National Rifle Assoc. doing a disservice to responsible gun ownership
Published: April 23, 2009
Updated: April 23, 2009
Recently it was mass murder almost daily in Alabama, North Carolina, New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland. The anniversaries of Virginia Tech and Columbine were last week — all committed by people without serious criminal records with legally obtained firearms.
Last year, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” to mean that private citizens have the right to own guns.
I’ve yet to find a certified English teacher to say that amendment is clearly worded.
Back when this amendment was drafted, “arms” meant single-shot muzzleloaders, not machine pistols capable of firing hundreds of rounds a minute.
So how can we prevent such massacres as happened at Va. Tech? Many say students should be able to carry concealed weapons on campus. The Texas and Missouri legislatures are considering that. I agree that could have reduced the carnage at Va. Tech.
But having a gun in every conceivable venue would entail an awful lot of guns everywhere, and surely that would invite some downside risk to public safety.
Any look at guns and gun laws almost always includes the politically powerful National Rifle Association, formed in 1871 primarily to promote marksmanship of Union veterans.
During the 1960s, two factions of the NRA came into focus — the smiling sportsman and the Second Amendment fundamentalist.
The old guard’s concerns over gun control were limited to its effects on traditional sporting activities. For the new guard, gun ownership was no longer just a recreational issue but a political one. They viewed the NRA as the last bulwark against a government and newly formed gun control movement intent on ending gun rights.
By 1978, the strident new guard had ousted the old, and safeguarding the Second Amendment became the NRA’s top priority.
Joining the NRA became almost a patriotic duty, especially for rural Americans. But somewhere along the way, the NRA’s tenor grew more ominous. After the 1994 sieges at Waco and Ruby Ridge, the NRA leadership whipped up anti-government hysteria, culminating in a famous fundraising letter warning of “jackbooted thugs ... (who could) break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and injure or kill us.”
Timothy McVeigh bought into that kind of incendiary rhetoric. A week after that NRA letter was sent, he blew up the federal Murrah building, killing many of the U.S. federal agents he so despised.
The NRA often says we only need to enforce the gun laws we have, that we don’t need more. But they have worked tirelessly to water down what laws exist.
Frequent rhetoric often centers on false fear of government “taking all our guns.” Baloney.
When someone buys a gun at a licensed gun shop, they undergo an instant background check. But government doesn’t keep those records. Guns are not registered like cars. Felons and others not allowed to buy guns can still buy guns from an unlicensed seller at flea markets, gun shows or through classified ads.
There are so many guns in circulation now, it is unlikely new laws will prevent any future massacres. And law-abiding citizens have the right to bear arms.
While there are plenty of anecdotes that guns deter crime, a firearm is far more likely to result in accidental death, injury, homicide or suicide than to prevent someone from killing the user. But those statistics largely fall on deaf ears.
The days are long gone when guns were simply for hunting and protection. Today they’ve often become the symbol of resistance to government intrusion into our lives. But the NRA efforts to undermine our nation’s gun laws have been so successful that anyone who wants a gun can get one. I guess we have to get used to it.
Legge’s column runs every other Thursday on the editorial page.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Of course, our military have the best, as they should have. How did we get to Tomahawk missiles anyway???? Are you suggesting that our government is so corrupt that it would use Tomahawks on us?
Posted by ( gjdagis ) on April 23, 2009 at 9:58 am
“How is a person supposed to protect themselves from a corrupt, violent government with a bolt action when the army has FULLY automatic weapons and other equipment ?“
How will you protect yourself from a corrupt, violent government with a FULLY automatic weapon when the navy has Tomahawk missiles?
“Back when this amendment was drafted, “arms” meant single-shot muzzleloaders, not machine pistols capable of firing hundreds of rounds a minute.“
“Arms” meant the weapons used by standing armies. This interpretation was affirmed by the Supreme Court in US v Miller.
“But having a gun in every conceivable venue would entail an awful lot of guns everywhere, and surely that would invite some downside risk to public safety.“
The beauty of the CCW plan is that the ones who seek to carry concealed are typically those who are dedicated to firearms training (and who by the way have higher target hit percentages than LEOs). They are effectively like having cops who are all over the place, who don’t cost tax payers a dime, don’t harrass others for anything less than immediate violent acts, don’t wear uniforms so you never know if one is near, and most importantly understand and accept personal liability for any action they do with a firearm. That means IF they mess up (which is actually less likely than the average LEO) lawsuits are directed at the individual not the city which again means tax payer don’t pay a dime for free expert level protection and reduced crime.
“For the new guard, gun ownership was no longer just a recreational issue but a political one.“
I think you mean defensive not political. The second amendment does nothing to protect recreational use. A ban on hunting wouldn’t be unconstitutional - just silly. The second amendment is about the security of the people.
