House passes bill to expand background checks for gun sales

[HealthyDebate]

House passes bill to expand background checks for gun sales

https://www.columbian.com/news/2021/mar/...gun-sales/

[Eric the Green]

Mass shootings and other gun violence are never-ending in the USA and only in the USA. When it happens in other developed countries, legislation happens and then the violence sharply declines. In the USA, people vote for this violence. Mostly this means voting Republican, the Party beholden to the gun culture and its industry. The Party that falsely claims to support liberty, and that guns provide this. When gun laws do get passed even in the USA or in its states, violence declines. But those old rural white guys just want their guns. The gun lobby rules our congress. These people don't listen. They hate. They fall for hateful politics. They blame those of us who want change for the destruction of life in our country that they cause. Our country chooses this.

[Eric the Green]

What Joe Biden said on 2014 about school shootings and gun control. Posted on you tube May 25, 2022.

[David Horn]

We've tried the "common sense measures" route. Maybe it's time to go for the deep seats: repeal the 2nd Amendment! It seems as likely to pass as all the less-is-less measures we've already tried, but it has the benefit of being strong and definitive. Maybe that's where we need to be, instead of asking for crumbs from the table.

[Eric the Green]

(05-26-2022, 07:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: We've tried the "common sense measures" route.  Maybe it's time to go for the deep seats: repeal the 2nd Amendment!  It seems as likely to pass as all the less-is-less measures we've already tried, but it has the benefit of being strong and definitive.  Maybe that's where we need to be, instead of asking for crumbs from the table.

I have heard some politician or pundit say that, I forget who. Oh, I think maybe it was the historian and presidential election prophet Allan Lichtman.

[pbrower2a]

Rumor is that the Trump court will soon negate all gun-control legislation. So don't get your hopes up.

[Eric the Green]

(05-26-2022, 01:16 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Rumor is that the Trump court will soon negate all gun-control legislation. So don't get your hopes up.

It's a good point, and deserves some discussion.

The only hope, perhaps, is that a law might be passed, and the litigation over it might take a few years, in which time its effectiveness might be demonstrated.

Perhaps more likely, such laws that might be passed would be so watered down (like just a red flag law) that the court might just let it go.

There isn't much hope for gun control, until enough Democratic Senators are elected willing to pass it and bypass or repeal the filibuster to do it. And the Democrats would have to keep the House too, unless they could take up the background check law passed by the congress in 2019. But that too is far from enough action. If the Court blocks reform, packing it may be the only answer, which would require a still-larger Democratic majority in congress.

We face a multiple-headed fourth-turning crisis, with many aspects, but all overlapping and all related to the one basic crisis: the 41-plus-year ongoing power of the Republican Party and the resulting division of the country.

Gun violence and mass shootings
Climate breakdown and environmental destruction of many kinds
Police shootings of unarmed African-Americans
Wealth gaps, inequality, lack of health care, national debt caused by tax cuts
Covid and other pandemics
Conspiracy theory culture and the decline of truth, fueled by social media
The threat to democracy, rising militia groups, the threat of civil war

There is also the worldwide battle of democracy against deadly autocracy, including in the USA itself where autocracy is being encouraged by Donald Trump and his attempted coup; a worldwide battle which has led to the war in Ukraine and may lead to more wars or world war. This worldwide trend is partly due to Donald Trump's example, who has many imitators, as well as Trump's encouragement of Mad Vlad Putin. These tyrants also cause refugees, which in turn give further excuses for the rise and popularity of still more nationalist and racist tyrants, including Trump and his Republican Party.

[David Horn]

(05-26-2022, 01:16 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Rumor is that the Trump court will soon negate all gun-control legislation. So don't get your hopes up.

... making repeal of the 2nd the only game in town.  Packing the court might work, until the Right does the same in reverse.  Better to go for the Gold!

[Eric the Green]

(05-26-2022, 03:31 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-26-2022, 01:16 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Rumor is that the Trump court will soon negate all gun-control legislation. So don't get your hopes up.

... making repeal of the 2nd the only game in town.  Packing the court might work, until the Right does the same in reverse.  Better to go for the Gold!

I agree. I also agree with whatever gun control we can get. We should not give the gun advocates any quarter. Refute their arguments. Shame them.

[David Horn]

(05-26-2022, 10:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-26-2022, 03:31 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-26-2022, 01:16 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Rumor is that the Trump court will soon negate all gun-control legislation. So don't get your hopes up.

... making repeal of the 2nd the only game in town.  Packing the court might work, until the Right does the same in reverse.  Better to go for the Gold!

I agree. I also agree with whatever gun control we can get. We should not give the gun advocates any quarter. Refute their arguments. Shame them.

It's hard to shame people who believe this nonsense.  Even those who know better seem to have parked their shame into the GOP Cloak Room and have no intent of being unelected (their #1 fear).  Disgusting? Of course.  Solvable?  Unlikely now or any time soon.

[pbrower2a]

In my opinion, the firearms industry should be nationalized so that it can no longer offer blood money to those politicians who put campaign funds above human life. We also need a mandatory buy-back of all automatic and semi-automatic firearms even if such brings a profit to the seller.

[Eric the Green]

(05-27-2022, 08:30 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-26-2022, 10:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-26-2022, 03:31 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-26-2022, 01:16 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Rumor is that the Trump court will soon negate all gun-control legislation. So don't get your hopes up.

... making repeal of the 2nd the only game in town.  Packing the court might work, until the Right does the same in reverse.  Better to go for the Gold!

I agree. I also agree with whatever gun control we can get. We should not give the gun advocates any quarter. Refute their arguments. Shame them.

It's hard to shame people who believe this nonsense.  Even those who know better seem to have parked their shame into the GOP Cloak Room and have no intent of being unelected (their #1 fear).  Disgusting? Of course.  Solvable?  Unlikely now or any time soon.

Advocating repeal of the 2nd amendment now may prepare the way for action later, maybe not in our lifetimes. Right now, a 2/3 vote in the Senate and 3/4 of the states seems impossible.

The 2nd amendment mainly provides the argument for gun culture members to say they have the right to have a gun (of any kind, they say). Repeal would not make guns illegal, but it would make certain controls and bans more possible. If it was ever repealed, the political mood would also favor more gun laws.

We were also in 2016 one electoral college voting session away from a Court that would reinterpret the 2nd to apply only to members of a well-regulated militia. Which is what needed and still needs to be done. But the electoral college and the Republican Senate has now stacked the Court to prevent this for a while. If Democrats got more senators elected, packing the Court would be an option here too.

[pbrower2a]

Repeal of the Second Amendment might take a Constitutional Convention, which is far more likely in the wake of a large number of US Supreme Court rulings that would be not only unpopular but on shaky grounds, for example that they seem cribbed from an ideological guide. Referendums are possible in most states, so several decisions that repeals a large number of decisions... such as those recognizing LGBT rights, contraception, desegregation, environmental protections, a flat tax, and the right to organize labor unions.

It might be enough that both Houses of Congress agree to hold a Constitutional Convention. especially if the rulings more reflect the interests of special interests than any legal precedent. This would be desperate, but it would also be necessary should legal chaos erupt or decisions have such shaky grounds as "supporting the Will of God" or "fostering economic growth". The alternatives would be re-staffing the US Supreme Court, for which there is no precedent, or adding new Justices.

Trump may have stuck us with some judicial appointees that could be very embarrassing very quickly. This is especially if the political climate changes to one more like the 1950's. Trump is practically a fascist in believing that government rightly reflects economic interests instead of the People,

[Eric the Green]

It's too bad that the electoral college provision has saddled us with this interpretation of the 2nd amendment as applying to individuals. It used to apply to a well-regulated militia, which we had almost from the time this outdated amendment was unfortunately added. If Hillary had assumed office in 2016, as she should have, then we would have a supreme court now that would have probably brought back that interpretation before Scalia and Co. changed it.

[nguyenivy]

(05-27-2022, 06:03 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: In my opinion, the firearms industry should be nationalized so that it can no longer offer blood money to those politicians who put campaign funds above human life. We also need a mandatory buy-back of all automatic and semi-automatic firearms  even if such brings a profit to the seller.

Nationalisation of the firearms industry may also pave the way to look at other industries that adversely affected human life that are privatised (think of the Texas electrical grid in early 2021, for instance). In the UK they once had nationalised railways but once they were privatised service quality dropped while prices rose and services were cut in the name of profit. From what I understand the public there (except maybe the pro-Brexit people) at this point would be mostly for re-nationalising it. From our S&H viewpoint, isn't a 4T/1T era generally a time when the public would be more open to government playing a bigger role in our lives?

