CDZ Gun control laws what a joke

[konradv]

IMO, the title of this thread violates the terms for posting to this forum.

 

[320 Years of History]

Nothing you wrote in the statement to which I responded (see posts 15 and 23) pertains to Heller. It pertains to what the Founding Fathers did or didn't intend in their crafting of the Second Amendment.

Yawn.
You had your chance, son - all your huffing and puffing, and yet the house still stands.

Grow up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing you wrote in the statement to which I responded (see posts 15 and 23) pertains to Heller. It pertains to what the Founding Fathers did or didn't intend in their crafting of the Second Amendment.

Yawn.
You had your chance, son - all your huffing and puffing, and yet the house still stands.

Grow up.

Wow. Talk about a sore loser.

 

[oldsoul]

Nothing you wrote in the statement to which I responded (see posts 15 and 23) pertains to Heller. It pertains to what the Founding Fathers did or didn't intend in their crafting of the Second Amendment.

Yawn.
You had your chance, son - all your huffing and puffing, and yet the house still stands.

Grow up.

Wow. Talk about a sore loser.

If he "lost", then explain to the rest of us how, exactly, what you wrote pertains to Heller. Can't do it, can you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing you wrote in the statement to which I responded (see posts 15 and 23) pertains to Heller. It pertains to what the Founding Fathers did or didn't intend in their crafting of the Second Amendment.

Yawn.
You had your chance, son - all your huffing and puffing, and yet the house still stands.

Grow up.

Wow. Talk about a sore loser.

If he "lost", then explain to the rest of us how, exactly, what you wrote pertains to Heller. Can't do it, can you?

In post #19 I wrote:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Nothing written or argued by any of the people involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Italicized text is quoted directly from Heller:

 

[320 Years of History]

In post #19 I wrote:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Nothing written or argued by any of the people involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Italicized text is quoted directly from Heller:

Okay. Then why did you not explicitly mention Heller, provide a link directly to Heller, and most importantly, why did you offer post #19 as a reply to my post #15, which addresses only the remarks and intents of the Founders, by making a statement about the "people involved with the creation and ratification of the 2nd" if what you wanted to do was pursue a line of discussion about Heller rather than defend the second sentence above?

Once again, I point you to look at the content and reference material I provided and show who it is that nobody involved with the ratification or creation of the Second Amendment neither wrote nor argued about that Amendment having nothing to do with self-defense. I ask you to do that because that is the only thing I addressed in that post. Heller and it's content is not and has not been party to any of the points I've made. My posts 15 and 23 have had only to do with the remarks Founding Fathers made. In those two posts, it is clear from the quotes that there were Founding Fathers who did in fact remark on the matter of whether the Second Amendment has to do with self-defense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In post #19 I wrote:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Nothing written or argued by any of the people involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Italicized text is quoted directly from Heller:

Okay. Then why did you not explicitly mention Heller, provide a link directly to Heller, and most importantly, why did you offer post #19 as a reply to my post #15, which addresses only the remarks and intents of the Founders, by making a statement about the "people involved with the creation and ratification of the 2nd" if what you wanted to do was pursue a line of discussion about Heller rather than defend the second sentence above?

I'm sorry -- I must not have received a copy of your manual on "How to Discuss Things Like I Want you to " -- can you e-mail that to me?

You stated, and I responded to:

Frankly, I don't have a problem with the 2nd Amendment. I do have a problem with the loons and merchants who have coopted millions into believing that the darn thing addresses matters its authors never did say, think or intend.

In regard to the the sentence in bold: specifically, who and what?

 

[oldsoul]

Nothing you wrote in the statement to which I responded (see posts 15 and 23) pertains to Heller. It pertains to what the Founding Fathers did or didn't intend in their crafting of the Second Amendment.

Yawn.
You had your chance, son - all your huffing and puffing, and yet the house still stands.

Grow up.

Wow. Talk about a sore loser.

If he "lost", then explain to the rest of us how, exactly, what you wrote pertains to Heller. Can't do it, can you?

