NRA's LaPierre: "This Is The Most Dangerous Election Of Our Lifetimes"

[apdst]

But this election is about the Obama double-secret hidden plant to get your guns!!

So buy, buy, buy as many guns as you can.

The NRA members can't see their lobbying group is now just an industry front group.

1) Stop gov from making gun purchases a hassle.

2) Scare consumers into buying more.

So, if Obama got the chance, there's no way he would create more gun control laws, nor ban guns outright? Never?

 

[MKULTRABOY]

So, if Obama got the chance, there's no way he would create more gun control laws, nor ban guns outright? Never?

Has the NRA - EVER sent you spam in your mailbox that DIDN'T say a liberal or foreigner or one world government was trying to take our guns?

 

[Harshaw]

You're unfamiliar with the popular stance by many constitutional scholars that say the constitution is aged beyond the point of applicability for the problems of a modern US.

Just curious -- do you ever bother to make sure you're on sure footing before you post things based on something you kinda heard about once?

But hey, I'll indulge.

1) Show your support for every word of this.

2) Explain how it applies to anything I said in what you quoted, keeping in mind the post to which I was responding in the first place.

 

[UtahBill]

Most liberals detest the second amendment and its supporters even more so than personal responsibility, deficit reduction and balancing the federal budget, legal immigration, and those who oppose the nanny state.

I almost forgot to add the thought of American exceptionalism to the list.

Maybe you would prefer that Eric Holder become the head guy at the NRA?

Link? or is this just an unfounded opinion. I don't know a lot of liberals, but most of the ones I do OWN guns....

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Just curious -- do you ever bother to make sure you're on sure footing before you post things based on something you kinda heard about once?

But hey, I'll indulge.

1) Show your support for every word of this.

2) Explain how it applies to anything I said in what you quoted, keeping in mind the post to which I was responding in the first place.

Call a constitutional law professor at harvard or princeton. It's an opinion alot of people have.
Or check out some open courseware.
Im reiterating the words of someone in the Bush Whitehouse i took a class from.

I'm just saying the whole thing is irrelevant.

Idk if you wanna discuss it, you get confused whenever we talk.

 

[Harshaw]

Call a constitutional law professor at harvard or princeton. It's an opinion alot of people have.
Or check out some open courseware.
Im reiterating the words of someone in the Bush Whitehouse i took a class from.

Yeah. Big surprise. You kinda sorta heard about it in a class once. Couldn't actually explain it to save your life, but hey, you heard about it.

I'm just saying the whole thing is irrelevant.

What's "irrelevant" is anything you said vis-a-vis the post of mine you quoted.

Idk if you wanna discuss it, you get confused whenever we talk.

If you really want to "discuss" it, you're going to have to do much, much better than that. Who are these "scholars," what specifically do they say, where do they say it, and among constitutional scholars, exactly how many are there (seeing as it's "popular" and all).

If you're going to take it upon yourself to lecture me about what I don't know, then you should at least be able to answer those questions. I mean, you made the assertion. So support it.

 

[TurtleDude]

Although the Supreme Court ruled "your way" in a very close decision, that doesn't mean they were correct. A split decision like that tells me the politics was involved and the Court was trying to "legislate" rather than interpret the Constitution correctly.

While I wholeheartedly support the individual right to "keep and bear arms," the clear intent of the 2nd Amendment (IMHO) was to allow state militias, etc.

However, since the Court has ruled on this issue the point is moot.

what you fail to understand is the founders never delegated to the federal government the power to regulate small arms either and thus under the 9th and 10th amendments, that right is recognized even if the second is what you mistakenly claim it is

 

[TurtleDude]

If the NRA can predict the future without any evidence from the present to indicate it, can we do it, too? The NRA says that Obama (or even democrats in general) has a secret agenda to disarm law abiding citizens. I say the NRA has a secret agenda to kill everyone in Thailand. We're both just making stuff up with no basis in reality.

psychobabble--obama's past records includes calling for a ban on handguns, semi auto rifles etc

 

[TurtleDude]

Has the NRA - EVER sent you spam in your mailbox that DIDN'T say a liberal or foreigner or one world government was trying to take our guns?

Gee I have been a life member of the NRA for over 35 years, I have represented their interests before legislative bodies etc and I have never got such spam.

 

[TurtleDude]

Call a constitutional law professor at harvard or princeton. It's an opinion alot of people have.
Or check out some open courseware.
Im reiterating the words of someone in the Bush Whitehouse i took a class from.

I'm just saying the whole thing is irrelevant.

Idk if you wanna discuss it, you get confused whenever we talk.

Damn, Princeton has a LAW SCHOOL-I thought I had applied to every Ivy Law School save U of Penn. I missed that one

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Gee I have been a life member of the NRA for over 35 years, I have represented their interests before legislative bodies etc and I have never got such spam.

Dads been a member since I was a kid. We get them plenty enough. I also got emails. Funny how the NRA spam uses work around for spam filters. I've gotten plenty of NRA stuff for years.

