# At The Demonstartion Against The NRA. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 20, 2018, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805 "2018-04-20T18:27:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/221 "2018-04-23T20:01:31Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It keeps popping up because as a factual matter, the positions advanced by **Whack-a-Mole** have been false. Post #59 where he asserted that SCOTUS said we can ban all weapons except the guns you could buy in 1791, and in post#198 where he asserted that 70 years of precedent was overturned\*. As a matter of fact, those assertions are false. Do you also believe that _Miller_ was not overturned in reality, or just in the woulda/shoulda/coulda sense? Like I said, if the arguments are hypothetical then sure, we can go down the rabbit hole. But if the conclusions and arguments in any hypothetical are predicated on a foundation that is false, then that renders everything that follows suspect. > \*also post 206 with the stolen SCOTUS nomination, but that seems less like an assertion of fact than an expression of opinion so I’ll leave that out. Do you know where you are? You’re a moderator so I would hope so but let me help you out: We are in the “Great Debates” section of the message board. As I pointed out earlier if all you mean to do is cite what the law says and deem that the end to the conversation then that is the end to debate. For my part I am exploring the rationale and logic of what the court is saying. Just because a majority said something does not make them right. If we were in 1858 arguing about Dred Scott v Sanford and I said I think black people are people would you quote Chief Justice Taney and claim I am “factually wrong” because Taney wrote for the majority: > [@](#): > > The words “people of the United States” and “citizens” are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the “sovereign people,” and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate [p405] and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them. > > SOURCE: [DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393#writing-USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO) Just because a court says a thing does not make it logically so. It may well be law and we have to deal with it but that in no way is an indication it is right or just or even makes sense. I really am unsure of the point you are trying to make with all this. Honestly it looks like an effort to distract from the logical and obvious shortcomings that the current jurisprudence has on the subject by citing what the law is as though that should be the end of the debate because there is no debate in your mind. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/222 "2018-04-23T20:06:18Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The gun lobby can offer a bit of money, but their main stock in trade? Rabid one-issue voters. Very true, like Senior citizens and Social Security. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/223 "2018-04-23T20:09:35Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Very true, like Senior citizens and Social Security. Us senior citizens vote on a wide variety of issues. Nice toss, but it doesn’t stick. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/224 "2018-04-23T20:11:24Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Us senior citizens vote on a wide variety of issues. Nice toss, but it doesn’t stick. I am one also, and trust me, mess with SocSec, and it will be bad for that politician. True, not quite as single issue as the gun-nuts. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/225 "2018-04-23T20:46:27Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > As I pointed out earlier if all you mean to do is cite what the law says and deem that the end to the conversation then that is the end to debate. For my part I am exploring the rationale and logic of what the court is saying. Just because a majority said something does not make them right. That’s true, the majority does not have a monopoly on determining what is right from a morality perspective. That’s not at all the point of disagreement. What we are disagreeing about is what the majority actually said. You seem to think that the majority said something they didn’t actually say. _SCOTUS said we can ban all weapons except the guns you could buy in 1791_ vs. _SCOTUS should have said only the guns available in 1791 are protected_ Do you see the difference? The first is wrong as a matter of fact. The second is debatable. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/226 "2018-04-23T20:47:30Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You said you haven’t read _Miller_, but [here is the holding](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174): Maybe you missed this bit (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power – > > To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. > > **With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.** > > SOURCE: [UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/227 "2018-04-23T20:55:21Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Wrong. The early Bill of Rights was a special case, negotiated in tandem with the Constitution. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were ratified only because after the Civil War, when southern states were still defiantly opposed to anti-slavery measures, federal authorities stepped in, removing some legislators, waiving the 2/3 requirement on a Constitution, etc. (Mississippi finally ratified the 13th Amendment in … 2013.) Is that how Democrats are going to repeal the Second Amendment? By sending in federal troops to disband legislatures across the South? Are you claiming that the 2nd Amendment can’t be overturned except by civil war?? If so, then do you have a cite for this incredible claim? As far as I know, the ‘Bill of Rights’ merely refers to the first 10 Amendments, and functionally is exactly the same as the other Amendments…which we know, for a fact, can be altered, since we have the precedence of the 18th/21st. Now, if I’m missing something here and, in fact, the first 10 Amendments are cast in stone to forever stand unchallenged and unchanged for all time, feel free to show me that and I will be happy to say I was wrong. > [@](#): > > So exactly which controversial Amendments have been ratified easily, XT ? Any that you think might have a chance in today’s divided America? Well, it’s your word that it would be ‘ratified easily’. I never said anything remotely like that. I merely said it could and can be done if there is enough political will to do so. As to a divided America, when has American NOT been divided on one issue or another? For all of our history our people have been in rancorous opposition to one group or another, and it’s no different today than it was at the very start of the nation. We got through other squabbles and dissension, and we will get through this as well. If enough people eventually agree that we no longer need a protected right to keep and bear arms then it will be changed. If not…not. And currently, regardless of the political squabbling of the two parties and the NRA and anti-gun movement(s) such a majority of voters does not exist. The nation is still divided, and today there are still more people who want to preserve the right to keep and bear arms protected by the 2nd than wants to remove it. That said, I think that more people are willing to work within the system to regulate and control fire arms than not, today, and as long as you stay to the spirit of the Constitution you can do so. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/228 "2018-04-23T21:01:41Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The idea that the right to have a gun is an individual right is a new one. Something brought into existence with the Heller decision. A decision that overturned 70 years of precedent. > > I’ll let this summary of the dissent justice Stevens wrote spell it out. No, it isn’t. It was originally put forth by Madison when he drafted the actual Amendment. This isn’t something new, and only deep ignorance of things like the Federalist Papers and the writings of Madison and others during his time could lead you to think such a ridiculous thing. I know others have talked to you about the legal aspect of this, which you don’t seem to accept (I wonder if you’d be open to others making similar arguments about failed USSC decisions), and I can’t speak to that, being neither a lawyer nor much interested in fine legal points. But from a purely historic perspective it’s ridiculous to say that the original intent of the authors was to limit the amendment to only those in the militia. It goes against everything they stood for and sets things completely back assward to the reality. Same goes for thinking they weren’t trying to create a personal right of the (white, male) citizens in their new nation to keep and bear arms, because it’s a theme that’s impossible not to see with even cursory reading of their various writings as well as the context they were writing this under (i.e. a rebellion against the preeminent world power, a power that had systematically denied a personal right to a fire arm at home in order to protect it’s power as well as the privilege of it’s nobility, etc etc). I find this entire line of argument distasteful, as it stems either from ignorance or deceit, since it’s plain the FF’s DID feel a personal right to keep and bear arms was essential. I find it more genuine those who say, instead, that what the FF may or may not have written is irrelevant to the world we live in today, that things have changed and our Constitution is, by design written with change as a mechanism by which things no longer relevant can be removed or modified and that this is what we should be doing, instead of endless wrangling about things that they are either ignorant of or using the ignorance of others to twist to their own designs. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/229 "2018-04-23T21:01:42Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Shotguns? > > And people laugh and say “slippery slope” when the gun people say that new gun laws will just lead to more, that banning “assault weapons” will just lead to more gun bannings. Oh, I’m just getting warmed up. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/230 "2018-04-23T21:08:22Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The idea that the right to have a gun is an individual right is a new one. Let’s start with this. Here is the finding from [_United States v. Cruikshank_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank), a case from 1876 where the court was asked about incorporation (applying the Bill of Rights to the States). While the court, at the time, decided against incorporating the 5th, it did state: _The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence._ This is what is meant when someone says “the right to keep and bear arms pre-dates the 2nd amendment”, and so the idea that the 2nd amendment restricts the use of guns to militias is not something the court endorsed in 1876. An individual right to keep and bear arms is not a new idea. It should be noted that the court, in this case, decided against incorporation for the 2nd amendment but it also decided against incorporation for the 1st amendment. Ideas about incorporation were quite different in that time than is typically seen today. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/231 "2018-04-23T21:09:54Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Maybe you missed this bit (bolding mine): I did not miss it. I’ve actually read _Miller_. We can try this a different way. Your assertion was that precedent was overturned. Can you identify which precedent was overturned? For example, when \*[Obergefell](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556#writing-14-556_OPINION_3)\*overruled _Baker v. Nelson_, the court said this (my bold): > [@](#): > > The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them. **Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled** , and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. That’s pretty clear. If I were to say, \*Obergefell \*overturned 44 years of precedent, that would be a slam dunk cite. Your assertion that 70 years of precedent was overturned however, is directly contradicted by the controlling opinion. From \*Heller \*after discussion of the dissent: > [@](#): > > We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment . We’re not yet at the point where we are discussing the rationale and logic of what the court is saying. The disagreement isn’t about rationale and logic - it’s about what they actually said. It takes the form of _SCOTUS said X based on Y_. I’m not saying addressing Y at all because you are mistaken about X. You seem to think they said things that they did not actually say. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/232 "2018-04-23T21:17:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > …_The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence._… Did somebody take an excerpt out of Hegel and translate it to American legalese? No doubt this phrasing is crisply precise and crystal clear, but me and Señor Moment are having a bit of trouble… ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/233 "2018-04-23T21:41:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, I disagree. Unless there is actually a federal law saying states can’t secede, it is not “quite clear” on that issue. [Texas v. White](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White), confirming the ruling at Appomattox Court House in the case of Grant v. Lee. > [@](#): > > The federal government only has those powers explicitly given to it by the states. [Commerce Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause), among other things. > [@](#): > > The feds aren’t supreme; they don’t have plenary power. Federal law, once codified, is supreme. There is a difference. The feds’ power comes from federal law, confirmed by the [Supremacy Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause), among other things. What’s your problem? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/234 "2018-04-23T21:47:29Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Did somebody take an excerpt out of Hegel and translate it to American legalese? > > No doubt this phrasing is crisply precise and crystal clear, but me and Señor Moment are having a bit of trouble… He’s just saying that the constitution doesn’t “grant” the right. The people have the right, and they had it before the constitution existed. The constitution can recognize a right, but it doesn’t grant a right. You might remember that bit about us hyoo-mans being endowed with certain unalienable rights endowed by our Creator. **Elvis** : Yes, _Texas v White_ established the precedent. But that case was decided after 1860, not before. We were talking about the state of affairs in 1860, not in 1869, after the war was over and lost by The South. If it was “quite clear” prior to that case, we wouldn’t have needed the case in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/235 "2018-04-23T21:52:45Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment . So Scalia said the above in Heller. The Miller decision said the following (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. > > **With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.** > > SOURCE: [UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174) Square that with (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > Holding: (1) 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. > > SOURCE: [District of Columbia v. Heller - SCOTUSblog](http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/236 "2018-04-23T21:54:38Z")
The pro-slavery arguments for secession were all based on a claim that the Feds were oppressing their liberties to own slaves - that the government had become “tyrannical”, to use a favorite fantasy term of AR-15 owners today - along with simple assertion. They never had an actual constitutional argument, just a political one that became a military one. [Here’s some more reading material.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#Dubious_legality_of_unilateral_secession) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/237 "2018-04-23T22:13:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So Scalia said the above in Heller. > > The Miller decision said the following (bolding mine): > > Square that with (bolding mine): _Miller_ was about which guns could be regulated, not whether guns, in general, could be regulated. So, you can outlaw guns that are not commonly used by militia, but not guns that are commonly used by militia. The right to own such guns is, as noted in _Cruikshank_, a right the people have that predates the adoption of the constitution. The right to “keep and bear arms” is a given, untied to being in a militia. The only question is which “arms” the government can outlaw, and it’s those arms that are not “commonly used by the militia”. The militia being a citizen’s army, where the citizen typically supplies his own arms. That stands in contrast to a standing army (no pun intended), which commonly uses a large number of “arms” that the common citizenry is not allowed to possess. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/238 "2018-04-23T23:00:59Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So Scalia said the above in Heller. > > The Miller decision said the following (bolding mine): > > Square that with (bolding mine): It would make more sense if you made the actual point you wanted to make. We’ve established you haven’t read _Miller_. Have you read _Heller_? > [@](#): > > ``` > It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself. > > ``` I think you are interpreting the part you quoted from Miller as saying that the 2nd must be interpreted \*only \*in the context of the militia. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, that’s not a correct reading of Miller. The militia is a reason, but not the only reason the right to arms was valued. This is addressed in the above quote and in other parts of the controlling opinion as well. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2018, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/239 "2018-04-24T00:44:27Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > So, tell me then. What does it mean for laws to be supreme, if the states are allowed to completely ignore them? Because of course a legally-seceded state (if such a thing were to exist) would no longer be bound by any of the laws of the United States. Once a territory leaves the control of a given political authority, it’s no longer under those “supreme” laws. We had a war about this, _in 1812._ ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2018, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/240 "2018-04-24T00:48:42Z")
> [@XT](#): > > That said, there is nothing inherently un-Constitutional about new regulations for the public good So tell me the last gun control law the NRA supported. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805.md?page=13)