Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (41370)	4/10/2005 10:38:22 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Those sources merely re-printed the NRA propaganda. Such encyclopedias usually do that, ask an organization for a bio then print it. The NRA was founded right after the KKK was made illegal. That was no coincidence. To believe any different is to be a dupe. The two organizations still have much in common, though the NRA tries to keep its racism in the closet.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (41370)	4/10/2005 10:41:01 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 173976

Constitutional scholars blast NRA, say gun group has deceived public By Carla Crowder Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer The NRA has deceived the public and distorted the legal history of the Second Amendment, a coalition of constitutional scholars said Monday. An alliance of 47 historians and law professors also signed a letter to NRA President Charlton Heston, encouraging him to move past his "misleading" rhetoric. "The National Rifle Association's repeated suggestions that the Second Amendment somehow stands in the way of effective and reasonable regulation of guns and gun ownership is a distortion of legal precedent and a disservice to all Americans," the letter says. Laws that ban certain guns, mandate gun registration and require background checks at gun shows -- some of the most popular and contentious proposals in America -- are fully consistent with the Second Amendment, the scholars said. Neither Heston nor NRA spokesmen had immediate comment. Second Amendment researcher Dave Kopel of the conservative Independence Institute initially labeled the scholars "Surrogates for Handgun Control," the nation al gun-control lobby. Then he learned that Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School and Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School -- often cited as supporters of NRA positions -- were among their number. Kopel called Amar and Tribe "excellent constitutional scholars" and "thoughtful, independent people." On Monday, Amar and Tribe took the NRA to task, saying the gun group has misstated their positions. By looking at the constitutionality of specific gun-control laws, "they're moving the debate forward in a more thoughtful way," Kopel said. Constitutional rights are not absolute, the group of scholars said, but subject to the need to protect public safety. For example, libel and slander laws limit First Amendment rights to free speech. Yet, gun-rights advocates such as the NRA try to shield guns from further regulation by citing the Second Amendment, as if alone -- among all rights -- it is immune from restrictions. And that's just wrong, they said. "Whatever else it does, the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unregulated supply of cheap handguns for all," Tribe said. The Legal Community Against Violence, based in San Francisco, organized the telephone news conference. The group's directors say they're seeking to correct the NRA's spin, which they say for years has confused politicians and the public and created irresponsible obstacles to gun laws. For example, many people believe the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms. But they are forgetting the first clause, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," said LCAV Director Sayre Weaver. In hundreds of federal cases this century, courts have ruled that the amendment does not protect individuals who want guns. Instead, it allows states to keep militias to protect against federal power. The only time the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on the matter was the 1939 case United States v. Miller. The court found that Miller's sawed-off shotgun had nothing to do with militia participation. He had no right to the weapon. "It is the Supreme Court that's charged with interpreting the Second Amendment, not (NRA Vice President Wayne) LaPierre or Mr. Heston," Weaver said. Virginia Second Amendment lawyer Stephen Halbrook said that courts this century had not looked far enough into the history of the Constitution. "Look at debates of historical records," said Halbrook, who sometimes works for the NRA. "All of the persons who commented on meaning of the Second Amendment said it was an individual right."