[pbrower2a]

(06-01-2022, 04:48 PM)nguyenivy Wrote:

(05-27-2022, 06:03 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: In my opinion, the firearms industry should be nationalized so that it can no longer offer blood money to those politicians who put campaign funds above human life. We also need a mandatory buy-back of all automatic and semi-automatic firearms  even if such brings a profit to the seller.

Nationalisation of the firearms industry may also pave the way to look at other industries that adversely affected human life that are privatised (think of the Texas electrical grid in early 2021, for instance). In the UK they once had nationalised railways but once they were privatised service quality dropped while prices rose and services were cut in the name of profit. From what I understand the public there (except maybe the pro-Brexit people) at this point would be mostly for re-nationalising it. From our S&H viewpoint, isn't a 4T/1T era generally a time when the public would be more open to government playing a bigger role in our lives?

Military weapons are practically a commodity. If there is to be innovation in the practice of war, then it is not likely to arise from innovations in rifles. In the last Crisis the Red Army relied heavily upon rocket-based artillery, and it could utterly destroy the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front. The Red Army took huge losses from encirclements early, reflecting the incompetence of top leadership. The Wehrmacht ended up running out of cannon fodder and was unable to stop the British and Americans from their stab-in-the-back in the west. 


There will always be mixed results for privatization. It would be a calamity if a basic service such as road transport were to be privatized on behalf of monopolistic profiteers who get the special bonus of the government being precluded from improving nearby highways even for purposes of safety. Profit-maximization usually implies monopoly gouging likely to make something once available so fiendishly expensive that people find ways to circumvent it. The lease arrangement for the Indiana Toll Road is the worst possible for motorists,. with tolls being adjusted automatically for the highest of the consumer-price index, the level of prosperity, or an automatic 2%. Motorists get the worst. A hint: Indiana 120, a lightly-traveled two-lane blacktop, is lightly traveled east of Elkhart; US 12 in Michigan west of Sturgis is typically within five miles of the Toll Road. Somewhere between Sturgis and Elkhart one goes across the Michigan-Indiana state line and has light traffic to face. 

The fault with monopoly is that it makes everything more expensive for non-monopolists. Monopoly tends to inflate profits for a few while depressing overall economic activity. Monopolists are usually very poor at services.     

Now here is a problem: what happens if motor transport becomes obsolete?

[JasonBlack]

(05-26-2022, 07:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: We've tried the "common sense measures" route. Maybe it's time to go for the deep seats: repeal the 2nd Amendment! It seems as likely to pass as all the less-is-less measures we've already tried, but it has the benefit of being strong and definitive. Maybe that's where we need to be, instead of asking for crumbs from the table.

The 2nd Amendment is worth fighting for, worth killing for. After the 1st Amendment, is the most important piece of legislation in our nearly 250 year history. You will start a war if you do this, and respectfully sir, I will be enlisting on the other side...

[David Horn]

(06-02-2022, 01:50 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-26-2022, 07:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: We've tried the "common sense measures" route.  Maybe it's time to go for the deep seats: repeal the 2nd Amendment!  It seems as likely to pass as all the less-is-less measures we've already tried, but it has the benefit of being strong and definitive.  Maybe that's where we need to be, instead of asking for crumbs from the table.

The 2nd Amendment is worth fighting for, worth killing for. After the 1st Amendment, is the most important piece of legislation in our nearly 250 year history. You will start a war if you do this, and respectfully sir, I will be enlisting on the other side...

Aren't you the guy who would refuse the draft because you don't wish to fight wars?  A little cynical here, aren't you?  But on to the 2nd ...

Read the 27 words.  It's arguable whether it was intended to foster militias to "keep them darkies in line", as some say, or to provide security in areas without a constabulary.  Either way, it's damn hard to see an individual right in there.  Guns have little if any place in urban society and limited use in less populated areas.  The 2nd is moribund, but, like a good zombie, it just keeps moving and taking lives.

And one final note: the vast majority wants weapons under control.  If they are denied, THAT will trigger anarchy and even less rationality than we hav today.

