www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
In talk.politics.guns "Morton Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"ben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:05:06 GMT, Mongo Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
In talk.politics.guns ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:20:51 GMT, Mongo Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In talk.politics.guns ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:36:46 GMT, Mongo Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In talk.politics.guns ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Millions of Americans are having their gun rights trampled every day, and the NRA is now getting around to fighting a three decade old law that was unconstitutional the day it was passed.
Tell us what YOU have been doing since that day thirty years ago. Be specific.
The vast majority of that time was spent in various schools getting
an
education. Now I work for a living. At no time in the last 27 years did I live in Washington D.C. or claim to be a gun rights activist.
I see. So, basically, you've done nothing to protect your rights as a gun owner.
But you feel perfectly free to chastise the NRA for just "now getting around to fighting" a unconstitutional law.
You need to work on your understanding of context. My post was in
reply
to a well known NRA operative gloating about a case that the NRA did
not
support being dropped by SCOTUS, and using it as an opportunity to plug their own 27 year too late suit.
As I pointed out, neither case affects my daily life, so I stick with local issues. I think it could be a good thing if SCOTUS determined that gun control was a state's issue. It would remove all of the cumbersome federal regulations, and force all of the restrictions to be made at the state level where IME individuals have much more influence.
Context my ass. You criticize the NRA and yet you do nothing. That's been established.
Do you think the NRA can just conjure up a lawsuit when it feels the need?
Absolutely. Every single American who has been "delayed" by NICS is a potential lawsuit. Every resident of MA, CA, or DC. Is a potential lawsuit. So yes, I do think the NRA can conjure up a lawsuit when it
feels
like it. Problem is, I don't think they feel like it. BTW, when Cato filed the current DC gun ban lawsuit, the NRA initially tried to block it by having the ban lifted by congress in order to AVOID having the case go to SCOTUS.
So I ask you, what specifically has the NRA done lately to protect my
RKBA?
Slowing the tide when many are already drowning doesn't count.
Gee, ATTEMPTING TO GET THE D.C. BAN LIFTED BY CONGRESS doesn't count? Hell, Bill Clinton knows more than you:
"I don't think there's any doubt that, in at least five states I can think of, the NRA had a decisive influence. You've got to hand it to them, they've done a good job. They've probably had more to do than anyone else in the fact that we didn't win the House this time. And they hurt Al Gore" -Former President William J. Clinton, speaking to Dan Rather
I guess shit-whiskers thinks the NRA is an actual person who can sue because their RKBA was denied.
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
