.

Settling the NRA dispute (hopefully)

jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
I do not wish to offend supporters of the NRA. I only seek to shed light on their actions and hopefully change your mind about where you send your hard earned money.
The truth is, if you want somebody to defend your second ammendment right, and you send $$$ to the NRA to do that for you, you might as well put a match to that money. The NRA is in it for the money, it's a business to them. They only seek to perpetuate the issue because it keeps them in business. They no longer work for you, they work for the politician. There job is to take the bill of goods the politicians develop, and sell it to you, instead of the other way around, and make a handsome salary in the meantime. It's too bad, but that's what they've become.Their so -called lawyer argues (if you can call it that) in court recently, that government regulation is "ok". Hmmm... personally, I don't think government intrusion into my right, is "ok". Is that the kind of representation you thought you were paying for?
Right now the NRA is suing a grass roots state level gun rights group (the only kind that do any good)for libel. How does that help our cause.
Constant "A" ratings on worthless politicians? The NRA has become a joke. They need to go away.
When your employee doesn't do what you payed him/her to do, you fire them. I have "fired" the NRA. They are as useless to me, and what I want, as any liberal. I ask that you do a little research, and make up your own mind. But for my dollar, GOA, or state gun rights groups are the way to go.
«13

Comments

  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    I agree....afraid that you will not find many that will however.They just do not like to hear it.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    JPWolf: it is interesting that you mention this today as after I got another GOA newsletter in the mail today I started thinking about how effecttive the NRA is compared to the GOA. You may have gotten the same newsletter and believe me there was some good, straight to the point, logical, effective and reasonable thoughts and ideas expressed by GOA. GOA did this in a small newsletter of only a few pages whereas an entire NRA magazine might not do as well. I have been a long time supporter and member of the NRA as has my 21 yearold daughter, my wife and even my 10 month old grandson has a membership. We all have recently donated time, money and physical effort to the local Friends of the NRA because it is a non-profit organization that spends the money it raises to promote gun rights, useage and safety with the Boy Scouts, 4H, etc. I believe in this because if we don't find a way to create more shooters we as a group are going to die out.

    So I am saying I have lost a lot of faith in the NRA recently and I continue to support GOA and I frankly do not know what to do about my relationship with the NRA.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    I know TR. It is a perplexing problem. They have become THE beurocracy they were sent to fight. The politicians came up with a new twist on an old addage. "If you can't beat 'em, get 'em to join you". I was also a member for many years. I got frustrated with them always giving up my rights for me and trying to convince me "it's ok", and stopped sending them money. They then proceeded to spend far more money than I ever sent them, trying to get me to send more of my money. PATHETIC is all I can say. They don't want a ruling on the second ammendment in the supreme court. It would put them out of business. I'm sick of their back-stabbing. They are completely ineffective for the "stated" purpose.
  • trstonetrstone Member Posts: 833 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    You'd have to have rocks in your head to support those turncoats in the NRA, especially after they go before a judge and practically genuflect to the guy saying "Please, your Worship, all we want to do is register firearms. Yes, your Worship, the all-powerful Govenment CAN restrict the Second Amendment."

    They're nothing but a bunch of cheerleaders for the Republican Party, and they CERTAINLY don't give a flying fig about our rights as gun-owners. If it isn't obvious that the NRA is actually selling out to the anti-gunners in Washington, you're deluding yourselves.

    It wouldn't surprise me if the NRA testified that the Second Amendment was a collective rather than individual right, especially if it suited their purpose---which seems to be pulling down their pants and bending over for the Government in the hopes that they'll become a sanctioned licensing agency for gun ownership. Think that that's far-fetched? Look again. Look at how pathetically WEAK their case-preparation and arguments have been in this DC business. The NRA's "attorney" meekly squeaks that registration is okay, just fine, only please, Bwana, may we exercise an already Constitutinally guaranteed---and in no uncertain terms, UNINFINGEABLE---right? We'll tow the mark! We'll agree that the Government CAN infringe (or "reasonably regulate", as these Socialist jerks like to phrase it) on the Right to Keep And Bear Arms. No problem!

    Just keep bending over for the Libs, NRA. You make us all proud!
  • nitrouznitrouz Member Posts: 1,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If someone started a non-profit company right now to represent our interests instead of the NRA.....well you know what the outcome would be.