[JasonBlack]

(06-02-2022, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-02-2022, 01:50 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-26-2022, 07:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: We've tried the "common sense measures" route.  Maybe it's time to go for the deep seats: repeal the 2nd Amendment!  It seems as likely to pass as all the less-is-less measures we've already tried, but it has the benefit of being strong and definitive.  Maybe that's where we need to be, instead of asking for crumbs from the table.

The 2nd Amendment is worth fighting for, worth killing for. After the 1st Amendment, is the most important piece of legislation in our nearly 250 year history. You will start a war if you do this, and respectfully sir, I will be enlisting on the other side...

Aren't you the guy who would refuse the draft because you don't wish to fight wars?  A little cynical here, aren't you?  But on to the 2nd ...

Read the 27 words.  It's arguable whether it was intended to foster militias to "keep them darkies in line", as some say, or to provide security in areas without a constabulary.  Either way, it's damn hard to see an individual right in there.  Guns have little if any place in urban society and limited use in less populated areas.  The 2nd is moribund, but, like a good zombie, it just keeps moving and taking lives.

And one final note: the vast majority wants weapons under control.  If they are denied, THAT will trigger anarchy and even less rationality than we hav today.

This is one issue where I stop sounding Civic/Nomad and turn into the most fiery right wing boomer. The most fundamental principle upon which America was founded was the right to self-determination and self-defense: "give me liberty or give me death!". Sure, I'm not willing to fight a war over curbing my "liberty" to drive 160 miles an hour or going overseas to blow up 14 year old Asian kids in a communist country. It's important to do get over-dramatic and wage war based off of foreign or trivial disagreements, but I am absolutely willing to support one to defend something as fundamental as the core of self-defense.

Both guns and self-defense are a religion in America (and religions perfectly in line with Christianity. the 6th commandment is often mistranslated as "thou shalt not kill", when it is actually "thou shalt not murder"). From the war of Independence to Nat Turner's Rebellion, we believe in allowing, no, celebrating those willing to use lethal force against those who try to control them. So you want to make the "well regulated militia" argument. Guess what...[b]we have those[b]. Dozens and dozens of them. Sure, some of them are a little weird, but from the time of our existence, we have had entire communities laying in wait and storing up weapons in the event of a civil war, hostile totalitarian takeover or other serious declaration of war. Americans are willing to kill in order to avoid being controlled, and it is because of that that we're virtually the only country in the world which has never had a dictator. Trying to disarm the American people would be about as futile as trying to de-Islamize Saudi Arabia or trying to de-Catholicize Poland, and I would argue....it would be far more bloody than both put together.

[Eric the Green]

(06-02-2022, 02:30 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(06-02-2022, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-02-2022, 01:50 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-26-2022, 07:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: We've tried the "common sense measures" route.  Maybe it's time to go for the deep seats: repeal the 2nd Amendment!  It seems as likely to pass as all the less-is-less measures we've already tried, but it has the benefit of being strong and definitive.  Maybe that's where we need to be, instead of asking for crumbs from the table.

The 2nd Amendment is worth fighting for, worth killing for. After the 1st Amendment, is the most important piece of legislation in our nearly 250 year history. You will start a war if you do this, and respectfully sir, I will be enlisting on the other side...

Aren't you the guy who would refuse the draft because you don't wish to fight wars?  A little cynical here, aren't you?  But on to the 2nd ...

Read the 27 words.  It's arguable whether it was intended to foster militias to "keep them darkies in line", as some say, or to provide security in areas without a constabulary.  Either way, it's damn hard to see an individual right in there.  Guns have little if any place in urban society and limited use in less populated areas.  The 2nd is moribund, but, like a good zombie, it just keeps moving and taking lives.

And one final note: the vast majority wants weapons under control.  If they are denied, THAT will trigger anarchy and even less rationality than we hav today.

This is one issue where I stop sounding Civic/Nomad and turn into the most fiery right wing boomer. The most fundamental principle upon which America was founded was the right to self-determination and self-defense: "give me liberty or give me death!". Sure, I'm not willing to fight a war over curbing my "liberty" to drive 160 miles an hour or going overseas to blow up 14 year old Asian kids in a communist country. It's important to do get over-dramatic and wage war based off of foreign or trivial disagreements, but I am absolutely willing to support one to defend something as fundamental as the core of self-defense.

