NRA = Latent S.A.?

[NervousRex]

Will the Republicans utilize the thuggish and well armed NRA members to enforce the party's will, ie. the Nazi SA in the 20's and 30's?...discuss.

[FeebMaster]

1. I hate to break it to you,

but not everyone in the NRA is a Republican.

[NervousRex]

3. Well...

they don't need everyone.

[The Traveler]

4. Quite true

I know several liberals and many libertarians who are NRA members.

[The Traveler]

2. Don't worry

I am one of many thuggish and well armed liberals who would resist. Translation: I shoot back. Accurately.
:evilgrin:

[alittlelark]

5. They will be able to utilize some of the more limbic brained members

but MANY are VERY paranoid of the patriot act and all that it means for privacy-lovin' folks.

I am not a member of the NRA, and never will be due to their extremist views. I believe that most members are however, good (righteously fearful) folks.

The NRA is against the Patriot Act, from what I have garnered(?).

[DoNotRefill]

10. Yes, they are against the Patriot Act.

They also are concerned about the government turning on the American People, and protecting the civil right enumerated in the Second Amendment. They also recently lost a lawsuit regarding limits placed upon the First Amendment, in which the ACLU was their co-plaintiff. (for the non-lawyers out there, that means the NRA and ACLU brought the suit together against somebody else)

Hmmm....government turning against the people...protecting civil rights...working with the ACLU....in many ways, the NRA is the flip side of us, just in another political party. We could, of course, make them switch sides, simply by embracing ALL civil rights in the BoR, not just some. Hell, Jimmy Carter was a lifetime NRA member, and Bush I "resigned" his membership in the NRA, because the NRA was seriously considering expelling him from their membership.


There are a LOT of pro-gun Democrats out there. Robert Byrd is a pro-gun Democrat. So is Mark Warner. For many years, the NRA wasn't political at all. That changed when a small minority of very vocal Democrats started calling for gun control, and we foolishly went along with them. BTW, one point.....who leads the largest gun control group in the country? Sarah Brady. Who did her husband work for? Ronald Reagan. What was Jim Brady's political affiliation? Republican. And what was Sarah Brady's political affiliation before she switched it to "Independent"? Republican. Can you say "False Flag Operation"?

[Arianrhod]

17. "We could, of course, make them switch sides,

simply by embracing ALL civil rights in the BoR, not just some."

Each of those rights is subject to interpretation, which is the purpose of the Supreme Court. Some are more direct in their intent than others. The 1st and 2nd Amendments in particular are rather vaguely worded, and are therefore extremely controversial. The problem with the NRA, IMHO, is precisely the same as that with the Religious Right: They wish to stack the Court with biased extremists who will interpret the Constitution in nontraditional ways (in their favor, of course). This is why it is imperative that we have a balanced, moderate Court.

Meanwhile, the NRA continues to campaign for an administration that is systematically shredding the BoR, with the sole exception being the 2nd Amendment (which Ashcroft has already used to stop the FBI from investigating the 9-11 terrorists, claiming that they had the same right to their weapons as any American). You claim that you need these weapons to stop the government from usurping its power; so where the hell are you guys NOW? The government has usurped its power without firing a shot, and with barely a whimper from the "fear-of-government" gun-rights groups. Indeed, these groups are cheering the government on.

I find your suggestion difficult to believe. I don't think the NRA is on "our side" at all.

[DoNotRefill]

20. I'm here, on DU, the same as you, bitching about the government.

Please explain how Ashcroft stopped the FBI from investigating the 9/11 terrorists on Second Amendment grounds. IIRC, they used case cutters and airplanes, which are not normally under the scope of the Second Amendment.

The NRA is primarily concerned with the Second Amendment. That's it's reason for being. Expecting them to spearhead the fight for the rest of the BoR more than they have already (read the bit about the First Amendment and the ACLU again) is like expecting the AARP to come out against a law that deals only with preschool education.

My position is that we need to stack the courts with people who respect ALL civil rights, not just certain rights that certain groups want protected. That's SUPPOSED to be the check and balance that the courts place on other branches of government...they're supposed to balance the Executive and Legislative branch's tendency to restrict constitutional rights.


Regarding the Second Amendment being vaguely worded, horseshit. The Second Amendment enumerates a RIGHT (not a privilege), that right belongs to THE PEOPLE (not the States), and that right of the people SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It doesn't say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be UNREASONABLY infringed, rather that it shall not be infringed at all. What's unclear or vague about the words "right", "people", and "infringed"?

As for why we're not out in the streets shooting people, it's because we realize that the system can still work. Armed resistance is the absolute last-ditch defense against tyrrany, and is not to be entered into lightly. Most of us think that we can rectify the situation through the normal course of electing the government. Now if Bush (or anybody else, for that matter) were to suspend normal elections, well, that would obviously be an entirely different matter.

If we ever actually NEED to revolt against the government (which I hope never happens), it would have to be a widespread revolt, it would need to have popular backing, and the people revolting would need to have THE BEST WEAPONS AVAILABLE, not the best weapons that haven't been banned yet.