    20-redcoats-firing.gif
    American's Right to bear arm's is the only reason we're here today.
  • mpolansmpolans Member Posts: 1,752 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    To JPWOLF: Care to discuss what state gun rights group NRA is suing and under what circumstances?

    TO TRSTONE: To which DC lawsuit are you referring (case name?) and which NRA attorney wrote that registration is okay? His name should be on the brief.
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    go to www.rmgo.org or www.gunowners.org for detailed info.
  • mpolansmpolans Member Posts: 1,752 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I went to both websites and could not find any info on the lawsuit. Can you tell me what you know about the lawsuit? Who are the named parties? What is the complaint that you say NRA has alleged?

    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    go to www.rmgo.org or www.gunowners.org for detailed info.
  • GGIL1977GGIL1977 Member Posts: 6 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hoorah we agree that the NRA is not in the business of protecting peoples rights anymore, they are in it soley for the money which is whats happens... As in our case we have come to the joint conclusion that a non for profit organization or any politician who has requested our time. would get a better result then if they asked for money. Donations of a monetary value are immediatley placed in the garbage bin....

    Carroll A. Gates
  • trstonetrstone Member Posts: 833 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Try: http://keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3619

    I got this off of the keepandbeararms.com website.
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    my apologies mpol, tr is right about the website, that is the one where I read it. Sorry, alzheimers.:-)
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    Let's face it, the NRA is the only entity that has the financial resources to end the intrusion on our second amendment right, by bringing any of a thousand court cases before the supreme court to get a decision once and for all. They have always chosen not to. Why? Because, that's not what they want. MONEY MONEY MONEY. That's what they want.
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,367 ******
    edited November -1
    A "FINAL" decision would end their gravy train.


    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    If they are NOT part of the solution...then they ARE part of the problem.....Time to tell en to get out of the way!!!
  • Warpig883Warpig883 Member Posts: 6,459
    edited November -1
    It really is unfortunate that over the years the NRA has had to redirect their energies from gun safety and competition to political BS.

    So if all the NRA members joined GOA, would GOA become a HUGE money grabbing run for profit bueracracy like the NRA has?

    Signature:


    Signature checkbox
    checked by default?: Yes No
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,367 ******
    edited November -1
    Warpig883;
    I have asked myself that same question.
    Would they get too big for their britches?

    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pickenup
    Warpig883;
    I have asked myself that same question.
    Would they get too big for their britches?

    The gene pool needs chlorine.


    I believe the answer is most likely YES,however along the way we would gain,and like other things,the NRA comes to mind,when they outlive their purpose we would have to move on.....what else can we do?If they KNOW for a fact that we would dump em in a heartbeat ,they just MIGHT last a bit longer for our purpose.....L.H.
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,367 ******
    edited November -1
    longhunter;
    I agree, at least in the beginning, we stand to further our cause tremendously. I figure that since the GOA "STARTED" with a no compromise attitude, if we could get them enough members to give them some REAL clout, they could do us a world of good. After a time, as with anything connected to politics, they would degenerate into slime. But who knows what good they would do before then? I am willing to find out.

    The NRA did not start with a political agenda in mind. It just sort of gravitated to what was needed as time went by. I give them the credit, that they have at least "slowed" the snowballing agenda of the anti-gunners, even with their compromising ways. On the other hand, it is time for a change, when they no longer fight for what WE believe in.


    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    pickenup, great post,well said.Follows my way of thinking......Now if we could get the job done,and then follow with democraps and repubs....we might have a chance....
  • mpolansmpolans Member Posts: 1,752 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Keep in mind, that because of stare decisis (the concept of following precedent) a weak lawsuit or a suit before a liberal court can do MUCH more harm than good.
    Reviewing some of the lawsuit info from the websites provided above, it appears that there is some desire to avoid a direct 2nd Amendment-based confrontation. This sort of makes sense. I don't believe the DC District Court is known for being very conservative. So if a decision is made directly on the 2nd Amendment, the court could find that the 2nd Amendment does not pertain to an individual right and allows for numerous restrictions on ownership of firearms. If such a decision is appealed and lost on appeal, you'd have a federal circuit court opinion, which is very persuasive, that gives a weak interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. God forbid, but if it were again appealed, give cert, and the Supreme Court upheld it, you would have effectively eliminated the 2nd Amendment.
    Now if you were to replace a few of the Supreme Court Justices with some more pro-gun folks (maybe we'll get lucky in 2004-2008), I'd be all for a direct 2nd Amendment challenge. But until then, I'd pick my battles very carefully.



