Securing Second Amendment Support in the Suburbs

Securing Second Amendment Support in the Suburbs
Securing Second Amendment Support in the Suburbs

U.S.A. -( When they write the accounts of how the battle for the Second Amendment was decided, it’s not just going to be about the court rulings. It’s also going to focus on whether those court rulings took hold, or if they got overturned down the road.

Yes, folks, the Supreme Court has been known to change its mind. In 58 years, the Supreme Court changed its mind on the legality of “separate but equal.” While Brown v. Board of Education overturning Plessy v. Ferguson was a good change, it is also a warning with regards to the Heller and McDonald rulings.

Both of those rulings were 5-4 rulings in support of the Second Amendment. But even then, it was difficult. We know now that during the Heller deliberations, then-Justice John Paul Stevens was working to water down that landmark decision, if not thwart it completely. To an extent, he succeeded in getting some throwaway lines, but those lines have been used to justify semi-auto bans by the Ninth and Fourth Circuits. So, the Supreme Court situation, while better, is still precarious. This doesn’t include calls on the Left to pack the court.

Now, carrying out such a packing is theoretically possible. There is nothing in the Constitution limiting the Supreme Court to only nine members. But to do that, there would need to be an anti-Second Amendment majority in the House, an anti-Second Amendment supermajority in the Senate, and an anti-Second Amendment President.

The first of those three requirements are already in place. The other two could very well happen by 2025. You can bet that the packing would be designed to neutralize pro-Second Amendment appointments since January 2017. Imagine, if you will, multiple new justices with the John Paul Stevens mindset on the Second Amendment, and also willing to rule in favor of laws that restrict political speech.

These would not be mere setbacks for Second Amendment supporters, these would be kill shots. Not only would a radical and onerous agenda be passed, but efforts to campaign against it could be effectively criminalized. How do we stop this?

The answer is to win elections, and right now, while Second Amendment supporters dominate in the rural areas – especially “flyover country” – they have steadily lost ground in the suburbs. As such, Bloomberg, Schumer, Feinstein, and others who seek to take away our Second Amendment rights for no good reason are closer to being able to say, “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in.”

Why is this the case? Well, one of the reasons has been the incessant coverage mass shootings have gained. Now, we know the facts about mass shootings, how they are rare events, that “gun-free” zones are prime locations for such events, that concealed carry helps stop them, that other countries have worse ones than the United States, and often there are numerous missed chances to prevent them long before the terrible event happens.

That’s not the picture that the media and anti-Second Amendment extremists have painted. Bloomberg has helped make that false picture stick, especially in the minds of the proverbial “soccer moms” – suburban women, usually who were also balancing their kids with careers. These women, who place the safety of their kids as a top priority, have been hit with years of claims that the NRA is a threat to their kids’ safety because of its defense of the Second Amendment.

Sadly, the NRA’s response hasn’t been as effective as it could have been. In addition, the social stigmatization of the Second Amendment has, as its purpose, to make the suburbs a bastion for Bloomberg’s agenda. The fact is, Second Amendment supporters will need ways to convince a bunch of soccer moms who have the poop scared out of them that they have been lied to. How can we do this?

The first step has to be some very smart advertising. Yes, Silicon Valley and the national media are biased, but local stations sell ad revenue, too. Run ads that get the facts out, show demonstrable lies by those who wish to take our rights away, and which humanize Second Amendment supporters. In addition, many of the techniques used to fight the social stigmatization of the Second Amendment can be used.

We can talk about the attack on our rights, and yes, fire up those in flyover country, but it is in the suburbs where the future of our Second Amendment rights will be decided.

Harold Hu, chison

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post,, and other national websites.

  • 59 thoughts on “Securing Second Amendment Support in the Suburbs

    1. Out gunned and out numbered. And drugs are epidemic and dealers are teaming up with pimps who kidnap children and traffick captive women. In Maine the trafficking is a 32 billion dollars hole in Maine’s economy.

