that if it makes them feel better, but get the hell out of the way and let those who want to TRY and make some positive change do our think without all the BS they are shoveling!!!!



Back the truck up, here, Jim.

I have specifically said that the actions of the NRA diminish the 2nd Amendment. It is an obvious fact and it confirms for me that the NRA is anti 2nd Amendment.

They are pro gun and pro gun ownership. Nothing more.

We cannot afford to confuse legislated privileges with rights, and such confusion is one of the results of the actions and publications of the NRA-ILA. My gut tells me that sowing this confusion is one of the goals of the organization. There is just too much that is said and done under their banner to lead folks in that direction for it to be coincidence or a simple unintended outcome.



Pro gun and Pro ownership (of guns) is anti-2nd Amendment?????
You lost me on that one!!!!
They need to push harder to get more concessions from the 'lawmakers' who have passed all of these unconstitutional laws for sure, but to say they are anti 2nd Amendment is just plain silly and childish.
Many here remind me of a 'child' having a temper tantrum because they did not get there way. We have to continue to work at getting these unconstitutional laws over turned ANY WAY WE CAN!!!! The NRA has backed many laws which are a compromise and many call that selling out, but unless any of you here are capable of 'leading a tall building in a single bound' we need to try and get to the top one step at a time and for some that is not good enough. So be it, but I will continue to keep trying to get there one step at a time because, unlike most of you, I am not Superman!!!!
Barzillia Posted - 01/06/2012 : 7:46:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus

Originally posted by Barzillia

quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus
You have stated nothing here, Barzillia. 'Not a necessary understanding'? Of course my understanding of Wayne's Words is not a necessary understanding. There is not a necessary understanding possible.

Then why do you put them forth in argument, as if to claim they have any meaning at all, as if they prove something ? ?




I am simply presenting what I take from the statement made. It is the meaning I get from it; a meaning based upon the words stated and the actions and words of the man in the past. Why would you suggest that I am trying to prove anything? It is a logical understanding, not a necessary one.

quote:


He could have meant any number of things, but his history, and the history of his organization suggests my interpretation. The NRA continuously references the 2nd with respect to self defense, hunting, and sporting. One almost never sees it specifically address the preservation of the ability of the citizenry to protects its freedoms from an over-reaching government. The reason that a lobbying organization rarely takes this position is self-evident.

I see . Like I said, self-serving. It means what you want it to mean because you want it to mean that.




I don't get the 'self-serving', Barzillia. As noted above, it is what I see in the statement. Sure, it fits into what I think about the man and his organization, but it was the actions of same that brought me to this point. It is obvious that an individual will reach his own understanding of what a person states or writes. If you wish to twist that into 'self-serving', so be it.
quote:



I am unsure of what you are suggesting when you reference my use of the word 'infringed'. I have merely agreed with Scalia that the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment does not qualify the operative clause. This leads to the obvious statement that, in the 2nd Amendment, the word 'infringed' is not qualified. Please, Barzillia, tell me specifically what you mean by my 'apparent use of term 'infringed'. And please make it simple. I would hate to miss the necessary understanding of your statement.

There are certain words that when used with a modicum of precision, carry necessary implications.

Such as the term "murder".

In our culture, murder is not simply the same thing as killing. Different words for different purposes, and with different necessary implications. It is most always a wrongful act; no just man says, "Gee, it is good that a man was murdered tonight."

Now, there are probably only limited situations in which a just man might say "It is good that a man was killed tonight", but it can be so.

The same goes for "infringed". It carries the implication of a breach, and a wrong. No just man says "I am glad that an infringement occurred tonight," it would neither sound right, nor make sense.

But a just man could say, "It is good that such and such a limit was accomplished tonight", and make entirely good sense.

The founders knew the meanings of words, the laws of nature and nature's God were widely expounded among them, and there is a reason "infringed" was chosen.

And not "limited".





Again, all I stated was that the 2nd Amendment does not qualify the word 'infringe'. I have not attempted to define the term 'infringe' or even use the term 'infringe'. I am sure you think you have a point, but if you do, it has nothing to do with anything I've stated in this exchange. Dare I suggest that your entire 'infringe' shtick is just a bit self-serving?




The term infringed does not need qualification, it's meaning is clear to plain reading and common informed usage.

If you wish to change the ordinary meaning of the word to suit your argument, that is your business.

That is the definition of "self-serving", as well.

Thanks for your time, I believe I have now done as you requested.
Rocklobster Posted - 01/06/2012 : 1:28:22 PM
From The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style, regarding the meaning of the word "infringe" dating back to the 18th century:

impinge/infringe

"The verb impinge sounds a little like and has the same basic meaning as infringe, so it's not surprising that these words are often used interchangeably. Impinge comes from Latin impingere, 'to drive into, strike against.' The word still has this meaning, especially in science where one reads of waves or particle streams impinging on a surface. Infringe ultimately derives from Latin frangere 'to break,' and was most often used in English to express the idea of violating a law or right. Both words have had the meaning 'to encroach' since the 18th century, and infringe can be both transitive and intransitive, while impinge is only used intransitively. Thus, in standard usage, a person might infringe, infringe on, or impinge on someone else's constitutional rights."
Don McManus Posted - 01/06/2012 : 11:30:02 AM
Originally posted by Barzillia

quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus
You have stated nothing here, Barzillia. 'Not a necessary understanding'? Of course my understanding of Wayne's Words is not a necessary understanding. There is not a necessary understanding possible.

