• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Why does the NRA oppose Smart Guns?

AJiveMan said:
So, you have no problem with states whittling away your second amendment right? I see.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion, when what I said was just the opposite.
 
countryboy said:
I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion, when what I said was just the opposite.
Click to expand...

Oh snap

Tenth Amendment - The Text
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Tenth Amendment - The Meaning
The Tenth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to further define the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The amendment says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution. These powers include the power to declare war, to collect taxes, to regulate interstate business activities and others that are listed in the articles.

Any power not listed, says the Tenth Amendment, is left to the states or the people. Although the Tenth Amendment does not specify what these “powers” may be, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that laws affecting family relations (such as marriage, divorce, and adoption), commerce that occurs within a state’s own borders, and local law enforcement activities, are among those specifically reserved to the states or the people.
Click to expand...
:roll:

Maybe in German or French?
 
Thrilla said:
...as it is the proper and legitimate place for the fight ( between the state and the people, not between the federal govt. and the people)
Click to expand...

I wish their was no fight and who thought of the NFA of 1934 was raped to death by a angry biker gang with cactus.
 
countryboy said:
I see, you misquoted the 10th but that doesn't matter? It is your intention that is important? :roll:

You didn't quote the 10th because it proves your position to be wrong. A power only falls to the states if it is not enumerated in the Constitution. According to the 10th Amendment.
Click to expand...

And the power regarding arms is very specifically enumerated, and stated as belonging to the people—not to the states nor to the federal government.
 
AJiveMan said:
Oh snap


:roll:

Maybe in German or French?
Click to expand...
We were talking about the Second Amendment specifically. You are now officially on both sides of this issue. No wonder you go by the moniker, "jive man".
 
countryboy said:
We were talking about the Second Amendment specifically. You are now officially on both sides of this issue. No wonder you go by the moniker, "jive man".
Click to expand...

There you go again, :spin: you're making me dizzy, stop it.
 
NIMBY said:
Liberals--have you heard of any problems with schools that have CC, such as Ohio or Texas?
Conservatives--does the 2nd amendment always override the 10th amendment?

Both--should Toomey/Manchin at least been given a debate on the Senate floor, instead of being filibustered?
Upon further exam, Sen. Manchin got taken to the political cleaners, allowing RINO Toomey to look moderate for his upcoming election in PA.
Same with my RINO Senator Kirk from Illinois, who also voted against the filibuster.

Seems we'll be having bicameral conferences again--missing the last four years--wonder why.
With the current Gerry-mandered maps, DEMs haven't a chance to remap until 2022, and only with a wave election in 2022.

So what are you really worried about cons ?
Click to expand...

It appears that you don't understand how these amendments work.
 
AJiveMan said:
There you go again, :spin: you're making me dizzy, stop it.
Click to expand...

Right. You are the only one spinning anything. You are the one who claimed the 10th Amendment allows states to regulate guns, while quoting something other than the 10th Amendment as your proof. When I pointed this out you then switched positions, stating that I was somehow okay with states whittling away my constitutional rights. You're all over the map. Jump 'n jive, man.
 
countryboy said:
Right. You are the only one spinning anything. You are the one who claimed the 10th Amendment allows states to regulate guns, while quoting something other than the 10th Amendment as your proof. When I pointed this out you then switched positions, stating that I was somehow okay with states whittling away my constitutional rights. You're all over the map. Jump 'n jive, man.
Click to expand...

You see, I have this philosophy of a love hate with state and local laws, and the US Constitution as well.

As soon as the US Constitution came to be, states began to draft their own laws to circumvent it's provisions.

But you can't not like one, without liking or disliking the other.

The second says explicitly I have the right to bear arms, but states come along, make their own laws that thwart and gut the constitution, the city of Chicago and NYC are perfect examples of this, as are some others.

But when the constitution was drafted and came to be, none of the technology existed for rapid fire weapons (arms) and high capacity magazines weren't around. IMO, they knew not what they did. If the drafters of the constitution were around today, they might say hindsight is definitely 20/20. They never thought that there might be motor vehicles in this day, and that riding around in a motor vehicle with a loaded firearm would not be legal. They also never thought that a person would never be allowed to walk into a store or government office with a loaded arm would be illegal in some states.

Not that I'd relish changing the constitution at all, but maybe it might need more amendments to apply to modern day.
 
AJiveMan said:
You see, I have this philosophy of a love hate with state and local laws, and the US Constitution as well.

As soon as the US Constitution came to be, states began to draft their own laws to circumvent it's provisions.

But you can't not like one, without liking or disliking the other.

The second says explicitly I have the right to bear arms, but states come along, make their own laws that thwart and gut the constitution, the city of Chicago and NYC are perfect examples of this, as are some others.

But when the constitution was drafted and came to be, none of the technology existed for rapid fire weapons (arms) and high capacity magazines weren't around. IMO, they knew not what they did. If the drafters of the constitution were around today, they might say hindsight is definitely 20/20. They never thought that there might be motor vehicles in this day, and that riding around in a motor vehicle with a loaded firearm would not be legal. They also never thought that a person would never be allowed to walk into a store or government office with a loaded arm would be illegal in some states.

