Nra pesident sells out out...again.

The Big Guy · Feb 21, 2013

http://www.infowars.com/citizens-applaud-defeat-of-firearms-ban-in-massachusetts/

Listen to what he says at the end of the news report. He sounds like Bob Irwin.

TBG

WalkingWolf · Feb 21, 2013

Well I don't expect this thread to be around long, but those restrictions that NRA covets are those beloved privilege cards which for some reason they think are rights.

MP_4_Life · Feb 21, 2013

I'm not quite seeing how he "sold us out"? He just stated his opinion on Congress and that even though there are ways to add restrictions, he also indicated though that they have to look at them very closely when considering. I personally think he should have left that out, but at the same time it could have been taken out of context of the rest of his talk (like the media likes to do a lot).

davidmcbeth · Feb 21, 2013

MP_4_Life said:
I'm not quite seeing how he "sold us out"? He just stated his opinion on Congress and that even though there are ways to add restrictions, he also indicated though that they have to look at them very closely when considering. I personally think he should have left that out, but at the same time it could have been taken out of context of the rest of his talk (like the media likes to do a lot).

But why even say that last sentence ... ya know that the antis will just use it against pros

The Big Guy · Feb 21, 2013

MP_4_Life said:
I'm not quite seeing how he "sold us out"? He just stated his opinion on Congress and that even though there are ways to add restrictions, he also indicated though that they have to look at them very closely when considering. I personally think he should have left that out, but at the same time it could have been taken out of context of the rest of his talk (like the media likes to do a lot).

"It is possible, and it is legal, to put certain restrictions on the second amendment rights, just as it is on first amendment rights".

What part of the Constitution contains that language? Is that the same part that changes the word "right" to "privilege"? Or perhaps it's the section that says congress may ignore the Constitution for their perceived notion of public good. Maybe it's the part that says the government can ignore the whole document if it doesn't like what it says? Every time I read over the Constitution I seem to miss those sections.

TBG

MP_4_Life · Feb 21, 2013

The Big Guy said:
"It is possible, and it is legal, to put certain restrictions on the second amendment rights, just as it is on first amendment rights".

What part of the Constitution contains that language? Is that the same part that changes the word "right" to "privilege"? Or perhaps it's the section that says congress may ignore the Constitution for their perceived notion of public good. Maybe it's the part that says the government can ignore the whole document if it doesn't like what it says? Every time I read over the Constitution I seem to miss those sections.

TBG

I agree 1000% with you TBG, but sadly it's how politicians see it. They think they can just make what laws they feel are going to make people feel safer. That's why people like us and the NRA fights them, but do I see what him saying is like him throwing us under a bus... no. I am disappointed that he'd say something like that and give the anti-2A wiggle room, but before jumping to that conclusion I'd rather see the whole talk he had, not one little excerpt.

wrightme · Feb 21, 2013

The Big Guy said:
"It is possible, and it is legal, to put certain restrictions on the second amendment rights, just as it is on first amendment rights".

What part of the Constitution contains that language? Is that the same part that changes the word "right" to "privilege"? Or perhaps it's the section that says congress may ignore the Constitution for their perceived notion of public good. Maybe it's the part that says the government can ignore the whole document if it doesn't like what it says? Every time I read over the Constitution I seem to miss those sections.

TBG

Extrapolate a bit.

"just as it is on first amendment rights."

To put the proper context on the comment, first, look at what restrictions have been allowed on first amendment rights. Begin.

About the ONLY restrictions I can think of, are 'fighting words.' Can you come up with any other allowed 1A restrictions?

The Big Guy · Feb 21, 2013

wrightme said:
Extrapolate a bit.

"just as it is on first amendment rights."

To put the proper context on the comment, first, look at what restrictions have been allowed on first amendment rights. Begin.

About the ONLY restrictions I can think of, are 'fighting words.' Can you come up with any other allowed 1A restrictions?

You would have to ask the President of the NRA as they are his words.

As for me, yes I could spend the afternoon coming up with restrictions on the 1A. The one that gripes me the most is free speech zones. If there are those who have never heard of it, search the term.

What about restrictions on Pastors quoting scriptures against homosexuality?

Hate speech, whatever that is.

What about churches being forced into incorporation and 501.c3?

There are lots of restrictions on the freedom of assembly.

The list do go on....

TBG

KBCraig · Feb 21, 2013

wrightme said:
To put the proper context on the comment, first, look at what restrictions have been allowed on first amendment rights. Begin.

About the ONLY restrictions I can think of, are 'fighting words.' Can you come up with any other allowed 1A restrictions?

Giving false alarm. This is why it's okay for the government to require everyone to be gagged before entering a crowded theater, lest they shout "Fire!"

wrightme · Feb 21, 2013

KBCraig said:
Giving false alarm. This is why it's okay for the government to require everyone to be gagged before entering a crowded theater, lest they shout "Fire!"

There is no such restriction upon speech.

It is a fallacy. I challenge you to find actual statute defining what you claim is a restriction.

wrightme · Feb 21, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
But why even say that last sentence ... ya know that the antis will just use it against pros

Speaking of 'take out of context.....

"“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.”

It is first and foremost, most fair to present the entire quote.

