SOME FOUR decades ago, as a seventh-grader in upstate Idaho, I participated in a basic hunting-safety program the National Rifle Association offered at our school. I carried my NRA safe-hunter card in my wallet all through high school — and with it, my impression of the NRA as an avuncular group dedicated to the outdoors and to safe, courteous, sportsmanlike hunting.
Which is what it was back then. As recent stories in the Washington Post and Salon have recounted, for most of its history, the NRA was a mainstream organization that promoted marksmanship, conservation, and hunting. After the headline-grabbing shoot-outs involving heavily armed, Prohibition-era gangsters like Al Capone, John Dillinger, and Bonnie and Clyde, the NRA even helped the FDR administration to pass the nation’s first gun-control laws, in 1934 and 1938. Decades later, it deemed the gun-control act of 1968 something “the sportsmen of America can live with.”
Comments
I am most decidedly not the NRA. The genie is out of the bottle in terms of the goverment being able to confiscate existing firearms. But unfortunately, the NDAA provisions to lock up Americans indefinitely without charge,, which Obama signed twice, the claim that the president has the right to kill Americans abroad, the Patriot Act, the TSA's VIPER operations, the FISA nonsense, and the NSA's new data center taking shape in Salt Lake City, give the impression that feeds into the NRA's bloviated rhetoric.
Well, as the recent government actions you cite show, government *is* out of control. The only question is how to stop it and turn it around. As much as I support the 2nd Amendment, small arms in every home aren't going to do it as much as a massive groundswell of opposition from the millions of US Americans currently doing little more than sitting on the couch while the government grabs ever more power for itself and its corporate backers.
But as a friend keeps saying, keep your eye on the ball. It's about rights, not guns.
Great column. Its interesting to hear about the roots of Wayne LaPierre's rhetoric. Clearly he has been spreading fear amongst the membership, and getting them to cling more and more to their weapons, for quite sometime. Recently I saw a film from the 1920's, featuring Josef Goebels, Hitlers propagandist. The similarities to the tone of hatred were quite eerie. The NRA is abusing all of us by claiming he and ultra-conservatives like him are the only ones who are true "patriots" and Americans. I wonder when conservative NRA members they will develop some kind of salute, as in "Seig Heil". Zots
Wow, so the NRA is like the Nazis? Keep piling on the lies. I do know that the NRA has to take a hard line because every time we give a inch to the gun control groups, they come back for more so we have to take a no compromise position. I am convinced we would be in a much worse position as gun owners without the NRA. And its not gun companies who fund the NRA, its simply law abiding folks like me who have seen over my 56 years what has happened to our rights.
Ah, the famous: compare 'em to the Nazis and win the argument ploy.
That got old right after Al Gore invented the internet.
Replace NRA with GOP and the column still works. My Rockefeller Republican father was disgusted with the party by the time he passed away.
Well to be fair the Party was disgusted with Rockefeller by the time he HE passed away.
Entropic, isn't it funny how many people have Republican roots in their family but run screaming from the John Boehner and Eric Cantor party of today? My grandfather represented the Republican Party and he would be ashamed of Mitch McConnell. Great post.
I think Scot is a little over the top here. What he is describing is the coarsening of political rhetoric, which has happened among all special interest groups. Are the lobbies which promote abortion not equally apocolyptic? Or the lobbies which are pushing for immigration amnesty?
This is the state of our politics today, and it is indeed ugly. But that ugliness is not unique to the NRA. The NRA just happens to be in limelight today because of the recent gun violence. But we saw all these same tactics used to oppose much of the last president's agenda, and it is considered mainstream, when the target is Republicans.
How often are Republicans actually the target of fact-free attacks that are picked up in the national media? Except from other Republicans, I mean? Where is the Democratic equivalent of a campaign season poll that found over 40% of Ohio Republicans giving more credit to Mitt Romney than to Barack Obama for the death of Osama Bin Laden? You will seldom see this acknowledged in the so-called liberal media, but the ugliness comes disproportionately from the right, and no amount of "both sides do it" hand wringing is going to change that.
Koch brothers
This is a good article regarding the NRA. A great many of us in our 60's attended NRA classes on hunting skills and safety. They were prominent at the gun club to which my grandfather belonged. But most of us drifted away after the years of turmoil in that organization and as it became more heavily involved in policitcal issues. Now a mere shell of itself in the public domain in terms of what it does for its members, it now simply shills for the gun industry and some very crazy people.
Sadly if my grandfather's NRA still existed they would have had some good ideas on how to write better gun legislation for the country. How to move forward in the modern world and keep guns relevant. I suppose for some folks the idea of living in a modern world where mountain men need not apply and where the color and culture of a modern America is changing is a hard thing to swallow. For them the NRA is a throwback a chance to hold back the tide. But neither they nor the NRA can hold back the tide of history and they like I will pass and the world will be hopefully a better place.
I believe that I heard on NBC that the NRA Convention was expecting to be overwhelmed with new members and attendees. Sadly, the far-left sees nothing but violence from old white people while the rest of us just want to protect ourselves, regardless of color or culture.
It's not just recent gun violence, but anytime one of these events happen the NRA is usually the first to claim that it would never happen if more citizen's were armed, or that this will be used as an excuse to take guns away. Which has decidedly never been the case, but the fear has to be siezed upon and used. It does show that political discourse has gone away, and that its taken place earlier than we thought, or maybe just started coming out of the woodwork then.
