# When did the NRA become a hyper-partisan anathema to rational thought? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 11, 2011, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568 "2011-11-11T04:04:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/221 "2011-11-15T21:14:05Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Damn, I never expect the Thread Police! Sorry, officer, perhaps you could direct me to the correct thread for politics, law, guns, and the NRA? Now see, if only your post had contained anything serious on those topics, you would have a point. Instead it was just one of your drive-by bon mots featuring a shout-out to the fallen heroes at Occupy. You are a smart guy. If you want to join the discussion in earnest then your viewpoint would be welcomed. ---
**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:** [November 15, 2011, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/222 "2011-11-15T22:43:45Z")
> [@joebuck20](#): > > Here’s a pretty interesting story from the Atlantic Monthly about the history of the NRA. Back in the day, it seems, they were more focused on safety and sportsmanship (though still a lobbying organization), and actually backed a number of gun control measures. But that began changing in the mid-70s with the spike in crime. The article offers some details: > > Most of the OP’s questions are answered on the second page of the story, though the first page offers some fascinating insights into the Black Panthers’ early role in the gun rights debate and how conservatives at one time were staunch gun control advocates. > > [The Secret History of Guns - The Atlantic](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/#) God made men, colonel Colt made them equal. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/223 "2011-11-16T02:10:15Z")
Ah, yes. Where’s my copy of Steal This Book? I’d link to it, but… well. Explosive instructions. Still. > [@](#): > > It’s ridiculous to talk about a revolution without a few words on guns. If you haven’t been in the army or done some hunting, you probably have a built-in fear against guns that can only be overcome by familiarizing yourself with them. > … > Owning a gun ain’t shit unless you know how to use it. They make a hell of a racket when fired so you just can’t work out in your den or cellar except with a BB gun, which is good in between real practice sessions. Find a buddy who served in the military or is into hunting or target-shooting and ask him to teach you the fundamentals of gun handling and safety. If you’re over 18, you can practice on one of your local firing ranges. Look them up in the Yellow Pages, call and see if they offer instructions. They are usually pretty cheap to use. In an hour, you can learn the basics you need to know about guns and the rest is mostly practice, practice, just like in the westerns. Contact the National Rifle Association, Washington D.C. and ask for information on forming a gun club. If you can, you are entitled to great discounts, have no trouble using ranges and get excellent info on all matters relating to weapons. > > A secluded place in the country outside city limits, makes an ideal range for practicing. Shoot at positioned targets. A good idea is to blow up balloons and attach them to pieces or boxes. Position yourself downstream alongside a running brook. A partner can go upstream and release the balloons into the water. As they rush downstream, they simulate an attacker charging you and make excellent moving targets. Watch out for ricochetting bullets. Have any bystander stand by behind you. A clothesline with a pulley attachment can be rigged up to also allow practice with a moving target. > GUN LAWS > > Once you decide to get a gun, check out the local laws. There are federal ones, but they’re not stricter than any state ordinance. If you’re unsure about the laws, send 75¢ to the U.S. Government Printing Office for the manual called Published Ordinances: Firearms. It runs down the latest on all state laws. In most states you can buy a rifle or shotgun just for the bread from a store or individual if you are over 18 years old. You can get a handgun when you can prove you’re over 21, although you generally need a special permit to carry it concealed on your person or in your car. A concealed weapon permit is pretty hard to get unless you’re part of the establishment. You can keep a handgun in your home, though. It’s also generally illegal to walk around with a loaded gun of any type. Once you get the hang of using a gun, you’ll never want to go back to the old peashooter. That’s right. Abbie Hoffman says to contact the NRA. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/224 "2011-11-16T07:37:38Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Now see, if only your post had contained anything serious on those topics, you would have a point. Instead it was just one of your drive-by bon mots featuring a shout-out to the fallen heroes at Occupy. > > You are a smart guy. If you want to join the discussion in earnest then your viewpoint would be welcomed. Well, then I’ll break it down into something more tiresome. The reason I mention the OWS is that they are somewhat “cutting edge”, lefty wise. Younger, for the most part. At any rate, if you spend any time among them, as I have, you might notice the general lack of interest in gun control issues. Put baldly, they don’t seem to much give a fuck. What triggered that was wondering who does, who on the left is it that is burning with lust for gun control. You seem to suggest that such a concern might be pivotal in whom Obama nominates for Supreme Court. Really? If he could pick anything on his agenda to be miraculously enacted, it would be gun control? Not that I don’t have some sympathy with the Brady coalitions. But the fight just isn’t worth it, under our circumstances. Such is the sorry state in which we find ourselves, and each other, that gun control just doesn’t rate. I can’t be the only lefty thinking like this, I doubt if I’ve had a truly unique thought in my entire life. How many of us? Can’t really be measured. Certainly can’t be organized. But look at the OWS, a flurry of signage and opinions. See anything about gun control? Hear anybody talking about it? Serious gun control is impractical to the point of absurdity, we couldn’t effectively do it if we had the black helicopters and UN troops. And the ferocious resistance of the ballistic community makes it a political nightmare, which offers nothing more useful than a vicious struggle to attempt something that cannot be done. It won’t work, therefore, it isn’t worth it. Or, put another way, Christ Jesus, just keep the goddam things if they mean that much to you! Still like that better. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/225 "2011-11-16T17:46:36Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > The reason I mention the OWS is that they are somewhat “cutting edge”, lefty wise. Younger, for the most part. At any rate, if you spend any time among them, as I have, you might notice the general lack of interest in gun control issues. Put baldly, they don’t seem to much give a fuck. So the implication is that 99% of America, as they portray themselves, is cutting edge on the left? All that aside, I still don’t see what someone who doesn’t care about the issue (Occupy) has to do with this, but I won’t press the issue. > [@](#): > > What triggered that was wondering who does, who on the left is it that is burning with lust for gun control. You seem to suggest that such a concern might be pivotal in whom Obama nominates for Supreme Court. Really? If he could pick anything on his agenda to be miraculously enacted, it would be gun control? I think though that the liberals on this message board have made the exact argument I did with respect to Republicans and abortion. Do liberals not believe that abortion is an acid-test item for Republican Presidents in the position of nominating a USSC Justice? Do they think Republicans burn with lust for abortion providers to be sunning themselves in Cuba? I surely hope not. > [@](#): > > I can’t be the only lefty thinking like this, I doubt if I’ve had a truly unique thought in my entire life. How many of us? Can’t really be measured. Certainly can’t be organized. But look at the OWS, a flurry of signage and opinions. See anything about gun control? Hear anybody talking about it? I think if you read my posts closer you’d see I’m agreeing with you. I’ve been defending Obama and his Administration in that I don’t see them having a giant hidden or open agenda. However, his personal beliefs are well-known; he championed them on his website for quite some time. And Presidents, Left, Right, or Middle, all have their own acid tests for USSC Justices and Federal judges. It’s expected. If I was President, I would never put an anti-gay Justice on the Court, thus that would be one acid test. An “acid test” for a justice doesn’t have to be a bad thing. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/226 "2011-11-16T18:14:53Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > I think though that the liberals on this message board have made the exact argument I did with respect to Republicans and abortion. Do liberals not believe that abortion is an acid-test item for Republican Presidents in the position of nominating a USSC Justice? I think this is an issue of correlation vs. causation. I think there is quite a robust correlation between those who are left of center and support for reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, and a robust correlation between those who are right of center and support for gun owners’ rights. I no of no evidence to suggest that there is an active effort to vet potential appointees to the bench based on their views on that legal issues on gun control. I do think it is fairly reasonable to assume that there is an active effort to determine a candidate’s views on abortion. In other words, I think the litmus test for abortion is a much, much, much more stringent test, while the importance of a nominee’s views on gun control are relatively much less important. I think this is a relflection of the national environment on issues surrounding abortion vs those issues around gun control. Over the last 15 years, with a few exceptions, it has been difficult to legislate on abortion – such as the constantly-changing policy on whether US foreign aid can be used to benefit international family planning organizations that also provide abortions; or whether the District of Columbia can use local (not Federal!) funds to defray