ddoyle00
Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2005
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- 3000 miles east of you
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
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.
So we can "book it"?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.......
gravity and ants are the creation of atheists, scientists and the devilddoyle00 said:Not the lively debate I was hoping for. I guess the "No ants gravity pancake syrup suggestion" kind of limits the topic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?