The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 26, 2019, 02:16 PM   #51
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsog
Quote:
Where does the Supreme Court say that the Second Amendment cannot be amended or repealed? Certainly not in the case you cited in post #39. From the link you provided:
That is kind of EXACTLY what the case says....

You cannot repeal something that does not exist within your privy.
You are confusing the right itself with the amendment. The case you cited says the RKBA exists outside of the Second Amendment. We do not disagree on this.

But the statement was that the Second Amendment can be amended or repealed, and the case you cited in no way suggests that this is not true and correct. The fact that the right itself preexisted the amendment and would (in theory) continue to exist if the amendment were to disappear does not mean that the amendment cannot be amended or repealed. That just means that, if the Second Amendment were to be repealed, the RKBA would continue to exist (in theory) but would no longer have a legal prohibition against the government infringing it. Since that purported guarantee doesn't seem to be worth the paper it's printed on, I'm not sure how much effect that would have in the real world.

But -- we're talking about amending or repealing the Second Amendment, and a case saying that the right to keep and bear arms exists independent of the amendment pretty obviously doesn't say that the amendment itself cannot be touched.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 26, 2019, 03:02 PM   #52
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,066
I just have to add my view. Saying that a right exists outside of the social context is just one philosophical position. "Rights" are not laws of the physical universe or mathematical theorems.

Gun folks like to say this about the RKBA and that the right of self-defense exists independent of stated law.

That is just one viewpoint but it is just as reasonable to say a 'right' is based on social forces, psychology and some biological predispositions. You can disagree but history shows that many societies have different views of the seemingly fundamental principles of human behavior based on their culture, psychology, religion, etc.

In some traditions, there is not an accepted right of self-defense. That rationale can be that:

1. Only God can take a life, you can't. So self-defense is out.
2. Taking a life for self-defense removes the chance of the evil doer's redemption from God. You shouldn't take a life but your death at the evil doer's hand may have that person seek redemption. Your death is part of God's plan for him or her.

Even in our BOR, the natural rights view didn't apply to all as some humans were not seen as human beings.

Thus, some of the debate really doesn't add in fighting for the RKBA. Who is to say that the right to live in peace without the threat of dangerous weapons as a threat is not as fundamental as the right to have such weapons? Some folks claim divine inspiration as an argument ender. That will not work in today's world.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old March 26, 2019, 03:04 PM   #53
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 857
Quote:
That just means that, if the Second Amendment were to be repealed, the RKBA would continue to exist
Yes the right....

Quote:
exists separately from the Constitution
So, How do you repeal something you have no authority over in the first place?

It is like saying you are the owner of Mars and sending a bill to NASA for leaving rover tracks on your property.
davidsog is offline  
Old March 26, 2019, 03:07 PM   #54
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 857
Quote:
Gun folks like to say this about the RKBA and that the right of self-defense exists independent of stated law.

That is just one viewpoint.
A viewpoint that is the supreme law of the land.
davidsog is offline  
Old March 26, 2019, 03:16 PM   #55
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,066
Not really, states have different statutes defining what is reasonable self-defense. The debate about stand your ground, castle laws and a myriad of other circumscriptions about how self-defense can be claimed indicates that self-defense principles do not have the same basis as the Pythagorean theorem.

If you want to get into the weeds, read some legal texts such as:

Killing in Self-Defence (Oxford Monographs on Criminal Law and Justice)
by Fiona Leverick

Please have the sentient being source of an unambiguous definition of self-defense join TFL and explain it to us.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old March 26, 2019, 03:26 PM   #56
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 857
Quote:
Not really, states have different statutes defining what is reasonable self-defense.
Now you have changed the subject to make yourself correct. Yes, IAW this case and it has been used by anti-gun states as the primary reason why states can do their own thing regarding the 2nd Amendment.

But that is not the same as the 2nd Amendment being repealed or the fact that IAW the supreme law of the land, the RKBA exist separately from the Constitution.
davidsog is offline  
Old March 26, 2019, 03:32 PM   #57
JN01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
I just have to add my view. Saying that a right exists outside of the social context is just one philosophical position. "Rights" are not laws of the physical universe or mathematical theorems.

Gun folks like to say this about the RKBA and that the right of self-defense exists independent of stated law.

