# NRA Tells Parents To Keep Guns In Kids’ Rooms For Safety **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 18, 2016, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-tells-parents-to-keep-guns-in-kids-rooms-for-safety/757694 "2016-06-18T15:27:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 91
**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:** [June 21, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-tells-parents-to-keep-guns-in-kids-rooms-for-safety/757694/91 "2016-06-21T19:57:40Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > No, because that particular use of “individual right” is misleading. Militias are made up of “individuals” and the historical meaning and expectation was that individuals armed and ready to protect the nation were essential to its national security. _Heller_ was historic in that it marked the first time that the “individual right” was completely decoupled from the “militias” condition in the first part of the Amendment, which was essentially dismissed as mere decoration. OK so then there has ALWAYS been an individual second amendment right but it was based on something new this time. Specifically the individual right to self defense rather than an individual right that is derived from the ability to function as a militiaman. > [@](#): > > Good article [here](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/23/battleground-america). Also this (emphasis mine): > In his most significant decision for the court’s majority, District of Columbia v. Heller, in 2008, Scalia transformed the understanding of the Second Amendment. **Reversing a century of interpretation of the right to bear arms** , he announced that individuals have a constitutional right to possess handguns for personal protection. The Heller decision was so influential that even President Obama, whose politics differ deeply from Scalia’s, has embraced the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals a constitutional right to bear arms. > [How Scalia Changed the Supreme Court | The New Yorker](http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-scalia-changed-the-supreme-court) Heller was certainly transformative but it did not “reverse a century of interpretation” It certainly broke new ground but it did not destroy what came before it AFAICT. > [@](#): > > Because attitudes to abortion [have not swung wildly with changing circumstances](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lr-ihjzmlkarrrl5ccpy2w.png) or undergone wild reversals. Attitudes to gun control have. You’re right a 20 point swing is a much wilder variance than 10 points. I know you were just pointing this out and an interesting tidbit but do you think this sort of fluctuation is significant in some way? > [@](#): > > Read what I wrote. Also read the quote above. Obama is on one hand a politician navigating middle ground, and a relatively conservative one at that, and on the other hand is also very deeply concerned about the lack of meaningful gun regulation and consequent rampant gun violence in the US, and the ironclad control that the NRA has over Congress. He has spoken of it often enough. His anger about it is palpable. If there is no meaningful regulation, then would you be OK with just getting rid of the meaningless regulation we have in place right now? Obama is a well intentioned politician who is concerned about gun violence and is too ignorant about guns to come up with a sensible policy on guns. For all his anger he keep proposing really stupid and ineffective gun control measures. I don’t know about other pro-gun people her but the INSTANT someone starts talking about an assault weapons ban I just assume the speaker is ignorant and I just smile and nod while they wallow in their ignorant rage. Obama immediately loses credibility when he starts talking about banning weapons of war in reference to a subset of magazine fed semi-automatic rifles with certain cosmetic features that are indistinguishable from other semiautomatic magazine fed rifles that don’t have those cosmetic features. The NRA has no more ironclad control over congress than NARAL does. If people didn’t vote on the gun issue the NRA might as well be PETA. The NRA as an organization does not have any power that is not derived from the voting power of people who support gun rights. The money they directly contribute to politicians is almost meaninglessly small. They spend a SHIT TON more money running ads against anti-gun politicians and the content of their ads is entirely based on that politician’s opposition to gun rights. How is that different than NARAL influencing politicians by running ads against politicians that are anti-choice? The fact that they kick your ass up and down the street day in and day out isn’t really a symptom of some illegitimate accumulation and use of political power. They kick your ass up and down the street day in and day out because they represent a lot of voters that can swing elections in swing districts and swing states. Just about every swing state in America can be lost on the gun issue. Tis is why you will se Hillary holding a hunting rifle at some point between now and election day. I don’t know if she will be skeet shooting or duck hunting but we will see a photo of her with a gun. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-tells-parents-to-keep-guns-in-kids-rooms-for-safety/757694)._