NationStates Jolt Archive

Today I got an envelope from the National Rifle Association inviting me to be a member.

They sent me a plastic card with my name and a long number embossed, credit-card-style.

I kept the card, though I don't think I'll actually join.

I wonder why they sent one to me, my only magazine subscription is the New Yorker and I'm in the ACLU.


Anyone else similarly propositioned?

Today I got an envelope from the National Rifle Association inviting me to be a member.

They sent me a plastic card with my name and a long number embossed, credit-card-style.

I kept the card, though I dont think I'll actually join.

I wonder why they sent one to me, my only magazine subscription is the New Yorker and I'm in the ACLU.


Anyone else similarly propositioned?

Maybe you can use the card as a second form of ID when cashing checks or getting a library account.

Do you have a common name? Maybe its a mistake?

Maybe you can use the card as a second form of ID when cashing checks or getting a library account.

Do you have a common name? Maybe its a mistake?


No, very uncommon surname in fact.

I plan to have it visible if I'm pulled over by the police. Score some points, maybe.

I'm considering actually joining. I do own and enjoy shooting guns.

I've recieved several of those. I'm not entirely sure that it isn't a scam. However, I never bothered to investigate.

I've recieved several of those. I'm not entirely sure that it isn't a scam. However, I never bothered to investigate.


I think it's the genuine article, says on the card in small type that it isnt valid unless dues are paid.

Anyone else similarly propositioned?
No, but it’s pretty common at least where I live (south Texas) for ACLU members to also belong to the NRA. Got all your amendments covered that way I guess.

No, but it’s pretty common at least where I live (south Texas) for ACLU members to also belong to the NRA. Got all your amendments covered that way I guess.
But what will they do during the Great ACLU-NRA War?

I think it's the genuine article, says on the card in small type that it isnt valid unless dues are paid.

That's not really dispositive however.

I would assume that if one were to conduct such a scam, one would make sure that the cards really contained such information.

I won't gainsay it though, having not really studied the material I received.

That's not really dispositive however.

I would assume that if one were to conduct such a scam, one would make sure that the cards really contained such information.

I won't gainsay it though, having not really studied the material I received.


I threw the literature away, and the envelope, but I'm pretty certain the self-addressed return envelope was to the real NRA.

But what will they do during the Great ACLU-NRA War?
I don't think the ACLU has an official opinion on the 2nd Ammendment, so they should be fine.

No, but it’s pretty common at least where I live (south Texas) for ACLU members to also belong to the NRA. Got all your amendments covered that way I guess.


Exactly. The next time a knucklewalker whines about "them ACLU aint dunt purtact the guns amindmant" I can respond that the NRA does a fine job at that, and I'm a member of both.

Exactly. The next time a knucklewalker whines about "them ACLU aint dunt purtact the guns amindmant" I can respond that the NRA does a fine job at that, and I'm a member of both.

Probably by rights then, you should toss them a few bucks. If indeed this is a bona fide card.

If you want to join, but are unsure about the authenticity of the material you recieved in the mail, you could do what I did, and join via the website.

The NRA is just a bunch of appeasing pussies.

:cool: Gun Owners of America :cool:

Today I got an envelope from the National Rifle Association inviting me to be a member.

They sent me a plastic card with my name and a long number embossed, credit-card-style.

I kept the card, though I don't think I'll actually join.

I wonder why they sent one to me, my only magazine subscription is the New Yorker and I'm in the ACLU.


Anyone else similarly propositioned?

Get a free M16? :p

Exactly. The next time a knucklewalker whines about "them ACLU aint dunt purtact the guns amindmant" I can respond that the NRA does a fine job at that, and I'm a member of both.

Except the NRA really doesn't. Sure, they're big fans of letting hunters hunt, and they play nice on all the mainstream issues other gunowners might care about. but they're a rifle association, not a firearms association. If you're actually interested in giving your money to an organization that fights for second amendment rights the way the ACLU fights for the rest, you have to go with the Second Amendment Foundation. None of those stupid "law and order" concessions that the NRA makes and a mission statement that looks at gun ownership as a civil right, not a hobby.

Except the NRA really doesn't. Sure, they're big fans of letting hunters hunt, and they play nice on all the mainstream issues other gunowners might care about. but they're a rifle association, not a firearms association. If you're actually interested in giving your money to an organization that fights for second amendment rights the way the ACLU fights for the rest, you have to go with the Second Amendment Foundation. None of those stupid "law and order" concessions that the NRA makes and a mission statement that looks at gun ownership as a civil right, not a hobby.


