StoptheNRA

Note that contributions are tax deductible.

Contributions to the NRA are not.

Hmmm.

0 Replies

It just amazes me the blatant use of the 1st amendment to attempt to destroy the 2nd, which in reality, protects the 1st.

These folks really need to put down the crack pipe.

0 Replies

You just can't make this stuff up.

"Save our gun laws"...."the threat to all our gun laws...".

What about protecting ourselves from criminals? What about the second amendment?

Unbelievable.

0 Replies

As usual, you quickly demonstrate that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

The National Rifle Association is 501(c)(4) organization which is allowed to spend substantial amounts of the donations it receives for the direct lobbying of lawmakers--and that is why not all donations to the NRA are tax deductible--although some are.

However, the NRA Foundation is a charitable, not-for-profit organization which does not spend its money to lobby lawmakers, and donations to the NRA Foundation are deductible.

You never hesitate to distort facts, make **** up or simply to blatantly demonstrate your ignorance, huh?

0 Replies

Quote:

What about protecting ourselves from criminals? What about the second amendment?

What about it? I've read the second amendment, and it doesn't say anything about protecting yourself from criminals. Nor does it say that guns cannot be regulated.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Nor does it say they can be regulated.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Nor does it say they can be regulated.

So? There are a lot of things that are regulated that the Constitution doesn't talk about. Ridiculous thing to say, you're really on a roll today

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Nor does it say they can be regulated.

So? There are a lot of things that are regulated that the Constitution doesn't talk about. Ridiculous thing to say, you're really on a roll today

Cycloptichorn

Just pointing out retarded your statement was. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that one should protect oneself from criminals... even if it's not written in the second amendment.

What you said was ridiculously stupid and again shows you no longer have a foot in reality. How about coming in from liberal land and join the rest of humanity in the real world?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Nor does it say they can be regulated.

Jesus, i wouldn't have thought that you would have made so stupid a remark. The text doesn't say that firearms cannot be regulated, either. What it does say is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (emphasis added)

Article One, Section 8 reads, in part:

[Congress shall have the power:]To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia . . . (emphasis added)

In The United States versus Jack Miller, et al (1939), the Supreme Court upheld the 1934 Fire Arms Act, in a unanimous decision, saying, in the opinion:

[quote]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.[/quote]

In the only case in which the Supremes have directly addressed the Second Amendment, they determined that the Congress had a right to pass fire arms control legislation.

Gun nut clowns just need to get over it.

0 Replies

In fact, it does say 'well-regulated milita.'

So I have no idea where the thought has arisen that the weapons the militias use cannot be regulated. Really.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

It also says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

I am sure you guys believe you know everything and that is why this has been thoroughly discussed by the legal system and there is no longer any doubt at all in anyone's mind what the second amendment means and that is why there is no longer any discussion or legal debates over what the second amendment says or means.

Obviously all they need to do is ask Setanta and Cycloptichorn. They obvioulsy have it all figured out. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It also says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

I am sure you guys believe you know everything and that is why this has been thoroughly discussed by the legal system and there is no longer any doubt at all in anyone's mind what the second amendment means and that is why there is no longer any discussion or legal debates over what the second amendment says or means.

Obviously all they need to do is ask Setanta and Cycloptichorn. They obvioulsy have it all figured out.

Well, you can make a very convincing argument about a lot of false positions. That's what lawyers do.

I was merely stating that nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it prevent the regulation of which 'arms' we sell here in America.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

And nowhere in judicial review has any court challenged the right of Congress to regulate fire arms. In fact, in Presser versus Illinois, 1886, the Supremes commented that the IInd Amendment only binds the Federal government, and not the states.

Not because Setanta of Cyclo say so, but because the courts say so.

Too bad, so sad for the gun lunatic lobby . . . boo hoo hoo . . .

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
It also says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

I am sure you guys believe you know everything and that is why this has been thoroughly discussed by the legal system and there is no longer any doubt at all in anyone's mind what the second amendment means and that is why there is no longer any discussion or legal debates over what the second amendment says or means.

Obviously all they need to do is ask Setanta and Cycloptichorn. They obvioulsy have it all figured out.

Well, you can make a very convincing argument about a lot of false positions. That's what lawyers do.

I was merely stating that nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it prevent the regulation of which 'arms' we sell here in America.

Cycloptichorn

and I merely stated that nowhere in the 2nd amendment is the regulation of arms permitted. That falls under separate law and differs state to state. To claim, as you have done, that the 2nd amendment does not say guns can not be regulated, you must be prepared to say that the 2nd amendment does not say they can be either.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
It also says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

I am sure you guys believe you know everything and that is why this has been thoroughly discussed by the legal system and there is no longer any doubt at all in anyone's mind what the second amendment means and that is why there is no longer any discussion or legal debates over what the second amendment says or means.

Obviously all they need to do is ask Setanta and Cycloptichorn. They obvioulsy have it all figured out.

Well, you can make a very convincing argument about a lot of false positions. That's what lawyers do.

I was merely stating that nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it prevent the regulation of which 'arms' we sell here in America.

Cycloptichorn

and I merely stated that nowhere in the 2nd amendment is the regulation of arms permitted. That falls under separate law and differs state to state. To claim, as you have done, that the 2nd amendment does not say guns can not be regulated, you must be prepared to say that the 2nd amendment does not say they can be either.

Yes, you are correct. But it is not necessary for the Constitution to say that something is allowable, for it to be allowable. Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

bm

0 Replies

What I'd like to know is, what dog do these gun grabbers have in the fight? What do they stand to gain, other than control over the population, by doing such a historically stupid thing as disarm the citizenry?

Answer: Nothing but power. They say gun owners are paranoid - hardly, that shoe is firmly on the other foot.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

. . . I merely stated that nowhere in the 2nd amendment is the regulation of arms permitted.

This is a grammatically meaningless statement. The amendment notes at the outset that it refers to a well-regulated militia. The Constitution which is amended already give Congress the power to arm the militia, the obvious point of the reference to a well-regulated militia.

One can easily see, though, that no one from the gun fruitcake lobby is ever going to hire McWhitey to pursue a gun regulation case in the courts.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
. . . I merely stated that nowhere in the 2nd amendment is the regulation of arms permitted.

This is a grammatically meaningless statement. The amendment notes at the outset that it refers to a well-regulated militia. The Constitution which is amended already give Congress the power to arm the militia, the obvious point of the reference to a well-regulated militia.

One can easily see, though, that no one from the gun fruitcake lobby is ever going to hire McWhitey to pursue a gun regulation case in the courts.

0 Replies

StoptheNRA

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know