Then why do you put them forth in argument, as if to claim they have any meaning at all, as if they prove something ? ?




I am simply presenting what I take from the statement made. It is the meaning I get from it; a meaning based upon the words stated and the actions and words of the man in the past. Why would you suggest that I am trying to prove anything? It is a logical understanding, not a necessary one.

quote:


He could have meant any number of things, but his history, and the history of his organization suggests my interpretation. The NRA continuously references the 2nd with respect to self defense, hunting, and sporting. One almost never sees it specifically address the preservation of the ability of the citizenry to protects its freedoms from an over-reaching government. The reason that a lobbying organization rarely takes this position is self-evident.

I see . Like I said, self-serving. It means what you want it to mean because you want it to mean that.




I don't get the 'self-serving', Barzillia. As noted above, it is what I see in the statement. Sure, it fits into what I think about the man and his organization, but it was the actions of same that brought me to this point. It is obvious that an individual will reach his own understanding of what a person states or writes. If you wish to twist that into 'self-serving', so be it.
quote:



I am unsure of what you are suggesting when you reference my use of the word 'infringed'. I have merely agreed with Scalia that the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment does not qualify the operative clause. This leads to the obvious statement that, in the 2nd Amendment, the word 'infringed' is not qualified. Please, Barzillia, tell me specifically what you mean by my 'apparent use of term 'infringed'. And please make it simple. I would hate to miss the necessary understanding of your statement.

There are certain words that when used with a modicum of precision, carry necessary implications.

Such as the term "murder".

In our culture, murder is not simply the same thing as killing. Different words for different purposes, and with different necessary implications. It is most always a wrongful act; no just man says, "Gee, it is good that a man was murdered tonight."

Now, there are probably only limited situations in which a just man might say "It is good that a man was killed tonight", but it can be so.

The same goes for "infringed". It carries the implication of a breach, and a wrong. No just man says "I am glad that an infringement occurred tonight," it would neither sound right, nor make sense.

But a just man could say, "It is good that such and such a limit was accomplished tonight", and make entirely good sense.

The founders knew the meanings of words, the laws of nature and nature's God were widely expounded among them, and there is a reason "infringed" was chosen.

And not "limited".





Again, all I stated was that the 2nd Amendment does not qualify the word 'infringe'. I have not attempted to define the term 'infringe' or even use the term 'infringe'. I am sure you think you have a point, but if you do, it has nothing to do with anything I've stated in this exchange. Dare I suggest that your entire 'infringe' shtick is just a bit self-serving?
Don McManus Posted - 01/06/2012 : 11:05:23 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

Don,
MANY here are down right hateful, but you nailed it when you said the NRA is not against the RTKABA'S, but they do not fully support the 2nd Amendment!!!! I agree with you. But my approach is not to simply set around at the computer and make ridiculous, silly, hateful comments about this, I prefer to try and get their ear and let them know they need to 'bend' less and use their numbers to push those in power to start aligning the statutory laws closer to the Constitution!!! This has been my pet peeve from the local level to the national level since day one.
Some here remind me of those I worked with over the years who simply bitch and complain but when you ask them for the solution for the problems they are complaining about they shrug their shoulders and just keep on complaining. It's called venting, and I think that is what MANY here use this forum for. And I don't have a problem with that if it makes them feel better, but get the hell out of the way and let those who want to TRY and make some positive change do our think without all the BS they are shoveling!!!!



Back the truck up, here, Jim.

I have specifically said that the actions of the NRA diminish the 2nd Amendment. It is an obvious fact and it confirms for me that the NRA is anti 2nd Amendment.

They are pro gun and pro gun ownership. Nothing more.

We cannot afford to confuse legislated privileges with rights, and such confusion is one of the results of the actions and publications of the NRA-ILA. My gut tells me that sowing this confusion is one of the goals of the organization. There is just too much that is said and done under their banner to lead folks in that direction for it to be coincidence or a simple unintended outcome.

Jim Rau Posted - 01/06/2012 : 09:14:40 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Perfect

quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus
I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?

The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.

You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.

All include restrictions.

All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.

While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.

You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?

I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.

The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.



You are showing your unwillingness to admit the obvious. The NRA is not an anti-gun organization. They are pro RTKABA'S. You and many here disagree with the way they go about it so you brand them as anti-gun. This is just plain silly and ignorant. The Communist and socialists are anti-gun so to use this analogy is ridiculous.
But I expect this type of reply from prejudice close minded people.
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and I give them hell on a regular basis, but to be as bitter and hateful as you and others here is just plain immature and silly.




