“Arms”. … .
Yep…
Having a right to have something is not the same as having a right to have something provided to you. The Constitution gives you no rights; the Constitution prevents the government from denying you those rights. If you want to speak out, the government cannot stop you. If you want to deny a policeman from entering your home and rifling through your belongings without a warrant, you have the right to stop them. And if you want to purchase and keep a gun, you have that right too. It is sad that you need these things explained to you … particularly since it has all been explained to you many times before.
1 Like
Guns = arms.
But you knew that, didn’t you.
So the NRA was counting on getting money through insurance premiums because they can’t stoke fear of a Democrat president coming to take your guns and the money it brings in.
No, That’s so far from accurate it isn’t even wrong.
1 Like
As The Trace has reported, Chubb and Lockton’s departure from the Carry Guard program represented a significant financial blow to the NRA. The NRA heavily promoted Carry Guard when the program debuted in the Spring 2017. When the gun group held its annual meeting in Atlanta that year, it flew three-story-tall banners advertising Carry Guard from the side of the city’s convention center. According to a consent agreement signed by Lockton, the NRA earned just over $21,000 in royalties from Carry Guard subscriptions in New York alone, and made $1.9 million from sales of that and other insurance products in the state from 2000 to 2018.
One former employee of Ackerman McQueen, an advertising and public relations agency known to shape the NRA’s strategy and certain programs, said the group was counting on Carry Guard to provide revenue after Donald Trump’s 2016 election win. With Trump in the White House and Republicans leading Congress, the NRA could not plausibly motivate its membership to reach for their wallets by raising the specter of federal gun control. Without that fear factor driving donations, the group has needed alternate sources of cash.
Whatever you want to tell yourself.
That’s a very small fraction of the NRA’s income and the Carry Guard Program is alive and well.
The problem is lack of media liability coverage which could conceivably lead to them having to pay out multi million dollar judgement in the event of losing a big case.
I wasn’t assigning those positions to you personally, I specifically mentioned that many people on the right, and conservatives in general. If you don’t fit into that mold, thats fine I’ll take you at your word, but the fact remains that these positions are indeed the goal of many in the GOP party and are a staple of conservatives as a whole.
As far as natural rights are concerned I touched on those earlier and you basically punted on that, maybe not purposefully but you did anyway.
I noticed you mentioned several times that “There is no affirmative duty for anyone to protect you, not your neighbors, your friends or even the police.” and that a person is responsible and have a duty to protect themselves. I’m going to assume you are taking this from John Locke’s point of view.
In that case Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others.
I brought this up in the point about mj. You defaulted to “Is MJ mentioned in the constitution?” as your argument. Is a person who wishes to purchase and smoke mj interfering with the liberties of others? If not then why is it that a certain group of people try and have been successful at keeping it illegal?
I don’t really think it is prudent to be trying to argue from both sides of the fence. For example given your previously stated position and you can clarify if you wish, it seems you are stating that if something isn’t specifically mentioned in the constitution then it isn’t protected, despite the fact that 2+ centuries of case law and precedent says otherwise. As an example I present to you marriage. It isn’t mentioned anywhere in the constitution, and yet it wasn’t until a couple of years ago that our very own SCOTUS acknowledged that the 14th amendment guaranteed that if hetero marriage was legal then ssm marriage should be as well. Do you disagree with that?
The constitution is the supreme law of the land and it is also a framework for all laws under it. Ask yourself again, which party CURRENTLY fights against so many principals you claim to hold near and dear?
1 Like
No, I haven’t punted on anything. 2nd Amendment rights are specifically protected within our BOR.
Natural rights are not but they are the basis for those protections.
The use of illicit drugs ends up affecting everyone around the user and often times with horrible results. As a result this country like most others enacted drug laws.
For all practical purposes the 9th and 10th Amendments no longer have any force of law thanks primarily to the courts so we’re getting way, way out in the weeds there.
It certainly isn’t the republicans working to diminish my rights, quite the contrary. The left in this country has been nibbling away at our personal and property rights for decades and openly opposes the 2nd without compunction.
1 Like
You think marijuana is an ellicit drug? Come on now Rose, we both know that tobacco, specifically nictotine and alcohol are far more harmful. There is no shortage of evidence to suggest this, and yet they remain perfectly legal.
Where is your outrage about this?
And no the left hasn’t nibbled away at your rights. What they have done in some cases is expand them to groups of people you may not think deserve them, In other cases they have suggested restrictions that are no more oppressive on a particular issue than those that have been suggested about another issue from the right.
Illicit-Forbidden by law or custom.
Definition of illicit
: not permitted : unlawful
By definition MJ is an illicit drug.
If you want to outlaw alcohol and tobacco I certainly won’t stand in your way because of the harms they are responsible for but I don’t think you’re going to have a lot of luck accomplishing that.
not in Colorado.
1 Like
It’s illegal under federal law everywhere US Federal Law applies including Colorado.
1 Like
It was already tried, lest you forget the 18th. Wanna take a stab at who spearheaded that?
You can probably guess it wasn’t progressives, liberals, et al.
It was mostly spearheaded and promoted by women who wanted their husbands to spend more time at home and less out drinking with “The Boys”.
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’s absolute true. Everything they propose is to eliminate gun ownership as a right at all and turn it into a heavily restricted privilege to only be allowed under very strict circumstances.
That is incorrect. You will find no such thing in any Democrat partly plank or documentation. The fact that a few nut cases who claim to be part of the party may have proposes such things doesn’t make your claim any more true.
From the 2016 party platform
"Gun Violence Prevention
With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. We will expand background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws, hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable, keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons—off our streets, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues"
Name me one piece of legislation from current congressional or senate democrat that goes against this?
All I have to do is listen to what they say and see what they propose in the name of “gun safety” better known as gun control.
The biggest focus in recent years has been on taxing ownership at a very high rate and mandatory insurance that would make it impossible for most people to even afford owning them.
The biggest focus for the last three decades has been on flat out banning and outlawing the best selling and most popular platforms and making it every more difficult to even acquire a gun legally at all with such things as banning anyone that’s ever been diagnosed certain drugs or sought treatment for even minor psychiatric issues.
It was the left that proposed and succeeded in making it permanently illegal for anyone convicted of even a single instance of on the charge of misdemeanor family violence.
That adds up to a complete stripping of gun ownership as a right and relegates it to the realm of a highly limited and restricted privilege reserved for the very few who can meet their requirements and then limits even those people to a handful of approved platforms.