Well, I dont believe civilians ought to own very destructive military weapons, so maybe the NRA brand of gun advocacy is my brand of gun advocacy.

Except the NRA really doesn't. Sure, they're big fans of letting hunters hunt, and they play nice on all the mainstream issues other gunowners might care about. but they're a rifle association, not a firearms association. If you're actually interested in giving your money to an organization that fights for second amendment rights the way the ACLU fights for the rest, you have to go with the Second Amendment Foundation. None of those stupid "law and order" concessions that the NRA makes and a mission statement that looks at gun ownership as a civil right, not a hobby.

Because we all know the NRA is known for its lilly-livered concessions to reason.

Well, I dont believe civilians ought to own very destructive military weapons, so maybe the NRA brand of gun advocacy is my brand of gun advocacy.

Then you are wrong.

Given that the whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to enable the populace to rise up against government should it be necessary, it is absurd for government to place any restrictions whatsoever on civilian ownership of weapons.

Then you are wrong.

Given that the whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to enable the populace to rise up against government should it be necessary, it is absurd for government to place any restrictions whatsoever on civilian ownership of weapons.


Which is why the second amendment talks about enabling the civilians to rise up against the government. Now I see.

Its very nice that you feel that way, I'm sure.

Today I got an envelope from the National Rifle Association inviting me to be a member.

They sent me a plastic card with my name and a long number embossed, credit-card-style.

I kept the card, though I don't think I'll actually join.

I wonder why they sent one to me, my only magazine subscription is the New Yorker and I'm in the ACLU.


Anyone else similarly propositioned?

You make it sound like they do background checks. I was a member once :eek: My granddad made me go through one of their gun courses before he would take me shooting.....

Then you are wrong.

Given that the whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to enable the populace to rise up against government should it be necessary, it is absurd for government to place any restrictions whatsoever on civilian ownership of weapons.

Apparently the Second is the only absolute Amendment. :rolleyes:

You make it sound like they do background checks. I was a member once :eek: My granddad made me go through one of their gun courses before he would take me shooting.....


I just meant I dont think those would be the organizations they'd try to get member lists from topitch themselves to.

Apparently the Second is the only absolute Amendment. :rolleyes:

Nope, they all are. The fact that there are forces on both sides who wish to treat some rights as privilages should disturb anyone with a vested interest in a free and open society. Obscenity prosecution is every bit as bad as banning handguns, forcing a reporter to reveal a source is just as bad as confiscating "assault weapons," prior restraints on speech, warrantless searches, asset forfiture, suspensions of habeas corpus, all are abberations.

Thats the thing about rights, they are absolutes. It disgusts me that the right and the left in America are defined not by who is more willing to defend constitutional rights, but by which rights they are willing to sacrifice in the name of personal preference or political expediancy.

Nope, they all are. The fact that there are forces on both sides who wish to treat some rights as privilages should disturb anyone with a vested interest in a free and open society. Obscenity prosecution is every bit as bad as banning handguns, forcing a reporter to reveal a source is just as bad as confiscating "assault weapons," prior restraints on speech, warrantless searches, asset forfiture, suspensions of habeas corpus, all are abberations.

Not treating rights as absolutes is not the same as treating them as merely privileges.


Thats the thing about rights, they are absolutes. It disgusts me that the right and the left in America are defined not by who is more willing to defend constitutional rights, but by which rights they are willing to sacrifice in the name of personal preference or political expediancy.

You must be pretty disgusted with the Founders, as well. As they did not think the rights were absolute.

Apparently the Second is the only absolute Amendment. :rolleyes:
Nope, all of them are.

No, very uncommon surname in fact.

I plan to have it visible if I'm pulled over by the police. Score some points, maybe.

I'm considering actually joining. I do own and enjoy shooting guns.

Maybe they got your name from the gun store? Or is that legal?

If you join, you get a cool magazine, full of pictures of guns and stuff!

Nope, all of them are.

Really. Funny the Founders didn't think so and no Supreme Court ever has.

But then the only opinion that matters is yours.

(Is the 9th Amendment absolute? How about unenumerated rights under the 14th?)

Really. Funny the Founders didn't think so and no Supreme Court ever has.

Then they're wrong, aren't they?

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority?

The Supreme Court does not determine what the Constitution actually says, only what government can get away with pretending it says.

What the Constitution actually says is independent of what the Supreme Court says it says. And the Supreme Court has demonstrated time and time again that it is incapable of reading plain written English.

Then they're wrong, aren't they?

Someone is.

