As amazing as this sounds, the NRA backed gun control....

Post Reply New Topic

Have a look at this:

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/win ... -1.3865217

I was surprised too.

I did some research. Back when the Black Panthers started toting guns so they could defend themselves against a racist White establishment, the Republican right wing had a panic attack. Holy sh*t. A Ni**er with a gun. At that point the NRA did a turnaround on the question of whether the 2nd Amendment asserted individual rights to bear arms...


ruven

Good work finding this!

Yes, the NRA has a squirrely history on what they've termed "reasonable gun control" over the years. I have stash of vintage NRA magazines(American Rifleman) that I picked up somewhere that go back to the 1940's and up to the 1980's. In the early half of that period there are NRA pleas for "reasonable gun control". Personally, I don't believe in anything that can't be reasonable being reasonable.
The NRA's biggest strength is it's size and influence compared to other pro-gun organizations (e.g. GOA, JPFO, etc..) but that size also makes is more of a bureaucracy and with that all the double-talk, deal-making, back-stabbing, and general squirreliness that always accompanies bureaucracies.

Yes, I'm an NRA member and have credentials as an NRA certified Range Safely Officer (RSO).

This is why I was saying the NRA sucks.

The NRA backed the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, and then made the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, which revoked a few parts of the 1968 GCA, but banned new registration of machine guns (not as dangerous as it sounds, prior to the ban, $200 tax stamp per machine gun, can't go out of state or transfer it to anyone else without ATF authorization/tax stamp, etc) in the bill.

The NRA doesn't care about the Second Amendment at all. It is merely a lobbying agency for gun companies. Gun companies are behind gun control much of the time. For example, Walther backed the GCA of 1968. Why? Because the 1968 Gun Control Act had a points system for importation of pistols, with features like loaded chamber indicators adding points. Walther was one of the few manufacturers in Europe that had pistols, especially pocket pistols, that would be importable to USA. So the law got rid of Walther's competition. This also helped US gun companies immensely, as the law only banned imports of said pistols, so to fill the cheap pocket pistol gap, lots of US companies started making cheap pocket pistols (that were much worse quality than the European ones) later known as "Saturday Night Specials."

Even with the Assault Weapons ban (not the 1994 one, but a prior one from I believe 1989, I think) things played like this. The law banned importation of rifles with "evil" features, but not manufacture by a US company. So, let's say you want a semi auto AK-47. You have to import the rifle in parts, everything but the receiver, and now (circa 2009 or so) the barrel. The rifle must have less than 10 imported "parts" so you have to buy US, or someone must manufacture the gun with the less than 10 US made parts. So you have to do silly things like buy US made gas pistons, pistol grips, handguards, whatever, to be legal. But of course, US gun companies LOVE this, as it makes them a ton of cash, as the Europeans or Asians can't just import a whole gun over here undercut the American market. I'd even venture to say the low capacity magazine thing (which is sunsetted, though the import ban is not) was done to make some cash, too, as you're forced to buy a new manufactured 10 round mag, otherwise old 20 or 30 round military surplus magazines would be used instead. Why? Because they're cheaper! G3 rifle magazines were going for like $2-3 each a few years ago.

The GCA of 1968 was largely passed due to the Black Panthers and whatnot. The 1934 Firearms Act was passed to make poor people not able to own guns, too. It banned sawed off shotguns and rifles. Is it because sawed off rifles and shotguns are incredibly more dangerous than pistols? No, because poor people couldn't afford pistols, and would saw down a shotgun or rifle to get the same purpose done. Also, the $200 tax stamp (as back then the Supreme Court thought Congress couldn't actually ban any items, just tax) on machineguns and whatnot kept them even more out of the hands of poor folks, not that a machinegun was cheap anyway (A Thompson SMG was like $400 in 1934) But yes, the NRA supported the National Firearms Act. With the later 1986 machine gun ban, it worked GREAT for rich folks, as they were rich enough to legally buy machine guns, and prices went way up. Now they're down somewhat due to the economy (it's a luxury purchase,) but a Thompson that went for like $800 in the 80s went for like $20,000 in 2008 or so.

So, yes, the NRA endorses gun control. Yes, gun control in America is mainly aimed at keeping guns in rich folks hands. I mean, about half the population reports owning a gun. But they don't want "other people" they don't like owning guns. Whether this be minorities, felons, mentally ill, or just plain poor people, it's very easy to pass gun control using the fear of "other people" with guns.

No, I don't want gun control. In fact I believe anyone who's of legal age and not under court supervision, order or control should be legally allowed to own any guns he wants.

The NRA have always wanted white republican men to own and carry guns, and everyone else to be unarmed. As far as I know, that has changed somewhat in recent years, but I'm not entirely sure.

The NRA aren't the be and end all, just like the anti pressure groups, there is sensible debate to be had here.

It isn't always about lobbies, but individuals. There are probably some good ideas that are going to be lost due to mutual suspicion and entrenched views.

It is fair to say, and I'm not specially talking about guns here, that there are some attitudes that are post war, which many people think have always been that way. A lot of mindsets are more contemporary than people think, however they can get stuck like a broken record.

The newsday piece was based on an earlier Atlantic article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ns/308608/

Far more interesting and nunanced things in that article.