That is just one viewpoint but it is just as reasonable to say a 'right' is based on social forces, psychology and some biological predispositions. You can disagree but history shows that many societies have different views of the seemingly fundamental principles of human behavior based on their culture, psychology, religion, etc.

In some traditions, there is not an accepted right of self-defense. That rationale can be that:

1. Only God can take a life, you can't. So self-defense is out.
2. Taking a life for self-defense removes the chance of the evil doer's redemption from God. You shouldn't take a life but your death at the evil doer's hand may have that person seek redemption. Your death is part of God's plan for him or her.

Even in our BOR, the natural rights view didn't apply to all as some humans were not seen as human beings.

Thus, some of the debate really doesn't add in fighting for the RKBA. Who is to say that the right to live in peace without the threat of dangerous weapons as a threat is not as fundamental as the right to have such weapons? Some folks claim divine inspiration as an argument ender. That will not work in today's world.
In a lot of the world, I think that acting independently in self-defense is seen as a threat to the power of the State. A good citizen should be obliged to be a nice passive victim and allow the government to deal with the aftermath as they see fit.
JN01 is offline  
Old March 26, 2019, 06:23 PM   #58
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsog
Quote:
That just means that, if the Second Amendment were to be repealed, the RKBA would continue to exist
Yes the right....

Quote:
exists separately from the Constitution
So, How do you repeal something you have no authority over in the first place?
Seriously ... are you jerking my chain? We are talking about amending or repealing the Second Amendment, we are not talking about repealing the right to keep and bear arms.

The statement you made was that the Second Amendment cannot be repealed. It CAN be repealed. We seem to agree that the [moral] right to keep and bear arms pre-dated the Constitution, and I think we can agree that -- in theory -- the RKBA would survive the repeal of the Second Amendment (except that you don't appear to understand that the amendment can be repealed), but what good is having the RKBA theoretically and morally survive if the government is no longer required to guarantee that the right will not be infringed?

Look how much it has been infringed already, with the courts proclaiming that the infringements aren't violations of the Second Amendment. Take away the Second Amendment and there won't be anything to stop the gun grabber politicians from steamrolling through gun confiscation. You'll have the "right" to keep and bear arms, but to exercise that right you'll have to do battle against the government. And, as a California politician helpfully commented just a couple of weeks ago, the government has nukes.


{Edit} Apologies. It was PhotonGuy, not davidsog, who kicked this off by posting that the Second Amendment cannot be repealed.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; March 26, 2019 at 06:54 PM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 27, 2019, 09:51 AM   #59
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsog View Post
The rub seems to be that in that same case, the SCOTUS appears to be of the opinion it applies only to the Federal Government. Unlike some of the other rights which the States are specified to protect the SCOTUS specifically address the 2nd Amendment as only be a limitation on the Federal Government.

Which is why we have draconian state laws in places like New York, California, and New Jersey.
No. SCOTUS has specifically ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the States as well as the Federal government in McDonald v Chicago:

"The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States." page 3

States like New York, California, et al are misinterpreting or simply ignoring SCOTUS.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.
natman is offline  
Old March 27, 2019, 10:51 AM   #60
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,066
It would serve us well, if some folks would fact check their statements. I thank some thoughtful members and staff for correcting, the incorrect statements and misleading interpretations that this thread seems to attract continually.

Take the hint.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old March 27, 2019, 12:09 PM   #61
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,654
How do any of the rants about the constitutional process of amending the constitution or even what the right entails with or without the explicit amendment in question, fall under the aspect of "... discuss[ing] strategies for fighting and winning the war on gun rights, ..."

That was what the OP wanted.

The OP also wanted us to stay on topic so the thread wouldn't get locked....

Glenn hinted. I demand it. Get it back on track.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 27, 2019, 01:41 PM   #62
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,816
As gun owners we are in a slightly different position fighting for our rights than other minority groups.

Other groups are fighting for rights (actually the exercise of rights) that they had previously always been denied.

We aren't. We're trying to keep what we once had, and not lose more...

We got here due to a culture shift that began after WWII. The result toady is a large segment of our people believing anything militaristic is "bad", and any kind of "blood sport" is repugnant, unless it involves MEN beating the crap out of each other, then, its "entertainment".

Additional factors of less and less rural environment, the social & political views of the majority of those educating our children, and an entertainment culture that glorifies "gun violence", have a greater and greater impact of the views of each upcoming generation.

