NRA sues Florida to block new gun law - CNN today (1 Viewer)

SirGareth · Mar 10, 2018

cabse5 said:
Not fond of meta-citizenry? How do you feel about all people who reside in the US, for example? Do they all deserve US citizenship?

Obviously not. As a US expatriot living for extended periods of time in both Japan and South Africa I was required to obtain an appropriatly classified visa to do so. I had to register my location and identify my employer who was my guarantor with the local prefecture and I was required to notify my prefecture if I moved.

Although I had no civil rights in either county I conducted myself as a guest and filed four income taxes while in Japan, one for the national income tax, one for my local prefecture inhabitants tax, and of course I was also required to file both US national and state income taxes even though I lived in neither. I was required to pay for both of our kids' primary education and to pay taxes on the money I used to pay for their tuition for the USA, for my home state, as well as all the foreign taxes.

I was never under the illusion that I was anything other than a visitor.

prometeus · Mar 10, 2018

TurtleDude said:
if someone is old enough to serve in the military or be tried as an adult, and VOTE, its idiotic to claim they are too young to buy a rifle

No, not really, it all has to do with the potential to do harm. Little to no harm comes from one bad vote or a disciplined trained soldier. A lot more can come from one unhinged person.

MSgt · Mar 10, 2018

SirGareth said:
My IQ has been measured at 140 and although I'm not proud of what I was born with I would take odds that it is higher than yours.

The issue of CAGW (aka "Global Warming") and Noah's Ark are not to be conflated. They are separate and distinct issues as anyone with a modicum of intelligence should intuitively understand.

The biblical flood story is a myth that some people choose to believe based on traditions that make them feel closer to their particular social group. It holds no political or public policy significance.

Myths are things that can neither be observed nor tested. This makes them distinct from legitimate science which holds that science is not a way to achieve "truth" but only as an ethic that holds that all knowledge as to the behavior of nature is both provisional and non-authoritarian.

Note how the latter deviates from the CAGW myth which holds that it is both "settled" and established as truth by a politically structured authoritarian body.

Now toddle off and sin no more.

Mine is 140.1. Nah, I don't know. I'm just poking fun at you. Considering that there are people with an IQ of 70 voting on issues that are clearly above their range of understanding, your personal boast seems pointless and sad. But I guess you just felt defensive for your political base, which is on historical record for officially pushing the global Warming hoax agenda (and through Fox News), officially pushed the tomato paste issue against the idea of healthier school lunches, and officially pushed those religious myths into history text books. Explaining this away will not make it go away. This is your base.

And since this trash all comes out of the one conservative base, conflating is quite appropriate. Attempting to segregate the issues is merely an exercise that aids you in pretending that it doesn't look as bad as it does. But, it really does. Like the other defensive conservative here, you may want to start acknowledging the base you belong to, instead of denying it, before telling others to "sin no more." This shouldn't be too difficult for people who have a "modicum of intelligence." Of course, you do belong to that base, don't you? Do yourself a favor. Adopt "libertarian" so that you can at least pretend that this isn't your base.

danielpalos · Mar 10, 2018

We have a Second Amendment, right wingers; why do we have Any security problems in our free States?

Renae · Mar 10, 2018

MSgt said:
Why is it that in so many cases, you people default to exploiting the military for your personal needs to argue? Politicians do it when they want to push an agenda and pretend that military readiness is somehow connected. And individuals do it just to regurgitate the political argument.

You are not on some crusade to protect the dignity of 18 or 19 year old troops. If you really give a ****, whine about their inability to purchase a beer after Boot Camp or when they return from combat. You are merely looking to define your gun Rights through that 18 or 19 year old. It's a selfish argument that tells the parents of dead kids to go **** themselves because you, as a person well beyond the age of 21, likes your toys. So what do we actually have here...

- Deny the diagnosed schizophrenics like Holmes or Lanza from handling/purchasing? - NO!..."The schizophrenics have the Right to due process, thus should have guns until they slaughter people and prove that he shouldn't have his Right!"

