Gun Nut Fanatic or Patriot?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:05 pm

Wandrin;1416122 wrote: The NRA endorsed moderate gun control in the '20s and'30s and endorse the Gun Control Act of 1968. In 1977 there was a coup in the NRA and some of the more radical members took over.

Adam Winkler: When the NRA Promoted Gun ControlThanks for that. It was a good read.

The old NRA also promoted gun control. In the 1920s, NRA leaders helped draft the Uniform Firearms Act -- model legislation for states to adopt that established new, restrictive rules on carrying firearms in public. Karl Frederick, the NRA's president, said at the time, "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons... I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses." The Uniform Firearms Act only awarded licenses to "suitable" persons with a "proper reason" for carrying and created a waiting period before a newly purchased handgun could be delivered to the purchaser. Today's NRA, by contrast, fights to eliminate these very same requirements.

The NRA also endorsed the first major federal gun control law of the modern era, the National Firearms Act of 1934. During hearings on the proposed legislation, which imposed heavy restrictions on machine guns and other gangster weapons, Karl Frederick was asked how the Second Amendment affected this groundbreaking law. His answer was astounding: "I have not given it any study from that point of view."

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:26 pm

Ahso!;1416342 wrote: Thanks for that. It was a good read.

It is a good read.

When I woke up this morning it was 1/12/2013, not the twenties or whatever of my father, grandfather's generation.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:57 pm

tude dog;1416345 wrote: It is a good read.

When I woke up this morning it was 1/12/2013, not the twenties or whatever of my father, grandfather's generation.You're right. It isn't the eighteenth century either.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:25 pm

Ahso!;1416349 wrote: You're right. It isn't the eighteenth century either.

Please enlighten me, just what does the 18th Century have to do with anything?

Did you change subject or what?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:37 pm

That's when the second amendment was written.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:02 pm

True, and the ability to change it has been possible all this time and remains possible even now. Respect the rule of law.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:28 pm

Do you have as much respect for the courts interpreting those laws?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:50 pm

Ahso!;1416418 wrote: Do you have as much respect for the courts interpreting those laws?
I respect each of them as much as I respect any American citizen. The US Constitution isn't an infallible Bible to be interpreted and reinterpreted. It was written in English ... by Englishmen, come to think of it. If it doesn't apply to a given situation, there are two constitutional options available, also written in plain English. Either amend the Constitution to address the situation, or leave it to the States respectively, or to the people.

When people (such as Roger B. Taney, John Roberts, and Warren Burger, among others) who swore under oath to protect and defend the Constitution, instead violate it by creatively reinterpreting what is written so as to fit an agenda, then they lose my respect. They should lose yours as well, but you've already stated plainly that you don't support the rule of law.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:23 am

Accountable;1416420 wrote: I respect each of them as much as I respect any American citizen. The US Constitution isn't an infallible Bible to be interpreted and reinterpreted. It was written in English ... by Englishmen, come to think of it. If it doesn't apply to a given situation, there are two constitutional options available, also written in plain English. Either amend the Constitution to address the situation, or leave it to the States respectively, or to the people.

When people (such as Roger B. Taney, John Roberts, and Warren Burger, among others) who swore under oath to protect and defend the Constitution, instead violate it by creatively reinterpreting what is written so as to fit an agenda, then they lose my respect. They should lose yours as well, but you've already stated plainly that you don't support the rule of law.It sounds like you're saying the courts aren't necessary since the constitution is that black and white.

How about this: what if certain weaponry were to be [re]classified as something other than "arms"? Let's say all guns were classified as sporting equipment. Would that satisfy the constitutionality of banning the manufacturing or possession, in your opinion?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:08 am

Ahso!;1416423 wrote: It sounds like you're saying the courts aren't necessary since the constitution is that black and white.No it doesn't. The courts are a check against the legislature & executive to make sure the laws they pass comply with the constitution.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:31 am

And you're saying they don't? Most of them?

Nothing on the second half of my post?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:19 am

Ahso!;1416443 wrote: And you're saying they don't? Most of them?
If you'd like to address what I wrote, rather inventing a hidden message, I'll be glad to respond.

Ahso!;1416443 wrote: Nothing on the second half of my post?Sorry, I thought it was a smartass rhetorical remark.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:22 am

Ahso!;1416423 wrote: How about this: what if certain weaponry were to be [re]classified as something other than "arms"? Let's say all guns were classified as sporting equipment. Would that satisfy the constitutionality of banning the manufacturing or possession, in your opinion?
How about we try addressing an issue directly rather than playing semantic games like a spoiled child? I'm guessing you didn't like how the 2000 election turned out. You'd probably rather have seen the rule of law respected then, right? How about this: respect the rule of law consistently. How about that?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Jan 13, 2013 2:45 pm

Ahso!;1416415 wrote: That's when the second amendment was written.

The NRA wasn't around when the Second Amendment was written.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:21 pm

Accountable;1416452 wrote: How about we try addressing an issue directly rather than playing semantic games like a spoiled child? I'm guessing you didn't like how the 2000 election turned out. You'd probably rather have seen the rule of law respected then, right? How about this: respect the rule of law consistently. How about that?What's characteristic of a spoiled child is an inability to approach issues from more than one perspective. Single mindedness is boring. You're okay as long as you control the flow of conversation.

As to your single minded issue, once and for all. A "rule of law" that stands in the way of progress and safety of the most innocent among us is no rule of law at all. I have absolutely no respect for such a law. You just keep swallowing.

As for the 2000 election, I didn't vote for Jr, but I defended his victory initially because he deserved a chance. However, as time went on I learned to despise the man and most of his cabinet. In fact the majority was greatly disappointed but 9/11 saved his ass. Now 2004? Yes, I was incensed that people would vote for a man who had already proven himself a danger to everyone in many ways. You guessed wrong.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:40 pm

Ahso!;1416513 wrote: As to your single minded issue, once and for all. A "rule of law" that stands in the way of progress and safety of the most innocent among us is no rule of law at all. I have absolutely no respect for such a law. Then get it changed! There's a process in place to do it; you're just too lazy to do what it takes to follow the rules.

Ahso!;1416513 wrote: As for the 2000 election, I didn't vote for Jr, but I defended his victory initially because he deserved a chance. However, as time went on I learned to despise the man and most of his cabinet. In fact the majority was greatly disappointed but 9/11 saved his ass. Now 2004? Yes, I was incensed that people would vote for a man who had already proven himself a danger to everyone in many ways. You guessed wrong.

You're right. You stand for nothing, so it's difficult to explain principle to you.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:59 pm

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:45 am

Do you think he actually believed any of that?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:39 am

gmc;1416713 wrote: Do you think he actually believed any of that?At the time he was saying each? Yes, every word.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:00 am

Why do so many Americans want to see end of times events?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:15 am

gmc;1416736 wrote: Why do so many Americans want to see end of times events?It's about being right, I think. American boys are raised with the hero's myth and so one way of living up to that myth when we lack certain power objects like money or status is we invent events, we get into telling the future. What better way of playing the hero than the forewarning of disastrous events.

It's delusional but it works.

We're all just looking to get laid and pass along our genes. Funny, the extents we'll go to for that.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:03 am

Ahso!;1416109 wrote: Here's a nut case. This guy is more the showman type, but boy is he stupid. He's made terroristic threats. I hope he's arrested and sent to Guantanamo.

Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun Measure (VIDEO)This nutcase apologizes. Funny, first thing he did was deny he ever said what he clearly said and then got smart about it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/1 ... 78594.html

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:41 pm

Funny New Rule

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:16 pm