Not treating rights as absolutes is not the same as treating them as merely privileges.

Yes, yes it is. A right is something which a citizen holds that the government cannot infringe upon. The moment you allow the government to attach caveats is the moment a right ceases to be a protection and becomes a privilege. You cannot unring the bell.


You must be pretty disgusted with the Founders, as well. As they did not think the rights were absolute.

Some of them, yes. The founders were a varied group of affluent white male humans, as such they made some mistakes. They are not a monolithic authority, but rather a large group of human beings who had slightly more in common than they had apart and they hammered out an imperfect system of government. They were not Gods.

(Is the 9th Amendment absolute? How about unenumerated rights under the 14th?)

Yep. Granted, thats just my opinion, but opinions shape the law in a democracy. I'm pretty extreme when it comes to rights, I believe that the 9th amendment puts the burden of proof on a government to show that something is not a right before any regulation is passed. I know, it isn't a view that is in particular favor these days, but it is how I read it.

See, the concept of absolute rights is all that stands between an individual and tyranny. If you're going to walk away from the idea of certain things being off-limit for the government you might as well be honest and go all the way. A fascist state governed by an oligarchy, for instance, would seem to work quite well in preserving social order and progress once you get passed that pesky idea of individual rights.

It is a balancing act. The only reason for a government to infringe upon rights(aside from the raw lust for power over others) is to improve society. When considering a questions as subjective as "what is right" one must ultimately choose either the society or the individual, because these two forces will always come into conflict. The problem is that the more times you choose society, the easier it becomes in the future to ignore the needs of the individuals over the desires of the many. The eventual end of that way of thinking is tyranny. Whether the tyrant is run by something that simply desires power or something that honestly believes it knows best doesn't really matter to me.

The bottom line is what you would rather happen in a worst case scenario, tyranny or anarchy. I'd rather anarchy. I'd rather see all government and formal social support dissolve than live in a society where I am a subject. I would rather die(or kill) than bow. You might believe differently, as is your right in this society. Still, it is important to remember that every single time you allow a choice to be taken away from someone else because you disagree or are uneffected, you come one step closer to losing the choices you hold dear.

Yes, yes it is. A right is something which a citizen holds that the government cannot infringe upon. The moment you allow the government to attach caveats is the moment a right ceases to be a protection and becomes a privilege. You cannot unring the bell.

So the right to swing my fist doesn't stop at your face? Because then it becomes a privilege?




It is a balancing act. The only reason for a government to infringe upon rights(aside from the raw lust for power over others) is to improve society. When considering a questions as subjective as "what is right" one must ultimately choose either the society or the individual, because these two forces will always come into conflict. The problem is that the more times you choose society, the easier it becomes in the future to ignore the needs of the individuals over the desires of the many. The eventual end of that way of thinking is tyranny. Whether the tyrant is run by something that simply desires power or something that honestly believes it knows best doesn't really matter to me.

I thought it was not a balancing act. Either you can balance a right or you cannot.

(That sets aside my contention that a right need not be inherently absolute. The right to free speech is not the right to defamation.)


The bottom line is what you would rather happen in a worst case scenario, tyranny or anarchy. I'd rather anarchy. I'd rather see all government and formal social support dissolve than live in a society where I am a subject. I would rather die(or kill) than bow. You might believe differently, as is your right in this society. Still, it is important to remember that every single time you allow a choice to be taken away from someone else because you disagree or are uneffected, you come one step closer to losing the choices you hold dear.

One need not choose the worst case. One can live in an open and free society of rights and responsibilities.

Nope, all of them are.

Ok then. You would support my right to publicly state that you rape small children? Howabout I publish that in your home town paper along w/ photo and address?

Absolute freedom of speech.

Then they're wrong, aren't they?

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority?

The Supreme Court does not determine what the Constitution actually says, only what government can get away with pretending it says.

What the Constitution actually says is independent of what the Supreme Court says it says. And the Supreme Court has demonstrated time and time again that it is incapable of reading plain written English.


Its good to know that the supreme court has your eminent legal scholarship and years of study to fall back on when they fail to read plain written english again and again.

Its good to know that the supreme court has your eminent legal scholarship and years of study to fall back on when they fail to read plain written english again and again.

I'm still trying to puzzle out how the FF's were wrong about their own document.

I must not read enough Ayn Rand.

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority?

Are you? It is not a fallacy to appeal to a legitimate authority.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment.

The Supreme Court does not determine what the Constitution actually says, only what government can get away with pretending it says.

Funny. The Constitution itself gives the Supreme Court the power to enforce and interpret it.

