More to the point, there is no recourse: once an unconstitutional law is passed, we are stuck with it.
:dubious:
drink dick discharge, douchebag
Yo!
As of course is gun grabbery.
Without question I agree with you about the NRA. They are an extremist organization, firearm facsists and fanatics.
Hard to know how many actually are members of the NRA, they have claimed as many as 4.5 million but that is believed by many to be an exaggeration and likely is more like 3.1 million … out of something like 70 million people in the United States who say they own one or more guns. (Pretty consistently 40 to 50% of U.S. households.)
I think it is safe to assume that most gun owners believe in some form of gun rights protection yet the vast majority of them, 94 to 95%, do not support the NRA with their membership … and of those few that do many do not support all of their positions, with a majority apparently supporting universal background checks, for example.
How many gun owners actively oppose the loonery that is the NRA? Fewer than would if they were not convinced by the rhetoric of a minority on the other side and the spinning of the NRA that their extremism is the counterweight to extremism on the gun grabber side.
Your vocabulary is growing alliteratively. Did you have to look any of those up?
I suppose you don’t accept the traditional definition of “directly”, either?
I just wonder what other things Terr believes justify death threats and threats of violence.
Does opposition to the smart-gun law justify death threats and threats of violence towards wavering legislators, or the legislator that brought it forward, or the state governor?
Does opposition to the NYC mosque near Ground Zero justify death threats and threats of violence towards those planning the mosque?
Does opposition to abortion justify death threats and threats of violence towards those working at abortion clinics?
Does opposition to affirmative action justify death threats and threats of violence towards college admissions workers?
Does opposition to stem-cell research justify death threats and threats of violence towards laboratory researchers?
didn’t
Damn!
So you’re going to blame him because his actions trigger OTHERS to behave unconstitutionally? BTW, I was under the impression that there was already a smart gun for sale in California so the law had already been triggered.
Yeah but the death threats came before he was aware (at least according to his video), and frankly even if he was aware, it still doesn’t excuse death threats. I see very few people on the gun sites (which are mostly populated by people far gun nuttier than me) applauding these death threats. They are almost unanimously condemning these death threats. You seem to be taking a more extreme position than people who think that gun rights supercede all other rights. I’d check myself if I were you. Rethink your position. Don’t let your pride make you dig into an undefensible position.
I’ve wondered quite a few things. You could overthrow the NRA leadership with about $10,000,000 in lifetime memberships. You might not be able to fill it with people like Michael Bloomberg and Dianne Feinstein but you could certainly fill it with much more moderate folks. But instead they spend all their money and political capital on an assault weapons ban.
How does that not describe death threats against a store owner for selling a gun?
You’re not supporting gun rights, you are supporting death threats. People who care about gun rights as a practical matter rather than as a theoretical matter seem to have different opinions than you.
I just assumed that the folks on this board would be at least as rational as the average poster on sites like TTAG or AR-15. I guess you never can tell.
You do realize that liberal pro-gun folks are at least as common as pro-life democrats, right?
These smart guns cost about $2000. A reasonably reliable handgun can be had for about $250. The armatix gun at issue is actually not suitable for self defense, it fires a .22lr, presumably because the RFID technology is too fragile for larger calibers. So if you have a law that limits you to technology that can only handle .22lr guns, then you are violating the second amendment right to [effective] self defense. Or at least that would be my reasoning.
Gowin’s law
They adopt positions that will win them the primary. Being pro-gun in California or New Jersey won’t get you past too many primaries.
We’ve been over the whole “NRA is an industry lobby” bullshit before and it turns out to be bullshit. Its like calling NARAL an abortion industry lobby.
So why do you keep pointing it out?
Damuri Ajashi, I was talking about how I, personally, define a “gun nut”. Since the vast majority of gun owners are normal, rational individuals who don’t act like this.
A “no true Scotsman” isn’t the same thing as a definition.
Man its getting warm in here.
Yes we have and I phrase my claims carefully. To review what I said in a previous thread, Yes, the gun industry and gun fanatics have shared interests. Fanatics are covered under “loons”. Oblivious NRA members who support background checks run the gamut between gulls (gullibles) and loons (those who think that saving children’s lives are a concession rather than something that they should support).
Last I heard gun control enthusiasts don’t shoot up elementary schools. Nor do their extremists advocate threatening private businesses with violence.
Fascists and farcists.
Nice presentation of the numbers. I list aquatic waterfowl (loons, gulls, sap suckers, ducks and swallows) to acknowledge that the NRA has a range of deluded and ideologically blinkered members.
I missed the part of the amendment that guarantees the right to sell non-smart guns.
How does “gun shops can’t sell non-smart guns” violate the second amendment?
nm
in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
verb: infringe; 3rd person present: infringes; past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed; gerund or present participle: infringing
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of;disregard, ignore, neglect;
go beyond, overstep, exceed; infract
"the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights"
antonyms: obey, comply with,
**act so as to limit or undermine (something)**; encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: **restrict**, **limit**, curb, check, encroach on;
The Second Amendment doesn’t say “guns”, it says “arms” (and not even “firearms”), and there are existing restrictions on various types of arms already, without constitutional issues.
I mean, if we’re going to get all dictionary and shit.
Restricting arms to non-nuclear or to semi (versus full) automatic is substantially different than restricting arms to newly designed, unreliable, ineffectual, and/or specialized handguns. That is like declaring that a new motorcycle is available that has seat-belts and airbags, and it’s only available in a 90cc version, with a top speed of 45mph. Since lawmakers predict it will be safer than the current bikes that are dangerous and cause death, as soon as the new “safety-bike” is available in a retail outlet, there will be no more standard motorcycles allowed to be sold. See, you could reasonably restrict motorcycle sales to street-legal bikes with always on headlamps and turn signals, but not to the “safety bike” I described.
Now, it’s a waste of time to define infringe, or “reasonable” to people who fear guns because they have not the most remote inclination to admit what infringe means (or what it would mean if you infringed on other rights), and have no desire to be reasonable. I understand that. You can keep saying that judges interpret laws and lawmakers pass laws that limit or restrict types of firearms, and claim that any reasonable restriction equates to any unreasonable infringement. it’s a childish game, like asking “why” over and over.
Consider Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The first part says the Government can’t establish a State religion and must allow the freedom to practice religion. Simple, until somebody’s religion demands cruelty to animals or human sacrifice. So, we limit the “free exercise thereof” to practices that don’t violate laws or public safety. That’s reasonable. If the Government further limited religions to all use the same hymns, the same traditions, and all be conducted in English, that would go beyond reasonable.
Banning or restricting certain types of arms is fundamentally different than limiting the definition of “arms” to only one type.
While we’re talking about laws…