The author of NRA an anauthorized history mentioned on TV yesterday how this belief is central to America's sick gun obsession. It is a blatant falsehood. Our freedom is no way depends on guns. It depends on law and democracy.

Guns are very poor means of self-defense, too. Disregarding the fact that they are much more often used for offense, the fact is that successful defense against violent attacks on individuals is rare. If people think they must resort to guns for defense, that is a confession and an advocacy for violent anarchy. The fella with the strongest gun and the best talent for using it wins the gun battle. More often, it is the criminal who wins. You will lie injured or dead with your gun in your cold, dead hands. And to provide a gun to a "law abiding" citizen which is "their constitutional right" will sometimes turn that law abiding citizen into a criminal.

Want self-defense? Learn karate. Get an alarm system. Get a dog. Move to a safe neighborhood. Establish citizen neighborhood watch clubs. Get adequate fencing to keep out threats to your ranch. Use a taser, mace or pepper spray. https://www.thehomesecuritysuperstore.co...ns/weapons

Another point is that people frequently call for "gun safety." In order for guns to be safe from theft or family members who might accidently shoot the gun, commit suicide or become a criminal, they must be locked away with ammunition removed. Such a gun is useless for self-defense, because the criminals with the guns will get to you first. So the use of guns for self-defense means keeping them unsafe.

Quote:Both guns and self-defense are a religion in America (and religions perfectly in line with Christianity. the 6th commandment is often mistranslated as "thou shalt not kill", when it is actually "thou shalt not murder"). From the war of Independence to Nat Turner's Rebellion, we believe in allowing, no, celebrating those willing to use lethal force against those who try to control them. So you want to make the "well regulated militia" argument. Guess what...[b]we have those[b]. Dozens and dozens of them. Sure, some of them are a little weird, but from the time of our existence, we have had entire communities laying in wait and storing up weapons in the event of a civil war, hostile totalitarian takeover or other serious declaration of war. Americans are willing to kill in order to avoid being controlled, and it is because of that that we're virtually the only country in the world which has never had a dictator. Trying to disarm the American people would be about as futile as trying to de-Islamize Saudi Arabia or trying to de-Catholicize Poland, and I would argue....it would be far more bloody than both put together.

Christianity is "turn the other cheek." That is not fighting violence with violence. The argument that dictators like Hitler took over because the citizens are unarmed is a false notion. I'm sorry, but in a civilized society people need to be controlled. In a free society this is done according to law and justice and with full recognition and adherence to human rights.

The price we pay for this cynical and false religion is constant gun violence, more violence in general, horrific mass shootings, and the inability to get together and enjoy each others' company and love. The price is more walls, more locks, more alarms, more armed guards, more police, more killing of armed guards and police, more police killings of the people, more killings of children, customers, workers, patients, etc. The result is a police state whose purpose is to fight against a police state. Guns are the chief cause of children's deaths today. No other country has this religion, and no other country has anywhere near this level of violence and murder, including murder of totally-innocent people. Ammosexual disease is the USA's chief ailment, and one of several factors in its current decline and insipient downfall. In other countries with at least a semblance of democracy like we have, people are able to elect a sensible, rational government. We are not. We are held hostage by our insane gun religion, which is a chief part of our right-wing Republican mental illness today. We are not the only free or even the most-free nation in the world because of our gross level of gun ownership. We are the sickest developed nation in the world, and ammosexuality is our chief malady.

Well regulated militias are not private militias. Regulated militias are state militias. These private armies are unregulated, and very dangerous to our republic and our democracy. They were used to attack our capital, and they are being planned for use against citizens voting. No, the well regulated militias are the police, the national guard, the armed forces. These did not yet exist when the bill of rights was passed, but they did soon afterward. A citizens militia was needed before then, and they did not carry semi-automatic weapons or machine guns. A citizens militia is called up by the government, because the 2nd amendment says that it is needed to protect a free state. So the members of this militia needed to have weapons on hand.

I could understand a situation where citizens might need to collect and use guns, however. And I understand the citizens militias are under the impression that this situation already exists. I disagree, though. It is they themselves which are the threat to our republic. In many foreign countries today, an illegitimate, unelected junta or thug has a monopoly on weapons. In this case, the people can continue to assemble people power and try to arouse the conscience of the junta. If this doesn't work, then civil war may follow, and the citizens may need weapons, including asking The West for some. It is conceivable that, as the right wing says, the people might need weapons to fight against the government. The best course in that event is to organize a new citizens government, and impose the same strict regulations on guns as before within this new state. Those who join the well-regulated revolutionary army of the new alternate state will then have the weapons.