NRA HQ is down the street. I used to shoot there. Museum is neat. I like the apocalyptic pamphlets of the past depicting urban warfare in the suburbs, the one world government pamphlets, the apocalyptic UN endorsed religion of 'earth worship' ones. We got one of those too.

Damn, Princeton has a LAW SCHOOL-I thought I had applied to every Ivy Law School save U of Penn. I missed that one

Colin Powell's Bush Admin Advisor told me. :lamoHe was a really honest guy and I don't assume him a liar.

Too bad you didn't take poli sci, then you know, you could participate in a more enriching manner.
Though I had heard it from several places before.

But yeah. Guns are fun. I'll never join the NRA myself.... because of the spam.

 

[Goshin]

I cancelled my membership in the NRA a few years ago, and joined the Gun Owners of America.


Reasons:
I got tired of NRA beg-athon stuff cluttering up my mailbox
I got tired of phone calls from the NRA promising me ballcaps and magazines if I contributed X dollars
I deduced that if they spent that much of my dues on advertising, merchandizing and begging they weren't spending enough of it on actual lobbying
The NRA is too prone to compromise on gun issues that are important to me
They got on my nerves one time too many.

The GOA doesn't act like this, so they get my money now.

 

[Billy]

Point to the parts in the decisions which are 1) "legislation," 2) "politics," and 3) contrary to the overwhelming majority of scholarship on the Second Amendment.

And if you are unfamiliar with the scholarship, as your middle paragraph would lead me to think, on what basis do you make these statements?

(1) legislation - Obviously the Supreme Court can't legislate (pass laws). They can effectively do the same thing by interpreting laws in such a way as to change the origional intent. This fact has been the subject of much public discussion for many years and I am surprised anyone would not be aware of that fact (it seems this idea may be new to you, based on your response).

(2) politics - Hopefully you are aware of how Supreme Court Justices get to serve on the Court. Various Presidents, both parties, have been accused of nominating Supreme Court Justices who share a particular point of view on various social issues, such as guns, abortion, etc. The common belief among many Americans is that this is true and it is a serious consideration among many likely voters during elections. Although the Congress has to "confirm" the nominees and suppossedly eliminate candidates who are biased, politics still enters into the picture in most cases, or so it seems to many Americans.

(3) overwhelming majority of scholarship on the Second Amendment - I have seen a multitude of scholarship on both sides of the argument, including lower court decisions ruling both ways. It seems you are assuming there is overwhelming majority of scholarship that supports the Supreme Court decision on this issue. I'm not going to make that assumption as I would prefer not to make claims that I can't back up. How do you arrive at your claim that the "overwhelming majority of scholarship" would rule a particular way on the issue? What percentage would that be and what data source do you get your information from?

My biggest point is that split Supreme Court rulings are questionable, especially when the split is so close as was the case in this issue.

 

[Harshaw]

(1) legislation - Obviously the Supreme Court can't legislate (pass laws). They can effectively do the same thing by interpreting laws in such a way as to change the origional intent. This fact has been the subject of much public discussion for many years and I am surprised anyone would not be aware of that fact (it seems this idea may be new to you, based on your response).

(2) politics - Hopefully you are aware of how Supreme Court Justices get to serve on the Court. Various Presidents, both parties, have been accused of nominating Supreme Court Justices who share a particular point of view on various social issues, such as guns, abortion, etc. The common belief among many Americans is that this is true and it is a serious consideration among many likely voters during elections. Although the Congress has to "confirm" the nominees and suppossedly eliminate candidates who are biased, politics still enters into the picture in most cases, or so it seems to many Americans.

(3) overwhelming majority of scholarship on the Second Amendment - I have seen a multitude of scholarship on both sides of the argument, including lower court decisions ruling both ways. It seems you are assuming there is overwhelming majority of scholarship that supports the Supreme Court decision on this issue. I'm not going to make that assumption as I would prefer not to make claims that I can't back up. How do you arrive at your claim that the "overwhelming majority of scholarship" would rule a particular way on the issue? What percentage would that be and what data source do you get your information from?

My biggest point is that split Supreme Court rulings are questionable, especially when the split is so close as was the case in this issue.

From this answer, you have never read the cases involved. Being thus, how can anyone take your pronouncements seriously, particularly that the rulings are "questionable"? You don't even know what the majority opinions say.

You even had an opportunity to go read them and try to provide a substantive answer before you posted, and you declined.

By the way, you may have seen scholarship on "both sides" of the issue, but that doesn't mean there's anything like a balance. The vast, vast, VAST majority of it lines up squarely behind the decisions in these cases.

If you're asking for a place to start, begin with the Spring 1995 issue of the Tennessee Law Review (the whole thing) and go from there.

 

[Harshaw]

I cancelled my membership in the NRA a few years ago, and joined the Gun Owners of America.


Reasons:
I got tired of NRA beg-athon stuff cluttering up my mailbox
I got tired of phone calls from the NRA promising me ballcaps and magazines if I contributed X dollars
I deduced that if they spent that much of my dues on advertising, merchandizing and begging they weren't spending enough of it on actual lobbying
The NRA is too prone to compromise on gun issues that are important to me
They got on my nerves one time too many.

The GOA doesn't act like this, so they get my money now.

