Emperor Cuomo wants all of America’s guns

[VT1032]

So we're back to griping about how the NRA's lack of serious interest in politics pre-Cleveland Revolt allowed the Democrats to turn gun control into a partisan issue?

So, admittedly, that was well before my time. Having quickly read up on what you were referring to, I think they are different issues. Pre 77, the NRA was caving on gun control. They backed elements of the 68 GCA. From what I could glean, the revolt was more about taking a hard-line, no-compromise stance and about engaging politically in general. I don't think we would have gotten anywhere without lobbying efforts, but I think it was a mistake to become so one-sided over the years, particularly at the grassroots level. I think doing so makes the path forward that much more difficult, and really makes it very difficult to generate a broad base of support.

Feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong on the revolt you mention because like I said, way before my time and I'd never heard of it until you mentioned it.

[Drang]

NRA was essentially a Fudd club until the 70s. Founded post Civil War by a bunch of former Federal officers who (to be bi-partisan about it) were disturbed by the fact that Yankee city slickers couldn't shoot worth shit, and decided to form an organization to train them better.
Handguns were almost banned in the National Firearms Act of '34, but NRA objected at almost the last minute, and they were dropped from the legislation.
But NRA was all about training and competition, and oh, yeah, you could get a great discount on mail-order guns from the back pages of the American Rifleman. (I remember when dad received his carbine, now in my safe.)

[idahojess]

Several of the negative court decisions have explicitly said that ARs are not needed for SD. The actual usages haven’t made a majority impact. Some courts and dissents have mentioned the positive instances but not carrying the day across the country.

One of the Judges who wrote such a decision is now on the Supreme Court. And really, the issue isn't self defense, or need, it's common usage.

“Most handguns are semi-automatic,” Kavanaugh said. “And the question came before us of semi-automatic rifles and the question was, ‘Can you distinguish as a matter of precedent?’ Again, this is all about precedent for me, trying to read exactly what the Supreme Court said and if you read the McDonald case. And I concluded that it could not be distinguished as a matter of law, semi-automatic rifles from semi-automatic handguns. And semi-automatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States. There are millions and millions and millions of semi-automatic rifles that are possessed. So that seemed to fit common use and not being a dangerous and unusual weapon.”

....

Kavanaugh held his ground. “They’re widely possessed in the United States, Senator, and they are used and possessed but the question is are they dangerous and unusual?” he said. “They’re certainly dangerous. All weapons are dangerous. Are they unusual? And given how prevalent they are in the United States it seemed under Justice Scalia’s test and if you look at the majority opinion in McDonald, the same thing.”

https://www.guns.com/news/2018/09/06...mon-use-videos