Repeal of the 2nd Amendment is not likely in our lifetime. So what does that mean for your threat to fight? In your next life? Or will you join the right wing rebels today to fight for 2nd amendment/gun rights absolutism which opposes all gun regulations? Will you buy into the fascist notion that any gun control is "infringement" on the right to bear arms and thus a violation of the 2nd amendment, and join them in overthrowing our republic or fomenting civil war? I'd calm down, and beware of needing your own counsel about "hysterics". Our country can't get along without some compromise and some understanding of other peoples' views. The more gun massacres your side of the issue permits, the more citizen groups and involvement for gun control and gun bans grow.

"Ours is the only country that has never had a dictator". But if the gun rights movement results in the election of Donald Trump, or someone who buys his big lie and his other policies, then we will have a dictator. A country can vote itself into tyranny. We were slower in providing freedom to most of our citizens than some other countries, which we had still not done until just half a century ago. And not only have we now fallen behind other countries in our freedom, and are in process of losing it, but we are the sickest and poorest country in the developed world by any measure. All because of the gun rights movement and the other right-wing nostrums of our time.

https://www.democracynow.org/2022/6/1/fr..._gun_lobby

https://www.democracynow.org/2022/6/1/fr...wsource=cl

Click on the above link to see this exchange below on video.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by Frank Smyth, longtime investigative journalist who’s been covering the NRA for more than a quarter of a century. He’s author of the book The NRA: The Unauthorized History.

Frank, welcome back to Democracy Now! Your history is remarkable, and reporting over the decades, whether you were exposing France supporting the Rwandans in the genocide by giving military weapons there or the same in El Salvador, the U.S. support for the murderous regime, and in Guatemala, then taken hostage in Iraq during the Persian Gulf War, when your colleague Gad Gross was killed, now taking on the NRA. It’s an incredible history that you give. And I’m wondering, as we see NRA member after NRA member — the politicians, that is, not the rank and file — you know, fighting against gun control, you tell a very different history in this book. Why don’t you bring out, in a nutshell, the relevant points over the years that have been basically erased of what this organization was about?

FRANK SMYTH: The organization, the NRA — and thank you, Amy — claims to be the oldest civil rights organization in the United States. And this is a complete canard. The NRA didn’t raise gun rights at all until more than 50 years after it was already in existence, in response to a New York state gun law passed in 1911 that now, ironically, is before the Supreme Court, as well as the Bolshevik Revolution. Those two things led to the first editorial raising the alarm about gun rights in 1922, after the NRA was founded in 1871. The NRA supported gun control, including the 1934 National Firearms Act that outlawed fully automatic weapons in response to the violence of the gangsters like Al Capone during Prohibition, and it also established the first regime to control wholesale transfers of firearms from manufacturers to wholesalers. And that’s a system that the NRA doesn’t like to talk about but they still support, because it’s quite convenient.

The NRA then underwent its own, what’s known in the lore as the Cincinnati revolt, or an internal revolt, a self-coup, if you will, shifting from an organization that prioritized the shooting sports and, later, hunting and always gun safety to then prioritize gun rights or consumer access to firearms, which is what gun rights really means, above everything else. So, over the past 45 years, they have pursued an absolutist vision of gun rights, which is based on the idea that there could be no compromise between gun ownership and gun regulations, something that’s a complete flip-flop from what the NRA did for over a century before.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Frank, what was the cause or the basis for that dramatic shift in its policies?

FRANK SMYTH: It was the Gun Control Act of 1968, signed by President Johnson. And this was in response to the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy, those three. It was passed in 1968. It outlawed interstate sale of long rifles like the one that was tied to the assassination of JFK. It also restricted sales of guns to minors, and a number of other measures. But there was a group, both inside and outside the NRA, that saw this as allegedly oppressive government overreach.

