Regarding the recent gun bill defeat.

The government IS We the People!

A government OF the People and FOR the People.

The government is US!

We can't have a democratic tyranny of the majority because the Constitution guarantees individual rights.

 

Onus is on you to prove that We the People have imposed any tyranny during the last 200+ years that We have governed ourselves.

- - - Updated - - -

We are talking about America during the last 200+ years.

 

Without the Constitution (limits on the power of government and the people) we would have a democratic tyranny, thank you for reinforcing that. Part of that Constitution, of course, is the right to bear arms.

- - - Updated - - -

Jim Crow laws.

 

Yeah right!

The NRA lobbies on behalf of the gun manufacturers purely out of their goodness of their heart!

The REALITY is that the NRA is provided with millions upon millions of dollars from the gun manufacturers and no amount of denial is going to alter that FACT.

 

If you are claiming that Jim Crow laws were tyranny by We the People then it was people with the guns who were oppressing the blacks who were denied guns under those laws.

And it wasn't We the People who were being tyrannical, it was the racist former slave owners. We the People granted them equal rights to guns and voting but it was the racist south that choose to defy the Constitution and their individual rights.

 

Spare us the ignorant BS. Heller determined that people have an individual right to own a firearm, including firearms that were in common use ion the military.

The claim that a law can be passed which bans all weapons except one preserves the right to own a firearm is adolescent BS.

 

No, it was the governments.

They were the governments at the time. So, yes, it is an example of tyranny by the people. The right to own guns, at that time, wasn't a restriction on the states. They were allowed to ban guns, until recently.

 

Silliness...the civilian gun industry in the USA is tiny...If you think an industry making only about 1.5 billion a year is sending 'millions and millions' to the NRA you are smoking something.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/02/americas-gun-business-by-the-numbers.html

In fact, the 'millions and millions being spent is mostly on the grabber side. Heck, Bloomberg alone dropped $72 million through 2015.

http://nypost.com/2015/11/29/mike-bloomberg-has-spent-72m-on-campaigns-won-67-of-races/

 

the 14th Amendment was all about arming blacks for self defense against the Klan, or so the drafters said in debate. That the Court didn't like the Amendment (as it overturned a quarters century of precedence they wrote) and ignored it completely for half a century was on the court.

 

You have that backwards. It is the job of the appellate or supreme court to either affirm or overturn the lower courts ruling.

District of Columbia v. Heller

The Supreme Court held:[43]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

NO Militia service necessary.

 

IRS apologizes for targeting tea party groups

They confessed.

 

Facts prove that the NRA receives millions from the gun industry.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

 

This is almost funny, why does a semi auto that looks vaguely military seem more dangerous to you than a semi auto that doesn't when both have the same capabilities in real terms.

 

That was BEFORE the investigations PROVED that the IRS did NOT target specific groups at all.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2014/04/23/3429722/irs-records-tea-party/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/05/irs-targeting-senate_n_5773476.html

 

They are working on this one through the NFL(no fly list).

 

Evidence for the above in bold.

 

You seem to have listed every company that has any association with firearms up to and including clothing stores...wow!

 

But you cannot refute the FACT that the NRA receives millions from the gun industry.

 

Of course it does - just as it receive millions from its members.
Why do you think something so obvious has any meaning?

 

You mean this? "the 14th Amendment was all about arming blacks for self defense against the Klan"

During the debate on the 14th the following was noted, a partial list of laws in the southern states on the issue and was cited as a reason the amendment was needed

"The need to protect the right to bear arms persisted. That same day (May 22) the president transmitted a report on Southern state laws concerning freedmen to the House. The report included black code provisions that prohibited the possession of firearms by freedmen. South Carolina made it unlawful for "persons of color to keep a firearm, sword, or other military weapon," without a license, except a farm owner could keep a shotgun or rifle "ordinarily used in hunting."[112] Florida made it unlawful for a black to enter a white railroad car and to possess "any bowie-knife, dirk, sword, fire-arms, or ammunition of any kind" without a license.[113] Although these state laws were well known, it is significant that they were received again in Congress on May 23, the first day that the Senate considered H.R. 127, which would become the Fourteenth Amendment."

Another bit considered

"In consequence of this there were extensive seizures of arms and ammunition, which the negroes had foolishly collected, and strict precautions were taken to avoid any outbreak. Pistols, old muskets, and shotguns were taken away from them as such weapons would be wrested from the hands of lunatics. Since the holidays, however, there has been a great improvement in this matter; many of the whites appear to be ashamed of their former distrust, and the negroes are seldom molested now in carrying the fire-arms of which they make such a vain display. In one way or another they have procured great numbers of old army muskets and revolvers, particularly in Texas, and I have, in a few instances, been amused at the vigor and audacity with which they have employed them to protect themselves against the robbers and murderers that infest that State."

Senator Eliot noted "Eliot cited Freedmen's Bureau reports, such as that of General Fisk, who wrote of 25,000 discharged Union soldiers who were freedmen returning to their homes: "Their arms are taken from them by the civil authorities and confiscated for the benefit of the Commonwealth. The Union soldier is fined for bearing arms. Thus the right of the people to keep and bear arms as provided in the Constitution is infringed, and the Government for whose protection and preservation these soldiers have fought is denounced as meddlesome and despotic when through its agents it undertakes to protect its citizens in a constitutional right"[132] (emphasis added). Fisk added that the freedmen "are defenseless, for the civil-law officers disarm the colored man and hand him over to armed marauders."

Let me try to be more clear....After the war the southern states began to disarm blacks, prevent them from assembling and voting. Congress debated 3 bills over the next two years, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Freedmans Bill and finally the 14th Amendment. The problem with the first two bills was that Congress passed them and the States ignored them. The intent of the 14th was to allow the Congress to enforce the rights in the Bill of Rights. This is the best write up of the issue and debate I have ever read. It discusses the situation and the debates and the newspaper coverage of the issue.

http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

A LOT of the debate was about stopping the southern states from disarming blacks.

 

I refute the idea that this money in any way compares to the money raised and spent by the grabbers, especially its elites and in the scheme of things, the money is trivial. The Clinton Foundation has raised more dubious money

 

This was your original fallacious allegation;

Now that it has been proven that the gun industry does provide the NRA with millions of dollars every year moving the goalposts is a deflection.

So let's get back on track and discuss how the NRA intimidates GOP politicians to vote for the NRA gun culture of violence. In essence the NRA does this by publishing lists of how GOP politicians vote and provides these lists to voters in their districts.

This intimidation is used to ensure that the NRA gun culture of violence is always followed by GOP politicians in Congress. Even when 90% of We the People want improved background checks to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and the deranged the NRA threatens the GOP politicians against doing the will of We the People.

And the reason behind this intimidation is because the gun manufacturers who own the NRA know that these mass shootings by either terrorists or the deranged are good for gun sales and their profits.

In essence the NRA is holding We the People hostage to the profits of the gun manufacturers.

 

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun...”
-- President Obama

 

What total BS...Do you find most folk let you get away with simply spouting your opinion as fact? Does anyone grant you the power to define the scope of an argument?

The NRA no more intimidates than do labor unions. They represent their members and they insure the politicians know millions of folk expect those politicians to do what their voters demand.

Silliness like "the NRA intimidates GOP politicians to vote for the NRA gun culture of violence" is not amusing, but tragic.

"Gun culture of violence" Please....too sad for words. Again, you argue that the political class is owned by the NRA who in turn are owned by gun manufacturers but when confronted by the tiny amount of money gun manufacturers make you add in every single associated industry from ammunition makers to sports clothing outlets to come up with your millions and millions...

Sorry, but I am not uninformed enough to buy your 'argument'...