- Deny the diagnosed mentally ill nineteen year old like Cruz from purchasing an AR-15? - NO!..."He has the Right because he can join the military!"

In the end, you bring nothing to the table but apathy and a celebration of the next mass shooting that could have been prevented, simply because you imagine your own personal Rights being wrapped up into any sense of responsible legislation. Thus, you define your Rights through the Rights of the 19-year old schizophrenic. And you call yourself rational and logical?

A Remf chastising his better... this is amusing, I shall enjoy watching you flail against the Turtledude with amusement.

The point is quite valid however, a state is saying "Hey, you, 18 year old. You can join the military, go and kill, die for us all. But you're JUST not safe enough to society to purchase that hunting rifle...."

What about the people who aren't Florida Residents, who are assigned there, but their Home of Record is elsewhere. Like say a kid from Texas, fresh out of bootcamp who got assigned to Mayport. What he has to go on leave, fly back home, buy his weapon and drive back with it? Stupid law.

SirGareth · Mar 10, 2018

MSgt said:
Or simple aware of the reality I live in and just how dumb the conservative base has become. Here, allow me to help you into that world...

Apparently "the dumb" are in ascendancy and free markets are booming while the regulators seethe in resentment that they are ignored for us not heeding their dire warnings as to the imminent death of the cold and snow.

MSgt said:
Oh, and since the role of Fox News for eight years was to undermine anything Obama or Liberal, the Global Warming hoax was beat to death and Gore was dismissed as a hack for its viewers.

To hell with the guns they aren't nearly so dangerous, let's ban Fox news!

MSgt said:
I guess pretending that this has escaped you helps you cope with the base you belong to.

What of those who don't "belong to a base" I'm acidic and have a natural loathing for bases.

MSgt said:
But since you do not believe in this conspiracy crap, you may want to start acknowledging that your base has betrayed you. It doesn't deserve your defense.

What conspiracy crap? there are so many to choose from. The liberty conspiracy?

MSgt said:
You think Liberals would do some idiotic crap like this? No, this is entirely a conservative sort of thing. The same sort of idiotic thing that would have conservative Senators voting on whether or not tomato paste is a vegetable just to oppose Obama's health agenda for school lunches.

Well they are pretty stupid indeed for believing in "school lunches, school breakfasts, or school anything" I could forgive them for thinking tomato paste is a vegetable paste, its a fruit paste.

MSgt said:
So there we have it. You should not hide fro this reality. You may start to look as dumb as the other conservatives who exist.

Contain yourself sergeant, by your rhetoric I'd say you might be bucking for a section 8. Do they even let you hold a play gun?

Lursa · Mar 10, 2018

JacksinPA said:
I find it hard to believe that a self-proclaimed liberal would defend the 2nd. It is so obviously out of touch with reality & serves only as the basis of the gun lobby.

Apparently your thinking is quite limited about the 2A and liberals.

Fledermaus · Mar 10, 2018

JacksinPA said:
I think it is entirely reasonable for individuals to have guns for home defense. An AR-15 is designed as a battlefield assault weapon to kill & maim other soldiers. It has no reasonable use in a polite society. I own 2 guns: a 12-gauge pump & a .22 magnum revolver. But here in PA there is part of this nationwide mania for concealed carry permits. I drive less & less because of the specter of getting involved in an accident or road rage incident where I am unarmed but the nut in the other car is angry, high on adrenaline & has a 9mm semi-automatic handgun in his hand. No thanks!

Your 12 gauge is far more destructive than an AR15... Perhaps it should be banned...

MSgt · Mar 10, 2018

Renae said:
A Remf chastising his better... this is amusing, I shall enjoy watching you flail against the Turtledude with amusement.

The point is quite valid however, a state is saying "Hey, you, 18 year old. You can join the military, go and kill, die for us all. But you're JUST not safe enough to society to purchase that hunting rifle...."