Read for comprehension, Jim.

I have never said that the NRA is anti-gun. In fact, I have on many occasions stated that the NRA works to promote legislation that provides legal paths to gun ownership. This is pro-gun and pro gun ownership. I obviously recognize this; hell, I stated in the post above.

To equate these efforts, however, with the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is what is ignorant and silly. It also displays a profound lack of understanding of the concept of the individual right that has been and is being destroyed by the Brady Bunch, the U.S. Congress and yes, the NRA and the stooges that support them.

Perhaps someday you will drop the blinders and open your actual closed mind and realize the difference between pro-gun and pro 2nd Amendment. I won't hold my breath.

While not bitter and hateful, Jim, I am saddened that you and the other sheep here that support the NRA are willing to accept the destruction of 2nd Amendment protections for our children and grandchildren for the purely selfish act of your legislated access to firearms today. I then become a little angry when you pretend that these subversive efforts are actually in support of the 2nd Amendment.

They are anti-gun in many respects. They oppose automatic weapons, they oppose firearms which have magazines of capacity 11 or higher, they oppose weapons where it is possible to attach a bayonet or rifles with a pistol grip, and they regularly denigrate weapons with no "sporting purpose". I dare say they would oppose more types save for the ads and reviews they run in order to bring in money and fools.

I don't know where you get your info, but they do not support limited magazine capacity, they do not support the semi-automatic weapons (erroneously referred to as assault weapons)ban. As for their exact position on Full auto, I can't honestly say where they stand, and I don't care. When we get the rest of the important stuff addressed then I will look at full auto. There are places where the mere possession of a hand gun is considered unlawful. We need to address the basics first, you have the 'cart ahead of the horse' if you are worried about full auto as this point.
Jim Rau Posted - 01/06/2012 : 09:06:46 AM
Don,
MANY here are down right hateful, but you nailed it when you said the NRA is not against the RTKABA'S, but they do not fully support the 2nd Amendment!!!! I agree with you. But my approach is not to simply set around at the computer and make ridiculous, silly, hateful comments about this, I prefer to try and get their ear and let them know they need to 'bend' less and use their numbers to push those in power to start aligning the statutory laws closer to the Constitution!!! This has been my pet peeve from the local level to the national level since day one.
Some here remind me of those I worked with over the years who simply bitch and complain but when you ask them for the solution for the problems they are complaining about they shrug their shoulders and just keep on complaining. It's called venting, and I think that is what MANY here use this forum for. And I don't have a problem with that if it makes them feel better, but get the hell out of the way and let those who want to TRY and make some positive change do our think without all the BS they are shoveling!!!!
Barzillia Posted - 01/05/2012 : 8:03:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus

quote:
Originally posted by Barzillia

quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus

quote:
Originally posted by wpage

What other Rifle Association has spoken for gun rights @ the UN?



http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6993

The words of Mr. La Perriér:

'The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.'

'Defense of self, family, and country' qualifies the 2nd. 'Shall not be infringed' is not qualified. This is the qualification the NRA wanted and got in Heller and McDonald.



Nonsense. The reading you propose is self serving, and is not a necessary understanding of the words used. Neither is your apparent use of the term "infringed".

I figure you think it helps your argument, but misuse of the terms as an argument is obvious and actually diminishes the power of your claims.







You have stated nothing here, Barzillia. 'Not a necessary understanding'? Of course my understanding of Wayne's Words is not a necessary understanding. There is not a necessary understanding possible.

Then why do you put them forth in argument, as if to claim they have any meaning at all, as if they prove something ? ?

He could have meant any number of things, but his history, and the history of his organization suggests my interpretation. The NRA continuously references the 2nd with respect to self defense, hunting, and sporting. One almost never sees it specifically address the preservation of the ability of the citizenry to protects its freedoms from an over-reaching government. The reason that a lobbying organization rarely takes this position is self-evident.

I see . Like I said, self-serving. It means what you want it to mean because you want it to mean that.

I am unsure of what you are suggesting when you reference my use of the word 'infringed'. I have merely agreed with Scalia that the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment does not qualify the operative clause. This leads to the obvious statement that, in the 2nd Amendment, the word 'infringed' is not qualified. Please, Barzillia, tell me specifically what you mean by my 'apparent use of term 'infringed'. And please make it simple. I would hate to miss the necessary understanding of your statement.

There are certain words that when used with a modicum of precision, carry necessary implications.

Such as the term "murder".

In our culture, murder is not simply the same thing as killing. Different words for different purposes, and with different necessary implications. It is most always a wrongful act; no just man says, "Gee, it is good that a man was murdered tonight."

Now, there are probably only limited situations in which a just man might say "It is good that a man was killed tonight", but it can be so.

The same goes for "infringed". It carries the implication of a breach, and a wrong. No just man says "I am glad that an infringement occurred tonight," it would neither sound right, nor make sense.

But a just man could say, "It is good that such and such a limit was accomplished tonight", and make entirely good sense.

