Our gov. is poised to seize private property.. (Boston: drivers license, bill)

[CaseyB]

One of my neighbors has a cannon on his front lawn. I assume for decoration, I have no idea if it's usable.

[LeavingMA]

When most shooting happen in gun free zones, I'm not sure why any of this happens. A lot of pressure on the NRA (I'm not a member at all) but how many gun crimes happen at a gun convention...not many.

[tysmith95]

Originally Posted by LeavingMA

When most shooting happen in gun free zones, I'm not sure why any of this happens. A lot of pressure on the NRA (I'm not a member at all) but how many gun crimes happen at a gun convention...not many.

It's not realistic to have a school look like a gun convention. Arming officers and front office staff makes sense. Arming every teacher does not.

[LeavingMA]

Originally Posted by tysmith95

It's not realistic to have a school look like a gun convention. Arming officers and front office staff makes sense. Arming every teacher does not.

No it isn't and I agree with that, but to leave out the fact that most shooters go into a school zone without any disruption is also naïve.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

The NRA does fight to protect the Second Amendment for all of us. it is a very important Right and it needs to be defended from those that would trample all over it.

False. At some point in my lifetime the NRA transitioned from 'protector of the 2a' to 'arms mover'. Any organization which proudly states they "do not support background checks" is, in my opinion, not interested in bolstering the rights and respect of law abiding gun owners. Additionally, their Obama era marketing had little to do with personal rights and everything to do with fear-driven sales. It's a marketing firm for arms dealers first and foremost, with the secondary efforts in 2a support and training being a positive that's hard to reconcile given the the former.

[Cape Cod Todd]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

False. At some point in my lifetime the NRA transitioned from 'protector of the 2a' to 'arms mover'. Any organization which proudly states they "do not support background checks" is, in my opinion, not interested in bolstering the rights and respect of law abiding gun owners. Additionally, their Obama era marketing had little to do with personal rights and everything to do with fear-driven sales. It's a marketing firm for arms dealers first and foremost, with the secondary efforts in 2a support and training being a positive that's hard to reconcile given the the former.

When you consider the original intent of the Second amendment there was nothing in there about what can and cannot be owned by the public. There were no age restrictions, no mention of permits, license, certified classes before applying, fees and more fees and finally your ability to acquire a license being at the discretion of your towns chief of police.

The NRA is there to support the original intent of the Second amendment but in that I do think they take their guardianship a bit too seriously.

Times have changed and I think that many of the laws concerning guns that Massachusetts has could serve as a model to the rest of the nation where in many states it is much easier to buy a gun.
In some states all you need is a drivers license.

What I don't believe in is that out AG can reinstate a old law that had lapsed and turn what was legal to buy and own yesterday into something that is illegal today such as the so called assault weapon ban.
I also don't agree with our Government seizing private property that was legal and now is not with no buy back program and threats of criminal prosecution if you do not comply.

They can squeeze the Rights from the law abiding gun owners until there is nothing left but all their gun grabbing attempts will do nothing when it comes to the criminals.

[tysmith95]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

When you consider the original intent of the Second amendment there was nothing in there about what can and cannot be owned by the public. There were no age restrictions, no mention of permits, license, certified classes before applying, fees and more fees and finally your ability to acquire a license being at the discretion of your towns chief of police.

When the 2nd amendment was written weaponry was vastly different then it is today. I don't think any sane person would argue that there shouldn't be any restrictions on weaponry. No one is advocating for the legalization of bombs, although that could be construed as being "arms". It's an argument on what the restrictions it should be.

[scorpio516]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

False. At some point in my lifetime the NRA transitioned from 'protector of the 2a' to 'arms mover'. Any organization which proudly states they "do not support background checks" is, in my opinion, not interested in bolstering the rights and respect of law abiding gun owners. Additionally, their Obama era marketing had little to do with personal rights and everything to do with fear-driven sales. It's a marketing firm for arms dealers first and foremost, with the secondary efforts in 2a support and training being a positive that's hard to reconcile given the the former.

In 81-82-83, somewhere then, the NRA was taken over by a minority at their national convention. They went from a owner's rights group to a lobbying group for the arms manufacturers. Today they exist only to sell more guns and make manufacturers more money.

There are still some people there that promote competitions and sports, but none of them are near any of the leadership

[robr2]

Originally Posted by scorpio516

In 81-82-83, somewhere then, the NRA was taken over by a minority at their national convention. They went from a owner's rights group to a lobbying group for the arms manufacturers. Today they exist only to sell more guns and make manufacturers more money.

There are still some people there that promote competitions and sports, but none of them are near any of the leadership

Up until the early 70's, the NRA actually helped write gun control legislation:

1920's - NRA proposed legislation that was adopted by 9 states requiring a CCW permit, 5 year sentence for use of a gun in a crime, a one day waiting period, and reporting to police of gun sales

1930's - NRA helped Roosevelt draft 1938 Gun Control Act and the president of the NRA testified before Congress: “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

1960's - NRA VP testified before Congress that mail order sales of guns - the type of sale that armed Oswald - should be banned, supported the CA Mulford Act making carrying a loaded gun in public illegal in response to armed Black Panthers, and supported just about all the proposals in the 1968 Gun Control Act with the following: Franklin Orth stated that despite portions of the law appearing “unduly restrictive, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

In 1971, things started to change when ATF shot and paralyzed a man suspected of stockpiling weapons. The agents were referred to as "Treasury Gestapo" and the NRA soon started using the Black Panther mantra of “the gun is the only thing that will free us—gain us our liberation.”

In 1977 is when the organization really started to become a staunch opponent to any law restricting gun control as it formed it's first lobbying group.

[mp775]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

When you consider the original intent of the Second amendment there was nothing in there about what can and cannot be owned by the public. There were no age restrictions, no mention of permits, license, certified classes before applying, fees and more fees and finally your ability to acquire a license being at the discretion of your towns chief of police.

Correct, the Second Amendment does not explicitly state what it means by "well regulated."