    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    Let's face it, the NRA is the only entity that has the financial resources to end the intrusion on our second amendment right, by bringing any of a thousand court cases before the supreme court to get a decision once and for all. They have always chosen not to. Why? Because, that's not what they want. MONEY MONEY MONEY. That's what they want.
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    I suppose that's true enough mpol, due to the distorted times we live in. But these judges are supposed to be constitutional scholars, and know everything there is to know about it, and the bill of rights. Therefore, if they did rule against the 2nd, they KNOW it would be another enormous lie. There is just no way to come to any other conclusion if you read all there is on the subject, by those who were the authorities on the subject..... the founders. Isn't that what is supposed to allow these people to ascend to their positions, a complete knowledge of the constitution? And a complete knowledge of everything written by the founder's concerning it? Every judgement they make is supposed to be based on this knowledge, is it not?
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    I suppose that's true enough mpol, due to the distorted times we live in. But these judges are supposed to be constitutional scholars, and know everything there is to know about it, and the bill of rights. Therefore, if they did rule against the 2nd, they KNOW it would be another enormous lie. There is just no way to come to any other conclusion if you read all there is on the subject, by those who were the authorities on the subject..... the founders. Isn't that what is supposed to allow these people to ascend to their positions, a complete knowledge of the constitution? And a complete knowledge of everything written by the founder's concerning it? Every judgement they make is supposed to be based on this knowledge, is it not?


    In a word YES....which is why they do not desire to rule against it,or FOR it for that matter...it seems that perhaps they owe someone somthing....NAAAA!!! that could'nt be right.....Corruption within...how could it be???
  • mpolansmpolans Member Posts: 1,752 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Wow, blast from the past! While I'm sure we agree on the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, you must understand that, read in a vacuum, it and much of the rest of the Constitution isn't exactly the clearest written document of all time. Personally, I think some of this was an intentional effort to come up with a document ASAP that was fairly workable in order to form a badly needed effective government...get the gist of it down, and hammer out the details later via the amendment process. Later, under the then fairly revolutionary concept of judicial review, we were given another way to interpret the constitution based on Supreme Court decisions. Some diehards will point out that judicial review is not mentioned at all in the constitution (though others will point out it is hinted at and wouldn't make sense for it not to exist). I accept judicial review as something that has gone on for about 200 years and as a mechanism far more workable than its alternative . . . rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution every time there is a dispute about interpretation.

    Speaking of interpretation, there are many views on how the Constitution should be interpreted and this is where the BIG problem really is.
    Some believe that the Constitution's interpretation should taken to account how technology and society has changed...for example, we ignore the implications raised by the word "man" or "citizen" when we know there were slaves in those days who were considered neither. We now accept that "citizen" and "man" as used throughout the Constitution mean all men and women, even though we didn't go back, amend every line and re-ratify the whole thing.
    Some believe the Constitution should be taken at its exact word according to those definitions in modern times. Pick your choice of contemporary dictionaries (might be a lot of debate on which one you choose).
    Some believe the Constitution should be taken at its exact word according to those definitions existing at the time it was written. Justice Scalia believes this and even wrote a pretty good book on it, IIRC called "On Constitutional Interpretation".
    Some believe we should be able to look outside the document to its history, the arguments made, and what was going on at the time in an effort to understand the Founding Fathers' beliefs in order to interpret the document.

    As you can see there are several approaches, that can lead to different interpretations. It ain't as easy as it sounds!