What about the people who aren't Florida Residents, who are assigned there, but their Home of Record is elsewhere. Like say a kid from Texas, fresh out of bootcamp who got assigned to Mayport. What he has to go on leave, fly back home, buy his weapon and drive back with it? Stupid law.

The Turtledude is on repeat. He is programmed to post the exact same apathetic thing about every issue and will bore me son enough. If that amuses you, enjoy.

And the point is as valid as it was when people used the alcohol consumption argument. Go kill, but stay sober until 21? It is an argument, even then, that avoids the issue. If you want to play with guns at that age, volunteer for the military and do so in a responsible environment and under strict weapons training that teaches people the actual purpose of the weapon. If you wish to flip burgers at age twenty instead, wait another year to buy your toy, in which you will store under your bed or in an unlocked closet.

And as always, it all comes down to arguing around what a law might prevent by insisting that everything is just "stupid" or will "do little." The result is that we sacrifice doing little for a celebration of doing nothing.

Fishking · Mar 10, 2018

leekohler2 said:
While I would never say they are a cult, they do have a lot of problems, which is why I have not been able to support them for quite some time, even though I do indeed support the 2nd. See the article I posted in post #13.

I read your article and disagree with almost all of it. Yes, the NRA has problems. Any organization has problems and the bigger ones have a lot. That doesn't negate everything they do. The overall point of your article is that you don't like that they've stepped into the political realm and are speaking out against progressives/liberals and liberal institutions. Well, you're just way off the mark here. These are the demographics in which anti-2A sentiment breeds. They are not divorced from each other, they are intrinsically tied, for all intents and purposes at this point in time.

This means that to defend the 2A you also have to tear down these other groups, because that is where the threat to the 2A and gun ownership is coming from. You, being a liberal, likely affiliate with people, and support candidates, that want to infringe you your 2A rights. Those are horrible bedfellows you're making.

SirGareth · Mar 10, 2018

MSgt said:
If you want to play with guns at that age, volunteer for the military and do so in a responsible environment and under strict weapons training that teaches people the actual purpose of the weapon.

I received my NRA training at age 12 and learned never to play with guns during the first lesson.

A gun is a weapon only when it is used to inflict bodily damage either defensively or offensively, so are clubs, knives, lug wrenches, and grenades.

We don't hunt or fish with with weapons.

Sunsettommy · Mar 10, 2018

JacksinPA said:
The present conservative SCOTUS is nothing to depend on as far as the 2nd. The second should be repealed because it is out of date. We don't have militias any more.

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

This was written by 18th century lawyers. In 18th century legalese, the sole intent of these amendments were stated in the preamble: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

When this was written there were state militias & every member had a musket. But now there are no militias because we have standing armed forces. This amendment has been misused for the greedy gun makers.

Did you read what the founding fathers say about the Second amendment?

Did the read the Federalist papers that covers it?

The Federalist Papers

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist, No. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:

What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Here, like Story, Madison is expressing the idea that additional advantages accrue to the people when the citizens' right to arms is enhanced by having an organized and properly directed militia.

LINK

Middle_Ground · Mar 10, 2018

Crovax said:
The 18 voting age only applies to federal elections but yes it is an amendment and there was so much momentum to become an amendment because to many states pulled a Florida and disenfranchised 18-20 year olds. I dont think that will happen with gun laws because there is a significant contingent out there that wants to abolish the 2nd amendment altogether but I do think the SCOTUS will step in to help protect the right.

I don't know about any significant movement to abolish the 2nd. I know there are some fringes out there but I will say in general things that don't bend usually end up breaking and if 2nd amendment defenders don't want to bend a little and 2nd amendment foes don't bend a little...then it will break.
And those of us that believe in the 2nd don't want to see that happen.

camlok · Mar 10, 2018

This **** keeps up and there will be a ANRA. OR BNRA. Or DNRAItS.