In post #19 I wrote:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Nothing written or argued by any of the people involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Italicized text is quoted directly from Heller:

Let's look at the enire pharagragh, from Wiki, that you "quoted", not very accuately I might add.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]"
So, as I read this, Heller addressed the issue in "federal enclaves". It was McDonald v. Chicago that addressed the matter in the states. So, again, how does Heller substantiate your arguement, when it was McDonald that addresses the States at large?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yawn.
You had your chance, son - all your huffing and puffing, and yet the house still stands.

Grow up.

Wow. Talk about a sore loser.

If he "lost", then explain to the rest of us how, exactly, what you wrote pertains to Heller. Can't do it, can you?

In post #19 I wrote:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Nothing written or argued by any of the people involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Italicized text is quoted directly from Heller:

Let's look at the enire pharagragh, from Wiki, that you "quoted", not very accuately I might add.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]"
So, as I read this, Heller addressed the issue in "federal enclaves". It was McDonald v. Chicago that addressed the matter in the states. So, again, how does Heller substantiate your arguement, when it was McDonald that addresses the States at large?

I'm sorry... you'll have to discuss something relevant to some position I've taken or argued, should you want me to respond in a non-dismissive manner.

 

[oldsoul]

Grow up.

Wow. Talk about a sore loser.

If he "lost", then explain to the rest of us how, exactly, what you wrote pertains to Heller. Can't do it, can you?

In post #19 I wrote:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Nothing written or argued by any of the people involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Italicized text is quoted directly from Heller:

Let's look at the enire pharagragh, from Wiki, that you "quoted", not very accuately I might add.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]"
So, as I read this, Heller addressed the issue in "federal enclaves". It was McDonald v. Chicago that addressed the matter in the states. So, again, how does Heller substantiate your arguement, when it was McDonald that addresses the States at large?

I'm sorry... you'll have to discuss something relevant to some position I've taken or argued, should you want me to respond in a non-dismissive manner.

So, your dismissing irrifutable fact, sounds about right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wow. Talk about a sore loser.

If he "lost", then explain to the rest of us how, exactly, what you wrote pertains to Heller. Can't do it, can you?

In post #19 I wrote:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Nothing written or argued by any of the people involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Italicized text is quoted directly from Heller:

Let's look at the enire pharagragh, from Wiki, that you "quoted", not very accuately I might add.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]"
So, as I read this, Heller addressed the issue in "federal enclaves". It was McDonald v. Chicago that addressed the matter in the states. So, again, how does Heller substantiate your arguement, when it was McDonald that addresses the States at large?

I'm sorry... you'll have to discuss something relevant to some position I've taken or argued, should you want me to respond in a non-dismissive manner.

So, your dismissing irrifutable fact, sounds about right.

Irrefutable fact.... that is irrelevant to what I said.
Not sure why you do not understand this.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm sorry -- I must not have received a copy of your manual on "How to Discuss Things Like I Want you to " -- can you e-mail that to me?

You stated, and I responded to:

Frankly, I don't have a problem with the 2nd Amendment. I do have a problem with the loons and merchants who have coopted millions into believing that the darn thing addresses matters its authors never did say, think or intend.

In regard to the the sentence in bold: specifically, who and what?

Again, answered in post #20. If you don't concur that the comments and quotes found in that post show that the authors did speak of the matter of self-defense, present an argument showing that those comments have nothing to do with self-defense. I will read a well presented argument, but your merely saying they do not address the point I argued they do is not an argument, it's a claim. If you support the claim with a cogent argument, I may even agree with you. If your provide a poor argument, I won't agree with you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm sorry -- I must not have received a copy of your manual on "How to Discuss Things Like I Want you to " -- can you e-mail that to me?

You stated, and I responded to:

Frankly, I don't have a problem with the 2nd Amendment. I do have a problem with the loons and merchants who have coopted millions into believing that the darn thing addresses matters its authors never did say, think or intend.

In regard to the the sentence in bold: specifically, who and what?

Again, answered in post #15.

Better check that, chief -- post #15 isn't yours.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm sorry -- I must not have received a copy of your manual on "How to Discuss Things Like I Want you to " -- can you e-mail that to me?

You stated, and I responded to:

Frankly, I don't have a problem with the 2nd Amendment. I do have a problem with the loons and merchants who have coopted millions into believing that the darn thing addresses matters its authors never did say, think or intend.

