The NRA bogey man

C

canceled.2021.3

Former Vice President
Whenever something like Vegas happens, libtard immediately attack the NRA. Apparently they have become a convenient bogeyman for them. Oddly enough you don't hear them talk about the NRA when a negro is shooting another negro in Chicago, but that is a topic for another day


The Washington Post was gracious enough to tell is that since 1998 the NRA has donated $3,533,294 to current members of Congress since 1998. That comes to a WHOPPING $185,962/year in donations. Staggering I know


https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/nra-donations/

By comparison, Planned Parenthood spent $38 million just in 2016 to continue their culture of baby killing
 
racist, racism, old white men, slavery, blah blah blah. might have missed something out of their bag of tricks.

they miss the obvious about the NRA power, something about 4 million plus members. odd how politicians like those votes and support, just as much as law enforcement unions give them.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
racist, racism, old white men, slavery, blah blah blah. might have missed something out of their bag of tricks.

they miss the obvious about the NRA power, something about 4 million plus members. odd how politicians like those votes and support, just as much as law enforcement unions give them.
Click to expand...


Exactly. The power of the NRA is not the funding, but the ability to mobilize millions of voters who care deeply about this. And while the Republican Party may feel comfortable enough to screw conservatives on immigration and funding of planned parenthood, they know they can't survive. Hell even democrats who deeply want to end the 2nd Amendment know better than to come out and say it publicly. This is why they lie in wait for these types of events. If they truly felt strongly about it, they would fight for it everyday.
 
Toxic Titties said:
Whenever something like Vegas happens, libtard immediately attack the NRA. Apparently they have become a convenient bogeyman for them. Oddly enough you don't hear them talk about the NRA when a negro is shooting another negro in Chicago, but that is a topic for another day


The Washington Post was gracious enough to tell is that since 1998 the NRA has donated $3,533,294 to current members of Congress since 1998. That comes to a WHOPPING $185,962/year in donations. Staggering I know


https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/nra-donations/

By comparison, Planned Parenthood spent $38 million just in 2016 to continue their culture of baby killing
Click to expand...

So PP gave $38 million in donations to Congressmen?
 
Toxic Titties said:
Exactly. The power of the NRA is not the funding, but the ability to mobilize millions of voters who care deeply about this. And while the Republican Party may feel comfortable enough to screw conservatives on immigration and funding of planned parenthood, they know they can't survive. Hell even democrats who deeply want to end the 2nd Amendment know better than to come out and say it publicly. This is why they lie in wait for these types of events. If they truly felt strongly about it, they would fight for it everyday.
Click to expand...

And the lobbying doesn't hurt?

The Democrats can lie low on the issue until they are in a position to do something, until then, public opinion builds against loosing gun regulations

You and the support poster have bought completely the NRA's, which is nothing but a front for the gun manufacturers, propaganda on gun regulation, that any reform is automatically a move to take everyone's guns away. Not true, you can keep your toys, but down the road access to guns, especially guns capable of what we saw last week, will be restricted

And ultimately relax, nothing really effective is going to be done, mass shootings are going to continue to occur over and over and over, if a guy massacring little kids with a semiautomatic weapon didn't change anything nothing will, it will be a generational change
 
archives said:
And the lobbying doesn't hurt?

The Democrats can lie low on the issue until they are in a position to do something, until then, public opinion builds against loosing gun regulations

You and the support poster have bought completely the NRA's, which is nothing but a front for the gun manufacturers, propaganda on gun regulation, that any reform is automatically a move to take everyone's guns away. Not true, you can keep your toys, but down the road access to guns, especially guns capable of what we saw last week, will be restricted

And ultimately relax, nothing really effective is going to be done, mass shootings are going to continue to occur over and over and over, if a guy massacring little kids with a semiautomatic weapon didn't change anything nothing will, it will be a generational change
Click to expand...


I know, you will just have to SUCK IT
 
archives said:
And the lobbying doesn't hurt?

The Democrats can lie low on the issue until they are in a position to do something, until then, public opinion builds against loosing gun regulations

You and the support poster have bought completely the NRA's, which is nothing but a front for the gun manufacturers, propaganda on gun regulation, that any reform is automatically a move to take everyone's guns away. Not true, you can keep your toys, but down the road access to guns, especially guns capable of what we saw last week, will be restricted

And ultimately relax, nothing really effective is going to be done, mass shootings are going to continue to occur over and over and over, if a guy massacring little kids with a semiautomatic weapon didn't change anything nothing will, it will be a generational change
Click to expand...

your first mistake is thinking I bought in to anything. My nickname for the NRA is Negotiate Rights Away, because that is pretty much what they do. As to more restrictions, the group you need to pay attention to is those, like myself, who are 2nd Amendment purists who will tell you 'no, your move'.
 
Toxic Titties said:
I know, you will just have to SUCK IT
Click to expand...

Not at all, I live in a community with strict gun laws in a blue state with effective gun regulations and low gun violence, if you gun nuts in the rest of the country want to shoot each other, feel free, but don't come back and try to force the rest of us to adopt your inane life styles
 
archives said:
Not at all, I live in a community with strict gun laws in a blue state with effective gun regulations and low gun violence, if you gun nuts in the rest of the country want to shoot each other, feel free, but don't come back and try to force the rest of us to adopt your inane life styles
Click to expand...

what state?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
your first mistake is thinking I bought in to anything. My nickname for the NRA is Negotiate Rights Away, because that is pretty much what they do. As to more restrictions, the group you need to pay attention to is those, like myself, who are 2nd Amendment purists who will tell you 'no, your move'.
Click to expand...

