Why I joined the N.R.A.

My parents both have concealed weapons permits and typically carry. I concur with them because they tend to be in low population areas, and being older, are likely targets for criminals.

I live in a high density area and have three kids in a small house. The only "gun" I have is a break barrel air-rifle pellet gun that none of them could even cock. But if you look at all the guns my Dad and I own, it's over twenty, some of them antiques that belonged to my grandfather.

I use them for hunting and target practice. Every single one of them has its own unique purpose, however, if anyone of us were accused of doing anything wrong in the eyes of the law, the media would undoubtedly report on the "seizure of a small arsenal of guns". They do it all the time. Note I say accused. Bastards, I say.

Seems to me that you do not understand that my post was specifically directed at the owners of many guns, and the disingenuous position they take with the right to keep and bear arms, as members of a well regulated militia. The second amendment does not prohibit the regulation of arms; in fact, it asserts the necessity a priori.



As is the necessity to regulate them.



Apart from the problem of establishing intent, which is a very large can of worms, it would do well to keep this statement in mind when quoting the second amendment by pointedly leaving out the first clause:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . .

That does not read: an unregulated right to buy any damned arm i want, in whatever quantity i can afford.



With your "RTKABA" (why the capitalization, trying to drive the point home with a 16 lb. sledge?), you are once again ignoring the first clause of the second amendment, quoted above. The reliable figure i have read is that 70,000 Charleville model 1777 muskets were given to the United States by France. The Continental line never even nearly approached such numbers--even subtracting normal wastage, that is still good evidence that tens of thousands of those excellent firearms ended up in the hands of the militia, addtional to the tens of thousands of East India Company patent "Brown Bess" muskets which had been supplied us during the French and Indian, when the largest armies ever assembled in North America were formed to fight the French. We got a lot of artillery by taking it from the English (as at Ticonderoga) and they got it right back in the same manner (as at Forts Lee and Washington, on the northern end of Manhattan Island, and across the river). The French provided artillery as well, but there already was a good deal of field artillery in militia arsenals, and it went right back to them at war's end. I can't for the life of me imagine what would lead anyone to state that there were "a cadre of well-trained cavalry." The only significant cavalry commander of the war was William Washington, who entered the southern campaign with 100 dragoons (mounted heavy infantry) which were reinforced by 200 mounted miliamen. "Light Horse Harry" Lee (father of Robert Lee) also had a small band which was reinforced by drafts of mounted militia during his operations. When he took the British fort at Sandy Hook, his most famous exploit, his men were dismounted and carrying mustkets with bayonets fixed. Lee made a point of making sure the charges had been drawn from all the muskets so that no one would fire his piece and alert the garrison--this is to be found in many sources, and assures the contention that he made the assault with his men on foot. Although both Lee and Washington were quite good with dragoons and mounted militia, that is not grounds for speaking of a cadre of well-trained cavalry. Note also that the militia gained as much experience in mounted operations under the command of Lee and Washington as did the Continental Dragoons. The first mounted establishment of the United States Army was the First Regiment of Dragoons--mounted infantry. Even though a cavalry regiment was established not long thereafter, it was not until well after the Mexican War that Jefferson Davis, as Secretary of War, established a second cavalry regiment.

I don't believe you can establish reliably a statement that the United States government enjoyed either a preponderance of forces or of expertise and experience in comparison to the state militias when the first Congress proposed the fourth amendement, which was the second amendment to be ratified. Both Jefferson and his successor, Madison (a superior intellect who fawned over the self-promoter) had a crackpot notion that the nation could be defended by militia and a gun boat navy. The sailors and Marines of the gun boat navy fought heroically in the War of 1812, after their pathetic vessels had been sent to the bottom or captured by the Royal Navy. The militia was appalling. At Queenstown in December 1812, Van Rensalear (sp?) and Winfield Scott could not evactuate the wounded across the Niagara river becaue able-bodied members of the New York militia were pushing them aside to board the batteaus and get the hell out of the battle. At Bladensburg in Maryland in 1814, charged to defend the nation's capital from about 2,000 British veterans of Wellington's penninsular campaign (and probably not that many), 7,000 Virginia and Maryland militiamen threw down their arms and ran. A few hundred sailors and a handful of Marines then fought the Brits to a standstill while the government evacuated Washington (and little Dolly Madison packed up the paintings), the Marines fighting until the sun went down, marching away with all their dead an wounded. Of the 400 to 500 sailors there, no one knows with any assurance how many survived, because all of their officers were shot down. One of the British officers wrote home that ". . . they continued to serve the guns even after all of their officers had been killed or wounded, and we were among them with the bayonet." At New Orleans, the Kentucky and Tennesse volunteers, and the Creole and French militia from the Crescent City dealt a stunning and bloody defeat to the veterans of Wellington, including shooting down their commander, Packenham--on the east side of the river. The sailors and Marines served the guns salvaged from the predictably sunken gun boat fleets, and again, the Brits provide the evidence of the deadliness of their fire. On the west side of the river, the Kentucky militia threw down their arms and ran.