BTW, there are cases of individuals who have revolted on a small scale. Randy Weaver springs to mind. What happened there was ultimately a GOOD thing for the country, from a civil liberties perspective. (Did you just freak out? If so, please read all of what comes next before going ballistic.) Because of what happened at Ruby Ridge (which was under a Republican President, I'd remind you) there were congressional hearings held eventually, and the Committee found that the rules of engagement the government operated under were unconstitutional. There was an actual effort made to restrain the excesses made by the executive agencies from that point forward. I think Weaver's ideas about White Separatism were stupid and ridiculous. But EVERYBODY has a right to hold stupid and ridiculous beliefs, as long as they don't harm anybody. Weaver didn't harm anybody. He didn't like minorities, so he moved someplace where there were no minorities. BATF knew that he had met some other Christian Identity nutjobs (the Aryan Nations), and so they entrapped him (which is unconstitutional in and of itself) to try to force him to spy on them. He refused, so they went after him. I'd remind you that Weaver was found "not guilty" on the weapons charges that were originally brought against him, and the only charges he was convicted of was FTA. So where's the good from the situation? The executive agencies learned a very hard lesson, that pulling that kind of unconstitutional crap would come back to bite them in the collective asses. It made people sit up and say "hey, this right here is pretty f*cked up!" It should have started with what happened to MOVE in Philly, but it eventually was the OKC bombing (another indisputable act of rebellion) that triggered the hearings. When Americans start blowing up government buildings and killing government agents, the government NOTICES. It paid dividends, too. Look at how the DoJ handled the situation with the "Montana Freemen". They sat outside, and didn't kill anybody, until the Freemen surrendered. From a civil libertarian perspective, that's a HELL of a lot different (and better) than a government sniper shooting an unarmed woman with a baby literally in her arms in the head.

[Arianrhod]

27. I'm not sure just what your point is at the moment.

But I'll address a couple of your statements.

> "Please explain how Ashcroft stopped the FBI from investigating the 9/11 terrorists on Second Amendment grounds."

It was after the fact, when the FBI wanted to check to see if the terrorists had attempted to buy guns in the US. Ashcroft stopped them. In fact, Ashcroft is opposed to any law that inhibits terrorists from buying guns, on the basis that such a law would also inhibit citizens from doing so. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021202&s=bergman

http://www.galleryofguns.com/shootingtimes/Articles/DisplayArticles.asp?ID=5378

> "My position is that we need to stack the courts. . ."

Mine is that we don't need to stack the courts at all. Justices should be selected on the basis of a clear history of evenhandedness and as much impartiality as possible, rather than on an activist agenda of any stripe.

> "What's unclear or vague about the words 'right', 'people', and 'infringed'?"

The word "militia" in relation to "the state". This is particularly important when one considers that Article I of the Constitution clearly gives the federal government the right to both finance state militias and to call them up for federal service. Hence *'s sending the National Guard to Iraq. When one further considers that the original proposed amendment also covered hunting laws and the personal ownership of weapons--both of which stipulations were edited out of the final version--one is left with the sense that the way the NRA interprets the 2nd Amendment may not be exactly how the Founders meant it to be. Constitutional scholars and Supreme Court Justices have been arguing over this distinction for many decades, so there is an element of vagueness to it, regardless of how certain you may be of your own position.

> "As for why we're not out in the streets shooting people, it's because we realize that the system can still work."

You misunderstood my point. I merely observed that your plethora of guns did not deter the government one bit from imposing its unconstitutional agenda on the country. The argument that owning guns will stop this therefore falls a little flat in the face of reality.

> "and the people revolting would need to have THE BEST WEAPONS AVAILABLE"

Unless you own M1s and Bradleys, that's not going to help you.

Sorry, but I just don't buy the "I need a gun to protect me from the government" line.

[FeebMaster]

28. The Iraqis don't have M1s and Bradleys.

[Arianrhod]

31. But they do have RPGs, rockets and anti-tank weapons.

I trust you do not? :D

My argument still stands: An armed populace does not dissuade the government from oppressive measures.

[FeebMaster]

34. I don't.

But there isn't anything stopping me or you or pretty much anyone from buying RPGs and rockets. They're legal. I can't afford that sort of thing since regulations have driven up the prices. Not to mention you'd have to pay a $200 tax on every grenade for the RPG.

How does your argument still stand? The Iraqis are armed and they are resisting their occupation by a foreign power. Is the United States government dissuaded at this point? Not really. Give it time, guerrilla wars take time. It took what, ten years or more for the Soviets to pull out of Afghanistan?

[Arianrhod]

35. My argument still stands because

you have yet to address it. How did owning your guns stop the * administration from doing anything it has done over the last three years? I explicitly made the statement: "The government has imposed its agenda without firing a shot." All the guns in the country did nothing to prevent any of this, and the foremost gun-owners group is working hard to make sure this administration stays in power. The government doesn't need to turn America into Iraq in order to oppress the people.

