# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/41 "2011-11-11T22:25:25Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > What’s a “high-powered hand gun”? What’s an “assault rifle”? What, exactly, do you think people ought not be allowed to hunt with? You’ll notice I didn’t say anything about what people ought or ought not be allowed to hunt with. You added that bit in. I’m pretty sure “high-powered hand gun” and “assault rifle” are well defined concepts. Guns are built for specific uses; anyone familiar with firearms can tell you if a gun is suitable for hunting or target shooting or whatever, just like you can look at a car and tell if it’s better suited for hauling groceries rather than being driven fast on a racetrack. I’m not saying categories are always 100% distinct, but engineers generally don’t build all-purpose cars, or guns, or computers, or what not. They have specific use cases in mind. > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Regardless, NRA perceives that it has an interest in preventing any pointless law which constrains Americans to no legitimate or necessary purpose. Nobody supports a “pointless law which constrains Americans to no legitimate or necessary purpose”. That some people seem to think they do is exactly what is meant by “hyper-partisan anathema to rational thought”. > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > You may disagree about what, exactly, is legitimate or necessary. That does not mean they don’t have a clear and very sharp point. And what, pray tell, is the clear and very sharp point? > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Gun control laws have not historically been targeted at actual problems, and have not actually had measurable effects on actual problems. Cite? For both claims here: “Gun control laws have not historically been targeted at actual problems”, and “have not actually had measurable effects on actual problems” ---
**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:** [November 11, 2011, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/42 "2011-11-11T22:45:41Z")
> [@kenetic](#): > > Um, we do restrict what people can do with cars, penises, and baseball bats. We restrict what people can _do_ with them, which is distinct from restricting _possession_ of the thing. (For cars, there is effectively “shall issue” licensing to drive one in public. There is of course no License to Carry a Penis, though you do generally have to stick with concealed carry for those.) ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/43 "2011-11-11T22:52:19Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > We restrict what people can _do_ with them, which is distinct from restricting _possession_ of the thing. (For cars, there is effectively “shall issue” licensing to drive one in public. There is of course no License to Carry a Penis, though you do generally have to stick with concealed carry for those.) Not true. There are plenty of cars that aren’t sold in the US because they can’t pass pollution or safety requirements. And for the cars that we do allow sold, most are required to be registered. It’s not a perfect analogy, but it does seem like there are reasonable restrictions on what cars people can own, and a reasonable amount of government oversight is employed to determine who owns them and what they generally intend to do with them. Why is doing the same thing for guns so onerous? ---
**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:** [November 11, 2011, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/44 "2011-11-11T23:01:01Z")
I don’t know of any jurisdiction in the U.S. which has required people to register their cars, then turned around and said “OK, we’re closing the registration list, so no new cars can be registered”. There is a real fear of slippery slopes among pro-gun advocates, because historically “reasonable regulations” really have slipped into outright bans. So, for advocates of “reasonable gun control”–assuming it’s genuinely reasonable–one thing that needs to happen is to convince everyone that there is genuinely no agenda that will lead to an outright ban. ---
**Author:** ![River\_Hippie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/river_hippie/32/26_2.png) [@River\_Hippie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/River_Hippie)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/45 "2011-11-11T23:09:21Z")
Is there a Democrat and liberal friendly gun rights association? An alternative for those like me that are supporters of the second amendment but won’t support Republicans? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/46 "2011-11-11T23:31:51Z")
> [@kenetic](#): > > I’m pretty sure “high-powered hand gun” and “assault rifle” are well defined concepts. You might be pretty sure but I’m not. Is a Colt .45 M1911 pistol a high powered handgun or not? This is a pretty common pistol used by marksman in competition (i.e. sport shooting). I would not say it was a high powered pistol but I’m not exactly clear on what is a high powered pistol. I’m pretty sure a Ruger Super Redhawk firing a .454 Casull round is something I’d classify as a high powered handgun but it’s not exactly an objective assessment. As for the assault rifle thing, well, let’s take rifle A and rifle B. Rifle A looks different from rifle B, but they both fire the same round, at the same rate and the same distance. Rifle A has a bayonet slug and a folding stock whereas rifle B does not. Rifle A is an assault rifle and rifle B is not. Does that make sense to you? > [@](#): > > Guns are built for specific uses; anyone familiar with firearms can tell you if a gun is suitable for hunting or target shooting or whatever, just like you can look at a car and tell if it’s better suited for hauling groceries rather than being driven fast on a racetrack. Fair enough, but what does “high powered” have to do with this? Crap, this is turning into a gun control thread, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/47 "2011-11-11T23:33:03Z")
