>>>>>>It's only 6 minutes long - but I think it explains it excellent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/jon-stewart-nra-limiting-atf-law-enforcement_n_2495301.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So now everyone quit telling me that we don't need to change anything other than to enforce the laws we got.
>>>>>
>>>>>If Jon's analysis is correct, then once again I am reminded at how well the NRA protects the 2nd Amendment and how poorly the rest of the Constitution is defended. Well done NRA! ;)
>>>>
>>>>Dude that has to be the dumbest response possible...I'll assume that was a joke.
>>>
>>>I am quite serious about the NRA's success at protecting and defending the 2nd Amendment. There are few if any other political organizations that have their track record of success. If the DS analysis is correct (and complete) then this is yet another example of the NRA's effectiveness. Further, I DO wish that the rest of the Constitution had such effective advocacy behind it, perhaps the old girl might even be understood by the man who upon taking his most recent oath to uphold her, included this gem - "that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action". THAT is the dumbest thing I've heard this week.
>>>
>>>I am not one who advocates "enforce the laws we got"
>>>I advocate that many of the existing anti-gun laws are unconstitutional and should be removed. Non-enforcement is an end-run around the bad laws but not ultimately good enough IMO.
>>
>>The NRA's success is getting guns in the hands of as many people of possible and preventing the ATF from actually doing their job. Don't you agree that they've castrated the ATF from doing the simple obvious things that could help? As for the 2nd Amendment - that was written when we had muskets not AK-47's and I think it's intent was to allow citizens to protect themselves from the Army should their ever been any sort of problem. I don't think it was intended for every bonehead to own a streetsweeper automatic gun.
>
>These last two sentences are mutually exclusive. If you think it's intent was to allow citizens to protect themselves from the Army then one can reasonably conclude that those citizens would need at least the same firepower as the Army. Yet you don't think it was intended for every bonehead to own a streetsweeper automatic gun.
>
>???

Yeah - you're proving my point. It was written 200+ years ago - when it was actually possible for a group of armed citizens to fight off a group of armed military personal. If you want to apply the 2nd Amendment as it was intended 200 years ago to today's standards then every American should be able to own a F-14 fighter plan and atomic weapons too.


>>My big complaint is the politicians have blackballed the ATF from being able to enforce the laws we have and the NRA is behind it. It's not about rights or protecting people - it's about money and selling more guns (at any cost to society).
>
>Everything politicians do is related to money. No surprise there. If you want to limit the influence of money on politicians then limit politicians power. The money will head to more profitible ventures.

Ok look - saying "well this is just business as usual" is not an acceptable argument for allowing the NRA to screw up the ATF. Did you actually watch the video? The ATF can't even keep a simple database that would ...OMG just watch the video.