Reports indicate that the Obama administration may be considering new gun control proposals to limit the size of magazines or to strengthen background checks on gun purchasers. One thing you can bet on is that the National Rifle Association will oppose any such measures.
Yet it wasn't always this way. Indeed, the NRA used to draft and promote restrictive gun control laws.
In researching my book, Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, I discovered that the NRA used to be far more open-minded on gun control -- and, amazingly, paid almost no attention whatsoever to the Second Amendment.
The NRA was founded by William Church and George Wingate after the Civil War. Wingate and Church -- the latter a former reporter for a newspaper not exactly known for its love of gun rights, the New York Times -- both fought in the War on the Union side. They were shocked by the poor marksmanship of Union soldiers and convinced that one reason the Confederacy was able to hold out so long before surrender was because their soldiers had more experience shooting. Church and Wingate's goal for the NRA was to improve the marksmanship of civilians who might one day be called to serve in the military, not to fight gun control.
These days, the NRA is known for its anti-government rhetoric; Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president, has called some federal law enforcement officers "a jack-booted group of fascists" and warned that "if you have a badge, you have the government's go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens." Yet it was government largess in the form of subsidies and special sales of discounted firearms that helped the NRA grow in its formative years. Were it not for a generous government grant of $25,000 to buy land for a rifle range by the state of New York -- a modern-day target of much NRA hostility -- the NRA might never have gotten off the ground.
The old NRA also promoted gun control. In the 1920s, NRA leaders helped draft the Uniform Firearms Act -- model legislation for states to adopt that established new, restrictive rules on carrying firearms in public. Karl Frederick, the NRA's president, said at the time, "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons... I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses." The Uniform Firearms Act only awarded licenses to "suitable" persons with a "proper reason" for carrying and created a waiting period before a newly purchased handgun could be delivered to the purchaser. Today's NRA, by contrast, fights to eliminate these very same requirements.
The NRA also endorsed the first major federal gun control law of the modern era, the National Firearms Act of 1934. During hearings on the proposed legislation, which imposed heavy restrictions on machine guns and other gangster weapons, Karl Frederick was asked how the Second Amendment affected this groundbreaking law. His answer was astounding: "I have not given it any study from that point of view."
Protection for guns "lies in an enlightened public sentiment and in intelligent legislative action," Frederick wrote elsewhere. "It is not to be found in the Constitution."
In fact, the Second Amendment is remarkably absent from the NRA's signature publication, American Rifleman, until the 1960s. You can go to the library and peruse decades of issues and not see any mention of the constitutional provision thought to be the heart and soul of the organization.
All that changed in 1977. That year, the leadership of the NRA decided to retreat from political lobbying and refocus on recreational shooting and outdoors activities. This sparked a backlash among a group of hardline gun rights advocates who were upset that the NRA had endorsed the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- the first significant federal gun legislation since the 1930s. Motivated by the belief that guns weren't primarily for hunting but for personal protection in an era of rising crime rates, the hardliners staged a coup at the annual meeting of the membership, ousting the old leaders and committing the organization to political advocacy.
From then on, American Rifleman featured the Second Amendment on almost every other page.
Next time someone complains about that a modest gun law tramples on the Second Amendment, remind them of the old NRA -- and of a time when even the nation's leading gun rights advocates supported gun control.
Follow Adam Winkler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/adamwinkler
Josh Horwitz: The NRA Knows Corruption. Just Ask Jack Abramoff.
I should not have to say anything else about the NRA to show they are not good for this country. Sadly people will never learn.
The private sellers performing illegal private sales will do so ANYWAY, regardless of your assertions. Most illegal private sales happen outside the confines of a gun show.....so let's stop calling it "the gun show loophole". That is just misplaced propaganda.
Forced gun registration is the first step towards confiscation.
And then we have the NRA...a group of guys get together to improve the marksmanship skills of Americans and the natural progression...especially in response to the massive increase in fa5cist attempts at complete gun bans...the NRA morphs into an entity desiring to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Oh that terrible, terrible NRA.
We have a very different Supreme Court today deciding issues in radical opposition from former Courts, including the question of gun ownership.
Former Chief Justice Burger labeled the gun lobby's Second Amendment distortion as a "fraud on the American people."
And Justice William O. Douglas wrote: A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment ... Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment was designed to keep alive the militia.
Times have changed. Money corrupts.
Money corrupts politics and consciences.
A person who is in favor of less firearm control, and wants to see every man and woman in this country participate in their 2nd ammendment right, could say the same about the supreme court of the past.
You speak of the NRA as if it is a puppet master to the Government. You are wrong. They participate in politics by supporting those politicians who are willing to go to bat for peoples firearm rights. That is one reason why they support Harry Reid.
If you really want to see some good old political contol by independant orgs, look no further than your uninos. Look into the ALCU and see how much influence they have on policy and the way every business in this country has to operate.
You just dislike the NRA because you dislike firearms. Which is your choice, I only ask that if you acuse one group of something don't turn a blind eye to all of the others who do the exact thing you opose by the one.
In a nutshell? Yep. That is her position.
Seriously.
DW perpetuates the 'progressive' position that when the SCOTUS decisions conflict with anti-gun ideology, it is Judicial Activism. When they rule in favor of a progressive ideology, it is because of the Will of the People.
DW, you better go feed your copy of the COTUS. You wouldn't want it to stop living and breathing, would you?
http://tinyurl.com/4k346he
LMAO
Those so called "shootouts" over parking lots arent happening now so you have a crystal ball?
Us gun supporters have a better chance at lifting all bans than you do disarming us.
Yes, Dimensio compulsively stalks me with his insults and fabrications. Is it his job to lie about other posters, or does he do it voluntarily? I don't know. It is the way the gun team operates .
Imagine, he's obsessing about something he said I said February 2010 on October 6, 2011 (what is the word for that behavior?). His disinformation tactics are relentlessly used to cast doubt on posters who disagree with the gun lobby. We are targeted.
Anyway, in 2010 I said that I thought "fetish" is too soft a word to define the behaviors of the subjects, I don't use it for that reason. The problem is much worse, much wider than "fetish" could possibly cover. It's really "sociopathic" because of the irresponsibility and abysmal lack of concern for the safety of our families and our communities. USA has more gun deaths each day than all the other industrialized nations in the world combined.
Thanks for supporting me. The gun team is on the threads all the time with non-stop attacks. I don't have the time to catch them all. I do know the gun lobby's reputation precedes them with community members, mostly.
Political Snipers
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=political_snipers
The National Rifle Association knew its stance on assault weapons was unpopular, so in 1994 it went underground, took advantage of loopholes in the campaign finance laws, and waged a stealth campaign to unseat Democrats in vulnerable districts.
NRA integrated itself into the business-Republican coalition, consciously reinforcing the antitax, antigovernment message of the free marketeers that dominate the Republican right.
LAWYERS, GUNS, AND MONEY
What made the NRA such a useful tool to conservatives, of course, was its ability to raise and spend vast amounts of money. In 1994 the NRA was the nation’s single biggest spender on elections. But how did it raise all the cash? Although the NRA’s closemouthed tradition makes answering that question somewhat difficult, interviews with many current and former NRA officials, along with experts on the pro-gun movement, provide a fairly detailed picture-a picture that looks somewhat different from the grass roots, middle-American image NRA officials have nurtured for years.
It's probably not a huge surprise that I don't agree with a lot of the "spin" on the article. I would characterize 1994 differently, something like: "Pro-gun forces considered the concept of banning firearms to be unacceptable and a terrible precedent, and we did everything in our power to make sure that our elected representatives understood that." Maybe NRA doesn't like waiting periods and background checks at gun shows, but those are nothing compared to a law that absolutely prohibits something that has heretofore been allowed.
The other thing is that by the time I got done with the article, I found myself wondering how much the article was actually about the NRA, as opposed to being about the general power of interest groups in Washington. You could basically write out the same criticism about AARP or the Chamber of Commerce -- the difference is that the issues these organizations are pushing are not as controversial as the issue of guns.
Anyway I did appreciate the link to the article.
Some civilian disarmament advocates have attempted to justify themselves while stereotyping all supporters of the Constitution by saying "what would Jesus do?"
I think the above quote answers the question sufficiently.
So, 12 disciples, plus Jesus, and 2 swords is enough. Maybe you should rethink what Jesus is teaching. Especially in light of his other statements about weapons.
Matthew 26:52: Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
I dislike how you dressed up his statement as what you wanted it to be, instead of what his obvious intent was.
In 1920, in compliance with the Treaty of Versailles (after losing WWI) Germany severely restricted gun ownership.
In 1928, they loosened these restrictions, but required registration.
In 1938, Germany restricted gun ownership for Jews, but loosened gun ownership regulations for everyone else significantly.
Thank you for commenting.
I own many, many firearms primitive and modern. I would like the bad guy to know that if he ever intended to do harm to myself, my family or my property that if he doesnt kill me first he will die. If in my house he will meet my .50 Beowulf AR-15 and I highly doubt he will survive.
It would be a great day if control on all weapons was lifted that way the criminal will think twice about committing a violent crime. Imagine the criminals eyes when he breaks into your house and is met with a fully automatic weapon.
Yeah their eyes would light up like a kids on Christmas especially when the red dot is right between them.
That the NRA did not have the support of it's members is painfully evident in the leadership turnover during the 70's. The NRA betrayed it's membership and since the membership has a representative control over the NRA, it should be no surprise that the direction changed so much. The continued change in the NRA is also a reflection of it's members. To point to the NRA of the early to mid 20th century as somehow being hypocritical is completely missing the point of why it changed so much. The fact that the NRA couldn't bring itself to even recognize the 2nd amendment during that time was the problem and the solution was the change that took place. Arguing that ignoring an amendment is historically aligned seems rather self defeating as I am unconvinced that a purposeless amendment would be passed. Thankfully SCOTUS for all their insanity has recognized that much.
This story is about the changes in the 1990s. I don't think this will make you happy ...
This story leads to the question of how the NRA gets its money in the first place, and here, too, there is more than first meets the eye. Despite its image as a membership organization subsisting entirely on $35 membership dues, the NRA actually collects much of its money in large donations from upper-middle-class and even wealthy supporters. Big contributors, bequests, fundraising dinners, and backing from the gun industry have combined to provide the NRA with a substantial block of funds.
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=political_snipers
There's no question of how the NRA gets its money, because its financials are published in accordance with IRS requirements. They get over 90% of their funding from individual member donations and membership dues.
Second Amendment Sisters: greaves
Jews for Preservation of Firearm Ownership: breastplate
Looks like we have the secondary aspect of the panoply as well.
"The primary goal of the National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle program is not to safeguard children, but to protect the interests of the NRA and the firearms industry by making guns more acceptable to children and youth. The Eddie Eagle program employs strategies similar to those utilized by America's tobacco industry—from youth "educational" programs that are in fact marketing tools to the use of appealing cartoon characters that aim to put a friendly face on a hazardous product. The hoped-for result is new customers for the industry and new members for the NRA."
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/eddiekey.htm
That's right folks. Why in tthe world would you want to raise awareness of the dangers of unsafe gun handling when you can just hide guns from children. It works for teen sex and underage alcohol use, right?
Eddie Eagle is Joe Camel with feathers. The intent to get guns into the consciousness of the next generation of gun buyers. It's a for-profit scheme between the NRA and the gun industry dressed up to look like a safety course. Worse type of hypocrisy.
The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program,
NRA’s groundbreaking gun accident
prevention course for children, has
surpassed yet another milestone by
reaching its 24 millionth child."
http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/graphics/eagleeye-15-1.pdf
Poor DW. Poor poor DW. That's not an abscessed tooth giving you so much discomfort. It's those facts again.
I have little doubt that NRA cites the Eddie Eagle program as a means of drumming up sympathy and support, but that doesn't change the fact that we are talking about a safety program. I suppose it's true that talking to kids about gun safety might pique some interest in guns, but what's the atlernative -- 300 million guns and we don't teach kids anything? This is starting to sound like the arguments against sex education.
Guns are not bad, and niether are the people who fabricate them.