nascar refusing certain gun ads, infuriating the gun industry

[Knoturnal]

Thanks for the intelligence in your answer.

The tread is about what Nascar is wanting. Hell theres reply's about all kinds of stuff in here. They have every right to ask for what they want. If not they just do what they think is best anyway. Anything else is just someone talking.

 

[HisArpy]

how many other times have you been faced with the need? (even if i choose to accept your post as truth)

how many people get packs of wild dogs invade their property?

i live in the (semi)wild'n'woolly hills of tennessee, and there are coyotes, foxes, opossums, racoons, deer, wild pigs, big farm animals... there's never been a call for massive firepower

Once is enough when it comes down to you or them.

Anything else is BS. If you want to survive, you'd better have the means to be able to survive. If not, then the bad guy wins.

Your entire talking point enables the bad guy. Congratulations, you've shown yourself to be someone who doesn't value human life at all. Nor the principles and ideals of the country you emigrated to.

 

[RoryN]

Anything else is BS.

(Source: http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=91246699#post91246699 )

 

[butters]

and harpy goes the full 'i'll tell a great big whopper and you'd all better believe it!' trumpian route

 

[HisArpy]

if i ever hear a valid, honest, realistic reason for a private citizen of the usa to own these weapons, i'm open to considering it - to weigh it up against the needs and rights of other private individuals to be able to go about their daily business (school, shopping, work, church, yoga classes, birdwatching, anythingatall) in safety and without the fear of someone who can get their hands on one of those weapons shooting the shit out of them and their peers.

Here's your "valid, honest, realistic reason". It's long but please read it in its entirety and think about what I'm saying here.

The 2nd Amendment BEGINS with the words "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state".

Now, we have to ask ourselves 2 questions: What is a "well regulated militia"? And, "why is one necessary for a free state"?

The militia is defined in 10 United States Code section 246 (10 USC 246). It says:

§246. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim

So, the militia are: the national guard and naval militia forces AND everyone else who isn't a member of those 2 military organizations.

Now we know the who, we move on to the why. The answer to that is a bit more complicated. However, this article excerpt seems to convey the idea well enough for this response.

In 18th century political discourse, "free state" was a well-understood political term of art, meaning "free country," which is to say the opposite of a despotism.
http://volokh.com/posts/1181941233.shtml

So what we now have is the definition of militia and free state. From here we go on to an understanding of what's required to marry those 2 ideas together to achieve the intended purpose.

The first militia act passed in 1792 set up the system.

First Militia Act of 1792 (full text)
The first Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the president to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe".[3] The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

The second militia act also passed in 1792 provided the requirements of what militia members had to have if/when they were called up for service.

Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified", "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a box able to contain not less than 24 suitable cartridges, and a knapsack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

Then there's the "well regulated part:

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Now, this is where things require some reflection and thought.

The militia is everyone. It doesn't matter if you're military already, reserves, national guard, or none of the above; YOU ARE BY FEDERAL LAW a member of the militia. Even if you don't want to be.

Got that?

Now, also under Federal law, you are MANDATED to appear with arms already possessed by you. Arms which will allow you to defend this nation from all forces hostile to the ideals of a "free State" whether those forces come from within or without.

The first militia acts were amended to eventually include everyone and establish the national guard, BUT the MANDATE has never been changed. By Federal Law, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO APPEAR WITH ARMS SUITABLE FOR WAGING WAR.

Now, we add the "well regulated" bit. You, as a member of the militia, are required to appear, bearing suitable arms, AND you are required to be proficient with the use of those arms.

This entire clause in the 2nd Amendment COMMANDS that Americans, as members of the militia, have access to "weapons of war" and be "proficient" in their use.

The remainder of the Amendment speaks to whether those arms can be in the hands of private citizens even without active militia service being a prerequisite, and the SCOTUS has already determined the answer to that is undeniably yes.

Here's the brain twister for you. If you don't own arms suitable for militia service and aren't proficient in their use; are you violating Federal Law by not doing so?

The answer to that is also yes. Please rectify your illegal behavior and support the nation you call home.

 

[HisArpy]

and harpy goes the full 'i'll tell a great big whopper and you'd all better believe it!' trumpian route

This is why you will never understand what it means to be an American. No matter how long you live here, you will always be a British citizen and never understand us.

It's also how and why we kicked your British asses back to that little island you cower on today.

 

[HisArpy]

(Source: http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=91246699#post91246699 )

Poor rorbags, still the unwanted child.

 

[Dribble]

I know this is hard to understand, entities like Walmart and NASCAR, have a right to sell whatever, or can choose whom to accept advertising from. If it doesnt meet their standards, they can say no. Why is this complex so hard to understand in America?