But I guess you can pick and choose which bits of the Constitution are absolute and sacred.

What the Constitution actually says is independent of what the Supreme Court says it says. And the Supreme Court has demonstrated time and time again that it is incapable of reading plain written English.

You appear to adopt an interpretation that is not only independent of SCOTUS, but of original intent, the plain language, and every other logical concern.

Nor is SCOTUS a monothilic entity. There have been scores of different Justices from copious different backgrounds that come to agreement on mattters of the Constitution.

I'm still trying to puzzle out how the FF's were wrong about their own document.

I must not read enough Ayn Rand.

Yeah. I wonder if is possible for Ayn Rand to misinterpret the Fountainhead.

You appear to adopt an interpretation that is not only independent of SCOTUS, but of original intent, the plain language, and every other logical concern.

Nor is SCOTUS a monothilic entity. There have been scores of different Justices from copious different backgrounds that come to agreement on mattters of the Constitution.

The constitution he's reading must come from the place where blue kryptonite is effective. But since he's a proven pathological liar and a convicted child molestor*, we don't have to believe him.

















*(That "absolute freedom of speech" thing again)

So the right to swing my fist doesn't stop at your face? Because then it becomes a privilege?

Interesting. At that point, swinging your fist is not an issue of the government legislating for it's advantage, or for the advantage of "society as a whole." What prevents you from striking me is the fact that the rights of one individual end at the rights of another individual. That is what is necessary to keep society together, that the the least restrictive means of acheiving that goal. More importantly, there is a physical act to be legislated against, an individual victim to be protected, and a real substanitive harm that will(not might) occur to that individual's rights if something is not done.

I've always hated the swinging a fist example because there is no real nod towards that as a right in the constitution, there isn't anything that can be logically construed to be a right to engage in unprvoked violence against another. It isn't a situation that would be seen as two valid individual rights in competition.


I thought it was not a balancing act. Either you can balance a right or you cannot.

(That sets aside my contention that a right need not be inherently absolute. The right to free speech is not the right to defamation.)

The balance happens when you consider how to orient a society, either towards the protection of the group or towards the protection of an indivudal. I would argue that all attempts to balance the two are doomed to failure. Eventually the right will become meaningless, and a right subjected to the pleasure of a government is not a right, but a privilege. As I had said later in that same paragraph, once you begin to balance you always end up tipping towards more governmental control, towards more external authority, towards less freedom.

I'm glad you brought up defamation. Defamation is an instance of two individual rights coming into conflict with one another. You'll notice that there are not defamation laws which apply to groups in the US. I could walk outside with a sign tha says "all people who ride the train are pedophiles." I could even hold a press conferance, publish a book, or take out a full page ad in my local paper(assuming that they did not disagree with my message enough to refuse my buisness) explaining why I believe that all people who ride the train enjoy prepubescent sexual partners. Indeed, even if it a rational person was likely to believe my claims I would still be protected. The moment I singled out a specific person who rides the train("John Smith rides the trains and, as a result, is a pedophile") then I have crossed into libel/slander.

Why? Because in singling out John Smith I might have infringed upon his right to not be defamed(an unenumerated right, I might add). Even so, I can only be punished or compelled to stop accusing John Smith if I am likely to be believed by a rational person, and if my accusations are not part of a parody or satire. At every step of the process not only is the deck stacked in my favor, but the burden of proof lies on the other party. The law is designed to bend over backwards in order to find the least restrictive way of limiting an individual right.

Look at the way rights are outlined in the Constitution. They do not read like guidelines or polite suggestions, they read like absolutes("Congress shall make no law," "shall not be infringed,"). You can argue that the founders did not believe in rights being absolute all you want, but what they did speaks volumes. Our founders believed that the situtation in which they lived was so dire that they were willing to break every law of God and man in order to change it. They were willing to kill anyone who acted as a representative of the government which they fought, they were willing to murder when nearly all of them were adherants of a religion which did not allow such behavior, they were willing to mount an insurrection against a King who ruled by divine right. More than that, they established the true western democracy since Caeser was crowned Emperor of all Rome.




One need not choose the worst case. One can live in an open and free society of rights and responsibilities.

Mankind is not so enlightened that we have defeated the worst that our race has to offer, and we are not so technologically advanced that we have bested nature's tendancy towards entropy. The worst case scenario is not an if, it is a when. Every society, when viewed on a long enough arc, fails. A free and open society is a wonderful ideal, one which we should aspire to, but one who fails to consider what might happen when it fails is myopic.