"Normal", (and often "right and proper") is what ever social and political conditions exist as you grow up, and become aware of what they are.

It isn't "Tyranny" it's normal. Tyranny only happens when you go beyond what you're used to.

I grew up in New York state in the 60s. Filling out the permit forms, paying the fee, providing 5 sets of fingerprints, 4 photographs, 3 character references (not family) and a few weeks wait was NORMAL in order to buy a pistol the first time. After that (you had a permit) and additional guns just meant additional forms and fee and wait, each time.

Moved out west in the 70s, and discovered a wonderful land where you could buy a pistol by walking into the store, paying for it and taking it home in 3-5 business days if you didn't have a concealed weapon permit, and the same day, if you did. Not at ALL like NY.

To someone raised (and indoctrinated) in the repressive culture of NY and some other places, what was done in other places was (at best) hugely irresponsible. TO those of us in other places, what was done in NY was tyrannically oppressive.

Tell me how you "win" the hearts and minds of people who's only experience with guns, from cradle to present is what they see on tv and the evil done with them by criminals in their local neighborhoods.

the only way to do that is to get them to think, calmly and rationally, without emotion, about the facts, not the slogans, and sadly, neither our educational system nor our culture in general are well set up to do that.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 27, 2019, 02:14 PM   #63
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,161
Right boil down to this, you only have the rights that you or a large enough group are willing to fight for. If you can’t fight for a right, then others have to do it on your behalf. I don’t mean violence, at least initially, I mean a political fight: by voting, protesting and other means. There’s too much complacency and not enough commitment in the gun world.


Gun owners are as much to blame as gun control advocates. Lots of no one fighting going on:
No one in Texas fights for rights in California.
People in Arizona could care less about the plight of New Yorkers or Washingtonians.
“We don’t need bumpstocks”
“We don’t need 30rd mags”
“We don’t need 1000rds of ammunition”
“We’re ok with UBCs”
“You don’t need a semiautomatic to hunt”
“You don’t need 10 rounds to hunt”
“I’m ok with hunting rifles”
“I’ll register my guns if I get to keep them”
“Target sports is the only valid reason to own a gun”
“Hunting is the only valid reason to own a gun”
This and more has been said or done on the pro-gun side.
Pro-gun side is just a bunch of teacup poodles with some catchy slogans like “come and take it” “molon labe” and the likes.
We don’t fight, we comply. Because it’s not a right that most of the public approves of or even really cares about. We are not much more than people who want to keep their toys.

Fairly intensive indoctrination going on in public schools, I’ve heard many recordings of public school lectures, it’s not rumor or conspiracy theories. We all know about the media and politicians too.
rickyrick is offline  
Old March 27, 2019, 02:47 PM   #64
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,248
As much as I hate to suggest it, a major aspect of fighting to protect our right to keep and bear arms is to (as the saying goes) "put your money where your mouth is." We can sit behind our keyboards and pontificate about the Second Amendment and the nature and origins of the RKBA, but (for the most part) when we post here we're preaching to the choir. And while we're busily reinforcing each other regarding how right we are and how wrong "they" are, "they" are hard at work crafting more anti-gun legislation to propose at all levels of government.

How do we combat that? With votes ... and with money. First, if you aren't involved in your state's most active and effective gun rights organization ... get involved. If you can't make it to meetings, support them with money. Support the NRA-ILA. Remember, the NRA itself is an educational non-profit organization. The NRA cannot engage in lobbying. The ILA is a legally separate organization that CAN engage in lobbying ... and does. The ILA is financially separate from the NRA, so be sure to direct some money to the ILA to continue the fight. I also like to support the Second Amendment Foundation, since they are also active and involved.

And then we get to the sense of John F. Kennedy's famous speech, in which he enjoined us to, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." I expressed this recently as borrowing from the environmentalists' playbook: "Think globally, act locally." It's impossible for the NRA-ILA, the SAF, or any other gun rights group to keep track of the myriad of local and county ordinances on the books and being proposed. WE have to do that. And sometimes the only way to fight these local laws is to step up the plate and open our own wallets.

