National NRA - pro gun?

[Spitpatch]

So what kind of credentials does one need to prove they support the second amendment?

Credentials "to prove support" I have not spoken of.

 

[JRuby]

Credentials "to prove support" I have not spoken of.

Being a hunter provides no credibility in the discussion of the 2A - what does?

 

[Spitpatch]

Being a hunter provides no credibility in the discussion of the 2A - what does?

No. It does not. For the very simple reason that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or...equally...Tiddlywinks.

It has to do with defending one's self (against criminals and an oppressive government), AND being the last reserve toward defense of the nation.

Many strong defenders of the Second Amendment have never hunted a day in their life. Many do not even own a gun. Many hunters do not own guns.

Many helping to destroy the Second Amendment (either purposefully or inadvertently) have been "hunters since childhood" and own guns.

But you know all this. Or at least you should know it.

And I start with giving you credit for knowing it, as well as knowing what DOES give one credibility in the discussion. Hunting is not on that list. If I have served to point that out, that is good.

 

[JRuby]

No. It does not. For the very simple reason that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or...equally...Tiddlywinks.

It has to do with defending one's self (against criminals and an oppressive government), AND being the last reserve toward defense of the nation.

Many strong defenders of the Second Amendment have never hunted a day in their life. Many do not even own a gun. Many hunters do not own guns.

Many helping to destroy the Second Amendment (either purposefully or inadvertently) have been "hunters since childhood" and own guns.

But you know all this. Or at least you should know it.

And I start with giving you credit for knowing it, as well as knowing what DOES give one credibility in the discussion. Hunting is not on that list. If I have served to point that out, that is good.

Many strong supporters of the second amendment also hunt - hunting is only one part of gun ownership. I suspect many hunters who have guns use them for other purposes such as protection of freinds and family. There is a significant difference between saying the 2A protects hunting versus saying gun ownership such as being a hunter does support the 2A.

 

[Spitpatch]

" There is a significant difference between saying the 2A protects hunting..."

One more thing of which I never spoke.

" ...being a hunter does support the 2A."

Not necessarily. Those were the credentials Al Gore brought to the discussion.

 

[JRuby]

" There is a significant difference between saying the 2A protects hunting..."

One more thing of which I never spoke.

We both know the second has nothing to do with hunting but you stated that a person calling themselves a hunter holds no credibility when discussing the 2nd amendment.

Your exact quote " Anytime "being a hunter" is invoked as credentials toward a discussion of the Second Amendment, one may insert "Tiddlywink Champion" as equally relevant. "

Again - what credentials are required to discuss the 2A

 

[Spitpatch]

"you stated that a person calling themselves a hunter holds no credibility when discussing the 2nd amendment."

I most certainly did not.

Thank you for inserting my actual words: " Anytime "being a hunter" is invoked as credentials toward a discussion of the Second Amendment, one may insert "Tiddlywink Champion" as equally relevant. "

And thank you for recognizing (previously if not presently) that I spoke of hunting as an invalid credential. Never did I say it stripped that person of all credibility.

And thank you again for finally recognizing ( "Again - what credentials are required to discuss the 2A" ) that I spoke of a singular credential.

Please remember that I gave you credit for KNOWING what credentials are valid. I am sorry that I might have been mistaken in that regard.

I'd begin with:

Having defended oneself against a threat (with or without a gun and/or wishing you had one).
Having come from a country where there was no Second Amendment and seeing how that works.
Having been shot at (whether or not you had the means for defense).
Having lost a family member as a result of having no means for defense.

Of course these are perhaps the strongest credentials. None of these are absolutely required. ALL are directly relevant. Hunting is not.

I return to you my faith that you know what else may count.

 

[JRuby]

"you stated that a person calling themselves a hunter holds no credibility when discussing the 2nd amendment."

I most certainly did not.

Thank you for inserting my actual words: " Anytime "being a hunter" is invoked as credentials toward a discussion of the Second Amendment, one may insert "Tiddlywink Champion" as equally relevant. "

And thank you for recognizing (previously if not presently) that I spoke of hunting as an invalid credential. Never did I say it stripped that person of all credibility.

And thank you again for finally recognizing ( "Again - what credentials are required to discuss the 2A" ) that I spoke of a singular credential.

Please remember that I gave you credit for KNOWING what credentials are valid. I am sorry that I might have been mistaken in that regard.

I'd begin with:

Having defended oneself against a threat (with or without a gun and/or wishing you had one).
Having come from a country where there was no Second Amendment and seeing how that works.
Having been shot at (whether or not you had the means for defense).
Having lost a family member as a result of having no means for defense.

Of course these are perhaps the strongest credentials. None of these are absolutely required. ALL are directly relevant. Hunting is not.

I return to you my faith that you know what else may count.

We disagree a hunter has as much right to discuss the second as anyone as it a constitutional right to all legal citizens. To exclude any group ir wrong when discussing our rights as citizens

 

[Spitpatch]

We disagree a hunter has as much right to discuss the second as anyone as it a constitutional right to all legal citizens. To exclude any group ir wrong when discussing our rights as citizens

Forgive me, for I am struggling toward responding to your imagination regarding what you insist I have said. Please show where I excluded a group. Please show where I stated a hunter has no right.

Sigh!...I guess some persons deal better with pictures. Toward only the interest of granting you some of my perspective toward an understanding of what I have actually written,

I submit to you my living room. That of a "lifelong hunter" (who would never invoke such as a credential toward a discussion of the Second Amendment):


None of what you see here grants me any credibility toward a discussion of the Second Amendment. It also does not remove from me any rights I have to discuss it.

I hope this helps.

 

[Provincial]

Joyce Lee Malcom has the credentials to discuss the Second Amendment. She is not a hunter. I suggest that you refer to her research.

The 'Nice Girl' Who Saved the Second Amendment | National Review

 

[Spitpatch]

Joyce Lee Malcom has the credentials to discuss the Second Amendment. She is not a hunter. I suggest that you refer to her research.

The 'Nice Girl' Who Saved the Second Amendment | National Review

Thank you for that.

As I stated previously, "Many strong defenders of the Second Amendment have never hunted a day in their life. Many do not even own a gun." Ms. Malcom is in that company.

My effort was to bring attention to the catch phrase, "hunter since childhood". Anti-gun persons and factions (In this case The New York Times) will invoke that as some sort of credential toward credibility in the debate.

They do it because they want to divert the debate from defense.

They want to constantly reassure us that they are not against a morning in a duck blind. They want to reassure us that they will never take Grandpa's shotgun from us.

But the Second Amendment has nothing to do with a morning in a duck blind or Grandpa's shotgun. It has to do with staying alive and staying free.

And when they ignorantly pass a law limiting how many projectiles a gun can hold or dispense, Grandpa's shotgun (that can deliver 45 projectiles of .330 diameter inside of 3 seconds) is out the window.

Previous to that we will have lost the means to defend ourselves.

 

[JRuby]

Forgive me, for I am struggling toward responding to your imagination regarding what you insist I have said. Please show where I excluded a group. Please show where I stated a hunter has no right.

Sigh!...I guess some persons deal better with pictures. Toward only the interest of granting you some of my perspective toward an understanding of what I have actually written,

I submit to you my living room. That of a "lifelong hunter" (who would never invoke such as a credential toward a discussion of the Second Amendment):
View attachment 748195

None of what you see here grants me any credibility toward a discussion of the Second Amendment. It also does not remove from me any rights I have to discuss it.

I hope this helps.

Nice but I disagree

 

[Spitpatch]

Nice but I disagree

The good die young.

Next?

 

[wired]

I read the part where Wayne LaPierre is described as being a skilled lobbyist who has lead the president away from several anti-gun proposals that he was in favor of.

Perfection is the evil of the good.

If it wasnt for the the NRA and yeah even LaPierre, we'd be talking about the Trump ban.

 

[Spitpatch]

Another strategy by the anti-gun press that often accompanies the "hunter since childhood" phrase is to present that person as "The Reasonable One" in the debate (especially when that hunter is agreeing to 'the next step", or "common sense gun control measures"). HE believes his mornings in a duck blind and Grandpa's shotgun will never be threatened, and so therefore anyone opposing the next incremental step is placed on the lunatic fringe or "the darkest element" as noted in the story.

This strategy's goal is to "hook" hunters (since childhood or otherwise) into identifying with "The Reasonable One", rather than being lumped into the group of "lunatics" or "darkest element". Joe Six Pack that heads out once a year to Deer Camp will vote for "the next step" because to do otherwise is to be "Unreasonable".

Toward that strategy, I'd be willing to bet that Mr. Powell did not initially invoke the "hunter since childhood" credential, but rather was asked, "So, are you a hunter?" and replied to the question (perhaps while muttering under his breath, "What's that got to do with anything?"). His credentials toward participating in the debate are pretty well established and I'm sure he knows hunting is not a seminal factor in it.

 

[The Resister]

It does hurt, so dont bother posting. Thanks for your consideration.

Are you a moderator or administrator?

 

[No_Regerts]

Are you a moderator or administrator?

I am the Key Master

 

[sobo]

I am the Key Master

 

[The Resister]

Go ahead and tell us. We can handle the truth!

Got one guy saying I should leave and you wanting the truth. Just remember, you asked for it:

"By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect." People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}​

"The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable." Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation." BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let's view your Rights in light of court decisions:

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!" Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

"The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008)

Bear in mind that I am quoting the HOLDING the Heller case.

What??? Wait a minute. What did the founders say?

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature" Benjamin Franklin

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Patrick Henry

"...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
— Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany - 1819)

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

Now bear in mind, I opened with legal rulings about absolute Rights. Heller legislated from the bench and over-ruled their own holdings. Absolute and unlimited are synonyms. The Court opened the door for gun control and destroyed over 150 years of established precedents.

Thesaurus.com - The world's favorite online thesaurus!

Thesaurus.com is the world’s largest and most trusted online thesaurus for 25+ years. Join millions of people and grow your mastery of the English language.

www.thesaurus.com

So, now with a little literary prestidigitation, the United States Supreme Court will ban high capacity magazines, flash suppressors, telescoping stocks, pistol grips, rails, etc. the same way Trump got Bump Stocks banned. When the Dems come to power next time, they intend on doing it that very way... thanks to Heller.

 

[No_Regerts]

I'm not not sure how anyone trying to argue in favor of the 2nd Amendment being an absolute right would cite US v. Cruikshank. That ruling was that states weren't bound by the US constitution, regardless of the 14th Amendment. It gave states the ability to limit freedom of assembly and the right to bear arms.