Renae · Mar 10, 2018

MSgt said:
The Turtledude is on repeat. He is programmed to post the exact same apathetic thing about every issue and will bore me son enough. If that amuses you, enjoy.

And the point is as valid as it was when people used the alcohol consumption argument. Go kill, but stay sober until 21? It is an argument, even then, that avoids the issue. If you want to play with guns at that age, volunteer for the military and do so in a responsible environment and under strict weapons training that teaches people the actual purpose of the weapon. If you wish to flip burgers at age twenty instead, wait another year to buy your toy, in which you will store under your bed or in an unlocked closet.

And as always, it all comes down to arguing around what a law might prevent by insisting that everything is just "stupid" or will "do little." The result is that we sacrifice doing little for a celebration of doing nothing.

Alcohol isn't a Constitutionally protected right, at least last time checked, did they add a Budweiser amendment "The right of the people to have beer, shall not be infringed"?

MSgt · Mar 10, 2018

Renae said:
Alcohol isn't a Constitutionally protected right, at least last time checked, did they add a Budweiser amendment "The right of the people to have beer, shall not be infringed"?

Yes, it is. I don't know why people refuse this truth...

- The Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was about Prohibition.
- The Twenty-first Amendment repealed prohibition and established that you do, indeed, have the Right to alcohol.

What is not in the Twenty-first Amendment is a prescription of age. Age is defined elsewhere. And like that Twenty-first Amendment, the Second Amendment also does not prescribe an age for when you can bear arms.

I also believe that you must be 21 to vote, as was historically the case. However, the difference here is that the Twenty-Sixth Amendment prescribed an age of 18 for voting due to the draft issue of the Vietnam War. There is no getting around an age argument. You have the Right, specifically at age 18, to vote. It is from this that people began to define adulthood at 18 in other areas. The Second Amendment need not apply.

And this issue is also like your Right to run your mouth from the First Amendment. Yet, libel laws, copyright laws, or the need for a license to protest, infringe on that Right, don't they? You people act as if God Himself handed down the Second Amendment and that no rules outside of criminal law may ever be applied.

Crovax · Mar 10, 2018

Renae said:
Alcohol isn't a Constitutionally protected right, at least last time checked, did they add a Budweiser amendment "The right of the people to have beer, shall not be infringed"?

apdst · Mar 10, 2018

MSgt said:
Yes, it is. I don't know why people refuse this truth...

- The Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was about Prohibition.
- The Twenty-first Amendment repealed prohibition and established that you do, indeed, have the Right to alcohol.

What is not in the Twenty-first Amendment is a prescription of age. Age is defined elsewhere. And like that Twenty-first Amendment, the Second Amendment also does not prescribe an age for when you can bear arms.

I also believe that you must be 21 to vote, as was historically the case. However, the difference here is that the Twenty-Sixth Amendment prescribed an age of 18 for voting due to the draft issue of the Vietnam War. There is no getting around an age argument. You have the Right, specifically at age 18, to vote. It is from this that people began to define adulthood at 18 in other areas. The Second Amendment need not apply.

And this issue is also like your Right to run your mouth from the First Amendment. Yet, libel laws, copyright laws, or the need for a license to protest, infringe on that Right, don't they? You people act as if God Himself handed down the Second Amendment and that no rules outside of criminal law may ever be applied.

You really should have read the 21st Amendment before you said that.

TurtleDude · Mar 10, 2018

prometeus said:
No, not really, it all has to do with the potential to do harm. Little to no harm comes from one bad vote or a disciplined trained soldier. A lot more can come from one unhinged person.

you miss the point. if someone can be trusted to vote or operate massively destructive military equipment at 18, they are old enough to own a rifle. that has been the law for over 50 years-its idiotic to change the law and punish millions because of ONE case where LE screwed up massively

TurtleDude · Mar 10, 2018

MSgt said:
Why is it that in so many cases, you people default to exploiting the military for your personal needs to argue? Politicians do it when they want to push an agenda and pretend that military readiness is somehow connected. And individuals do it just to regurgitate the political argument.