[FeebMaster]

36. I'm not a gun owner, so my guns aren't going

to be doing anything anytime soon. It obviously takes more than just owning guns to stop the government from oppressing people. The people also have to have the will to use them. They also need to decide to actually start using them. At this point, Americans have decided that now is not the time to rise up in violent revolution and would apparently prefer to work within the electoral system. No one is saying that if the people own guns the government can't oppress them.

What does the NRA have to do with anything? For all the talk about how NRA working out of the oval office and how pro-gun Republicans are, they haven't repealed any federal firearms laws even though they control both houses of congress and the presidency. If there weren't gun control, the NRA would be out of luck. They'd have nothing to cry about to get new members. They'd be reduced to publishing magazines about guns and hunting and have basically no political power. The NRA doesn't want federal laws repealed. They want more gun laws to be passed.

[Arianrhod]

38. "No one is saying

that if the people own guns the government can't oppress them."

On the contrary, that's exactly what I've been told for decades. But the fact is, the average American is simply not interested in armed revolution. And the government knows this.

So it doesn't need to run tanks through the cities in order to keep the people in line. All it needs is a few thinktanks directing policy, ownership of the airwaves to spread the party line, and a lovable figurehead who stands as "one of the people" to give it all a good face, and the agenda can march along with no fear of a popular uprising.

I'm not arguing against gun ownership. I'm arguing against the main reason people give me for that ownership--a reason which, I believe, is entirely bogus.

[FeebMaster]

39. Well no one with any sense is arguing

that simply having guns will prevent government oppression.

"But the fact is, the average American is simply not interested in armed revolution. And the government knows this.

So it doesn't need to run tanks through the cities in order to keep the people in line. All it needs is a few thinktanks directing policy, ownership of the airwaves to spread the party line, and a lovable figurehead who stands as "one of the people" to give it all a good face, and the agenda can march along with no fear of a popular uprising."

I can't argue with any of that.

"I'm not arguing against gun ownership. I'm arguing against the main reason people give me for that ownership--a reason which, I believe, is entirely bogus."

Well I've never given that reason for gun ownership and I don't intend to start so you'll have to argue about it with someone else.

[Arianrhod]

58. "you'll have to argue about it with someone else."

Actually, that's what I was doing. You jumped in, remember? ;)

[FeebMaster]

60. I guess I did.

Sorry.

[Arianrhod]

63. Sorry for what?

We're just talking.

[DoNotRefill]

44. It hasn't reached the point....

that we should be blowing shit up yet. That option is the absolute last-ditch response to tyrrany. Prior to the outbreak of hostilites in the Revolutionary war, there was a long period of escalating tensions, during which the government became more and more repressive. The spark which ignited the tinderbox was a move by government troops to seize weapons from the people. You need to read more history.

[Arianrhod]

59. “You need to read more history.”

In 1789 the AntiFederalists, seeking to dismantle the new Constitution before it could be ratified, insisted on fielding over 40 changes to the document, 20 of which would be encapsulated in an inviolable Bill of Rights. This BoR essentially returned the vast majority of governmental power to the individual states. The 8th and 13th (IIRC) proposed amendments dealt with gun rights, and stipulated not only that states should be allowed to have militias, but that hunting rights and personal weapons ownership rights would not be infringed under any conditions. In fact, the amendments forbade Congress from even making laws concerning them. The Federalists—notably Jefferson but especially Madison, who actually wrote the stuff—wanted nothing to do with this. But they knew that if they didn’t throw a sop to the Antis, the whole edifice was in danger of collapsing. So they reluctantly included 10 of the amendments that the Antis had demanded. The final version that became the 2nd Amendment was gutted, leaving only the right of states to field militias, and saying nothing about individual ownership rights. However, Article I of the Constitution left the financing, regulation, and command of these militias under the auspices of the federal government. Thus, there is some vagueness to this provision.

Yes, I have read a little history. But it never hurts to know a little more. :)

[DoNotRefill]

64. You need to do a little more research...

because much of the debate over the wording of the Second Amendment centered around the exception for religious contientious objectors who didn't want to be FORCED to own firearms. See House Debates related to the Second Amendment Annals of Congress, Aug 17, 20, 1789, Vol 1. pp. 749-52, 766-67, as extracted in "The Founders' Constitution (Kurland & Lerner eds.).

Also you might take a gander at The Federalist No. 29 by Hamilton.

You're right that it never hurts to know a little more. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as you've demonstrated.

[DoNotRefill]

43. Speak for yourself...

I used to own a RPG antitank weapon legally. I ended up selling it because I was tired of lugging it around. If I needed to, I could buy another one. The taxes on the ammo sucks, but it's "do-able".

[DoNotRefill]

42. But the 9/11 terrorists didn't use guns at all, did they?

"It was after the fact, when the FBI wanted to check to see if the terrorists had attempted to buy guns in the US. Ashcroft stopped them. In fact, Ashcroft is opposed to any law that inhibits terrorists from buying guns, on the basis that such a law would also inhibit citizens from doing so."

