9
   

How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2018 10:43 pm
@oralloy,
TUS has spent the last 230 years deciding. They get to decide what the FFs meant. You don't.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2018 10:47 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
t the law is. You don't.

Actually the people who wrote the Constitution decided what the law is
They wrote it. What they mesnt when they wrote it is what SCOTUS has spent the last 230 years deciding. They get to decide what it all means. You don't. YUour opinion about what it means is just that:> opinion, not fact.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2018 11:04 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
With 5 conservative on SCOTUS,

4 conservatives.


MontereyJack wrote:
and a continuing stream of allowing sensible gun control cases to stand,

Hardly sensible to violate people's civil rights for no reason.


MontereyJack wrote:
SCOTUS is realizing the invidious effects Heller has had on the country and is walking back some of its more odious effects.

The fact that liberals think civil rights are invidious and odious is why it is so important to vote for Republicans who will appoint judges who will uphold our civil rights.


MontereyJack wrote:
Shows why it is important to nurture the growing dissatisfaction with Trump, as relected in the electoral losses of people tring to ride on his coattails, so that the groundswell becomes a tsunami in November.

Just the opposite. We need to oppose the Democrats if we want to prevent them from violating our civil rights for fun.


MontereyJack wrote:
Save liberty, vote Democratic.

Not when the Democrats are the ones who are trying to abolish liberty.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2018 11:06 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
TUS has spent the last 230 years deciding. They get to decide what the FFs meant. You don't.

We already know what the FF's meant. The job of the Supreme Court is merely to enforce that. Liberal justices just think that it is OK to ignore what the Constitution says.

That's why it is so important to vote for Republicans who will appoint judges who will enforce the Constitution.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2018 11:07 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
They wrote it. What they mesnt when they wrote it is what SCOTUS has spent the last 230 years deciding. They get to decide what it all means.

The fact that liberals think it is OK for judges to "decide" that our rights do not exist is why it is so important to vote for Republicans who will appoint judges who will enforce the Constitution.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2018 11:14 pm
@MontereyJack,
The following paragraph is from one of my earlier post. I put in big bold letters of what also came from the supreme court ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller decision. The NRA seems to always ignore this part of that 2008 ruling.

That decision, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, is – so far – the most important decision the court has ever issued on the scope of the “right to keep and bear arms.” But in that very ruling, the Court said explicitly: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It went on to say just as clearly that it was not barring the government from imposing “reasonable regulation” on that right.
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Apr, 2018 11:23 pm
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It was also clearly stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Can anyone tell me why the NRA and the gun manufacturers always ignore the part of the 2008 supreme court ruling that I underlined?

oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Apr, 2018 12:16 am
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:
The following paragraph is from one of my earlier post. I put in big bold letters of what also came from the supreme court ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller decision. The NRA seems to always ignore this part of that 2008 ruling.

That decision, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, is -- so far -- the most important decision the court has ever issued on the scope of the "right to keep and bear arms." But in that very ruling, the Court said explicitly: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." It went on to say just as clearly that it was not barring the government from imposing "reasonable regulation" on that right.

Your statement is incorrect. The NRA does not ignore that part of the ruling. Nor do they seem to do so.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Apr, 2018 12:17 am
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It was also clearly stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Can anyone tell me why the NRA and the gun manufacturers always ignore the part of the 2008 supreme court ruling that I underlined?

The NRA doesn't ignore it. Your accusation is untrue.

The likely reason why the gun manufacturers ignore it is because they do not spend any time worrying about Second Amendment court cases.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 09/18/2018 at 06:52:13