In regard to the the sentence in bold: specifically, who and what?

Again, answered in post #15.

Better check that, chief -- post #15 isn't yours.

Correct. My mistake. Apologies. Post #20.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm sorry -- I must not have received a copy of your manual on "How to Discuss Things Like I Want you to " -- can you e-mail that to me?

You stated, and I responded to:

Frankly, I don't have a problem with the 2nd Amendment. I do have a problem with the loons and merchants who have coopted millions into believing that the darn thing addresses matters its authors never did say, think or intend.

In regard to the the sentence in bold: specifically, who and what?

Again, answered in post #15.

Better check that, chief -- post #15 isn't yours.

Correct. My mistake. Apologies. Post #20.

Thank you.

You said:

Frankly, I don't have a problem with the 2nd Amendment. I do have a problem with the loons and merchants who have coopted millions into believing that the darn thing addresses matters its authors never did say, think or intend.

I asked

In regard to the the sentence in bold: specifically, who and what?

You'll have to point out the parts of post #20 that address these questions because I don't see it.

 

[oldsoul]

If he "lost", then explain to the rest of us how, exactly, what you wrote pertains to Heller. Can't do it, can you?

In post #19 I wrote:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Nothing written or argued by any of the people involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Italicized text is quoted directly from Heller:

Let's look at the enire pharagragh, from Wiki, that you "quoted", not very accuately I might add.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]"
So, as I read this, Heller addressed the issue in "federal enclaves". It was McDonald v. Chicago that addressed the matter in the states. So, again, how does Heller substantiate your arguement, when it was McDonald that addresses the States at large?

I'm sorry... you'll have to discuss something relevant to some position I've taken or argued, should you want me to respond in a non-dismissive manner.

So, your dismissing irrifutable fact, sounds about right.

Irrefutable fact.... that is irrelevant to what I said.
Not sure why you do not understand this.

The fact is you mis-represented the finding in Heller , how is that irrelevent to your argument, sense it is based on the ruling?

 

[FA_Q2]

Sorry for the delay.

The content you posted is completely unclear as to the specific points you raised. You specifically state that you do not like what 'the huge arms industry' has distorted and that merchants have coopted millions into believing. Those articles and statements from the framers do not address that actual charge. They are missing the key that I asked you for: What YOU think has been distorted.

??? Say what? My post, #15, speaks of only one theme: the misrepresentation of history and the nature and extent of the intent the framers had.


The nature of the misrepresentation of historical facts and framers' intent:

The Nathan Kozuskanich's quote found in post 15 explains exactly the nature and extent of distortion that I see extant in the historically oriented arguments the gun lobby presents. The reference links I provided include two scholarly papers that provide a complete -- both sides -- depiction of the views of the Founding Fathers. The NRA in advocating for gun ownership rights does nothing of the sort, and by not so doing, distorts the citizenry's perception of the intent of the Founding Fathers.

That is only if you agree with the U Penn link you cited and disagree with the valpo one.


The NRA advocates a position that is quite similar to the points raised in the Valparaiso paper. I don’t see how they distort anything if they agree with that premise and disagree with the other. The NRA or any advocacy group certainly is in no obligation to present an argument against what they advocate for when they believe that argument to be in error. Do you expect them to present data that they find erroneous?

For example, on the NRA's website, one finds in the first section titled "Does the Second Amendment Describe an Individual Right?" an abridged quote from Thomas Paine. Below I present the NRA's version of the quote and the actual quote, which in post 21 you'll see that I even provided the original source reference for Mr. Paine's statement. In presenting his actual statements below, I have emboldened the words the NRA opted to omit.

• The quote shown there is:

"[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property."

• The full quote is:

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike."


I don't think anyone needs me to explain how the NRA's representation of Mr. Paine's words is completely out of context and not at all a full and fair depiction of what the man said.

Then you would be mistaken. While the quote has been shortened rather needlessly IMHO, the meaning is not changed.


If you are referring to the latter part – it is irrelevant to the basic arguments that groups like the NRA are putting out there as a world without weapons simply does not exist. That is a fact of life and that is also never going to change. The cat is out of the bag.


What is your take on the quote as far as it being distorted? I think you and me are seeing two different meanings in those words.