Terrorists are by law prohibited from buying guns, just as all felons are prohibited from possessing or buying guns. In other words, what you're claiming Ashcorft did is already statutorily illegal, and has been so since the 1960's.

"Mine is that we don't need to stack the courts at all. Justices should be selected on the basis of a clear history of evenhandedness and as much impartiality as possible, rather than on an activist agenda of any stripe."

In my opinion, you're wrong. Part of the role of the courts is to provide a vital check and balance against the other two branches of government.

"The word "militia" in relation to "the state". This is particularly important when one considers that Article I of the Constitution clearly gives the federal government the right to both finance state militias and to call them up for federal service. Hence *'s sending the National Guard to Iraq. When one further considers that the original proposed amendment also covered hunting laws and the personal ownership of weapons--both of which stipulations were edited out of the final version--one is left with the sense that the way the NRA interprets the 2nd Amendment may not be exactly how the Founders meant it to be. Constitutional scholars and Supreme Court Justices have been arguing over this distinction for many decades, so there is an element of vagueness to it, regardless of how certain you may be of your own position."

There are so many inconsistencies here that I don't know where to start. Let's start with the National Guard. First of all, the National Guard is a reserve element of the standing army, NOT a part of the militia as mentioned in the Constitution. If it WERE part of the constitutionally mentioned militia, then the State governors would constitutionally have the power to appoint it's officers, which is emphatically NOT the case. Secondly, when actually discussing the right enumerated, the Second Amendment uses the word "people", which the authors were clearly able to distinguish from the State or States. Also, the well regulated militia bit isn't an operative part of the sentence, it's explanatory. No rights are enumerated in the well regulated militia clause. Where the right IS enumerated, it uses the words "right" and "people", which would make a mentally competent person think that there was a right and it belongs to the people, not a privilege that belongs to the state. A is not like B, a right is not a privilege, and the People are not the states.

"Unless you own M1s and Bradleys, that's not going to help you."

When the Americans started the Revolutionary War, we had no navy, no cavalry, and no artillery, while the British had a state of the art military machine. By your line of reasoning, we should have lost the revolution. Guerillas rarely win wars. Governments fighting guerillas regularly lose wars.

[Arianrhod]

62. I'm having trouble following your line of reasoning.

Still, I'll continue to answer as best I can. (Ich bin alt und dumm.) :)

> Terrorists are by law prohibited from buying guns, just as all felons are prohibited from possessing or buying guns. In other words, what you're claiming Ashcorft did is already statutorily illegal, and has been so since the 1960's.

You’ve so confused the issue here that I have no idea what you really mean. Ashcroft stopped the FBI from investigating the gun-buying habits of known terrorists. He used the 2nd Amendment as justification. Pretty straightforward remark, I should think.

> In my opinion, you're wrong. Part of the role of the courts is to provide a vital check and balance against the other two branches of government.

So if the Court is stacked with representatives of one ideology or another, what’s to make them check the actions of a government that also follows that ideology? A situation, I might add, that we face today. The only way to logically provide checks and balances against a changing executive and legislative branch is to appoint a balanced unchanging judicial branch. I don’t want a left-wing Court anymore than I want a right-wing one. I want one that injects at least a little bit of reason into its constitutional decisions, rather than one that is pursuing some private ideological agenda.

> There are so many inconsistencies here that I don't know where to start.

Ditto.

> First of all, the National Guard is a reserve element of the standing army, NOT a part of the militia as mentioned in the Constitution.

Um, no.

“The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias. . . . However, recognizing the militia's state role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment of officers and training of the militia to the states. Today's National Guard still remains a dual state-Federal force. . . . Throughout the 19th century the size of the Regular Army was small, and the militia provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican War, the early months of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. In 1903, important national defense legislation increased the role of the National Guard (as the militia was now called) as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army.” http://www.ngb.army.mil/about/

> Also, the well regulated militia bit isn't an operative part of the sentence, it's explanatory.

Not according to the 9th Circuit Court:
http://www.google.de/search?q=cache:wETfbl7uikYJ:caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0115098p.pdf++%22well+regulated+militia%22+defin&hl=de&ie=UTF-8

There are three cases regarding individual ownership of weapons that have been heard by the Supreme Court: Miller (1939); Lewis (1980); and Printz (2002). Only the last case departed from what the Circuit Court describes as the traditional understanding of the 2nd Amendment, which is that, in order to be protected under the Constitution, a weapon had to have some usefulness in a state militia. The third case affirmed instead an individual’s right to ownership. Keep in mind that this was done under the Rehnquist/Scalia/Thomas Court, amid much lobbying in Congress by the NRA. The NRA has spent much time and energy changing people’s perceptions about the 2nd Amendment, which until late in the past century were quite different. And the reactionary Court currently sitting was more than happy to go along with that new definition.