A few years ago I became aware of a particularly onerous and absurdly written local ordinance in my own home town. The way it was written, even though I have a state-issued permit to carry, if I carried while walking out to my mailbox on the street curb, I was in violation of the law. My state's gun rights organization, of which I am a member, was engaged in a legal battle against the state on statewide legislation, so I didn't want to even ask them to siphon money away from that fight to take on my town. So I hired an attorney on my own dime to take it on. I financed a year's worth of negotiations ... which didn't generate any changes. In year two, my attorney was able to obtain some grant money from the NRA to enable us to continue the negotiations, and we did ultimately succeed in getting the town to revise the ordinance.

I wanted repeal, of course, but that simply wasn't going to happen. The changes we were able to generate resolved many of the worst problems with the ordinance. We didn't get everything I would have liked, but in retrospect I have to admit that the revised ordinance is much less bad (I don't like to say "better," just "less bad") than the original. I'm not asking for praise in saying that the revision wouldn't have happened if I hadn't taken on the fight. I just want to use my case to illustrate that the fight is on-going, and on many levels. Somebody has to be willing to step up and take on the smaller cases that are too minor for the NRA, the SAF, or any of the big players to go after. We can't sit behind our keyboards and expect that somebody else will do it.

If you know about it, and if you're in a position to do something about it ... then by all means DO something about it. Don't sit back and post on gun forums that "somebody ought'a do something." The anti-gun forces are coordinating all across the country. In the course of my local fight, we learned that there is an attorney "down state" who is consulting with towns all over the state on adopting anti-gun ordinances. That's their strategy. They realize they probably won't get what they want through federal legislation, so they are going after lower-level legislation to accomplish the same result. Instead of a nuclear bomb, they're taking a "death by a thousand cuts" approach.

If we can use that same approach, and start attacking these local and county ordinances, and the state laws, and if we do it well and we WIN ... that's how we'll force the anti-gun forces to slow down, back up, and reconsider their strategy. But we can never assume that if we won yesterday, we'll be safe tomorrow. The anti-gunners aren't going to go away. They'll just regroup and come back from a different angle. So we have to remain involved, and keep track of what they're up to so we can do our best to counter it. And each of us has to recognize that maybe today it's our turn to carry the water.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 27, 2019, 05:27 PM   #65
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,161
We know what “we” want and why.

What is it that “they” want?

Why do “they” want it?

“They” must know, just like “we” do that gun restrictions have little effect on safety. So what is the end goal if it’s not going to lower crime? The real end goal, not the stated goal of lowering crime.
rickyrick is offline  
Old March 28, 2019, 03:07 PM   #66
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,816
Quote:
What is it that “they” want?

Why do “they” want it?

“They” must know, just like “we” do that gun restrictions have little effect on safety.
But restrictions DO have an effect on "safety".. THEIR safety. What do they want? TO be "safe", no matter what they do. Why do they want guns removed from the hands of everyone (that they don't control)? for their own safety.

It doesn't matter whether the people in power are left, right, or somewhere else, the bottom line is that, ultimately, people that disagree with them, and have guns ARE a threat to their power, and their safety.

Bottom line is if/when the forces of government come for you, for what ever reason they feel acceptable, if there are no guns in your hands, resistance is a LOT less effective.

If every time the Sturmtruppen raided an apartment block to "relocate" people a couple of them had been shot, things might have worked out differently.

here's the point, you cannot be a successful dictator if the people retain both the will and the arms to resist. So, while they can call it anything they want, (public safety is the preferred stalking horse), the reality is that its their own safety they are concerned about, NOT ours.

They don't care about criminals preying on us with guns (no matter what they say in public), what they want is to prevent US from resisting THEM, and their goals.

Those pesky colonial colonists grumbled and protested at the Crown's taxes, and lack of a voice in government. But we didn't FIGHT, until the Crown tried to seize our guns. And once the fight started, we didn't quit.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 29, 2019, 11:32 AM   #67
riffraff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2016
Posts: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
As much as I hate to suggest it, a major aspect of fighting to protect our right to keep and bear arms is to (as the saying goes) "put your money where your mouth is." We can sit behind our keyboards and pontificate about the Second Amendment and the nature and origins of the RKBA, but (for the most part) when we post here we're preaching to the choir. And while we're busily reinforcing each other regarding how right we are and how wrong "they" are, "they" are hard at work crafting more anti-gun legislation to propose at all levels of government.