Still I found this one interesting, "if you have a badge, you have the government’s go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens", I could have said the same thing when people like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were around and claiming that if you were not a patriot you were a terrorist. If you were a terrorist you were not one of us. The terms and fear gets moved around, but its always there and wielded equally by both sides, anyone who claims the opposite is a hypocrite.
"but anytime one of these events happen the NRA is usually the first to claim that it would never happen if more citizen's were armed, or that this will be used as an excuse to take guns away. Which has decidedly never been the case"
Really? What planet you on? See what Cuomo did over in NY, or were you sleeping? Those people have about a year to sell their guns or become felons.
See the crazy laws Linsky wants to have passed here in MA?
"Has decidely never been the case"? Wow, make up facts much do you?
Now we see why Linsky was all over the press over this issue. He's considering a run for Middlesex DA.
Excellent, historical article. Very informative. Having solid background always puts things in perspective. This column should be distributed far and wide, and would go far to help educate the general public. Once more people realize what an insidious, anarchist group the NRA is, more could be done to deflect their far right-wing rhetoric and actions.
Interesting article. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people jump in and politicize every issue today. One person here suggests the you can replace "NRA" with "GOP" and get the same result. Another brings up Cheyney and Rumsfeld, et al. The membership of the NRA represents less than 6 percent of the legal gun owners in the United States, yet the organization inspires terror, hatred, and vitriol at an almost unimaginable level. I'm a gun owner. I am not a member of the NRA. The NRA doesn't speak for me. I do wish that they would tone down the rhetoric and stop giving ammunition (pun intended) the the equally rigid annti-gun people who describe gun owners as "nuts" and "hillbillies". We need dialog not angry discourse.
As a gun owner I'm with you on most of your comment. However, I don't think most of the anti-gun crowd and I don't even think most are anti-gun, just certain types, certain classifications, I don't think they consider all gun owners "nuts" and "hillbillies" merely those who take the NRA's positions regarding weapons and government.
There in rigid anti-gun crowd. People who think they are entitled to an automatic weapon are nuts. So please dispense with the false equivelency. There is nothing on the control side to compete with the lunacy of the gun rights mob
"...yet the organization inspires terror, hatred, and vitriol at an almost unimaginable level." And there's really nothing anyone in a spineless democracy like the US can do about it. You can have a dozen Newtowns and the result will be only more rounds of millions of ditless Americans going out and buying guns to "protect" themselves. The NRA feeds into this fear, it lives off of it. The leadership of this country--Congress--are handmaidens to the NRA, they'll do whatever the NRA wants. Why? They have no choice, they are terrified of these machine gun-wielding terrorists. LaPierre can do and say anything he wants because he has a gun, and this, in a word, is the essence of the NRA.
"machine gun-wielding terrorists" Well there is a new one!
Renaldo would like us all to believe that the US Congress is afraid of NRA members who legally own machine guns (which is a very complicated and expensive thing to do, so it is also very rare).
Talk about fear mongering, wow!
Anyone actually believe that a US Congress person would be threatened by someone with a machine gun? They do not even tolerate being threatened by someone with pellet gun.
What they ARE threatened by is the voting power the NRA is perceived to wield.
Then why do congresspeople not only CARRY guns themselves, but DEPRIVE others of the ability to do so?
Good article today. Always helpful to hear from someone who has some experience of being a member of the NRA, and sees the evolution away from moderation. The key to finding some type of workable solution for the gun control, and indeed most of the social problems we are struggling with, is to re-think the terms of the debate. It is no longer a situation in which it is liberal vs. conservative. It is not longer left vs. right. Those words have become meaningless. Framing the debate in those terms is misleading. The real debate these days is between sensible moderates and the extremes on either side. That is a much more difficult position to define, because by definition a moderate position has some elements of both sides of the issue.
One could also say that the debate should be between the vast majority (gun owners, households with guns, NOT NRA members,) and the vocal LaPierre-fronted NRA. CRONIN above, is correct: there are very few gun owners who belong to the NRA, but the media, mentality and money of the group enjoys a disproportionate influence over our elected officials and many Americans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-cannon/simple-truth-to-the-nra_b_2358827.html
"Now bear with me because this is where it gets fun. According to Bloomberg, an NRA website boasts that it had about 4.3 million members in 2011. Using its own numbers it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the NRA only represents about 7 percent of gun owning households in the United States and only about 30 percent of the people who use guns for hunting."
"So, while the NRA claims to be the voice of America's gun tradition, with their own numbers they are simply not.
The simple truth is the NRA is an extremely well funded organization that spends a LOT of money talking very loudly. Measured in dollars, in 2012, the NRA spent about $2,205,000 on lobbying. This is compared to the $180,000 spent on gun control lobbying. It is no surprise that the NRA is the largest gun rights lobbying organization in the United States. What is a surprise is how few moderate and fair thinking gun owners actually support their views.
Like any other political group backed by large corporations, they don't reflect the views of legitimate gun owners. They reflect the views of gun sellers and that is not American. That is what our forefathers ran away from when they left England. If you remember correctly, our forefathers created a Declaration of Independence because their voices were not heard over the political machine that was the King of England. Only this time the machine is the corporations that keep undermining a safe and peaceful society by putting weapons of mass destruction into the hands of killers with no controls, no safety mechanisms and no remorse."
