NRA is in deep financial trouble and may soon 'be unable to exist'

[WuWei]

@mobulis

What is the value or practicality of a “right to life” without the means to keep you alive?

Exactly.

10 ch

[WuWei]

@MidwestIndy

But we do have the right to restrict the property or labors and commerce thereof of others correct?

Huh?
10 cha

[sikofit]

@WildRose

You can spend the next century looking but you’ll never find me anywhere stating that anyone should suffer a permanent loss of rights over a misdemeanor.

How about parents being deported without their children for misdemeanor offenses?

[WuWei]

@mobulis

Unless we are provided with the means to live, food and water the right to life is worthless.

You don’t have a right to life. The Constitution does not give you rights.

What you have is a right for the government not to take your life without due process.

The Constitution applies to government.

[WuWei]

@MidwestIndy

Why can’t Joe Schmo in Kansas enter into a mutual agreement to purchase marijuana from Jill Schmo in Colorado?

Exactly. Because Centgov is out of control.

[WuWei]

@mobulis

Nope, either you have the right and means or you don’t.

The government has no obligation to provide me guns.

[WuWei]

@WildRose

Like 85% of the country

No argumentum ad populum. What if 85% said “No ARs.”

[WuWei]

Good post.

[WuWei]

They didn’t get the $30MM from Russians?

[WuWei]

@MidwestIndy

I’m going to assume you are taking this from John Locke’s point of view.

SCOTUS decision.

[WuWei]

Another good one.

[WuWei]

@WildRose

It certainly isn’t the republicans working to diminish my rights, quite the contrary.

I couldn’t disagree more.

[WuWei]

@WildRose

It’s illegal under federal law everywhere US Federal Law applies including Colorado.

Gross abuse of the Commerce Clause.

[Drs]

Well they spent that helping Trump. So if they did it would not help them.

[WuWei]

@MidwestIndy

And that simply isn’t true, unless or course you believe that every amendment in the constitution is absolutely without borders and limitations, in which case I will happily engage you in debate about.

It is true. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

[WuWei]

@MidwestIndy

That is incorrect. You will find no such thing in any Democrat partly plank or documentation.

Stop dude. That’s horse hockey and you know it.

[WuWei]

Point Wild Irish.

[WuWei]

@MidwestIndy

Sounds like you are in favor of arming or allowing those that run afoul of the law to acquire weapons that could potentially allow them to run afoul of the law again potentially in an even worse way. Could have just said so to begin with.

Strawman. Prior restraint.

Are you denying the dem left is putting policies in place to “discourage” the exercising of this right?

[WuWei]

@MidwestIndy

It isn’t dishonest at all. You are arguing that the populace should be allowed to arm itself in whatever way it sees fit relative to what it can be expected to be defended against.

I counter that if the other side was as oppressive as you make them out to be and served the goals you seem to think they wish to accomplish, then you insurrection so to speak would be futile.

If I have a pistol, I can get a rifle. If I have a rifle I can get 1,000. If I have 1,000 - All your base is belong to us.

[WuWei]

@MidwestIndy

And by recent history, you aren’t including nuclear warefare, because to date no one has really survived that. Ask the japnasese people about that.

Japan survived that.