TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:I see you're still harping on Wayne LaPierre's alleged pay.

Actually, I was done "harping" on the pay issue. I was simply setting the record straight.

But since you brought it up again: Yes, I think it's a valid topic of discussion. As the subject of this thread states: "The NRA...lets [sic] talk!" Sometimes unpleasant things come up when the conversation is open. And I see nothing wrong with that: I will go out on a limb and make the statement that all of us here are mature adults who are capable of deciding what is and what is not important to us in terms of how the NRA runs their show. So if the topic of discussion really is to talk about the NRA, then everything is fair game.

In keeping an open mind on this, I've come to realize that my decision to stop supporting the NRA (but continue supporting other pro-2A groups) was made a few years ago (2004). I think it might be time to re-evaluate the NRA, especially since the changes in leadership during that period, and see if the reasons I left in 2004 are still valid in 2008.

seamusTX wrote:The AARP has over 30 million members.

Not bad for an insurance company with glitzy national advertising that claims they represent seniors, actually they are trading on the gullibility of the elderly.

seamusTX wrote:It is the fault of those who enjoy shooting or owning a firearm for self defense for not joining the NRA, but the NRA has to do a better job of persuading them to join. I don't know how the NRA can do that. Someone smarter and more imaginative than I has to figure that out.

But withholding our support is not going to achieve it.

- Jim

Amen, I have been encouraging others to join for decades, not always successfully. If we could just get up to 50% of firearms owners, we could be as powerful, or more, than the aforementioned insurance company with a lobbying arm.

Brian, Mr. La Pierre's salary is fair game. I have already said that if he makes a million bucks a year (which I have no reason to believe) he deserves it. He runs an organization with 4 million members and a budget of more than $100 million.

If that is the reason that someone wants to use to withhold support from the NRA, so be it.

And thanks for remaining open-minded.

Liberty wrote:But I do think Most Americans accept that it is a constitutional right to be be able to own rifles and shotguns and and even handguns in our homes. It isn't too much of a stretch to show them that this right is extended to the right to carry. or the right to own Black or pink guns or any other scary looking gun.

I think you are right about "most," in the sense of a numerical majority.

The problem that we have to fix is that many of those people, who own firearms and support the basic right of self defense, are hoodwinked by talk of stopping criminals, terrorists, and lunatics.

We need to persuade them that the slow erosion that started with "assault weapons" will eventually come to bite them, when they are obligated to get an annual firearms license and allow the police to inspect their safe and count their ammunition on demand.

Again, this is not a bogeyman. Every English-speaking country once had the unfettered RKBA that we had in the 19th century. Nearly all of them now are at the point where owning a firearm is about as restricted as owning a radioactive venomous snake.

- Jim

Here's the reasoning that I take with the 2nd Amendment.

1) What is the purpose of an amendment? - An amendment changes something that has been previously agreed upon.

2) What is in the body of the Constitution that our fore-fathers tried to alter by adding the 2nd Amendment (remember, it was passed in 1791, along with the other 9)? - Section 8, Powers of Congress, in particular, "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

3) Why would an amendment be needed for this portion of the Constitution? - Congress has the power to raise, train, arm & discipline the militia. The 2nd Amendment does not give the Congress any additional powers, it changes nothing that has been previously stated. In fact, the 2nd Amendment reinforces the need for the militia with the words, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... " and then states, ""...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Since the "militia" is made up of every "able-bodied," one could interpret the Constitution as giving the Congress the authority over the "arming" that same group. Without the words, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" one could make the arguement that anyone not part of the "militia" could be denied arms.

By reading the entire Constitution, with the Amendment, the entire meaning of the 2nd Amendment can be seen...

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

SCone wrote:Here's the reasoning that I take with the 2nd Amendment.

1) What is the purpose of an amendment? - An amendment changes something that has been previously agreed upon.

It was argued that the Bill of rights shouldn't be necessary, because they were about rights and restrictions that some assumed were so God given and basic to the meaning of what we stood for and for what the Constitution stood for that it shouldn't be necessary others remembered the House of Commons. The Bill of Rights is not really amendments in the normal way. They were fully a part of the original ratified Constitution and therefore a part of the very core of what the framers had intended.

SCone wrote: . . . By reading the entire Constitution, with the Amendment, the entire meaning of the 2nd Amendment can be seen...

This is actually an old and tired argument.

If you are going to go so far as to read the entire Constitution and consider all of the contents in relation to the various amendments, then you must also consider all of the debate surrounding the amendments, and the Constitution itself. In doing so you will find that a major reason for the amendments is that some felt these basic rights were not zealously enough protected in the original document, not that parts of the document needed protection.

I invite you to reinvent the wheel and do it for yourself, or you could just read the well reasoned treatises on the subject and probably reach the opposite conclusion to that you presented.

Our right to keep and bear arms would still exist even if the second amendment were to be repealed.

Rights exist outside of and separate from the document.

