Anti-NRA vitriol increasing?

[Prndll]

This is precisely that typical attitude that has prevented Lynux from being all that it can be.

"Now you know that joining the NRA won't send any funding to the NRA PAC..."

Actually, I don't know that at all. That's part of my point. I have to take your word for it. I can do all kinds of Google searches and what-not, read the NRA website itself, and read various blogs giving a myriad of view points. But there is so very little on the web that truly can be trusted. That's not to mention the insanity put out there for the sole purpose of mis-direction. It's hard to know what to believe.

I am here to learn. Not to be simply told to "Google it". I can do that without this site. Many people read from this site for that same reason without ever creating a member login. Consideration should be given for that fact that not everyone started shooting at 12 years old.

The only way to combat lies is with open truth. I'm asking.

 

[JohnKSa]

Actually, I don't know that at all. That's part of my point. I have to take your word for it.

But you DON'T have to take my word for it. In my 24 July response to your comment, I provided a link and even quoted the relevant part of the document to save you the effort of scanning through it.

I am here to learn.

But only as long as it doesn't require clicking on a link to verify a quote? Come on.

The only way to combat lies is with open truth. I'm asking.

I stand by my statements even if they are, perhaps, more abrasive than they could be.

If you don't know enough about the NRA it is not because the information is difficult to find or hard to understand and it's not because TFL needs to be a better information source. Your concern was answered and a third party link was provided for validation on the very same day you brought it up.

Not to be simply told to "Google it".

You weren't told to Google it initially. In fact, I googled it for you and gave you the link and quote. It was only after you started trying to change the subject by implying that your information deficit was caused by TFL's failure to be a good enough information resource, that I pointed out how easily you could have found the information for yourself; if you had really wanted to.

 

[Prndll]

What I'm seeing all over the place is "you should join" and then a few prices and a few links to join. This Carry Guard thing sounds interesting but then I'm not seeing many (really none) success stories out there. The NRA has been around for a very long time. Frankly I'm a bit surprised that there isn't much more of a clear and direct discussion about it. Yes, there are a great many things to click on, banners, signs, stickers, and suggestions.....just not much substance that I've seen. It shouldn't be that hard to see. It shouldn't be that hard to sell. It shouldn't be that hard to describe. Atleast other than "they fight for your gun rights". Saying that means nothing to be.

A slogan is not enough to compel me to join. Money is too precious and finite. So is my time. You can tell me it's more than a slogan if you want. But that isn't what I'm seeing out there. I just don't see much of anything of substance and that bothers me. It would seem to be the exact opposite. I want to know what I'm investing in and that is a very reasonable position.

I really don't understand why this site (or any gun site) as it is dedicated to the subject of firearms, would not have a section specifically for the NRA. It just seems like it would be a no-brainer for sites like this. It should go together like bacon and eggs. But that's just based on all the hype associated with it I guess.

If the NRA never existed, would we have guns? would they be there and just not be something that the common citizen could purchase? The answers should be obvious but they're not.

There is alot of fear out there. Alot of paranoia too. It seem to me that the best way to curtail 'anti-NRA vitriol' is to have discussions (of substance) that actually amount to a little more than "you should join" or some arbitrary number that is supposed to represent the current number of total members. People have a hard time talking about guns as it is. This isn't making anything any easier.

 

[JohnKSa]

A slogan is not enough to compel me to join. Money is too precious and finite. So is my time. You can tell me it's more than a slogan if you want. But that isn't what I'm seeing out there. I just don't see much of anything of substance and that bothers me. It would seem to be the exact opposite. I want to know what I'm investing in and that is a very reasonable position.

Yes, that is reasonable. Well, sort of reasonable--money IS precious but the price of a tank of gas will net you an annual membership--and time is precious too, but the time requirements to be an NRA member amount to the 15 minutes it takes to fill out the form and pick which magazine you want to receive. Far more time, by the way, than you've spent on this thread coming up with reasons not to join.

But that's all sort of moot because your concerns about money and time and inadequate information, etc. contradict what you said earlier.

Your comment was that you had "seriously considered" joining the NRA (serious consideration would, no doubt, involve finding out how much a membership costs and the time requirements for NRA members, basic research about the organization, etc.) but that "the only real reason" you hadn't was because you weren't "all that crazy about contributing to and PAC".