What the issue the Right seems to have, is comprehending that society is moving on without them. EVERYTHING their leader has done, will be undone. EVERYTHING. Tick tock...tick tock. One community at a time, one business at a time

 

[Knoturnal]

The tread is about what Nascar is wanting. Hell theres reply's about all kinds of stuff in here. They have every right to ask for what they want. If not they just do what they think is best anyway. Anything else is just someone talking.


Theres a lot of talking on this thread this morning.

 

[butters]

The tread is about what Nascar is wanting. Hell theres reply's about all kinds of stuff in here. They have every right to ask for what they want. If not they just do what they think is best anyway. Anything else is just someone talking.


Theres a lot of talking on this thread this morning.

and you can bet that nascar, walmart and dicks and any other involved parties have taken all financial impacts under consideration before making their decisions... and decided it works better for them to cut back on the weaponry. customers' views have to be taken into consideration and they clearly believe more customers will welcome their actions than leave because of them.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

What is chipbutty's unrelenting fascination with everything wrong in the United States.

Whoa.

AJ is admitting here through the thread's context that the gun industry is part of what's wrong in the United States.

I'm just gabberflasted! Looks like you're actually getting through to the knotheads, Chippy!

 

[BotanyBoy]

I know this is hard to understand, entities like Walmart and NASCAR, have a right to sell whatever, or can choose whom to accept advertising from.

Not if the Democrats have anything to do with it.

They think only the state should be able to sell stuff.

 

[bigsly]

This is the Oath of Allegiance every naturalized U.S. must swear to:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Socialist butters isn't a U.S. citizen, she can't vote. But here she is in this thread proclaiming "if i ever hear a valid, honest, realistic reason for a private citizen of the usa to own these weapons, i'm open to considering it" like her big mouth can possibly cover the wannabe check it mindlessly writes. The cunt actually fantasizes what she thinks/believes has any practical effect on the American subject at hand. No greater example of one blowing useless unicorn farts out their asshole - just for the sake of doing so - is known to man.

If socialist butters ever intends to become a naturalized U.S. citizen, she'll be lying through her teeth - just like she does on this board so much - when she swears to the above quoted oath. She won't "renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity" to her socialist home country, and - as is obvious by her general political postings on this board and in particular her anti-2nd Amendment postings in this thread - neither can she truthfully swear to "support and defend the Constitution" when she's 100% in favor of unconstitutionally infringing on ALL Americans' INALIENABLE right to keep and bear arms ("ALL" except, of course, collective government agents who socialists like butters grant total FORCEFUL, DEADLY power over individuals).

And obviously, there's no need to even discuss the "so help me God" part when a heathen socialist like butters is the topic.

The only thing worse than a domestic enemy to the Constitution is a foreign one. If America had it's shit together, a socialist like butters could never become a U.S. citizen and her visits/stays in the country would be severely limited simply because of her totally anti-Constitution/anti-American, socialist political view points. Trump should put a tariff on people like Harry who import such foreign, socialist trash.

 

[Kantarii]

Poor rorbags, still the unwanted child.

He’s trolling hard today.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

 

[Adre]

GB assault weapon advocates like to ignore the fact that in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court told us that we have a constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense, at least within our homes. But the opinion never suggested that this right was unconditional or immune from all regulation. In fact, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said just the opposite. In Heller, he specifically said that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

 

[RoryN]

 

[BotanyBoy]

GB assault weapon advocates like to ignore the fact that in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court told us that we have a constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense, at least within our homes. But the opinion never suggested that this right was unconditional or immune from all regulation. In fact, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said just the opposite. In Heller, he specifically said that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

So what's your argument for limiting arms to colonial era weapon design only???

 

[BotanyBoy]

Taking things out of context for the purpose of deception ......hallmark sign of a strong position.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Taking things out of context for the purpose of deception ......hallmark sign of a strong position.

By all means, please tell us what Trump really meant.

 

[RoryN]

Taking things out of context

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30E5P12DVEk

(Somewhere underneath this post, ProudBoy's desperate attempts at justifying Trump's position in the above clip - let's watch!)

 

[BotanyBoy]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30E5P12DVEk

(Somewhere underneath this post, ProudBoy's desperate attempts at justifying Trump's position in the above clip - let's watch!)

Adds slightly more context than your quote/photo did.

Keep going.

The clip only shows part of Trumps position....it's out of context and intentionally misleading. Arguably why you posted it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

By all means, please tell us what Trump really meant.

I never claimed to know "what he really meant" whatever that's supposed to mean.

I claimed that quote is taken out of context in order to be misleading.

 

[RoryN]

it's out of context and intentionally misleading.

How so?

 

[jp55665566]

Any citizen willing to give up their Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, is squandering the freedom of their descendants.