      In recent elections the candidates were so closely tied they had to use ranked choice voting, which l don’t like because I to the polls to vote for a particular candidate and nobody else.

    2. Congress needs to mandate that all decisions coming down from the US Supreme Court be voted unanimously by the justices. This will assure that only constitutionalists may be seated on the court and there will be no cabal of liberals or statists.

    3. Criminals don’t abide by the laws so how do stiffer gun restrictions help ? The new laws only effect people who follow the law. Don’t be stupid do research and find out the truth. None of the new laws do anything to protect anyone we already have background checks the politicians have there own agenda in mind not the safety of the people look at the FBI’S own data from the last assult weapon ban it did nothing to gun crime. My God just look at all the lies you see in the news everyday about all the scandals in our trusted government and just realize these are the people who will be empowered to protect you, that terrifies me. Good bless America not politicians

      1. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws… they break (DIS-obey) laws. So the concept of simply enacting more laws (putting more “ink on paper”) – which criminals will disregard in exactly the same way that they have historically always disregarded laws – is useless, except as a shining example of Leftists/liberals’ ridiculously-poor (nonexistent, actually) problem-solving skills. Leftists (liberals, socialists, progressives, or whatever the hell they call themselves this week) have NO business in any position of leadership… social, religious, or political. Their happy asses need to be bounced across the parking lot, so they will go away and let sane adults address society’s problems.

    4. The Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights is a contract between the government and the governed that inalienable rights (endowed by the Creator) will not be infringed upon. That knowledge is being eroded in our current society. Unfortunately, it will not stop, rather continue. The progressive agenda is just that insidious. The sheeple will not realize they have sold themselves into slavery and abject poverty until it’s too late. We can stem the tide, but the post modern flood waves will continue to crash against our constitution. I fear for my country my children and grandchildren.

      1. wrong Jay.
        there is two parts to this amendment, also remember WE THE PEOPLE ARE STILL THE MILITIA, NOT THE NATIONAL GUARD.

        1. Correct! In the late 1700s, the only formal national guard in existence was the British government’s militia composed of Tories… loyalists to the crown, who fought against the colonists. Are Leftists truly stupid enough to claim that the 2nd Amendment applied only to those Tories???

    5. Was told once you have to lay down to be walked on.Its past time to stand up or we won’t be able to stand.We need verifiable facts to put in the face of these gun right grabbers .

    6. Cox and LaPierre have devolved the NRA into a mega self, perpetuating fundraising organization like AARP . I dropped my membership( which started with Obama’s election) when they started spending more to raise money than my membership cost. Then they started giving away the store. And LTC North (WTF)? I now belong to Judicial Watch and SAF. THEY ARE ACTUALLY DOING THINGS.

    7. NRA started to setup standardization and expansion of civilian firearms training. Setting standards and instruction on being an instructor in the various types of shooting and firearms. Instead of getting into the political realm of firearms, the NRA probably should have stayed where it was originally started for, training civilians. And let others like NAGR, 2nd amend foundation, GOA, take on the political part.

      1. Every time a party takes over they erase what the previous party did. But l don’t think guns and the 2nd A will vanish. Too much violent crime, and that’s exactly what brings more people in.The most frightened are in the cities, with the suburbs in second place and the cities have far fewer than they need.
        We need new laws that allow people to use their guns, especially for home defense. And perhaps more personal surveillance like the police have to film incidents from their cars and some day, from our persons while we carry on the street. Then we’ll have proof of what took place in a shooting incident.
        Just compare the population and crime logs with the number of officers.
        I”m very grateful for the NRA, the staff does an excellent job with staying on top of upcoming legislation and researching candidates. I wish l had more money to donate but a series of ongoing home invasions, vandalism, and break-ins ruined me financially. I do the best l can to stay current with my membership, very concious that we are many millions strong.

    8. Article One Section Eight of the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate and call forward the local milita to enforce the laws of Union, among other things

      It is this portion of the Constitution that the Second Amendment was intended to amend.