> By your line of reasoning, we should have lost the revolution.

If we hadn’t had outside help (like from, say, the French), we very well might have. Who's to say?

> Guerillas rarely win wars. Governments fighting guerillas regularly lose wars.

Um, no offense, but--Whaaaaat???????

[Occulus]

54. easy answer for one of your points

"The NRA is primarily concerned with the Second Amendment. That's it's reason for being. Expecting them to spearhead the fight for the rest of the BoR more than they have already (read the bit about the First Amendment and the ACLU again) is like expecting the AARP to come out against a law that deals only with preschool education."

Sooooo.... encourage them to change their name to the National Rights Organization (NRA). Same acronym, same base membership, widened focus of their goal to preserving ALL the rights of ALL Americans, WITH arms to back those rights. Against our own government, if need be.

Isn't that what the BoR is for?

[DoNotRefill]

57. I thought that was what the ACLU was for....

And the NRA originally was a shooter's educational organization.

Why do they need to change their orientation? They have enough trouble defending their one amendment to the BoR.

[kiahzero]

37. And why did Sarah Brady lead the charge?

Maybe because Jim Brady is in a wheelchair from the assassination attempt on Reagan?

Did that occur to you before you started trying to spin a silly conspiracy theory?

[DoNotRefill]

45. Don't you find it odd...

that the wife of a prominent Republican would head an organization which uses a Republican as a poster child and that has cost the Democrats so very much?

The Republicans are gleefully selling us the ropes we use to hang ourselves.

[The Traveler]

11. I'm not a member either

I was for a short time, many years ago, but they are just not my style. The gun thing is too important to them. I own guns. I know how to use them. Quite well, actually. But gun ownership rights has never been one of my top issues. That, however, might be changing.

I am in a quandry about gun control. On the one hand, I think everyone should be armed ... just in case. On the other hand, there are too many whackos out there with guns. It is a contradictory set of convictions which I have never resolved successfully.

Right now, I'm leaning heavily towards gun ownership rights because I think a well armed citizenry is more difficult to subdue. An implication is that I think the desire to subdue is keenly felt in certain quarters.

But when Clinton was in the White Hourse, I felt less committed to gun ownership rights. I guess that is because it was always clear Clinton never desired to be President Life/World Leader for Life whereas I am not sure about George Bush. I think he wants to be Emperor. It is possible we may see the scenario you pose in one form or another ... the Brownshirt thing. If that happens, we can expect them to focus their violence on certain groups.

I have no intention, for example, of standing idly by if a pogrom is launched against gays. I will defend them, help them fight back. (Most gays and lesbians I know hate violence but will definitely not go gently into that good night.) If that makes me a bad person in your eyes, sobeit ... but I dount seriously I am the only straight guy here that feels that way about it.

So I guess now I think we should all have the right to own a gun, and accept all the problems that implies, simply because we never know when the next neo-conservative asswipe will make his power grab. In that sense, George Bush has convinced me to agree with the NRA on certain points ... though I doubt he would take it as a compliment.

[alittlelark]

16. We should indeed all be armed

our forefathers wanted us to be .....to prevent exactly the power grab now coming to fruition.

They did not envision 2000 lb bombs.

We are in an extremely different and deeply distubing realm than that which they imagined. I do not have a military mind-I seek to mitigate damage. But those in power do.

What will they stop at?

How far is TOO far?

ARE WE THERE YET????

I will defend my gun with itself.

[The Traveler]

18. They can't use 2000lbs bombs here

it would damage their investments. And don't think for a minute the majority of the military would go along with a coup and turn weapons on a rising citizenry.

But this talk is premature. Violent resistance becomes necessary only when violence is employed here to achieve political objectives (i.e. disruption of an election, overturning the results of an election, etc.) So far that hasn't happened. So let's work our asses off to get Bush out of office and hope it doesn't.

In the meantime, practice and keep yer weapons oiled.

[alittlelark]

52. YET.

I hope it remains so, but I have lost what little trust I had in Am. civility a coupla years ago.

I have 2 cousins in the Reserves (1in Kuwait). I know they would never turn firepower upon their countrymen.........but I have spent tooooo much time in sites that discuss the 'legitimate use' of mind-control to feel reassured.

Did my Masters in Psy years ago - they were still discussing it then.

[DoNotRefill]

56. Ever hear of MOVE in Philly?

They bombed them from a helicopter, levelling a pretty big area of the city...

[hiphopnation]

6. Can someone post this picture for me and then tell me how it's done?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040417/480/gjp10104172351

[No2W2004]

9. heres what to do.....

left clik on the pic and go to "Properties". then copy the 'Address (URL)' section and paste it in the message like this:

ttp://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040417/capt.gjp10104172351.nra_convention_cheney_gjp101.jpg

and you should get this:

[Lefty48197]

7. Bring it on.

My brain can beat your gun any day, gun boy.

[The Traveler]

14. Indeed ... the brain is the ultimate weapon!

But forgive me if I insist on being ready to lay down cover fire while ya go to work.

