By Bill Fletcher, Jr.
(NNPA) Every time the National Rifle Association (NRA) or its political allies block any form of gun control, people throw up their hands in complete frustration trying to figure out why the NRA will, seemingly, never agree to any sort of reasonable gun control. The answer is quite simple: the NRA believes that any degree of gun control is a slippery slope which will inevitably lead to more restrictions on the use of fire arms. Once you appreciate the NRA’s “logic,” their positions—as backward and anti-social as they are—take on a different meaning.
What is critical that one appreciates is that the NRA is not so much focused on this or that piece of gun control legislation. I would wager that they probably care little about whether a clip has three bullets or 300. What they care about is that restrictions on any ammo clip will result, over time, in greater restrictions on guns.
It is, therefore, important that those of us who believe that it is not a great idea for mentally disturbed individuals to have access to firearms, to never assume that passionate pleas to the NRA or its political allies will work. The NRA has inoculated itself against passionate pleas. The ghosts of the children killed at the daycare center in Newtown, Conn. could appear in front of the headquarters of the NRA and it would make no difference.
In appreciating what motivates the NRA one must, therefore, understand that winning reasonable gun control, e.g., universal background checks, will not happen through television commercials or the tears of victims of gun violence. Such legislation will result from raw power and intense organizing among the public. The NRA is a very well-funded and well-organized lobby that has the capacity to put the fear of God into many elected officials. The only way to counter that is not through attempts at compromise but rather by developing a sufficient counter-force that will cause elected officials to pause before they give away the store to the NRA.
A country built on racial slavery and genocide finds it difficult to accept that there need to be controls over the use of firearms. That history of rampant, frequently uncontrolled – yet directed – violence is the toxin which is in the political system that periodically produces moments of complete insanity. This toxin leads too many people to believe that having nearly unfettered access to firearms is paramount regardless of how many innocent individuals lose their lives.
It is not the 2nd Amendment that fundamentally motivates uncompromising firearms fanatics, but the fear that was engendered through the scars resulting from the violent history of this country. Given that history, the NRA is successfully able to play a tune to which so many will dance. In the bizarre universe which the NRA has constructed, built upon and within a very real and violent history, it all starts to make sense…and is equally sickening.
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum, and the author of “They’re Bankrupting Us” – And Twenty Other Myths about Unions. Follow him at www.billfletcherjr.com.
Shall not be infringed doesn’t really line up well with, “reasonable gun control.” In fact, it seems to prohibit it altogether.
Actually, more to the point the NRA is an entity to itself and it is a single issue lobby. While the members of the NRA are as equally concerned as every other American with jobs, the economy, the environment and all the other issues that make up modern society, the NRA only cares about gun rights.
PLEASE do not confuse the single purpose focus of the NRA with the human beings that make up its membership. We all make up our own minds as to which parts of the NRA program we agree and disagree with. We also decide if what they do is worth our time and money.
But, much like our political parties and churches, we agree on more topics than we disagree or we wouldn’t still be members. And the gradual erosion of our rights is a very important topic to us, and to others as well. Enough to occasionally make the NRA and the ACLU actually agree on some things.
But to tell you the truth, it isn’t the violent history of this country that really makes us uncomfortable. It is the fact that the vast majority of the time that a government has disarmed its population a totalitarian regime has come to power effectively denying a huge array of rights to a now unprotected citizenry.
Please do not think that because you have a hypothesis on how a group of individuals thinks, that it is in fact true. The NRA is easy to figure out; the members of the NRA are much more diverse than you can possibly imagine. No we don’t all agree on everything. But we do agree on one thing; the NRA is there to protect at least one of our God given rights as enumerated in the Constitution.
What you call reasonable we call an infringement. Is it reasonable for me to commit a felony to be at a range and lend a friend my pistol so he can fire off a few rounds? The UBC law that the NRA defeated would have done exactly that. That is not a reasonable law, that is an infringement.
With your powers of observation, interpretation, and general logic, it amazes me that your career has brought you to the New York Times. Oh, wait, your writing for the North Dallas Gazette. Never mind, water has found its own level once more.
Bill Fletcher, Jr. wrote “The ghosts of the children killed at the daycare center in Newtown, Conn. could appear in front of the headquarters of the NRA and it would make no difference.”
I thought real journalists took pride in getting their facts straight. The children killed at Sandy Hook in Newtown, CT were in an Elementary school, not daycare, So from what 4th rate Community College did you get your Associates in Journalism?
Ultimately, gun owners know that what liberals really want is a prohibition of firearms and confiscation. Feinstein, Cuomo have said this. Even if it is proven that some piece of gun rights limiting legislation is ineffective, it will never be repealed because the ultimate goal is to get rid of firearms.
What might be interesting, though, is to offer gun owners something in exchange for background checks. Say, reciprocal conceal carry across state lines or removing suppressors, SBR, SBS from NFA status.
Find out what gun owners want and trade them that for background checks.
Fear based on history is not unreasonable, it is prudent.
Wishful thinking that totalitarian government will govern for the good of the many is fantasy.
Steve,
While it is unfortunate that he referred to it as a daycare, is not loss of the lives of those young children the more important fact?
Steve,
Please note Bill Fletcher is not a writer for the North Dallas Gazette, he is a syndicated columnist.
NDG: While it is unfortunate that he referred to it as a daycare, is not loss of the lives of those young children the more important fact?
My post was not about fact ranking, so I’m puzzled at your response. There is no argument to be had about the magnitude of horrific tragedy that took place in Sandy Hook on 12/14/12.
Mr. Fletcher’s poor fact checking is the issue I’m addressing. It speaks to shoddy journalism. I have a difficult time taking any journalist seriously when they fail to even be accurate on the information in which they’re reporting. It diminishes their credibility. Mr. Fletcher’s credibility is also an issue when it comes the understanding of the NRA displayed in his writing. His analysis is superficial and lacks any in depth appreciation for the NRA’s mission up against what history has taught us about “Gun Control”. Speaking of facts, in a recent survey by the Law Enforcement website policeone.com, of over 15,000 law enforcement officers, 71 percent say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.
In recent history, both Australia and Great Britain have in effect banned their citizens from legally owning firearms. The goals was to decrease crime, violent crime specifically. It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The statistics for the years following the ban: Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate. The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban. Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate. From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates. In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent.
Similar numbers tell the same story in Great Britain. Removing legal access to owning firearms by law abiding citizens leads to an increase in violent crime, and in effect makes law abiding citizens victims.
So just as Mr. Fletcher has not bothered to check his fact with where the school murders in Sandy Hook took place, he has also not bothered to do any real or significant fact checking when formulating and writing his opinions about the NRA.
You say he’s a syndicated columnist. Sad, very sad…but then again, Checkers sells more than Chess. -SK