Not that I'd relish changing the constitution at all, but maybe it might need more amendments to apply to modern day.
Click to expand...

Aye yi yi, the old "channeling the founding father's spirit" trick. It's the oldest one in the book. Do you really expect anyone but a drone to believe the founders had no clue technology would advance? As someone already pointed out, rapid fire weapons were already in existence. Even if they weren't, it's utterly ridiculous to believe the founder's were not smart enough to realize technology would advance. Nice try, go peddle that **** to your drone friends, it ain't gonna fly with me. :wink:
 
AJiveMan said:
You see, I have this philosophy of a love hate with state and local laws, and the US Constitution as well.

As soon as the US Constitution came to be, states began to draft their own laws to circumvent it's provisions.

But you can't not like one, without liking or disliking the other.

The second says explicitly I have the right to bear arms, but states come along, make their own laws that thwart and gut the constitution, the city of Chicago and NYC are perfect examples of this, as are some others.

But when the constitution was drafted and came to be, none of the technology existed for rapid fire weapons (arms) and high capacity magazines weren't around. IMO, they knew not what they did. If the drafters of the constitution were around today, they might say hindsight is definitely 20/20. They never thought that there might be motor vehicles in this day, and that riding around in a motor vehicle with a loaded firearm would not be legal. They also never thought that a person would never be allowed to walk into a store or government office with a loaded arm would be illegal in some states.

Not that I'd relish changing the constitution at all, but maybe it might need more amendments to apply to modern day.
Click to expand...

countryboy said:
Aye yi yi, the old "channeling the founding father's spirit" trick. It's the oldest one in the book. Do you really expect anyone but a drone to believe the founders had no clue technology would advance? As someone already pointed out, rapid fire weapons were already in existence. Even if they weren't, it's utterly ridiculous to believe the founder's were not smart enough to realize technology would advance. Nice try, go peddle that **** to your drone friends, it ain't gonna fly with me. :wink:
Click to expand...

Amen...
 
countryboy said:
Right. You are the only one spinning anything. You are the one who claimed the 10th Amendment allows states to regulate guns, while quoting something other than the 10th Amendment as your proof. When I pointed this out you then switched positions, stating that I was somehow okay with states whittling away my constitutional rights. You're all over the map. Jump 'n jive, man.
Click to expand...

Does he not realize that state constitutions also had protections for keeping and bearing arms as well?

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions
 
AJiveMan said:
You mean the state of Chicago? Where their gun law was overturned in January of 2014? and now it's back to being just another city? :lamo
Click to expand...

its going to take a lot of time for honest citizens of Chicago to have the level of defensive firearms that more enlightened urban areas allow. As I recall, the Democrat scumbags in power were trying to do everything possible to impede honest people from being able to carry pistols in a city that truly justifies good people being heavily armed
 
countryboy said:
Aye yi yi, the old "channeling the founding father's spirit" trick. It's the oldest one in the book. Do you really expect anyone but a drone to believe the founders had no clue technology would advance? As someone already pointed out, rapid fire weapons were already in existence. Even if they weren't, it's utterly ridiculous to believe the founder's were not smart enough to realize technology would advance. Nice try, go peddle that **** to your drone friends, it ain't gonna fly with me. :wink:
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but you needed a pickup truck to haul them around, or three men and a boy, they were nothing like we have today. The founding fathers were just coming out of the stone age.

13209.webp
 
Amadeus said:
If you don't want to use a smart gun, don't buy one. Why oppose the development and sale of them? Why shouldn't people have the option to buy one?
Click to expand...

As shown above there is no opposirion. Suggesting over and over that its otherwise does.not change that.
 
AJiveMan said:
Maybe so, but you needed a pickup truck to haul them around, or three men and a boy, they were nothing like we have today. The founding fathers were just coming out of the stone age.

View attachment 67178467
Click to expand...

the point you miss is that anti gun clowns, who pretend the 2A should be limited to muskets, ignore the fact rapid fire guns was easily conceivable to anyone in 1790. My grandfather was in the WWI AEA and was quite familiar with early fighter planes. He said they all figured planes in the next war (in which his oldest son was killed as a Navy aviator in 1945) would be 3-4X as fast as those in WWI and in WWII he figured the stuff 30 years later would be 3-4X as fast as what was available in WWII.

the technology of a M16 rifle or a motor driven gatling gun (a design that has been around for hundreds of years but for the motor) is not all that tough to imagine if you knew about the puckle gun etc.

electronic media on the other hand was a far greater jump to someone whose press involved manual printing presses
 
AJiveMan said:
Maybe so, but you needed a pickup truck to haul them around, or three men and a boy, they were nothing like we have today. The founding fathers were just coming out of the stone age.

View attachment 67178467
Click to expand...

Still repeating, it proves your wrong.

Really? The Stone Age?

AJ, please stop while are behind...
 
Your? wrong? more tea please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom