"It's a collective right."
Glad you agree it is a right.
The issue has never been whether it's a "right". The issue is whether it's an individual right or a collective right. Since US. v. Miller, every Administration with the sole exception of the current Administration has asserted it's a collective right.
What do you want them to take to the court? There have been restrictions put on ownership, and they have been deemed constitutional.
As I said in the previous post, let them appeal the California ban on assault weapons to the USSC. A clear violation of the 2nd amendment if it's an individual right. Further, in that case the lower court specifically stated that there is no individual right to bear arms. To put it in different words. The California ban on assault weapons is constitutional because there is no individual right to bear arms. The NRA seems to be content to let that ruling stand. I encourage them in the strongest terms to appeal that decision to the USSC.
They could have fought the Brady Bill on 2nd amendment grounds, they didn't; they fought it on States Rights. They could have fought the Federal Assault Weapons ban in the Courts on 2nd amendment grounds; they didn't. They could have fought the DC hand gun ban in the courts on 2nd amendment grounds; they didn't.
I take it you weren't able to find any case that the NRA backed to the USSC. You may or may not be aware that the USSC heard a case earlier this month, Van Orden v. Perry. Thomas Van Orden filed to be heard by the Court and the Court agreed to hear the case. No big deal other than Van Orden is homeless, destitute and has no license to practice law. He can manage to get a case to the USSC, but you pretend that the Supreme Court won't hear a case backed by the NRA on the 2nd amendment.
This is the kind of moronic, dishonest attack that the left is famous for. They look after their members like all good organizations do. But you hate their cause, so you lie about them.
I most certainly do no hate their cause; it's a shame that they take advantage of a bunch of ignorant people [their members] but it is a legal way to make a living. As you illustrate, the supporters of their cause don't know a whole lot and can't do much other than call those that disagree with them ignorant, dishonest, hateful, etc. It's sad that that's the only "intellect" that gun supporters can display, but unfortunately true...which makes them excellent candidates for NRA membership. Throw a slogan in front of them...."Right to bear arms." ... put an American flag as a backdrop....and the checks will follow. What a business!
On the other hand, if you used the slogan "States Rights" and put the flag as a backdrop, I'll bet the revenue stream would be relatively small.
jttmab |
