NRA sues Florida to block new gun laws.

[Ripster42]

Which is odd because the ACTUAL meaning of the Second Amendment is to defend the STATES's rights to regulate their weaponry.

No, it's not. It's to give the people a means to defend themselves from the government.

NRA still refusing to look at the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd amendment.

The "well regulated" part is with respect to the militia, not gun ownership. The 2nd also doesn't say you need to be in a militia to own a gun. It just says that because a militia is necessary to protect the people from the government, your right to own guns shall not be infringed in case you DO need to join a militia. It's bullshit and outdated, but that doesn't mean it doesn't say what it says.

[Stop Pretending]

Let's go ahead and call the NRA what it is, a terrorist organization that wants to arm terrorists.

[schwarzkopf]

No, it's not. It's to give the people a means to defend themselves from the government.

I was referring to the ACTUAL meaning, not the NRA drivel that many people believe.

[Templar 331]

Let's go ahead and call the NRA what it is, a terrorist organization that wants to arm terrorists.

You mean "Freedom Fighters." Lol.

[Ripster42]

I was referring to the ACTUAL meaning, not the NRA drivel that many people believe.

And again, you're not. The ACTUAL meaning is that the government can't interfere with your right to own guns because you might need to join a militia in case one of two things happens: 1) we're invaded 2) the government becomes oppressive.

Here's from my last post:

It's bullshit and outdated, but that doesn't mean it doesn't say what it says.

[Ghostpanther]

Which is odd because the ACTUAL meaning of the Second Amendment is to defend the STATES's rights to regulate their weaponry.

No isn't. And I think the Supreme Court's opinion carries more weight than yours does. The meaning is more than maintaining a militia and the Court did rule the states have the right to regulate firearms. But they also ruled a citizen can use the Second to claim a right to use firearms for self defense apart from a militia.

There are some parts of the Fla law just passed I do not like. And some parts I support. The ability to temporarily seize a person's firearms based on reports of mental illness without due process before hand?, could be a slippery slope of denying a person their Constitutional right. I mean, for how long can they hold them?

[schwarzkopf]

No isn't. And I think the Supreme Court's opinion carries more weight than yours does.

Indeed.. and the courts have stated that an AR-15 is not protected by the second amendment.

However - the supreme court's opinion is just an opinion - bought and paid for.

[Dontrike]

With repeated calls to infringe on it along with the numerous riots and trouble they've incited.

So no actual evidence or proof of this just your own inane ramblings that prove nothing? Great.

[Xeones]

No isn't. And I think the Supreme Court's opinion carries more weight than yours does.

Until they do something you don't like anyways.

[Ghostpanther]

Indeed.. and the courts have stated that an AR-15 is not protected by the second amendment.

However - the supreme court's opinion is just an opinion - bought and paid for.

Yes, specific firearms are and can be restricted.

Wrong. The Supreme Court's decisions are more than just opinions. It is the law. Thus whose's ruling allows the exercise of such.

- - - Updated - - -

Until they do something you don't like anyways.

Which they have made rulings I do not agree with. But it is still the law.

[Stormdash]

Which is odd because the ACTUAL meaning of the Second Amendment is to defend the STATES's rights to regulate their weaponry.

Spoken with profound legal and historical ignorance.

The lawsuit has very solid grounds. They are actually including an argument that the restrictions on age are so tight, even restricting private transfer, that they amount to a possession ban, which is obvious 2nd Amendment calamity legally speaking (possession bans were at the heart of Heller and McDonald).

The law could/should be easily challengable on the overbroadness/vagueness of the bump stock section (its language is absurdly sweeping into modifications that have nothing to do with bump stocks), but that part doesn't take effect until 10/1 so isn't in this complaint.

[Felya]

Spoken with profound legal and historical ignorance.

The lawsuit has very solid grounds. They are actually including an argument that the restrictions on age are so tight, even restricting private transfer, that they amount to a possession ban, which is obvious 2nd Amendment calamity legally speaking (possession bans were at the heart of Heller and McDonald).

