NRA Letter

well, Dicks is stopping all sale of assault weapons and gear and requiring purchasers to be 21. That’s a great step. Legislation would be better but since that isn’t working, it’s nice to see someone who profits doing it voluntarily.

BG9 said:

conandrob240 said:

fantastic response by Dicks Sporting Goods today. If the government won’t take the steps, maybe the companies that make & sell guns will.

I doubt the companies who make the guns will stop making them or ask for limits on buyers. The very many gun shop, the ones that have signage, stating "Guns and Ammo" will not stop selling to anyone they legally can. Same with gun shows.

I think the important fact is that this is a large company which knows that a lot of its customers are gun owners, if not NRA members.  They have made a decision that "responsible gun ownership" is not the same as the ownership of these "civilianized" assault rifles.  If more politicians can see that Dick's can do this, then maybe they'll stand up to the NRA's unreasonable demands as well.

Tom_R said:

nohero said:...So what was "the original intent" of the Second Amendment?...

So what was it?

TomR

I don't know what point you thought you were making with that comment.  If you have a view, you are allowed to share.

As a contribution to the discussion, I can share the following.  The “first draft” of the Bill of Rights was prepared by James Madison, in the first months of the first Congress after George Washington was inaugurated as the first President.  Actually, his first innovation was to draft the amendments as “add-ons”, instead of actually opening up the text of the original document and revising its sections.  That’s why it’s the “Bill of Rights” and enumerated amendments, instead of “Constitution Version 2”.

In his book “The Quartet”, historian Joseph Ellis discusses Madison’s work at the time that the Founders were still working out how the new government would operate:

But there is no question that Madison was the “Father of the Bill of Rights.”  He wrote the first draft single-handedly, ushered it through the House, and negotiated with leaders in the Senate as they reduced the seventeen amendments proposed by the House to twelve.
…
Finally, under the rubric of his proposed fourth amendment, Madison wrote the following words: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.” This eventually, after some editing in the Senate, became the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, and its meaning has provoked more controversy in our own time than it did in 1789.

Madison was responding to recommended amendments from five states, calling for the prohibition of a permanent standing army on the grounds that it had historically proven to be an enduring thread to republican values.  It is clear that Madison’s intention in drafting his proposed amendment was to assure those skeptical souls that the defense of the United States would depend on state militias rather than a professional, federal army.  In Madison’s formulation, the right to bear arms was not inherent but derivative, depending on service in the militia.

prisoners_dilemma said:

Shall not be infringed means the ability of the people to stand up against the government a la the Bundy Ranch when the militias stood up to the BLS regardless of your opinion on th matter. Or perhaps it makes collective individuals citizens by their ability to resist government overstepping it legal bounds. Isn’t one of the 8 rule for radicals to remove the right of the people to keep me bear arms this paving the way for a police state?

My spouse’s cousin works for the Federal government out in Idaho, in connection with the management of Federal lands out there.  She’s in the field, as is her husband.  Over the years, they’ve encountered various people (with guns) who comment in a negative way about the job she is responsible to do.  The simple fact is that these Federal lands belong to all of us, and it’s entirely right that rules are set for their use, which rules are then enforced by people such as my spouse’s cousin.  Unfortunately, in enforcing those rules they encounter people who threaten them.

The Bundy crew aren't a "militia", they were just trespassing punks.  They were elevated to hero status by people whose opinions I have no respect for. 

nohero said:

prisoners_dilemma said:

Shall not be infringed means the ability of the people to stand up against the government a la the Bundy Ranch when the militias stood up to the BLS regardless of your opinion on th matter. Or perhaps it makes collective individuals citizens by their ability to resist government overstepping it legal bounds. Isn’t one of the 8 rule for radicals to remove the right of the people to keep me bear arms this paving the way for a police state?

My spouse’s cousin works for the Federal government out in Idaho, in connection with the management of Federal lands out there.  She’s in the field, as is her husband.  Over the years, they’ve encountered various people (with guns) who comment in a negative way about the job she is responsible to do.  The simple fact is that these Federal lands belong to all of us, and it’s entirely right that rules are set for their use, which rules are then enforced by people such as my spouse’s cousin.  Unfortunately, in enforcing those rules they encounter people who threaten them.

The Bundy crew aren't a "militia", they were just trespassing punks.  They were elevated to hero status by people whose opinions I have no respect for. 

by that standard, a street gang would be a "militia."

Here is an example of Government thugs interfering with the Second Amendment Rights of good citizens. What do you expect in ultra-liberal California?

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/history/article148667224.html

Walmart following Dicks lead...

now that's pretty major. Good.

conandrob240 said:

Walmart following Dicks lead...

Walmart stopped selling military style guns in 2015

And Dick's stopped selling them in Dick's stores after Newtown.  It only sells "assault rifiles" at 35 Field and Stream stores that it operates.

they are both trying tightening their policies and reducing the sales further (or eliminating completely).  While joining the outcry for tougher gun laws. There is nothing in here but a positive message and some pretty big steps. No need to bash it. 

conandrob240 said:

they are both trying tightening their policies and reducing the sales further (or eliminating completely).  While joining the outcry for tougher gun laws. There is nothing in here but a positive message and some pretty big steps. No need to bash it. 

Agree. Posted this on another thread.

even Trump said some common sense things today. Fingers crossed.

conandrob240 said:

even Trump said some common sense things today. Fingers crossed.

I watched that session. It was eerie. He was desperate to be liked. He pestered Joe Manchin to agree that the Manchin Toomey bill didn't pass before because of Obama.  Manchin struggled to ignore it and then finally explained that Obama was supportive to which Trump concluded then that was the reason it didn't pass.

