We should try to pass gun control on the ballot.

We don't know that. The easiest self defense gun for people of small stature to use is an AR-15 of some type. That's why the U.S. army adopted them. So that small statured people could effectively fight in combat. Small statured people couldn't use the M-14, or M-1 Garand. They can the M-16. I know when I get too feeble to shoot a handgun accurately, I'm buying an AR of some type (if they are still available). I can't imagine a better self defense gun for a weak person. Low recoil, and a shoulder stock, allowing the gun to be held much more steadily.

 

I was talking about something even easier and quicker--half-moon or full moon clips. These don't require removal, they just load straight into the cylinder.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_clip

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/reloading-revolver-moon-clips/

 

I'm convinced he's a pro-gunner trolling by pretending to be an anti-gunner. He goes a bit too far to be a convincing anti-gunner.

 

Quid pro quo....... Why are you bragging about somebody threatening to disturb the separation of powers in the U.S. Government?

 

Wow dude. Out of everything that you stated there's only one part that I might actually agree with (though I suspect for differing reasons) and that's the part I bolded . Everything else I would vehemently disagree with to my very bones. Much of it is against the very fabric of the USofA and what the Founders intended.

 

Because they mean business. School shootings, and mass shootings started getting way more prevalent after the 2010 ruling. The feds need to stop interfeering with the citys and states abilities to regulate firearms.

 

You don't agree with the rest of the amendment? Why should the NRA be allowed to challenge every bill in all the states when they only reside in VA?

 

Couple of reasons. First and foremost: 1st Amendment.

Such an amendment would deny peoples ability to peaceably assemble (which is not just about protests) and to petition the government for redress of grievances. The NRA helps people do just that. It is no different than any other group that organizes to uphold peoples Rights. I think that something you don't realize is that whenever the NRA challenges some law passed in a state they have someone that resides in the state challenging the law via the NRA's help. It has to do with the courts requiring that people have Standing. Meaning that the law in question must be affecting the person/group suing to get the law removed. If they don't have that person then the NRA alone has no standing. The NRA provides resources and lawyers to the person that has the Standing. If you try and make that amendment with that clause in it then you are going to be affecting FAR more than just the NRA. It would be affecting every organization out there, including the ones that you support. That is nothing more than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Besides, it would easily be bypassed by large organizations such as the NRA. All they'd have to do is open up a location in all the States and your clause in that Amendment would be rendered useless.

 

Because the NRA has members in every state.

 

For a country founded on the idea of individual freedom and self governance it has gotten complicated, hasn’t it?

I recommend taking out an insurance policy on any unicorn. For those intimidated by assault unicorns I don’t recommend gerbils. They are known to have penetrated most common body armor worn by law enforcement. Clearly they are cop killers and not suitable for civilian ownership. I recommend side by side guinea pigs which coincidentally I also have for sale.

 

16 rounds in 4 seconds... you is right!

 

Regardless of the Organisation, I am basing this on the premise that every state is supposed to be sovereign republics under a continental government. It's why they passed the 11th amendment when they realized they f-ed up with the wording. I have no issue with each org having local charters, as each would be bound by the total regulation of the state in which they pertain.

As above I would have no issue if they had say "The New York chapter of the NRA" because then the support/funds would be based off of an accurate representation of support on each side.

I truly believe that if the Founding Fathers could have imagined these interstate organisations they would have prevented them from paying for legal counsel across state lines, they after all saw people of different states as aliens too each other. Remember the 11A was passed because someone won in a court case from out of state over war payments.

I understand the concern, we must have a constitutional barrier keeping the individual state legal systems separate from each other, states are supposed to be local democracy. No person should ever have to worry about anyone else but their own citizens when passing a law.

As stated above I would be 100% okay with this because then each chapter/charter is forced to abide by all the laws of that state it will mean everyone is on the same level playing field.

 

Don't really get how your point. Well unless you use a bow and arrow, guns are used to hunt.

 

Problem is those that commit crimes likely don't use licensed fire arms.

However I believe you should have a license in order for a business or individual to sell you a gun.

 

Not quite how it works.

 

It is with state Constitutions.

 

Interesting. In the US there are many, many more guns per person than in El Salvador yet we don't have the same problems.

Maybe the difference is in the US most of the guns are owned by law abiding citizens and in El Salvador most of the guns are owned by the government and/or criminals (if there is any difference between the two in El Salvador).

 

Jeezus!
Go live in North Korea!

 

And just to make sure you are not tempted lets have the GOVERNMENT put cameras in your home, car and place of employment.

 

NRA members live in every state. It's a national organization, not a Virginia organization.

 

Your factoid about mass shootings being more prevalent after 2010 is false (as is most that comes out of your keyboard). (article a bit dated, but it doesn't show a big increase after 2010). If anything, things are safer now than they were during the AWB ban.
https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/...e-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/

 

Perhaps you intended to quote the OP? I thought I was pretty clear with my comment - the whole "3 people say" stuff rule proposed by the OP is foolish and easily exploitable.

 

Pro gunners should just give up the fight in the about 10 anti gun states. You do you and we do us? That was bad grammar but meh.

 

Wouldn’t pro choice be a better description than pro gunner?

 

Both groups need to stay out of other states business