Your "only real reason" turned out to be a non-issue but instead of joining once the sole barrier had been eliminated, you have now come up with more reasons that you don't want to join, including, of all things, that TFL isn't a good enough resource on the topic. Even ignoring the fact that many of the reasons you're stating are ones that should have already been dealt with during your period of serious consideration, it's starting to look like once one reason not to join is dealt with, you're going to immediately come up with three more to take its place.

And that is fine. You don't have to join. But if you just don't want to join, maybe you should just say you don't want to join instead of providing "reasons" that really don't address the underlying basis for why you're not a member.

I really don't understand why this site (or any gun site) as it is dedicated to the subject of firearms, would not have a section specifically for the NRA. It just seems like it would be a no-brainer for sites like this. It should go together like bacon and eggs.

The links section of TFL has a link to the NRA website, there are many information rich discussion threads about the NRA (including this one) and, as you found, posting a question about the NRA will net a quick and informative response.

Here is some more information about the NRA.

https://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/

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

 

[Prndll]

You sound like a salesman.

Incase you haven't got it yet..........I want to join but have misgivings. I know I'm not the only one that feels this way.

 

[JohnKSa]

You sound like a salesman.

You are the one who said you were seriously considering joining and in your last post you just reiterated that you "want to join". I alleviated what you initially claimed was your "only real" concern by completely eliminating it. I'm trying to help you achieve your stated goal.

...I want to join but have misgivings.

All right. Let's work on your misgivings to see if we can confirm them (eliminating your desire to join) or lay them to rest (allowing you to achieve your stated goal).

With that in mind, and now that you have reviewed the information in this thread and the information in the various links that I've provided, what misgivings do you have?

 

[Tinbucket]

The enemies of freddom are infiltrating, just like some of our Churches and changin course.
NRA kicked out an ally who provided insurance for those who carry and instituted their own for a share of profits. It all goes to NRA programs so bee it but other forces are seeking a share of the power and money.
I am a Member of the NRA and most situations they are allies but there have been a few where they let the opposition get away with legislation etc unopposed.
You have to be involved if you join. Bloomberg is massively funding anti gun agenda along with others. It is only logical that some of his people are trying to infiltrate and change the course. I have no evidence just instinctive suggestion.
You really can't trust anyone unless you are able to see their track record and, their support for other things regarding supporting our Republic and Constitution.
If they start saying e have to be pragmatic, we have to give to get, we must make deals, we have to be practical, we need the money welll....

 

[zukiphile]

If the NRA never existed, would we have guns? would they be there and just not be something that the common citizen could purchase? The answers should be obvious but they're not.

There is alot of fear out there. Alot of paranoia too. It seem to me that the best way to curtail 'anti-NRA vitriol' is to have discussions (of substance) that actually amount to a little more than "you should join" or some arbitrary number that is supposed to represent the current number of total members. People have a hard time talking about guns as it is. This isn't making anything any easier.

In fact, the NRA has made discussion of the legal possession of arms much easier.

The momentum for restricting gun possession to the point of virtual prohibition is is more than a half century old. We've seen serial hysteria over "Saturday night specials" and street sweepers, and "high" capacity magazines and "assault weapons".

The NRA has played a role in the composition of congress that helped slow the progress of each wave of hysteria. But for that NRA obstacle, the conversation wouldn't be easy because the questions would already have been settled. The NRA certainly makes ongoing conversation on these issues both easier and more genuinely important.

Other organizations matter too. I think the Federalist Society has been important. However discounting the beneficial role of the NRA is unwise.

 

[44 AMP]

There is alot of fear out there. Alot of paranoia too. It seem to me that the best way to curtail 'anti-NRA vitriol' is to have discussions (of substance) that actually amount to a little more than "you should join" or some arbitrary number that is supposed to represent the current number of total members.

What is there about the NRA that creates or supports fear and paranoia? Nothing I know of. The only place I can think of (other than the hater's propaganda) is ignorance, which can lead to fear, and then to hate (thank you Yoda)

Anything you want to know about the NRA is out there, the history of the NRA is an open book. Created in 1871, to promote marksmanship, and safety, and that's virtually all they did for nearly a century. IT wasn't until the anti gun movement exploded in the 1960s that caused the NRA to get involved in political action. And they did it in full compliance with the law.

To the best of my knowledge, the NRA has NEVER advocated any illegal act. Never, not one, not even as a "protest".