abortion costs for low-income women. As a result, the courts end up having a much greater influence on abortion matters, because the Federal government has a hard time dealing with abortion issues. In contrast, at the Federal level, the trend for at least the last decade has been that the Congress and the White House have slowly been okay with expanding gun rights, and the judiciary has more or less been in the same position. The last ten years have shown that having a “(D)” next to a politician’s name is not a strong indicator of views on gun control. Since Republicans are pretty uniformly pro-gun rights, and Democrats are more mixed on gun control, I don’t believe there is a consensus that Democratic leaders see a judge’s views on gun control as being a top-tier issue. As opposed to abortion, where most R’s are pro-life, and most D’s are pro-choice, and the issue is definitely at the forefront of debate on a judge’s suitability. Please note that I make these comments in regard to how I see the debate on all judicial nominees, not just those for the Supreme Court. I think SCOTUS nominations are so rare that it is hard to draw hard-and-fast conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/227 "2011-11-16T22:47:34Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I no of no evidence to suggest that there is an active effort to vet potential appointees to the bench based on their views on that legal issues on gun control. I do think it is fairly reasonable to assume that there is an active effort to determine a candidate’s views on abortion. Perhaps…maybe from the other side, though. I seem to recall news reports and soundbites of Republican senators being frustrated with Kagan’s refusal to answer if she felt RKBA was an individual right. > [@](#): > > In other words, I think the litmus test for abortion is a much, much, much more stringent test, while the importance of a nominee’s views on gun control are relatively much less important. > > I think this is a relflection of the national environment on issues surrounding abortion vs those issues around gun control. Over the last 15 years, with a few exceptions, it has been difficult to legislate on abortion – such as the constantly-changing policy on whether US foreign aid can be used to benefit international family planning organizations that also provide abortions; or whether the District of Columbia can use local (not Federal!) funds to defray abortion costs for low-income women. As a result, the courts end up having a much greater influence on abortion matters, because the Federal government has a hard time dealing with abortion issues. > > In contrast, at the Federal level, the trend for at least the last decade has been that the Congress and the White House have slowly been okay with expanding gun rights, and the judiciary has more or less been in the same position. The last ten years have shown that having a “(D)” next to a politician’s name is not a strong indicator of views on gun control. Since Republicans are pretty uniformly pro-gun rights, and Democrats are more mixed on gun control, I don’t believe there is a consensus that Democratic leaders see a judge’s views on gun control as being a top-tier issue. As opposed to abortion, where most R’s are pro-life, and most D’s are pro-choice, and the issue is definitely at the forefront of debate on a judge’s suitability. > > Please note that I make these comments in regard to how I see the debate on all judicial nominees, not just those for the Supreme Court. I think SCOTUS nominations are so rare that it is hard to draw hard-and-fast conclusions. I find it very difficult to disagree with what you say here. Good post. ---
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/228 "2011-11-17T05:14:00Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Edit: Naxos, what the hell? What’s wrong with owning a car? Nothing. The primary use of a car is to drive. The primary use of a knife is to cut bread. The primary use of a gun is to kill human beings. That’s why in at least the last 40 years the NRA is do adamant in supporting unregulated and impossible to trace ownership of hand guns and bullets and make them as available as possible to inner city populations. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/229 "2011-11-17T05:25:27Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Perhaps…maybe from the other side, though. I seem to recall news reports and soundbites of Republican senators being frustrated with Kagan’s refusal to answer if she felt RKBA was an individual right. Then you’re talking about the Republicans adding a pro-gun litmus test to the abortion test, not about Obama adding an anti-gun one. ---
