Well, similarly, the evangelical right were not historically against abortion until ~1975 or so, after they realized segregation was a lost cause and were thinking up a new issue to rally their supporters around. At a guess, if the right had not seized upon abortion and guns as wedge issues letting them push what their backers really want, i.e. unregulated corporate profits, the United States would probably resemble… I dunno, Canada? Lower GDP per capita, consistently higher unemployment, but a lot less violent and irrational.
Right - a small number of people, backed by and including the gun manufacturers, believed that the RKBA was super-important, and then transformed the NRA into a massive lobbying and propaganda group to push that idea to the masses.
If the populace was going to hold that sentiment on their own they needn’t have bothered. But, as noted, gun ownership was dropping.
The gun ownership rate is still dropping (if you believe the polling on that question), but a significant portion of the country still believes the RKBA is an important civil right. And I think they would have believed it whether the NRA existed or not.
And you and can differ in our opinions on that.
Myself, though, I’ll continue to believe that the NRA’s propaganda hasn’t been completely ineffective, and thus that had it been absent the outcome it strives for would be significantly less prevalent.
So the NRA isn’t necessary?
I think the NRA is essentially an expression of an underlying desire by a segment of the population to maintain the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Some people in this thread are expressing the viewpoint that that underlying desire would not exist among the population if it were not for the NRA. It’s essentially a chicken-and-egg debate, but with guns.
Well, based on this, “still dropping” is rather a relative term. Of course it only goes back to 1972 (and the data is sporadic before 2000), so we can’t use this to compare the trends before and after the change in the NRA.
It would probably be illegal to be a Christian and celebrate Christmas now too.
??
I expressed the opinion that the desire would exist in few people, not no people. It’s also been theorized that without the NRA (or some equivalent) the second amendment wouldn’t be a tentpole issue of the american political right, which I also agree with.
Seriously, the NRA exists and has done things. This means that without it having done those things the world would be different.
No threads hitting, Chingon. Any more of that and you’ll get warned.
It’s the first words the OP:
So the possibility of gun confiscation seems to be the topic of the thread.
I don’t want the government quartering troops in my house. But you don’t see people worrying about that on Election Day. That’s because there’s no organization running around telling everyone that the Third Amendment is under attack.
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.
Hard to say.
Lobbying aside, the popular vote, the private opinions of the legislators, and the clear text of the Constitution are all pretty big factors. I don’t know that the NRA really does a ton to change public perception and my sense is that lobbying was of limited effect up until the last decade.
I’d personally guess that it wouldn’t be very different or that we’d simply have some other gun lobbyist group, as a simple outgrowth of popular support by a large minority.
But then, you also don’t have a retired Chief Justice of the United States writing an editorial in which he calls the idea that the Third Amendment was intended to prevent the government from quartering troops in your house “one of the greatest pieces of fraud” he’s ever seen.
I think this is a bit of wishful thinking rather then a statement. Sales of AR-15s were just fine under the ban. Prices went up a bit for a rifle with all the “features” but you could buy a newly manufactured AR-15 with a thumbhole stock and no easy way to attach a flash suppressor cheap. 20 and 30 round magazines were available in any quantity. The Sandy Hook shooter used his mother’s rifle, She was a frequent target shooter.
Dennis
I am curious exactly what the NRA’s definition of “arms” is, when they put all their chips on the Second Amendment’s use of the phrase “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (leaving aside the parallel discussion of the preceding context of a “well-regulated militia” and the “security of a free State”).
Is it implicitly only those weapons that existed at the time of the writing of the Constitution, or a “general principle” that encompasses “any weapon at all?”
If not, where is the line to be drawn, on a continuum like:
Nuclear bombs
Military combat craft (tanks, bombers, battleships, etc.)
Ground mounted heavy machine guns
Bazookas / shoulder rocket launchers
Land mines / timed or sensor triggered explosives
Hand grenades / gas grenades
Fully automatic assault rifles
Semi-automatic rifles
Shotguns
Handguns
single-shot hunting rifles
crossbows (with quarrels)
compound bows (with arrows)
Scottish claymores / Japanese katanas
Machetes, Bowie knives
Switchblades / pocket folding knives
BB pellet rifle / air handgun
Pepper spray (“Mace”)
“Taser” electric shock device
Brass knuckles
Knitting needles
Hatpins
Sewing needles
Thumbtacks
Water gun
Water balloon
Hand-hidden “joy buzzer”
I don’t hear the NRA advocating for private and unregistered ownership of nukes, tanks, bazookas, or land mines… I don’t think? What about hand grenades?
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.
Nancy Lanza took up target shooting, her friends said, after her 2009 divorce. She allegedly taught Adam about guns in order to “teach him responsibility.”
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.
While it is legal to purchase what the ATF calls “destructive devices”, the NRA spends almost all of their lobbying efforts on these items from your continuum:
Semi-automatic rifles
Shotguns
Handguns
single-shot hunting rifles
And of those, semi-auto rifles are under the greatest threat today, and so the focus of most of the discussion at the moment.