      The older I get, the more convinced I become that modern day Law Enforcement is one of many subdivisions within the original meaning of the word milita and that the individual’s right to self preservation from congress’s regulatory powers over the local milita. Meaning the individual’s right to self preservation out weighs the same rights of an individual actively engaged in Law Enforcement by and through the Second Amendment.

      I do not understand how anyone reasonably informed person of average intelligence can honestly say otherwise.

      ”To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

    9. The Second Amendment is grossly misunderstood and must be repealed, updated, and partially reissued.
      The most important issue that must be addressed is that there is absolutely no compelling need for civilian ownership of assault weapons.

        1. There is no such thing. That mythical term was coined by liberals as a scare tactic to be used on citizens who are not knowledgeable about firearms.

          There is such a thing as an assault rifle – such as the M16 and M4 – which the US military carefully defines (capable of fully automatic rate-of-fire, for instance) and which the military issues to its combat troops. Conversely, rifles capable of only semi-automatic rate-of-fire – such as AR15s – are strictly civilian firearms, and are NOT issued to combat troops. [No military anywhere in the world uses AR15s!]

          Liberals deceitfully use esthetics (the similarity in the way the two rifles LOOK – despite the dis-similarity in the way they operate) to lie to citizens about the existence of unicorns which those lying liberals call “assault weapons.”

      1. Yes, you are correct; the 2nd Amendment IS grossly misunderstood — BY THE LEFT! But I’m pretty sure that that is purely intentional on their part. (You night begin by understanding that “well regulated” refers to adjusting the sights on a firearm so that they align with the impact of the bullet at a given distance. Even if you cannot grasp that reality, you would have to realize that “well regulated” (controlled/restricted) is totally incompatible with “shall not be infringed.” Unless one is that smitten with that “special kind of stupid. (On purpose, or simply afflicted by a degenerative disorder?)

        1. You’re correct, Charles… and the term “well-regulated” (as used in the late 1700s) did not equate to “controlled,” it simply referenced being up to military standards of the day. When the militias were called upon, each member was expected to arrive with a weapon (“suitable for war”), and enough ammunition – as well as food and clothing – to last three days or until the supply chain could resupply the unit.

      2. Bob, I think you grossly misunderstand the 2nd Amendment. Or maybe you’re just a socialist and heart and don’t even realize what repealing the 2nd Amendment will do to your God-given freedoms in this nation…. or maybe you’re an atheist and don’t believe in anything God-given….Only Gov-given. The reasoning and logic behind the 2nd Amendment is clear. Your guns are yours. You can be part of a citizen’s militia if our borders are threatened….or to stop crime as it happens. And you don’t have a clue what an assault weapon is.

      3. Bob, no “compelling reason”? You clearly do not understand the 2A. The 2A *guarantees* our right to keep and bear *arms*. It does not state the right to keep and bear pea shooters and sling shots, but arms. Did the privateers that attacked British shipping use bows and arrows or cannon and small arms? They were still subjects of the king at the time. Did not the militia men have similar arms to the British soldiers? Did not Washington obtain cannons for his army? Think back, he was a traitorous British subject at that time. He was, but a rebel facing the threat of death by hanging if caught.

        Then there is that nebulous, undefined term, “assault weapons”. Ironically, during the Clinton “assault weapons” ban, the semi-automatic AR-15 was banned, but its fully automatic sister, the M-16, was then, and still is, “allowed” to be purchased and possessed. I don’t believe the AR-15, as scary as you might believe it to be, is more dangerous or lethal than its fully automatic counterpart that was as legal during the ban as it is today, proving the stupidity and hypocrisy of the “assault weapons” ban.

    10. Right! because eveyone knows it’s better if you’re stabbed, dismembered with a machete, or bludgeoned, than shot.

    11. Mandatory NATIONAL firearms registration along with stiff penalties (5yrs and or $10k fine) if your gun is used in a crime and has not been reported lost or stolen:
      -Reduces or eliminates unregistered black market sales
      -Reduces # guns manufactured due to elimination of straw purchases
      -Severely reduces adults leaving firearms laying around for kids to access
      -Blows hole in NRA “they are coming for your guns” conspiracy theory
      -Empowers law enforcement with firearm power of vehicle owners and homeowners prior to pulling over a vehicle or serving a warrant
      -Black market firearms prices will increase drastically where most criminals and definitely most kids will not be able to afford
      -Allow concealled carry reciprocity between all states

    12. I have ONE question for any law abiding gun owners!
      If you are, your a PATRIOT!
      If you are not, YOUR THE ENEMY!
      My Dad was a WW2 Army Veteran that died in 1960 at 47 years old. If he could come out of his grave, he’d probably say, “What did I fight for”?
      I’m a Viet Nam Veteran that took an OATH to defend this country from Enemies, foreign and domestic! My OATH has NEVER EXPIRED!
      I’m still willing to die for FREEDOMS SAKE and I’m sure others are to!!
      All RIGHTS are reserved for those willing to fight for them!
      The Elite Socialistic LibTARD DemoCRYBABY Pinko Commies are willing to take all of our freedoms!

      1. Right! because eveyone knows it’s better if you’re stabbed, dismembered with a machete, or bludgeoned, than shot.

      2. I would like you to give one example of gun laws preventing a criminal from breaking them. Murder has always been against the law, yet “strong laws against it” doesn’t stop it from happening, does it? Criminals by definition do not follow the law, that is why they are criminals.
        Quit trying to further infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. They are not the one’s you need to be worried about.

      3. You must be one of the Socialistic DemoCRYBABY Leftist LibTARD Pinko Commies that is showing your Commie EduMaKation at it’s finest!
        Go live in China for 1 month, and see if you’d be begging to come back to America, and hide again under your mommies skirt!

      4. How many times do criminals follow the law so let’s make more laws that only law abiding citizens follow that will work.

      5. Not a word of truth in what you say. I hope you are being facetious. Question 1: Who obeys laws (gun or otherwise)? Answer: Law obiding citizens. Question 2: Who disobeys laws (gun or otherwise)? Answer: Criminals. Question 3: Are people who murder, rape, steal, burgle, rob, maim with stolen guns, quid pro quo away 20% of America’s weapons grade uranium, or share over 30,000 Classified emails (in the process unmasking at least one foreign CIA operative who was promptly executed)? A) Law abiding citizens or B) Criminals? This last one is multiple choice so you have some time to think about the answer and look up how to spell “result”. Even anti-gun agenda driven studies have been forced to publish some very disturbing conclusions for them. That is, that the areas with the most restrictive gun control laws have not shown ANY evidence that they lead to less crime, and in all cases where the control groups and stats aren’t hidden, the converse is actually true. For a detailed explanation of how this can possibly be, please see Questions #’s 1 and 2.

      6. That is not true, as an example Massachusetts has a higher per capita homicide rate with firearms than Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. Why is that if those states have much laxer gun laws than Massachusetts?

      7. Actually, you are wrong. A huge Harvard study states that is not true. You can read the study here:

        1) The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights

        2) The Bill of Rights, are an “Individual’s Rights”,

        3) The Bill of Rights does not give the Government, the Military or the Police those rights. It Does NOT state it is the right of the police to keep and bear arms. It does NOT state it is the right of the Military to keep and bear arms. It does NOT state it is the right of the government to keep and bear arms. It states “The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed”.

        4) The 2nd Amendment is not for the protection of hunting.

        5) The 2nd Amendment is there to allow the people to protect themselves from a rogue Government.

        6) There are only about 8900 murders per year with a firearm. Most of those murdered are criminals, murdered by other criminals, like those in Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans, Newark, NY, Camden….All Cities controlled by Democrats. None of those shooters are members of the NRA. It is safe to say, none of those shooters are Republicans.

        7) Semi-Automatic Firearms are NOT Assault Rifles. Only Machine Guns are Assault Rifles.

        8) Military Calibers are not designed to kill, they are designed to only wound. That’s why the Geneva Convention does not allow Hollow Point Bullets on the battlefield.

        9) The Constitution should be followed as written. It should not be viewed as a “Living Breathing Constitution” nor should it be “Interpreted” because when you “interpret” something, you can “Interpret” it to mean anything you want it to mean. Our Founding Fathers did not mean it to be “Interpreted. If they did, they would not have had to put in place a way to change the Constitution if future generations disagreed with it. They wanted it to be followed as written.

        10) Even HARVARD, (yes THAT Harvard) after an exhaustive study, has come to the conclusion that fewer guns, does NOT result in fewer gun deaths.
        Here is the link. You don’t have to read the study, just the conclusion.

      8. ???? Do you mean, “result” in fewer deaths? If so, you are lying – intentionally – and you are so full of manure that the whites of your eyes are turning brown!

    13. There is no way in hell i will turn over my guns. There is no way the police or military will carry out order to get your guns. Just try to get mind

      1. EXACTLY, and communicate with NRA and other 2nd Amendment organizations when they make noises and take actions contrary to their primary mission!

    14. The problem is those idiots like Feinstein and other people just like them in my opinion should be kicked out of the United States if they want this country like the others that have taken the rites of honest people to defend there selfs and depend on a government that won’t even help the veterans that have defended this country with there lives and limbs they have lost then go there infact now everyone should know why they have armed guards protecting them! They are stupid and power hungry to own everyone and everything once and if that takes place then it will be and all United Citzens will be Slaves so again in my opinion these idiots should be kicked out of this country or lined up and Shot rite between the eyes when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns then when there family members are being held down by gun point fixing to be killed by a radical terrorist ask them where’s your weapons to protect your family and where’s the police to help? There won’t be any help from police because there out gunned!!!

      1. And your opinion is exactly why there is the ongoing battle.
        It’s not the Wild West anymore. Grow up!
        Nobody has lost a gun, and veiled threats are the ongoing reason you need to stop living in fear. Statements like this are broadcast as how unruly the and radical you are. The next shooter at a school, concert, movie theater, church, sporting event. If you own a gun you’re part of the militia which is a well regulated form of our government.

      2. Out gunned and out numbered. And drugs are epidemic and dealers are teaming up with pimps who kidnap children and traffick captive women. In Maine the trafficking is a 32 billion dollars hole in Maine’s economy.

    15. To change someone’s mind you need to personalize the situation. Many women say that they could never shoot someone. When you ask if that would be their answer if someone were threatening their children the answer changes. And yet when someone threatens the mother, or father, are they not also, by extension, threatening the children? The problem is that most people spend or have spent very little time in their life contemplating life itself. There was a very good add in the Oklahoma Governor’s race this year talking about the Democrat candidate’s stance on the age to buy a AR-15. It was aimed at women and was very effective because it stated the truth and made it real for women.

      1. I bought my first gun in 1977 following my first home invasion. I took it to a friend who was a police officer. The gun was brand new, unloaded, never before fired. It was in it’s original box, inside a paper bag. I was holding the bag with two fingers at the top, far away from my body, like carrying a bomb. The police department saw me and believed l was carrying a bomb! My friend recognized me, he told them he knew me and would try to talk me down. He came outside, said hello, asked me what was in the bag. I told him, a gun. He grabbed the bag, looked inside, burst out laughing, and invited me into his office. The others gathered around, passed the gun around like a new baby, asking me of all people if they could dry fire it.
        He was my first teacher.

        A year and a half later, the same home invader came back.

        Of course you can’t imagine shooting a gun, when you have never before held a gun, never been attacked in your life — never mind at someone. It takes training, practice, guidance, and the support of other people. Crime is everywhere, today, and people are frightened. Step one should be a neighborhood meeting deciding what to do about it. How many officers have you got compared to how many robberies and homicides?

    16. There are 300 million firearms in possession of the citizens of the United States and the only thing that really makes any other safe or well trained police departments gun reform it’s time has come

      1. EXACTLY, and communicate with NRA and other 2nd Amendment organizations when they make noises and take actions contrary to their primary mission!

      2. @ James f Barry I read your post several times and I always come back to the last part of the last sentence that says “gun reform it’s time has come.” I have taken that to mean you are asking for more laws to reform gun handling of the public which could lead to confiscation or universal registration. If that is what you are referring to then I call you a troll. If you are saying something in support of guns then I apologize for attacking you.

    17. I’ve been saying for years that the future of the second amendment isn’t going to be fought in the courts, it’s a PR war.
      We all know we will never convince the anti-gunners and the Pro-gun people are already on our side. The fight is over the non gun owners who respect the second amendment but don’t have any skin in the game. They see the if it bleeds it leads stories and the gun control groups conflate the statistics to tell them that this is an epidemic, and all they need to do is some common sense gun legislations, tell them that nobody needs military style weapons etc.
      If you’re not a gun owner and you see this, it doesn’t sound that unreasonable.

      We as the gun community need to be more ambassadors of the sport/hobby/lifestyle. We need to know the stats and be able to clearly articulate them instead of some who just say it’s our right.
      Here’s a perfect example, in Loudoun County Virginia which 20 years ago was mostly farm and undeveloped land has now extended suburbia. There have been several incidents where stray bullets have hit houses.
      The anti-gunners are calling for bans on shooting on private property and the some of the pro gun people are blaming the home owners for putting /buying houses out there. Which side do you think the politicians are going to take?
      We as gun owners here need to strongly condem these shooters and work on education on how to build berms, reinforce the basic principles of gun safety, knowing your target and what’s beyond.

      When we lose the people in the middle and they start calling their elected officials demanding they do something, that something isn’t going to be protect our rights.
      Yes, maybe the courts will reverse bad laws and ordinances, but they could take years to overturn.

      1. Wouldn’t doing away with the misinterpreted 2nd amendment be a good thing? There would be fewer guns and therefore fewer children would be shot in their schools. Not to mention less crime, less murders, less suicides, and less accidental deaths by gun.

        1. Ted, you are quite mistaken and/or deceitful. Jefferson stated the RKBA and self-defense is a natural right, that even without the 2A, we would still have that right.

          Fewer suicides, like in Japan, for example? Maybe fewer accidental deaths, but if you truly wanted that, you would ban doctors and hospitals that “accidentally” kill several hundred annually. Or ban pools and stairs that kill several thousand more annually than accidental deaths by firearm.

          Less crime, like in the UK that has had an increase in violent crime since they not only banned firearms, but knives? The UK rate of murder by knife increased when firearms were banned. More die by knives in the UK than by firearms, but banning knives didn’t stop that. As far as the murder rate in the UK, it was low before the firearm ban, and low after the firearm ban. The only difference was that the murder rate by knife increased after the firearm ban, and didn’t change after the knife ban. Murder, by any means is already illegal – since the beginning of Man – yet we all over the world there are still murders. The firearm does not cause murder, it is a tool, like a knife.

          In gun control Utopia California, their repressive firearm laws are still not able to prevent criminals from killing each other and innocent victims. Illegal drug trafficking hasn’t stopped with the ban on illegal drugs. There are far more drug overdoses than murders by any means. What laws should we pass to prevent the illegal drug trafficking, sale and use of illegal drugs? We should then use those laws that prevent those crimes as a model for illegal trafficking, sale, theft and use of firearms. When you come up with a law that will prevent those crimes, let me know.