Membership is open to anyone who pays membership dues. NOTE THAT, ANYONE WHO PAYS DUES. There is no income level, no political ideal test, all races, colors and creeds are welcome, and the NRA cares nothing about who you are, or what you believe in any other area.

People have a hard time talking about guns as it is. This isn't making anything any easier.

I don't know any people who have a hard time talking about guns, in fact, most of the people I know have a hard time talking about anything BUT guns.

Its who we are, and what we do.

As already mentioned, not one penny of NRA dues goes to the political action effort. also no tax dollars ever go to the NRA, it is ENTRIRELY privately funded.

Nobody else, not the government, and certainly not the anti-gun bigots has spent over a century promoting gun SAFETY! The NRA has.

many states have a requirement that before being able to purchase a hunting license, you must first attend an NRA approved (and usually sponsored) Hunter Safety Course. These courses focus a little bit on game laws and hunting, and a LOT on gun safety. TOTALLY NON-POLITICAL.

Yes, there are idiots who say detestable things, and are NRA members, but remember, ANYONE who pays dues can be a member. The NRA doesn't tell you what to think, or how to vote. They may strongly suggest, but they don't order the members, about anything.

Nothing is going to change the minds of people who hate, and people hate the NRA because it is a symbol of the thing they hate worse, lawful gun ownership.

Their bottom line is they hate any and everyone who has the intestinal fortitude to disagree with them. Despite all their prattle about "tolerance" the one thing they will NOT tolerate is a different point of view.

 

[rickyrick]

We have a new country now, good or bad we wait to see.

 

[vito]

I think the real changes happened after Columbine. Back as far as the Kennedy assassination there was widespread public concern over mail order firearms without any control, but as that event receded from being a topic of general discussion, the anti-gun movement was not overly active. And remember, it was generally agreed, by the courts, the media, and much of the public that the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with individual rights but was the justification for the National Guard. As ridiculous as that is, it was the prevailing belief. Anti gun individuals and groups did not seem overly concerned with Constitutional issues because they felt that gun control was strictly a matter of public policy that they supported.

But Columbine changed a lot. It so frightened people that they were looking for something, anything, that might make them believe that such events could be prevented. I am convinced that it was this event which gave the anti gunners the rationale for recruiting large numbers of the public to their side. And then came Heller, followed by McDonald. The anti gun crowd seemed to sense that they were losing the fight, and losing it big time. That seems to be when Soros, Bloomberg, and the mainstream Democrat Party felt the need to vigorously fight the "gun culture" of America, and therefore used the NRA as the focus of their anger.

I'll admit that for much of my life I was not an NRA member. I didn't compete in shooting matches, I was not a hunter, and the NRA seemed pretty irrelevant to my interests. For me, it was the growth in the anti gun sentiment after Columbine in 1999 that made me feel it was necessary for me to join the NRA and lend my support to the pro 2nd Amendment effort. A few years later I became a Life Member, and began making my own small but steady donations to the NRA-ILA as my small part in this struggle. (And just to irritate them, I bought gift one-year memberships to the NRA for several of my virulently anti gun relatives. Some became apoplectic when NRA literature starting arriving in their mailbox! It was fabulous!).

 

[44 AMP]

And remember, it was generally agreed, by the courts, the media, and much of the public that the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with individual rights but was the justification for the National Guard. As ridiculous as that is, it was the prevailing belief.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with part of this. The belief that the Second Amendment only applied to the National Guard, etc. was NEVER the "prevailing belief" of the public. It WAS the prevailing belief of a very VOCAL minority, who desperately needed us to believe that THEY spoke for all of us.

They constantly told us that their point of view was held by the majority of Americans. That was a lie. One of many.

They used (and are still using) the tactic of the "Big Lie".*

They did have some support in the courts, from "activist judges". They had near total support in the popular media (the only exception being a few people on talk radio), and some support in certain social circles, notably wealthy liberals and "ivory tower" types.

They refused to accept the fact that 1770s English meant what it said. They claimed to believe in a "living Constitution". (the Constitution IS a "living document" there is an amendment process built in to it)

But their idea of a "living" Constitution didn't accept the amendment process as good enough. It took too long, and they were too likely to fail to obtain their goals if they used it. Their idea of a living Constitution was that the Constitution said what they said it said, and any parts that disagreed with that should be ignored, if they couldn't easily be rewritten to conform to their views.

