NRA - right or wrong

Is the NRA incorrect in their understanding of constitutional law?

The NRA’s David Keene responded to the decision with the organization’s standard middle-of-the-road defense of the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

“One of the things that people in these town meetings and other folks ought to look at is the constitution itself. It is possible and it is legal to put certain restrictions on second amendment rights,” he said, “but those kinds of restrictions have to be looked at very critically.”
 

I wonder how I lived to 57 without ever carrying a gun. I don't think there need to be major changes to gun laws either, but I don't see that anyone having a different idea should be labeled nazi or commie or whatever other group you don't like.
If the Constitution were perfect from the start only white male landowners would be able to vote today. And you could still own slaves.
Ok attack me now for having a different opinion.
 

Pete, if that's the case than how were laws like the Brady bill and fawb passed? Why can't felons own guns? No offense but their has been restrictions on gun ownership for decades and decades and decades. Why do you think the NRA is saying that it is totally constitutional? Do you think they are incorrect in their knowledge of constitutional law?
There's a considerable difference between who can own a gun, and what guns a law-abiding citizen can own. The first can be regulated, within reason, the second violates the constitution.
Jim
 

Just as there has alway been restrictions on the first amendment - the old can't tell fire in the movie theater example.

The old "yelling fire in the theater" gimmick is no comparison. The first amendment protects your right to express your opinion...about anything. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not expressing your opinion. There's a big difference.
Jim
 

The old "yelling fire in the theater" gimmick is no comparison. The first amendment protects your right to express your opinion...about anything. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not expressing your opinion. There's a big difference.
Jim

Protect PUBLIC "HATE" SPEECHES"...? Hmmm...
 

Pete, if that's the case than how were laws like the Brady bill and fawb passed? Why can't felons own guns? No offense but their has been restrictions on gun ownership for decades and decades and decades. Why do you think the NRA is saying that it is totally constitutional? Do you think they are incorrect in their knowledge of constitutional law?

Felons loose their rights, not only are they not allowed to own firearms, they aren't allowed to vote either, and as a gun owning redneck nut and NRA Toadie I agree with that law. Dopers, cheats, thief's shouldn't have the rights that the liberals give them. With liberals in control we have lost freedom of speech. Have you heard of hate speech. You can be fined and jailed for saying the wrong thing. That law wasn't there when I was 30 years old, but if now if my opinion crosses an imaginary line, I'm busted and off to the hoos cow. Sometimes the progressive communists have control of congress, and pass laws that can only be overturned via the supreme court, and that takes lots of money and lots of time. Did you notice how Obama care was stuffed up our butts, like it or not. No conservative input was allowed. The NRA is made up of several million people, and just like the fact that all people have rear end, so do all people have their own opinion. I don't know if your half accurate quote is the official view of the NRA, and frankly I don't care, the NRA does more good than harm. Without the NRA we wouldn't be having this discussion, because the guns would already be gone from people legally owning them, and only the government and the crooks would be armed.
 

jeff,

you managed to live to 57 without carrying a gun for a simple reason.....it's called street smarts.....I've got you beat by 6 years and have spent lots of time in pretty sleazy parts of town....no gun either.....go figure.....lol.

But heh.....if people feel the need for a firearm for protection so be it......




I wonder how I lived to 57 without ever carrying a gun. I don't think there need to be major changes to gun laws either, but I don't see that anyone having a different idea should be labeled nazi or commie or whatever other group you don't like.
If the Constitution were perfect from the start only white male landowners would be able to vote today. And you could still own slaves.
Ok attack me now for having a different opinion.
 

BosnMate said:
Felons loose their rights, not only are they not allowed to own firearms, they aren't allowed to vote either, and as a gun owning redneck nut and NRA Toadie I agree with that law. Dopers, cheats, thief's shouldn't have the rights that the liberals give them. With liberals in control we have lost freedom of speech. Have you heard of hate speech. You can be fined and jailed for saying the wrong thing. That law wasn't there when I was 30 years old, but if now if my opinion crosses an imaginary line, I'm busted and off to the hoos cow. Sometimes the progressive communists have control of congress, and pass laws that can only be overturned via the supreme court, and that takes lots of money and lots of time. Did you notice how Obama care was stuffed up our butts, like it or not. No conservative input was allowed. The NRA is made up of several million people, and just like the fact that all people have rear end, so do all people have their own opinion. I don't know if your half accurate quote is the official view of the NRA, and frankly I don't care, the NRA does more good than harm. Without the NRA we wouldn't be having this discussion, because the guns would already be gone from people legally owning them, and only the government and the crooks would be armed.

That's exact right Bosn you hit the nail on the head. Restrictions can be placed on the second amendment and it is perfectly constitutionally legal. This isn't about a good or bad law - it's about what is constitutional and what is not. The statement that any sort of restrictions or limitations placed upon guns is just factually incorrect.
 

Just as there has alway been restrictions on the first amendment - the old can't tell fire in the movie theater example.

Sorry you can't tell what a fire is I'll it gets hot once in a while. You have something against old people?:laughing7:
 

I wonder how I lived to 57 without ever carrying a gun.

I wonder how I manage to live 75 years and never shot myself or anyone else, and I've owned my own firearms since I was 7. Some think all that guns are good for is self defense. Wish I had all the money I've spent just having a heck of a good time shooting targets. If firearms were only for self defense, why would I bother to own more than one. Do you suppose it's because myself and my friends enjoy shooting different types of guns just for shootings sake. Believe it or not, but there are people in this country that legally own crew served fully automatic firearms, and they burn a lot of dollars in just a short time of having fun. Do you also know that there has not been a murder or robbery by a person or legally ownied a full automatic weapon. So if they have the bucks to shoot them, why should they be denied.
 

The old "yelling fire in the theater" gimmick is no comparison. The first amendment protects your right to express your opinion...about anything. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not expressing your opinion. There's a big difference.
Jim

Agreed Jim I use to see young guys yelling theater at a fire all the time. Thought it Stu Pid rgen
 

That's exact right Bosn you hit the nail on the head. Restrictions can be placed on the second amendment and it is perfectly constitutionally legal. This isn't about a good or bad law - it's about what is constitutional and what is not. The statement that any sort of restrictions or limitations placed upon guns is just factually incorrect.

In no way do I want you to think I believe restrictions should be placed on honest people, the Constitution does not say that. Crooks give up their rights, their rights aren't taken from them. The constitution says I and other honest citizens of this country have a God given right to keep and carry firearms without any restrictions. I pointed out that NRA members all have their own opinions, just as you do, no matter how stupid I might think you are, it's your opinion, which also means I can have mine. Don't try to change the meaning of what I say.
 

BosnMate said:
In no way do I want you to think I believe restrictions should be placed on honest people, the Constitution does not say that. Crooks give up their rights, their rights aren't taken from them. The constitution says I and other honest citizens of this country have a God given right to keep and carry firearms without any restrictions. I pointed out that NRA members all have their own opinions, just as you do, no matter how stupid I might think you are, it's your opinion, which also means I can have mine. Don't try to change the meaning of what I say.

Where in the constitution does it say that "criminals give up there rights"? You are exactly right we are all entitled to our opinions. But lets not claim that our opinions are facts. It is perfectly constitutional to place restrictions on gun ownership. Been done by both states and the federal government for hundreds of years. This isn't debatable it's constitutional law 101.
 

"Where in the constitution does it say that "criminals give up there rights"? You are exactly right we are all entitled to our opinions. But lets not claim that our opinions are facts. It is perfectly constitutional to place restrictions on gun ownership. Been done by both states and the federal government for hundreds of years. This isn't debatable it's constitutional law 101."

You sure a constitutional scholar, and so is Obama, and both of you have a real high opinion of yourselves. There are other laws besides the constitution, laws about driving aren't in the constitution, or perhaps I don't have my facts, and you being the scholar can show where they are. Felons aren't denied by the constitution, they are a group of people that the state laws says have given up their rights. They are no longer full citizens, they have also lost some of their freedom in the slammer. You know it all, show me where that is legal in the constitution. The constitution also gives the people the right to vote, but once again state law says they do time and then loose the benefits of other citizens, and no voting either. Geeze, I suppose that isn't in the constitution either. Perhaps you being a scholar and all, you know that it's unconstitutional to deny them those rights, so do you want to pay to take the case to the supreme court, I mean after all you are a constitutional scholar, and I'm just an NRA toadie. You spout so called facts, you take the case. The constitution also says we have freedom of speech, but we don't, and freedom of religion, but we don't. The libs have come up with hate speech, which now denies me the right to speak my mind about what I think of a person, what's next, hate speech about politicians? By the way, it's been suggested. The constitution does not say separation of church and state, liberals do, and these liberals are unconstitutionally taking my rights as a Christian away. I'll still use the ballot box on that one, but it's also a right I'm willing to die for. Liberals also have found the right in the constitution for little babies to be killed by having their brains sucked out. You are the constitutional scholar, show me where that right is in the constitution, the right to kill babies at any stage of gestation, and I know you know it all, so at the same time Mr. constitutional scholar, show me where is says separation of church and state, and that kids can't pray in school, or there can't be a Christmas tree in the fire station, the liberals say it's in there, but I can't find it. Go for it, you know it all, show me where. I for one am not going to let the libs do that to my gun rights, a bit at a time or any other way. Now I'm not saying they will or will not succeed, because I won't be there at the end. Liberals can find all sorts of mysterious things in the constitution that advance their socialist agenda, and they have just about gone too far. I've told you of two rights that I'm willing to fight and die for, you willing to die to defend your idea of what you perceive the government can do no matter what the constitution says?
 

This can happen

1775.webp
 

Bosn, just ignore stock, he doesn't believe in half the bill of rights. He has already started he believes obama has the right to kill Americans on american soil which violates due process of law and the 5th, 6th and 8th amendment and believes in limiting the 2nd....
 

BeoBill, you must be deranged for that statement.
 

Treasure_Hunter said:
Bosn, just ignore stock, he doesn't believe in half the bill of rights. He has already started he believes obama has the right to kill Americans on american soil which violates due process of law and the 5th, 6th and 8th amendment and believes in limiting the 2nd....

And believed the same thing under bush. I had no problem with gitmo, waterboarding, patriot act etc. if an so called American joins the Taliban or al Qaida I believe they are an enemy combatant or at the least a traitor deserving a traitors death. You and the ACLU can go and stand up for terrorists right. As for me, I say death to them all. Just my 2 cents. Best.
 

I don't care what party is in power it is wrong, we have due process of law. Patriot act is a huge mistake no matter what party is in power, as is torture of american citizens...

If you feel so strong then you should have no problem going down and joining a military branch to fight for this country like many of us did....
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top