    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    I suppose that's true enough mpol, due to the distorted times we live in. But these judges are supposed to be constitutional scholars, and know everything there is to know about it, and the bill of rights. Therefore, if they did rule against the 2nd, they KNOW it would be another enormous lie. There is just no way to come to any other conclusion if you read all there is on the subject, by those who were the authorities on the subject..... the founders. Isn't that what is supposed to allow these people to ascend to their positions, a complete knowledge of the constitution? And a complete knowledge of everything written by the founder's concerning it? Every judgement they make is supposed to be based on this knowledge, is it not?
  • stubdog69stubdog69 Member Posts: 45 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    i have never donated a dime to the organization that gives false results. i am more interested in grassroots programs and talkin face to face with reps.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    MPOLANS,i DISAGREE......I believe that the fathers meant just exactly what they said.And yes they expected the amendment process to be uesed.it is a PART of the process meant to ensure our representation,and the check and balances to safeguard against tyranny......Judicial review is a lie...it is a PART of the whole.A Part....We should take it literally,that was thw way it was written,by literal men in a literal time,wanting it to be...well literal.Period.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    Thinking about this some more,it seems that if we did that the woman would not be a part of the process....as they were excluded in the wording by the word MAN ,not WOMAN.They were christians and made the assumption that woman would not be in the mix,only thru their husbands.Just as they are supposed to speak in church thru their husbands only.It was assumed that it would remain that way,why would they have done otherwise?They meant that Literally.......in my opinion.
  • mpolansmpolans Member Posts: 1,752 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Your post below is correct, as evidenced by the fact that women didn't get the right to vote until the early 20th century.
    So, based on what you've said in your last two posts, I'm to understand *you* believe the constitution should be interpreted according to the meanings attached by a circa 1780's dictionary? Care to pick which dictionary?
    And am I to correctly assume that only the words within the four corners of the document are to be considered, to exclusion of all other information, including events surrounding the formation of the document, other contemporary writings such as the Federalist Papers, consideration of the concerns the delegates wished to address, etc.?
    And since you don't believe in the concept of judicial review, whenever a question of interpretation of the constitution comes up WHO should decide what the correct interpretation should be? A national referendum for ever court case raising a question of constitutional interpretation? Besides being patently, unconstitutional, that seems like a *great* idea. [V] How about having to pass an amendment or redrafting and reratifying the constitution whenever a question of constitutional interpretation comes up? That sounds like another winner to me. [xx(]

    Let me guess...you're a Constitutional Law scholar, right?

    quote:Originally posted by longhunter
    Thinking about this some more,it seems that if we did that the woman would not be a part of the process....as they were excluded in the wording by the word MAN ,not WOMAN.They were christians and made the assumption that woman would not be in the mix,only thru their husbands.Just as they are supposed to speak in church thru their husbands only.It was assumed that it would remain that way,why would they have done otherwise?They meant that Literally.......in my opinion.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    I think you misinterpet what I am saying......The Federal government has used interpetation of our Constitution for themselves.The thing is Thier powers are VERY limited by the very document that they are trying,and indeed are using to put all these rules,laws etc.etc. on the books.Face it ,if Judicial review worked,the judges would do as judges ALWAYS have done.It is a point of law to take ambiguous meaning back to the original document.They ARE refusing to do that at all.In order to understand what the the founders meant,would'nt it be necessary to first obtain the mind set of the time?And yes I believe that the Constitution VERY clearly layed things out.The STATES should have more rights and the fed less....That IS the way the FOUNDERS intended it to be. I do use things from the federalist papers ,tho this is relatively new to me...It was someone here in the forum that got me going on those as a matter of fact.
    I believe to put words into the mouth of the founders is wrong,Period.
    I believe that is what the country was founded to be......PERIOD.For all those that think we should evolve this Nation into something that it was NEVER intended to be ,I invite you to use one of the MANY freedoms that were made,and fought for here..for you and for all of us.Use it and leave.Go find another countery that better suits YOUR purpose,and leave ours they way it was meant to be.That said I heartily respect your opinion and your rights to it.In point of fact I will fight beside you to be assured that you continue to have that right.I do hope you would do the same for me.
    If the Judicial Branch was doing its job,which was supposed to be a safeguard,we would'nt even have to discuss this....you talk like a referendum for review would be a bad tghing.It would in that we could'nt do many that way,HOWEVER,The point is the PEOPLE are SUPPOSED to be represented in ALL the Three branches.....today theose people are the special interest groups,the ones with the money ,thaey have all the clout.They do not represent Joe working man,down the street unless of course he belongs to some BIG union etc.How does that help those of us who do not?EQUAL representation was supposed to happen...it doesn't anymore.Is that a serious question about me being a Constitutional Law Scholar or what? I believe that we ALL should be.It should be REQUIRED reading,studying in school....so that we all understand how our government is SUPPOSSED to work.
  • mpolansmpolans Member Posts: 1,752 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    longhunter, if you believe the Constitution is a model of clarity and interpreting it is so simple, please explain the following things to me. Keep in mind, since you believe the Constitution is clear, do not rely on anything not specifically contained therein. Here we go:
    Art. I, sec. 8, cl.1: "The Congress shall have Power TO lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

    What is meant by providing for the general Welfare? What can Congress NOT do when trying to provide for the general welfare?

