NRA opposes bill to stop gun sales to terror suspects

[Tchocky]

Na, my rights of free assembly/expression etc are not dependent on my owning a firearm. I just don't understand the fear of government that seems to exist.

Often, as a reason for gun ownership, people mention "excesses of federal government" or similiar phrases. I don't see any excess that needs to be fought off with gunfire.
Except possibly banning gun ownership, which seems to be a wet dream for a small percentage of gun owners.

edit - this kind of language "defend ones self against the government"

I just don't understand it. Governments are necessary, but not evil. Through democracy you get the government you deserve. maybe this fear is a product of an electorate that has decided to arm itself against its government. I don't know. Weird.

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Na, my rights of free assembly/expression etc are not dependent on my owning a firearm. I just don't understand the fear of government that seems to exist.

Often, as a reason for gun ownership, people mention "excesses of federal government" or similiar phrases. I don't see any excess that needs to be fought off with gunfire.
Except possibly banning gun ownership, which seems to be a wet dream for a small percentage of gun owners.

edit - this kind of language "defend ones self against the government"

I just don't understand it. Governments are necessary, but not evil. Through democracy you get the government you deserve. maybe this fear is a product of an electorate that has decided to arm itself against its government. I don't know. Weird.

You've never known a government that has turned on its citizens? Please. You seem to be the poster boy for: those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

[Tchocky]

I didnt say that, waste

Of course governments turn on their citizens. It seems that these days, in a Western democracy, it won't happen with boots and clubs. Wiretaps, rendition, all these buzzwords. They're not fought with guns.
Violence, especially internal violence, rarely makes things better. Dialogue and negotiation are civilised ways of resolving disputes. Not .45ACP.

(And how about an answer instead of an over-used quote? The lesson of that sentence stands, but it doesnt help communication here)

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I didnt say that, waste

Of course governments turn on their citizens. It seems that these days, in a Western democracy, it won't happen with boots and clubs. Wiretaps, rendition, all these buzzwords. They're not fought with guns.
Violence, especially internal violence, rarely makes things better. Dialogue and negotiation are civilised ways of resolving disputes. Not .45ACP.

(And how about an answer instead of an over-used quote? The lesson of that sentence stands, but it doesnt help communication here)

The lesson should not be forgotten. That is why I used it. Germany in the 1933-1945 was and is considered a 'western democracy', by the standards of the day. It is only in hind sight that we see NAZI Germany for what it was.

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I didnt say that, waste

Of course governments turn on their citizens. It seems that these days, in a Western democracy, it won't happen with boots and clubs. Wiretaps, rendition, all these buzzwords. They're not fought with guns.
Violence, especially internal violence, rarely makes things better. Dialogue and negotiation are civilised ways of resolving disputes. Not .45ACP.

(And how about an answer instead of an over-used quote? The lesson of that sentence stands, but it doesnt help communication here)

I just don't understand the fear of government that seems to exist.

Yes you did.

[wireman]

I would prefer to have my government wonder about me instead of the other way around.

[Heibges]

If you are on the TWL, you shouldn't be able to get in the country, therefore buying guns in this country shouldn't really be an issue.

[Ishmael]

As I read the second amendment, it doesn't specifiy or define what constitutes "arms". so we must leave it open to interpretation.

A strict constructionist view of the amendment, to my mind, would mean only the arms available to the framers would be available now. That is, flintlock rifles & muskets and muzzle-loading cannon using black powder.

An expansive or judicially activist view would mean any US citizen should be able to buy, own & possess any weapon available in any military inventory, including artillery, tanks and weapons of mass destruction. Methinks that the NRA's interpretation is closer to the latter than the former.

So, in answer to the thread's title, Could the NRA be nuts?

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by Ishmael

As I read the second amendment, it doesn't specifiy or define what constitutes "arms". so we must leave it open to interpretation.

A strict constructionist view of the amendment, to my mind, would mean only the arms available to the framers would be available now. That is, flintlock rifles & muskets and muzzle-loading cannon using black powder.