And the other thing is, the gun rights movement likes to claim, the NRA and beyond, that they have roots going back to the Revolutionary War. This is also a canard. America’s gun rights movement started in response to the Gun Control Act of 1968. The first gun rights group in the United States was the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, formed in 1972. Then Gun Owners of America came in 1974. And three years later, in '77, the NRA underwent its Cincinnati revolt. So, these are all things that the NRA doesn't want anyone to know. And they’ve created other myths to advance their agenda.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: So, in essence, the change came not only in response to Lyndon Johnson’s passage of that ’68 law, but this was also the period when there were racial disturbances and rebellions in cities across the country. And I recall pictures of hundreds of thousands of people lining up at gun shops — white Americans — to buy guns because they believed at the time that there was a potential racial civil war occurring in the United States.

FRANK SMYTH: Absolutely.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: What role does race play in these changes in policies, as well?

FRANK SMYTH: It played an undercurrent and had a tremendous role, even though it’s rarely talked about. That 1968 law signed by Johnson, too, the Gun Control Act, was supported by the NRA, which — that divided the gun community. But there is no doubt that the racial tension of the 1960s played a tremendous role in radicalizing people in the NRA, as well as in other groups, leading them to see consumer access to firearms as a priority and something that needed to be prioritized. And also, you can’t discount the vigilante movies of the 1970s and the crime that was rising in the early 1970s especially, and the vigilante concept captured in films like Dirty Harry, the Death Wish series of films, Taxi and others. All of this played a role in radicalizing a certain element of America’s gun movement, which led to these gun rights groups or the Cincinnati revolt, the turn of the NRA, all in the 1970s.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to 1999. The NRA held its annual convention in Denver just weeks after the massacre at the nearby Columbine High School. NRA President Charlton Heston presided over the meeting — yes, the famous actor. This is a clip of Charlton Heston speaking the following year.

CHARLTON HESTON: So, as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed, and especially for you, Mr. Gore: “From my cold, dead hands.”

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Charlton Heston, soon after the Columbine massacre. Now, at the same time that you have him as president — you can talk about how that happened — you have Wayne LaPierre rising up in the organization. So we go from the events held after the massacre to a year after to just this last weekend, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre speaking once again right after a massacre, and this was in Houston, Texas, last weekend.

WAYNE LAPIERRE: It’s time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions. And that’s why we, the NRA, will never, ever stop fighting for the right of the innocent and the law-abiding to defend themselves against the evil, criminal element that plagues our society.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about Wayne LaPierre’s rise, Charlton Heston and what we’re seeing today.

FRANK SMYTH: Well, Wayne LaPierre became — he joined the NRA in 1978, so one year after the Cincinnati revolt. And he had worked for a Blue Dog Democrat in the Virginia state House on gun legislation before. And before that, he briefly was a special education public high school — public school teacher in both Virginia and New York, which I think is somewhat interesting. So, he was a very young man, I think 28, when he joined the NRA.

He helped pass the Firearms Owners Protection Act in 1986 during the Reagan administration, which rolled back some of the 1968 law, which really gave him some credibility within the NRA. And then, in 1991, after a series of scandals and infighting in the organization, that really was threatening to bring it down, they chose LaPierre to become the executive vice president and CEO, which is the title, the combined title now that he uses, in 1991.

There was a push then to try and depose him by an individual by the name of Neal Knox, who accused everybody but him of being weak on gun rights, as a way of trying to outflank the organization on their core issue. And Charlton Heston was recruited by LaPierre and his allies to come in to defeat that challenge. So, when Charlton Heston raised that flintlock rifle and said, “From my cold, dead hands,” he was playing to the public, and he was also playing internally to the NRA, because he needed to show his gun rights credentials in order to keep — to support LaPierre and keep him in power.

Now, what’s also interesting after Columbine is LaPierre — and nobody talks about this, but CNN unearthed it recently — testified and talked about how the NRA has no problem with full background checks, that he has no problem with what we now call universal background checks. This is an amazing thing, because now they claim, and for 20 years they’ve claimed since then, that background checks pose an existential threat to liberty and could lead to genocide, because background checks wouldn’t work now, as they explain it, without gun registration, and gun registration, we all know, is the slippery slope to disarmament, followed by tyranny and genocide. This is ridiculous. But after Columbine, LaPierre said the complete opposite. So this flip-flop is something he hasn’t been held accountable for, though it would be very easy. But I think the gun reform people and the Democrats have been reluctant to challenge the NRA, and I think that is a strategic failure on their part.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Frank, I wanted to ask you — those who want to defend gun rights, supposedly, within the NRA constantly point to these mass shootings as being results of individual evil, reflective of a moral decay in society. But they never talk about comparing what happens here in the United States to other countries in the world, this extraordinary unique situation of the United States with so many guns and so much gun violence. Could you put it in perspective for people who are not aware what the situation is in other countries around the world?