The founders knew the meanings of words, the laws of nature and nature's God were widely expounded among them, and there is a reason "infringed" was chosen.

And not "limited".





Mr. Perfect Posted - 01/05/2012 : 7:53:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus
I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?

The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.

You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.

All include restrictions.

All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.

While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.

You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?

I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.

The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.



You are showing your unwillingness to admit the obvious. The NRA is not an anti-gun organization. They are pro RTKABA'S. You and many here disagree with the way they go about it so you brand them as anti-gun. This is just plain silly and ignorant. The Communist and socialists are anti-gun so to use this analogy is ridiculous.
But I expect this type of reply from prejudice close minded people.
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and I give them hell on a regular basis, but to be as bitter and hateful as you and others here is just plain immature and silly.




Read for comprehension, Jim.

I have never said that the NRA is anti-gun. In fact, I have on many occasions stated that the NRA works to promote legislation that provides legal paths to gun ownership. This is pro-gun and pro gun ownership. I obviously recognize this; hell, I stated in the post above.

To equate these efforts, however, with the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is what is ignorant and silly. It also displays a profound lack of understanding of the concept of the individual right that has been and is being destroyed by the Brady Bunch, the U.S. Congress and yes, the NRA and the stooges that support them.

Perhaps someday you will drop the blinders and open your actual closed mind and realize the difference between pro-gun and pro 2nd Amendment. I won't hold my breath.

While not bitter and hateful, Jim, I am saddened that you and the other sheep here that support the NRA are willing to accept the destruction of 2nd Amendment protections for our children and grandchildren for the purely selfish act of your legislated access to firearms today. I then become a little angry when you pretend that these subversive efforts are actually in support of the 2nd Amendment.

They are anti-gun in many respects. They oppose automatic weapons, they oppose firearms which have magazines of capacity 11 or higher, they oppose weapons where it is possible to attach a bayonet or rifles with a pistol grip, and they regularly denigrate weapons with no "sporting purpose". I dare say they would oppose more types save for the ads and reviews they run in order to bring in money and fools.
Don McManus Posted - 01/05/2012 : 7:41:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus
I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?

The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.

You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.

All include restrictions.

All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.

While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.

You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?

I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.

The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.



You are showing your unwillingness to admit the obvious. The NRA is not an anti-gun organization. They are pro RTKABA'S. You and many here disagree with the way they go about it so you brand them as anti-gun. This is just plain silly and ignorant. The Communist and socialists are anti-gun so to use this analogy is ridiculous.
But I expect this type of reply from prejudice close minded people.
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and I give them hell on a regular basis, but to be as bitter and hateful as you and others here is just plain immature and silly.




Read for comprehension, Jim.

I have never said that the NRA is anti-gun. In fact, I have on many occasions stated that the NRA works to promote legislation that provides legal paths to gun ownership. This is pro-gun and pro gun ownership. I obviously recognize this; hell, I stated in the post above.

To equate these efforts, however, with the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is what is ignorant and silly. It also displays a profound lack of understanding of the concept of the individual right that has been and is being destroyed by the Brady Bunch, the U.S. Congress and yes, the NRA and the stooges that support them.

Perhaps someday you will drop the blinders and open your actual closed mind and realize the difference between pro-gun and pro 2nd Amendment.

While not bitter and hateful, Jim, I am saddened that you and the other sheep here that support the NRA are willing to accept the destruction of 2nd Amendment protections for our children and grandchildren for the purely selfish act of your legislated access to firearms today. I then become a little angry when you pretend that these subversive efforts are actually in support of the 2nd Amendment.
Mr. Perfect Posted - 01/05/2012 : 7:28:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????



A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.

It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.



I belong to all of them. They ALL have something to offer in the fight. The difference here is that MANY here feel the NRA has nothing to offer. I disagree. I have not not given up the fight WITH the NRA, you have and all you do is bad mouth the NRA and those who have not given up. So be it, you are not helping 'the cause' with this stance. If you don't agree with them then change them!!! Really quit simple.



I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?

The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.

You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.

All include restrictions.

All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.

While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.

You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?

I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.

The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.

You are showing your unwillingness to admit the obvious. The NRA is not an anti-gun organization. They are pro RTKABA'S. You and many here disagree with the way they go about it so you brand them as anti-gun. This is just plain silly and ignorant. The Communist and socialists are anti-gun so to use this analogy is ridiculous.
But I expect this type of reply from prejudice close minded people.
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and I give them hell on a regular basis, but to be as bitter and hateful as you and others here is just plain immature and silly.

Feel free to point to something that backs up your assertion. I won't hold my breath, for even a brief perusal of the sticky at the top of this page throws a wet blanket on your rather ludicrous assertions. You are either willfully ignorant, an idiot, or working for the NRA. Which is it?
Jim Rau Posted - 01/05/2012 : 7:16:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????



A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.

It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.



I belong to all of them. They ALL have something to offer in the fight. The difference here is that MANY here feel the NRA has nothing to offer. I disagree. I have not not given up the fight WITH the NRA, you have and all you do is bad mouth the NRA and those who have not given up. So be it, you are not helping 'the cause' with this stance. If you don't agree with them then change them!!! Really quit simple.



