It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In 2012, the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, and the New York Daily News published a total of 212 news stories that mentioned the NRA. An analysis of these articles reveals that these influential media outlets pay little attention to the close ties between the NRA and the gun makers., Among the 212 articles, only four (three in the New York Times and one in the Washington Post) note any link between the NRA and the $12 billion-a-year firearms industry. The study looked only at news stories, eliminating editorials, columns, op-eds, book reviews, and letters to the editor.
Most of the 212 articles give readers no clue about the organization's corporate ties. The articles -- typically stories about gun violence, gun legislation, or elections -- simply mention the NRA's name without explanation, perhaps assuming that readers already know whom the organization speaks for. This was the case for 43 of the 64 articles (67 percent) in the New York Times (67 percent), 55 out of 65 stories (85 percent) in the Washington Post, 21 of 29 articles (72 percent) in USA Today, and 45 of the 54 articles (83 percent) in the Daily News.
In the few stories where the newspapers describe the NRA's mission, they typically refer to it as a "gun rights" organization or a "gun owners" group, with "gun lobby," "firearm group," "pro-gun group," and "gun advocacy group" among the other favorites. One-fifth of the stories (44 out of 212) -- 28 percent in the Times, 14 percent in the Post, 38 percent in USA Today, and 17 percent in the Daily News -- describe the NRA in these ways.
originally posted by: Bedlam
The first half is explanatory, not conditional.
Nonetheless, what it's saying is that a populace that is well trained on the use of firearms is necessary for the security of a free nation. "well regulated" does not mean "a lot of gun control laws", it means "expert in the use of"
originally posted by: tkwasny
"Well regulated" in 18th century speak translated into 21st century speak means the FedGov is to provide training and range time to ALL it's citizens aged 17-45. All able-bodied male citizens aged 17-45 ARE BY DEFAULT in the unorganized militia. "Regulated" means to provide a means that the object or subject has control.
Hey Obama, when is my range time appointment with ammo and instructors you are mandated by the Constitution to provide?
originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: ~Lucidity
I am not claiming any expertise in law or any Supreme Court rulings.
However, I do remember being taught in the fourth grade, during our American Government classes, that the interpretation of the individuals right to bare arms, or keep a gun, was what is meant in the Second Amendment.
I know this may seem like a radical idea, but that's the way we were in the early 1950's.
I would say "so much" for this being a modern interpretation of the thinking of the Founding Fathers.
originally posted by: SM2
originally posted by: tkwasny
"Well regulated" in 18th century speak translated into 21st century speak means the FedGov is to provide training and range time to ALL it's citizens aged 17-45. All able-bodied male citizens aged 17-45 ARE BY DEFAULT in the unorganized militia. "Regulated" means to provide a means that the object or subject has control.
Hey Obama, when is my range time appointment with ammo and instructors you are mandated by the Constitution to provide?
Actually the 'well-regulated' term circa 1787 when the Constitution was drafted meant, as the case may be, that which is 'adequate,' 'sufficient.' or 'in the proper form' for its intended purpose. It could also be taken to mean "well equipped".
Sorry all you lefty loones, it doesnt mean restrict and confiscate. The whole "shall not be infringed" part was intended to render the government powerless in regards to that. Not that any of the A*@hats in D.C understand basic English. All this " common sense" regulation that people go on and on about ...is absolutely senseless. What internet loophole? You can not purchase a gun on the internet and have it shipped to your home. It has to be shipped to a Federally licensed dealer where you will go and pick it up after completing a federal background check. If i send in a firearm to be repaired by the manufacturer, it has be sent to a dealer where I do yet another background check to get my gun back. Why should I have to do a background check for a private sale? or a gift? Why do you want me to have my wife have a background check for each firearm I own that is left to her if I die? That is not common sense.
How is a high capacity magazine ban common sense? 8 rounds or 12 rounds, I can reload just as fast. Why is banning a rifle because it black common sense? An ar-15 is NOT an assault rifle. It merely appears to be. AR does not mean assault riffle...it mean Armalite Rifle , the initial developer of the platform.
So essentially what i am saying, is until the anti gunners get educated about the things they hate, no discussion can be had . Its like talking to a toddler about long division.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
originally posted by: amicktd
In my opinion it still holds merit. Any country with half a brain knows the dangers of trying to invade America. Nobody wants to invade a country where the military is armed to the teeth as well as its population.
originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Flatfish
That would mean we could maintain caches of equipment and weapons on private land so long as they petained to the mission requirements.