Question About NRA and Wayne LaPierre - Page 4

Question About NRA and Wayne LaPierre

This is a discussion on Question About NRA and Wayne LaPierre within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by suntzu Sorry if you don't understand sarcasm. Did you not notice the 'LOL' after the statement I made. Most folks would undeerstand ...

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 90
Like Tree73Likes

Thread: Question About NRA and Wayne LaPierre

  1. #46
    Distinguished Member Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,967
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Sorry if you don't understand sarcasm. Did you not notice the 'LOL' after the statement I made. Most folks would undeerstand I did not donate 5000 dollars LOL. And as far as Mr LaPierre is concerned even adressing the treaty is a waste of time. It has been established by SCOTUS that NO treaty trumps the Constituiton.

    NRA on the UN’s Small Arms Trade Treaty | The Truth About Guns

    That is but one letter. I can post more inflammatory and in correct ones if you want including you tubes of his speeches.
    I do understand sarcasm. You used a literary device, sarcasm, to make your point. Mr. LaPierre uses extreme examples to make his point. You may not agree with him. You may not believe the small arms treaty is a risk to US citizens. Myself and many others have less faith in our government than you. I have seen Federal judges refer to other countries' laws to justify an opinion. I have seen congress and presidents from both parties sign legislation that is unconstitutional. Some even admit it before they sign it. I am not willing to idly sit by and watch my rights erode. I appreciate groups like the NRA for doing what they think needs to be done to protect my rights.
    Stubborn likes this.


  2. #47
    Distinguished Member Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
    What is at stake? I would argue that some of the elections in the 60s were more important. Civil rights being the big one I am thinking of.
    That is your opinion. I believe each next election is the most important. We can't vote in past elections.

  3. #48
    Senior Member Array Chevy-SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by BigStick View Post
    I would rather have a pushy guy representing my interests than a pushover.
    Not saying everything he and the NRA put out is perfect or PC (which I think is a good thing),
    but without the NRA our rights for guns and self-defense would be in a completely different place.

    These are my sentiments too.

    My biggest gripe about LaPierre is that he just doesn't seem
    comfortable on camera, nor is he glib enough. You need to
    be quick-thinking on the interviews, and I think he's lacking
    a little bit in that area. The NRA would be better served
    with a different front-man IMHO.
    Of course, in the back of my mind I am always
    comparing NRA's current front-men to
    Charlton Heston, and it's pretty
    dang hard for anyone to
    compete with Moses!!!


    Still, I've been an NRA member for over 30 years.
    If you're a 2A supporter, then you gotta support the NRA.
    I hope everyone on this site is a member.


    -
    'Be careful, even in small matters' - Miyamoto Musashi

  4. #49
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  5. #50
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
    What is at stake? I would argue that some of the elections in the 60s were more important. Civil rights being the big one I am thinking of.
    1. A SCOTUS that will uphold the Second Amendment.
    2. A justice dept. that will enforce the laws of the United States.
    3. An administration that will at least slow down the illegal border crossings if not stop them completely.
    4. A President that will not go abroad and bow to leaders of foreign countries, and apologize for being who we are.

    The civil rights of the sixties aren't a pimple on the butt of what we could be facing. Without the 2a and our weapons we will be forced to accept all the crap the government wants to send our way. With no means to defend ourselves we will all eventually end up with NO civil rights.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  6. #51
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,135
    The Constitution says:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    The definition of notwithstanding from dictionary.reference.com :
    not·with·stand·ing
       [not-with-stan-ding, -with-] Show IPA
    preposition
    1.
    in spite of; without being opposed or prevented by: Notwithstanding a brilliant defense, he was found guilty. She went to the game anyway, doctor's orders notwithstanding.
    conjunction
    2.
    in spite of the fact that; although: It was the same material, notwithstanding the texture seemed different.
    Now I won't be accused of being an English major but it seems to me to say, for the purposes of our discussion, "Despite the Constitution, Treaties will be the supreme law of the land."
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  7. #52
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,135
    Despite serious mission creep, the NRA probably needs to start some kind of anti-violence effort to keep the antis off their backs.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  8. #53
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,881
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    The Constitution says:



    The definition of notwithstanding from dictionary.reference.com :


    Now I won't be accused of being an English major but it seems to me to say, for the purposes of our discussion, "Despite the Constitution, Treaties will be the supreme law of the land."
    Two points: first, this is why I told the OP to research it himself and make up his own mind. This thread has now changed to a particular issue. Second, I am not an English major either but SCOTUS has made major ruling on this already so I am pretty sure they looked up the definition of 'non withstanding' and factored it in their decision that no treay trumps the laws of the US nor the Constituition.

  9. #54
    Senior Member Array Dennis1209's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NW, TN
    Posts
    744
    First and foremost, the NRA is a business and there to solely make profits. There secondary goal is to promote 2nd amendment issues for the benefit of their members. They have had a positive impact in promoting our gun rights along with GOA and other gun rights organizations. I pay my membership yearly because about every four years or so they say or do something so stupid, it makes me glad I'm not a life member, and I drop them for a few years but eventually come back. Playing to your fears is not a new concept at all. It's an effective means to separate you from your hard earned money. Still, all in all, the NRA in my opinion is well worth the membership to help protect and promote our gun RIGHTS. When guns become a privilege to own like a drivers license, we're all toast, so we need organizations like the NRA, however imperfect their views are to my own.
    suntzu likes this.