I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?

The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.

You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.

All include restrictions.

All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.

While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.

You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?

I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.

The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.

You are showing your unwillingness to admit the obvious. The NRA is not an anti-gun organization. They are pro RTKABA'S. You and many here disagree with the way they go about it so you brand them as anti-gun. This is just plain silly and ignorant. The Communist and socialists are anti-gun so to use this analogy is ridiculous.
But I expect this type of reply from prejudice close minded people.
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and I give them hell on a regular basis, but to be as bitter and hateful as you and others here is just plain immature and silly.
Don McManus Posted - 01/05/2012 : 10:40:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Barzillia

quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus

quote:
Originally posted by wpage

What other Rifle Association has spoken for gun rights @ the UN?



http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6993

The words of Mr. La Perriér:

'The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.'

'Defense of self, family, and country' qualifies the 2nd. 'Shall not be infringed' is not qualified. This is the qualification the NRA wanted and got in Heller and McDonald.



Nonsense. The reading you propose is self serving, and is not a necessary understanding of the words used. Neither is your apparent use of the term "infringed".

I figure you think it helps your argument, but misuse of the terms as an argument is obvious and actually diminishes the power of your claims.







You have stated nothing here, Barzillia. 'Not a necessary understanding'? Of course my understanding of Wayne's Words is not a necessary understanding. There is not a necessary understanding possible.

He could have meant any number of things, but his history, and the history of his organization suggests my interpretation. The NRA continuously references the 2nd with respect to self defense, hunting, and sporting. One almost never sees it specifically address the preservation of the ability of the citizenry to protects its freedoms from an over-reaching government. The reason that a lobbying organization rarely takes this position is self-evident.

I am unsure of what you are suggesting when you reference my use of the word 'infringed'. I have merely agreed with Scalia that the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment does not qualify the operative clause. This leads to the obvious statement that, in the 2nd Amendment, the word 'infringed' is not qualified. Please, Barzillia, tell me specifically what you mean by my 'apparent use of term 'infringed'. And please make it simple. I would hate to miss the necessary understanding of your statement.

Horse Plains Drifter Posted - 01/05/2012 : 08:45:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by wifetrained

Considering the NRA's documentable complicity in getting gun control enacted into law for most of it's history one has to wonder what the NRA has left to offer in this fight.

Your wife trained you well!
wifetrained Posted - 01/04/2012 : 11:04:41 PM
Considering the NRA's documentable complicity in getting gun control enacted into law for most of it's history one has to wonder what the NRA has left to offer in this fight.
Barzillia Posted - 01/04/2012 : 7:41:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus

quote:
Originally posted by wpage

What other Rifle Association has spoken for gun rights @ the UN?



http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6993

The words of Mr. La Perriér:

'The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.'

'Defense of self, family, and country' qualifies the 2nd. 'Shall not be infinged' is not qualified. This is the qualification the NRA wanted and got in Heller and McDonald.



Nonsense. The reading you propose is self serving, and is not a necessary understanding of the words used. Neither is your apparent use of the term "infringed".

I figure you think it helps your argument, but misuse of the terms as an argument is obvious and actually diminishes the power of your claims.


And then:

'It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone's right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.'

A nice sentiment from a man who has promoted NICS from day one. Perhaps it is merely OK for a government the NRA-ILA can influence to do such evil things.

And finally:

'Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.'

Has Mr. La Perriére conceded the right of civilians to own military arms? Oh, that's right, his organization promotes such restrictions.


So, to answer your question:

While the NRA has spoken to the question of qualified gun rights at the UN, it has not, in any meaningful way spoken to the true meaning of the individual human right expressed by the 2nd.

Not at the UN.

Not to Congress.

Not through any promoted legislation.



Mr. Perfect Posted - 01/04/2012 : 11:29:39 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????



A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.

It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.



I belong to all of them. They ALL have something to offer in the fight. The difference here is that MANY here feel the NRA has nothing to offer. I disagree. I have not not given up the fight WITH the NRA, you have and all you do is bad mouth the NRA and those who have not given up. So be it, you are not helping 'the cause' with this stance. If you don't agree with them then change them!!! Really quit simple.

Since you disagree so resolutely, and since you knocked down the one and only positive I can see that the organization does, would you care to list a few things you think they're doing to further gun rights? I'd wager the list is shorter than a penguin's pecker in February.

You want to do the balance sheets on this, because for every point positive you can list, I can list at least one counterpoint, perhaps more, if indeed you can list even one point positive.
Don McManus Posted - 01/04/2012 : 10:23:01 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????



A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.

It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.



I belong to all of them. They ALL have something to offer in the fight. The difference here is that MANY here feel the NRA has nothing to offer. I disagree. I have not not given up the fight WITH the NRA, you have and all you do is bad mouth the NRA and those who have not given up. So be it, you are not helping 'the cause' with this stance. If you don't agree with them then change them!!! Really quit simple.



