Mystery Company Is Rapidly Acquiring U.S. Gun and Ammo Manufacturers

Ping

Concho’s post implied that he automatically assumed NRA statements were not true. Yes, they take some dumb positions occasionally, usually when endorsing politicians, that I don’t agree with. In the main on 2A issues, they are correct, not 100% but a good, solid 95%. They also have logical rationale for the positions they take. I know because I have asked and have always gotten an answer. As a result of feedback, they have also modified their approach to the endorsement of politicians like “Dingy Harry” Reid. Scumbags who are strong on the 2A, but otherwise readily violate Constitutional principles no longer get a pass.

JC

AND just which NRA “stances” do do you know to be fallacious of late? Do be specific, with references, or be gone!

Just renewed my NRA membership for 5 years. That said the NRA pushes a view that 2A rights trump property rights, and I don't adhere to that (laws to force businesses to allow carry). They also pushed a law in Florida that would have totally dictated what a doctor can ask a patient, which should be between the patient and the doctor.

In my opinion, there is no separation between 2A rights and other rights, they are all important, with property rights being the most critical (if you have no property rights to defend, the 2A is just a hunting license).

I wish the NRA was more broad based on the principles of liberty.

Cracker, are you on crack?

I am NRA Life, and be gone, I will not, so dont get smart mouthed with me.

I agree that ALL rights are important, but I take the view that since the 2A’s basic purpose is to resist government tyranny, then without the 2A, ALL the others will soon be in danger and we will have no effective recourse remaining.

Florida’s problem with doctors grilling patients about guns in the home is basically 1) gun ownership has nothing to do with a patient’s health, and 2) many lib organizations equate gun ownership as the equivalent of active promotion of violence in the home which is a fake strawman intended to further restrict gun ownership.

JC

Nope, us Florida Crackers prefer chew, and most of us know nothing about that other stuff except what we read in the newspaper.

Congrats on your Life membership; I am also, along with a son and both grandsons.

JC

I agree that ALL rights are important, but I take the view that since the 2A’s basic purpose is to resist government tyranny, then without the 2A, ALL the others will soon be in danger and we will have no effective recourse remaining.

I continue to think that having claim to a house is more important than having a burglar alarm in it.

Florida’s problem with doctors grilling patients about guns in the home is basically 1) gun ownership has nothing to do with a patient’s health,

Which falls into "its nice you have an opinion, but its none of your damned business". Allow people to conduct voluntary business transactions as they see fit, and stay out of it. Now that is what liberty is about. As long as people have the right to not frequent a particular doctor and doctor's have a right to ask, or not ask, then there isn't a problem. And by the way, there are plenty of instances when/where a person's environment and the things in them have everything to do with health. There is absolutely no harm, in and of itself, in talking about dangers to children with parents and firearms are a danger. And when you get into mental health, asking the family about the patients availability to cars, knives, firearms, etc. is pretty darned smart. How about you let the doctor and patient work it out?

If the doctor is rude, the patient can leave. Its like magic, aka capitalism.

and 2) many lib organizations equate gun ownership as the equivalent of active promotion of violence in the home which is a fake strawman intended to further restrict gun ownership.

Why yes they do, and I disagree with them, but I don't think curtailing their freedom of speech is the answer.

As I said, you either support individual liberty or you don't.

Well, you’re certainly entitled to your own opinion. Everyone has one, but I find it curious that you’ve twice diluted the importance of the 2A in comparison to others, first as a “hunting license” and now as a “burglar alarm”. Good luck with that approach; the anti’s will take advantage of that on their way to marginalizing the remainder.

You failed to mention another recent Florida law that prohibits towns, cities and counties from using local ordinances to set different rules and restrictions on gun regulations peculiar to their own locales that conflict with state law making it legally hazardous for one to exercise a basic 2A right. That too was part of the anti’s agenda.

JC

Well, you’re certainly entitled to your own opinion. Everyone has one, but I find it curious that you’ve twice diluted the importance of the 2A in comparison to others, first as a “hunting license” and now as a “burglar alarm”. Good luck with that approach; the anti’s will take advantage of that on their way to marginalizing the remainder.

I haven't done any such thing as you suggest. Reread my post. The fact of the matter is that a discussion of "rights" presumes that we are speaking of rights recognized by others, because if they are not recognized, then it is an assertion of exercise, not a recognized right. Now, based on the premise that a right would be unchallenged, property rights are king. In fact, unquestioned properly rights would de facto cover the possession of firearms. We can have a realistic discussion that the right to keep and bear arms is a special caveat of property rights with specific meaning, but it is superfluous if property rights are secure. And yes, we both know that is an academic point, not a real world expectation.

You failed to mention another recent Florida law that prohibits towns, cities and counties from using local ordinances to set different rules and restrictions on gun regulations peculiar to their own locales that conflict with state law making it legally hazardous for one to exercise a basic 2A right.

I failed to mention lots of things. I didn't mention that, because it was not supportive of my statement that the NRA needs to recognize all rights and not attempt to make one persons exercise of rights subservient to another's. As I said, people have a right to do certain things that we don't like or agree with.

Per the cases you mention, these are not issues of individuals having dominion over themselves or their property, but rather governments restricting rights without cause.

You may note that I included my renewed NRA membership in my first post.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and you may have noticed that I didn’t mention that I’m already a life member. Didn’t think I needed to affirm that. Oh well... Bye.

JC