:yourock:

[DoNotRefill]

22. Ummm....

I'll refrain from posting graphic photographs of examples where bullets met brains to demonstrate that brains don't beat guns. But they DO exist. You might check out http://www.ogrish.com if you want to be sick.

[FDRrocks]

8. The NRA is not the goddamned SA at all

They are not the tool of a single party. They believe in the right to own guns, many join the NRA duee to fear of the gov't gone awry.

The past 3 years has shown this fear to be legitimate. If we try to overthrow this corrupt government the undemocraticcaly elected military would follow the orders of the very government we want to overthrow. What would we do? A result like the 1991 Soviet Union coup would be the probably unattainble best case scenario.

[NervousRex]

12. My point was,...

...that the NRA is a Republican organization...OK let's throw out the handful of libertarians and ass-kicking liberals....look at who they support politically, and which politicians support them. This is not a guns rights issue...I support gun ownership, as I own them myself. This is a political issue, and the NRA is a politically motivated group with far right connections and ambitions. This is a group which could potentially be mobilized physically to the benefit of a party, namely the Republicans. Whether this will happen is the point of discussion.

[FeebMaster]

13. Whatever power the NRA has could easily

be neutralized if the Democratic party would support gun rights. I'm not talking "support" like the Republicans support them either. I mean come out and say they want to repeal some federal gun laws type support. If the NRA didn't want to endorse that, well then everyone will see that the NRA is only interested in electing Republicans.

[TexasMexican]

23. Ass Kicking Liberals.

So do our people feel safe at night knowing that only a "handful of asskicking liberals," are the only ones who will be able to put up any kind of resistance when they do come for us?

[DoNotRefill]

24. Doesn't Robert Byrd have an NRA "A" rating?

I KNOW Howard Dean does...Jimmy Carter is a lifetime NRA member, and JFK was also a NRA member. George Bush the First used to be a NRA member, but he resigned, because the NRA was talking about expelling him.

It's amazing. If a politician from ANY party wants the NRA to support them, all they have to do is support the Second Amendment. Funny how that works...

BTW, in case you didn't know it, the NRA actually has a policy of who they support. PArty affiliation doesn't enter into it. If both candidates are pro-Second Amendment, they'll endorse both. If both candidates are neutral, they'll endorse neither. If both candidates are against, they'll rate them accordingly. If an incumbent is running against a challenger, and they both have the same rating, they'll support the incumbent, even if the challenger is a Republican and the incumbent is a Democrat. This happens every election cycle where I am. We have a Democratic Congrssional Representative, who is reasonably pro-gun. He has an NRA "A" rating. Last time out, his Republican challenger had an "A+" rating. The NRA endorsed the Democrat, and is a large part of why he retained his seat.

[Paladin]

40. PROVE IT

It's common, well-documented knowledge that Bush the First departed the NRA over the "Jackbooted Thugs" remark. The notion that he would give up his membership because he was about to be expelled doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The NRA dumping a sitting Republican president? Yeah, right. Back up your statement or retract it.

And this goofy notion that the NRA is party-neutral is about to be shit-canned in a big way. A few days ago it was announced that the NRA was setting up its own media machine to promote its viewpoints. The person selected to head up this effort? A ranter from a right-wing hate radio station in Oklahoma City. The NRA's media operation is going to make Fox News look like Pravda......

[FeebMaster]

41. Please.

Bush the First only joined the NRA when he ran for president. Why would an organization that is supposedly around to fight for gun rights even allow him to become a member? He was grabbing guns before I was born.

[DoNotRefill]

46. Ah, yes, the NRA LOVED Bush the First....

Especially after his 1989 EO banning certain guns by presidential fiat. The pro-gunners helped Bush in '88, and he paid them back in true political fashion, by playing "fuck your buddy."

BTW, Bush resigned his membership AFTER he left office. His comments about NRA fundraising were the straw that broke the camel's back. There was talk about expelling him in 1990, but after he got his panties in a knot, the movement was growing. And in case you missed it, gun owners did NOT support Bush in 1992, which is a large part of the reason that Clinton won.

[fujiyama]

49. While it's true

that some prominent democrats are either members or are supported by the NRA (John Dingell is one...the good congressman from MI).

However, the board is filled with right wing nuts. I can't have any respect for any organization that has Ted fuckin Nugent on its board -- fuckin racist bastard.

Same goes with some of the other board members. The organization's rhetoric is extreme and ridiculous. They don't seem to have any concern for any of the other bill of rights...and they don't care about racism or bigotry as evidenced by their board members.

[DoNotRefill]

50. Why aren't you complaining about the AARP....

not standing up for full Head Start funding?

The NRA is a Second Amendment group. That's what they do. That's ALL they do. If an issue doesn't have some kind of Second Amendment tie-in, why is it suddenly the NRA's job to deal with it?

That's like going to an ice cream parlor, and bitching because they don't sell power tools.