It is an absurdity to characterize the United States in 1787 as possessing a large and professional military with which to overawe the populace. It understandable that such a notion would persist, however, given the near hysteria of those like Jefferson who constantly preached the virtue of the militia in protecting us from centralized tyranny. Had not a very professional navy been established under the administrations of Washington and John Adams, and a very small corps of officers and nco's with high professional standards, as well as a military academy, it is highly unlikely that any serious campaign could have been conducted in Canada, or that we could have avoided the capture of Baltimore, Washington and New Orleans. That Washington was captured and burned, but the government were able to escape with their records, is due to the professionalism of a few hundred sailors and the ceremonial Marine detachment from the Capitol, despite the institutional cowardice of the militia. The handful of examples in which the militia have performed well are exceptions which prove the rule that in our nation's history, the militia has been more a liability than an asset. Volunteers and a high standard of professionalism in the military establishment have made this nations strong, not the militia. The two notable occasions upon which they performed well in the Revolution are Saratoga and Hannah's Cowpens. Ironically, at Saratoga, they flocked to the army because they wanted to serve under Benedict Arnold. At Cowpens, Old Dan Morgan went around to them and told them: "Just give me two good fires and then you can skeedaddle." (The quote may be apocryphal, but that is an accurate description of precisely what they did.) Exceptional leadership, such as Prescott and Stark at Bunker Hill, and Arnold and Morgan as already mentioned, have left us with a few militia actions to point to with pride.

In all of this, note that my original comments were on the disingenuous positions of those who own and trade guns in large numbers. The pathetic saw that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns is more than beggared by the casual frequency with which guns are sold out of the trunk of someone's car, or at gun shows without the least regulation. Well regulated militia--keep the phrase in mind.

I've never advocated taking anyone's gun ownership rights away. I have always pointed out that guns can be and need to be well regulated.

BBB
I'm glad Farmerman exposed the NRA for what it is. A gun selling lobbyist for the gun sellers - part of the military industrial complex - that wraps itself in phony constitutional patriotism to hide its greed.

The NRA tactic is similar, but much more deadly, than the ruse used by the AARP in the recent medicare prescription drug bill scandal. The AARP is primarily an insurance company wrapped in the illusion of being an advocate for senior citizens. The AARP followed its financial interests, not that of the retired folks just as the NRA does.

BBB

So when was the last time you went to the NRA store and picked up an automatic rifle?

you dont buy anything from lobbyists. You get told what to buy.

Ohio's Concealed Carry Weapons Law Takes Effect
POSTED: 8:17 am EDT April 8, 2004
UPDATED: 8:24 am EDT April 8, 2004

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The state's new concealed weapons law takes effect today.

Concealed-carry permits are open to Ohio residents age 21 and older who have lived in the state for at least 45 days. Applicants must undergo a background check, be fingerprinted and have completed at least 12 hours of safety training, including two hours of shooting practice, in the past three years.

Authorities said 100,000 people are expected to apply for concealed weapons permits in the next six month. Attorney General's spokeswoman Kim Norris said 80 to 90 percent of those have not yet completed the needed training.

The applicants also must pay a 45.00-dollar fee to Ohio's county sheriffs to get the permits.

--------------------

News is saying the lines started gathering in Montgomery County an hour before the office opened and there are still people lined up outside.

Craven,

The Nazis strictly controlled guns, specifying that only party members and those they considered reliable should possess weapons. Such gun control did not disarm the bad guys. It gave them a monopoly on the guns.

NotTantor

Could you please give a quote for that, since gun registration laws passed by the Weimar government were already more than 14 years in effect when the Nazis were in power [30.01.1919 ]. (The Nazi Weapons Law ["Waffengesetz"] which further restricted the possession of militarily useful weapons and forbade trade in weapons without a government-issued license was passed on March 18, 1938.)