Understand that I do not have the full context in which that sentence was pulled from though so perhaps more context will show something that is not in the statement itself. Paine was barely covered in your last source (and on the topic of a DUTY for people to bear arms rather than the topic at hand) and not cited one time in the opposing viewpoint.

If you and others would bother to actually read at least the two papers to which I provided links, and then examine the content on the NRA's website (or on other gun advocacy sites that claim to depict the Founder's intent), it's not at all hard to see the use of omission and contextual inaccuracy of the claims those organizations make in order to sway public opinion.

Again, you make the assertion that your internal belief is obvious. I have looked through the two sources cited and your depiction depends almost entirely on which one of those sources you believe to be correct. The NRA is not going to go into an entire history lesson to bring its points to bear – that would not be possible as the eyes of most would simply glaze over – but they agree with an interpretation of that context that you seem to disagree with.


That is fine BUT that is also not misrepresentation. There is a real debate to be had over what the framers actually meant with their wording.

Mind you, I have no objection with organizations attempting to sway opinion, particularly organizations comprised of and organized to defend the rights and freedoms of individuals. I absolutely, however, have a very big problem when such organizations do so by incompletely describing historical events. I become all the more riled when the events depicted are ones that the average citizen does not study or encounter in "gory detail" in the course of their standard K-12 education or as part of a survey-type collegiate American history class as is the case with documents such as the letters of Thomas Paine and other luminaries, or transcripts of the proceedings and debate of the Continental Congresses, or colonial legislatures.

I would love to see this covered in schools around the country. Unfortunately, schools no longer feel the need to teach anything about civics or historical context anymore and that is unlikely to change. This is, of course, not an issue that advocate groups have any control over or can really change beyond putting their interpretation out there.

When I ages ago began seeing quotes from various gun lobby entities, I initially was inclined to accept that they "fairly present in all material respects," to use accounting parlance, the intent of the Founders. However, I also felt compelled to check to see if that was so, perhaps because I took to heart Ronald Reagan's admonishment "trust, but verify." And verify I did.


It was upon doing so that I discovered the sorts of misrepresentations one'll discover too upon reading either the source documents (referenced in the papers for which I provided links) or the papers I noted earlier. Now, are the comparisons such as the Paine one I provide above laid out for the reader in those papers? No, they are not, and, quite frankly, I'm not going to lay out each and every one of them for readers here either. The reader must undertake one their own to perform that analysis. Were they to conduct their own first hand intellectually rigorous investigation of what the founders actually thought and meant, they like one scholar after another would find that "[c]ontrary to the claim of some modern gun rights advocates, robust regulation of firearms is not only compatible with the Second Amendment, it is an essential part of the founders' vision of how guns fit within the framework of well regulated liberty."

And I think this is where you are actually misrepresenting what such groups actually advocate for.


Virtually no one claims that ‘robust’ gun regulation is against the second amendment. The problem is that we ALREAY HAVE such regulation. Guns are extremely regulated in all aspects from creation to death. To claim otherwise is ignoring the reams of laws on the books right now.


What IS in contention is the states right to further regulate them arbitrarily and even remove your right entirely. That is clearly against the second amendment no matter what side you are taking on the debate.


To be fair, the original intent argument for those that want to make this a collective right rather than a personal one is moot at this point – we have a standing army no matter the FACT that the framers did not trust a standing army. In that context – the idea that the militia was to fill the need for the common defense – the second no longer has any real connection with its original intent. Only in that context though and I want to be clear that I believe the argument that the second is a ‘collective’ to be wholly inaccurate and the arguments put forth strain the meaning of words.

To end my comments on the nature and extent of the historical distortions effected by gun advocacy groups and individuals I will just say that without exception, when I observe individuals or groups who/that don't present the full story, I unavoidably wonder why would they not do so. Time and time again, my experience has revealed that people only tell their side, a selected subset, of a set of undeniable facts when they have a motive other than sharing information and just letting folks, decision makers and influencers, use that information to arrive at their own conclusion. That is, when they have a vested interest in our concluding in agreement with them. Most often that vested interest relates, sooner or later, to money.