FRANK SMYTH: Yeah. Thank you, Juan. Great question. Here it is. The United States has 25 times more gun violence than other advanced nations on average. Twenty-five times. So what’s the difference between us and those other advanced nations? Every one of those nations has a national system to regulate retail firearm sales, consumer firearm sales. The United States is the only advanced nation, or nation anywhere in the world, that leaves retail regulation of consumer firearm sales up to our regional governments or individual states. Nobody else does that. So, what that means is that in Chicago up to 60% of the weapons seized in crimes came from out of state, because it’s the states with weak gun laws that supply the guns that are used in crimes, to a large degree, in the states with stronger gun laws — not to mention guns that are trafficked to Mexico, Central America and throughout the Caribbean.

The NRA likes to talk about cultural sickness, as Ted Cruz put it. There’s a movement now in the gun reform community or the gun safety community to talk about it as a gun safety issue and talk about — reframe it all as a safety issue. I think that’s not strong enough. I think we should be reframing this issue in the United States, those — I’m an independent, but I support gun control, and I’m also a gun owner, by the way, and I support gun control. What we need to frame this is: Why are we the only nation that does not regulate retail firearm sales? And why is it that — 50 years ago, this was talked about by President Johnson. Why is it today that neither Republicans — though the Democrats are afraid to talk about this issue, while the Republicans are using it to derail every measure that the Democrats bring forward? It’s almost like a chess game, and the Democrats have been completely outmaneuvered by the Republicans and the gun lobby, meaning the NRA and the gun industry, and they really don’t know what to do. The Democrats are completely divided and unclear about what they want now. And that is a problem, you know, about what needs to happen going forward. And that’s because the Democrats have encouraged the gun reform people to take the approach.

The way you pass legislation is you reach across the aisle and find common ground. The whole gun lobby’s whole point is no compromise, no common ground. So, when they raise background checks, Josh Hawley a year ago talked about gun registration being a threat to liberty. And he didn’t mention it, but this is a canard based on a fabulous distortion of the Holocaust, claiming prior gun registration lists enabled it, right? This is completely untrue, but this is the kind of propaganda the gun lobby has put out that nobody has challenged yet in the United States. But if you go talk to anybody in the gun rights community, if you go to any NRA meeting, or if you go to gun clubs, and you ask people, “Hey, explain to me the slippery slope,” they’ll read it like it’s gospel truth. And this is part of the problem.

AMY GOODMAN: Frank, we have to wrap up now, but I wanted to ask you about the fact that — isn’t the NRA at its lowest ebb, internecine fighting, corruption probes? The interaction of the NRA — and you describe this so well in your book — with the gun industry, and how much power that has, and its nexus, how it all got exposed at Sandy Hook?

FRANK SMYTH: Yeah, the NRA is imploding, in my view. And I think they will not survive a New York attorney general civil lawsuit against them for massive embezzlement, where the charges originated with the whistleblower Oliver North. People forget that, but it’s Oliver North, Iran-Contra Oliver North, who first accused LaPierre of embezzling funds. And he hasn’t backed down; he’s just gone quiet about that. So they’re in trouble.

But the ideology that they have cooked up at the same time that they are waning is stronger than ever. And this is what is — this is the legacy of the NRA and the gun lobby, and this is what I think people that want to pursue gun reform do not understand. It’s not the NRA’s money, not so much anymore — it’s still important — but it’s the ideology. It’s the fact that they’ve convinced tens of millions of Americans that any gun control poses an existential threat to their freedom. This is ridiculous and kind of remarkable that they have convinced people of this, because it’s all based on false history and convoluted theories that are as crazy as anything you’d find on QAnon, and predate QAnon, but the NRA has been up to this now for decades. And it’s having — they’ve managed to convince a great many people. And this is something that the Democrats and the gun reformers haven’t even begun to address.

AMY GOODMAN: Frank Smyth, I want to thank you for being with us, longtime investigative journalist, author of The NRA: The Unauthorized History.