I don't agree with the American Socialist Party or the American Communist Party, Jim. Are you suggesting I waste my time trying to change them?

The NRA does not represent my views as to the 2nd Amendment. It has an 80 year history of subjugating my freedom for political expediency. Why would any sane person support that record? Why would any sane person try to change such a fundamentally flawed organization? I'll support them if they get out of the 2nd Amendment fight. I'll fight them if they stay in it, because every step they take to legislate a remedy to an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights is in and of itself an infringement on liberty.

You cannot point to a single clean bill promoted by the NRA that truly supports the 2nd Amendment.

All include restrictions.

All include Governmental oversight and/or regulation.

While most 'legalize' a specific action or process, all are anti individual freedom.

You see, Jim, it is not that the NRA has nothing to offer. What they do offer is the destruction of the individual right codified in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really not understand this, or are you simply hanging on to what is comfortable for you?

I have one son, Jim, and could not live with myself if I went along and accepted the Big Government solutions offered by the NRA. I could not live with knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was helping to forge the shackles he and his children would be forced to live with.

The NRA is for and about Gun Owners and Gun Ownership, Jim. The Second Amendment is about the individual freedom of all Americans. The NRA does not want its supporters to understand that distinction. They remain an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, because they are corrupted by the money from their base of gun owners, manufactures, distributors, and the narcisistic need to be a player in Washington. Change them? Right.
n/a Posted - 01/04/2012 : 10:02:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????



A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.

It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.



I belong to all of them. They ALL have something to offer in the fight. The difference here is that MANY here feel the NRA has nothing to offer. I disagree. I have not not given up the fight WITH the NRA, you have and all you do is bad mouth the NRA and those who have not given up. So be it, you are not helping 'the cause' with this stance. If you don't agree with them then change them!!! Really quit simple.

No, Jim, it is not 'quite' simple. To say so is for you to be either abjectly ignorant of the internal process, or to be willfully deceptive.

Knowing something about you, I don't see you as deceptive. I expect it is abject ignorance.



Jim Rau Posted - 01/04/2012 : 09:57:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Don McManus

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????



A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.

It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.



I belong to all of them. They ALL have something to offer in the fight. The difference here is that MANY here feel the NRA has nothing to offer. I disagree. I have not not given up the fight WITH the NRA, you have and all you do is bad mouth the NRA and those who have not given up. So be it, you are not helping 'the cause' with this stance. If you don't agree with them then change them!!! Really quit simple.
Mr. Perfect Posted - 01/03/2012 : 7:55:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by wpage

What other Rifle Association has spoken for gun rights @ the UN?

better question.
Don McManus Posted - 01/03/2012 : 7:49:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by wpage

What other Rifle Association has spoken for gun rights @ the UN?



http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6993

The words of Mr. La Perriér:

'The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.'

'Defense of self, family, and country' qualifies the 2nd. 'Shall not be infinged' is not qualified. This is the qualification the NRA wanted and got in Heller and McDonald.


And then:

'It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone's right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.'

A nice sentiment from a man who has promoted NICS from day one. Perhaps it is merely OK for a government the NRA-ILA can influence to do such evil things.

And finally:

'Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.'

Has Mr. La Perriére conceded the right of civilians to own military arms? Oh, that's right, his organization promotes such restrictions.


So, to answer your question:

While the NRA has spoken to the question of qualified gun rights at the UN, it has not, in any meaningful way spoken to the true meaning of the individual human right expressed by the 2nd.

Not at the UN.

Not to Congress.

Not through any promoted legislation.

wpage Posted - 01/03/2012 : 6:55:41 PM
What other Rifle Association has spoken for gun rights @ the UN?
Don McManus Posted - 01/03/2012 : 3:53:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????



A start would be the approach taken by the SAF and GOA whereby they challenge existing laws rather than advocate for band-aid laws that not only mask, but further ensconce the problem.

It is working outside the legislative system via the courts, and they have been reasonably effective. Not sure how many NRA approved laws they have overturned to date, but as they cut through the chaff the NRA-ILA leaves in its wake, they (we) will eventually be getting to the heart.

Mr. Perfect Posted - 01/03/2012 : 3:40:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Perfect

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Perfect

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

Look at like this guys.
You are gong the wrong way down the road at 60+ mph. Your goal is go the right/other way. If you simply crank the steering wheel hard and try to turn around you will end up in a big wreck.
You MUST first slow the vehicle down going the wrong way, then when it is stopped you MUST carefully turn around and then, and only then can you go down the right road.
You all need to stop jerking the wheel or you are going to end up in a big wreck!!!!!

Actually, we're the ones going the right way, you're the one going the wrong way, and jerking the wheel as you go. As I see it.

So you are gong the right way, what are your accomplishments so far. I have not seen you cause any positive changes in the current laws or environment as a result of your stand on this! The only thing I (and many others) see is some bitter, closed mined, folks who seem to have nothing positive to help in this fight. Only criticism and attempts to hinder and attack those who really do give a chitt and work to get things changed.