I think you are asking for something that is completely unreasonable. My take on what you mean by ‘the whole’ argument is that you want them to present an opinion or take on the historical context that they believe to be incorrect. While YOU must look at both sides to determine what you believe to be the correct line of thought – they have (hopefully) done that and found that they ascribe to an interpretation of the context that supports the view they are now advocating for. Why then would you ask them to support interpretation that they have found to be incorrect? That is rather silly. There are plenty of advocacy groups that will do that for them – those that advocate against those views. They certainly should not be trying to subvert what they see as a correct and rational interpretation of historical context.


Further, the average person is simply not going to read through 50 pages of documents to get to the conclusion of what the advocacy group is trying to push for. Heck, YOU won’t even get into it here – you link to a few sites and say that we should read the information there.

For additional scholarly reference material on the historical intent of the Second Amendment, its writers, and the people who debated and ratified it and similar state constitutional provisions see Second Amendment Law Library . One can find an enumeration and brief depictions of numerous court decisions pertaining to the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment here: Cooking Up A Collective Right , and unlike the NRA's site, one will find too that the author makes a point to note, even when a decision favors the anti-individual rights point of view, whether the opinion writing justice was considered an loon so as not to depict the opinon as being among the best, even if it does support the author's point of view. (Be that as it may, the author cites specific cases and one can look up and read the opinions and background (case and justices) for oneself and determine whether one agrees or not with the author's presentation of the facts. Frankly, I think one should do exactly that if one has a strong view on the legitimacy of the Second Amendment's history and intent.)

Yes, we should. Why do you think an advocacy group would though? Those are 2 entirely different things – a person finding what they believe and a group that has already found what they believe and wants to show others WHY.

Contrast the presentation of past thought and expression on the Second Amendment there with what the NRA presents on the same topic. Once again, one discovers that the NRA's depiction is woefully incomplete. No, the author doesn't present all cases that support both points of view, but he does present the full picture of the ones he cites. And, to reiterate, my "issue" is with the incomplete, and thus distorted, presentation of historical events, and not necessarily with the conclusions one, or the NRA, draws from them.


The "gun industry's" role in the whole matter of regulation:

I wrote that the distortion issues from the "gun industry." That the gun industry is behind the misrepresentations of which I wrote wasn't and isn't the point of my having mentioned it; however, I'll explain why I did mention that industry.


I wrote that because of the economic support the consumer goods segment of the arms industry provides huge sums of money to the NRA and other gun advocacy groups. I also wrote that because the legislation for which the NRA advocates doesn't conform to the views of the majority of its individual members according to a 2011 poll. I am not alone in seeing the NRA as being the primary advocacy outlet for the gun industry, even though strictly speaking the National Shooting Sports Federation is the gun industry's main trade association. Some companies even go so far as to donate portions of their sales directly to the NRA, for example:

• Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA.
• Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns.
• Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions.

I'm not suggesting that the contributions are illegal. I'm saying that they constitute a plurality of the funding the NRA obtains. I'm saying that in choosing whose views and interests to support, those of a single entity/person who directs millions to the organization are given far more consideration than are those of individual gun owners who contribute vastly less than millions, or even hundreds of thousands.

This is a different issue though. For one, I could care less if the NRA supposedly supports a view that a poll says a majority of its members do not. Those members are free to come and go as they please and polls are, for the most part, garbage. It is well known that the mere phrasing of a question can drastically change the outcome of the poll. This is particularly true when it comes to gun related issues and other hot button political issues.


There is also the fact that you have declared the NRA choosing to support issues they chose those issues based on the views of their donors. That is rather one sided, do you not think so? Do the donors not choose who to donate to based on whether or not they are already supporting those issues?


While I have no doubt that large monetary donations have a significant effect on the direction and scope of the advocacy groups they donate to (including the NRA) I fail to see how that has anything to do with distortions of historical context. I refute the premise that you laid out above in the assertion that the NRA is distorting historical context. I think that they have merely come to a different conclusion than you have.


That is not distortion – that is simply being incorrect (from your POV).