So let's do something democratic! Amendment to the amendment? Popular vote to make certain types of guns, ammo, clips etc. illegal? What law-abiding American would not appreciate a chance to make his voice heard at the ballot box? Any group out there willing to get enough work done to put gun control to a vote?
I wasn't a member. The card was a certificate that said I had complete the hunter-safety program.
Having trouble posting this a.m., guys, but thanks for all the comments.
Great column! Thanks for the research and background.
Research and background are most helpful when they are impartial and accurate. Scot, your article was neither.
Here's my big problem with today's NRA. They treat any and all efforts at doing something about gun violence as a plot that has as its true end the confiscation of all private firearms. It makes it next to impossible to have any sort of rational discussion of the issue.
Exactly, Scot. The area where I grew up was full of gun owners and many of them carried rifles in gun racks with pistols in the glove compartments of their vehicles. These same people were usually hunters and they saw the danger of guns in the wrong hands. If you were stupid and even talked about pulling a gun on another person, you could be found behind a local bar or banished from the community. Who is the new NRA?
Well damn Scot, do you think that what NY has DONE, and the legislation proposed here in MA just might make people think that way?
The NRA does not have to say word.
Linsky: Make anyone who owns an assault rifle store it at a gun club.
Linsky: Make gun owners get insurance policies
The NRA is not making that stuff up, it is LINSKY!
I grew up around guns and I really appreciate this column. It's very sad that the NRA can stir up so much fear over nothing when our country faces real problems. President Obama has never touted restricting gun ownership, but the NRA has successfully scared the crap out of Uncle Zeke who owns a hunting rifle and a shotgun. Wake up, Republicans! Wake up King Wayne and the Radical NRA!
No, the NRA did not scare the crap out of Uncle Zeke. Cuomo over in NY and Linsky here in MA did that for them. Put the blame where it belongs. Zeke don't like having to sell his M1 garand from WWII cause Cuomo wants to take a run at the presidency.
The NRA, in which I still have a membership that I will not renew, is not interested in waking up, but only in sucking on the teat of its duped membership and complicit industry backers. In the mean time, I and as many as possible who know better, need to do more to call out the insanity that it has too-long represented.
When will peopel learn? The NRA does not represent gun owners. It represents gun manuafcturers. More regulation reduces sales. Plain and simple. They have duped the fools into screaming second amendment in order to cover their motive. The second amendment does not guarantee unfettered access to firearms. But even if it did. Any person who thinks that modern society should be held captive to what some people thought 250 years ago is an idiot. Is it a good idea now? Policies rise and fall based on their merit. Not on the fact that they exist in a document.
Yes, when will people learn? Can you spell Mao? Hitler? Pol Pot? Stalin?
Politicians do not like having an armed citizenry, the mere knowledge keeps them from getting any stupider than they already are.
h11: You could not be burther from the truth. What gives the NRA power? The fact that about 4 million US citizens are members, and we are people who vote and will contact our legislators on issues that concern us. That is where the NRA's power comes from.
Concerning what the Second Amendment does or does not cover, I suggest that you read the majority opinion in Heller v. DC.
Finally, if you think that the Constitution should no longer govern the US, there is a procedure to amend the Constitution. Instead of writing laws that violate the Constitution, amend it. That is how our Republic is supposed to be governed.
Scot, you outdid yourself today. The NRA changed just as you described. You did leave out that they still do many programs that have nothing to do with radical politics. You also left out that the NRA did not change all by itself in a vacuum. I am old enough to remember that we did not have a serious "anti-gun" movement in this country until sometime after the 70's. I would not speculate as to the cause of it.
But we all know that by the 90's, we had people like Dianne Feinstein wanting to confiscate all weapons, in her words "Mr and Mrs America, turn em all in" She said all she needed was one more vote. So exactly who was supposed to speak for gun owners as someone like Feinstein did her political dealings in Washington?
We have seen what politicians will do in the latest craze. Cuomo pushes through his legislation because he has a majority in his legislature, banning and forcing people to sell legal items out of state within a year. Now a bill is introduced both in NY and in MA to force gun owner to buy insurance. No one is fooled, it is a blatant attempt to reduce gun ownership by sidestepping the constitution. (by law, gun owner must have insurance. insurance company makes regulations. owner violates regulation. insurance company drops policy. owner is now in violation of the law) Who spoke for gun owners in NY?
It is just too bad that antigunners do not like that gunowners have a lobby group. I notice that you did not mention all the lobby groups with their hate speech that support "gun control".
How one sided.
Oh, I forgot to mention. Dianne Feinsteins Assault Weapons Ban (a manufactured term, btw) did exactly nothing in the end. It was all political grandstanding at the expense of her career goals.
I am not interested in having anyone tinkering with my rights so they can further their careers as politicians, ala Linsky.
Thanks for demonstrating Scott's point beautifully. Now, grow up will you? And give up the tin soldier schtick. It doesn't stick.
Thanks to the nut cases running the NRA, I can't be sure I can find a safe and responsible place to sell guns I want to get rid of, much less worry about the government taking them away.
Finally, it is the NRA that is encouraging, and would love, a government run by a Pol Pot, a Stalin, or a Hitler of its own making. That is what it, itself, is preaching from its own pulpits as it seeks to reduce all rights to its own vision of a Second Amendment Utopia. It is all fanatasy and self-inflated interest.