I notice that whenever I point to how someone is pedaling in the wrong direction, their response is to say "well, what have you done". Well, for one, I stopped pedaling in the wrong direction. Once you stop doing that, then we can talk.

So your actions are self satisfying but do nothing to help the rest of us who believe there is still a fight worth fighting for ALL of us!!! As I said before, I will not change your mind or any others who have closed their minds to any other position other than their own. The various pro gun organizations have steped in to support many folks who have been wronged individually and collectively, but to those with your believes they have not helped in any way. The bottom line is 'any compromise' in what you believe is wrong and those who do not do things as you think they should are wrong and the 'enemy'.
To me the 'wreck' occurs when we have a progressive dictator in chief, as we do now, who has appointed a Supreme Court of progressive judges, and the progressives have both houses of congress. Then we will be forced to use violence to defend our RTKABA'S. Until that occurs I will maintain my grasp on reality and do what I can to try and get this 'turned around' and going the right way with out violence.
I am sorry so many here have given up the fight!!!

You have so completely missed the point that perhaps I should not even continue to try to address you on this matter.
Let me try to paint it for you clearly:
You support the NRA.
The NRA fights for gun control.
By supporting the NRA, you fight for gun control.

I, conversely, do not support the NRA and therefor do not support gun control. I do OTHER things that support gun rights, many of which are in direct opposition to the things the NRA is doing.

Do you now see how we (you and I) are diametrically opposed?

If not, perhaps I can use smaller words???
Rocklobster Posted - 01/03/2012 : 2:11:10 PM
quote:
The only answer is 'you can't change the system from out side the system with out using violence'!
True, unfortunately. Another group of oppressed subjects tried assembling, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of their intentions, and with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, mutually pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, and declared that they would no longer be oppressed.

We all know how that turned out.
Jim Rau Posted - 01/03/2012 : 09:10:19 AM
quote:
Originally posted by buffalobo

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????




OOOH, OOOOH, Mista Kotter, I know this one.



Step 1) STOP SUPPORTING NRA-ILA



Sorry Jim, pretty sure not the answer you were looking for.

No it was the answer, which is not an answer, I expected. Now try and answer the question!
The only answer is 'you can't change the system from out side the system with out using violence'! Just a little more reality you all try and ignore!!!
buffalobo Posted - 01/02/2012 : 2:43:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????




OOOH, OOOOH, Mista Kotter, I know this one.



Step 1) STOP SUPPORTING NRA-ILA



Sorry Jim, pretty sure not the answer you were looking for.
Jim Rau Posted - 01/02/2012 : 11:56:33 AM
With out the use of violence, how do you change the 'system' from out side the 'system'??????????????????
n/a Posted - 12/30/2011 : 1:21:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by wifetrained

Why does anyone pay attention to poll's in the first place? For one they are too easily manipulated, asking specific questions in a specific manner to specific groups of people, allowing only certain responses in order to get a specific response, and some how this represents legitimate national views.

Any look into the NRA's history, even a cursory look, will reveal just how involved they've been in implementing gun control in this country, going all the way back to the Uniform Firearms Act, the National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act and so on. Their behavior during the Heller and McDonald case's was disgraceful to say the least and then have the gall to state they are the friend of gun owners. Pleeeezzzz!!!!!

The NRA can state whatever it wants but their history conspires against them in ways that they simply can not refute.

Well, yeah...BUT facts never get in the way of a dedicated NRA-zombie simply disregarding or ignoring their provable history of supporting gun-control and government oppression.

When that fails due to someone refusing to allow the willful-ignorance, then the true colors come out that these NRA-zombies actually support the NRA-style of gun-control, but with the caveat that they desperately attempt to rationalize and justify it.

Just read what Jim Rau has posted over the years, for an illustration.


wifetrained Posted - 12/30/2011 : 12:23:31 PM
Why does anyone pay attention to poll's in the first place? For one they are too easily manipulated, asking specific questions in a specific manner to specific groups of people, allowing only certain responses in order to get a specific response, and some how this represents legitimate national views.

Any look into the NRA's history, even a cursory look, will reveal just how involved they've been in implementing gun control in this country, going all the way back to the Uniform Firearms Act, the National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act and so on. Their behavior during the Heller and McDonald case's was disgraceful to say the least and then have the gall to state they are the friend of gun owners. Pleeeezzzz!!!!!

The NRA can state whatever it wants but their history conspires against them in ways that they simply can not refute.
n/a Posted - 12/29/2011 : 7:57:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

Jeff,
Have you ever heard it said "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink"?
Your 'hold their head under the water' tactics will not make them drink. They will push back against your efforts.
Sorry you can't or won't recognize the truth/common sense here!
I would say I am more patient than you and those who take the 'push them along' stance. You MUST recognize reality and human nature if you wish to accomplih anything positive. I am sorry our patience has run out, mine is wearing thin too!!!
I guess we will both have to keep trying to get this car going back the right direction in our own way, but we are not 'enemies'!

Course not, Jim. We differ in opinion and certain beliefs and we will not reconcile on those points. So what?