    Art. I, sec. 8, cl.18: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

    What is "necessary and proper?" Who determines this? What/who are the Departments and Officers referred to?
    Art. I, sec.8, cl.6 says: "To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting..." is one of Congress' powers. If Congress passes a law deeming it necessary and proper to torture and kill counterfeiters, who determines if this conflicts with the 8th Amendment Cruel and Unusual punishment clause? If there is a conflict, what happens?

    Art. II, sec.2, cl.2 says the President has the power to appoint with the advice and consent of 2/3 of the senate "...all other Officers...whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

    Who are the officers in the "all other Officers" category? Who are the "inferior Officers? What's the difference? What are those pesky Departments that keep popping up? How are they created? Who runs 'em?

    4th Amendment protects against, "unreasonable searches and seizures..."

    What is an "unreasonable" search? Who determines whether something is reasonable? What is a "search?" Is opening someone's luggage a search? How about feeling it from the outside, but not opening it? How about just looking at? If a dog sniffs the luggage, is it a search? Who determines these things?

    8th Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

    What's excessive? Can this vary from person to person? If so, is it fair that it varies for person to person? What's "cruel and unusual?" Is the death penalty? If it is, why didn't they just say no death penalty? Should Jeffrey Dahmer had been tortured? It doesn't say "no torture," and can we really consider it cruel and unusual considering his crimes? After all, he tortured and killed his victims, and the punishment should be equivalent to the crime, right?

    Does the Constitution still seem crystal clear? Some of these actually have some fairly easy answers, but they all involve some level of decision-making where disagreements may arise. Who is to be the ultimate decision-maker if not the Supreme Court?
  • IAMAHUSKERIAMAHUSKER Member Posts: 2,479 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    "Wow, blast from the past! While I'm sure we agree on the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, you must understand that, read in a vacuum, it and much of the rest of the Constitution isn't exactly the clearest written document of all time."

    You've been taught well. Public school really paid off for you. Read in a vacum. Yeah, thats where I do all my reading.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    So,let me get this straight.You honestly believe that the founders and the rest fought,died,lost family,property and all ,just to draw up documents that spelled out thier freedoms that theu deemed necessary(keyword there)for the republic.And then decided to turn it ALL OVER to NINE appointed(life appointments)men to decide at their whim just how the country should interput it all????Does this aaaaACTUALLY seem reasonable to you??Your very first question,doesn't it say what congress CAN do to provide for the general welfare??Yes,SOOOO they CAN'T do anything else.The general welfare...this is difficult?If you went to school ,you were supposed to have studied history,(not that they teach it well)so why in the lords name can't you put yourself in their stead?What would they have been thing the welfare was back then.It certainly did NOT mean the free lunch pledge of today.IE Foodstamps etc etc.
    I believe that ALL of your questions could be answered thus....How in the world would they have forseen Nuclear power?Healthcare?etc.etc.A lot of the law making and such was to be left to the STATES.....oh and the inferior offocers?/Um ,would'nt that be like the inferior courts?Look at it this way,IF you take the time and use your OWN logic,Go and see what the EARLY decicions were with the Justices on matters such as this.Indeed seek out John Jays decisions to start with....Is it not typical of law to use Precedants that were ALLREADY set?Yes,it is and they are not generally overturned as a matter of course.The first 200 years of our Nations history the Justices ruled on most of your qusetions allready...it has only been of late that they have decided to not look at legal precedant....and do what they d*** well please.......If what you r saying is true,then these 9 men run the entire country at there whim.No checks and measures on them....The original justices didn't believe that,nor the founders or even Washington(The father of our country).In pint of fact they felt that if anyone went AGAINST our CONSTITUTION in ANY way that they should BE TRIED FOR TREASON> Hmmmm,Does it seem as tho they felt there was a great deal of ambigious language if that was the charge for ruling against it?The penalty for treason in those days was DEATH I may remind you.I don't think that you understand the Documents as well as you may think.....They didn't leave holes in them,they could'nt AFFORD to.They were just getting it all going,they didn't wanna wind up fighting like we are the first year......It has taken all this time and the slow brainwashing of students to get this far....Think about that...WHY would it have taken this long to get at this point???ARE you trying to say that ALL before you were wrong?They all had the wrong idea? Do a search,Find early justices documents...see what the originals had to say,and YES - I DO BELIEVE THAT THE U.S.CONSTITUTION IS CRYSTAL CLEAR. Of course it would'nt be for anyone that wants it to mean something else........
  • mpolansmpolans Member Posts: 1,752 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    longhunter is ducking the questions.