> [@kenetic](#): > > Why is doing the same thing for guns so onerous? We don’t have a constitutional amendment that mentions automobiles. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/48 "2011-11-11T23:35:49Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Crap, this is turning into a gun control thread, isn’t it? Personally I find it rather ironic that a thread titled “When did the NRA become a hyper-partisan anathema to rational thought?” has been dominated by hyper-partisan and irrational claims by gun rights activists. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/49 "2011-11-11T23:37:38Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > We don’t have a constitutional amendment that mentions automobiles. True, but we also don’t have a constitutional amendment that says we can’t possibly place any controls on gun ownership and use ever, under any circumstances. ---
**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:** [November 11, 2011, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/50 "2011-11-11T23:38:51Z")
Actually, assault _rifle_ indicates a weapon capable of full-automatic (or at least burst fire)–loosely speaking, it’s a kind of “machine gun”; i.e., you pull the trigger once, and more than one bullet comes out. They aren’t technically quite illegal, but they are massively regulated. Assault _weapon_ is a different category, steming from the “assault weapons ban” (part of the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act” of 1994). It was that law (which has since expired) which led to there being legal differences between weapons firing the same kind of bullets (and all of which were semi-automatic–pull the trigger once, the gun fires once) but which had or did not have things like folding stocks or bayonet lugs. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/51 "2011-11-11T23:42:58Z")
> [@River\_Hippie](#): > > Is there a Democrat and liberal friendly gun rights association? An alternative for those like me that are supporters of the second amendment but won’t support Republicans? There are several, although you might not be the usual demographic. [Pink Pistols](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_pistols), a LGBT gun-rights organization with the awesome slogan “Armed gays don’t get bashed”. [Liberty Belles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Belles), a woman-focused gun rights organization. [Second Amendment Sisters](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_Sisters), another woman-focused gun rights organization created to counter the Million Mom March. The remainder, other than the Brady Campaign trojan horse [American Hunters and Shooters Association](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Hunters_and_Shooters_Association), are largely associated with Republicans because, well, Republicans don’t vote for gun bans, so they typically get the most support. Really, though, you’re not supporting Republicans or Democrats with any of these organizations. You’re supporting gun rights and the people who hold the position most similar to yours. If single-issue politics isn’t your thing you’re not likely to find any gun-rights organization to your satisfaction. Rare is the time when you can vote for a candidate that agrees with everything you believe in, so you have to decide how important it is to you. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/52 "2011-11-11T23:44:10Z")
> [@kenetic](#): > > Personally I find it rather ironic that a thread titled “When did the NRA become a hyper-partisan anathema to rational thought?” has been dominated by hyper-partisan and irrational claims by gun rights activists. What a completely reasonable statement. I’m sure we’ll all be guided by your fine example of rationality. > [@](#): > > True, but we also don’t have a constitutional amendment that says we can’t possibly place any controls on gun ownership and use ever, under any circumstances. The point is that firearms are protected in a manner that automobiles are not. Obviously we can place some controls on firearm possession. We might differ on what is reasonable though. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/53 "2011-11-11T23:47:49Z")
> [@kenetic](#): > > True, but we also don’t have a constitutional amendment that says we can’t possibly place any controls on gun ownership and use ever, under any circumstances. No, we don’t. But your statement implies that we don’t have any restrictions on firearms, when in fact we have so many restrictions it’s hard to keep track of them all. I have spent many years reading up on everything I can because the subject interests me, and every day I learn something new. So, what new restrictions would you like to place on firearms? Chances are they’ve either been tried or already exist and you just don’t know it. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/54 "2011-11-11T23:59:34Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Saying that a federal law enforcement agency is populated by “jack-booted thugs” with permission to “murder law-abiding citizens” is defense of a sport? Is that really the word you choose to defend the NRA’s special interest activism, as defense of a “sport?” > > I’d have more respect for that argument if you argued they were defending a political view or an idealized, rugged-individualistic view of the United States. But to call their lobbying efforts as being in the name of a sport is ludicrous. You seem to have missed where I mentioned rights. Perhaps you should read my post again. The jack booted thugs comment, as put forth by J. Dingell (D), was certainly hyperbole. ---
