# If it wasn't for the NRA? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 10, 2019, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645 "2019-12-10T13:31:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/41 "2019-12-11T05:12:14Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Of course they do, in the sense that someone is getting their guns taken away because someone else thinks they _might_ do something dangerous with them. Are you presuming that anyone facing a red-flag hearing is by definition a law-breaker? > So that’s, what, 64 prevented suicides versus 698 law-abiding citizens who were unfairly subjected to temporary infringement of one of the most important (some argue MOST important) civil right? Sure, it might prevent some mass shootings, but… _rights!_ I should point out that the old saw about if guns are illegal then only criminals would have guns … well, that is true, but it won’t stop anybody who wants a weapon for a criminal activity is not particularly stopped by rendering guns illegal as well, um, _criminal_ … and those people would probably still be dead. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If the NRA didn’t exist, there would still be people who wanted to own guns. And they would own guns. The difference would be they wouldn’t be scared of some imaginary threat of the government taking away their guns. good point. As I have mentioned previously, I am a gun owner, but I do not have an issue with a cooling off period, a quick police check, and I don’t have any issue with stopping gun sales without running them through official channels. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/42 "2019-12-11T05:35:54Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > I should point out that the old saw about if guns are illegal then only criminals would have guns … well, that is true, but it won’t stop anybody who wants a weapon for a criminal activity is not particularly stopped by rendering guns illegal as well, um, _criminal_ … and those people would probably still be dead. That’s not very compelling in light of pretty much every other liberal democracy that has tighter gun restrictions (and no organizations analogous to the NRA in disproportionate pro-gun political influence) than the U.S. and yet not nearly as much criminal violence with guns, often far less violence in general. In any case, of course laws restrict a far greater number or law-abiding citizens than they affect criminals, because law-abiding citizens vastly outnumber criminals. It just comes down to a rough calculation that because 1% of the population seem determined to ruin it for everybody, everybody has to be a little less free to try to reduce the amount of damage that stupid 1% can do. Most liberal democracies have concluded that gun laws are not much of an infringement and the reduced amount of damage is worth it. Of course, sometimes it goes the other way and the laws end up creating the damage, i.e. was it really necessary to have laws against homosexuality? Is it necessary to still have laws against recreational drugs and prostitution? More calculations are coming. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/43 "2019-12-11T05:43:24Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > The 96 AWB would have been renewed. When Obama was elected, without the NRA stoking fears of confiscation, gun sales would have continued their downward trend. Owning small arsenals of AR-15s and carrying a concealed weapon at all possible times wouldn’t be seen as “patriotic” ways to stand up to the Democrats. The guy who came up with the “American flag but made out of 5.56 rounds” decal that I saw the other day wouldn’t have sold as many stickers. > > With gun sales down and owning AR-15s no longer seen as “one’s civic duty,” a few high profile mass shootings wouldn’t happen, including Sandy Hook. With the AWB still in place, Democrats wouldn’t be under so much pressure to “do something” about the problem of gun violence, which would go back to being a problem that only affected poor black and brown people. > > I think that’s about it in a nutshell. Nonsense. First of all, the “Assault Weap:rolleyes:n” ban was in 1994, not '96. And when it expired in 2004 there wasn’t much effortt to renew it. I thought Dianne Feinstein would put up a furious fight over it but she didn’t. The ban did practically nothing. There were enough pre-ban rifles and magazines on the market to last 100 years. The prices just went up. Post ban rifles just had flash suppressors and bayonet lugs removed. They still had pistol grips and accepted 30 round mags same as the pre-ban models. 10 round mags came with a plastic brace that clipped two magazines together making changing mags lightning fast. Adam Lanzas mother bought her rifle legally and went through all legal channels. Whether she bought a pre-ban or post ban model the fact is she was going to have one and her demented son was going to do what he did with it. What the AWB did do was make gun dealers such as myself an obscene amount of money. People were paying top dollar for junk I couldn’t previously have given away. Like Tec-22 Scorpions. And they were crap. But tell someone they won’t be able to get something anymore and they want it even more! Hell, I [wished](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275673) they had renewed the ban just for profit reasons. As for the NRA, there are other pro-gun rights organizations that are far more no compromise, such as Gun Owners of America. Just look at how the NRA rolled over and played dead to the illegal method Trump got bump stocks banned. If gun owners and manufacturers bailed on the NRA and gave their money to GOA we’d be much better off. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/44 "2019-12-11T07:34:43Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It’s not “imaginary”. I can’t point to a single organization advocating that we quarter troops in people’s houses. I can point to at least a half dozen, and at least a few presidential candidates, that are advocating restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms in various ways. I realize it’s perhaps unfair to respond to HD when he is no longer able to respond back. But I’ll point out that he moved the goal posts here. I said there was no serious movement to _ban_ firearms, not that there was no serious movement to _regulate_ firearms. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/45 "2019-12-11T13:19:30Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > Nonsense. First of all, the “Assault Weap:rolleyes:n” ban was in 1994, not '96. And when it expired in 2004 there wasn’t much effortt to renew it. I thought Dianne Feinstein would put up a furious fight over it but she didn’t. > > The ban did practically nothing. I may not have made my point well. I will agree that the ban did practically nothing to ban assault weapons, but it did a very good job at existing as a thing. In it’s absence, Democrats have called for a renewed AWB after every mass shooting, which has led to increased gun sales urged on by the fear-mongering of the NRA. Gun sales between 2009 and 2012 led to Adam Lanza having access to guns. I know there wasn’t a strong push to renew the AWB but that’s because it was politically costly in the face of the NRA and the growing gun rights movement. Absent the NRA stoking fears, I think the AWB would have been quietly renewed, people would have grown to accept it as the status quo, and thousands of people wouldn’t have had reason to run out and spend a shitload of money on AR-15s because “You’d better get 'em before they’re banned!” ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/46 "2019-12-11T16:32:07Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I said there was no serious movement to _ban_ firearms, not that there was no serious movement to _regulate_ firearms. Without the NRA, fewer people would be politically incapable of distinguishing between regulating firearms and confiscating them. Guns are, now, part of the Red Tribe, the Republican group which also believes in restricting marriage, refuses to accept the existence of trans people or climate change, and isn’t on good terms with minorities, either. This association drives Blue and Gray Tribe people out of gun culture, which is distinct from merely owning a firearm and encompasses being active at ranges, training others in the use of firearms, and generally having guns as one of your hobbies. The NRA, in its role as an arm of the Republican Party, drives this association, and uses it to isolate gun owners into the Red Tribe: If you want to own a gun, you have to be at least OK with associating with Red Tribe people, and possibly becoming indoctrinated into Republican talking points, and, very likely, into giving money to the NRA, which is your momma, your poppa, and your shoulder to cry on when it comes to keeping Blue Tribe from stealing all of your guns away from you. So without the NRA, gun ownership would be more generalized, spread out over more of the country, as opposed to being concentrated in some areas/people. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/47 "2019-12-11T17:28:40Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > While the NRAs ‘members’ are useful, the bills are really paid by the big manufacturers just as occurs in all large trade groups in Washington. I thought we cleared this up years ago. The biggest source of NRA funds comes from membership dues. Here’s there most recent 990: [https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display\_990/530116130/12\_2018\_prefixes\_51-54%2F530116130\_201712\_990O\_2018121916022283](https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/530116130/12_2018_prefixes_51-54%2F530116130_201712_990O_2018121916022283) > [@](#): > > New positions led to much more lobbying money and some success led to opposition and the hardening of positions across the political spectrum. This led to even MORE lobbying money to maintain the fight and keep the public worked up about buying guns and gun-related merchandise. > > So by hardening their position, the NRA ended up moving from an advocacy group to a money machine. And once the money starts flowing the people to which it is flowing, regardless of their own beliefs, will work hard to maintain that flow. People respond to incentives generally in the short term. Does that apply to abortion advocates as well? Is it all about money for them too? > [@](#): > > That’s how we got where we are. > > It’s very possible that, absent the NRA - founded to teach former soldiers to shoot because their officers found they couldn’t - there would have been no AWB, no persistent gun fetishism and we’d be arguing about private ownership of spatulas or something. Gun ownership had been