Sometimes I wonder if the hidden wish of Wayne La Pierre and his ilk is a kind of Alamo's last stand against a government take over, with all the NRA membership assembled together under their command and facing all the heat of the US Government.
What utter insanity!
What is clear is that adults with real responsibilities increasingly have less-and-less time for it, but it's growth and malignancy is wasting more-and-more of that precious time.
Good article, good comments. I support the right to bear arms, with sensible limits/checks. I am not the NRA. Wayne's Lapeirre's response after the Newtown shooting was just plain crazy. The NRA has become a shrill, extremist, anti-government, gun lobby, nothing more.
Enlighten me, what was crazy about providing security for schools? You do know that 26,000 schools in this country have armed security in them?
I will say that the line "Only a good guy with a gun...." was at best awkward. But then LaPierre is an awkward sorta guy.
This same analysis could be applied to most organizations on the Left, such as Planned Parenthood, whose radical screeds of today are a far cry from the cool, calculating, eugenics-based apologetics of its early days. (But don't expect the boy from northern Idaho, or anyone else at the Globe, to look at the pictures and examine the science that thoroughly discredits the myth of "woman's health" carefully constructed around Planned Parenthood.)
For that matter, Lehigh's analysis of the NRA applies equally to what passes for journalism today: advocacy-based, and driven largely by whom and what the reporter or editor likes, it is a far cry from those days in journalism when the facts alone mattered, and were reported by professionals who strove to be fair and to apply neutral principles.
Since 2010, there have been hundreds of state laws and several national laws passed that make getting access to abortion more difficult, in spite of opposition from Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice organizations. How many gun control laws have been passed in the same period? Any?
Those glory days of journalism you are so nostalgic about never existed; it's just that you don't like this particular built in bias. At least the publisher of the Globe doesn't send flunkies to tell nationally prominent individuals they should run for president, the way Roger Ailes of Fox News does.
NER: Because laws were passed concerning abortions, you think that laws should have passed concerning guns?
You do understand that abortion was in the Declaration of Independence (sort of, Right to life...) but definitely is not in the Bill of Rights.
Not so the case with guns.
As for the glory days of journalism? Yes, they really existed. One could turn on the TV back in the day, and watch about 15 minutes of real NEWS without getting some morons slant of what HE thought it all meant. In addition, they reported the important NEWS, all of it.
Menendez anyone? anyone?
I am always amazed when people post how NRA members are duped by the organization into buying MORE guns, and how it is all a big conspiracy on the part of the gun manufacturers.
Most of the members I know think the political articles are garbage and do not read them, me included. (read one, read em all, sort of like reading democrat/republican propoganda) But we do take a look at interesting articles that appear concerning old guns, etc. Sure, there are some tinfoil hat wearing types that spout their stuff, but that is a small minority.
But if anyone thinks that NRA members rush out to stores like robots to buy more, more, MORE guns because of what the NRA writes is a fool. Guns are expensive.
The NRA is a symbol for the anti gunners. It is also a huge target, because it is a lobby group they want it gone. It would only leave THEIR lobby groups in Washington. So of course, villify the heck out of the NRA. And while they are at it, try to make any member feel ashamed of belonging to it.
Nah, I like the fact that someone speaks for gun owners. I don't like the Brady Bunch's ideas, I know where they are going, and I don't need the NRA to tell me that.
"But if anyone thinks that NRA members rush out to stores like robots to buy more, more, MORE guns because of what the NRA writes is a fool. Guns are expensive."
Funny, I didn't notice that mad rush that cleaned out gun stores after Newtown. You didn't either?
Ina: that occured when Obama opened his flapper to announce HE wanted to start passing legislation. He has become the best gun salesman in history.
The NRA did not immediately call up all the members and tell them to run out to stores to buy guns.
Since Sandy Hook, NRA membership has risen by almost 1 million. Over 5 million guns have been sold since then. If you think those guns were purchased by NRA members, or influenced by the NRA, you are mistaken. It was caused by Obama and state legislators screaming they would start banning guns.
Remember, the NRA said NOTHING for more than a week after Sandy Hook. Within a few days, the stores were swamped and running out of stock.
Whether you belong to the NRA or not, there can be little doubt that there is a "slippery slope" of ever-increasing attempts by the political Left to limit and eliminate civilian ownership of guns. The original Clinton Assauly Weapons ban restricted the right of private citizens to own semi-autonatic rifles and magazines exceeding 10 rounds; when it failed to produce any meaningful decrease in crime (in the judgment of the Justice Department, not just the NRA)it was allowed to expired. Nevertheless, virulent anti-gunners like Nancy Pelosi have repeatedly called for ever-increasing restrictions, with a clearly stated aim of total civilian disarmament ("If I could, I would take them all"). In MA, we kept the Clinton ban; we then passed supposed "consumer protection" gun laws, and banned outright the sale of thousands of different hand guns, including some of the most expensive and well-made guns available; and now our Governor, despite the fact that gun crime is at its lowest level in 10 years (according to the FBI), wants to limit magazine capacity to 7 rounds, effectively banning even more types of guns for which no such small magazines are made. Is it any wonder that law abiding gun owners see a pattern of governmental intrusion into our rights, or that we see validity in the NRA's position that the untimate goal of the Left is to make us defenseless? It is a mistake to write off the NRA as a fringe organization that does not represent the concerns and interests of gun owners. Is their dialogue over the top on some issues? Sure. Do they contemplate the worst when fund raising? Sure. And none of that is dissimilar from the Democratic Party's fund raising claims that Republicans are waging a "war on women", or the Republican's claims that Obama was not born in the US. Exaggeration and hyperbole motivate the base - or so the current political wisdom dictates. But underneath the war of words lies the nasty truth that some folks do not respect the 2nd Amendment, and by incremental steps, want to eliminate our rights, as free men, to protect ourselves, our families, and our country.