    Hypothetical: Suppose Congress were to pass a law passing a mandatory tax where every worker was required to hand over every dollar over the national average salary to the government, which would then redistribute the money to those who received less than the national average salary. The language states that Congress deemed this necessary to provide for the general welfare.

    Is this constitutional? Why or why not? And most importantly, if you don't believe in judicial review, WHO MAKES THE CALL???

    Short of bring the dead back to life, how do you suggest one figures out what another man is thinking, much less one who died well over a hundred years before you were born? Remember, you said the document was clear, so you can only look at the document. Not to mention, the Founding Fathers weren't exactly in total agreement on what they believed...which do you propose to channel? Why would he be the best one?

    It is typical in common law systems to follow precedent. But what do you do when there is no precedent? The trial judge makes a call; then that call may be appealed to an intermediate appellate court, then perhaps to the Supreme Court, where, under the concept of *judicial review*, a final decision is made. However, you just stated you don't believe in judicial review, so what alternative do you believe exists?

    Oh, and it seems pretty clear that every justice since John Marshall believes in judicial review.

    There are still several checks on the Supreme Court. The justices must be appointed by the President (a check by the Executive Branch). They must be confirmed by the Senate (check by the Legislative Branch). Their jurisdiction, other than their original jurisdiction (as listed in Art. III, Sec.2) can be reduced/regulated by Congress. Congress can also reduce/enlarge the size of the Supreme Court (another big check on the Judiciary by the Legislative Branch).
    However, this does bring up one point; while it is generally accepted that the concept of separation of powers with checks and balances is fundamental to our government, I bet you will not find the words "separation of powers," nor "checks and balances."

    How are you inferring that all before me were wrong? I don't believe I said that. All I'm saying is, they weren't exactly clear.
    ANALOGY: Jim asks Scott how the weather is. Scott says, "The weather is great."
    Does that seem clear to you? What is "great," as mentioned above? Can reasonable minds differ as to the definition of "great" weather?

    Again, if the Constitution is "crystal clear," why did you not provide simple, point-by-point answers to any of my questions?
  • IAMAHUSKERIAMAHUSKER Member Posts: 2,479 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Seems damn clear to me. Oh wait, I know what you will say next. You will argue that a militia is actually the National Guard. Wrong!!

    In 1792 the federal Uniform Militia Law was created and required all able-bodied free white men ages 16 to 45 to arm themselves to defend their communities.

    Their are a lot of supporting documents that most people do not get to see or don't even know exist.
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,367 ******
    edited November -1
    How did this thread go from "where to send your money, NRA or GOA" to judicial review? Oh wait, I see. There are some very large holes left in the Constitution, that are open to interpretation, as pointed out by mpolans. I do not believe the 2nd is one of these. As far as the rest, there will never be a 100% consensus, one side will twist it to match their way of thinking, just as the other side will.