Everyone was effusive with praise, lots of groveling and everyone mugging for the camera in hopes that they will be perceived as sincere, while the footsteps of the kids marching to Washington move closer.

Put me down as skeptical.

Trump On Guns:

The key take-aways: 

• Trump shut down the idea of expanding concealed carry, something House Republicans have been strongly pushing for. This is arguably the biggest issuefor the NRA and and gun rights advocates right now.
• He called for a "merger" of the Murphy-Cornyn and Manchin-Toomey gun bills: "I like a merger, because I think the merger works out better." 
• Trump encouraged taking the guns of people who pose a threat to themselves and others: "I like taking the guns early...take the guns first, go through due process second."
• He told Sen. Feinstein to discuss an assault weapons ban with Manchin and Toomey, and that he wants their final bill to be "very strong, I'd rather have you come down on the strong side instead of the weak side."
• On bump stocks: He said Congress doesn't need to worry about prohibiting them, because he is going to "write that out ... by executive order."

NYT

“I like taking the guns early...take the guns first, go through due process second."

Is he the best, or what.

Absolutely, but he finally said a few little things I could get behind. That’s progress from him blowing up the world every single friggin’ day

Morganna said:

conandrob240 said:

even Trump said some common sense things today. Fingers crossed.

I watched that session. It was eerie. He was desperate to be liked. He pestered Joe Manchin to agree that the Manchin Toomey bill didn't pass before because of Obama.  Manchin struggled to ignore it and then finally explained that Obama was supportive to which Trump concluded then that was the reason it didn't pass.

Everyone was effusive with praise, lots of groveling and everyone mugging for the camera in hopes that they will be perceived as sincere, while the footsteps of the kids marching to Washington move closer.

Put me down as skeptical.

as someone else remarked somewhere - the gun-nuts were right, Obama is finally out to take away your guns, except it took nine years.

GL2 said:

“I like taking the guns early...take the guns first, go through due process second."

Is he the best, or what.

meanwhile, next door in Pennsylvania:

he just can't help letting his fascist tendencies show, can he?

GL2 said:

“I like taking the guns early...take the guns first, go through due process second."

Is he the best, or what.

At this point, it would be a pretty major victory if recent events cause this bill to die a permanent death in the Senate:

House Votes to Sharply Expand Concealed-Carry Gun Rights

If most of the states in the U.S. don't care about gun deaths in their states, at least allow the 9 or 10 states that have more stringent laws to continue to keep out of state gun owners from bringing their guns in.

ml1 said:

At this point, it would be a pretty major victory if recent events cause this bill to die a permanent death in the Senate:

House Votes to Sharply Expand Concealed-Carry Gun Rights


If most of the states in the U.S. don't care about gun deaths in their states, at least allow the 9 or 10 states that have more stringent laws to continue to keep out of state gun owners from bringing their guns in.

I love that Republicans see no irony at all in trying to pass a law that clearly tramples the rights of states.

FilmCarp said:

I love that Republicans see no irony at all in trying to pass a law that clearly tramples the rights of states.

No politician has ever actually believed in States' Rights with the possible exception of Thomas Jefferson.

Those States which seceded from the Union to protect their "right" to own slaves had previously opposed the "right" of other States to refuse to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.

Today, most of those who believe that States should have the right to prohibit same-sex marriage do not believe that States should have the right to legalize the sale of marijuana.

What I find interesting is that Georgia legislators are willing to punish their state's biggest employer because it's withdrawing discounts for NRA members. There vast majority of whom live in OTHER states.

They really are slaves to this special interest.

I thought it was just the lieutenant governor, who is running for governor.

they just voted to deny Delta a huge fuel tax break over their breaking ties with the NRA. Unbelievable. I can't believe that that is even legal

drummerboy said:

meanwhile, next door in Pennsylvania:

What a bunch of ....-offs.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

drummerboy said:

meanwhile, next door in Pennsylvania:

What a bunch of ....-offs.

These guys are part of a cult. Followers of Rev Sun Yung-Moon - a cult leader famous in the 80’s. A close relative of mine was involved in the “church” back then. They were scary crazy. The fact that these guys are legally brandishing guns is a perfect example of how easy it is for mentally unstable people to get guns. 

drummerboy said:

If I may start a second line of discussion...

Yesterday I started thinking about the security office who didn't go into the school and resigned the next day. He has pushed back recently, stating that he was following protocol. From what I can see, he hasn't been given much of a hearing about that.


I think he's exactly right and has become a scapegoat.

Think about this for a minute - would the correct protocol in his situation be to rush into the school (or sneak in, whatever) and hunt down the gunman?

Is that what security officers are trained to do? I doubt it. That's what SWAT teams are for.


Poor guy.

And we've just become completely crazy. Even people who think they're pro gun control have bought into the whole heroic-good-guy-with-a-gun-saving-the-day fantasy. It nuts and shows just how poisoned our society has become because of gun attitudes.

I’m glad you bought this up. What this man (and the alleged 3 other armed personnel who were on site at the time of the shooting) exemplifies is that even trained protectors get scared, confused, and make mistakes. And, thinking that giving teachers guns will create a stronger armed force in the schools is absolute lunacy. 

Thanks for the info. I had no idea they were Moonies.

Hahaha said:

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

drummerboy said:

meanwhile, next door in Pennsylvania:

What a bunch of ....-offs.

These guys are part of a cult. Followers of Rev Sun Yung-Moon - a cult leader famous in the 80’s. A close relative of mine was involved in the “church” back then. They were scary crazy. The fact that these guys are legally brandishing guns is a perfect example of how easy it is for mentally unstable people to get guns.