[fujiyama]

53. Bullshit

They aren't just a "second ammendment group". Their leadership is filled with idiots that toe the Bush line on just about everything. Their overall agenda is the same as most right wing groups -- espousing bigotry (homophobia and racism) and cultural conservatism.

I don't have to respect them. If they stuck to guns, I'd leave them the fuck alone, but I've heard their members (Cheston, etc al) make comments regarding other issues as well. Their faux libertarian stance is bullshit, as is the case with most so called libertarians.

The AARP OTOH doesn't have Ted Nugent on its board of directors, though it too is in the hand of the right. If they have open racists running the organization, then let me know. As of now, I don't really care for them either.

[DoNotRefill]

55. Please link....

to an NRA anti-homosexual site or link of any kind. Please link to a NRA site or article where they advocate disarming minorities.

I know FOR A FACT that NRA firearms instructors work with Pink Pistol chapters all over the country, teaching homosexuals how to defend themselves with guns. As the Pink Pistols say, "Armed gays don't get bashed."

Charleton Heston marched with MLK in the early 1960's, far before civil rights became an "in" Hollywood cause.

The ONLY Jim Crow law still on the Federal books and being enforced is the National Firearms Act of 1934. Can you name a SINGLE FUCKING LAW that requires people to get the approval of their Chief of Police to exercise a constitutional right OTHER than the NFA '34???

In case you missed it, personal self-defense is ESPECIALLY important for minorities. Also, in case you missed it, gun control in the US historically has ALWAYS been about DISARMING minorities. I'd suggest you read "Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876" by Stephen P. Halbrook. Or, watch Bowling For Columbine, Michael Moore touches on the racist roots of gun control. You also might read stuff written by Cottrol, he goes into detail about where gun control came from, and the importance of the second Amendment for African-Americans. And if you read the caselaw, as recently as the 1940's, a State Supreme Court ruled that Concealed Weapons laws DID NOT APPLY TO WHITES, SINCE THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF THE LAW WAS TO DISARM ONLY MINORITIES.

You seem to be able to completely ignore the history of gun control, or else you simply haven't educated yourself on how and why gun control came into being in the US.

Gun control advocates often talk about not wanting to disarm the American people, but wanting "to keep guns out of the wrong hands." Unfortunately, the "wrong hands" they're trying to keep guns out of the hands of seem to be predominantly black hands. Don't believe me? Look at places with the strictest gun control laws on the books. Then look at the demographics of the people who inhabit those places. You'll find out that the places with the strictest gun control laws almost ALL have the highest percentage of minorities in them of anyplace in the US.

Yeah, the NRA is a racist organization. Sure. After all, racists want African-Americans to be able to go into a gun store and buy seriously lethal hardware, so that when the racists come around in their white hoods to burn crosses and lynch minorities, the minorities can simply shoot their asses dead. Sure. Uh huh. RIIIIIIGHT.

There's certainly some hidden racism in the debate about the Second Amendment. But it sure as shit is NOT coming from the people who want EVERYBODY to have equal access to guns. It's coming from the fuckwads who want to disarm minorities, WHATEVER their so-called reasons are.

[havocmom]

65. Your description of the NRA also fits AARP, the current trend in the

Sierra Club. Probably coming soon to more and more organizations which were meant to be advocacy groups on certain issues and now being taken over by stealth neocon shills, not unlike what is happening in many local school boards.

It is not the organization which is like the SA. It is a planned movement to take leadership positions in groups and then use them to advance an agenda not in line with the original proposes of a group.

The problem is not necessarily the NRA, which also does much to promote education for safe gun handling and sponsers shooting competitions. The real problem is that the radical right slips puppets into positions of influence in many organizations. They are working hard to remove some of the instruments of making changes in America by taking them over. IMHO

[delhurgo]

15. A couple quotes:

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." - Adolph Hitler, 1935 From here: http://www.ycsi.net/users/gunsmith/quotes.htm

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall." (Adolf Hitler) http://www.mcsm.org/genocide.html

§1
Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation. http://www.aidoann.com/guncontrol.html

[DoNotRefill]

25. the first quote...

has been proved to be false. Hitler didn't say that, at least in a way that can be independently verified.

I'm pro-gun. Using fake quotes does our side no good. We've got logic on our side, so there's no need to perpetuate myths.

Now there IS an excellent piece out there that compares the Nazi gun control laws to the GCA '68. I think Halbrook wrote it, but I'm not sure. It's fully documented.

[mitchum]

19. The NRA is no longer concerned about gun owner's rights..

lowlife dirtbag Wayne La Pierre has turned it into a slush fund for the GOP.

[Texican]

26. mixed record

I think that if you ever talked to a group of NRA members, you might be surprised. We have some real problems with a lot of things that the organization has done. They have also done some good things. I guess it is sort of like our government. It has been an organization of "country club republicans" for a long time.
I guess in a strange way they are being proven right. The Iraqis are proving that the right of individuals to own military style weapons can stop a foreign invader.