"Second Amendment purist?"

As a "purist," let me ask you, if in the two hundred year plus history of the United States no one, no Court, no branch of the Government, not even Scalia himself, could ever determine what the prefatory clause to the Amendment meant, and if you can't explain what the prefatory clause means, why the Amendment exists, how can you say what the rest means?
 
archives said:
"Second Amendment purist?"

As a "purist," let me ask you, if in the two hundred year plus history of the United States no one, no Court, no branch of the Government, not even Scalia himself, could ever determine what the prefatory clause to the Amendment meant, and if you can't explain what the prefatory clause means, why the Amendment exists, how can you say what the rest means?
Click to expand...

the very meaning of the 2nd Amendment is not to be found by the courts, nor any branch of the government (though the US Senate did do an extensive official study in 1982 I believe), and most certainly not Scalia, but in the writings, commentaries, and minutes of the constitutional convention from the framers themselves.

If you need me to explain THEIR words about the prefatory clause then I will be happy to do that.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the very meaning of the 2nd Amendment is not to be found by the courts, nor any branch of the government (though the US Senate did do an extensive official study in 1982 I believe), and most certainly not Scalia, but in the writings, commentaries, and minutes of the constitutional convention from the framers themselves.

If you need me to explain THEIR words about the prefatory clause then I will be happy to do that.
Click to expand...

Not deflecting, but then couldn't you say/do that with any section of the Constitution to get an array of views? George Mason and Edmond Ramdolph signed the Constitution but had dissenting views on large parts of it, Sam Adams opposed most of it, and Patrick Henry was a major critic.

What individual Founders wrote can offer alternative interpretations but we have to go on is what was written and the way the Court has interpreted it since that time
 
archives said:
Not deflecting, but then couldn't you say/do that with any section of the Constitution to get an array of views? George Mason and Edmond Ramdolph signed the Constitution but had dissenting views on large parts of it, Sam Adams opposed most of it, and Patrick Henry was a major critic.

What individual Founders wrote can offer alternative interpretations but we have to go on is what was written and the way the Court has interpreted it since that time
Click to expand...

certainly, there were critics of how the constitution was debated and what parts were proposed. The thing about the Constitution that is of the most importance is 'what did the people ratify?', because we the people did write it. the views during the debates are helpful, but the most meaningful understanding comes from the commentaries that explained to 'we the people' what those words meant.

And NO!!!!! you must not rely on the courts to interpret shit. Their job is to judge the written laws to see if they abide by the constitution. Not to interpret the constitution to fit what congress or the legislature writes up.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-1540

to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under , Start insertion,the, End, despotism of an Oligarchy. our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. they have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps. their maxim is ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionim,’ and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective countroul. the constitution has erected no such single tribunal knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corrputions of time & party it’s members would become despots. it has , Start insertion,more wisely, End, made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
certainly, there were critics of how the constitution was debated and what parts were proposed. The thing about the Constitution that is of the most importance is 'what did the people ratify?', because we the people did write it. the views during the debates are helpful, but the most meaningful understanding comes from the commentaries that explained to 'we the people' what those words meant.

And NO!!!!! you must not rely on the courts to interpret shit. Their job is to judge the written laws to see if they abide by the constitution. Not to interpret the constitution to fit what congress or the legislature writes up.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-1540

to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under , Start insertion,the, End, despotism of an Oligarchy. our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. they have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps. their maxim is ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionim,’ and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective countroul. the constitution has erected no such single tribunal knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corrputions of time & party it’s members would become despots. it has , Start insertion,more wisely, End, made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
Click to expand...

If that was such how could anything, like State Legislatures appointing Senators, then be removed from the Constitution?

And now apply that to the predatory clause of the Second Amendment
 
archives said:
Not at all, I live in a community with strict gun laws in a blue state with effective gun regulations and low gun violence, if you gun nuts in the rest of the country want to shoot each other, feel free, but don't come back and try to force the rest of us to adopt your inane life styles
Click to expand...

Who is trying to force you to do anything? Has anyone forced you to own a gun?
 
archives said:
If that was such how could anything, like State Legislatures appointing Senators, then be removed from the Constitution?
Click to expand...
that part of the constitution was amended. you know the amendment process, correct? if 3/5 ths of the states ratify that amendment, then we the people have changed the constitution.

archives said:
And now apply that to the predatory clause of the Second Amendment
Click to expand...
there's a difference in amending a government power or process in the constitution as compared to amending the constitution to negate a fundamental right. The constitution was written to keep the federal government small and it's prescribed powers few and finite. Not to remove rights of the people.
 
Toxic Titties said:
Who is trying to force you to do anything? Has anyone forced you to own a gun?
Click to expand...

Conservatives, even the recent "recreation" bill, having a hard time understanding how armor piercing bullets have anything to do with recreation, the SHARE Act, has a bill allowing gun nuts from gun States to bring their toys into States with strict gun regulations
 
archives said:
Conservatives, even the recent "recreation" bill, having a hard time understanding how armor piercing bullets have anything to do with recreation, the SHARE Act, has a bill allowing gun nuts from gun States to bring their toys into States with strict gun regulations
Click to expand...

Well it is an equal protection issue isn’t it? You guys are all about equal protection
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top