Skip to comments.NRA took hard right after leadership coup(barf alert)
Posted on 07/27/2012 7:59:28 PM PDT by marktwain
Six months from now, as the shock of the "Dark Knight" shooting fades, America will likely have no new gun-control laws to prevent such tragedies from occurring again. The credit - or blame - for that inaction will belong to the National Rifle Association, one of America's strongest political interest groups.
How did the NRA gain such influence over American politics? Surprisingly, it happened overnight.
The NRA was founded after the Civil War by two Union soldiers - one of whom was a reporter for a newspaper known today for its opposition to gun rights, the New York Times - who thought the poor shooting skills of servicemen from the North unnecessarily prolonged the conflict. The NRA was formed to improve marksmanship training to better prepare American servicemen to fight future wars.
Although today's NRA is known for its antigovernment rhetoric - Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president, once called federal law enforcement officers "a jackbooted group of fascists" - the early NRA was weaned on government subsidies. Its first rifle range was financed by a government grant, and over the years the NRA has been singled out to purchase surplus military firearms at discounted prices.
In the early 1900s, the NRA began to flex its political muscle - in favor of gun control. NRA leaders helped draft the Uniform Firearms Act, a piece of model legislation enacted by dozens of states to restrict the carrying of firearms in public. The law required anyone who wanted to carry a concealed weapon to first obtain a permit and imposed a waiting period on the sale of handguns.
"I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons," said Karl Frederick, the organization's former president. "I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I have been a member of the NRA during much of the period he discusses, and my father was a member before me. I remember reading the American Rifleman before 1968.
Winkler is simply wrong. The NRA woke up in 1968, not 1977. There was a plan to subvert the orgnization away from protecting the Second Amendment, a task it took up in the late 1960's. That plan was extinguished by the "revolt in Cincinnati" in 1977, where the voting membership took control of the organization and put in place reforms to insure that the membership had a voice.
Mr. Winkler makes much of the fact that the NRA was not concerned with gun control legislation until the late 1960's. That is true, primarily because, except for the National Firearms act of 1932 (tepidly supported by the NRA, though Elmer Keith lead a revolt of members that prevented pistols from being classed with machine guns), there was almost no national gun control.
People could buy anti-aircraft and anti-tank cannon through the mail, with ammunition.
It wasn't until 1968 that the progressives were able to harness their growing power in the MSM to push through another major infringment of the Second Amendment.
That woke up the NRA membership, which pushed the leadership into defending the Constitutional right.
the real tragedy is that they think new gun control laws would prevent this stuff
A San Fernasco metrosexual telling US about the history of the NRA. ROTFL!!!
double barf, except - it’s so fun to read the tone of bitterness throughout - and know that most thinking people see right through it
I wonder what will cause more deaths in America this year:
a). Innocent people from mass murder
b). Pillow biters from AIDS
The 1968 law was aimed directly at the NRA, because it banned mail order sales of firearms, and the NRA got a great deal of its revenue directly form ads for the mail order of firearms in the American Rifleman.
People were concerned that the NRA might not survive. You could make a case that those who pushed for disarmament of the American people created the seeds of their own demise when they forced the NRA to rely on membership dues for their survival. The membership has always been more concerned with protecting the Second Amendment than most of the NRA leadership.
The NRA was not taken over by hardliners, it was taken over by centrist constitutionalists.
That is as far as I chose to read.
Whatever the good intentions, I reject unconditionally that a fundamental Constitutional right can be cancelled based entirely on (ignorant) opinion.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to educate the morons about history, culture, the social contract and human nature.
Left-speak for "The majority was able to vote out the out of touch leadership using the democratic rules of the organization".
That's actually a true statement. Because gun-control laws do not and have never prevented these tragedies at all.
They simply make it more likely that the body count will be higher because they make it less likely that an armed and well-regulated citizen will take the perp out.
It’s not about the NRA; it’s about the Constitution and liberty.
I posted this on another thread, and I won't change a thing. Blooming idiot, like this idiot, said...
"I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say, 'We're going to go on strike. We're not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe,"
Let's cut to the chase. If BloominIdiot and his ilk existed between 1776 and 1791, when we finally had a practicable Constitution, and presented their fatuous version of leadership, they would have been summarily hanged to be able to get back to the business of creating the exceptional State.
The facts are clear for anyone who wishes to examine them:
Total law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2011 --- 173. And they all had guns! Total civilians murdered in 2010 (no figures yet for 2011) ---- 12,996. Not a set of numbers that would inspire either confidence nor gratitude by the survivors. Specially when the law insists that it's our duty, when confronted by a killer, to run, rather than protect ourselves by whatever means are necessary. Even most children could reason out the idiocy of that set of ineffective premises for survival is our current society. Assuming, of course, that humanity's primary duty is to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
That's a ratio of 75 to 1. Not exactly the most intellectual argument for challenging the Second Amendment.
What makes the life of a policeman worth more than everyone else? When did the mind-boggling rule get cemented permanently that We the People gave up our right to protect ourselves, our family and our community, permanently and irrevocably?
We merely assigned a duty, we did NOT forfeit a natural and perpetual right. The right to self preservation.
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!
Bloomingidiot, most of us wish that the police would go on strike, and we were able once again to protect ourselves. Most of us are willing and able to do exactly that.
Police very seldom prevent murders. They tell us that. The courts tell us that they have no duty actually to prevent our murders; actually to protect us. All they do today is to make sure that the body is taken to the proper place, mutter "Sorry for your loss," and go have another donut.
Bloomie, I prefer to defend the Second Amendment and die fighting. Deal with it.
Listening to all of the liberals, progressives and whatever, yelling and screaming like the NRA is the equivalent of Pol Pot and we don’t need this or we don’t need that in relation to our choice of weapons, something came to mind.
Isn’t it a crying shame the NRA exists only to protect that inconvenient little thing called the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
I think they know better actually. They aren’t that stupid. Gun control isn’t all about preventing gun violence as they would have us believe, it’s about power. If law abiding conservatives are disarmed, who does that leave with the guns and where does that consolidate the power?
Lou Dobbs tonight
Very good recap of little known history.
Imagine having laws written and changed based on daily news headlines.
I love Lou but I will have to check that out later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.