trending down during the 1950s and 1960s until the new militant management came into play. It’s possible that would have continued and having one in the present day would have been a curiousity for the neighborhood like having a beehive or a classic car is today. I think it is impossible that the second amendment of the United States of America would have withered on the vine but perhaps people would in fact be more open to things like licensing and registration is there weren’t so many people who want to eliminate guns in society. The only argument I ever hear in opposition to licensing and registration is a slippery slope argument. And they point to all the gun control folks to buttress their argument. ---
**Author:** ![Gukumatz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/74df32/32.png) [@Gukumatz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gukumatz)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/48 "2019-12-11T17:35:09Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > So without the NRA, gun ownership would be more generalized, spread out over more of the country, as opposed to being concentrated in some areas/people. Yup. The US currently has about 120 civilian firearms per 100 people [according to this Wikipedia source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country). Norway is number 17 of 230 on that list with about 28 per 100. And it’s just a non-issue here. Automatic weapons are banned unless you’re an army reservist, handguns are banned unless you’re a range shooter in good standing with a shooting club. If you’re 18, have a hunting license and pass a brief police check, you can buy hunting rifles, shotguns and plinking weapons. There’s some common sense regs about safe storage, transportation and generally not being an obnoxious shithead while in the possession of a weapon, but nothing onerous really. The hunting and weapon community polices those regs themselves and I can only think of about two instances where I ever heard of the police looking in on the community. I was cuffed upside the head by my instructor, the first (and only) time I neglected to visually show him that my magazine was out, breech clear and bolt locked back before I brought my rifle back from the stand on the range. “Don’t make us look like retarded [sic] yokels to the population and we can have our hobby in peace”, I believe, was the quote. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/49 "2019-12-11T17:54:55Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I realize it’s perhaps unfair to respond to HD when he is no longer able to respond back. But I’ll point out that he moved the goal posts here. I said there was no serious movement to _ban_ firearms, not that there was no serious movement to _regulate_ firearms. I don’t think it affects the point all that much. There are no organizations working against the Third Amendment in any way, whereas there are organizations working against the Second in ways other than attempts at banning guns. I expect there would be a Third Amendment equivalent to the NRA if there were organizations arguing “we don’t want to put soldiers in your house, just sailors”. There aren’t, so such an organization isn’t necessary. Whereas there are people arguing “that only means muskets” and things like that. There can, IOW, be infringements of tRtKaBA other than outright bans, and the NRA is there to oppose them. Much like other organizations - the ACLU opposes all kinds of restrictions on free speech and the establishment clause, even though there is no serious movement to shut down newspapers or force people to go to church. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/50 "2019-12-11T18:30:53Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Would the private ownership of guns in the USA be banned like they are in other countries or would liberal politicians leave gun ownership alone? Of course it wouldn’t be banned. Most similar Western democracies do not ban guns. It would just be more controlled. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/51 "2019-12-11T18:38:31Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t think it affects the point all that much. There are no organizations working against the Third Amendment in any way, whereas there are organizations working against the Second in ways other than attempts at banning guns. > > I expect there would be a Third Amendment equivalent to the NRA if there were organizations arguing “we don’t want to put soldiers in your house, just sailors”. There aren’t, so such an organization isn’t necessary. Whereas there are people arguing “that only means muskets” and things like that. There can, IOW, be infringements of tRtKaBA other than outright bans, and the NRA is there to oppose them. This is an interesting point in theory but it doesn’t match up with the timeline; restrictions on the right to bear arms had been around in a wide variety of forms for a long, long time before the NRA became what it is now. The transformation of the NRA into an extreme gun rights organization is a relatively recent one, dating back only to the 70s. Gun restrictions at the state and federal level weren’t a recent thing; after all, machine guns were essentially banned from private use in 1934 but the NRA had little to say about the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/52 "2019-12-11T19:04:20Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t think it affects the point all that much. I stand by my point. As I’ve noted, this thread started out with a claim that liberal politicians are seeking to ban the ownership of guns. No politicians are saying this. So the idea came from the NRA. So the NRA is an organization that’s fighting an imaginary threat that it created and convinced people exists. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/53 "2019-12-11T19:27:01Z")
It’s true that other Western democracies don’t generally “ban guns”, but certainly some of them explicitly ban _the right to keep and bear arms_. What I mean by the “right to keep and bear arms” is the concept found in the [1776 Constitution of Pennsylvania](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp): > [@](#): > > XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. That “for the defense of themselves and of the state” language was later [echoed in numerous subsequent state constitutions.](http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm) By contrast, from the [Firearms Act 1996 of New South Wales](https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1996/46/part2/div2/sec12): > [@](#): > > **12 Genuine reasons for having a licence** (cf APMC 3, 1990 Reg cl 22A) > > ``` > (1) The Commissioner must not issue a licence that authorises the possession and use of a firearm unless the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant has a genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm. > > (2) An applicant does not have a genuine reason for possessing or using a firearm if the applicant intends to possess or use the firearm for any of the following reasons: > > (a) personal protection or the protection of any other person... > > ``` From the [New Zealand Arms Code](https://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/publication/arms-code) (PDF file): > [@](#): > > People who have > • a history of violence or > • repeated involvement with drugs or > • been irresponsible with alcohol or > • a personal or social relationship with people who may be deemed to be unsuitable to obtain access to firearms or > • indicates an intent to use firearms for self defence > may find it difficult to satisfy the Police that they are fit and proper to have a firearm. (Emphasis added.) I’m pretty sure similar language is found in the firearms laws and regulations of the UK and of the other Australian states. I think there’s a pretty fundamental disconnect here between the two sides on what is referred to (by typical American shorthand) as “the Second Amendment”. No, no one wants to ban all civilian possession of guns (where “guns” are seen, fundamentally, as sporting equipment), but at least some people _do_ seem to want to _disarm_ the American people (where “guns” are seen as arms or weapons). Arguing about whether other countries totally ban all civilian ownership of guns is kind of talking past that point. I’m not saying _everyone_ who wants more restrictions on gun ownership is fundamentally opposed to the concept of ordinary people being “armed” for their own defense, but there is definitely at the very least a vocal minority who seem to advocate that, especially in the Democratic Party base. ---
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/54 "2019-12-11T21:21:00Z")
The 2nd grants US citizens (or all residents?) the right to bear arms in a well-regulated militia. Exactly WHICH arms to bear aren’t specified. We mostly aren’t allowed Claymore mines, RPG and bazooka launchers, spring stilettos and switchblades, or suitcase nukes. Some jurisdictions ban nunchuks and brass knuckles. A ban on all armaments but halberds and longbows would be quite constitutional. (Nobody bans wire or cords usable as garrotes. Work on it.) ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/55 "2019-12-12T01:42:36Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > I think there’s a pretty fundamental disconnect here between the two sides on what is referred to (by typical American shorthand) as “the Second Amendment”. No, no one wants to ban all civilian possession of guns (where “guns” are seen, fundamentally, as sporting equipment), but at least some people _do_ seem to want to _disarm_ the American people (where “guns” are seen as arms or weapons). The disconnect here is a kind of bait-and-switch: The Second Amendment is sold as a defense against tyranny, which comes from modern governments. When you point out that modern tyrants have mortars and guided missiles, all of a sudden it’s about defense against home invasion. When you point out that [gun ownership doesn’t reduce crime](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/), all of a sudden you’re talking to a modern-day Minuteman-cum-VC ready to blend into the wilds, and snipe from behind every tree to defend North Dakota. Point out that most people don’t want to live under Y’all-Qaeda sharia law, and that both the Minutemen and the VC had major world empires helping them out, and they get real quiet. Maybe next time I’ll point out how well Randy Weaver resisted the forces of tyranny with all his guns. That should provoke a longer debate, I betcha I betcha. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/56 "2019-12-12T05:19:17Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > The disconnect here is a kind of bait-and-switch: > > The Second Amendment is sold as a defense against tyranny, which comes from modern governments. > > When you point out that modern tyrants have mortars and guided missiles, all of a sudden it’s about defense against home invasion. > > When you point out that [gun ownership doesn’t reduce crime](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/), all of a sudden you’re talking to a modern-day Minuteman-cum-VC ready to blend into the wilds, and snipe from behind every tree to defend North Dakota. > > Point out that most people don’t want to live under Y’all-Qaeda sharia law, and that both the Minutemen and the VC had major world empires helping them out, and they get real quiet. > > Maybe next time I’ll point out how well Randy Weaver resisted the forces of tyranny with all his guns. That should provoke a longer debate, I betcha I betcha. You know, you can argue vigorously for your side on a particular issue. But I don’t think you get to argue for your side AND also declare what the other side’s arguments are. That’s not a debate, that’s you talking to yourself. No, advocates of the right to keep and bear arms do not concede that light arms would have no utility in some kind of 21st century insurgency (though I would say that _sane_ advocates of the right to keep and bear arms would certainly agree that any such civil war would be a horrifying, liberty-destroying, bloody, hideous mess, and should certainly be avoided for any cause short of avoiding a truly murderous tyranny). Nor have advocates of the right to keep and bear arms ever conceded that personal ownership of weapons–and specifically firearms–is valueless in allowing people to defend themselves against violent crime. Far from the implication that pro-RKBA people just abandon either the “insurrectionist”/“collective rights” theory, or the “self-defense”/“individual rights” theory in debates about gun control/gun rights, in fact discussion of either of those positions tends to spawn multi-page debates. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/57 "2019-12-12T05:25:21Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Gun sales between 2009 and 2012 led to Adam Lanza having access to guns. But you’re speculating without a shred of proof that the NRA had anything to do with that. His mother might have bought a pump shotgun, rifle, or revolver that no politician is publicly talking about banning and he would have gotten a hold of that too and done what he did. Americans bought plenty of firearms, including those classified as “assault weapons” decades prior to the NRA become a political entity. They didn’t need any prompting nor boogie men to get them to do it. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/58 "2019-12-12T05:40:17Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > But you’re speculating without a shred of proof that the NRA had anything to do with that. Yep. I already said as much. See: > [@steronz](#): > > Going from those two scant pieces of evidence to “she was caught up in the NRA’s Obama-fueled AR-15 boner-a-thon and thought that teaching Adam how to shoot was a patriotic duty” is indeed a large, large conjecture on my part. **But if there was ever a thread for wild speculation, this is sort of it.** ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/59 "2019-12-12T06:09:09Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > The disconnect here is a kind of bait-and-switch: > > The Second Amendment is sold as a defense against tyranny, which comes from modern governments. > > When you point out that modern tyrants have mortars and guided missiles, all of a sudden it’s about defense against home invasion. I don’t know about that. I’ve always felt that the main selling point of gun ownership has been self-defense against regular criminals. I feel that very few people own a gun with the idea that they might need it for a potential uprising. ---
**Author:** ![dba\_Fred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c37758/32.png) [@dba\_Fred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dba_Fred)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645/60 "2019-12-12T07:19:19Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I realize it’s perhaps unfair to respond to HD when he is no longer able to respond back. But I’ll point out that he moved the goal posts here. I said there was no serious movement to _ban_ firearms, not that there was no serious movement to _regulate_ firearms. Really? What’s this? **H.R.1296 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2019** (currently in the House Judiciary Committee) It’s got **Ban** and **2019** in the Bill’s title; I guess they just put those in for shits & giggles, not that they were serious? > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I stand by my point. As I’ve noted, this thread started out with a claim that liberal politicians are seeking to ban the ownership of guns. No politicians are saying this. So the idea came from the NRA. > > So the NRA is an organization that’s fighting an imaginary threat that it created and convinced people exists. With 215 co-sponsors to the AWB of 2019, there are some sitting politicians that want to **ban** guns, or at least **some** guns. And they’re not proposing **regulating** those guns, as was done with automatic weapons, they’re proposing **banning** them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-wasnt-for-the-nra/844645.md?page=4)