The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Which makes one wonder whether the NRA leadership actually believes in its overheated rhetoric – “the gun grabbers are coming, the gun grabbers are coming!” – or sees it as a marketing tool. Far from wading into the on-again, off-again American debate on gun control, President Obama stayed away from the subject and in fact signed into law two NRA-inspired bills – one that allows guns to be carried into national parks and one that lets people carry their guns in checked luggage on trains.

To hear LaPierre tell it, however, this is part of “a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intention to destroy the Second Amendment in our country. When he got elected, they concocted a scheme to stay away from the gun issue, lull gun owners to sleep and play us for fools in 2012.” In a speech to a Republican meeting in Florida in February, he went on to explain that once re-elected, Obama planned to erase the Second Amendment.

LaPierre set out the plan in greater detail in a 3,800-word missive on the NRA website entitled “Obama’s Secret Plan to Destroy the Second Amendment by 2016.” Some of the arguments are recycled from his 2006 book, “The Global War on your Guns: Inside the UN Plan to Destroy the Bill of Rights.”

If you follow that train of thought, that plan came to a head in July when negotiators from more than 170 countries met in New York to work out a legally binding treaty to regulate the $60 billion conventional arms industry and throttle the flow of unregulated weapons to countries under arms embargoes, and to terrorist and criminal organizations. The talks collapsed on July 27 when the U.S. delegation said more time was needed to consider the draft proposal.

That followed a letter, a day before the July 27 deadline, signed by 51 Senators including eight Democrats, to Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing “grave concern about the dangers” posed by the treaty to U.S. sovereignty. The letter echoed the arguments and language of the NRA and spoke volumes about the organization’s influence in Congress.

There was no mention of what scholars say is a long-established legal principle – international treaty obligations cannot override the U.S. constitution. It includes the right to bear arms but does not fit into conspiracy theories.

gendoikari87 wrote:The gun grabbers are out there, they just aren't in office. Still every time someone tells me that we should ban semi-auto's or adopt canada's or even worse, australia's idiotic gun laws, I donate a buck to the NRA just to piss them off. So far this month that's $32.

whitey wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:The gun grabbers are out there, they just aren't in office. Still every time someone tells me that we should ban semi-auto's or adopt canada's or even worse, australia's idiotic gun laws, I donate a buck to the NRA just to piss them off. So far this month that's $32.

Are you donating it to NRA-ILA?

Fukshot wrote:

whitey wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:The gun grabbers are out there, they just aren't in office. Still every time someone tells me that we should ban semi-auto's or adopt canada's or even worse, australia's idiotic gun laws, I donate a buck to the NRA just to piss them off. So far this month that's $32.

Are you donating it to NRA-ILA?

Yes, Gendo is too ideologically pure to vote for the lesser of two evils, but has no problem funding the ILA. It is a highly principled socialist position that you or I couldn't possibly understand.

Fukshot wrote:

whitey wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:The gun grabbers are out there, they just aren't in office. Still every time someone tells me that we should ban semi-auto's or adopt canada's or even worse, australia's idiotic gun laws, I donate a buck to the NRA just to piss them off. So far this month that's $32.

Are you donating it to NRA-ILA?

Yes, Gendo is too ideologically pure to vote for the lesser of two evils, but has no problem funding the ILA. It is a highly principled socialist position that you or I couldn't possibly understand.

gaucheGlock wrote:Ah, you see that's the subtlety of this conspiracy!
They keep easing the gun laws, allowing me to carry in more places....
Who knows, maybe National CHL Reciprocity is next....
And then - WHAM! - in one day all the guns, ammo, 1st-person-shooter games, and similarly themed T-shirts will be made illegal!
Don't you see it??

Let's see, 270 million guns divided by a million active and reserve Army - it works out to 1.5 hernias per soldier, methinks.

Caliman73 wrote: Seriously Gendo, you need to move to a cooler climate. That Georgia heat is baking your brain.

I doubt that even in a fully Democratic Congress with a Democratic President, that legislation would come forward banning semi-autos or adoption laws as restrictive as Canada's or Australia's. We don't infuse rationality into the discussion by supporting those who are completely irrational and working only for the interest of for profit gun manufacturers.

AmirMortal wrote:Or you could tell them whatever you want and make a donation to the LGC. Just a thought.

gendoikari87 wrote:

AmirMortal wrote:Or you could tell them whatever you want and make a donation to the LGC. Just a thought.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Don't give it away.

Fukshot wrote:

whitey wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:The gun grabbers are out there, they just aren't in office. Still every time someone tells me that we should ban semi-auto's or adopt canada's or even worse, australia's idiotic gun laws, I donate a buck to the NRA just to piss them off. So far this month that's $32.

Are you donating it to NRA-ILA?

Yes, Gendo is too ideologically pure to vote for the lesser of two evils, but has no problem funding the ILA. It is a highly principled socialist position that you or I couldn't possibly understand.

bigmike0301 wrote: If Obama is out to grab all the guns, then wouldn't he have to negate the 2nd? As outlined in the Constitution, amending the document is not an easy process, and is MORE difficult when the subject is contentious (Prohibition)

No, I think Wayne knows the majority of his constituency fell asleep in Civics class

lemur wrote:

bigmike0301 wrote: If Obama is out to grab all the guns, then wouldn't he have to negate the 2nd? As outlined in the Constitution, amending the document is not an easy process, and is MORE difficult when the subject is contentious (Prohibition)

No, I think Wayne knows the majority of his constituency fell asleep in Civics class

You seem to think congress is unable to pass unconstitutional laws, i.e. that it would have to change the constitution if it wanted to pass a law that would not survive a constitutional challenge. That's not the case at all. Every now and then our congress does pass laws which are later found to be unconstitutional.

For instance, both of the following laws infringed on the 1st amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Onli ... ection_Act

Fukshot wrote:

whitey wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:The gun grabbers are out there, they just aren't in office. Still every time someone tells me that we should ban semi-auto's or adopt canada's or even worse, australia's idiotic gun laws, I donate a buck to the NRA just to piss them off. So far this month that's $32.

Are you donating it to NRA-ILA?

Yes, Gendo is too ideologically pure to vote for the lesser of two evils, but has no problem funding the ILA. It is a highly principled socialist position that you or I couldn't possibly understand.

gendoikari87 wrote: Just wanted to point out the absurdity of this. You are projecting your view that the republicans are much much worse than the democrats onto me, I do not belive this. i believe the republicans are honest about they will do for the most part, the democrats agree, they just speak differently.

lemur wrote:

bigmike0301 wrote: If Obama is out to grab all the guns, then wouldn't he have to negate the 2nd? As outlined in the Constitution, amending the document is not an easy process, and is MORE difficult when the subject is contentious (Prohibition)

No, I think Wayne knows the majority of his constituency fell asleep in Civics class

You seem to think congress is unable to pass unconstitutional laws, i.e. that it would have to change the constitution if it wanted to pass a law that would not survive a constitutional challenge. That's not the case at all. Every now and then our congress does pass laws which are later found to be unconstitutional.

For instance, both of the following laws infringed on the 1st amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Onli ... ection_Act