They took the point of view that our 2nd Amendment rights existed only because of the 2nd Amendment. AND that the 2nd Amendment only allowed the right to arms for "well regulated militias".

Another lie. Actually multiple lies, folded into one.

Their argument ignored multiple facts about the Constitution, and what the Founding Fathers wrote in it. First, and foremost, their argument against our "right" to keep & bear arms existed only because it was granted to us in the 2nd amendment. Another lie.

ALL our rights, every single one, enumerated (named) in the Constitution, OR NOT, do NOT come from the Constitution. They come from a higher power. The Founders were quite clear about that, stating it several times, in different ways.

"inalienable", "God given" , "endowed by our Creator", "natural rights". Again, 1770s English, these phrases MEAN SOMETHING. They are not just padding so the document reads well.

The Constutution (notably the Bill of Rights) GRANTS NO RIGHTS. Not one. It RECOGNIZES certain rights, it does NOT grant them. And if one actually bothers to READ what the Bill of Rights says, it is a listing of GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS concerning those rights.

Congress shall make no law...
Shall not be infringed...
No man shall be...
No warrant shall be issued...

The Bill of Rights is a listing of things the Government is NOT ALLOWED TO DO.

And, the Bill of Rights even contains the fact that there are MORE rights than the ones listed, AND that those rights belong to the people, or the states, respectively.

Pretty well written, actually, and I think easily and clearly understandable to anyone who's eyes and ears are not covered by their buttocks.

But the anti gun bigots simply ignored all that. Anyone who pointed that out was ridiculed, defamed, demonized, what ever tactic was possible. (again, the tactics of the Big Lie)

If you believed the Founders actually meant what they wrote, you were "stuck in the past" and "adhering to the beliefs of a bunch of rich, dead, white, slave owning MEN" which simply no longer applied today. They believed their version was right, everyone else was wrong, and that should be the end of the matter. And so they told us, over and over, and over though their mouthpieces in the media. (again, the Big Lie)

They seized on the opening clause of the 2nd Amendment (a well regulated militia...) as the sole reason FOR our right to arms, when for a couple hundred years that exact clause had been understood to be the explanation WHY the government was not allowed to infringe our right to arms.

Heller was a decision that simply never should have had to have been made. And it was not entirely a "good" decision, because it was written in the same Supreme Court legalese as the Miller case that left the NFA 34 standing, and untouched.

The "good" thing about Heller is that it is a modern decision. One the anti gun zealots HAVE to recognize. They cannot pooh-pooh it and toss it aside because it is a hundred, or two hundred years old, and "times have changed".

Less good is the language of the decision which is being interpreted by some lower courts and branches of government (notably some states and some cities) as allowing any and all gun control laws, that stop short of complete, outright prohibition of firearms by class.

In other words, they believe they can legally restrict the hell out of any thing they want (whatever the "evil" gun de jour is) as long as they don't completely ban possession, it is legal for them to do so.

Unfortunately for us, they are correct, after a fashion. Any, and every law passed IS LEGAL, until a ruling court says it isn't.

It took decades before DC's "handgun ban law" got to the Supreme Court. (the DC law didn't actually technically ban handguns, it stated that you couldn't have a handgun "loaded" or "fully assembled" in DC. Not an actual ban in so many words, but a practical ban in effect)

Much of the time it took to get to the Supreme Court passed simply because there was no one of suitable "standing" and who was both willing and able to pursue legal redress through the court system. ("standing" is a legal term, essentially meaning that the person bringing suit has to have been personally affected (harmed in some way) by the law. since it was a DC law in question, only a DC resident could have standing, in the eyes of a court)

* The Big Lie
A propaganda technique, today ascribed to Dr. Joseph Gobbels, who was Hitler's propaganda minister. He didn't invent it, its been around probably as long as mankind, Herr Gobbels just codified and instituted it as official policy...

Essentially the process is this, Tell a Lie, tell a BIG LIE, tell it often, keep telling it no matter what arguments are brought against it. Marginalize, demonize, shout down, or outright physically suppress any and ALL opposing arguments and those making them. Keep telling the lie. Do this, and over time, the public WILL COME TO BELIEVE THE LIE IS THE TRUTH.

it can work with any topic.