How do we combat that? With votes ... and with money. First, if you aren't involved in your state's most active and effective gun rights organization ... get involved. If you can't make it to meetings, support them with money. Support the NRA-ILA. Remember, the NRA itself is an educational non-profit organization. The NRA cannot engage in lobbying. The ILA is a legally separate organization that CAN engage in lobbying ... and does. The ILA is financially separate from the NRA, so be sure to direct some money to the ILA to continue the fight. I also like to support the Second Amendment Foundation, since they are also active and involved.

And then we get to the sense of John F. Kennedy's famous speech, in which he enjoined us to, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." I expressed this recently as borrowing from the environmentalists' playbook: "Think globally, act locally." It's impossible for the NRA-ILA, the SAF, or any other gun rights group to keep track of the myriad of local and county ordinances on the books and being proposed. WE have to do that. And sometimes the only way to fight these local laws is to step up the plate and open our own wallets.

A few years ago I became aware of a particularly onerous and absurdly written local ordinance in my own home town. The way it was written, even though I have a state-issued permit to carry, if I carried while walking out to my mailbox on the street curb, I was in violation of the law. My state's gun rights organization, of which I am a member, was engaged in a legal battle against the state on statewide legislation, so I didn't want to even ask them to siphon money away from that fight to take on my town. So I hired an attorney on my own dime to take it on. I financed a year's worth of negotiations ... which didn't generate any changes. In year two, my attorney was able to obtain some grant money from the NRA to enable us to continue the negotiations, and we did ultimately succeed in getting the town to revise the ordinance.

I wanted repeal, of course, but that simply wasn't going to happen. The changes we were able to generate resolved many of the worst problems with the ordinance. We didn't get everything I would have liked, but in retrospect I have to admit that the revised ordinance is much less bad (I don't like to say "better," just "less bad") than the original. I'm not asking for praise in saying that the revision wouldn't have happened if I hadn't taken on the fight. I just want to use my case to illustrate that the fight is on-going, and on many levels. Somebody has to be willing to step up and take on the smaller cases that are too minor for the NRA, the SAF, or any of the big players to go after. We can't sit behind our keyboards and expect that somebody else will do it.

If you know about it, and if you're in a position to do something about it ... then by all means DO something about it. Don't sit back and post on gun forums that "somebody ought'a do something." The anti-gun forces are coordinating all across the country. In the course of my local fight, we learned that there is an attorney "down state" who is consulting with towns all over the state on adopting anti-gun ordinances. That's their strategy. They realize they probably won't get what they want through federal legislation, so they are going after lower-level legislation to accomplish the same result. Instead of a nuclear bomb, they're taking a "death by a thousand cuts" approach.

If we can use that same approach, and start attacking these local and county ordinances, and the state laws, and if we do it well and we WIN ... that's how we'll force the anti-gun forces to slow down, back up, and reconsider their strategy. But we can never assume that if we won yesterday, we'll be safe tomorrow. The anti-gunners aren't going to go away. They'll just regroup and come back from a different angle. So we have to remain involved, and keep track of what they're up to so we can do our best to counter it. And each of us has to recognize that maybe today it's our turn to carry the water.
Agreed. I think gun dealers should refuse to do business with people who aren't a member of some gun rights organization, or at least should have a 10% up charge for those who are not..

The NRA being only 7 million members is sad - should be at least half of gun owners, ie 50 million anyway. People are so damn foolish. Not saying the NRA is the end all organization but joining any similar organization is the responsible thing - there is no excuse for not being member of some organization.
riffraff is offline  
Old March 29, 2019, 01:15 PM   #68
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,816
Quote:
I think gun dealers should refuse to do business with people who aren't a member of some gun rights organization, or at least should have a 10% up charge for those who are not..
And I think that idea is a bunch of crap. It is just as fascist/elitist as gun control laws, just in the opposite direction. I get that you want to make a point, and its an important point, but penalizing law abiding citizens for not actively supporting your political point of view is the wrong way to go about it.

Now, if you wanted to convince gun dealers to offer a discount to gun rights group members, I'm ok with that. But you don't refuse to do business, or ADD cost just because someone isn't a card carrying NRA or other gun rights group member. It's WRONG!