Re: BBB

So how does that work, exactly? The NRA lobbys for gun manufacturers, and in return it gets what? Where does the NRA get its money from, anyway?

And what exactly is the "military industrial complex?" I've always thought it was defense contractors like Lockheed and Boeing. How does the NRA get to be a member of that club?

Re: BBB


He did no such thing. He exposed HIS VIEW of what HE THINKS the NRA is. In fact his statements can easily be proven false. Parts that can be used to convert a firearms to fully automatic operation are required to be registered and can only be sold to people that have the proper BATF permit. Try reading 27 CFR Part 179. The parts can't legally just be sold to anyone that walks into a gun show (which is what he implied).

I'd like to see any evidence that the NRA has condoned or advocated the selling of these conversion kits to anyone that doesn't have the proper permits.

Interesting, but, since you're the expert here obviously, which part of what NotTantor said was thus incorrect? I'm not sure I'm getting the point you're making.

NTantor said that "the Nazis strictly controlled guns" - didnt say whether they introduced the laws or practices in question or just acted on it, just said that they applied strict gun control. That would be true, then, especially after 1938?

I'm just asking, cause you seem to be objecting to his post, but it's not clear what you're objecting to.

I have one critical question already, in any case (to NTantor, and perhaps you can help): how did the Nazis get all their weapons? I mean, I know there were Nazi street gangs/militias even before they got to control the government - what did they arm themselves with, and how did they obtain those weapons?

(The implication of my question being, would they have been able to, if there had been a more stringent gun control back then, before they actually came into power that is?)

Germany was awash with weapons immediately after the First World War, Habibi. There had been socialist uprisings lead by sailors of the Imperial Fleet even before the Versailles Treaty, and many, many rifles and machine guns ended up on the street then. Political demagogues, well before Hitler, were making up a story that the ministers of the Imperial government had surrendered to the Allies when the army had not in fact been defeated. That this was not true didn't matter to a proud people who had been humiliated. If i'm not mistaken, Hitler was in prison, writing his book, when the gun control law was passed by Weimar, and the specific intent was to disarm the street gangs who by then were ubiquitous. In fact, the most successful of these were the Brown Shirts, lead by Ernst Rohm. They quickly made the transition to big thugs, carrying saps, and any other kind of weapon which was not technically illegal, and easily concealed. They were also the one's who started soup kitchens and bread lines, and used donations from wealthy industrialists to fund "make-work" public works projects to give some employment to veterans of the Great War. Hitler really had had no program and nothing to offer, but he was a first-rate gutter politician, and an excellent organizer--so he was able to hook up with Rohm, and together they dominated street politics in Germany during Weimar. Virtually nothing for which the Nazis claimed credit was original to them, and many fools still make those specious claims. The hoary old tale about Nazis and gun control has been quite popular in this country for a long time.

nimh

"only party members " could get weapons is wrong.

And the 1938 law forbad additionally the possession of militarily useful weapons and trade in weapons.

"how did the Nazis get all their weapons?" - illegally.

fishin, a permit allows you to buy and convert a semi to full auto, getting the permit is a poc. This is big business in the secondary market. im aware of the code of Fed regs, its mostly a toothless series of regs. a seller and a buyer can meet in gun shows (I see it all the time at the gun show in lancaster each year) One dealer will sell the return, another the sear, another the bolt, badabing youve converted an aR 15 , and although no law was broken, these guns get passed around to thugs, bikers, kid ganga . aLL BECAUSE NRA likes to de-nut any real laws that control dangerous weapons, by heavy lobbying, stonewalling, and indoctrination of the gullible.
YOU cannot argue that point at all cause you damn well know its true. The nRA is a shill for gun manufacturers not you. They care as much about your constitutional rights as mcDonalds cares about your cholesterol level
.

I havent done a detailedsearch but Ill bet I can find all kinds of mislabeled parts that can coincidentally fit certain model guns to convert into auto fire and then Ill bet I can find instructions on how to do it.
please, dont sing a song of my second amendment rights and how we need to protect them by owning AKs and RPGs.

What is the biggest, most heavily funded lobby in DC? (hint, it aint the teachers)
--------------------------

edited 1 time to compare the NRAs concern over second amendment rights as Mcdonalds concern about cardiovascular health

I could argue the point all day long. It doesn't matter what the part is. ANY individual part OR kit that allows the modification of a firearm to full auto operation is required to be registered. If they are being sold at gun shows by unlicensed people to unlicensed buyers then several laws are being broken. If, as you stated, you see them all the time at gun shows then perhaps you should call in the BATF. But I suspect you haven't seen them at all and assumed something that wasn't true.