 

[vito]

You're preaching to the choir. I don't disagree that the Left's view of the 2nd Amendment, especially in the past, was erroneous and deliberately deceptive. But prior to the emergence of electronic media, cable networks, etc., the commonly held view, as put out by the major news media (print and broadcast) as well as both political parties (more or less) was that the 2nd Amendment was essentially irrelevant in modern America and was mostly concerned with the establishment of organized state militias, i.e., the National Guard. Growing up in the 1950's and '60's I never once heard anyone voice an alternative view. Maybe that was because I grew up in New York City, and attended college at the City College of New York. Even after I entered military service as an officer in 1966 (and served for 24 years) I cannot recall ever hearing a serious discussion claiming that we truly had the RIGHT to personally keep and bear arms. Restrictions on the purchase, ownership and certainly carrying of guns was seemingly commonly accepted, maybe because in much of the country it was a non-issue. Buying a handgun in Texas in the 1960's did not, to my recollection, even require me to show any identification. It was the NRA, starting in the late 1970's (as others have stated) that first presented, on a public national platform, the concept that the 2nd Amendment actually means what it says, something that now is more generally accepted.

 

[zukiphile]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with part of this. The belief that the Second Amendment only applied to the National Guard, etc. was NEVER the "prevailing belief" of the public. It WAS the prevailing belief of a very VOCAL minority, who desperately needed us to believe that THEY spoke for all of us.

They constantly told us that their point of view was held by the majority of Americans. That was a lie. One of many.

I find that most americans don't have any well considered opinion on any civil liberty, except to support them in principle and when they benefit people they like (Of course I'm for free speech!) and to oppose them in practice if they benefit people they don't (There oughtta be a law against flag burning/hate speech!).

The idea that an explicit constitutional protection can become a dead letter is a real danger amongst those who give lots of thought to constitutional issues. See the fate of the 10th Am, the Terry Schiavo of the Bill of Rights.

Heller was a decision that simply never should have had to have been made. And it was not entirely a "good" decision, because it was written in the same Supreme Court legalese as the Miller case that left the NFA 34 standing, and untouched.

The "good" thing about Heller is that it is a modern decision. One the anti gun zealots HAVE to recognize. They cannot pooh-pooh it and toss it aside because it is a hundred, or two hundred years old, and "times have changed".

Less good is the language of the decision which is being interpreted by some lower courts and branches of government (notably some states and some cities) as allowing any and all gun control laws, that stop short of complete, outright prohibition of firearms by class.

The NFA wasn't at issue in Heller. Gura took that of the table because he recognized that it would be poison to a potential majority. I wasn't on board with what seemed like a slow walk process at the time, but Gura was right. His was an incremental victory finding an individual right, but it was a victory. That's better than a beautiful and coherent argument that loses.

I believe we, people who see limited government as the natural state and often see even that as pernicious, are subject to a misapprehension. We imagine that the thing wrong with a governmental condition can be fixed, then we can go back home to our lives and forget about it having done the passing dirty work of participating in governance.

In fact, the work is never ending. Heller was never going to be like the foundation to a home that once built well would endure our neglect for a century. Heller just acknowledged the existence of a civil right we now get to argue about. The alternative and very real possibility was that it would become the recognized constitutional law of the US that there is no individual right at all, and that anything Congress and the states decide to leave you is all you get.

I would also note that the lack of compliance in lower courts is not itself a flaw in Heller. Had Heller been written by you and me and gotten nine votes, we would still have advocates for restrictions and judges who agree with those advocates. That's why we have the appellate process, and why confirmation of Gorsuch, a fellow who expresses great fidelity to that process, was such a defeat for those with more creative ambitions for constitutional law.

I'm not sure how much we ultimately disagree. It may just be that we are encountering different parts of the elephant. I meet so many people who resent the Heller decision and the direction of the Court that it is easy for me to imagine worse results.

 

[44 AMP]

The NFA wasn't at issue in Heller

I didn't mean to imply that it was. What I was trying to point out is the overall similarity of the language used in both Heller and Miller, not as specifics, but as generalities.

In both cases language was used that, according to some legal folks (whom I believe) means one thing in the vernacular of the courts, but is easily interpreted to mean something different in other applications.

In Heller, we see the phrase "presumed legal" referring to other gun control laws, not the DC ban.

some say this phrasing means that the court was saying "we are not looking at those laws, today, and will presume them legal, until /unless we do look at them, specifically.

others are saying that what the court meant was that all gun control laws short of the DC ban type are legal.