The law could/should be easily challengable on the overbroadness/vagueness of the bump stock section (its language is absurdly sweeping into modifications that have nothing to do with bump stocks), but that part doesn't take effect until 10/1 so isn't in this complaint.

I need to invent a gun scope out of weed. It might be the best way to have pot be legal federally. No... I don’t think it would work... I need to invent it and then convince gun manufacturers to make it. Then NRA will make pot legal...

[ipaq]

Because a 10 year old shouldn't be allowed to taste freedom?

Real men have guns. Because guns are better than women! It is a lesson even a kid must learn!

News flash: real men do not need guns. Only white boyz with small dicks need a gun.

[Sky High]

crass capitalism in it's purest form, ladies and gents.

[Felya]

News flash: real men do not need guns. Only white boyz with small dicks need a gun.

Where the hell do you get your news?

[cubby]

Wow, do they really have no shame?
Do these people who claim they are adults have any shame?

At some point we really need to ask whether that organization offers any real benefit to anyone but the gun manufacturers.

I mean, my first thought when I saw this is, why don't we just shut them down, legally. They literally offer nothing good for the world.

- - - Updated - - -

Indeed.. and the courts have stated that an AR-15 is not protected by the second amendment.

However - the supreme court's opinion is just an opinion - bought and paid for.

SC is "bought and paid for?" - are you sure you're in the right thread? SCOTUS is pretty independent, lol. And they aren't even remotely beholden to the parties/presidents that appoint them. Remember Roberts ruling in favor of ACA?
@Ghostpanther is entirely correct - on both accounts.

[Ghostpanther]

At some point we really need to ask whether that organization offers any real benefit to anyone but the gun manufacturers.

I mean, my first thought when I saw this is, why don't we just shut them down, legally. They literally offer nothing good for the world.

Except that is not what we do here in the US. Maybe in some fascist country they would. The NRA is considered by 5+ millions to offer extra protection for the rights we have under the Second Amendment. They offer legal actions which most gun owners can not afford to do to protect their rights. So they may not offer anything good for you or those who think like you do, they do offer some good for others who think differently.

[cubby]

No, it's not. It's to give the people a means to defend themselves from the government.

The "well regulated" part is with respect to the militia, not gun ownership. The 2nd also doesn't say you need to be in a militia to own a gun. It just says that because a militia is necessary to protect the people from the government, your right to own guns shall not be infringed in case you DO need to join a militia. It's bullshit and outdated, but that doesn't mean it doesn't say what it says.

It's actually neither. At this point the 2nd is perhaps the most outdated, still valid amendment on the books. It doesn't really do anything except give the NRA some legitimacy.

I mean - if it disappeared, the U.S. would still have guns, lots of them, and lawful gun owners would be protected.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that is not what we do here in the US. Maybe in some fascist country they would. The NRA is considered by 5+ millions to offer extra protection for the rights we have under the Second Amendment. They offer legal actions which most gun owners can not afford to do to protect their rights. So they may not offer anything good for you or those who think like you do, they do offer some good for others who think differently.

They don't seem to be offering anything good for anyone in this case. I hear what you're saying, and objectively you're right of course - lobby groups are there for their members. But jesus . . . in this case they almost seem like terrorists (I know, I know - just giving you my feelings).

Let me ask you this. When one of these shootings happens, and people start asking for increased gun regulations - do lawful gun owners feel threatened/attacked?

[Stormdash]

crass capitalism in it's purest form, ladies and gents.

Except for having anything to do with capitalism, or indeed any macroeconomic principles or ethos of any kind or in any context. It was just time to blame capitalism for things, right?

[Sky High]

Except for having anything to do with capitalism, or indeed any macroeconomic principles or ethos of any kind or in any context. It was just time to blame capitalism for things, right?

oh shut the fuck up, do you really expect me to think the NRA or the gun manufacturers they represent give a shit about anything but their bottom line? please.