What are your thoughts on the NRA?

[pismoe]

no , you'd be a supporter , a friend of the NRA 'avg guy' , 35 dollars [about] a year which is really nothing in the scheme of thing . No , no requirement to actually own a gun and for the 35 you get a choice of 1 out of 4 high quality monthly magazines through the mail or delivered online . Good interesting magazine full of history , current information and firearms news plus you get alerts through the mail or computer .

 

[danielpalos]

Why not insist on a serious relationship with militia service, well regulated; so you can have an excuse to keep and bear your Arms in public venues?

Simple:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws. There is no right to private property secured in our Second Article of Amendment; simply Because, rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions, with the Terms; acquire and possess.

 

[danielpalos]

Perhaps you don't want background checks, but Quinnipiac says 92% of all voters want checks, and 86% of republicans do. I know you have an endless list of manufactured outrages, but they probably won't amount to any more than FEMA prisons, death panels or BenghaziBenghaziBenghazi. Nobody can accuse the right wing of not having an imagination.
Poll 92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks TheHill

Meaningless.

92% of Americans could want a return to slavery. That doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Universal background checks are fundamentally wrong for obvious reasons, and that's why there's opposition to them.

Why not insist on a serious relationship with militia service, well regulated; so you can have an excuse to keep and bear your Arms in public venues?

No excuse is required. The right shall not be infringed.

No excuse is needed to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms; but only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

False.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

nope; that is a simple fallacy of composition and appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--and, an appeal to ignorance of the law, as a result.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why not insist on a serious relationship with militia service, well regulated; so you can have an excuse to keep and bear your Arms in public venues?

Simple:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws. There is no right to private property secured in our Second Article of Amendment; simply Because, rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions, with the Terms; acquire and possess.

Um... the ignorance of the law here belongs to you, in full.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[M14 Shooter]

Meaningless.

92% of Americans could want a return to slavery. That doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Universal background checks are fundamentally wrong for obvious reasons, and that's why there's opposition to them.

Why not insist on a serious relationship with militia service, well regulated; so you can have an excuse to keep and bear your Arms in public venues?

No excuse is required. The right shall not be infringed.

No excuse is needed to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms; but only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

False.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

nope; that is a simple fallacy of composition and appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--and, an appeal to ignorance of the law, as a result.

You can disagree with the SCotUS if you want - this only means you choose to be wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

Why not insist on a serious relationship with militia service, well regulated; so you can have an excuse to keep and bear your Arms in public venues?

No excuse is required. The right shall not be infringed.

No excuse is needed to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms; but only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

False.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

nope; that is a simple fallacy of composition and appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--and, an appeal to ignorance of the law, as a result.

You can disagree with the SCotUS if you want - this only means you choose to be wrong.

Can you cite where these specific points were adjudicated in Any ruling or opinion??

 

[M14 Shooter]

No excuse is required. The right shall not be infringed.

No excuse is needed to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms; but only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

False.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

nope; that is a simple fallacy of composition and appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--and, an appeal to ignorance of the law, as a result.

You can disagree with the SCotUS if you want - this only means you choose to be wrong.

Can you cite where these specific points were adjudicated in Any ruling or opinion??

You are rather tiresome.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[danielpalos]

No excuse is needed to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms; but only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

False.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

nope; that is a simple fallacy of composition and appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--and, an appeal to ignorance of the law, as a result.

You can disagree with the SCotUS if you want - this only means you choose to be wrong.

Can you cite where these specific points were adjudicated in Any ruling or opinion??

You are rather tiresome.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

yes, it is.

you Only have a simple fallacy of composition and appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--and, an appeal to ignorance of the law, as a result.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm debating a life membership at the moment and was curious as to everyone's thoughts on the NRA. Any life members here? Anyone completely against the NRA but recommends another gun rights association?
They just came out with a flex payment method for membership and I'm debating it now because its affordable both short and long term.
What are your thoughts?

I'm a lifetime member.

It's a good group that helps to protect civil rights.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I was a member for decades. Quit when their focus was shifted from safe enjoyable use of guns to anything it takes to sell more guns. Even the most adamant gun enthusiast knows there are some people who should never have a gun. The NRA fights every effort to protect the public from crazies with guns. I would hope that some day I can rejoin, but that doesn't look like it will be any time soon.

