The NRA is a tax exempt organization

Disgusting.

drummerboy said:

here's a great article on how and why we became a nation of gun nuts in the last 20 years




http://www.businessinsider.com/how-america-became-obsessed-with-guns-2016-7

Tom, I will respond to the multiple issues posed by your question by focusing on one issue at a time in separate postings.  With respect to the proposition that the 2nd amendment protects all bearable arms, not just firearms  (this issue is referenced in my prior posting as "firearms, and other arms, for self defense" ).  Acceptance of this principle is found in Caetano v. Massachusetss.  See https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf    Additionally, Caetano "vindicates . . . the “basic right” of 'individual self-defense.'"

tom said:

RealityForAll said:
And, with respect to the 2nd amendment, it appears that the intention of the constitution is not to protect target shooters but instead to allow individuals to have firearms, and other arms, for self defense and the right of revolution, or even the threat of revolution.  

Where do you get that from?

author said:

Tom_R said:

author,

Have you ever considered joining the NRA, and getting a few million like-minded friends to do so with you.

It's a membership organization, and the members select the governing board; the board which decides which policies to pursue, and how.

Just food for thought.

TomR

Tom R............If I had a few million like minded friends the possibilities are almost scary

I was pretty sure you had a few million friends, I wasn't sure they were all like minded, but I thought the real problem as that all but a few of them wouldn't have the $35.00 for dues.  

all you're telling us is that the 2nd amendment is very malleable and just depends on the judges deciding the case.

Clearly, literal readings of the 2nd amendment support no such claim.

RealityForAll said:

Tom, I will respond to the multiple issues posed by your question by focusing on one issue at a time in separate postings.  With respect to the proposition that the 2nd amendment protects all bearable arms, not just firearms  (this issue is referenced in my prior posting as "firearms, and other arms, for self defense" ).  Acceptance of this principle is found in Caetano v. Massachusetss.  See https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf    Additionally, Caetano "vindicates . . . the “basic right” of 'individual self-defense.'"

tom said:

RealityForAll said:
And, with respect to the 2nd amendment, it appears that the intention of the constitution is not to protect target shooters but instead to allow individuals to have firearms, and other arms, for self defense and the right of revolution, or even the threat of revolution.  

Where do you get that from?

Are you aware that your criticism of the Caetano opinion is the same variety of criticism in which opponents of Roe v Wade engage.  The Constitution is rarely dispositive on a variety of issues.  IMHO, it is dishonest of you to conclude that a holding regarding constitutional law is without any support because the Constitution is not dispositive upon the narrow issue presented.  If the Constitution was dispositive upon a particular issue presented then the issue would likely not be heard by the SCOTUS (as the Constitution's requirements would be so clear).  However in the real world, the US Constitution is frequently not dispositive on many issues presented.

drummerboy said:

all you're telling us is that the 2nd amendment is very malleable and just depends on the judges deciding the case.

Clearly, literal readings of the 2nd amendment support no such claim.

RealityForAll said:

Tom, I will respond to the multiple issues posed by your question by focusing on one issue at a time in separate postings.  With respect to the proposition that the 2nd amendment protects all bearable arms, not just firearms  (this issue is referenced in my prior posting as "firearms, and other arms, for self defense" ).  Acceptance of this principle is found in Caetano v. Massachusetss.  See https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf    Additionally, Caetano "vindicates . . . the “basic right” of 'individual self-defense.'"

tom said:

RealityForAll said:
And, with respect to the 2nd amendment, it appears that the intention of the constitution is not to protect target shooters but instead to allow individuals to have firearms, and other arms, for self defense and the right of revolution, or even the threat of revolution.  

Where do you get that from?

Caetano appears to be a judgement that returns the case to the state court. How did it end up?

"bearable arms" are what exactly? Full-auto rifles are illegal. Some kinds of knives are illegal. Shoulder mounted surface to air missiles are illegal and so are hand grenades.

Not having read the case, I can't (and in fact, didn't) say that the holding is "without any support", so I'm not sure why you took that tack.

All I'm saying is that it depends on the opinions of judges - which may be accompanied or not, by sound legal reasoning. Often not.

In a discussion about ideas, in which we are engaged, I just don't think that citing a court case is the best way to provide support for one idea or another.

RealityForAll said:

Are you aware that your criticism of the Caetano opinion is the same variety of criticism in which opponents of Roe v Wade engage.  The Constitution is rarely dispositive on a variety of issues.  IMHO, it is dishonest of you to conclude that a holding regarding constitutional law is without any support because the Constitution is not dispositive upon the narrow issue presented.  If the Constitution was dispositive upon a particular issue presented then the issue would likely not be heard by the SCOTUS (as the Constitution's requirements would be so clear).  However in the real world, the US Constitution is frequently not dispositive on many issues presented.

 

drummerboy said:

all you're telling us is that the 2nd amendment is very malleable and just depends on the judges deciding the case.

Clearly, literal readings of the 2nd amendment support no such claim.

RealityForAll said:

Tom, I will respond to the multiple issues posed by your question by focusing on one issue at a time in separate postings.  With respect to the proposition that the 2nd amendment protects all bearable arms, not just firearms  (this issue is referenced in my prior posting as "firearms, and other arms, for self defense" ).  Acceptance of this principle is found in Caetano v. Massachusetss.  See https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf    Additionally, Caetano "vindicates . . . the “basic right” of 'individual self-defense.'"

tom said:

RealityForAll said:
And, with respect to the 2nd amendment, it appears that the intention of the constitution is not to protect target shooters but instead to allow individuals to have firearms, and other arms, for self defense and the right of revolution, or even the threat of revolution.  

Where do you get that from?

drummerboy said:

here's a great article on how and why we became a nation of gun nuts in the last 20 years




http://www.businessinsider.com/how-america-became-obsessed-with-guns-2016-7

The Second Amendment was a response to King George's attempts to confiscate weapons and gun powder at Lexington Green and Boston.

Added to that was the threat in southern states from slave insurrections.