**Author:** ![Norse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a9adbd/32.png) [@Norse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Norse)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/230 "2011-11-17T10:50:52Z")
> [@Naxos](#): > > The primary use of a gun is to kill human beings. Wrong. I, and many of my friends, have quite a few guns each. _None_ of these have ever been designed, sold or acquired for the purpose of killing humans. Just like every gun sold to civilians in my country. Over here, trying to acquire a gun to kill humans, or to put it euphemistically, “for self defense purposes”, is one of the most effective methods for getting your application for gun acquisition rejected. tl/dr version: The primary use of most guns sold to civilians is _not_ to kill human beings: [ul] [li]The primary use of a shotgun is to kill birds or clay pigeons[/li][li]The primary use of a hunting rifle to kill deer and other animals[/li][li]The primary use of a target rifle is to kill paper targets[/li][li]The primary use of a sporting handgun is to kill paper targets.[/li][/ul] IME, those gun categories cover the majority of guns sold to civilians. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/231 "2011-11-17T14:21:27Z")
> [@](#): > > The primary use of a sporting handgun is to kill paper targets What differentiates a “sporting handgun” from any other handgun? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/232 "2011-11-17T15:20:52Z")
Naxos, my shotgun is specifically designed to be incredibly bad at killing human beings. It is a single barrel break action. That means it will never ever be able to fire more than one round at a time, requiring a reload before firing again. Further, in order to reload, you need to lose your sight picture, breaking the gun in half, and reacquire the target afterwards. It has a 32" long barrel. A meter of barrel, ignoring the rest of the shotgun. It’s exceptionally accurate for a shotgun, but it is not something that can be used in any environment besides open fields. Even clear woods make it a pain in the ass. It is exceptionally designed specifically for shooting clay pigeons. But killing people? I’d have better luck with a meat cleaver. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/233 "2011-11-17T15:31:53Z")
Just when some posters were convinced that despite President Obama’s previous statements, there was no possible way he would act to restrict firearms in any way, we get [this](http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands) from the administration: > [@](#): > > Gun owners who have historically been able to use public lands for target practice would be barred from potentially millions of acres under new rules drafted by the Interior Department, the first major move by the Obama administration to impose limits on firearms. > > Officials say the administration is concerned about the potential clash between gun owners and encroaching urban populations who like to use same land for hiking and dog walking. > > “It’s not so much a safety issue. It’s a social conflict issue,” said Frank Jenks, a natural resource specialist with Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 245 million acres. He adds that urbanites “freak out” when they hear shooting on public lands. So because of the sensibilities of people like **Naxos** , areas for recreational shooting, already plenty scarce, are going to be further restricted. Predictably, the NRA is opposing these planned restrictions. I am happy they are doing so. There is no good reason to run recreational shooting and hunting off of public land. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/234 "2011-11-17T15:41:17Z")
That’s not a firearms restriction. It’s a land use restriction. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/235 "2011-11-17T16:53:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s not a firearms restriction. Don’t be ridiculous. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/236 "2011-11-17T16:56:30Z")
Can every otherwise legal activity be performed on public land? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/237 "2011-11-17T17:13:54Z")
If the federal government outlaws protests in front of the White House, that is not a restriction on protests. It is a land use restriction. Right? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/238 "2011-11-17T17:18:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If the federal government outlaws protests in front of the White House, that is not a restriction on protests. It is a land use restriction. > > Right? > > Regards, > Shodan You are of the opinion that someone who controls land can’t decide that they don’t want people hunting on it? That by doing so, they are taking a stand against hunting, even if they don’t stop you from hunting on land you control? I don’t want you peeing on my lawn, but I’m not against peeing. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/239 "2011-11-17T17:22:33Z")
I am. **Shodan** , do you think that perhaps there’s a difference between protesting in a specific location and hunting on public land generally? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/240 "2011-11-17T17:49:24Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Just when some posters were convinced that despite President Obama’s previous statements, there was no possible way he would act to restrict firearms in any way, we get [this](http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands) from the administration: So you seem to be insinuating that this is part of an Obama agenda to restrict firearms use or ownership, right? It seems like similar restrictions were considered during the [Bush Administration](http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=2739). Did George Bush also have a secret anti-Second Amendment agenda, too? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568.md?page=13)