Think about this...

[tw]

Never forget what the NRA is. It is a lobbyist organization for the gun industry. Its only purpose is it promote sales. It is wildly successful having achieved what most lobbyists do not do. It got the customers to pay for its expenses. Normally the industry gets pays those costs. NRA's purpose - to promote gun sales. That fundamental purposes has not changed.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by tw

Never forget what the NRA is. ... NRA's purpose - to promote gun sales. That fundamental purposes has not changed.

Not quite.... from one version of the NRA history

...
The NRA was founded in 1871 by two Yankee Civil War veterans,
including an ex-New York Times reporter, who felt that war dragged on
because more urban northerners could not shoot as well as rural southerners.
It’s motto and focus until 1977 was not fighting for constitutional rights to own and use guns,
but “Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shhoting for Recreation,”
which was displayed in its national headquarters.

The NRA’s first president was a northern Army General, Ambrose Burnside.
He was chosen to reflect this civilian-militia mission, as envisioned in the Second Amendment,
which 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.”

The understanding of the Amendment at the time concerned having a prepared citizenry
to assist in domestic military matters, such as repelling raids on federal arsenals
like 1786’s Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts or the British in the War of 1812.

Its focus was not asserting individual gun rights as today,
but a ready citizenry prepared by target shooting.
...

Of course, the raison d'etre of the 2nd Amendment has
now been Scaliatized to expunge "A well regulated militia ...".

.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The NRA did a good job of promoting safety training for youth, through supervised target shooting, to get them used to handling a gun safely, and safe hunting practices. They handled the transfer of surplus weapons from the government to the boy scouts, and promoted sport shooting as a hobby.

When the urban/suburban population outgrew the rural, there also grew a segment that had no history of hunting or handling guns, who only saw them as weapons of war or criminal activity, and were generally scared of the gun's existence. From this segment came a vocal movement, mothers-against-anything-fun, along with the Friends-of-Ned-Flanders-against-murdering-cute-bunnies-&-Bambi, promoting any and all restrictions they could. More importantly they rallied the people who were ignorant of guns, other than the TV/movies depictions.

The NRA said, whoa, WTF, you're fucking with our recreation, lifestyle, and protection. That's an understandable reaction. Where they went wrong was retreating to a hilltop and building a fort, instead of infiltrating and educating their opposition. The fer me or agin me stand, seldom ends well. This case is no exception. They've created a polarization where you love guns or you're a commie, socialist, hippie, left wing, and probably a demoncrat. While the other pole thinks if you own a gun, it must be on an alter to Satan in a secret room where you eat cooked babies. I'm pretty sure most people, gun owner or not, don't fit either description.

"A well regulated militia...", when it was written, was civilians with their own guns and the skills to use them effectively, if the country needed to gather them quickly into a preplanned fighting force. It helped to have people who wouldn't shoot their eye out, or yours, when you're drafting solders to build up our military, which is the same as calling in the militia.

Whether that plan is appropriate for this day and age of professional solders, can be debated with reasonable points on both sides. But the fact remains, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is in there. So I don't see a way to outlaw them without changing the 2nd amendment. That said, the Supremes have made a couple of really bad rulings in the past,(I'm looking at you Kelo vs The City of New London), and may again.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

"A well regulated militia...", when it was written, was civilians with their own guns and the skills to use them effectively, if the country needed to gather them quickly into a preplanned fighting force. It helped to have people who wouldn't shoot their eye out, or yours, when you're drafting solders to build up our military, which is the same as calling in the militia.

Whether that plan is appropriate for this day and age of professional solders, can be debated with reasonable points on both sides. But the fact remains, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is in there. So I don't see a way to outlaw them without changing the 2nd amendment.

The Supreme Court already ruled on this with the DC ban on guns and basically removed the militia bit of the amendment. The words are still there, but the court said they no longer apply.
Check out the wikipedia entry on the case.

The Supreme Court held:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Thanks.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

I just occurred to me, if being part of the "militia" was a prerequisite, that would exclude women. We know that's a no-no.

[glatt]

That same ruling says that states can regulate guns, but can't ban them. So they can require waiting period or background checks, for example, but no outright bans.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Reasonable restrictions. I remember when PA passed hidden carry permits I went to the first issuing session and the room was crowded with probably three dozen chairs, all taken. They announced the first step would be fingerprinting, and half got up and walked out. It's their game, their rules, if you don't like it don't play. I felt the CC permit was worth it, but obviously many don't.

To clarify; the advantage of having a concealed carry permit is if I want to take a handgun to a friend's house, in order to take it in the car(legally), it must be unloaded, in the trunk, in a locked container, with the bullets in a separate container. Plus you still need a reason for having it in the car. There's a dozen acceptable reasons, but 'just because' isn't one of them.

With a CC permit, unload it and throw it in the glove compartment, or on the floor. Personally I don't use the CC permit to carry a gun all the time, it's just a convenience when I want to take one somewhere and happen to get stopped. Otherwise I'd have to drive slow.