Clearly both cannot be correct.

Now, here's the problem, the high court DOES NOT CORRECT the people who have the wrong view about what they meant. They do not, and will not, speak to the issue again, until/unless a case concerning THAT issue comes before them, again.

Maybe they think its not their job. Maybe it isn't.

In Miller, the court said "we have been shown no evidence" that the gun in question was a milita weapon, and therefore protected.

It is unclear at today's distance if they meant short shotguns in general, or the specific weapon in the case ser#xxx (if it even had one).

"Shown no evidence" doesn't mean the Govt proved their case. They were granted the judgment because no opposing evidence was presented.

The Govt, however, took this to mean that all provisions of the NFA 34 were constitutional. And, again, the court did not say anything about that.

They could have. They didn't.

The similarities I see between Miller and Heller, are, that despite the huge difference in time between them, both contain language that others used to justify doing things that (to me, at least) seem to be contrary to the intent of the court, and the court said nothing about them doing it. Ever.

Maybe that's the way it is supposed to work, the Court doesn't speak to things that happen AFTER they judge a case, until it becomes a case for them to judge.?

 

[Tinbucket]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with part of this. The belief that the Second Amendment only applied to the National Guard, etc. was NEVER the "prevailing belief" of the public. It WAS the prevailing belief of a very VOCAL minority, who desperately needed us to believe that THEY spoke for all of us.

They constantly told us that their point of view was held by the majority of Americans. That was a lie. One of many.

They used (and are still using) the tactic of the "Big Lie".*

They did have some support in the courts, from "activist judges". They had near total support in the popular media (the only exception being a few people on talk radio), and some support in certain social circles, notably wealthy liberals and "ivory tower" types.

They refused to accept the fact that 1770s English meant what it said. They claimed to believe in a "living Constitution". (the Constitution IS a "living document" there is an amendment process built in to it)

But their idea of a "living" Constitution didn't accept the amendment process as good enough. It took too long, and they were too likely to fail to obtain their goals if they used it. Their idea of a living Constitution was that the Constitution said what they said it said, and any parts that disagreed with that should be ignored, if they couldn't easily be rewritten to conform to their views.

They took the point of view that our 2nd Amendment rights existed only because of the 2nd Amendment. AND that the 2nd Amendment only allowed the right to arms for "well regulated militias".

Another lie. Actually multiple lies, folded into one.

Their argument ignored multiple facts about the Constitution, and what the Founding Fathers wrote in it. First, and foremost, their argument against our "right" to keep & bear arms existed only because it was granted to us in the 2nd amendment. Another lie.

ALL our rights, every single one, enumerated (named) in the Constitution, OR NOT, do NOT come from the Constitution. They come from a higher power. The Founders were quite clear about that, stating it several times, in different ways.

"inalienable", "God given" , "endowed by our Creator", "natural rights". Again, 1770s English, these phrases MEAN SOMETHING. They are not just padding so the document reads well.

The Constutution (notably the Bill of Rights) GRANTS NO RIGHTS. Not one. It RECOGNIZES certain rights, it does NOT grant them. And if one actually bothers to READ what the Bill of Rights says, it is a listing of GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS concerning those rights.

Congress shall make no law...
Shall not be infringed...
No man shall be...
No warrant shall be issued...

The Bill of Rights is a listing of things the Government is NOT ALLOWED TO DO.

And, the Bill of Rights even contains the fact that there are MORE rights than the ones listed, AND that those rights belong to the people, or the states, respectively.

Pretty well written, actually, and I think easily and clearly understandable to anyone who's eyes and ears are not covered by their buttocks.

But the anti gun bigots simply ignored all that. Anyone who pointed that out was ridiculed, defamed, demonized, what ever tactic was possible. (again, the tactics of the Big Lie)

If you believed the Founders actually meant what they wrote, you were "stuck in the past" and "adhering to the beliefs of a bunch of rich, dead, white, slave owning MEN" which simply no longer applied today. They believed their version was right, everyone else was wrong, and that should be the end of the matter. And so they told us, over and over, and over though their mouthpieces in the media. (again, the Big Lie)

They seized on the opening clause of the 2nd Amendment (a well regulated militia...) as the sole reason FOR our right to arms, when for a couple hundred years that exact clause had been understood to be the explanation WHY the government was not allowed to infringe our right to arms.

