That d@mn liberal media again...

[Irrelevant]

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/gun-show

I dare you to listen to that radio story and tell me it's biased on the subject (except maybe that last minute and a half, which is completely irrelevant to the story... and the ads which are totally biased).

I certainly learned a lot and feel like I have better understanding of gun rights and the 2nd amendment, without having been swayed either direction. A lot of the info is stuff I've heard others on here mention, but this put it in a better, more complete, context. And it was entertaining.

 

[mplane72]

Thanks for sharing. I had heard some of that about the Black Panthers and the changes in the NRA but it was very interesting to hear from those involved. Well worth making time to listen.

 

[MattK]

I listened to the whole thing. It's very interesting how a fringe element actually took over the NRA to create what is now known as the NRA. It's also interesting how Reagan was a huge proponent of the gun laws in California mainly due to the Black Panthers (and the fact black people were arming themselves to "watch the police"). I found it interesting that the second amendment was (for the most part) forgotten about until the 1970s and the people that fought for the second amendment didn't really care about the right to bear arms but instead were more worried about government over reach. The fact all of this information was coming directly from the people involved at the time made it not only very interesting but difficult for anyone to say to say it was misworded.

 

[Irrelevant]

I agree Matt, I found it all fascinating. So much to a story or an idea, that gets glossed over.

 

[rammac]

Not biased? Maybe but if it's not biased then it's just a discussion by a bunch of idiots. This whole argument is a conglomeration of disconnected BS. Black Panthers were the first to make the case that the 2nd Amendment guarantees individuals the right to own a gun? What a bunch of crap.

Why are so many people confused by the well regulated militia phrase?

The first point that most everyone just seems to ignore is that the first 10 Amendments make up a thing called the Bill Of Rights. The Bill Of Rights is a group of rights guaranteed to each citizen of this Nation. The Second Amendment wasn't included to guarantee rights to a military force, it was written to guarantee rights to the people of the United States.

Militias, in the day of our founding fathers, were made up of private citizens and in those days the militia members were expected to provide their own firearms and ammunition. Additionally, most Americans didn't want any kind of standing army, they preferred to have the community provide for their own military force as necessary.

Why wasn't the 2nd Amendment debated or talked about up to the 1960s? Mostly because there was really no argument about what the 2nd Amendment meant, not because nobody cared about it but because most people agreed about what it meant. There is nothing sensational about something that everyone agrees about so there is no debate but if people disagree about something then they start talking about it. The 2nd Amendment wasn't talked about because nobody disagreed about what it meant.

Sorry, but this audio is simply progressives trying to rewrite history to match up with their dogma.

 

[RobG]

Rammac-there were pretty strong gun laws in place before the sixties.