You are not on some crusade to protect the dignity of 18 or 19 year old troops. If you really give a ****, whine about their inability to purchase a beer after Boot Camp or when they return from combat. You are merely looking to define your gun Rights through that 18 or 19 year old. It's a selfish argument that tells the parents of dead kids to go **** themselves because you, as a person well beyond the age of 21, likes your toys. So what do we actually have here...

- Deny the diagnosed schizophrenics like Holmes or Lanza from handling/purchasing? - NO!..."The schizophrenics have the Right to due process, thus should have guns until they slaughter people and prove that he shouldn't have his Right!"

- Deny the diagnosed mentally ill nineteen year old like Cruz from purchasing an AR-15? - NO!..."He has the Right because he can join the military!"

In the end, you bring nothing to the table but apathy and a celebration of the next mass shooting that could have been prevented, simply because you imagine your own personal Rights being wrapped up into any sense of responsible legislation. Thus, you define your Rights through the Rights of the 19-year old schizophrenic. And you call yourself rational and logical?

I have no clue what you are complaining about and it certainly has nothing to do with reality nor is it responsive to what I said.

EMNofSeattle · Mar 10, 2018

Bucky said:
The gun advocates claim they are simply a riffle organization, nothing more, nothing less.

Yet, they are sending their armed lawyers to attack their own.

The NRA is a cult.

Well actually since they're suing over a law banning adults from owning rifles, they're acting quite literally like a rifle association.

TurtleDude · Mar 10, 2018

MSgt said:
Sure, despite a time when the colonies had just defeated the greatest Empire on the planet to gain independence, and needing militias to continue fighting that Empire, the Second Amendment is more important today than ever because gun nuts have convinced themselves that liberals are big meanies and that Mexicans and Muslims hide under their beds. It's quite funny how you people like to pretend how weak liberals are, but then turn around and behave as if you have been bullied by them your entire lives.

Your irrational generalities about "liberals" is exactly why the mass shootings continues. And the fact that a 14-year old cannot purchase an AR-15 is gun control. Don't let such terminology scare you too completely.

your silly attempts of passive-aggressive support of gun control are inane. You apparently read something I never wrote when you spewed this nonsense in response

Manc Skipper · Mar 10, 2018

TurtleDude said:
you miss the point. if someone can be trusted to vote or operate massively destructive military equipment at 18, they are old enough to own a rifle. that has been the law for over 50 years-its idiotic to change the law and punish millions because of ONE case where LE screwed up massively

How old is the country where this 50 year old law was imposed?

TurtleDude · Mar 10, 2018

Manc Skipper said:
How old is the country where this 50 year old law was imposed?

WTF does that have to do with anything? its a stupid reaction to a case that is most notable due to the incompetence of the police

cabse5 · Mar 11, 2018

SirGareth said:
They are denied the right to enter a bar. I'm sorry to say we should have legal adults and legal children. I'm not fond of "meta-citizenry"

On the other hand lawyers love it.

Are you gonna deny 18-20 years old to enter the armed service, then?

NRA sues Florida to block new gun law - CNN today (1 Viewer)

SirGareth

prometeus

MSgt

Read Some Books

danielpalos

Renae

SirGareth

Lursa

Tenacious

Fledermaus

MSgt

Read Some Books

Fishking

SirGareth

Sunsettommy

Middle_Ground

camlok

Renae

MSgt

Read Some Books

Crovax

apdst

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

EMNofSeattle

No Russian ever called me deplorable

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

cabse5

Users who are viewing this thread

NRA sues Florida to block new gun law - CNN today (1 Viewer)

Read Some Books

Tenacious

Read Some Books

Read Some Books

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

No Russian ever called me deplorable

warrior of the wetlands

Wrinkly member

warrior of the wetlands

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency