8 ms·

OP article author here: You are correct and the parent comment is incorrect. The NRA actually used to support background checks, but after decades of "compromis

OP article author here: You are correct and the parent comment is incorrect. The NRA actually used to support background checks, but after decades of "compromises" where they basically gave up ground and got nothing in return, they went hard-line at the membership's insistence. This cartoon does a great job of explaining the average NRA members view of what it means to meet the gun control lobby "halfway" on an issue: http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/ http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-comprom... I'll link another piece I wrote on this topic, which is way too long and incoherent and should have gotten edits but didn't: http://www.alloutdoor.com/2015/11/12/why-fake-moderate-gun-owner-orgs-like-arcog-fail-every-time/ http://www.alloutdoor.com/2015/11/12/why-fake-moderate-gun-o... For discussion of the evolution of the NRA into a hard-line, no-compromise lobbying group, see the last section, "NRA: The Original Moderate Pro-Gun Group".

caseysoftware 10y ago
I missed your first article the first time around but read both. I just wanted to say that you did a fantastic job... well-researched and explained. Thank you. Also, the parallels with how legislators cluelessly approach the adoption of any new technology were painfully clear.
Dagwoodie 10y ago
The problem is, left leaning politicians constantly threaten their fundamental constitutional rights, either overtly or not. Every time a gun is used in a crime that rises to national prominence politicians sprint to the microphone to decry gun ownership or at very least to make it harder or much harder to acquire a gun. Bigger than that though, the entertainment media is largely left wing and extremely vocal of their disdain of not just "allowing crazy to buy guns" but their hatred of all gun owners and the second amendment. Never mind belligerent crazy people, I can't remember a single TV show or movie in the last thirty years that depicted responsible gun owners, i.e. the vast majority of gun owners, in any positive light. Can you? Every time I see a gun on TV it's either used by a police officer or used in a crime of some sort. Test me on this next time you see a gun shown on TV or in a movie that comes out Hollywood.
- hga 10y ago
  And then there's all the dramatic productions of written works where positive uses of guns are somehow dropped on the floor. Schindler's List I remember reading about, he armed "his" Jews before they left, and as I recall, being armed made a big difference in their subsequent survival. This sort of thing was dropped from the dramatization of a novel by a totally PC woman black? author, I could probably find a reference if anyone is interested. At minimum this is part of a wide spectrum culture war which these gun-grabbing politicians are on one side of, at worst, well, we gun owners know our 20th Century history (see above).
  - objclxt 10y ago
    > *dramatization of a novel by a totally PC woman black? author I fail to see how the gender or sex of the author has anything to do with anything, but it's good to know where your own biases lie.
    - hga 10y ago
      It's relevant in the context of the people who dramatized her work. In theory, coming from someone like her, they should have shown it the respect it was due. But the Hollywood narrative that also erased the good uses of guns from Schindler's List had to be maintained at all costs.
      - objclxt 10y ago
        The original book, Schindler's Ark, was written by a man (Thomas Keneally), as was the screenplay (Steven Zaillian). Putting that aside, you seem to be under the impression that there's some kind of Hollywood conspiracy, when in fact when you're adapting a novel you usually leave out a bunch of stuff. You stick with what's important. Despite what you might think, Schindler's List is not meant to be read as a story where the gun is the hero. You would be rather missing the point of it to take that view.
- Avshalom 10y ago
  Well, except that fundamental constitutional right is about 50 years old http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you...
ubernostrum 10y ago
where they basically gave up ground and got nothing in return What would they get in return? The absolutist/fundamentalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment does not admit of compromise, and sets up a world view in which compromises and "reasonable middles" cannot exist; from that stance one either wins completely or loses completely, which is not coincidentally the rhetoric often used to work supporters up into a frenzy.
- hga 10y ago
  What would they get in return? The right to own new machine guns made after 1986, and aren't additions before that that are not already in the pool of 200,000 forbidden? Nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, like with drivers licenses. Related to the above, enforcing shall issue concealed carry on the entire nation. Removing the many state restrictions on magazine size, and against "assault weapons", which the Congress has explicit, original Constitutional power to do, forget about the 2nd Amendment. Removing post-Reconstruction laws like the sheriff's permit to buy a handgun in North Carolina. In general, there's a host of "flypaper" laws that are designed to make it harder and more dangerous to keep and bear arms, and only serve such purposes, that clearing away a bunch of them would be a big thing for us. Reform the BATFE. That's just off the top of my head in 2 minutes.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    But... your points all come from the stance I was talking about. You don't seem interested in reasonable compromises, you seem interested in just getting everything you want and everyone else having to deal with it.
    - hga 10y ago
      Hello? That's a laundry list of possible items. Pick one, and then we can start talking about your "reasonable compromise". As noted previously, up to now all we've done is give things away in these so called compromises.
    - schismsubv 10y ago

caseysoftware 10y ago

I missed your first article the first time around but read both. I just wanted to say that you did a fantastic job... well-researched and explained. Thank you. Also, the parallels with how legislators cluelessly approach the adoption of any new technology were painfully clear.

Dagwoodie 10y ago

The problem is, left leaning politicians constantly threaten their fundamental constitutional rights, either overtly or not. Every time a gun is used in a crime that rises to national prominence politicians sprint to the microphone to decry gun ownership or at very least to make it harder or much harder to acquire a gun. Bigger than that though, the entertainment media is largely left wing and extremely vocal of their disdain of not just "allowing crazy to buy guns" but their hatred of all gun owners and the second amendment. Never mind belligerent crazy people, I can't remember a single TV show or movie in the last thirty years that depicted responsible gun owners, i.e. the vast majority of gun owners, in any positive light. Can you? Every time I see a gun on TV it's either used by a police officer or used in a crime of some sort. Test me on this next time you see a gun shown on TV or in a movie that comes out Hollywood.

hga 10y ago
And then there's all the dramatic productions of written works where positive uses of guns are somehow dropped on the floor. Schindler's List I remember reading about, he armed "his" Jews before they left, and as I recall, being armed made a big difference in their subsequent survival. This sort of thing was dropped from the dramatization of a novel by a totally PC woman black? author, I could probably find a reference if anyone is interested. At minimum this is part of a wide spectrum culture war which these gun-grabbing politicians are on one side of, at worst, well, we gun owners know our 20th Century history (see above).
- objclxt 10y ago
  > *dramatization of a novel by a totally PC woman black? author I fail to see how the gender or sex of the author has anything to do with anything, but it's good to know where your own biases lie.
  - hga 10y ago
    It's relevant in the context of the people who dramatized her work. In theory, coming from someone like her, they should have shown it the respect it was due. But the Hollywood narrative that also erased the good uses of guns from Schindler's List had to be maintained at all costs.
    - objclxt 10y ago
      The original book, Schindler's Ark, was written by a man (Thomas Keneally), as was the screenplay (Steven Zaillian). Putting that aside, you seem to be under the impression that there's some kind of Hollywood conspiracy, when in fact when you're adapting a novel you usually leave out a bunch of stuff. You stick with what's important. Despite what you might think, Schindler's List is not meant to be read as a story where the gun is the hero. You would be rather missing the point of it to take that view.
Avshalom 10y ago
Well, except that fundamental constitutional right is about 50 years old http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you...

ubernostrum 10y ago

where they basically gave up ground and got nothing in return What would they get in return? The absolutist/fundamentalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment does not admit of compromise, and sets up a world view in which compromises and "reasonable middles" cannot exist; from that stance one either wins completely or loses completely, which is not coincidentally the rhetoric often used to work supporters up into a frenzy.

hga 10y ago
What would they get in return? The right to own new machine guns made after 1986, and aren't additions before that that are not already in the pool of 200,000 forbidden? Nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, like with drivers licenses. Related to the above, enforcing shall issue concealed carry on the entire nation. Removing the many state restrictions on magazine size, and against "assault weapons", which the Congress has explicit, original Constitutional power to do, forget about the 2nd Amendment. Removing post-Reconstruction laws like the sheriff's permit to buy a handgun in North Carolina. In general, there's a host of "flypaper" laws that are designed to make it harder and more dangerous to keep and bear arms, and only serve such purposes, that clearing away a bunch of them would be a big thing for us. Reform the BATFE. That's just off the top of my head in 2 minutes.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  But... your points all come from the stance I was talking about. You don't seem interested in reasonable compromises, you seem interested in just getting everything you want and everyone else having to deal with it.
  - hga 10y ago
    Hello? That's a laundry list of possible items. Pick one, and then we can start talking about your "reasonable compromise". As noted previously, up to now all we've done is give things away in these so called compromises.
  - schismsubv 10y ago