Is that slippery slope why there has been no significant national gun control legislation passed since the Clinton administration?
NER: The slippery slope, the realization that gun control legislation does not work (contrary to what many liberal new englanders think), and the fact that gun crime has been on a steady decrease for years.
It could also be that some people actually believe the constitution means what it says.
Compromising with "gun controls" folks is like having a conversation with a cannibal concerning what is for dinner.
If you are smart, you don't have it.
Unfortunately, legislators have a problem with those four words "shall not be infringed". It seems our school systems have utterly failed in that some of them cannot comprehend those words. So they want to dance around thinking they can pass legislation that infringes.
Result? The lobbying arm of the NRA. That is right, the lobbying "arm" of the NRA. Contrary to what Scot would have you believe, the NRA is not purely engaged in lobbying.
And you have a problem with three other words in the 2nd Amendment: "well regulated militia". A poorly regulated militia is like what Timothy McVeigh was a member of in Michigan. A well regulated militia is one with government oversite.
NER, you need to do a LOT more reading of what the Founders had to say on this subject. They definitely would not have approved of government oversight of any militia. In their terms, the militia was not the "national guard" or any type of standing army. It was the people, armed, ready to be called to action.
In any case, that amendment serves two purposes, it establishes the right of the people to have a militia, and to keep and bear arms. The two are linked, but they are not necessarily joined at the hip. That is why SC decisions have come down the way they have.
Looks like the banishers of rational conversation have decided to throw their weight in, as is typical. And they will, no doubt, make sure they have the last word in this commentary, as well.
So gun owners are the "banishers"? Too funny!
If you really take a hard look at this, gun owners pretty much sit quiet until the "gun banners" go nutty.
It also seems you do not like us excercising our 1st amendment rights either. We should just be "banished" from speaking out.
While the NRA may no longer be my Grandfather's NRA it is the only game in town for gun owners. I don't agree with everything they do but who else is going to even make an attempt to protect legal, law abiding gun owners? The Globe? Scot Lehigh? Highly doubtful. The left is in control right now and the left wants guns banned....period, end of story. There is a proposal in Westford to basically ban almost all guns (see below) and confiscate them within 90 days or face stiff fines even if LAWFULLY POSSESSED. Is it any wonder that the NRA appears as extreme as it is? Scot, please report BOTH sides of the story. "No person shall sell, transfer, or possess any assault weapons, large capacity weapons, machine guns or large capacity feeding devices, regardless of the date of manufacture, within the Town of Westford. Any person in LAWFUL POSSESION of any firearm prohibited by this bylaw shall have a period of ninety days from the effective date to lawfully remove it from the town or to surrender possession to the Chief of Police." Board of Selectmen meeting on this tonight. I am hopeful Mass. gun owners and the NRA show up!
"The left is in control right now and the left wants guns banned....period, end of story." Yes, that's why there has been a wave of gun control laws passed after every mass shooting the last few years. Oh, wait...no such thing has happened.
I wrote that is what they WANT not what they got. Try to keep up.
Sound slike Planned Parenthood
This comment has been removed.
The NRA feeds on paranois
And you feed on Brady Bunch buzz phases.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
Thanks for a great column! I did some research on the leaders of the NRA and discovered that both these sunshine patriots avoided serving in Viet Nam! Surprise, surprise! I used to be a member of the NRA until it became a reactionary organization run by wannabe military types who, I suspect, pocket income from the gun lobby. If these idiots can't agree with a ten round magazine limit...
hmmmmmmmmmmwonder if they got the idea from our new Sec. of State...............
This comment has been removed.
And are you still a member of the NRA, Scott?
Well, I wasn't a member. What I had was a card saying I had completed the NRA's hunter-safety course. It's still around somewhere; it turns up among the general clutter around my shop bench every now and again.
After Obama's mid term election disaster in his first term, gun control was off the table. Everyone knew that. Obama is now a lame duck and Sandy Hook enabled him to re- start his gun control agenda. I am not a member of the NRA. The NRA did not cause the run on guns. Knee jerk reactions from politicians did. When the NRA stated that every school should have armed security in it, they were ridiculed but when Obama stated he would like to fund some 26000 armed guards for schools, no one said a word. I do not own a gun. I am issued several for my employment and I do believe firmly that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own guns. Limiting magazine capacity for law abiding citizens is a smoke screen. Statistics show that in a gun fight even the best trained individuals score a hit percentage of 15%. The criminal has a full high capacity mag and the law abiding citizen runs out of amo fast. Thousands of people own AR15s and use them for sport, hunting (yes, in the western part of the country it's a popular varmint gun) and self defense. Ask the merchants and homeowners in New Orleans if they felt adequately protected after Katrina.
