FatWhiteMan said there's no grassroots support in the gun control movement.
Jadegold said there is and supplied this link to prove it.
I was scrolling down the names and noticed, after about ten minutes, the list is so long, the names of the entire Zappa family are there. I thought it's interesting since the late great Frank Zappa was such a big supporter of the 1st Amendment.
I often get the impression from pro-gun folks that they have some kind of proprietary relationship with all the Amendments. But, the fact is many of the individuals and organizations named on the NRA list, are supporters of 1A, yet have earned their place on this list as being "anti-gun."
My belief is it's not so much a question of supporting individual rights as it is one of common sense and honesty. The current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by the Supreme Court is bogus, the ACLU said so. The notion that the gun-rights movement has more grassroots support than their opponents is bogus, Jadegold said so.
What's your Opinion? Please leave a comment.
The ACLU base their position on the 2nd amendment off of US. V. Miller? That alone proves they are wrong.
ReplyDeleteJustice McReynolds's decision was either malicious, or incompetent. I'm not sure which.
One could just as easily state Scalia's opinion was malacious and incompetent.
ReplyDeleteTrue, Jade, but McRaynolds was trying to make the Bill of Rights fit the laws, rather than the opposite.
ReplyDeleteBy bending the Constitution, he proved the NFA was unConstitutional. Simple, really.
I find it interesting that the NRA-ILA has such a long "enemies" list: it verges on the paranoic.
ReplyDeleteOf course, that many anti-gun people out there makes me question why personal firearms are legal.
Sorry, Kevin H., but prior to the early 1990s the "civic right interpretation" of the Second Amendment was pretty much the norm. That would cause nearly as much outcry as a discussion of abortion rights in US law schools when they discussed those topics. My con law professor refused to even discuss the Second Amendment since he told me that it was even more of a charged subject than abortion.
I will let o#you make up your own mind who is being dishonest in the civic v individual right department by directing you to US v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996) wher it discusses the Second Amendment:
We note first that however clear the Court's suggestion that the firearm before it lacked the necessary military character, it did not state that such character alone would be sufficient to secure Second Amendment protection. In fact, the Miller Court assigned no special importance to the character of the weapon itself, but instead demanded a reasonable relationship between its "possession or use" and militia-related activity. Id.; see Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 922 (1st Cir.1942) (susceptibility of firearm to military application not determinative), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718 (1943). Rybar has not demonstrated that his possession of the machine guns had any connection with militia-related activity. Indeed, as noted above, Rybar was a firearms dealer and the transactions in question appear to have been consistent with that business activity.
Note that one of the Judge's names is Alito.
Laci
Are they saying that full-autos aren't proper military arms or that Rybar was not a member of a militia?
ReplyDeleteThe former is patently silly, and the latter is untrue (so long as you are 17 or older and able-bodied, one IS a member of the militia)
wait a second, honest question; would it be a strech to assume that they were implying that a weapons' military usefulness is not proof that a weapon is useful to a military?
ReplyDeleteNevermind, I just read the whole darn thing, and it seems they DID mean all that. Rediculous.
ReplyDeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteA list of a few companies and individuals does not make up grass roots. The fact that there are like 10 anti-gun websites on the planet next to 100's of pro-gun sights ought to tell you something.
Poor Laci,
Just can't get past what the majority has known all along. Individual right--always has been. That collective rights invention that popped up in the 1970's has been proven false. Better learn to deal with your disappointments.
FWM is, of course, wrong as usual.
ReplyDeleteYes, there are a gazillion gunloon websites and very, very few gun control sites. However, the fact is 99.9% of the gunloon sites are saying the exact same thing. They simply parrot the latest NRA nonsense.
If we use FWM's 'logic,' the number of gays in American society must outnumber heterosexuals because there are far and away more websites dealing with issues of interests to gays than heteros.
Kevin, saying that you are part of the militia because you are over 18 is as ridiculous as saying that you went to harvard because you applied and were not accepted.
ReplyDeleteTo be a member of the militia, you need to be enrolled in a unit.
the unorganised militia is a draft pool for the organised militia.
That is the equivalent of having a draft card.
Thus, people such as Bill Clinton and Ted Nugent could claim to be Vietnam vets using the "unorganised militia argument": both had draft cards.
FWM, you can believe what you wish.
Unfortunately, if you actually cared to research my citations, you would find I am correct. The "Collective right" interpretation is an accepted legal interpretation which was in both of J. Stevens' dissents (Heller and McDonald).
While it is not popularly accepted, it is nonetheless correct and historically accurate.
Even if you do not accept the collective right, McDonald and Heller both allow for strong regulation of firearms.
BTW, FWM, please provide some accurate refutation of my assertions. One which would not be assailable as being a misqutation.
The individual right interpretation is based upon inaccurate reading of the texts and legal theory.
Laci
Jadegold: “If we use FWM's 'logic,' the number of gays in American society must outnumber heterosexuals because there are far and away more websites dealing with issues of interests to gays than heteros.”
ReplyDeleteReally? What exactly are you typing into Google to reach that conclusion?
"Jade Gold said so" has to be the lamest excuse for determining truth I have ever seen.
ReplyDeleteLaci: You're so good at finding and copy-pasting text, how about you look up USC TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 311.
Laci, I was just thinking of something. As there is plenty of documents supporting the individual right and no doubt you have the texts and legal theories you mentioned, as well as the second amendment being but a single sentance, don't you think there's room for both?
ReplyDeleteMaybe we could put down the tired "either/or" arguments and agree on something?
If there is grassroots support for gun control, the money doesn't show it.
ReplyDeleteLet's ask 1 million people, "Do you think owning a gun is a god-given right?"
ReplyDeleteAbout 900,000 will say, "Huh, come again."
"Jade Gold said so" is equivalent to the truth.
ReplyDelete"'Jade Gold said so' is equivalent to the truth."
ReplyDeleteQuite. Mark his words.
" About 900,000 will say, "Huh, come again." "
ReplyDeleteAnd you know this because you've actually asked about one million people right? Oh, what's that, you've pulled numbers out of your ass again?