    18. The NRA has, indeed not been perfect throughout it’s long history at helping to preserve a right that should never be in question in the first place. The government doesn’t give us our rights, on the contrary, the only thing they can do in regard to our rights is to take them away (in the intentional misnomer if safety, security, health, well being, etc.). But we give them permission every time we don’t vote or dont pay attention to the issues at hand or just general apathy. Most people have too much on their plate already, juggling career, family, etc. to really become involved. While the NRA’s failures are verifiable so too are their myriad successes. Were it not for their daily lobbying, challenging, forming strategy, informing the public, litigating, 3-gun matches would be exactly the same as cowboy action shooting. While I agree there are times they could have done better, they are by FAR the most diligent and effective thing we have going. They’re the largest grassroots, populist group in the country made up of millions of freedom loving Americans, from all races, creeds, genders, and from all walks of life. When I hear the MSM refer to the “Gun Lobby” in their denigrating tones, I cringe. WE are the gun lobby, forced to lobby congress just to keep an inherent Natural Right. We simply HAVE to support the NRA through volunteering, donations, literally anything we can do to help. While a single bbl. 20 gauge is retro-cool and nostalgic, it’s not what most of us choose. And if not for the NRA that might already have made to be our only choice.

    19. “Sadly, the NRA’s response hasn’t been as effective as it could have been.”

      You don’t say,Negotiating Rights Away has been one of capitulation from the start,1934, down the road to Infringement and continues today under La Pierre and Cox.

      Capitulation success of Negotiating Rights Away since 1934

      1791: The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified.
      The amendment reads:

      “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
      the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

      After That
      1871: The National Rifle Association was formed by Union Army veterans Col. William C. Church
      and Gen. George Wingate.

      After that, they start going the other way

      The NRA’s “record” of protecting Second Amendment rights:

      –National Firearms Act of 1934–not a peep of protestation from the NRA

      –1968 Gun Control Act–no protestation here, either.

      –1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act–allowed the banning the registration and civilian ownership of of newly-manufactured machine guns, with the resultant skyrocketing of prices of existing machine guns. No opposition offered.

      –1994 “Assault Weapons Ban”–feebly protested by the NRA with little opposition. Even Bill Ruger got in on the act with his successful proposal to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds. Yes, Bill Ruger actually did make that suggestion which was adopted.

      –2018 “Bump stock ban”–the NRA first suggesting a ban on “rate increasing devices”, even a shoestring can be used as a “rate increaser”, backing off only after an outcry from NRA members.

      It seems that the NRA half-heartedly protests the infringements on the Second Amendment in order to bolster new “memberships”.
      What better way to get members than to allow infringements and then claim that you are fighting for our “rights”.

      The NRA’s motto should be “NO COMPROMISE” and should fight EVERY gun control proposal…
      Sadly, the NRA IS NOT representing it member rights well.







        1. Many members have tried and it’s been a ongoing struggle for years to return the NRA to it’s members,much like the Feral government.

        1. Probably does decrease gun deaths, but it also vastly increases knife, bat, rock and etc deaths. Also increases hot home invasions, elder abuse, gang and other criminal organizations protection rackets. Don’t believe me? See Venezuela, jolly old England, Australia, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and on and on. No guns returns to the strong victimizing the weak without fear of retaliation. Return to that safe Middle Ages, where there were Serfs and Lords. The gun is Civilization, sorry but it is true. A 90lb 80 year old woman can protect herself from a 300lb muscular gang banger only with a gun, not a knife, not a bat, not with her personal strength, but with a gun. Those who bring up Japan, don’t realize that that is a homogenous culture, we in the U.S. are most assuredly not. Japan does not have race riots, why? Only one race and only one dominant religion. We don’t. We pretend that blacks/others do not victimize whites, but they do. If countries like Venezuela, Argentina and Mexico can’t keep super violent crime in check, we sure won’t be able to. Only the gun in private hands keeps the criminals in check. But hey, if you don’t like guns and want to follow the pipe dream of everyone is good, go for it, move to the inner city, preferably someplace like Detroit, rent a home, (plenty available) and tell everyone you are fully disarmed. But leave the rest of us be.

        2. You haven’t been paying attention to what’s going on in your strong gun control utopias around the U.S. and the rest of the world have you?

        3. You haven’t been paying attention to what’s going on in your strong gun control utopias around the U.S. and the rest of the world have you?

      1. That’s exactly why I dropped my membrrship that and they kept sending me Wayne Lapieres book spending more money asking for money than actually doing anything to guard my rights.

    Comments are closed.