“Timothy McVeigh bought into that kind of incendiary rhetoric. A week after that NRA letter was sent, he blew up the federal Murrah building, killing many of the U.S. federal agents he so despised.“
Indeed. You think McVeigh planned and executed that attack inside of a week based on a letter from the NRA? Nice. McVeigh was wrong in his reactions, but not far off in his accusations of the Feds overstepping their authority and acting in a violent reckless manner on US soil against US citizens. Even congress and the FBI have admitted that it was an embarrassment. Problem is McVeigh stooped to killing even more innocent people just to voice his message. And for that he got the needle.
“Frequent rhetoric often centers on false fear of government “taking all our guns.” Baloney.“
In 1994 when the Assault Weapons Ban was passed, its sponsors said on CNN that it was a preliminary test that would hopefully lead to all guns being handed over. Their were no mixed words on that one. It was explicit and the NRA doesn’t want its members to forget that these original sponsors are still in office.
“While there are plenty of anecdotes that guns deter crime, a firearm is far more likely to result in accidental death, injury, homicide or suicide than to prevent someone from killing the user. But those statistics largely fall on deaf ears.“
Countless studies have disproven this allegation, but “those statistics largely fall on deaf ears.“ If you consider only when somebody is actually killed or injured the statistic has merit, but that doesn’t account for crimes deterred without injury, nor crimes that don’t happen in the first place as a result of the gun being present. It also fails to address the simple fact that individual choices dictate if the gun is misused. Simple safety guidelines prevent these missuses and accidents from happening.
“The days are long gone when guns were simply for hunting and protection. Today they’ve often become the symbol of resistance to government intrusion into our lives. But the NRA efforts to undermine our nation’s gun laws have been so successful that anyone who wants a gun can get one. I guess we have to get used to it.“
Guns are still for hunting and protection. They were before the government began intruding on gun rights and they still are. The NRA has fought to undermine unconstitutional gun laws because they are not only unconstitutional but they have been shown to cause a great deal of harm to this country.
Anyone who disagrees with the constitution is welcome to introduce an amendment to the constitution. Sidestepping the law of the land is the hallmark of tyrannical government. Gun control is no different than Jim Crow laws. It is no less harmful nor any less disgraceful.
“But the point is that guns were far less deadly in 1780 when the 2nd
was drafted.“
This is the same point about the single shot muskets. Printing presses were less powerful. Illegal searches were less powerfull (no drug sniffing dogs, no dna).
They had bows and arrows and swords in the 1780s. The single shot musket was the state of the art weapon used by the average solder.
I think that George Washington said it best.
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
I don’t fear the government, I recognize that it needs to be controlled.
Guns less available? Can you back that up?
I don’t think I’m making a stretch to say that the gun laws in the past 30 years have been focused on making guns less available.
When I was a kid, not too long ago
you could buy guns through the mail guns were sold to anyone
no age restriction
no background check
no one gun per month
no restriction on caliber
no restriction on baynet mounts
no import ban on machine guns even up to 1985
you could legally sell a gun to a person in another state without an FFL
guns were advertised in comic books to children
I stand by my statement. Something is different in America, but it’s not the availabilty of guns. Guns are a lot less available now than they used to be.
rjma…I didn’t say that you advocated removal of guns..But you must agree that( if you are a thinking person, and I have to assume that you are) one thing leads to another and eventually, laws, regulations, or whatever,would lead to this very thing. In that instance, we would be unable to defend our homes and families and the criminals would still be around, and in charge, because they would still have their guns. Laws,in that case, as now, would not stop them. This is one of the very things the NRA is attempting to prevent.
Roger, everyone agrees that the NRA does a fine job with teaching gun safety. Who said anything about taking guns away? This column sure didn’t.
Of course, accidents happen and will continue to. Gun owners need to take responsibility and learn about gun safety. This is one of the functions of the NRA, teaching gun safety. Let’s don’t make a blanket criticism simply because we don’t agree with some aspects of the NRA’s purpose. It still all goes back to the individual and their of responsibility and don’t take my guns away, or regulate them out of use, because a creep like Tim McVey killed over 200 people with a BOMB, not a gun.
Chris,
Surely you know that guns on every person would increase the chance for accidents, arguments settled by gunfire, children finding one in a purse, mistaken identity, etc. No one is suggesting knives or gasoline, because that would not have prevented the VT massacre. Note I agreed a gun could have prevented some of those deaths.
You ask if the NRA is responsible for McVeigh. Note the column said “McVeigh bought into THAT KIND of incendiary rhetoric”. There is no way to know for sure what motivated McVeigh but he did get NRA publications as a member, but it is not inconceivable that he was not influenced by their rhetoric. He was certainly influenced by someone’s anti-ATF rhetoric.
Guns less available? Can you back that up?
Gida- Google “machine pistols” and I think you’ll see a few that can do that. But the point is that guns were far less deadly in 1780 when the 2nd was drafted.
I’m just not as afraid of my government as you are. By the way, I’m a gun owner too.
“ Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” The second amendment wasn’t just written for that time in in our country. It was also written for our time. Maybe if everybody had a license to carry the crime rate in this country wouldn’t be so outrageous.
Advertisement