[Frangible]

21. Oh, that's so weak.

NRA members aren't "thuggish", although they may be well armed. I challenge you to back up your words, if you feel they are worth asserting. To compare them to the SA is ridiculous and quite ignorant of what the SA were.

Congratulations, you just invoked Godwin's law in your initial argument.

Shit, look at the direction this country is headed and who's leading it. Maybe you should think about getting some guns of your own, the way the right wing is trying to suppress our rights and fuck up fair voting. Who needs those silly trials anyway?

[JanMichael]

29. I could see them trying to do that. But there are enough sane NRA types...

...to nullify the Fascists.

On a side note I'm a gun owning Leftist so much the better:-)

[kwolf68]

30. NRA

Pounds their membership with paranoidal diatribes comparing the most benign of gun laws to Nazi Germany.

The problem with these people is they don’t admit there are some limitations to the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Just as one can not libel another or yell “fire” in a theater, one can not fully “exercise” his “2nd amendment” rights.

Of course, taken to its most illogical interpretation, the 2nd amendment would mean the “right to bear” surface to air missles, bazookas, tanks, machine guns, etc. Back when the amendment was written individuals possessed single loaded muskets. You could take out one person oh…about every 25 seconds or so. Just as we saw yelling fire in a crowed theater wasn’t “conducive to the 1st amendment” our nation opted to interpret the amendment as to acquiesce to the will of the public.

I am not for banning guns, however, gun controls are well within reason of the amendment. While we like to opine about “the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed” we seem to ignore “a well regulated militia.” Does “well regulated” mean just a bunch of people with guns?

Whatever the case, interpretation of amendments from a strict perspective can be shown to be folly when taken to their most illogical conclusions as demonstrated by my SAM example.

Times change. A nation of mostly rural people dispersed about with single shot muskets is far different from a nation of 280 million people who now possess the technology to eliminate hundreds (even thousands) of people within just a few seconds. Just as society and our nation evolve so to should the interpretations of the rules that govern it.

The inability to project moderation in their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment render the NRA more a foolish club than a viable protector and guarantor of freedom.

[FeebMaster]

33. Which gun laws are benign? (nt)

[DoNotRefill]

47. Same deal with printing presses, the Internet, and the First Amendment.

"The internet doesn't involve a printing press. As such, it shouldn't be covered by the First Amendment, since the founding fathers weren't talking about instant national communications networks. Only things printed on manual printing presses are covered by the first amendment protection of freedom of the press."

Doesn't that sound stupid?

[jmowreader]

51. A well-regulated militia

I am not for banning guns, however, gun controls are well within reason of the amendment. While we like to opine about the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed we seem to ignore a well regulated militia. Does well regulated mean just a bunch of people with guns?

It means a bunch of people with guns and with leadership.

Today's exercise: Watch The Warriors. It is a charming tale. Each of the gangs in the New York City of The Warriors was a well-regulated militia--a handful of troops with a leader and a mission. (The Warriors even had reconnaissance elements.) The "one gang" Cyrus was trying to form would have been a small army. "Forty thousand soldiers. Now there ain't but twenty thousand police in the whole town. Can you dig it?"

[citizen snips]

32. My dad is a member of the NRA.

And he will be voteing for Kerry. :)

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

48. Freepers are like the SA

They come closest to what the SA used to do during the Wiemar Republic, which is to act as a group of disruptors...disrupting the oppositions meetings and tearing down their posters and intimidating those who spoke out.

"Freeping" a poll is a very SA-like thing to do.

[PATRICK]

61. Board of Directors

Take a look at the incestuous right wing invasion of non-profits, advocacy groups etc. The NRA has the usual suspects on the board and shelters political agendas that have nothing primarily to do with guns. Memberships even in the AARP, hell, even the DLC, don't guarantee that the whole shebang can't be hijacked by spokesmen and boards infested by trolls of basically one stripe.

It is hard to get rid of a topdown infestation. members can't believe the problem anymore than Americans think themselves victim of a self-centered coup. The "issue" becomes a shield as well as a sham. However the members can by AWOL if the leadership goes too far, which the NRA did when attacking the FBI. That was their low point. Whether they have fully recovered from that self inflicted blow(even Bush elder chewed them out over the "jack-booted thugs" remark) I don't know, except Ashcroft was seething with barely restrained animosity of exactly the same ideological bent at the 911 hearings.

PNAC members, corporate boards, think tanks. Lord, do these schmoes draw a salary from ALL of those jobs? That leaves them mainly squatters preventing the groups from functioning properly, mustering mainly for the type of blowhard intimidation and propaganda they hope some idiot following will respect. One might take some heart from the fact these talentless hatemongers can't really accomplish the really nefarious conspiracies the more creative minds at DU dream up for them. But they definitely unite a lot of misled groupings in a one track juggernaut over the apathetic.

[enki23]

66. nra may have members from both parties. so fucking what.

http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp2.asp?state=VA&txtName=National+Rifle+Assn&txtCycle=2002