Aren't you an anti-liberty leftist dedicated to stripping Americans of civil rights?

So obviously you would oppose the NRA.

 

[M14 Shooter]

False.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

nope; that is a simple fallacy of composition and appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--and, an appeal to ignorance of the law, as a result.

You can disagree with the SCotUS if you want - this only means you choose to be wrong.

Can you cite where these specific points were adjudicated in Any ruling or opinion??

You are rather tiresome.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

yes, it is.
you Only have a simple fallacy of composition and appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--and, an appeal to ignorance of the law, as a result.

I laugh at you.
Why don't you tell us what you think your point is and how Heller does not negate it.
Be as detailed as possible.

 

[BULLDOG]

I was a member for decades. Quit when their focus was shifted from safe enjoyable use of guns to anything it takes to sell more guns. Even the most adamant gun enthusiast knows there are some people who should never have a gun. The NRA fights every effort to protect the public from crazies with guns. I would hope that some day I can rejoin, but that doesn't look like it will be any time soon.

Aren't you an anti-liberty leftist dedicated to stripping Americans of civil rights?

So obviously you would oppose the NRA.

Well, no I'm not. I'm constantly amazed at how the right wing has created an imaginary evil monster in their heads, and accuse all who don't bow down to the fox ideology of being that monster. That's another of the many reasons people say right wingers are crazy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, no I'm not. I'm constantly amazed at how the right wing has created an imaginary evil monster in their heads, and accuse all who don't bow down to the fox ideology of being that monster. That's another of the many reasons people say right wingers are crazy.

Fox news has no idea of who you are.

The opposition to civil rights by you has been in this forum. I seem to recall your opposition to 1st and 2nd amendment civil rights on numerous occasions. The American left is dedicated to crushing civil liberty, and I do believe you march in lockstep with that goal.

 

[danielpalos]

I was a member for decades. Quit when their focus was shifted from safe enjoyable use of guns to anything it takes to sell more guns. Even the most adamant gun enthusiast knows there are some people who should never have a gun. The NRA fights every effort to protect the public from crazies with guns. I would hope that some day I can rejoin, but that doesn't look like it will be any time soon.

Aren't you an anti-liberty leftist dedicated to stripping Americans of civil rights?

So obviously you would oppose the NRA.

nope; that is the right, practicing in Cuba.

 

[danielpalos]

nope; that is a simple fallacy of composition and appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--and, an appeal to ignorance of the law, as a result.

You can disagree with the SCotUS if you want - this only means you choose to be wrong.

Can you cite where these specific points were adjudicated in Any ruling or opinion??

You are rather tiresome.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

yes, it is.
you Only have a simple fallacy of composition and appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--and, an appeal to ignorance of the law, as a result.

I laugh at you.
Why don't you tell us what you think your point is and how Heller does not negate it.
Be as detailed as possible.

I already did, grasshopper. you are merely too incompetent to understand it, yet.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can disagree with the SCotUS if you want - this only means you choose to be wrong.

Can you cite where these specific points were adjudicated in Any ruling or opinion??

You are rather tiresome.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

yes, it is.
you Only have a simple fallacy of composition and appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--and, an appeal to ignorance of the law, as a result.

I laugh at you.
Why don't you tell us what you think your point is and how Heller does not negate it.
Be as detailed as possible.

I already did, grasshopper. you are merely too incompetent to understand it, yet.

No. You did not.
You know you did not.
You simply aren't honest enough to admit that your point is unsound.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, i did grasshopper; you are merely too incompetent to understand it, yet.

shall we go over it, point by point?

 

[M14 Shooter]

yes, i did grasshopper; you are merely too incompetent to understand it, yet.
shall we go over it, point by point?

I laugh at you.
Please tell us what you think your point is and how Heller does not negate it.
Be as detailed as possible.

 

[danielpalos]

go for it grasshopper; i can always use the practice.

you Only have a simple fallacy of composition and appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--and, an appeal to ignorance of the law, as a result.

 

[M14 Shooter]

go for it grasshopper; i can always use the practice.
you Only have a simple fallacy of composition and appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--and, an appeal to ignorance of the law, as a result.

You know have no idea what that means and you know you cannot explain how whatever point you think it makes is not negated by the Heller decision.
In your next response you will prove me correct.