Heller was a decision that simply never should have had to have been made. And it was not entirely a "good" decision, because it was written in the same Supreme Court legalese as the Miller case that left the NFA 34 standing, and untouched.

The "good" thing about Heller is that it is a modern decision. One the anti gun zealots HAVE to recognize. They cannot pooh-pooh it and toss it aside because it is a hundred, or two hundred years old, and "times have changed".

Less good is the language of the decision which is being interpreted by some lower courts and branches of government (notably some states and some cities) as allowing any and all gun control laws, that stop short of complete, outright prohibition of firearms by class.

In other words, they believe they can legally restrict the hell out of any thing they want (whatever the "evil" gun de jour is) as long as they don't completely ban possession, it is legal for them to do so.

Unfortunately for us, they are correct, after a fashion. Any, and every law passed IS LEGAL, until a ruling court says it isn't.

It took decades before DC's "handgun ban law" got to the Supreme Court. (the DC law didn't actually technically ban handguns, it stated that you couldn't have a handgun "loaded" or "fully assembled" in DC. Not an actual ban in so many words, but a practical ban in effect)

Much of the time it took to get to the Supreme Court passed simply because there was no one of suitable "standing" and who was both willing and able to pursue legal redress through the court system. ("standing" is a legal term, essentially meaning that the person bringing suit has to have been personally affected (harmed in some way) by the law. since it was a DC law in question, only a DC resident could have standing, in the eyes of a court)

* The Big Lie
A propaganda technique, today ascribed to Dr. Joseph Gobbels, who was Hitler's propaganda minister. He didn't invent it, its been around probably as long as mankind, Herr Gobbels just codified and instituted it as official policy...

Essentially the process is this, Tell a Lie, tell a BIG LIE, tell it often, keep telling it no matter what arguments are brought against it. Marginalize, demonize, shout down, or outright physically suppress any and ALL opposing arguments and those making them. Keep telling the lie. Do this, and over time, the public WILL COME TO BELIEVE THE LIE IS THE TRUTH.

it can work with any topic.

well written

 

[zukiphile]

In Heller, we see the phrase "presumed legal" referring to other gun control laws, not the DC ban.

some say this phrasing means that the court was saying "we are not looking at those laws, today, and will presume them legal, until /unless we do look at them, specifically.

others are saying that what the court meant was that all gun control laws short of the DC ban type are legal.

Isn't it remarkable how much of the 2d Am. issue comes down to reading language for what it means? Others who argue that Heller put the Court's imprimatur on other regulations not at issue in the case are missing the presumptively in "presumptively lawful". Law is littered with presumptions that parties are free to rebut.

The similarities I see between Miller and Heller, are, that despite the huge difference in time between them, both contain language that others used to justify doing things that (to me, at least) seem to be contrary to the intent of the court, and the court said nothing about them doing it. Ever.

Maybe that's the way it is supposed to work, the Court doesn't speak to things that happen AFTER they judge a case, until it becomes a case for them to judge.?

That's exactly true. A court isn't there to render opinions on matters not currently before it. You really don't want it any other way. You want courts to settle controversies before them, not run around society telling people what they want changed.

When a matter does come back before the court as it did in Caetano (a battered woman was prosecuted by MA for having a stun gun and the lower court found that it wasn't covered by the 2d Am.) the Court may brush back a non-compliant lower court. However the fact that Thomas and Alito were compelled to write a concurrence discloses a political problem in bringing a matter back before the court on weak facts or when the court is likely to simply reverse itself.

As to the NFA specifically, I can't give you a citation off the top of my head, but I am confident that there are lower court examinations of its constitutionality finding that it is a valid exercise. Complicating that is the structure of the NFA -- it feels like prohibition and licensing to us, but it is structured as a tax. The congressional power to tax is the hook on which the ACA penalty survived, and it's a legitimately held power.

If you aren't frustrated by this, then you aren't paying attention. Ultimately the solution is political. I would like congress to do some PR about its feckless recent past by passing the HPA, SHUSH, SHARE or whatever these reforms are currently called.

 

[Phoenix54c]

You sound like a salesman. Incase you haven't got it yet..........I want to join but have misgivings. I know I'm not the only one that feels this way.

No PrnDll, you're not. I called them two months ago, and asked them to stop sending me mail, personally. While most gun owners I know unequivocally support the NRA, more in my circle have expressed hesitation over an NRA narrative that's become increasingly hateful and uncompromising.

And that is fine. You don't have to join. But if you just don't want to join, maybe you should just say you don't want to join instead of providing "reasons" that really don't address the underlying basis for why you're not a member.

It's a little presumptuous to tell him that the reasons behind his convictions are not 'real.' You may disagree with them, but that doesn't mean they aren't his legitimate concerns.

If you're interested in learning why some 2A defenders are disillusioned with the NRA--or even changing their minds--you should ask people more about why they believe what they do and challenge the assumptions behind their ideas. Judging them without that understanding just leads to an argument that goes nowhere. If you want more detail about what I see problematic in Dana Loesch's video, I'd be happy to discuss it.

 

[JohnKSa]

It's a little presumptuous to tell him that the reasons behind his convictions are not 'real.'

I don't know anything about his "convictions" and I haven't commented on them or tried to guess about what they might be.

But I do know that the "only real reason" initially given for not joining is not a valid reason because none of the money from an NRA membership goes to a PAC. And so I pointed that out.

And that's where the problem became obvious--it turned out that wasn't really the "only real reason" for not joining. There were a bunch more "reasons" waiting in the wings, so to speak, to take the place of the "only real reason".

When someone says that X is the only real reason they have and then it turns out that once they know that X is false it doesn't change anything, it's not presumptuous to point out the obvious fact that X could not have been the only real reason.

If you're interested in learning why some 2A defenders are disillusioned with the NRA...

It's important to not confuse being disillusioned with just simply not caring enough to have taken any time to actually learn about the NRA in the first place. A person who had spent any time seriously considering joining the NRA would have been able to very easily determine where the membership money goes, how much a membership costs, and how much time it takes to become a member and maintain a membership. When all those things are still obviously unknowns, the problem isn't disillusionment, it's simply a lack of knowledge on the topic. And for someone with internet access, it's hard to explain that by anything other than not caring enough to try to find out. Even if a person doesn't know how to use a search engine, they can find a place like TFL and ask questions.

Judging them without that understanding just leads to an argument that goes nowhere.

Here's the deal. I fully understand that the NRA isn't for everyone. Some because they don't like what it does or stands for, some because they can't deal with mailings or phone calls, some because they don't want to spend $25 a year, some because they can't be bothered to take the time to join, some because of something an NRA employee/spokesperson said or did, and some because they just plain don't care.

What is irritating is when someone tries to make it sound like there are problems with the NRA that don't exist. There are plenty of REAL problems with the NRA and when someone complains about a non-existent problem it means that either they don't want to talk about what is really bothering them or that they just don't care enough to actually learn anything about the NRA. THAT is the definition of an argument that goes nowhere.

If you want more detail about what I see problematic in Dana Loesch's video, I'd be happy to discuss it.

Same deal applies. My guess is that there's plenty that people can find to complain about in the video. And that's fine. What's irritating is when people feel they have to twist/misquote/mischaracterize it to find something to complain about. People should just take the video for what it is and what it says and point out what they don't like about it. At least then it's possible to have a real discussion about it.

But if a person has to misquote the video to find something to complain about, then either they don't know enough about the video to complain about it, or they're not being honest about what they really don't like about it.

 

[vito]

The pro-gun community would have even more influence in public policy if it were a more united community. The best way to achieve that unity is for a larger number of gun owners to be represented by a single pro-gun organization. Right now the NRA is by far the largest of such organizations and clearly has the most clout in Washington, and in State capitols of all the pro-gun, pro-2nd Amendment groups. But clearly it would be even more influential if it were even larger. With possibly up to 100 million Americans being gun owners, the 5 million in the NRA are still a small percentage.

That said, gun owners, if they have any political savvy at all, need to recognize that, as Ronald Reagan said, "the person who agrees with you 80% of the time is not your enemy". Maybe not everything the NRA does or says is exactly what you would prefer, but overall, if you support the 2nd Amendment, you mostly have the NRA in your corner. Looking for ideological purity before committing a small annual membership fee is truly self defeating and irrational.

I think its a real mistake to over think this whole issue. If you want to retain your 2nd Amendment rights, join and support the NRA. Its that simple.