Did you see that last half of the last sentence?

And, why? To add that last half of the last sentence. The antis already KNOW they CAN pass legislation.

The Big Guy · Feb 21, 2013

KBCraig said:
Giving false alarm. This is why it's okay for the government to require everyone to be gagged before entering a crowded theater, lest they shout "Fire!"

The First Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with shouting fire in a crowded theater. It has nothing to do with shouting obscenities in the town square. It has nothing to do with making obscene art at the taxpayers’ expense. It has to do with restricting the government from interjecting itself on your choice of religion. The freedom of the press to print the news and opinions, and the right to redress of grievances. Period!

TBG

JDPrice · Feb 21, 2013

Agreed TBG,

bigguyswife · Feb 22, 2013

IMHO,

Anyone who says that there are no restriction on any of our rights regarding the 1A & 2A are just not paying attention.
They are whittling our rights little by little. Its is illegal in several counties in CA to hold Bible studies in your home, NDAA allows the military to arrest a citizen in their own home, my pastor faces jail time when preaching the Bible, a seniors valdictorian speech was cut off when she praised Christ, Free Speech zones .......what more do you need? I could go on or you can research it yourself.

Wake up, people! Our guns are next!

Stephanie
bigguyswife

bigguyswife · Feb 22, 2013

but before jumping to that conclusion I'd rather see the whole talk he had, not one little excerpt

No way is the lame stream media going to show the entire interview-that would just be counter productive.

Stephanie
bigguyswife

KBCraig · Feb 24, 2013

wrightme said:
KBCraig said:

Giving false alarm. This is why it's okay for the government to require everyone to be gagged before entering a crowded theater, lest they shout "Fire!"

Click to expand...

There is no such restriction upon speech.

It is a fallacy. I challenge you to find actual statute defining what you claim is a restriction.

I don't make statements without a basis for them.

Texas Penal Code:
Sec. 42.06. FALSE ALARM OR REPORT. (a) A person commits an offense if he knowingly initiates, communicates or circulates a report of a present, past, or future bombing, fire, offense, or other emergency that he knows is false or baseless and that would ordinarily:
(1) cause action by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
(2) place a person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; or
(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation of a building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has access, or aircraft, automobile, or other mode of conveyance.

Oh, did you want Nevada law? Well, here you go:
NRS 475.100 False fire alarms; penalties.
1. It is unlawful for a person intentionally to give or cause to be given, or turn in or cause to be turned in, any false alarm of fire.

Now, that said... was everyone's sarcasm meter broken? It seems those who replied missed the meat of what I said, about government requiring everyone to be gagged before entering a crowded theater, to stop them from shouting "fire". I thought the analogy to disarming people who have threatened no violence was pretty obvious, but it wouldn't be the first time I judged incorrectly.

WalkingWolf · Feb 24, 2013

KBCraig said:
I don't make statements without a basis for them.

Texas Penal Code:
Sec. 42.06. FALSE ALARM OR REPORT. (a) A person commits an offense if he knowingly initiates, communicates or circulates a report of a present, past, or future bombing, fire, offense, or other emergency that he knows is false or baseless and that would ordinarily:
(1) cause action by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
(2) place a person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; or
(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation of a building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has access, or aircraft, automobile, or other mode of conveyance.

Oh, did you want Nevada law? Well, here you go:
NRS 475.100 False fire alarms; penalties.
1. It is unlawful for a person intentionally to give or cause to be given, or turn in or cause to be turned in, any false alarm of fire.

Now, that said... was everyone's sarcasm meter broken? It seems those who replied missed the meat of what I said, about government requiring everyone to be gagged before entering a crowded theater, to stop them from shouting "fire". I thought the analogy to disarming people who have threatened no violence was pretty obvious, but it wouldn't be the first time I judged incorrectly.

Take note of your cite~~~because it is not against the law to yell fire in a theater IF there is a fire. Also the ability to yell fire is not accomplished by banning speech, it is accomplished by due process only after the law is broken. To relate yelling fire in a theater to banning guns, it would be necessary to cut the tongue out of citizens mouths less they might at sometime in the future make false reports.

There are none to few laws that limit the rights of individuals by banning owning or possessing a tool, or object. Except for drug laws which are again based on the premise that just possessing them will make you do something evil. Which IMO are against due process.

KBCraig · Feb 25, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
Take note of your cite~~~because it is not against the law to yell fire in a theater IF there is a fire. Also the ability to yell fire is not accomplished by banning speech, it is accomplished by due process only after the law is broken. To relate yelling fire in a theater to banning guns, it would be necessary to cut the tongue out of citizens mouths less they might at sometime in the future make false reports.

...which is exactly what I said.

Nra pesident sells out out...again.

The Big Guy

Regular Member

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

MP_4_Life

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

The Big Guy

Regular Member

MP_4_Life

Regular Member

wrightme

Regular Member

The Big Guy

Regular Member

KBCraig

Regular Member

wrightme

Regular Member

wrightme

Regular Member

The Big Guy

Regular Member

JDPrice

Regular Member

bigguyswife

Regular Member

bigguyswife

Regular Member

KBCraig

Regular Member

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

KBCraig

Regular Member