116

The GOA is an adamant enemy of gun control measures of all stripes, and proudly calls itself the “no compromise” gun lobby. Its surge in lobbying spending reflects one way it has capitalized on the financial and legal problems of the once 5 million-member NRA in the hopes of expanding the GOA’s political clout, say gun experts.

“The GOA was formed in the 1970s because they believed the NRA was too liberal,” said Robert Spitzer, the author of several books on guns and a professor emeritus at Suny Cortland in New York. “True to its creed, the GOA has opposed every manner of gun law and attacked the NRA at every turn.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Millennials will push for a Consitutional Repeal of 2A before all is said and done.

[-] nicetriangle@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That'd be nice. I've lived in the states and currently the EU and not living somewhere where there is literally more guns than there are people in the country is real nice. People aren't just getting shot all the time here. Imagine that.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Ok but what do you do in gym class if not play dodge bullet

[-] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Or enough of them will get brainwashed and we’ll just keep on keeping on with the status quo.

[-] JunkMilesDavis@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

With constitutional originalism being all the rage nowadays, a person could certainly ask what sort of arms existed at the time of writing.

[-] nicetriangle@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

I love how originalists have zero interest in playing that game wrt the 2a. Proves how full of shit they are.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Also with judicial review. Courts didn't have authority to invalidate laws until Marbury v. Madison. A true "originalist" would argue the judicial branch doesn't have that ability.

[-] nicetriangle@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I'm surprised I hadn't heard of that case before. I wonder what Thomas thinks of it.

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The supreme court does even have the nerve to do that when it suits them, but doesn't give one crap about the obvious hypocrisy. The conservatives ruled recently while striking down a hundred year old gun control law in New York, that no gun regulation laws can exist unless there is proof that law or something very similar existed in the 1780's. Well then does this mean I'm only allowed guns that existed or are very similar to what we had in the 1780's as well? No? Ben Franklin thought I should get to open carry an AR15? Well alright then.

The whole originalist junk has always been a load of made up bullshit conservatives use to justify whatever they already decided they wanted.

[-] nicetriangle@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah it's self serving bullshit that doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all

[-] babboa@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 8 points 1 year ago
[-] thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

The appropriate work hasn't been done at the state level to pave the way and that's probably at least 20-30 years out, if ever.

We really need to scrap the current Constitution and create another one based on current known best practices. Maybe start with the 7N Bill of Human Rights (or whatever it's called). A constitutional convention would be pretty scary given today's political climate, though - see first paragraph.

[-] nicetriangle@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Not gonna happen any time soon unfortunately.

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago

It's not like they're being given any other choices.

this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
116 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2011 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS