Disappointing partisanship from NRA CEO

Do you honestly think that is possible? Even desireable? What would you replace it with? Unicorn farts?

Do I think it is possible? Not currently. Income tax at one time was not possible either.

Then something called an amendment took place.. MY MY

Really? What would the amendment say? There shall be no more money in the United States?
Do you actually think these things through before posting them? Because Seabytch sure doesnt.

Hey Rabid, you must have gotten some of your spittle on your computer screen because I posted the proposed amendment already:

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."
 
I've always been a supporter of the NRA's cause, which as I understand it, is defending the 2nd Amendment. But this speech from Wayne LaPierre indicates that defending the 2nd Amendment has taken a back seat to supporting the GOP. That's very disappointing to me.

And you’re just realizing this now?

Yes, the NRA has been a shill for the GOP for at least the last 20 years, if not much longer - certainly since the 94 AWB.

The problem for the NRA now is they’re a victim of their own success: with two major Supreme Court victories and liberal jurists considering those rulings settled law – along with liberals and democrats in the political arena staying far away from anything remotely looking like ‘gun control’ – the NRA will struggle to find any relevance with gun control issues alone. With the smokescreen of ‘protecting Second Amendment Rights’ now gone, the reality of the NRA as a partisan organization will be clear for all to see.
 
No, the cop would need a warrant...which of course has NOTHING to do with the point at hand. We were talking about federal oversight of schools and the 2nd amendment. I understand that states must comply with the federal constitution, especially when the amendments have been incorporated but bringing up cops busting down doors is red herring. You were simply wrong with the "ok, let's explore that" examples you brought up. were

The reason the cop needs a WARRANT is to protect the person's Constitutional Rights which as EVERYTHING to do with the point at hand.

"Amendments have been incorporated"?????? What do you mean incorporated? There is no "incorporation" if you're implying that the states have a choice in following them.

So again I ask......

Children are entitled to the same Bill of Rights as everyone else. Does that mean preventing a 6 year old child from taking a loaded gun to school is an infringement?

Felons, once their sentence is complete, have their rights restored to them. Does that mean laws preventing them from carrying a gun is an infringement?

I already answered your question and if you don't know what incorporation is all about, you've got some studying to do. Good luck with that.

You didn't answer shit. You're just dodging the questions. And if you think that state and local governments have an option to following the Constitution then YOU have a hell of a lot more studying to do. :cuckoo:
 
The reason the cop needs a WARRANT is to protect the person's Constitutional Rights which as EVERYTHING to do with the point at hand.

"Amendments have been incorporated"?????? What do you mean incorporated? There is no "incorporation" if you're implying that the states have a choice in following them.

So again I ask......

Children are entitled to the same Bill of Rights as everyone else. Does that mean preventing a 6 year old child from taking a loaded gun to school is an infringement?

Felons, once their sentence is complete, have their rights restored to them. Does that mean laws preventing them from carrying a gun is an infringement?

I already answered your question and if you don't know what incorporation is all about, you've got some studying to do. Good luck with that.

You didn't answer shit. You're just dodging the questions. And if you think that state and local governments have an option to following the Constitution then YOU have a hell of a lot more studying to do. :cuckoo:

I probably should not say anything here but here is your information on incorporation.
Constitutional Topic: The Bill of Rights - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
The Bill of Rights, or more appropriately the Bill of Federal limitations, was initially between the States and the Federal government. It did not apply to us as individuals. When a "right" is incorporated then you and I have it. This is why when someone talks about getting rid of the 14th Amendment, we should be eyeballing them really hard.

The 2nd Amendment was not incorporated and, thus, did not apply to you or I as individuals until recently. McDonald V Chicago is the Supreme Court case that incorporated this for you and I.
The case is located here:
McDonald v. Chicago | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

You will not lose this unless you destroy the basis for incorporation.
 
Do I think it is possible? Not currently. Income tax at one time was not possible either.

Then something called an amendment took place.. MY MY

Really? What would the amendment say? There shall be no more money in the United States?
Do you actually think these things through before posting them? Because Seabytch sure doesnt.

Hey Rabid, you must have gotten some of your spittle on your computer screen because I posted the proposed amendment already:

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

You forgot to take out any mention of term limits in the Constitution as well. This way Obama can really be President for Life.
Your fascist, undemocratic and downright stupid amendment has a ghost chance in hell.
 
Question: If no person or corporation can spend money on elections, how will elections be funded?

Answer: we do not attempt in this amendment to determine how federal campaigns will be funded post-passage. Instead, we cut off the Supreme Court’s ability to strike down previous attempts to reign in campaign fundraising abuses by taking away the argument that money is speech as interpreted from the First Amendment by the high Court. A likely scenario would be that Congress would establish a federal campaign fund to finance elections. For example, a presidential campaign fund already exists. There are myriad ways to establish and stock such a fund many of which do not cost the taxpayer a single dime. This could include auctioning the airwaves among other things. In the end though we aren’t trying to tell Congress what it should do once it “sobers up”. Instead, we are simply attempting to get Congress off of its addiction to money.

Get the Money Out FAQ
Nice try but that answer leave out one crucial point: how do we determine who gets that campaign money? How do we decide who runs? Do you really want the existing government to make that call. I like the idea somewhat as well but in all fairness, it simply cannot work. Without any campaign funding, voting will be like throwing dice. What name sounds the best? With the government paying there will be a hundred thousand people running for president each year. If we limit that number then that gives the existing government the ability to choose who they are running against. Not a better scenario by a long shot. At least at this time there are competing interests that fund campaigns on both sides. The only thing that I see as a necessity is the fact that all contributions should be 100% visible. Other than that, I can't see how we would run the elections.
 
Question: If no person or corporation can spend money on elections, how will elections be funded?

Answer: we do not attempt in this amendment to determine how federal campaigns will be funded post-passage. Instead, we cut off the Supreme Court’s ability to strike down previous attempts to reign in campaign fundraising abuses by taking away the argument that money is speech as interpreted from the First Amendment by the high Court. A likely scenario would be that Congress would establish a federal campaign fund to finance elections. For example, a presidential campaign fund already exists. There are myriad ways to establish and stock such a fund many of which do not cost the taxpayer a single dime. This could include auctioning the airwaves among other things. In the end though we aren’t trying to tell Congress what it should do once it “sobers up”. Instead, we are simply attempting to get Congress off of its addiction to money.

Get the Money Out FAQ
Nice try but that answer leave out one crucial point: how do we determine who gets that campaign money? How do we decide who runs? Do you really want the existing government to make that call. I like the idea somewhat as well but in all fairness, it simply cannot work. Without any campaign funding, voting will be like throwing dice. What name sounds the best? With the government paying there will be a hundred thousand people running for president each year. If we limit that number then that gives the existing government the ability to choose who they are running against. Not a better scenario by a long shot. At least at this time there are competing interests that fund campaigns on both sides. The only thing that I see as a necessity is the fact that all contributions should be 100% visible. Other than that, I can't see how we would run the elections.

It goes beyond that. The incumbent is generally in the news a lot because he is the incumbent. Over the years incumbents have had an increasing record of retaining their seats. This correlates with election contrbution laws. Such an amendment would all but guarantee that incumbents would win far more frequently.
I agree that the main criterion ought to be transparency. If Mr SoandSo is being bought by the Tobacco Lobby I want everyone to know that before voting.
 
Question: If no person or corporation can spend money on elections, how will elections be funded?

Answer: we do not attempt in this amendment to determine how federal campaigns will be funded post-passage. Instead, we cut off the Supreme Court’s ability to strike down previous attempts to reign in campaign fundraising abuses by taking away the argument that money is speech as interpreted from the First Amendment by the high Court. A likely scenario would be that Congress would establish a federal campaign fund to finance elections. For example, a presidential campaign fund already exists. There are myriad ways to establish and stock such a fund many of which do not cost the taxpayer a single dime. This could include auctioning the airwaves among other things. In the end though we aren’t trying to tell Congress what it should do once it “sobers up”. Instead, we are simply attempting to get Congress off of its addiction to money.

Get the Money Out FAQ
Nice try but that answer leave out one crucial point: how do we determine who gets that campaign money? How do we decide who runs? Do you really want the existing government to make that call. I like the idea somewhat as well but in all fairness, it simply cannot work. Without any campaign funding, voting will be like throwing dice. What name sounds the best? With the government paying there will be a hundred thousand people running for president each year. If we limit that number then that gives the existing government the ability to choose who they are running against. Not a better scenario by a long shot. At least at this time there are competing interests that fund campaigns on both sides. The only thing that I see as a necessity is the fact that all contributions should be 100% visible. Other than that, I can't see how we would run the elections.

I have a feeling that could be figured out. Nomination signatures is one way it can be done.