Rich: Do you mean the ones in New Orleans who had their guns illegally confiscated by the Mayor? At gunpoint? You know, where the cops showed up, shoved their AR15 in the citizens faces, forced their way into their homes and took their guns. Which by the way, were not returned?
Of course, that sort of thing just makes all of us gun owners want to trust the government.
Linsky does nothing but foster my faith that the government is looking out for my best interests and not Linsky's political career.
That's exactly what I was talking about. If anyone thinks confiscation is not possible or paranoia, go to youtube and search for gun confiscation in New Orleans before Katrina.
Yanno, after reading this article? I have been a yearly member of the NRA. They are offering a special on Lifetime memberships, a great deal, think I am going to go ahead and get one.
There are just too many liberals in this state that think gun control is good idea, or that it is somehow "normal".
Besides, I am tired of hearing from Massachusetts residents, the place where our freedom was born, that they think the constitution is an anachronism.
I'm tired of people pretending what they stand for is the Constitution. Just like the right's reverence for an imaginary Ronald Reagan, or fundamentalist adherence to particular interpretations of Biblical writings, the Constitution is just one more piece of our history and our culture that gets abused by those who insist it means whatever supports their stance.
Fool: What you are really tired of is having to deal with something that is not all loosey goosey, wishy washy so you can make it mean whatever you want to suit your own needs at a particular moment in time.
Our constitution only gets abused by those who decide it is a "living, breathing" document, or those who think it is an anachronism.
In case you were not aware, the constitution is the framework of our government, not "just one more piece of our history".
Have you ever actually read it? Most of it is very boring, describing the branches of government, etc. Your description of it as a piece of history tells me that you may not have.
I think a big part of the problem is that the NRA is free to accept zero responsibility for the results of their rampant paranoiac agenda. They can spout off insane conspiracy theories (with or without the thin veil of "slippery slope" arguments), whip up the most unstable element of their contingent into a frenzy of fear and the belief the only way to be safe is to buy more and more and bigger and deadlier guns to protect themselves from a government which is still elected by the people--but whenever the free access to guns results in a mass slaying or another dead child from a gun accident, they point to someone else as the cause. Their two biggest tools are paranoia and "not our fault!" Frankly the best thing I can think of to shift that rabid NRA stance is frankly to start making them accountable for the results. If they had to make multimillion dollar payouts to victims for the outcomes of gun incidents caused by their influence preventing reasonable gun policy, they might just start rethinking the stance that absolute unfettered access to weaponry has very real costs.
Which insane conspiracy theories would those be? The Feinstein "Mr and Mrs America turn em all in now" theory, or the Cuomo confiscation laws? How about the Linsky "All the assault type weapons would have to be stored at gun clubs" bill? Those are not "theories". Nor is it a "thin veil of slippery slope".
As for whipping up members to buy more and more guns? That is one of the biggest fallacies perpetrated by NRA haters. The NRA would much rather have a member send in a donation than go out and buy another gun. The idea that the NRA is funded by gun manufacturers is a joke, the majority of their revenue comes from members, not gun makers.
And yes, the NRA does point to someone else when a shooting occurs. People are responsible for their actions, not an organization. Your statement that the NRA should be liable for shootings is preposterous.
You make statements like "unfettered access" and "free access". If you think that access to guns in Ma is free and unfettered you are sadly mistaken, it is anything but.
Of course you drag out the "dead child" from a gun accident. The vast majority of those occur within the home. That responsibilty rests with the parents. But like a good nanny stater, you want to step in. How about you figure out a way to protect the much bigger number of children that are killed each year by Mommy and Daddys fists, feet, and blunt objects? And those deaths were on purpose?
Reasonable gun policy? It is already unreasonable in Massachusetts.
How about making those entities that ban guns for responsible citizens that are victimized by criminals, pay the freight for their actions in denying the right to self-protection?.
This comment has been removed.
Haven't seen any mention in the Globe about our Mr. Biden's comments on shotguns today. This is the guy spearheading the administration's gun control policy. He doesn't think anyone should have an "assault weapon" but shotguns are just fine. He went on to say he told his wife "at the first sign of trouble go out into the back yard and give two blasts of the double barrel shotgun." Now there's some responsible gun ownership advice. Assuming it's loaded with two 00 buck rounds, that's 18 .32 caliber projectiles flying off to god only knows where in less than two seconds. Alot more than anyone could ever lay down in two seconds with an AR.
It does, however, suggest that he isn't leading a covert plot to ban all guns ...
How comforting.
I can't understand why anyone would not want semi-automatics to be banned? what would a civilian be doing with one?
Well, a semi-automatic is just a gun that reloads after firing. Lots of hunting rifles are like that. Otherwise, you have to have a bolt or lever action (a la the rifleman of old) or, in the case of shotguns, pump-action, to reload. But again, no one is seriously talking about a ban on all semi-automatics.
That's what we're dealing with Scot. People don't know guns. A little education goes a long way.
I am pleased as punch that the NRA took this "Sharp Turn to the Right" even though it may not be to the "Right" as much as it is a turn to face the tide of social engineering spewing forth from our left leaning educational institutions.
Without the NRA, the likes of the Brady Bunch and the Violence Policy Center would be running roughshod over Congress.
History, Tell the truth now, are your ancestors from the south? Be honst now...I'm guesing Alabama or Mississippi???
This comment has been removed.
That's because the NRA is not about hunting anymore. Their mission, dictated by their membership, is to protect the rights of their members under the 2nd amendment. Since the liberal Democrats made it part of their platform to ban firearms for personal defense the NRA has adapted to the times.
RWL: that would seem to be the case, especially since their ranks just grew by about 1 million members since Obama flapped his gums and some other two bit politicians just couldn't resist starting a gun grab. And yea, the likes of Linsky are two bit politicians.
This comment has been removed.
"Bill S2353 will require all gun owners in NY to obtain and “continuously maintain” insurance coverage of at least $1 million, or they will suffer “immediate revocation of such owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own” a firearm."
Notice that the language in the bill refers to owning a gun as a "privilege".
I wonder if Scot would like to tell all us gun owners some more about how no one is trying to grab guns or prevent gun ownership?
Anyone required to have $1 million in car insurance? And since when is a right that is protected in the constitution referred to as a "privilege" in a bill going into a legislature? This shows how far law makers have let themselves become disconnected from our form of government.
How long before some moron in NY tries to take away a gun from an owner who decides it is not a "privilege" and we all get to witness a "Ruby Ridge" incident?
Something to remember: A person does not have to pass a test to become a legislator. In fact, they do not have to know anything about the constitution.
History, you need to get a job or a wife or a dog, or a life. You spend way too much time posting. It's not healthy. Do you ever stand up?
Did it ever occur to you, Willie-boy, that I type really fast?
I also have all of the things you listed, minus the dog. I have a few hobbies you did not list, shooting being one of them, surprised, huh?
Just so you do not worry, I actually do quite a bit of my typing while standing up in my woodworking shop. I have a computer controlled machine that allows me to keep up with this when it is running.
Oh, no dog, even though I really like dogs. We travel quite a bit, so where to put the dog when we are gone is a problem, and not really fair to the dog.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Is the second amendment confusing? Is it clear? Is it open to misinterpretation?
Note the wording. First the word “militia.” What is meant by this? A military force such as we have now, a separate institution? The military we have now is not the people. Get the point? So what is the amendment saying? That the people, you and I, are the military?
Why should the two words “militia” and “people” be considered the same? Is that the intended meaning of the amendment? To me, the militia, the military and the people are two different entities.
But the confusion of the amendment is one thing. What gun rights people want is another. Should you as a citizen have the right to bear arms. Sure, but still, I say, you are not the military. You should not have military weapons that are used in warfare. Otherwise, you could own a howitzer, not that you would want one. But do you need to have an assault weapon, which is a military weapon? Remember, you and I are not the military. We are the people. I say, however, that every citizen should have the right to carry a handgun. Teachers and principals should but they don’t need an assault weapon. One bullet to the head of the insane Newtown killer would have been sufficient.
You need to read what the Founders had to say about the "militia" and then you would not write what you did. Essentially, the militia according to them was the people, armed, ready to be called up. Not a standing army. So yes, the militia and the people are one and the same.
For all the bs you wrote about assault weapons? There is no such thing. It is a term invented for the "assault weapons" ban. The AR15 used by civilians is not a military weapon. It LOOKS like one, but it is not. Ask any Vietnam, Iraqi, Afganistan vet if the AR15 is the same weapon. You will hear: NO. Assault Weapon sounded all nice and scarey so Feinstein could get her AWB passed in 94. It implied the weapon had no use but a military one. Which is also untrue.
"History" I note your comment says "will require". Has the legislation been passed? Regardless of whether passed or not I would agree the language from my perspective is incorrect and unconstitutional. The ownership of a weapon is not a privilege. However, that being true it is also does not mean it cannot be regulated. So while I would agree the language is incorrect and the intent is something I do not approve the requirement for insurance in and of itself is not uncostitutional. I would suppose the cost of the insurance would be the fulcrum upon whether it is an undue burden upon the gun owner.
The fact of the matter is you can have reasonable gun regualtions and unreasonable regulations. Now you can fight reasonable for as long as you want but at some point you will lose the arguement and how badly you lose the argument will depend upon whether you are honestly engaged in the debate or just being superficial. I prefer we be reasonable and protect our basic rights while at the same time controlling irresonsible weaponry on the streets and in our communities.
By the way "History" I really don't see the problem with minimizing the size of magazines.
This comment has been removed.
Can any of these far-left crybabies come to terms with the fact that more people were murdered last year in Chicago by regular, old guns (ie...mainly non-assault weapons) than in Afghanistan? Can any of these puppies explain why Eric Holder, on behalf of the USA, sold illegal assault weapons in bulk to illegal gun-runners in Mexico...that killed many, many innocent people in both Mexico AND the US. Go ahead...make your point, but first pony-up the facts.
You know "Pete" there is a thing called politics. Now you may feel strongly in your position. You can go off on Holder, but that will not change the politics of the situtation and the politics is this. The tide is for regulations. Now those of us who support gun ownership can engage in a rational debate accept some minor changes or in the long run face drastic changes that none of us really want. For the public wants something done. I'd suggest engagement as opposed to name calling but then if you don't care how the arguemnt ends up in the long run. Stick with the insults.
Turk, YOU say the tide is for regulations. That is according to the Lame Stream Media, who of course would not give us a biased view.
