]I don’t know what else LaPierre has said about Clinton, but if he’s commenting on her gun control stance that’s fair game.
I.E., once upon a time the NRA were Fudds. Or to fairer, they were once supportive of gun control when they were confident that it wasn’t a precedent to the flat-out abolition of private gun ownership.
From what I read, that did not come up at all. He’s not talking like a gun-rights activist, he’s talking like a Republican or Tea Party activist.
Then they were more sensible back then. There has never been a time in American history when flat-out abolition of private gun ownership would have been politically possible beyond a municipal level.
IANA Una but my take is a running gag from Archer, “A little column A, a little column B.” The views shifted some but your perception is also less than thoroughly on point.
A coalition formed between the respect and responsibility crowd with those that were more fringe with respect to some issues like shall issue carry. Till the shall issue movement in a lot of places the permitting process to carry for self defense was much closer to shall deny. That coalition still spoke with the voices of the most passionate,aka the fringe, but not all in it agreed with the most extreme comments. The middle ground got lost in the fringes from both sides screaming loudly and more often. They looked more like one of the fringes because they agreed with them on some of the issues at hand. That happens with a lot of issues in the US nowadays. :smack:
Once that coalition formed more of the moderates were more politically active and focused on the issues. So now they’re spending time talking to those that also like guns but are more fringe. They also started getting the message that any carry was irresponsible by those that would label them as closet vigilantes with the hidden desire to murder someone. Strong messages from both sides’ fringe did prompt some movement in opinions of those I’ve known. Mostly that movement has been towards the lower regulation side.
So there’s some mistake and some shrinking of that group. The pro-gun with reasonable controls middle ground is still there, strong, and substantial IME, but they don’t get the airtime. IME there’s also been movement from those in the middle ground towards less gun control positions.
I don’t know if the change has been on a general scale, but mainly within a group of sportspeople, self-defense advocates, and others. But I do not know of any polls I can point to quickly.
That’s like saying there’s never been a time in American history when overturning the First Amendment was politically possible; not that comforting, since by the time it would be possible it would already be too late. What began alarming gun owners in the later 1980’s was just how far down the slippery slope we’d already gone.
Well, now that you know that (thanks to post #4521) he commented on everything but her stance on gun control, what’s your opinion? Still fair game?
Can you point me to a text of his full speech? I don’t want to sit through a 19-minute video. Thanks.
I’m not willing to sit through 19 minutes of that guy, but I can’t imagine a context that makes it okay to name Jennifer Flowers and Paula Jones as “gates” that should reflect on Hilary Clinton.
Ridiculous.
And what was “Whitewater-gate”? Ken Starr spent years investigating that nonscandal, and at the end, Monica Lewinsky’s blowjob was all he could come up with, and had nothing to do with it.
While usually it is four year olds who make this thread for killing someone, here we have a three year old:
Does anyone remember anyone younger?
Let me put it another way: You don’t need the Second Amendment. If it had never been added to the Constitution, if gun control were simply an ordinary legislative issue with no constitutional protections, then your guns would be safe anywhere in America with the possible exception of a few major cities. It’s a cultural thing.
Man Shoots Armadillo, Bullet Hits Mother-In-Law
As a practical matter? Perhaps. But would you feel the same way about the First Amendment? Would you feel confident that as a “cultural thing” legislatures would almost always uphold freedom of religion, speech, the press and public assembly? The First Amendment was added because the Framers knew, by historical example, that such freedoms are always going to be tempting targets for rulers who want just a little more control, for the “best of reasons”; and that banning such freedoms is both the means and the end of tyranny.
The Second Amendment isn’t just about possession of pieces of metal; more broadly, it’s the question of whether citizens can privately possess the means of, and when appropriate use, deadly force. The Framers knew from the tumultuous history of 17th century England that calls to ban weapons in the name of stopping “lawlessness”, “insurrection”, “treason” always seemed to lead to a government expanding without limit the scope of those terms. In every society and civilization they had record of, whenever the common people were forbidden to possess weapons and their carry and use reserved to an elite, the result inevitably was a class of overlords telling the peasants to shut up and do what they were told.
The Tenth Amendment not withstanding, we’ve reached the point where effectively the government can do damn near anything it isn’t explicitly forbidden to. In terms of the First Amendment, look at the Alien and Sedition Acts; or more recently, the laws passed in the early 20th century that made virtually any public opposition to WW1 a crime. We have not only a federal Bill of Rights but also state constitutions with rights provisions, because the most cursory look at some of the things that duly elected legislatures have passed or tried to pass is enough to make your hair stand on end. Allowing citizens to possess weapons will always be an orphan issue politically, because no government is going to have a natural tendency to reduce its power. If you take the stance the Framers did that guns=freedom, you might almost come to the conclusion that the right to own and carry weapons has a greater need of explicit protection than freedom of speech.
Going by the UK’s track record, yes. They have no written constitution, there’s not much the House of Commons can’t constitutionally do, but they’re a pretty free country, entirely for reasons of political culture.
Put it this way: if we abolished the First Amendment and relied solely on our “political culture” to preserve democratic freedoms, do you think we’d do as well as the UK? I strongly suspect not.
Dad: " Oh god honey, I murdered our daughter with the AR-15 today !! "
Mom: " They didn’t take our gun away, did they? Did they??? No? Whew. "
After all, she can always breed again. But just look at how difficult it is to get ahold of an AR-15 these days. Please.
These murders just pile up and pile up. Day after day, week after week. And because the N.R.A. owns the US Congress, not a damned thing will ever be done about this.
Kind of very sad, I think.
Was that just hyperbole or do you literally believe that the NRA is a cabal with near-total political power, able to dictate anything it wants?
Also, would you feel better if he’d accidentally killed his daughter by putting a beer keg in a camp fire? Idiots are idiots.
Colorado man cited by police after shooting his computer:
Yes. This was not a serious question, right? You are aware of how things work here, right?
Find me the thread on stupid campfire accidents, please.