But then the 1st Amendment would only apply to town criers and news outlets that use ye olde printing block presses (hey, I could live with that.......I wouldn't have to listen to news rants about gaudy celebrities anymore!!).

Originally Posted by Ishmael

An expansive or judicially activist view would mean any US citizen should be able to buy, own & possess any weapon available in any military inventory, including artillery, tanks and weapons of mass destruction. Methinks that the NRA's interpretation is closer to the latter than the former.

It's not an activist stance to say that the citizens should be able to purchase small-arms equivalent to the military. As the 2nd amendment states that the militia (the militia being the law-abiding citizens of the U.S.) and the people (citizens of the U.S.) have the right to keep and bear arms.

With the muzzleloading musket being the military firearm of the age, the militia had the right to keep arms equal to that of the military.

Militiamen were required to provide their own arms unless provided for by the local populace and they were often calibered between the ranges of .50 to .75.

Each militiaman was expected to provide his own firelock, cartridge box, one pound of powder, and four pounds of ball. Men too poor to provide these materials would be supplied at public expense.

Sources:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/virg_rev.htm

http://www.doublegv.com/ggv/battles/tactics.html

While not everyone needs to have a 240 Golf or MG3, the militia must be capable of fielding small-arms equal to that of our current military, namely the M-16 or M4 that are manufactured to military specifications. I'm unsure as to whether grenades or field artillery or mortars and the likes are also covered under the second amendment, so that's a gray area for the moment since it's basically what the average citizen is able to purchase on their own or is provided to them (although various courts have banned the common ownership of such items, I'm broken in both directions on this part of the issue not because of fear of malicious intent, but because certain people do DUMB things and end up earning Darwin Awards for it).

As for the militia themselves, they are comported of organized (State) or "unorganized" (a misnomer for Private Militias).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

(small section in here about constitutional duties in regards to the states and militia) http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm

Originally Posted by Ishmael

So, in answer to the thread's title, Could the NRA be nuts?

I'm divided on this since the NRA has and still; does work for Gun-owners, and against gun-owners.

Eg. The NRA helped write:

-The 1934 National Firearms Act (ban on Machineguns, sound suppressors, and short barreled rifles),
-The 1968 Gun Control act (Only firearms judged by ATF to have feasible sporting applications can be imported for civilian use)
-The 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (This bill contained a provision that banned the import of firearms).

And the NRA has also passed various other Pro-gun bills, but for the most part has done little or nothing in recent years to repeal opressive firearms ordinances that are illegally imposed.

More info here in Wikipedia on various firearms acts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

[wireman]

Truely nice post Yahashua.

[robbo180265]

Yes nice post.
Balanced,informative and impartial. And best of all even I could understand it!

[Yahoshua]

I was impartial?

[baggygreen]

yeh,, you divided it imto parts!!!!!:rotfl:

As for the OP, well how precisely are they intending on implementing the law even if it was hypothetically deemed to not breach the constitution?? What will they do, give every gunshop in the country a copy of the terror watch list???

i dont think its been thought through fully those proposing and supporting it. As i recall, i read an article in a paper here talking about the number of massacres etc in the states, and i believe almost all weapons used were bought (or kept) illegally anyways.

Anyone who thinks a true terrorist doesnt or wont have access to illegal firearms is off the planet

[Heibges]

Luckily, although I do believe firearms are our final line of defense against a tyranical government, our Founding Fathers put in enough safeguards, that it is highly unlikely the People will need to overthrow the government.

In Roman times, a tyrant was the worst criticism you could make of a man in politics, and if an individual was declared a tyrant, it was the duty of every Roman citizen to do extreme bodily harm to that individual.

But in America we can impeach them or vote them out of office, so you would need a lot of guys to go along with the "tyrant" before the citizenry would need to take action.

I don't think there would be a chance of the military trying to take power. Officers learn they are subserviant to the civilian government from day one.

Saddest of all, today guns just aren't that terrifying.

[baggygreen]

Originally Posted by Heibges

Saddest of all, today guns just aren't that terrifying.

Until you've been on the receiving end..