Anygunanywhere

The NRA is one large organization that supports the Second Ammendment and I would suggest all gun owners and self defense enthusiasts to at least belong. However, there are some States in the US that are living under the "May Issue"
such as Iowa that has 99 different interpretations of the permit to carry law. As a result, it's mostly "who you know" by county that allows the Sheriff's to issue to qualified citizens. There are many counties the Sheriff will NOT issue. Then we have the NRA giving an A to the politician (Democrat) who refused to allow the "shall carry" issue to be brought up to the State Legislature. Then to place salt on the wound, the NRA issues an American Rifleman with a Concealed Carry centerfold that Texas and other members received, but IOWA member did NOT get, as it stated in there that Iowa was FAIR in issuing. This has caused a lot of NRA members there to continue their basic membership in the NRA but NO further monetary support until the NRA changes it's stand on Iowa's so called "FAIR" laws, which are a joke.

Other than that, it's nice to have an organization that will help with the Second Ammendment rights. It just takes a little deeper look into some of the NRA actions.

anygunanywhere wrote:Our right to keep and bear arms would still exist even if the second amendment were to be repealed.

Rights exist outside of and separate from the document.

Anygunanywhere

Absolutely.

The way I see it, the Constitution, in enumerating our rights, does so with the premise that these are our 'natural rights,' which the document lists for the purpose of making sure we're all on the same page. It purposes to do so because it recognizes the human tendency to not all be on the same page. It recognizes the idea that these are our natural rights, and it officially codifies that the proper role of government is to protect these rights - because as long as man has had government, of whatever stripe, it has been the nature of governments throughout the history of mankind to try and restrict those rights. The document reminds us that legitimate government not only has no business restricting rights, but must be proactively engaged in protecting them.

Therefore, any American government which then seeks to restrict those rights becomes an illegitimate government because it countermands the intent of the Constitution that government exists to protect them. Those rights are God-given, and they predate and presuppose any government of men. When government becomes illegitimate, I have a moral responsibility to resist it.

The only question remains whether one may do so through established and legal channels, or whether things have progressed beyond that point and civil disobedience is called for. That is a call that each person has to make for themselves, but as a member of my own discussion board posted the other day - I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

jimlongley wrote:

SCone wrote: . . . By reading the entire Constitution, with the Amendment, the entire meaning of the 2nd Amendment can be seen...

I invite you to reinvent the wheel and do it for yourself, or you could just read the well reasoned treatises on the subject and probably reach the opposite conclusion to that you presented.

Been there, done that... In the early 80s, I had doubts on whether my belief in "the right to bear arms" was real or just an emotional attachment to my guns. It was clear to me that only the original documents could help find the right answers. I read everything available. Federalist Papers, Articles of Confederation, Gun Control Act of 1934 (and the court documents), English law, and too many more to remember.

After weeks of study, I came to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right of every individual in the United States. Plain and simple, it says what it means, "...the right of the people shall not be infringed."

Every gun law passed since the original passage of the Bill of Rights is unconstitutional.

In the early days of our country, some knew how fragile those freedoms were and our Constitution is their attempt at maintaining those same freedoms for all future generations. It is only from the destruction of that document that our country can fail.

SCone wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

SCone wrote: . . . By reading the entire Constitution, with the Amendment, the entire meaning of the 2nd Amendment can be seen...

I invite you to reinvent the wheel and do it for yourself, or you could just read the well reasoned treatises on the subject and probably reach the opposite conclusion to that you presented.

Been there, done that... In the early 80s, I had doubts on whether my belief in "the right to bear arms" was real or just an emotional attachment to my guns. It was clear to me that only the original documents could help find the right answers. I read everything available. Federalist Papers, Articles of Confederation, Gun Control Act of 1934 (and the court documents), English law, and too many more to remember.

After weeks of study, I came to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right of every individual in the United States. Plain and simple, it says what it means, "...the right of the people shall not be infringed."

Every gun law passed since the original passage of the Bill of Rights is unconstitutional.

In the early days of our country, some knew how fragile those freedoms were and our Constitution is their attempt at maintaining those same freedoms for all future generations. It is only from the destruction of that document that our country can fail.

Forgive me, but it appears to me that in your last post you argued for a collective interpretation, and left it to merely reading the Constitution, and in this one you support an individual right gleaned from reading all of the relevant documents. Which is it?

The Supreme Court ruled in Heller that the RKBA is an individual right. It's a done deal.

We have other battles ahead of us. The question at hand is how to win them -- what practical measures that you and I can do to win them.. What are your answers?

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:The Supreme Court ruled in Heller that the RKBA is an individual right. It's a done deal.

We have other battles ahead of us. The question at hand is how to win them -- what practical measures that you and I can do to win them.. What are your answers?

- Jim

Have you looked at this site/thread yet... chaotic in several of the early pages, but it starts getting lined out some towards the end. Organizing State marches to lead up to finally in DC. http://www.righttokeepandbeararms.com/p ... &sk=t&sd=a

John wrote:Have you looked at this site/thread yet... chaotic in several of the early pages, but it starts getting lined out some towards the end. Organizing State marches to lead up to finally in DC. http://www.righttokeepandbeararms.com/p ... &sk=t&sd=a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chaotic?? Just on the first page it went from nothing to armed insurrection!!

They discuss whether to demonstrate armed or not and ends with someone saying, "if we go armed, we better be ready to use them".

You actually think something like this could be good or positive??!!

I wouldn't want to be involved. Why should I read the rest of the pages?

Sorry if my post read that way. The body of the Constitution takes the collective view and that is why the 2nd Amendment was needed. It does not make any changes to the body of the document, but it does add the part about bearing arms being an individual right.