Lopar brought up a good point in another thread about the NRA’s position on net neutrality as if I give a shit about their position on Net Neutrality at all. In fact if I were a member I wouldn’t want them to spend any political capital whatsoever on other nonsense and focus on their core mission.
I did like their take on bump stocks, let the ATF review it. Who cares, bump stocks are trash.
Not right now. I don’t particularly care for the fact that it supports federal laws regarding firearms(although I understand why). However, I may join again next time there’s a gun show in town that offers free admission for the purchase of a membership…plus: I kind of miss getting American Rifleman every month.
I suspect there are fewer NRA members than gun owners.
Writing as both a military veteran and a home invasion survivor, maybe a better question would be “do you support all amendments to our constitution?” Gun saved my family one night while we were watching tv. Cops came eventually.
On the first quote of mine, if you expand it beyond the text you cherrypicked, you’ll see I said the same thing then I just said in a thread recently: 2A fetishism is driven the juvenile need to feel rebellious and cool, not by any principled understanding of constitutional rights. As I said (quoting same quote):
And as I have always said, I do think 2A freedoms to be normalized and mainstream, and we should have open, fluid markets for firearms. Guns are like power tools. They require proper respect and regulation, and are part of the normal world. What they aren’t are talismans of freedom free from society’s oversight.
Your cherrypicking appears to be no accident. In my second quote, which I encourage anyone to expand to read, I say:
Moreover, as I said, because firearms are produced by private citizens (and their companies), if the government turned on the people (in the fantasy hypothetical proposed), then the owners of the means of production of arms could side with citizens and arm them with things normally restricted to the government (like tanks and jets), giving Team Citizen a chance to win.
Doesn’t affect what I think of the 2A.
On 3, I have changed my mind - and the reason why is I have actually studied the 2A, as I mentioned in my first post in this thread. I believe there is an individual right, but it does not preclude states from exercising their traditional police powers in the name of public safety. What’s required is a constitutional balancing act and a healthy dose of respect for federalism.
The 2A was never written with a mind to interfere with a state’s power to regulate firearms and organize its militia as it saw fit. The 2A was not written to protect the citizen from a U.S. state. That’s history, not mythology. And no one can avoid it.
We(you and I) can certainly agree on that. The States were originally only limited in the following ways:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Oh, and I don’t want to miss this - this criticism of Liberalism (a true one) is exactly, exactly, exactly the same criticism I have of 2A fetishist/libertarians. (And I’ve said so before.)
2A fetishists invent all sorts of “feelings” arguments to try and get around the fact that the 2A isn’t a restriction on states and the 14A was not intended to “nationalize” a right to keep and bear. They don’t like the law and history of the 2A - never bothering to read it - so they insist they have virtually unlimited rights to arms based on something else, a fuzzy notion that overrides democratic action on guns.
I beat this like a drum - libertarians aren’t strict constructionists or principled originalists, they are whatever they want to be at given time on a given issue to get to the result they want.
Well, I sure am glad the incorporation doctrine exists. I’d hate to live in a country were states can decide whether or not they want to allow free speech or the free exercise of religion or cruel and usual punishment so on and so forth.
Ya, know, since the Bill of Rights apparently means nothing beyond the Fed…