  10. #55
    VIP Member Array Spirit51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    2,248
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    Despite serious mission creep, the NRA probably needs to start some kind of anti-violence effort to keep the antis off their backs.
    Do you know what the NRA does? Eddy Eagle to teach young children gun safety. Safety classes. And encouraging personal responsibility in enforcing gun laws already on the books. Besides other anti crime programs.

    What more would you have them do?

    No matter what anyone does...and anti gunners will not stop until guns are taken out of the hands of citizens. There is nothing else in their warped minds.
    Stubborn likes this.
    A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
    Susan B. Anthony
    A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
    Robert Heinlein

  11. #56
    Member Array Rugerguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    101
    Since I keep getting referenced, let me be crystal clear on my question one last time because after that I give.....what particular issues is Wayne spinning? So we say that the UN Treaty will not trump the constitution, but he also says that a second term Obama will appoint supreme court justices that will over turn the Heller case and declare 2A unconstitutional. What about that?

  12. #57
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Rugerguy View Post
    Since I keep getting referenced, let me be crystal clear on my question one last time because after that I give.....what particular issues is Wayne spinning? So we say that the UN Treaty will not trump the constitution, but he also says that a second term Obama will appoint supreme court justices that will over turn the Heller case and declare 2A unconstitutional. What about that?
    OK, I am nor Constitutional lawyer but as far as I know SCOTUS rules if laws are legal under ourConstitution, not if part of the Constitution is Unconstituitonal. Now, do you see spin and fear mongering in that sentence you wrote I have in bold??Your words not mine. They will rule the 2A is unconstituionaal. Yeah, LMAO on that one. Actually that is beyond hillarious if someone beleives it. I can see them making a ruling in a case that come before them effectively nullifying the Heller decision, but declare part of the constituiton un constituional.....
    Last edited by suntzu; April 16th, 2012 at 08:05 PM. Reason: I will have the Kool Aid bar open all night

  13. #58
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    The Constitution says:
    The definition of notwithstanding from dictionary.reference.com :
    Now I won't be accused of being an English major but it seems to me to say, for the purposes of our discussion, "Despite the Constitution, Treaties will be the supreme law of the land."
    Your interpretation is correct, but our Supremes have put their own spin on it; so much for their avowed literalism and
    originalist ideology.

    You see, the court is usually as interested in outcomes as in the written word.

    When it suits, the word "notwithstanding" will have meaning again. It will happen when there is a treaty where the Justices
    like what is being accomplished through the treaty even though it might conflict with, oh, the right to jury trial for example.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  14. #59
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    snip ~~ Now I won't be accused of being an English major but it seems to me to say, for the purposes of our discussion, "Despite the Constitution, Treaties will be the supreme law of the land."
    You are correct, once a Treaty is signed by the President it must be ratified by the Senate.. Not the Congress in whole.. and once it is ratified.. It becomes the Supreme Law of the Land.. circumventing even our Constitution.

    So if Madam Hillary should negotiate an Arms Treaty with the G20 that will restrict private ownership and possession of self defense firearms like she is trying to do, then Obama would have to sign it and the Senate Ratify it.. once it is.. the UN would be coming in to take all personally owned firearms..

    Seeing her involvement in the restricting of Historical Firearms from being brought back to the Country of their Origin.. I will not doubt that this is her agenda.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  15. #60
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,881
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    You are correct, once a Treaty is signed by the President it must be ratified by the Senate.. Not the Congress in whole.. and once it is ratified.. It becomes the Supreme Law of the Land.. circumventing even our Constitution.

    So if Madam Hillary should negotiate an Arms Treaty with the G20 that will restrict private ownership and possession of self defense firearms like she is trying to do, then Obama would have to sign it and the Senate Ratify it.. once it is.. the UN would be coming in to take all personally owned firearms..

    Seeing her involvement in the restricting of Historical Firearms from being brought back to the Country of their Origin.. I will not doubt that this is her agenda.
    Again, SCOTUS has ruled on this!!!!
    This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
    When somebody here shows me a law degree in constitutional law I will just have to trust the ruling already put down by SCOTUS. Can it change? sure, depending overtime and the make up of SCOTUS. But here is what ticks me off. NRA says something, folks want to beleive it is true becasue it is the NRA, they get on wikipedia and law dictionaries and lo and behold! Everybody is an expert. How come Mr LaPierre concvienetnly forgets to mention rulings by SCOTUS on this issue.FEAR
    Hopyard, atctimmy and Sig 210 like this.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

an armed society is a polite society lapierre
,
how much wayne pierre of the nra make ayear
,
i own guns but don't support the nra
,

is the nra worth joining

,

lapierre gun control 1990 statement

,
nra
,
nra previous statement 1990's
,

state concealed carry laws and supremacy clause

,

treaty 100-13

,
wayne lapierre gun control conspiracy
,

wayne lapierre survivalist

,
what did wayne lapierre say in the 1990's
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors