The content you posted is completely unclear as to the specific points you raised. You specifically state that you do not like what 'the huge arms industry' has distorted and that merchants have coopted millions into believing. Those articles and statements from the framers do not address that actual charge. They are missing the key that I asked you for: What YOU think has been distorted.
??? Say what? My post, #15, speaks of only one theme: the misrepresentation of history and the nature and extent of the intent the framers had.
The nature of the misrepresentation of historical facts and framers' intent:
The Nathan Kozuskanich's quote found in post 15 explains exactly the nature and extent of distortion that I see extant in the historically oriented arguments the gun lobby presents. The reference links I provided include two scholarly papers that provide a complete -- both sides -- depiction of the views of the Founding Fathers. The NRA in advocating for gun ownership rights does nothing of the sort, and by not so doing, distorts the citizenry's perception of the intent of the Founding Fathers.
For example,
on the NRA's website, one finds in the first section titled "Does the Second Amendment Describe an Individual Right?" an abridged quote from Thomas Paine. Below I present the NRA's version of the quote and the actual quote, which in post 21 you'll see that I even provided the original source reference for Mr. Paine's statement. In presenting his actual statements below, I have emboldened the words the NRA opted to omit.
- The quote shown there is:
"[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property."
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike."
I don't think anyone needs me to explain how the NRA's representation of Mr. Paine's words is completely out of context and not at all a full and fair depiction of what the man said.
If you and others would bother to actually read at least the two papers to which I provided links, and then examine the content on the NRA's website (or on other gun advocacy sites that claim to depict the Founder's intent), it's not at all hard to see the use of omission and contextual inaccuracy of the claims those organizations make in order to sway public opinion.
Mind you, I have no objection with organizations attempting to sway opinion, particularly organizations comprised of and organized to defend the rights and freedoms of individuals. I absolutely, however, have a very big problem when such organizations do so by incompletely describing historical events. I become all the more riled when the events depicted are ones that the average citizen does not study or encounter in "gory detail" in the course of their standard K-12 education or as part of a survey-type collegiate American history class as is the case with documents such as the letters of Thomas Paine and other luminaries, or transcripts of the proceedings and debate of the Continental Congresses, or colonial legislatures.
When I ages ago began seeing quotes from various gun lobby entities, I initially was inclined to accept that they "fairly present in all material respects," to use accounting parlance, the intent of the Founders. However, I also felt compelled to check to see if that was so, perhaps because I took to heart Ronald Reagan's admonishment "trust, but verify." And verify I did.
It was upon doing so that I discovered the sorts of misrepresentations one'll discover too upon reading either the source documents (referenced in the papers for which I provided links) or the papers I noted earlier. Now, are the comparisons such as the Paine one I provide above laid out for the reader in those papers? No, they are not, and, quite frankly, I'm not going to lay out each and every one of them for readers here either. The reader must undertake one their own to perform that analysis. Were they to conduct their own first hand intellectually rigorous investigation of what the founders actually thought and meant, they like one scholar after another would find that "
[c]ontrary to the claim of some modern gun rights advocates, robust regulation of firearms is not only compatible with the Second Amendment, it is an essential part of the founders' vision of how guns fit within the framework of well regulated liberty."
To end my comments on the nature and extent of the historical distortions effected by gun advocacy groups and individuals I will just say that without exception, when I observe individuals or groups who/that don't present the full story, I unavoidably wonder why would they not do so. Time and time again, my experience has revealed that people only tell their side, a selected subset, of a set of undeniable facts when they have a motive other than sharing information and just letting folks, decision makers and influencers, use that information to arrive at their own conclusion. That is, when they have a vested interest in our concluding in agreement with them. Most often that vested interest relates, sooner or later, to money.
For additional scholarly reference material on the historical intent of the Second Amendment, its writers, and the people who debated and ratified it and similar state constitutional provisions see
Second Amendment Law Library . One can find an enumeration and brief depictions of numerous court decisions pertaining to the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment here:
Cooking Up A Collective Right , and unlike the NRA's site, one will find too that the author makes a point to note, even when a decision favors the anti-individual rights point of view, whether the opinion writing justice was considered an loon so as not to depict the opinon as being among the best, even if it does support the author's point of view. (Be that as it may, the author cites specific cases and one can look up and read the opinions and background (case and justices) for oneself and determine whether one agrees or not with the author's presentation of the facts. Frankly, I think one should do exactly that if one has a strong view on the legitimacy of the Second Amendment's history and intent.)
Contrast the presentation of past thought and expression on the Second Amendment there with what the NRA presents on the same topic. Once again, one discovers that the NRA's depiction is woefully incomplete. No, the author doesn't present all cases that support both points of view, but he does present the full picture of the ones he cites. And, to reiterate, my "issue" is with the incomplete, and thus distorted, presentation of historical events, and not necessarily with the conclusions one, or the NRA, draws from them.
The "gun industry's" role in the whole matter of regulation:
I wrote that the distortion issues from the "gun industry." That the gun industry is behind the misrepresentations of which I wrote wasn't and isn't the point of my having mentioned it; however, I'll explain why I did mention that industry.
I wrote that because of the economic support the
consumer goods segment of the arms industry provides huge sums of money to the NRA and other gun advocacy groups. I also wrote that because the legislation for which the NRA advocates doesn't conform to the views of the majority of its individual members according to
a 2011 poll.
I am not alone in seeing the NRA as being the primary advocacy outlet for the gun industry, even though strictly speaking the National Shooting Sports Federation is the gun industry's main trade association. Some companies even go so far as to donate portions of their sales directly to the NRA, for example:
I'm not suggesting that the contributions are illegal. I'm saying that they constitute a plurality of the funding the NRA obtains. I'm saying that in choosing whose views and interests to support, those of a single entity/person who directs millions to the organization are given far more consideration than are those of individual gun owners who contribute vastly less than millions, or even hundreds of thousands.
No surprise there; that's the way things work for any organization. The impact of the disparity in supporting contribution size between "Mark, Mary and Mike gun owner/enthusiast" and, say, Sturm Rugar has a huge impact that is seen every time we hear of some crazy shooter: the NRA goes into defense mode to do everything it can to make sure that Sturm's fortunes aren't adversely affected by gun legislation. This even as the poll noted above shows that a majority of NRA individual contributors/members support stricter gun ownership legislation. Therein lies the problem. The NRA, understandably, doesn't want to compromise its revenue streams, the lion's share of which come from corporations and in not risking those funds, the NRA ends up subordinating the interests and wishes of the majority of its members to those of the largest contributors to its coffers.