    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    I am not avoiding anything,rather I am debating what you say as a whole.Here is an excerpt from someone elses feelings."the Intent of The Framers"
    The constitution of the United States,after it was adopted,soon became a symbol of NATIONAL UNITY,Strength and Achievment.It took on for prideful Americans some of the aspects of the "crown" of the United Kingdom-that great symbol of British national and even Imperial strength and unity.The framers Of the Constitution wereaccordingly praised then and later by Many Patriotic speakers and writers as an assembly of demigods,or at least of men who were very mearthat level of ability,high purpose,and INTEGRITY.
    Does this sound even remotely like those who sit on the bench today?????? I said that Judicial review was a lie...not that it didn't exist.....So to avoid confusion about my meaning here,Understand,In order for the executive branch,legislative,whatever to work for the common man,he must have representation right?If he does not,and he doesn't ,than the appointees,The justices ,are appointed to the whim of the elite ,the ones that can AFFORD it.How would a common man get elected today?He would need the bankroll,the name,etc.etc......so as a COMMON man we have NO representation in congress,the house,or the presidency itself.Without or representation there we have none in the Judicial Branch either.Furthur the Justices,our SUPREME COURT has been manipulating and taking power that they don't even have since the 50's.I invite you to read Interosition;The Barrier Against Tyranny by John Bell Williams ,if you have not allready.He does take your stand a bit in that he believed the framers left the constitution to be decided more later.
    On May 17,1954,the Supreme Court of the United States drove a knife into the heart of the American Constitution.On that date the Supreme Court delagated unto itselfand the FEDERAL governmentcertain powers in excessof those granted under the Constitution.Onm that date ,nine appointed Justices assumed unto themselves the power to ammend the Constitution in the absence of approval by the people or the several States in the manner which IS PROVIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION. This goes on showing how they have stood unchallenged on this act since...small wonder that they would still believe themselves to be held by constitutional constraints isn't it? The Judicial Branch is Supposed to be a REVIEW Board. They are NOT supposed to MAKE law,only check it.They have indeed the RIGHT not to enforce a LAW that has been made against the Constitution,and in point of fact this is their DUTY.The fact that they are STILL manipulating the words within the framework to their own end,thier own agenda or whatever makes their review processa lie.
    Again if we have no real ,TRUE representation,only those that can afford it are we truely free?Is this what the founders wanted?For only the elite to be the checks and balances to which you refer?I don't think it is,And oh by the by,There are OVER 200 years of Precedant.But the nine do not wish to use those,they wanna make it up as they go along.There is a very large percentage of Americans that do not FEEL represented,why do you spose they don't BOTHER to go to the polls?I believe that I know why,Think on some......And hey I STILL respect your opinion and your RIGHT to it!
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    Which by the way is why I do not feel the NRA is doing what it needs to do as well,it has lost touch with its ranks by and large in my opinion?Is there something better?The GOA is doing a heck of a job in my honest opinion,I know they are not as big......YET.....and if you all think the NRA is the way to go,try this on....What if you all brought some of these complaints to the powers that be,you are members,if things changed,I would be also,and I believe a host of others on here would be as well.....just a thought......
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    I don't know as much and am probably not as smart as a lot of people who have posted on this topic. And what I will now say is only one among many ways to look at this sitution. But I feel something is wrong when so many, many words have to be used here to explain or object to the written constitution of the USA. It confounds me that more words (thousands of more words by the way) have to be used to debate some of the short sentences and paragraphs in the US Constitution than there are are words in the partticular part of the constitution being debated. I have always thought of state and the US consttution as being kind of like a "rule book" covering the "play" of the rights of citizens and the powers and duties of government.

    In my mind the US Govt. is kind of like a train out of control and headed to a collision on the wrong track. But many citizens ignore this and the ones who talk about it apparently have to complicate the different issues (me included) to where there never seems to be an answer, just more debate. Is there no final answer?

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • IAMAHUSKERIAMAHUSKER Member Posts: 2,479 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    In my opinion it has gone way to far to be corrected with anything other then outright violence. Stock up on ammo, you WILL need it, or don't and, be subject those lying, money hungry, power hungry "elected officials".
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    In those places, where the constitution seems ambiguous to those of us living here in these modern times, it's as simple as going back, doing a little research, and you will have the answer you were looking for. The founders recorded their debates, their reasons, and their MINDS, for us to clarify any questions we might have later. Most every question has already been answered, and ruled on, but it seems lately, those ideas are not a "good fit" for some minority agenda's. Now that the judiary is largely controled by lef thinking idiots, we can re-interperate and re-write history by ignoring precedent, and "make" it a better fit, an unconstitutional "fit", but a better fit for their agenda which has nothing to do with the majority, or the "general welfare" of the nation.
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    P.S. Don't give any money to the NRA.[:D]
Sign In or Register to comment.