**Author:** ![Molesworth\_2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9dc877/32.png) [@Molesworth\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Molesworth_2)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/55 "2011-11-12T00:29:16Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > LaPierre is, indeed, a broken record; he’s a knee-jerk, single-issue partisan; he has a one-track mind; and I’m glad he exists, and I’m glad the NRA exists. The NRA does see all kinds of anti gun conspiracies where they don’t exist, but I don’t really care - they’re the one organization fighting in a dedicated way to preserve the second amendment. **We really need them**. No, you really don’t. After the Port Arthur Massacre here in Australia gun-rights were severely curtailed. We Aussies haven’t suffered any loss of “Freedom” since. Strangely enough, we also haven’t had another gun massacre. To put it simply, guns do not improve one’s standard of living, and to claim that they do is IMHO pure and unadulterated BS. So you might want to back up that statement. Why is it that you feel the NRA is “needed”? Show your work. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/56 "2011-11-12T00:35:56Z")
> [@Molesworth\_2](#): > > No, you really don’t. > > After the Port Arthur Massacre here in Australia gun-rights were severely curtailed. We Aussies haven’t suffered any loss of “Freedom” since. To put it simply, guns do not improve one’s standard of living, and to claim that they do is IMHO pure and unadulterated BS. > > So you might want to back up that statement. Why is it that you feel the NRA is “needed”? > > Show your work. Since part of my definition of “Freedom” is that the people are trusted to be armed, I would argue that you HAVE suffered a loss of “Freedom” To put it simply, my guns have improved by standard of living in many ways. These personally include shooting sports (target and trap), hunting (hoping for a boar this winter - might make my own bacon), family time (teaching my sons to shoot), collecting (at times I have sold parts of my collection for profit), and self defense (chased a home intruder out of my apartment after the LA earthquake). So the NRA is needed, much a many other single issue advocacy groups are needed. Without their efforts, it is certainly possible that the US citizenry would have lost their right to keep and bear arms. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/57 "2011-11-12T00:44:46Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > [Liberty Belles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Belles), a woman-focused gun rights organization. > > [Second Amendment Sisters](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_Sisters), another woman-focused gun rights organization created to counter the Million Mom March. What makes these “Democrat and liberal friendly”? Women can’t be Republicans? > [@Odesio](#): > > The point is that firearms are protected in a manner that automobiles are not. Obviously we can place some controls on firearm possession. We might differ on what is reasonable though. That’s exactly the point. Gun rights activists aren’t willing to compromise on what they consider reasonable (generally nothing). And if we’re going to go down the 2nd amendment route, is it really reasonable that “that firearms are protected in a manner that automobiles are not”? Surely you realize that times have changed and the original intent of the 2nd amendment (to help thwart an invasion by the British) is completely irrelevant today? ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/58 "2011-11-12T00:48:25Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > Since part of my definition of “Freedom” is that the people are trusted to be armed, I would argue that you HAVE suffered a loss of “Freedom” > > To put it simply, my guns have improved by standard of living in many ways. These personally include shooting sports (target and trap), hunting (hoping for a boar this winter - might make my own bacon), family time (teaching my sons to shoot), collecting (at times I have sold parts of my collection for profit), and self defense (chased a home intruder out of my apartment after the LA earthquake). > > So the NRA is needed, much a many other single issue advocacy groups are needed. Without their efforts, it is certainly possible that the US citizenry would have lost their right to keep and bear arms. Did you miss the “Show your work” part? Any evidence to support the claim that without the NRA “it is certainly possible that the US citizenry would have lost their right to keep and bear arms”? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/59 "2011-11-12T00:53:30Z")
> [@kenetic](#): > > What makes these “Democrat and liberal friendly”? Women can’t be Republicans? Of course they can. But when you form to counter the Million Mom March, you’re not Republican. > [@](#): > > That’s exactly the point. Gun rights activists aren’t willing to compromise on what they consider reasonable (generally nothing). > > And if we’re going to go down the 2nd amendment route, is it really reasonable that “that firearms are protected in a manner that automobiles are not”? Surely you realize that times have changed and the original intent of the 2nd amendment (to help thwart an invasion by the British) is completely irrelevant today? I’m still waiting on what you think is “reasonable”. And the 2nd Amendment, contrary to your opinion, is very relevant today. The Supreme Court just recently incorporated it. It doesn’t get much more relevant than that. It doesn’t matter that you don’t like it, you don’t get to dismiss it because of that. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/60 "2011-11-12T01:05:55Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > I’m still waiting on what you think is “reasonable”. And the 2nd Amendment, contrary to your opinion, is very relevant today. The Supreme Court just recently incorporated it. It doesn’t get much more relevant than that. It doesn’t matter that you don’t like it, you don’t get to dismiss it because of that. I don’t have an opinion on what’s reasonable. I’m trying to understand why some people aren’t willing to consider any restrictions reasonable, and to back it up with some objective, empirical evidence. No one in this thread has made any attempt to do so. Also I have no idea what you mean when you say “The Supreme Court just recently incorporated” the 2nd amendment, nor did I say I didn’t like it. Again, that’s just projecting irrational fears onto people who don’t share a particular obsession. In other words, “hyper-partisan anathema to rational thought”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568.md?page=4)