tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post2009946398940737366..comments2024-02-28T20:56:23.768-06:00Comments on Sipsey Street Irregulars: They must figure it's been long enough that you've forgotten we caught them dealing behind closed doors. Now they want credit for it, even if it means confirming David's and my stories at the time of the annual meeting.Dutchman6http://www.blogger.com/profile/09935420042995679958noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-16152471877995189112015-06-17T20:18:30.285-05:002015-06-17T20:18:30.285-05:00A proper reading of Miller reveals the Court's...A proper reading of Miller reveals the Court's reasoning in its language. The words will prove themselves:<br /><br />Absent a showing that a sawed off shot gun is a militia type weapon....<br /><br />That was because Miller did not show up and the attorney representing him did not present a showing. So if there was a showing.... Then the NFA would have been dead in the water because the plain language of the statute only captures "sporting type weapons".<br /><br />The only standing that an NFA law, which has included all such successive statutes is dead in the water. No one will argue this position, even pro gun attorneys, because that is not the way it was taught. They all follow the "precedent doctrine.<br />They do not look into the roots of the decision or the statutory history or we would not need to be having the BS go on.<br /><br />In this case legislative history and intent is the Debates of the Constitution, the Framers comments in the Federalist Papers. If you back to the foundation all of it is there. They have nothing but the little pieces they have been chipping away at. But when you goo back to the foundation all their phony arguments don't hold a candle. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-74912947671055982202015-06-17T07:38:07.600-05:002015-06-17T07:38:07.600-05:00I think it was last week, the NRA put up an articl...I think it was last week, the NRA put up an article about how they saved 855 ammo but used a picture of 7n6. I thought it ironic.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13311808368492688034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-67052833953252641522015-06-16T21:39:27.685-05:002015-06-16T21:39:27.685-05:00It really irks me to hear lawmakers who should kno...It really irks me to hear lawmakers who should know better say things like, "I'm happy so-and-so supports the 2nd Amendment." Why don't they ever say things like, "I'm happy so-and-so decided not to break the law and violate people's rights?"HappyClingernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-2750321079928561172015-06-16T15:50:24.772-05:002015-06-16T15:50:24.772-05:00Taking Heller on its face, almost all gun control ...Taking Heller on its face, almost all gun control falls. That is exactly why we are seeing so much legislative action across the country. <br /><br />Remember now, the NRA opposed Heller all along, until the last minute when it was a foregone conclusion that it had to be done. <br /><br />The NFA cannot withstand heller. Neither can GCA. <br /><br />Discounting military service as a "qualification" slams "qualificiations" itself. Poll tax precedent nails NFA. Heller plus miller means autos MUST be protected. <br /><br />"sporting purpose" is being clinged to for this reason. Heller left OPEN the notion that "training" can be "Imposed". As if "practice" is a function of government, rather than part of the right belonging to the people. I can see the possibility of sporting being replaced with training. I also see why it isn't already done. See, the instant training supplants sporting, pro gun legislators can have a hayday, portraying opponents as against safety training. Understand, EVERYTHING the party hacks do (on both "sides") is in relation to the next election. Its not about rights OR what is right to them pukes, its all about how can the use the "issue" to move the party power line forward. (a lot like muzzies there eh? Sharia is closer than most realize).<br /><br />Anyway, from passing on cases by SCOTUS (because deciding has consequences) to skirting Heller and even ignoring the Second Amendment itself, gubmint isn't gonna let go of its longstanding gun control without a fight. In order to WIN that fight, the SIDES have to be defined. NOBODY who aims to WIN this fight for INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS operates behind closed doors, making DEALS with GOVERNMENT. The NRA is thusly EXPOSED which side it is on....and it isn't individual rights. The NRA is on the side of government control over rights. State Preemption is proof enough but add to it its support for due process incorporation (and its opposition to privileges and immunities structure). The truth becomes clear to all with open eyes. The NRA is that infiltrator destroying us from within. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-52768411047935210112015-06-16T11:22:31.819-05:002015-06-16T11:22:31.819-05:00You know, if I was on the wrong side of the gun is...You know, if I was on the wrong side of the gun issue, you would be a constant irritation. Recently trashed a beg-a-thon letter from NRA.<br />Poor ol' Wayne...<br />CB<br />P.S. Seems like your recent continental treks have energized your resolve.<br />Good job.CBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-6777042418896518012015-06-16T11:12:00.771-05:002015-06-16T11:12:00.771-05:00The ONLY WAY the NRA will ever get another dime of...The ONLY WAY the NRA will ever get another dime of my money if if they get rid of GCA 1968 and NFA 1934. Otherwise, they can go piss up a rope, I'm tired of their betrayals of the Second Amendment. They've been caught selling out over and over again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-32333460892764183032015-06-16T10:47:46.085-05:002015-06-16T10:47:46.085-05:00Hang on a second. You originally reported hearing ...Hang on a second. You originally reported hearing that the NRA was going to widen the sporting purposes clause, and Chris Cox denied it when asked. Later, after the bill restricting the sporting purposes clause had been introduced, you claim it was a 180-degree change from the original plan. Couldn't it also be that your original sources were 180-degrees off the mark?<br /><br />Sure the NRA (like any large organization) has done some boneheaded things in the past, and it pays to be wary/eternally vigilant, but don't let your disdain for the organization lead you to accept specious rumors.Sobiloffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01801654072422351840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575061201749703300.post-75097465419340359712015-06-16T10:14:12.901-05:002015-06-16T10:14:12.901-05:00Devils advocate, for just a second....
Myself and...Devils advocate, for just a second....<br /><br />Myself and practically every NRA member I know have taken them to task on the 7n6 ban when called for PAC donations. Lots of people were pissed that the NRA couldn't even be bothered to make statement about it. Only when 855 was on the chopping block did the NRA decide it needed to act. Is it possible they have gotten enough negative feedback from that issue that they felt the need to work on the sporting purposes clause? Perhaps combined wth the "rumors" that Mike and David broke? In addition, removing the sporting purposes clause would eliminate the 855 issue too. Maybe it was all of the above?<br /><br />Anyhow, I doubt very much 2710 will see the light of day, but one can dream. It would be an absolute game changer. Everything from Korean M1s to Russian AK kits would hit our shores in the hundreds of thousands.<br /><br />It should also be noted for doubters such as myself, that as far as I can tell, the sporting purposes clause and the Heller ruling are mutually exclusive. In a perfect world, one or the other would eventually have to go.TheBohunknoreply@blogger.com