posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 12:15 PM
reply to post by rickm
The NRA actually doesn't have that much money. Not compared to large corporations. Most of their money also goes to legal fees more than anything
else. Don't marginalize your fellow citizen by calling them crazy or nuts. It's dismissive and divisive. Please describe meaningful legislation,
and how it relates to firearm statistics, and what impact said legislation would have on those statistics with case studies where it has been tried
before in the US.
The NRA is a curious lobby. What's interesting about it is that it's actually one of the very few lobbies that fights for the constitution. Whether
or not a firearms corporation is involved in supporting that lobby doesn't matter, because at the end of the day, they are actually supporting your
rights. Even though you may not consider yourself as being on "their" side, by default of being a US citizen, you are on their side. Whether you
like it or not, again by default of you being a US citizen, the mere fact that they fight for your constitutional guarantees means they are always on
your side, whether you hate them or try to destroy them, they are fighting for your rights anyway.
To put it another way, imagine if broadband internet was amended into the constitution as being a right, kind of like what Finland did. Then, with
that right being guaranteed, a lobby group popped up looking to defend that right against any opposition, because well lets face it, it's a
constitutional guarantee, and they all need to be defended. Lets call them the BLG (Broadband Lobby Group). Then lets say companies like Verizon
started to support that lobby group with donations etc. One, it behooves them to do so because they would be stupid business men not to, but two, it
also supports the constitution at the same time and the employees of that company believe in the law of the land and the constitution. Would you be
against that kind of support for a constitutional guarantee? Do you honestly believe it is ethical to forgo the constitution with legislation instead
of amendment for the sake of expediency? Why is it okay to support one freedom advocacy group over another? They're both supporting the same thing
and both on your side by the very fact that you are a citizen.
I'll leave you with this: There is a difference between restricting the access of firearms to law abiding full citizen and restricting the access of
people not deemed full citizens anymore. The question about the constitutionality of restricting firearms is more to do with questioning the
constitutionality of stripping a citizen of any rights whatsoever, firearms being incidental to that. Look, you're obviously reaching the limit of
your intelligence on this argument, it seems I can't repeat myself in other words anymore, it's not getting through. Feel free to have the last word,
I won't respond, I've made my point very clear to other posters here.
edit on 2-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)