UKC

Can anyone please tell me why the NRA can over rule a President, why have this accociation got the last say in gun control.
Your sincerely
Totally berwildered

In reply to drsdave:

Ouch

In reply to drsdave:

Because its their god given right to carry guns.

Western news items love showing developing countries with locals toting automatic firearms, but fail to recognise that they too wander around with lethal weapons.

It won't change any time soon.

In reply to The Lemming:

That doesn't answer it, no offence but that is too simplistic.

In reply to drsdave:


Sadly that does answer it.

To the NRA, at least.

In reply to drsdave:


lots of money to sponsor politicans and a reasonable size and extremely vocal membership.
Obama has been hamstrung for the last couple of years with the house being ruled by republicans.

In reply to drsdave:

Once upon a time (1770s), in a land far away (Pennsylvania), there was a Fifer called James Wilson. Mr Wilson was a lawyer. He is credited with being the most learned of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States of America.

One of the opinions that Wilson expressed about the constitution was that the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the US, ratified in 1791) should not be a constitutional document at all because it would bind future generations to an incomplete list of rights and deprive them of the right to define individual rights over time.

So it has come to pass.

Always listen to Scotsmen.

In reply to drsdave:

because they are programmed to think they can't amend, the amendment.

In reply to drsdave:

Why not Google 'second amendment'.

You'll find plenty of discussion of the issue.

The wiki article gives the legal background. Based largely on the British bill of rights...

In reply to drsdave:

The fundamental principle of US govt is separation of powers between the 3 branches - Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. So even though Obama would like to ban assault rifles, he has to persuade Congress to do so, and even then the Supreme Court could strike it down because it contravenes the 2nd amendment.

He could change the constitution - but that requires even more support (2/3rd or 3/4 - cant remember). He could appoint rational judges to the Supreme Court, but Congress is able to block this (and is doing so at the moment, as next appointment will hold the decisive vote on so many issue).

Getting any legislation through Congress is a struggle, even if your party has a majority in both houses (rare) you'll still have to make all sort of deals, and when you get a group as strong and as pig-headed as the NRA.....

Of course the 2nd amendment was never intended to allow people to wander round carrying assault rifles, it refers to "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". This was written shortly after the war of independence, with the Brits still a threat (in Canada), and a major concern that this novel concept of democracy could soon descend into military dictatorship. So the 13 states were to be allowed to retain their militia - more checks and balances

In reply to Chris the Tall:
I think this is well put.

The history of the United States is one based around internal struggle. This internal struggle has taken on many forms from the initial battle with the elements, starvation, disease and natives, through the battles with the English, French, Spanish, Mexicans et al, the very one-sided battles with the native population, the push west and the associated land-grab, the battle with self (Civil War) and later battles with self (Civil Rights).

This all tells a story of a nation in formation but also forming amidst chaos and where much of that chaos was dealt with through military or violent means. More importantly it was done INTERNALLY, i.e. on its own soil and engaging a combination of its own people, indigenous peoples and external forces.

The constant need to fight something or someone can only lead to a whole host of cultural attitudes including a ingrained paranoia, a mistrust of external peoples, a mistrust of authorities and a desire to head back to the homestead, barricade the doors and get the guns loaded and ready just in case. I don't think the American people as a whole have psychologically moved away from this underlying thought as yet. As a result the 2nd Amendment stands firm and is revered, and the NRA thrives.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Ok Chris that sounds informative. Thanks

In reply to drsdave:


It is, but it doesn't exactly answer your question which is really about the recent balance of power in the US system. The NRA is a pretty big organisation but not massive. It is though well financed and very good at local politics in the US. The NRA targets elections at all levels but for senate and congress in particular. Often they actually spend their money not in the actual election but in the primaries where the candidates for each party are decided on. They fund candidates who are very strong on 2nd ammendment issues and campaign against those who are more willing to consider gun control. They then keep a record of votes once people are in power, if they don't vote 100% on the NRA line once they come up for reelection, they find the NRA funding primary candidates against them who will be even more hardline. This process - particularly with GOP primaries is the main reason for the polarisation within US politics with the right getting ever harderline. It sort of happens within the Democrats also (NRA funds pro gun democrats also) but the dynamics are bit different there.