• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

NRA fading into nonexistence?

ddoyle00

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Location
3000 miles east of you
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Regardless of the repercussions, the city of San Fran has spoken. So why is the NRA appealing the decision?

The NRA is a purely political entity with its own agenda. They have dedicated lobbyists that wine and dine Senators along with Congressmen in order to make sure their "needs" are met.

Does the NRA really know whats best for the citizens when the citizens have already spoken? NO.

Its the same as a city voting to stop selling all tobacco products in a legal vote. All of a sudden, Marlboro comes along and appeals the decision and says
"You guys really dont want to do that. We know whats best for you, so we will file an appeal on your behalf."

Please dont include any arguement about ants, gravity, abortion, or other countries crime rates. Christ, Ive had enough of that crap already.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ddoyle00 said:
Regardless of the repercussions, the city of San Fran has spoken. So why is the NRA appealing the decision?

The NRA is a purely political entity with its own agenda. They have dedicated lobbyists that wine and dine Senators along with Congressmen in order to make sure their "needs" are met.

Does the NRA really know whats best for the citizens when the citizens have already spoken? NO.

Its the same as a city voting to stop selling all tobacco products in a legal vote. All of a sudden, Marlboro comes along and appeals the decision and says
"You guys really dont want to do that. We know whats best for you, so we will file an appeal on your behalf."

Please dont include any arguement about ants, gravity, abortion, or other countries crime rates. Christ, Ive had enough of that crap already.
I am a card carrying member of the NRA and I would not write us off so quickly if I were you.......
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Navy Pride said:
I am a card carrying member of the NRA and I would not write us off so quickly if I were you.......
So we can "book it"?
 

ddoyle00

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Location
3000 miles east of you
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Not the lively debate I was hoping for. I guess the "No ants gravity pancake syrup suggestion" kind of limits the topic.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
ddoyle00 said:
Not the lively debate I was hoping for. I guess the "No ants gravity pancake syrup suggestion" kind of limits the topic.
gravity and ants are the creation of atheists, scientists and the devil
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
NRA serves one purpose really really really well, and actually, quite rationally sometimes. Which is a shocker.




It keeps guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, and thats all gun control really hinders. So I'm afraid just because the people have spoken doesn't always mean its right, and I will watch the people speak against this when crime sky rockets.
 

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
128shot said:
NRA serves one purpose really really really well, and actually, quite rationally sometimes. Which is a shocker.




It keeps guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, and thats all gun control really hinders. So I'm afraid just because the people have spoken doesn't always mean its right, and I will watch the people speak against this when crime sky rockets.
The NRA does NOT keep guns in the hands of the people, the Constitution does, the Bill Of Rights does, more specifically, the 2nd Ammendment does.

The NRA is nothing but a bunch of gun-runners who use fear-tactics to get rich off of the weak-minded.

That's all.
 

ddoyle00

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Location
3000 miles east of you
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I agree wth Kid more or less. The NRA is self-serving and to the charter members, its a job that keeps them fed.

The NRA will have to accept what San Fran. has chosen and stop deluding itself it knows whats best for the American public.

We will see what happens to S F in a 2-3 years.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ddoyle00 said:
Regardless of the repercussions, the city of San Fran has spoken. So why is the NRA appealing the decision?

The NRA is a purely political entity with its own agenda. They have dedicated lobbyists that wine and dine Senators along with Congressmen in order to make sure their "needs" are met.

Does the NRA really know whats best for the citizens when the citizens have already spoken? NO.

Its the same as a city voting to stop selling all tobacco products in a legal vote. All of a sudden, Marlboro comes along and appeals the decision and says
"You guys really dont want to do that. We know whats best for you, so we will file an appeal on your behalf."

Please dont include any arguement about ants, gravity, abortion, or other countries crime rates. Christ, Ive had enough of that crap already.
I believe the case you're talking about (though you didn't state it) is the gun law that the people of San Fransisco voted for on Tuesday which made it illegal for people to own, purchase or manufacture guns within the city limits.