No surprise there; that's the way things work for any organization. The impact of the disparity in supporting contribution size between "Mark, Mary and Mike gun owner/enthusiast" and, say, Sturm Rugar has a huge impact that is seen every time we hear of some crazy shooter: the NRA goes into defense mode to do everything it can to make sure that Sturm's fortunes aren't adversely affected by gun legislation. This even as the poll noted above shows that a majority of NRA individual contributors/members support stricter gun ownership legislation. Therein lies the problem. The NRA, understandably, doesn't want to compromise its revenue streams, the lion's share of which come from corporations and in not risking those funds, the NRA ends up subordinating the interests and wishes of the majority of its members to those of the largest contributors to its coffers.

Then those members should cease being members and that would solve the problem entirely. They do not though and I think that speaks to the accuracy of those actual polls. Apparently, those member still believe that the NRA is mostly correct in its advocacy and that they represent them fairly accurately (no organization is 100 percent with its members as that is impossible).


I do not support the NRA but for completely different reasons than what has been covered in this thread. They are a single issue agency and during Sandy Hook they showed that the easy rout of shifting the attacks to OTHER freedoms and blaming them (ironically calling for stricter regulations in that arena) was a justifiable defense of gun ownership. That was despicable and not worth of any support IMHO.



Well, that was long but I would like to see your response. I might not have gotten into as much detail as you might have liked (most of my comments are about the same theme) but I hope that it was adequate in what you were looking for.

 

[FA_Q2]

In post #19 I wrote:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Nothing written or argued by any of the people involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Italicized text is quoted directly from Heller:

Let's look at the enire pharagragh, from Wiki, that you "quoted", not very accuately I might add.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]"
So, as I read this, Heller addressed the issue in "federal enclaves". It was McDonald v. Chicago that addressed the matter in the states. So, again, how does Heller substantiate your arguement, when it was McDonald that addresses the States at large?

I'm sorry... you'll have to discuss something relevant to some position I've taken or argued, should you want me to respond in a non-dismissive manner.

So, your dismissing irrifutable fact, sounds about right.

Irrefutable fact.... that is irrelevant to what I said.
Not sure why you do not understand this.

The fact is you mis-represented the finding in Heller , how is that irrelevent to your argument, sense it is based on the ruling?

?


What are you talking about? He has been talking about the fact that Heller found the second was an INDIVIDUAL right – that is irrelevant to incorporation. He did not misrepresent Heller at all.

 

[oldsoul]

Let's look at the enire pharagragh, from Wiki, that you "quoted", not very accuately I might add.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]"
So, as I read this, Heller addressed the issue in "federal enclaves". It was McDonald v. Chicago that addressed the matter in the states. So, again, how does Heller substantiate your arguement, when it was McDonald that addresses the States at large?

I'm sorry... you'll have to discuss something relevant to some position I've taken or argued, should you want me to respond in a non-dismissive manner.

So, your dismissing irrifutable fact, sounds about right.

Irrefutable fact.... that is irrelevant to what I said.
Not sure why you do not understand this.

The fact is you mis-represented the finding in Heller , how is that irrelevent to your argument, sense it is based on the ruling?

?


What are you talking about? He has been talking about the fact that Heller found the second was an INDIVIDUAL right – that is irrelevant to incorporation. He did not misrepresent Heller at all.

As I said above Heller concerned feral enclaves, and it would be accurate to say that it does not nessicarily hold for the states at large, hence the McDonald finding... Was I unclear on that point? He was claiming that Heller was a decision that affects the entire nation, when the finding, and case, was specific to fereal enclaves.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In post #19 I wrote:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Nothing written or argued by any of the people involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Italicized text is quoted directly from Heller:

Let's look at the enire pharagragh, from Wiki, that you "quoted", not very accuately I might add.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]"
So, as I read this, Heller addressed the issue in "federal enclaves". It was McDonald v. Chicago that addressed the matter in the states. So, again, how does Heller substantiate your arguement, when it was McDonald that addresses the States at large?

I'm sorry... you'll have to discuss something relevant to some position I've taken or argued, should you want me to respond in a non-dismissive manner.

So, your dismissing irrifutable fact, sounds about right.

Irrefutable fact.... that is irrelevant to what I said.
Not sure why you do not understand this.

The fact is you mis-represented the finding in Heller

I mis-represented nothing; nothing I said about Heller had anything to do with its application to the states or federal enclaves.