When gun owners like you in NY discovered what had been done to them, they were no longer in favor of those "common sense" regulations as reported in media polls. They were polled before they knew what was coming.
In any event, we are not running a democracy, this is a republic. The constitution and BoR are there specifically to prevent what is being attempted now.
You seem to embrace the concept of "tyranny of democracy".
"History" I think you confuse gun grabbers with folks who want some action. It matters little whether the action will fix a problem. However, when you have millions of mothers and fathers who want something done. Something will get done. Every act of violence, every murder, every crazy person who does something will by hyped and pushed and people will demand action. I repeat those of us who want reasonable regulations, who want to protect our rights, need to engage in this debate. I guarantee you, it may not be this year or maybe even next but gun owners, rabid gun owners let me say, will lose this debate and cost all of us things we hold dear. Politics is a game of perception the NRA and the crazies are costing you or I the average gun owner the game of perception.
By the way. I accept the "tyranny of politics". It doesn't matter whether it is a Republic or a Democracy or even a dictatorship. Politics always wins.
You are being duped, Turk. The gun grabbers will smile in your face as they tell you that they only want to "ban" the "really" dangerous weapons, like the "assault weapons". But when they craft their legislation, like Feinstein and Cuomo have, it goes way past their stated goal. And take note, Cuomo got away with it. So far.
Turk, it may be that the "crazies" finally resolve this problem in the end, I sure hope not. The country does not need that solution.
And no, politics does not always win. In fact, eventually it fails, miserably. History is about failed politics.
The revolutionary war is a prime example of politics winning, it is also an example of "crazies" finally solving the problem.
"history" I'm too old and have been involved in politics for too long to be duped. In fact I take offense. I trust absolutely no one in my personal life or in politics I am about as cynical as man can possibly be. But I also know when I too need to play the game and you and the NRA seem to fail to realize the game is changing. I reapect your position, but see only failure in the absolutist position.
I am about as old as you, so don't play the "old guy" card. Don't be offended either. What I do take note of is that you are from Massachusetts, a state that has been succesful at repressing its residents. I noticed that attitude shortly after moving here, the people fear this state, and rightly so.
I come from a very different place. In my home state, the people have regularly taken over the state capitol, driven the legislators from it. They do not hesitate to recall senators and congressmen who fail to vote as they promised they would in elections. They do not have to bow down to local police chiefs to excercise their rights.
If the entire country were the same as this state and some of the other New England states, I would agree with your position. However, it is not, in large parts of the country the people do not feel any need to "play the game".
The "game" has not changed. If it had, Obama would be getting a lot more than just a "maybe" on universal background checks. Take note that most of the states have not moved on legislation like NY did.
Your views may be a little out of kilter when it comes to the mood of the entire country on this matter.
I never feared the state of Mass. My children who live there don't fear the state. To me that is pure silliness to fear a state or a government at least in this country. There are things they don't like but they don't fear it. Living here in Florida there is much I like about the state, but I don't like the fact that it is impotent against real estate interests and large corporations. No place is perfect.
But whether people want to play politics or not life is politics, the interaction of people is politics and politics are the structure within which changes in the gun laws will take place. As I said you are entitled to your beliefs. But if Republican's do not support changes in the legislation the will lose seats. They will not be able to win on a national level for a very long time. Believe what you will. But every poll, every study has shown the vast majority of American's gun owners included want background checks, want certain limitations. They will get it.
A universal background check simply m;eans there are no exceptions to the background check as currently exists. You know gun shows that kind of thing. Currently there is no requirement for a background check here in Florida or in many other states at gun shows. It is what the northern states like NY object to, most of the guns that end up there come from the south. The NRA in fact at one time supported universal background checks. There has been talk of carrying that over to private sales. I'm not sure I support that idea simply because I'm not sure how you would enforce it. But I do support the universal check.
The Republican Party from my perspective is no longer a "conservative" party it is a libertarian party and I have absolutely as little use for the libertarian philosophy as I do the communist philosophy. Both from my perspective are nothing more than sophomoric viewpoints of the world.
You know what I fear "History" I fear these people who fear their government. The government both of us defended. It is not my enemy. I do not always agree but it is not my enemy and I would rather be here than anywhere else in the world. And I do not believe that Barak Obama loves this country any less than I do to believe otherwise is to delude oneself in the face of reality.
Turk--I have to say I don't see much liberatiranism at all in the Republican party. The one real libertarian name I know is Ron Paul, whose views are at least truly and consistently libertarian. Which means his stances on issues range from quite sensible to completely off the wall from my point of view. A libertarian sees any kind of government role in defining who can marry who, or trying to stop abortions, as completely unreasonable, and the majority of the right these days seem more concerned about these social issues, in terms of the need to enforce their religious views on everyone, than just about anything else. To a libertarian, it's none of gov't's business.
I provide two KEY facts and I'm insulting someone? Yep, that's how the far-left loonies work. Shoot the messenger. And, if the President is fixing this country, he sure is going about it the long way...$16.5 Trillion in Debt, no budgets for 4 years, Trimester abortion support, Fast and Furious, Benghazi coverup... But, let's not confuse the facts with what the far-left wants.
Scot worries about the NRA when this happens:
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/02/18/planned-parenthood-botches-abortion-hospitalizes-woman-in-delaware/
WHO IS RADICAL????
WHO SUPPORTS ABORTION????