My question to you is: since when is it legal for the majority to take away the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the minority? What is this mob rule Nazi Germany now. This is a clear violation of the constitution, it is illegal, and sets a very dangerous precedent.

To put this in context even if the majority of people voted yes on a bill to take away the right of the freedoms of speech this bill would still constitute as a violation of the constitution and there to for it would be illegal.

We do not live in a Direct Democracy this is not a mob rule nation this is a representative Republic in which no man and no majority is above the sacred document of the Constitution!

Unless this is an amendment to the constitution it means absolutely nothing.

I bet that the Supreme Court whose job it is to study the constitutionality of laws which are passed will most assuredly overturn this clear cut case of a violation of the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
KidRocks said:
The NRA does NOT keep guns in the hands of the people, the Constitution does, the Bill Of Rights does, more specifically, the 2nd Ammendment does.

The NRA is nothing but a bunch of gun-runners who use fear-tactics to get rich off of the weak-minded.

That's all.

lmfao you know this is a pluralist society right, you know that it is the lobbyists and interest groups who are the engine that makes the system works. Actually what am I talking about you have absolutely know idea what a pluralist society even means, do you?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ddoyle00 said:
I agree wth Kid more or less. The NRA is self-serving and to the charter members, its a job that keeps them fed.

The NRA will have to accept what San Fran. has chosen and stop deluding itself it knows whats best for the American public.

We will see what happens to S F in a 2-3 years.
So the people of San Fransisco are somehow exempt from the constitution? Ever hear of a little thing called the Bill of Rights. Read my first post on this subject on page one and then answer.
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I believe the case you're talking about (though you didn't state it) is the gun law that the people of San Fransisco voted for on Tuesday which made it illegal for people to own, purchase or manufacture guns within the city limits.

My question to you is: since when is it legal for the majority to take away the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the minority? What is this mob rule Nazi Germany now. This is a clear violation of the constitution, it is illegal, and sets a very dangerous precedent.

To put this in context even if the majority of people voted yes on a bill to take away the right of the freedoms of speech this bill would still constitute as a violation of the constitution and there to for it would be illegal.

We do not live in a Direct Democracy this is not a mob rule nation this is a representative Republic in which no man and no majority is above the sacred document of the Constitution!

Unless this is an amendment to the constitution it means absolutely nothing.

I bet that the Supreme Court whose job it is to study the constitutionality of laws which are passed will most assuredly overturn this clear cut case of a violation of the constitution.
I completely agree with all of this. The NRA (or anyone else affected by this) has every right to appeal the decision.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
ddoyle00 said:
Does the NRA really know whats best for the citizens when the citizens have already spoken? NO.

Its the same as a city voting to stop selling all tobacco products in a legal vote. All of a sudden, Marlboro comes along and appeals the decision and says
"You guys really dont want to do that. We know whats best for you, so we will file an appeal on your behalf."
You are correct that special-interests don't always know what is best for the citizens. However, the voters often don't know what's best for other citizens either. Citizens tend to know what's best for themselves.

If you live in San Francisco and you don't want guns, don't own one. If you really want to ban guns altogether, you're going to need a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

With that said, I think cities and states (but not the federal government) are entitled to set SOME restrictions on guns without violating the constitution. But an outright ban on all guns is clearly unconstitutional.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kandahar said:
You are correct that special-interests don't always know what is best for the citizens. However, the voters often don't know what's best for other citizens either. Citizens tend to know what's best for themselves.

If you live in San Francisco and you don't want guns, don't own one. If you really want to ban guns altogether, you're going to need a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

With that said, I think cities and states (but not the federal government) are entitled to set SOME restrictions on guns without violating the constitution. But an outright ban on all guns is clearly unconstitutional.
Not to mention the fact that the only people who this law is going to effect are the law abiding citizens who purchase and register their weapons legally and will not effect, at all, the criminals who do not own registered guns but rather obtain their guns through illegal means. Pretty much all this law will do is disarm the people who are purchasing their weapons for self defense which in effect will make it open season for criminals to rob, steal, rape and murder, because they'll still be armed to the teeth while the hapless citizenry will be defenseless.
 
Top Bottom