First, the assumption that your position is totally backed by the 2nd Amendment and history. Your position is an extension and interpretation of the second amendment, and not the same thing.Until you've read 1/10th as much about the history of the Second Amendment as I have this suggestion is laughable. I have an entire shelf full of books I've read on the subject, citing original sources and historical records going back to Aristotle. I majored in History at the University of Michigan (the largest History Department of any University in the country), I understand how to read historical documents. So do the Supreme Court Justices as it turns out.Second, the notion that regulation or restriction is somehow a denial of the right, however it is defined. This is hogwash.There are hundreds of restrictions and regulations on the books, some of them advocated for BY the NRA and other similar organizations. Nobody in the NRA is advocating no regulations or restrictions.Semi-automatic, indeed multiple shot weapons, did not exist in the 18th century. Neither did the 2nd Amendment talk about the defense of "ourselves." Neither did handguns in any real sense, not revolvers.It says "the right to bear arms" not "the right to bear the arms we have today and only those arms". To suggest the Founding Fathers didn't know that firearm technology would advance is ridiculous. They were well aware that when the right first became part of Western Civilization "arms" were pointy sticks, literally! To say they'd stop the clock at their time is silly, even then rifles and, yes, handguns were in use.As for the right, it has changed, and it is nonsense to think it hasn't. Handguns were legally banned for years. Now they can't be. But the decision of the Supreme Court is not the last, nor the most likely end result. Their extension of the right to bear arms to anything anyone calls a firearm, and for any purpose other than the support of a militia, is, rightly or wrongly, revisionism and rewriting, just as Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson were.Hogwash. Read up on the history of the Freedman's Bureau Act and the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the view of the Second Amendment that was upheld in Heller and McDonald is entirely consistent with the understanding of the Second Amendment at that time (mid-1800's) and, arguably, all the way back to when the Second Amendment was adopted. One thing I do know is that anyone who uses the 2nd amendment to justify acquiring arms and use them against the United States has no rights to them. Treason is still treason.Using them against a tyrannical government would be DEFENDING the United States, not fighting it. Contrary to Dem belief we do not "belong" to the government, it's exactly the opposite in fact.What I find most noxious about the NRA is its fanaticism and refusal to do anything that helps society where its single concern and society's more mature and worldly concerns collide. The idea that compromise is surrender which permeates much of the Republican Party this century is an idea deeply hostile to all that our country stands for. They would do themselves and the country a great service if they realized this and showed true courage and did something about it. There would be hell to pay, because they have spent so many decades advocating the opposite, but their current path not only leads them to ignominy, but it threatens us all.Your ignorance is astounding. After VA Tech what did the NRA push for? The same exact thing the Brady Campaign pushed for: improvements in the NICS for mental illness screening. But what good did it do them in terms of their reputation? None, as your screed shows they get no credit for calling for more regulation. They knew that going in, they did it anyway, it was the right thing to do. It's possible that this regulation is the reason the shooter in CT wasn't able to buy a rifle earlier in the week (if that report is accurate).The NRA has supported all sorts of regulations. They have spearheaded efforts to make sure felons caught with firearms (a federal crime) have had to serve time on that charge (which is often plead away by prosecutors). Their support of the 1986 changes in federal firearms laws (the laws that make it nearly impossible to own fully-automatic weapons these days unless you're quite wealthy and very law abiding) has lead to their being labelled a "gun-grabber" organization by groups like Gun Owners of America to this very day! But, again, what good does any of this do them if people like you refuse to see any of the regulations they are supporting? Apparently none, but they do it anyway.Could the NRA support regulations in the wake of CT? Maybe, we don't know all of the facts yet. Perhaps there is a regulation that could have helped prevent this but won't take away anyone's rights that hasn't been considered yet. But blanket bans aren't it. Nationwide registration isn't it. Taking away people's Fourth Amendment rights isn't it.