Why Do We Give The NRA Such Power?

The largest headline on the print Richmond Times-Dispatch this morning, covering more than half of the entire width of the front page, reads “NRA calls for armed guards in schools.” The number two story in the Washington Post this morning (top of the left column) reads “NRA, Put armed police in schools.” Last night on the NBC evening news the lead story involved footage of a press conference held by NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre rejecting any additional gun laws and advocating the placement of armed (that is with guns) guards in all of the nation’s schools. The press conference by the National Rifle Association took place one week after the slaughter of 26 people, including 20 young children, at a Connecticut elementary school.

If I were a visitor from another planet and read these newspapers and watched television last night, I would naturally assume that the NRA was our national legislature and that Wayne LaPierre was a high-ranking elected official—perhaps the president. Why else would we pay so much attention to the views of an organization or of one man? The alien maven would be shocked to learn that the NRA was a lobbying group for gun manufacturers and that Wayne LaPierre had been elected by only a few people.

The National Rifle Association has been powerful in our national politics for a long time. As I made clear nearly five years ago (OnGuns—An Ode in Prose) over the years the NRA has morphed from an organization of sportsmen and gun collectors to a lobby for the gun industry. It has taken a “no-compromise” position with respect to gun legislation and has convinced hundreds of members of the Congress and state legislatures that any support for even the most modest control on the purchase of firearms will result in their being defeated for reelection. It has also convinced its members that the Federal Government is devoted to taking away all their guns.

But, dear reader, is it not possible that all of us have given the NRA all this power? Even the proponents of controls on the purchase of firearms have spent most of the last week attacking the NRA in paper and electronic print. They have even gone so far as to hold the NRA culpable for the murders in Connecticut last week. Apparently, it is much easier to create and attack a bogey man than to deal directly with the complex issues raised by gun control.

What if, loyal reader, we treated the NRA differently? What if, for example, we chose to ignore it? Can you imagine what would have happened yesterday if the NRA held its press conference and Wayne LaPierre came to the podium and the room was empty? Think of it—no reporters, no cameras, no protesters. What if, regardless what it said, the media chose to not report anything about the NRA? What if I had watched the evening news last night and saw stories that gave no attention to Mr. LaPierre’s statement? What if the newspapers this morning ran no stories about the NRA’s proposal to put more guns into our schools? (Oh, I know what you are saying, what about the First Amendment? Reader, the First Amendment guarantees the NRA and Mr. LaPierre the right to say anything they want; it does not require us to listen to them.) Is it not possible that if we treated the NRA this way it would shrink from the tiger it wants us to believe it is to a snarling but powerless kitten?

 

On Guns—An Ode in Prose

In an epic battle of good (gun owners, gun manufacturers, gun merchants, gun swappers, gun lovers, gun users) against evil (gun haters, gun victims, families of Virginia Tech victims, namby-pambies, enemies of freedom, those who can’t understand what “shall not be infringed” means, friends of al Qaeda), the gunnies have carried the day. Yesterday a Senate panel joined a House of Delegates panel in killing for this legislative session a bill that would have required private gun sellers at gun shows to run criminal background checks on their customers. I don’t know about you, but this maven is already feeling much safer now that this dastardly attempt to crush our freedoms has been repulsed.

Dear reader, there is something you must know. As a teenager, I was a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association. To the NRA I owe my ability to handle firearms safely. I know that I should never point my weapon at any creature, either animal or human, unless I intend to kill it. I also know that I should always assume that my weapon is loaded when I start playing with it. I also know that I should keep all my firearms in a safe place where young ‘uns can’t get to them. Thank you, NRA, you have taught me well.

Back in the day, of course, the NRA was an organization for sportsman. It provided information, training and a wonderful magazine for people who enjoyed shooting at targets both animate and inanimate. Some time after I let my membership expire, however, the NRA mutated into an organization dominated by gun manufacturers, dealers and others for whom guns were a business. And that is when the whole question of guns started moving toward a zero sum, I win-you lose conflict.

Early on the new NRA started with its slogans. The first was a beaut. “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” This tautological statement was, with the exception of law-enforcement and military personal, obviously true. But, what did it really mean? Did it mean that if guns were outlawed law abiding gun owners would surrender their weapons and that only criminals would still have guns. Or, did it mean that even heretofore law abiding gun owners would refuse to surrender their weapons and would therefore become outlaws? The statement contained the germs of disobedience to law.

The second slogan was, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Not quite a tautology, but clearly a very powerful half-truth. The true part was that no gun has ever been seen loading itself, aiming and then blowing away someone’s head. Clearly people kill people, but a whole lot of them use firearms to do so. Thousands of people are murdered with guns every year. Yet, this NRA slogan would have us believe that even if their were no guns the number of murders would stay the same. And, of course, they are right—not a week goes by, in which we don’t read about drive-by stabbings and battles in the streets, in which members of one gang wipe out members of another by throwing arsenic on them.

The most dangerous of NRA slogans, made particularly popular by the late Charleston (Moses) Heston, is “I'll give up my gun—when they pry it from my cold, dead, hands.” Now the NRA incitement to lawlessness had become quite open. The message was quite clear—if you want to take my gun away, you will have to kill me first. Or the flip side, I will use my weapon against anyone who tries to disarm me. I am a firm believer in the First Amendment, but I have strong objection to an organization that teaches insurrection to its members.

The trouble is that for a very vocal segment of gun proponents any suggestion that the Commonwealth (or any other government) take action that could possibly provide an ounce of extra security for society but at the cost of even a minor inconvenience to a few individuals is greeted as an attack on their right to bear arms, which they insist is absolute. For these people there can be no compromise; for them there is no minor gun regulation. These people portray even an innocuous gun restriction as a call to Armageddon.

My suggestion last week that the Second Amendment might have a different than absolute meaning drew some nasty comments. There was even the suggestion that the right to possess and bear firearms was one that transcended the Second Amendment. This natural rights type of argument is that the right to own guns does not come from any government or from the Constitution. It is a right that is natural to all humans. The right to bear firearms even preexists the invention of gun powder.

Now, I don’t think that the proposed restriction that was killed in the General Assembly is a particularly big thing. Certainly, had it been in effect last year it would not have prevented the Virginia Tech disaster. The mass murderer at Tech bought his firearms and ammunition from licensed gun dealers, not at a gun show. On the other side, had it been enacted by the General Assembly this year it would have caused only the slightest inconvenience to a few people.

You know, reader, guns sure stir up a lot of sentiment in the good ol’ US of A. I’m not sure I understand it, exactly. When the state decides to regulate the use of automobiles does it lead to screaming crowds in front of the Capitol? The Commonwealth of Virginia makes me take a written test. It makes me take a road test to prove that I can handle my car safely. It forces me to wear eyeglasses when I drive. It posts restrictions that prevent me from driving too fast and make me stop at intersections. It forces me to inspect my vehicle periodically at my own cost. It charges me to register my vehicle before I can use it. It even threatens me that “Speed Limits are Enforced by Aircraft.” Yet, when it is suggested that a seller of a weapon first make sure that the person to whom he is selling is not a criminal, all hell breaks loose.

The gunnies have drawn a line in the sand when it comes to any limitation on gun ownership or use. The line is drawn so close to “absolutely no controls” that they must resist with all their righteous indignation any measure designed to make the public safer. Inevitably, this position will make these people more and more unpopular in our country. Eventually, their refusal to accept even the slightest restrictions on their “rights” may lead a large number of citizens without guns to question whether we can still afford a Second Amendment in our violent times. That would be a shame because there are millions of responsible gun owners out there that would suffer.