No kidding. The begging calls from the NRA had to stop.

 

[Harshaw]

Colin Powell's Bush Admin Advisor told me. :lamoHe was a really honest guy and I don't assume him a liar.

Whatever he said, it doesn't mean you understood it. It also doesn't mean he's right. You might look up "Appeal to Authority."

But hey, I guess every law school in the country can stop teaching Constitutional Law, because some kid on a message board heard once that it's all "irrelevant" now.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Whatever he said, it doesn't mean you understood it. It also doesn't mean he's right. You might look up "Appeal to Authority."

I'm sorry... I merely reiterated a not uncommon position by constitutional lawyers he had interacted with. No need for hostilities.

But hey, I guess every law school in the country can stop teaching Constitutional Law, because some kid on a message board heard once that it's all "irrelevant" now.

I didn't say it was irrelevant fill in the blanks however you like and have an argument with yourself if you wish.

 

[Billy]

From this answer, you have never read the cases involved. Being thus, how can anyone take your pronouncements seriously, particularly that the rulings are "questionable"? You don't even know what the majority opinions say.

You even had an opportunity to go read them and try to provide a substantive answer before you posted, and you declined.

By the way, you may have seen scholarship on "both sides" of the issue, but that doesn't mean there's anything like a balance. The vast, vast, VAST majority of it lines up squarely behind the decisions in these cases.

If you're asking for a place to start, begin with the Spring 1995 issue of the Tennessee Law Review (the whole thing) and go from there.

Still no statistical data to back up your claim. Using the word "vast" multiple times doesn't count...

 

[Harshaw]

Still no statistical data to back up your claim. Using the word "vast" multiple times doesn't count...

:roll: There's no such thing as "statistical data" when it comes to how much scholarship supports a position vs. another position.

You would do better to go and find out than just stubbornly stick to what you'd rather believe. I told you where to start.

But that's up to you. You can be informed, or not be; either way, it is what it is.

 

[specklebang]

IMHO, as usual, it's just the same hyperbole that you expect from a talk show host. Show Business and well remunerated.

Wayne LaPierre, Executive VP/Ex-Officio National Rifle Association & Foundation, $970,588.00 (plus benefits, adulation, groupies etc.)

Yes, a million bucks a year. You don't get that kind of money by saying "no big deal here folks, just move along". You have to fire up your base and making exaggerated claims is what entertainers (of the political type) do. Right or Left. It's always the end of the world UNLESS you keep those contributions coming.

 

[Harshaw]

I'm sorry... I merely reiterated a not uncommon position by constitutional lawyers he had interacted with. No need for hostilities.

You have no idea how "common" it is, or isn't. Based on your performance here, and the way you keep backpedaling, it's not even clear you have a firm grasp on what he said in the first place -- much less how accurate it was.

If you didn't want to discuss it, you shouldn't have brought it up, particularly as a suggestion that I'm uninformed.

I didn't say it was irrelevant fill in the blanks however you like and have an argument with yourself if you wish.

Oh, but you did; it was the exact word you used:

I'm just saying the whole thing is irrelevant.

 

[UtahBill]

:roll: There's no such thing as "statistical data" when it comes to how much scholarship supports a position vs. another position.

You would do better to go and find out than just stubbornly stick to what you'd rather believe. I told you where to start.

But that's up to you. You can be informed, or not be; either way, it is what it is.

w/o data all you have is testimonials, much the same as the guys selling overpriced herbal supplements by claiming that they cure everthing except poltical extremism...

 

[UtahBill]

IMHO, as usual, it's just the same hyperbole that you expect from a talk show host. Show Business and well remunerated.

Wayne LaPierre, Executive VP/Ex-Officio National Rifle Association & Foundation, $970,588.00 (plus benefits, adulation, groupies etc.)

Yes, a million bucks a year. You don't get that kind of money by saying "no big deal here folks, just move along". You have to fire up your base and making exaggerated claims is what entertainers (of the political type) do. Right or Left. It's always the end of the world UNLESS you keep those contributions coming.

fear mongering works well as with the disadvantaged masses as it does with the wealthy who fear that the poor will rise up and take their wealth....its a win win situation, and apparently pays very well.

 

[Harshaw]

w/o data all you have is testimonials, much the same as the guys selling overpriced herbal supplements by claiming that they cure everthing except poltical extremism...

Really . . .

Where does one find "data" and "statistics" on how much scholarship supports one position over another, and what form does it take?

 

[Billy]

:roll: There's no such thing as "statistical data" when it comes to how much scholarship supports a position vs. another position.

You would do better to go and find out than just stubbornly stick to what you'd rather believe. I told you where to start.

But that's up to you. You can be informed, or not be; either way, it is what it is.

I knew you couldn't provide the statistical data to support your position. Your claim that there's vast, vast ,vast, more to support one side is no more valid than my claim to the contrary. I'd suggest you do some more research yourself. You provided one reference, period.

I could probably provide 100 references to support my argument and you could probably do likewise. We'd both be wasting our time and neither could prove the argument one way or the other. You can stick to what you stubbornly prefer to believe and I can do likewise...