The permit isn't a piece of cake to get either - despite your contention. The BATF has only issued approx 1,500 of them and those include those issued to museums, the firearms manufacturers themselves and to dealers. That doesn't leave a whole lot of them issued to individuals.

You are either very naive or have never been out in the street. If you wish to throw your support to the NRA with eyes fully closed, so be it . Ive written letters, Ive contacted my legislators. very little happens, maybe that makes me the naive one.

Im a gun owner, but not a supporter of your lobby. There must be limits. You sound like your not opposed to general ownership of assault weapons and for the reason that its not difficult to convert them to full auto.

Ill stick with the issue, you may try insult. Im not responding to you. Im more interested in the other people who are on this thread and arent "NRA fellow travelers"

Yes, I'm sure you won't respond. Mostly because what you've stated here is false and you know it.

If you'd bothered to have read any of my previous posts on the gun control issue you'd know that I don't buy the NRA line but I also don't buy the anti-gun lobby's BS that you've swallowed. I have no problem with truely reasonable gun control laws - and living in MA I have plenty of experience with gun control laws - but spreading made up rumours and mistating what the laws already do doesn't further that aim. It just feeds the anti-gun hysteria.

Sorry, they aren't my lobby. I'm not a member. It's a nice brush to try and paint with unfortunately your fence is missing.

So wheres the argument then.
You want machine guns on the street? is thhat your point of contention(NRA doesnt do anything to assist the regulatory procedure on guns other than to impede reasonable regulation and enforcement)

You havent read my posts either. iM A GUN OWNER, Im not a hysterical anti gunniac. Thats why your arguments are unfair and churlish. You know darn well the system is busted and part of the problem is the gun lobby's pro-bono organization wrapping itself in the 2nd amendment..

at this years Lancaster show, they were selling Cds on semi-to full auto directions. There is a pamphlet entitled "full auto' sold at booths . There are sear pin assemblies tooled for "other"apps that conveniently fit Macs and ARs ... pleeeaase. attend more gun shows, besides that 7th district definition of machine gun and kit parts is only valid for the 7th district (Im not an attorney but was told thats how the definition is viewed) So what cant be done in Wisconsin still doesnt apply to Pa. If Im wrong on that point please correct me.
If youve attended gun shows and dont see the conversion parts kits with one or two assemblies missing ( and another vendor selling those kits) then I suggest you look more critically at the commerce going on.

I shant respond further for I mostly like your posts and do not wish to leave with a statement other than that we disagree passionately about the point that

1 you believe that the laws that govern semi to auto conversions are being enforced adequately,


2 I do not.

nuff said on my half

I've never said anything about wanting machineguns on the street not would I suggest that it be allowed. It's currently severely restricted and I'd just assume those laws remain in place.

As to the NRA's activities - they DO offer/provide training to every police agency in this country and have advocated that existing laws be enforced. They DO fight most new proposasls and some of their arguments have merit while others are just silly.



I never said you were a "hysterical anti gunniac". I said you bought the anti-gun lobby's hysteria (on this issue at least).



There are a ton of problems and the people on the other side share just as much of the blame. Misinformation on firearms is restricted to one side of the fence.



The parts/kits issue is defined in Federal law and applicable across the entire country. You can't make them, sell them, or be in possession of them without registering with the BATF (and paying the applicable taxes of course..).



I've been to a few gun shows over the years but never once seen parts sold to just anyone that allow for a conversion. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen - it may. I have no way of knowing. But the vastly overwhelming number of parts I've seen do nothing to covert any firearm to full auto operation. Could I buy a replacement receiver for an AR-15? Sure! But I've yet to see one that is any different from the ones that the factory uses on AR-15s sold in stores all over the country



No. What I believe is that adequate laws governing the sale and possession of conversion parts/kits exist and on this particular issue I believe that the fault isn't with the law but with a failure to enforce those laws. I also believe that peopel do, on occassion, manage to convert firearms to full-auto operation but the number of occurances is greatly exagerated by the media and the anti-gun lobby. And while I've seen the NRA argue against laws they disagreed with in the courts and legislatures I've yet to ever hear the organization espouse that any law that does exist shouldn't be enforced.