Aside from that, you seem to be good people and I respect those things I know about that you have done, at risk to your future. That took courage and balls.
Barzillia Posted - 12/29/2011 : 7:37:06 PM
There is a rabbinic saying that "Whenever religious piety and common sense morality conflict, examine your religious convictions, as they have most assuredly become corrupted."

So it goes with political piety, as well.
Jim Rau Posted - 12/29/2011 : 09:53:03 AM
Jeff,
Have you ever heard it said "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink"?
Your 'hold their head under the water' tactics will not make them drink. They will push back against your efforts.
Sorry you can't or won't recognize the truth/common sense here!
I would say I am more patient than you and those who take the 'push them along' stance. You MUST recognize reality and human nature if you wish to accomplih anything positive. I am sorry our patience has run out, mine is wearing thin too!!!
I guess we will both have to keep trying to get this car going back the right direction in our own way, but we are not 'enemies'!
n/a Posted - 12/28/2011 : 09:55:14 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Rau

quote:
Originally posted by lt496

quote:
Originally posted by USN_Airdale

quote:
Yep.. The Brady Bunch love NRA bashers...


don't make any huge bets on that, they know we are the force who will jump to defend America, our Constitution and Bill of Rights long before the NRA takes any action. also recall there was no NRA in 1776ad the defenders of our nation were common citizens who preferred freedom and liberty over a tyrannical "King" and his rules, i and many millions of NON-NRA'ers will be the force to fire the next first shot heard round the world.., NOT the Negotiable Rights Association.

i too once was a member of the NRA, but when Neal Knox walked away from them, i and many, many others during the 1976ad convention in San Diego walked away and never looked back.

face it NRA members, they are NOT gun owners best friend, they backed the full auto ban which now is the reason an M16 costs $15,000.00 or more !!

other than myself, how many here think/believe that full auto ban should be rescinded

maybe i should make it a poll

Well said.

As for the full auto ban, allow me to simply say the Amendment II clearly 'states' that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That is dirt-simple text and it is a clear and absolute prohibition ON GOVERNMENT from infringing on that fundamental constitutionally enumerated right, read controlling, regulating, prohibiting, prior restraints, 'permitting' et al.

That would be inclusive of full-autos.



OK Jeff,
Let us say we agree on this. What is your plan to make it happen????????? You just proved what I have been trying to get across to you for a long time. If you can't come up with a realistic plan to accomplish your goal you are wasting your time and effort. In today's world, with so many overly civilized idealistic idiot out there (liberal progressives), just how do you and your fellow believers intend to accomplish this?????? Simply put, you can't. It is not a realistic goal!!!
The two (Rau's) rules of goal seating are:
1. The goal must be realistic. (probability to accomplish the goal)
2. The goals but be non conflicting.
Our differences are slight, except for the fact that you and many here are idealists and I am a realist!!!
Perfect/ideal is only found in the mind of the beholder, not in the real world!

No, Jim, lets not say that we agree, because we do not.

Our differences are not 'slight' at all. You cede government the authority to do that which they are expressly prohibited from doing.

One cannot logically start from that position, Mr. Rau-realist.

My 'plan' is as it always has been...

That being, to cock-block any and all examples of government infringement on the RKBA and the efforts and advocacy of people (like you) who attempt to rationalize, justify or gain acceptance for such prohibited government actions...and to shine bright light upon those actions, government or citizen led, whilst working on educating, in my typical unwavering and blunt style, that such actions and such advocacy are contrary to Amendment II and pointing to the place that they inevitably lead.

All the while, I speak out in many venues, I write letters in the same manner, I petition government in the same manner, I urge support for groups who understand and stand for Amendment II and who have a national voice, I shine the light of provable fact on and urge non-support of organizations and people who take your approach, which is contrary to Amendment II

I dare say, that the El-Tee plan vs. the Jim Rau plan, conducted by each of us, is more effective.

I have seen a number of members here who have openly stated that they were awakened and changed their approach and views based on such efforts (not necessarily by me) by people who take the Amendment II textual position and who call things as they are.

How about your plan? You having any converts to accepting government usurpation? If so, more is the pity.

Idealism is not idiocy, as you claim.

Constitution and Liberty Idealism is the well-spring of principle, ethic and integrity and the base from which principled advocacy and non-acceptance of predatory extra/anti-constitutional governance, springs.

Thinking that one can wrest a fundamental right back from government, once that right is conceded to be mere privilege, is lunacy, IMO.

There was a time where men would stand up and claim their rights and take the position that they would NOT accept, or accede to certain things.

Sadly, such men seem to be all but gone and such principle has all but been eradicated, replaced, rather, with some namby-pamby 'go along to get along' and 'be reasonable' about government taking powers that are not theirs to take.

Sorry, Jim, I ain't buying any.



GunBroker.com Message Forums © 1999-2011 GB Investments, Inc. All Rights Reserved Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.06


Visit GunBroker.com at: www.gunbroker.com
Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of the site's User Agreement
Site Map