One-Issue Political Groups - NRA

[Colt McCoy]

I'm pro gun rights, and generally support the NRA. But over the years they occasionally back causes that I disagree with. The thing I find ironic about this is that the NRA loves to use the catchphrase that "The Second Amendment is the one that guarantees all the others" yet they have no problem with trampling on other rights in support of gun rights.

I've seen this from them before, but the most recent case I saw yesterday is one in which my state is looking at legislation that take away the right of businesses to prevent people from having weapons on their premises. The NRA, of course, supports such legislation.

The government already tells business owners who they have to hire, who they have to serve, what acts they have to allow and not allow of people on their property, etc. Now, with the help of the NRA, legislators want to further trample property rights.

Given their stance that the second amendment exists to give citizens the ability to protect all their rights, I find this really bizarre.

Thoughts?

[AlexM]

Yep, that's officially over the line from protecting the rights of gun owners to trampling the rights of others.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro gun rights, and generally support the NRA. But over the years they occasionally back causes that I disagree with. The thing I find ironic about this is that the NRA loves to use the catchphrase that "The Second Amendment is the one that guarantees all the others" yet they have no problem with trampling on other rights in support of gun rights.

I've seen this from them before, but the most recent case I saw yesterday is one in which my state is looking at legislation that take away the right of businesses to prevent people from having weapons on their premises. The NRA, of course, supports such legislation.

The government already tells business owners who they have to hire, who they have to serve, what acts they have to allow and not allow of people on their property, etc. Now, with the help of the NRA, legislators want to further trample property rights.

Given their stance that the second amendment exists to give citizens the ability to protect all their rights, I find this really bizarre.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the slippery slope argument, if we allow one law to limit the right to own guns in some sort of way, more will follow until our guns are taken away.

I find this happens with pro choice extremists. They make the same sort of arguments opposing laws banning partial birth abortions and opposing the Lacy Peterson law as two examples. If those laws pass then soon all abortions will be illegal.

[Colt McCoy]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the slippery slope argument, if we allow one law to limit the right to own guns in some sort of way, more will follow until our guns are taken away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but it's a slippery slope the other way too. Limit one's property rights on one issue and more limitations will surely follow.

Anyway, we're not talking about limiting gun ownership. We're talking about limiting gun use, which is clearly different.

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, but it's a slippery slope the other way too. Limit one's property rights on one issue and more limitations will surely follow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a friendly reminder that "slippery slope" arguments are fallacious. That said, I agree with your point, Colt. It does seem like the NRA is sticking their gun barrels where they don't belong.

[nef]

I think the law is for keeping a weapon locked in your car at work only. I think the NRA's position is that if you cannot keep a weapon locked in your car then you are denied a means of self defense on your way to and from your place of employment.

Also, just because someone has a parking lot, are they then able to micromanage the contents of my vehicle?

Also, isn't my car MY property? My own little moving sphere of influence.

I can see both sides of this one. I also just read that the AFL-CIO chimed in on the side of the NRA on this one.
Orlando Sentinel Article

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, just because someone has a parking lot, are they then able to micromanage the contents of my vehicle?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the parking lot in question is on someone's private property, yes, they can 'micromanage' what they tolerate on their property, be it in a vehicle or not. More correctly, they can dictate which vehicles are allowed on their property and which aren't.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, isn't my car MY property? My own little moving sphere of influence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the local nuclear power plant puts their radioactive waste on wheels, does that mean they can put it in my backyard? Isn't it their own "little moving sphere of influence"?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro gun rights, and generally support the NRA. But over the years they occasionally back causes that I disagree with. The thing I find ironic about this is that the NRA loves to use the catchphrase that "The Second Amendment is the one that guarantees all the others" yet they have no problem with trampling on other rights in support of gun rights.

I've seen this from them before, but the most recent case I saw yesterday is one in which my state is looking at legislation that take away the right of businesses to prevent people from having weapons on their premises. The NRA, of course, supports such legislation.

The government already tells business owners who they have to hire, who they have to serve, what acts they have to allow and not allow of people on their property, etc. Now, with the help of the NRA, legislators want to further trample property rights.

Given their stance that the second amendment exists to give citizens the ability to protect all their rights, I find this really bizarre.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the slippery slope argument, if we allow one law to limit the right to own guns in some sort of way, more will follow until our guns are taken away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except it's not really as no one's trying to pass a law here except the NRA. If it were simply a slippery slop argument I could understand, but this is something else entirely.

[nef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, just because someone has a parking lot, are they then able to micromanage the contents of my vehicle?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the parking lot in question is on someone's private property, yes, they can 'micromanage' what they tolerate on their property, be it in a vehicle or not. More correctly, they can dictate which vehicles are allowed on their property and which aren't.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, isn't my car MY property? My own little moving sphere of influence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the local nuclear power plant puts their radioactive waste on wheels, does that mean they can put it in my backyard? Isn't it their own "little moving sphere of influence"?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine. Like I said, I can see both sides. There are some states that treat the car as an extension of your home, so my example is not that far fetched.

http://www.packing.org/state/new_mexico/#statecar_law

Your example is a bit silly, but if you allowed parking in your backyard, and the beta particles (or the gun) never left the vehicle, and no harm was done, then maybe that's ok.