American Gun Ownership Highest In 18 Years

[11B4V]

State's Rights

I believe I posted something similar awhile back about the Missouri legislature.

Yes, we had the same issue in Missouri.  States don't actually don't have rights as they aren't people.  They also can't nullify federal law.

Irregardless, I will watch the show to be sure.

The felony one is hilarious.

[Berkut]

All of which makes this comment incorrect.

It's not like the NRA nor a majority of gun owners are calling for a repeal of all existing gun laws.

Democratic process at work. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

But that isn't the point - the point is that the actual position of the gun rights block in the US is pretty much that ANY control is akin to fascism, and pretty much any means necessary to stop it is warranted, even to the extent of trying to pass laws making it illegal to propose other laws!

That is NOT the democratic process at work. I find it amazing that people can actually look at a law that would make it a felony to propose a law in the interests of protecting their "raits" and not notice the rather glaring irony of it.

[derspiess]

It's "rahts", not "raits".  Silly New Yorker

[PDH]

The 2nd Amendment trumps the 1st because it has a bigger number.

[derspiess]

Yes, we had the same issue in Missouri.  States don't actually don't have rights as they aren't people.  They also can't nullify federal law.

It's just a figure of speech.  I know it's Languish, but you guys get too hung up on semantics sometimes.  States don't technically have "rights", but they have powers, per the 10th amendment.

[merithyn]

Yes, we had the same issue in Missouri.  States don't actually don't have rights as they aren't people.  They also can't nullify federal law.

It's just a figure of speech.  I know it's Languish, but you guys get too hung up on semantics sometimes.  States don't technically have "rights", but they have powers, per the 10th amendment.

Okay, setting aside semantics, how can you say that NRA members aren't trying to negate laws already in place while they are doing exactly that at the state level?

[Razgovory]

It's more then semantics.  "Rights" and "Powers" are very different things. "States Rights" advocates conflate the two to give themselves a legal and moral advantage.

[Razgovory]

The 2nd Amendment trumps the 1st because it has a bigger number.

Also it it's armed and terrorize the other amendments.

[11B4V]

All of which makes this comment incorrect.

It's not like the NRA nor a majority of gun owners are calling for a repeal of all existing gun laws.

Democratic process at work. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

But that isn't the point - the point is that the actual position of the gun rights block in the US is pretty much that ANY control is akin to fascism, and pretty much any means necessary to stop it is warranted, even to the extent of trying to pass laws making it illegal to propose other laws!

That is NOT the democratic process at work. I find it amazing that people can actually look at a law that would make it a felony to propose a law in the interests of protecting their "raits" and not notice the rather glaring irony of it.

No, but it makes for good entertainment. Could this be similar the the "Pot" issue passed by two states? Didnt that go in the face of Fed Law? I see no difference at the basic level.

[derspiess]

Yes, we had the same issue in Missouri.  States don't actually don't have rights as they aren't people.  They also can't nullify federal law.

It's just a figure of speech.  I know it's Languish, but you guys get too hung up on semantics sometimes.  States don't technically have "rights", but they have powers, per the 10th amendment.

Okay, setting aside semantics, how can you say that NRA members aren't trying to negate laws already in place while they are doing exactly that at the state level?

I'm not aware of any NRA efforts in those state-level nullification examples (which I believe are pretty much symbolic measures in any case), nor do I think a majority of NRA members are pushing for them.

If some people who happen to be NRA members sponsored the measures, that doesn't necessarily prove me wrong.

[Razgovory]

What would prove you wrong?

[derspiess]

What would prove you wrong?

I guess if you found evidence of NRA advocacy to remove all existing firearms regulations or a majority of their members or firearms owners who support that.

I'm sure you have the time to do the research

[The Minsky Moment]

State's Rights

The implication is more sweeping than that.  The Second Amendment is incorporated against the states now.  If the Second Amendment prohibits all federal legislation, it prohibits all state legislation as well.

[The Minsky Moment]

Is there any firearms regulation that NRA-ILA supports?

Yeah.  Most of the existing regulations.

Is there any evidence of that?  Testimony, fact sheets, press releases?  Anything?

[frunk]

Is there any evidence of that?  Testimony, fact sheets, press releases?  Anything?

I think we need to get more "existing legislation" in place so the nebulous NRA position can support that without saying it does.