There are something like 25 lobbyists to every one congressman. We need to get the money out.
 
Jon all the gun legaslation obama had signed was small fry compared to his cover up and true intention behind operation gun runner.
 
Question: If no person or corporation can spend money on elections, how will elections be funded?

Answer: we do not attempt in this amendment to determine how federal campaigns will be funded post-passage. Instead, we cut off the Supreme Court’s ability to strike down previous attempts to reign in campaign fundraising abuses by taking away the argument that money is speech as interpreted from the First Amendment by the high Court. A likely scenario would be that Congress would establish a federal campaign fund to finance elections. For example, a presidential campaign fund already exists. There are myriad ways to establish and stock such a fund many of which do not cost the taxpayer a single dime. This could include auctioning the airwaves among other things. In the end though we aren’t trying to tell Congress what it should do once it “sobers up”. Instead, we are simply attempting to get Congress off of its addiction to money.

Get the Money Out FAQ
Nice try but that answer leave out one crucial point: how do we determine who gets that campaign money? How do we decide who runs? Do you really want the existing government to make that call. I like the idea somewhat as well but in all fairness, it simply cannot work. Without any campaign funding, voting will be like throwing dice. What name sounds the best? With the government paying there will be a hundred thousand people running for president each year. If we limit that number then that gives the existing government the ability to choose who they are running against. Not a better scenario by a long shot. At least at this time there are competing interests that fund campaigns on both sides. The only thing that I see as a necessity is the fact that all contributions should be 100% visible. Other than that, I can't see how we would run the elections.

I have a feeling that could be figured out. Nomination signatures is one way it can be done.

There are something like 25 lobbyists to every one congressman. We need to get the money out.

You keep saying that like it's a) possible and b) desirable. Neither one is true. There will always be money in politics, just as there always has been money in politics.
As the SC mentioned, money is speech when it comes especially to political matters. You want to muzzle people's free speech? That makes you something like a totalitarian.
 
Do you honestly think that is possible? Even desireable? What would you replace it with? Unicorn farts?

Do I think it is possible? Not currently. Income tax at one time was not possible either.

Then something called an amendment took place.. MY MY

Really? What would the amendment say? There shall be no more money in the United States?
Do you actually think these things through before posting them? Because Seabytch sure doesnt.

LOL You should look it up. Since I just reviewed those amendments I would encourage you to do the same. I have been neg repped by 4500 points defending you, at least you could pull your head out of your ass for this discussion...................
 
Do I think it is possible? Not currently. Income tax at one time was not possible either.

Then something called an amendment took place.. MY MY

Really? What would the amendment say? There shall be no more money in the United States?
Do you actually think these things through before posting them? Because Seabytch sure doesnt.

LOL You should look it up. Since I just reviewed those amendments I would encourage you to do the same. I have been neg repped by 4500 points defending you, at least you could pull your head out of your ass for this discussion...................

Youre way behind here. SOmeone posted the text and I've been pointing out the obvious problems.
We need MORE money in politics, not less. But with the proviso of transparency.
 
Really? What would the amendment say? There shall be no more money in the United States?
Do you actually think these things through before posting them? Because Seabytch sure doesnt.

LOL You should look it up. Since I just reviewed those amendments I would encourage you to do the same. I have been neg repped by 4500 points defending you, at least you could pull your head out of your ass for this discussion...................

Youre way behind here. SOmeone posted the text and I've been pointing out the obvious problems.
We need MORE money in politics, not less. But with the proviso of transparency.

As long as private money funds politicians, corruption will always exist. It has always existed since our founding. Clearly it needs a tune up.

One of the suggestions should be those seeking audience with a lawmaker must do so in their respective state. There are many way to level the playing field which is why it needs discussion not ridicule.
 
I've always been a supporter of the NRA's cause, which as I understand it, is defending the 2nd Amendment. But this speech from Wayne LaPierre indicates that defending the 2nd Amendment has taken a back seat to supporting the GOP. That's very disappointing to me.

Sure, I know some of you will immediately dismiss this because it was run on the Daily Show, but the facts speak for themselves.

Wayne's World - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 09/29/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
thats because supporting the GOP is defending the 2nd Amendment !!:eusa_eh:

Name 3 things done under the Bush administration to protect the 2nd amendment. I will help, nothing. Name the last pro gun legislation pushed by the NRA ? Ill help, none. Last court case ? get the idea ? they fund campaigns now
 
I've always been a supporter of the NRA's cause, which as I understand it, is defending the 2nd Amendment. But this speech from Wayne LaPierre indicates that defending the 2nd Amendment has taken a back seat to supporting the GOP. That's very disappointing to me.

Sure, I know some of you will immediately dismiss this because it was run on the Daily Show, but the facts speak for themselves.

Wayne's World - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 09/29/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
thats because supporting the GOP is defending the 2nd Amendment !!:eusa_eh:

Name 3 things done under the Bush administration to protect the 2nd amendment. I will help, nothing. Name the last pro gun legislation pushed by the NRA ? Ill help, none. Last court case ? get the idea ? they fund campaigns now

Name the last pro gun legislation pushed by the NRA ? Ill help, none.

The NRA was silent about carry in national parks? Really?
 
I've always been a supporter of the NRA's cause, which as I understand it, is defending the 2nd Amendment. But this speech from Wayne LaPierre indicates that defending the 2nd Amendment has taken a back seat to supporting the GOP. That's very disappointing to me.

Sure, I know some of you will immediately dismiss this because it was run on the Daily Show, but the facts speak for themselves.

Wayne's World - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 09/29/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
thats because supporting the GOP is defending the 2nd Amendment !!:eusa_eh:

Name 3 things done under the Bush administration to protect the 2nd amendment. I will help, nothing. Name the last pro gun legislation pushed by the NRA ? Ill help, none. Last court case ? get the idea ? they fund campaigns now

Let's not forget about the true intent of operation gunrunner
 
I was under the impression the NRA was the main lobbying arm of weapons manufacturers and dealers. That the 2nd amendment was not the purview of the NRA. Because the NRA ignores the "well regulated militia" bit.

How exactly? It doesn't say "A well regulated militia is a requirement to keep and bare arms".

Mike

yes we have the constitutional right to wear short sleeved shirts.
 
Gun rights are among the stupidest motivator of the dumb voter. No one is taking your gun, nor mommy's skirt for you to hide behind or obfuscate important issues. The odd coalition of the disturbed that make up the right wing in America represents why there is no hope for sanity among the insane. The least important thing in most people's lives is whether they are armed and dangerous. Let's see I have no healthcare, no job, no pension, no 401k, no home, no prospects but I have my gun, hallelujah, 'my gun keep me warm and safe and I'm gonna vote for Congressman Steal-em-Blind Buffoon cause I supports the NRA et al and they supports me gun. Congressman Buffoon hes on our side.'

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud-- I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. " In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."

It is impossible to understand the current Second Amendment debate without lingering over Burger's words. Burger was a cautious person as well as a conservative judge, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court is unlikely to offer a controversial position on a constitutional question in an interview on national television."

The Most Mysterious Right | The New Republic

Strange. A good many voters in both party's disagree with you there. And its stupid enough for the beloved "blue dog democrats" to go suck Lapierre's balls for an A+ rating on second amendment issues.
 
thats because supporting the GOP is defending the 2nd Amendment !!:eusa_eh:

Name 3 things done under the Bush administration to protect the 2nd amendment. I will help, nothing. Name the last pro gun legislation pushed by the NRA ? Ill help, none. Last court case ? get the idea ? they fund campaigns now

Let's not forget about the true intent of operation gunrunner

No, lets not. Where is the NRA on this ? Why aren't they throwing gobs of money at this ? No, instead they blew a chunk on the bogus court case in NOLA for an easy victory so they can bring some meat home to the members they have left.
 
LOL You should look it up. Since I just reviewed those amendments I would encourage you to do the same. I have been neg repped by 4500 points defending you, at least you could pull your head out of your ass for this discussion...................

Youre way behind here. SOmeone posted the text and I've been pointing out the obvious problems.
We need MORE money in politics, not less. But with the proviso of transparency.

As long as private money funds politicians, corruption will always exist. It has always existed since our founding. Clearly it needs a tune up.

One of the suggestions should be those seeking audience with a lawmaker must do so in their respective state. There are many way to level the playing field which is why it needs discussion not ridicule.

Clearly the idea needs to be ridiculed and then scrapped. You keep talking about "tuning it up" or fine tuning it or reforming it.
None of that is possible, which is why you are incredibly vague about it. The only real solution is to shine the light of day on the cockroaches in office to make them behave.
I do not "seek an audience" with lawmakers. They are not kings. I will not bow to them. You can do as you will.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top