This is NOT the same thing as Barrett, or Ruger refusing to do business with the state of California, because of what the state has DONE to restrict firearms, you are proposing a punishment on people who YOU feel haven't done ENOUGH to support firearms ownership. I think its wrong and a very bad idea.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 29, 2019, 03:20 PM   #69
JN01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 793
So.. giving a 10% discount to gun rights group members is OK, but charging non-members 10% more is evil and wrong. You realize that either way, the end prices could be the same amount (group members pay less), right?
JN01 is offline  
Old March 29, 2019, 04:57 PM   #70
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,816
Quote:
So.. giving a 10% discount to gun rights group members is OK, but charging non-members 10% more is evil and wrong.
It's not so much the what,. as the why.

Lots of retailers give discounts to members of certain groups. It's a business arrangement, worked out between the retailers and the groups. It's commonly done.

But charging people extra, or refusing their business if they don't belong to groups on your "approved" list? The idea wasn't for a "members only" store but for all dealers to shun or charge extra if you weren't a member of an "approved" group.

If you think needing to get a govt permit is an infringement of a basic right, how can needing to be a member of a certain group NOT be???

Sure, businesses can, within the law, set what ever policies they wish, but really...is it right to turn down my business, or charge me extra because I let my NRA membership lapse? Are you going to ask for my voting history next??

Membership in gun rights groups should be encouraged (and that's what a discount would do). They should not be REQUIRED in order to exercise a basic right.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 29, 2019, 05:15 PM   #71
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by JN01
So.. giving a 10% discount to gun rights group members is OK, but charging non-members 10% more is evil and wrong. You realize that either way, the end prices could be the same amount (group members pay less), right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44AMP
...but really...is it right to turn down my business, or charge me extra...
Whether it is right or not, that isn't something vendors do because buyers would dislike it.

The grocery down the road charges hapless men who shop infrequently more than other people, so if I am sent to get bread or soda, I may be charged 20% more than the normal price unless I take my wife's card for that store. The store calls it a discount, but people who grocery shop there normally have that card. Without the card, I pay the sucker's price.

I would note that the private ranges in my area will not admit someone as a member unless he is an NRA member.
zukiphile is offline  
Old March 29, 2019, 05:28 PM   #72
riffraff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2016
Posts: 533
Well I think mostly if you own guns and aren't a member of some gun rights organization its usually pure ignorance. People dont because they dont want to spend the 30 bucks or make a small donation, they think someone else will do it for them. Kinda like not voting- if that's an elitist point of view I'm ok with it.
riffraff is offline  
Old March 29, 2019, 07:23 PM   #73
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,161
Some people just don’t want to be on some list that kinda puts them into a category or gets thier information sold.
rickyrick is offline  
Old March 29, 2019, 08:30 PM   #74
Brownstone322
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2017
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by riffraff View Post
Well I think mostly if you own guns and aren't a member of some gun rights organization its usually pure ignorance. People dont because they dont want to spend the 30 bucks or make a small donation, they think someone else will do it for them. Kinda like not voting- if that's an elitist point of view I'm ok with it.
Think whatever you like, but I own guns, I'm pretty well informed on Constitutional matters, and I don't partake in discretionary organizations -- no advocacy groups, no alumni associations, no political parties, no social clubs, no religions, no nothing. And why's that? Because all organizations are corrupt, and I'm not voluntarily supporting any of them. Non-negotiable.

I also believe in a competitive marketplace. If my local gun shop refused to do business with non-NRA members (which is utterly absurd), that'd just mean someone else would. And if they offered 10% discounts to NRA members only, I'd wave cash under their noses in exchange for the same discount. It's up to them, but my money's green, and customers have options.
__________________
"To live outside the law, you must be honest." -- Bob Dylan
Brownstone322 is offline  
Old March 29, 2019, 09:13 PM   #75
riffraff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2016
Posts: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brownstone322 View Post
Think whatever you like, but I own guns, I'm pretty well informed on Constitutional matters, and I don't partake in discretionary organizations -- no advocacy groups, no alumni associations, no political parties, no social clubs, no religions, no nothing. And why's that? Because all organizations are corrupt, and I'm not voluntarily supporting any of them. Non-negotiable.

I also believe in a competitive marketplace. If my local gun shop refused to do business with non-NRA members (which is utterly absurd), that'd just mean someone else would. And if they offered 10% discounts to NRA members only, I'd wave cash under their noses in exchange for the same discount. It's up to them, but my money's green, and customers have options.
If it weren't for the gun right organizations we wouldn't have the guns to buy. Stop making excuses and think about it.
riffraff is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11224 seconds with 8 queries