Speaking of the NRA
SayUncle believes in the Second Amendment and that gun ownership is an individual right. As evidenced by the following:
Second Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
USC Title 10, Sec 311: The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States …
Now assume that since then certain laws prohibit discrimination based on age and gender that it would also include the elderly and women. Note all the National Guard and section 313 stuff was added later. So, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the original intent of the Bill of Rights and the law. That has been perverted by the anti-gun folks in recent years.
On to the NRA: I am not a member of the NRA. But I support the individual right of the Second Amendment. See the NRA has a few issues. One is that it refuses to draw a line. For example, if you asked most folks ‘should citizens be allowed to own nuclear weapons?’ most would say not, as would I. But where does one draw the line? The NRA hasn’t taken a position on where to draw the line. The NRA simply opposes every law that may possibly interfere with someone owning a weapon anywhere. No one should have nukes in their basement obviously but what weaponry should citizens have? The NRA won’t make a distinction. I recall the NRA opposed the licensing of fertilizer that was proposed after the Oklahoma City incident. So, seems they’re intimating that bomb making is protected by the Second Amendment. Now, where do we draw the line? Well, start with US v. Miller. The most wrongly interpreted Supreme Court Case ever, in my opinion. See, the justices decided that because a sawn off shotgun resembles no militia type weapon, it was not protected under the Second Amendment. Mr. SayUncle, are you intimating that we the people should have assault style, military weapons? You betcha, I am. The reason is that the Second Amendment is there for ‘we the people’ to be able to defend ourselves against our government in the event that it becomes corrupt. The anti-gunners like to say that ‘we don’t know what they meant by the Second Amendment.’ Poppycock! Our forefathers wrote volumes on what they meant. Read the Federalist Papers if you doubt me. It’s the only amendment we ‘interpret’ instead of taking at face value. But I digress. We can’t defend ourselves if we can’t keep up with our government’s arsenal. Our hunting weaponry is no match for M-4s. To that end, I would propose the line be drawn at weapons that serve no defensive purpose, within reason. Nukes, tanks, fighter jets, and other various types of military weaponry serve a minimal defensive purpose. So, a citizen in posession of said items would likely be a bad idea. However, a citizen owning an AR-15 would be fitting. Said weapon serves the criteria established in US v. Miller (at this point, it should be said that I am not a lawyer) and can be reasonably used to defend one’s property, borders, and life. Until the NRA recognizes that a line should be drawn, I can’t support it.
Another issue with the NRA: Too political. Politicians like to say that they are members (and some like to say they are not). So, certain politicians get unwarranted votes by the large contingent of single-issue voters that comprise the gun lobby based entirely on membership to the NRA (Hilleary?).
Another issue with the NRA: Opposed attempts at registering, licensing, training requirements, and tracking gun sales. Well, the Amendment says clearly ‘well regulated.’ I suppose the NRA takes issue with how much regulation means well regulated. Licensing, registration, and training do intimate (in my opinion) an attempt to regulate the militia. Of course, well-regulated may also imply that the government should provide the militia with weapons. That, of course, will never happen for the citizen militia.
Once the NRA establishes clear outlines, I may reconsider a membership.
Adieu!
