My thoughts sent to Ken:
Ken,
Quite an article, amazingly, I disagree with every word.
You write: Face it, if the NRA had its way, people would be able to own machine guns.
With a proper background check and a $200(?) transfer tax Americans can indeed own a machine gun.
You write: And the more fanatical NRA members would be yammering about how the 2nd Amendment allows it.
The 2nd Amendment certainly doesn’t forbid it.
You write: At the moment however, all the NRA can do is kill an assault weapons ban that a vast majority of Americans think is necessary and worthwhile.
Gun banners always say polls show that 60% to 80% of Americans want more gun control. The only polls that really count are elections. If 80% of Americans truly wanted more gun control, the liberal Democrat gun banners would be going full speed ahead 24 hours a day, coast to coast. But the simple truth is that more gun control is a loser for liberal Democrats and the “election polls” spoke very loudly in 1994, 1996 and 2000.
You write: In fact, most congressional Republicans and Democrats also believe the weapons ban should be extended, but they're political weasels.
Bill Clinton figured that his 1994 “Assault Weapons” ban cost Democrats 20 seats in Congress. How many more do you want to lose?
You write: They've allowed the NRA to intimidate them into ignoring what the nation needs, in favor of what the NRA wants.
The NRA is a group of citizens banding together and making their opinions known to politicians, it’s as American as apple pie.
The NRA is also the nation’s largest and oldest civil rights organization. Its 4 million dues paying members have been protecting American’s civil right to keep and bear arms since 1871.
You write: Contrary to popular belief, I support the 2nd Amendment.
While doubtful, I’ll acquiesce here, but I will suggest that you must believe the 2nd Amendment applies to the people as a group, in other words, the government(s). I reject that argument. The first two battles of the Revolutionary war were fought over guns, when England moved to disarm the people. Simple American history tells us that the founding fathers foremost concern wasn’t that the government wouldn’t be able to arm itself; they feared that the government would try to disarm the people just as England had tried. Further, as you read the Constitution, you will note that “rights” are reserved exclusively for the people, and “powers” are granted to the government.
You write: What I don't support is the NRA's iron-fisted labeling of every reasonable effort to curb gun violence as a diabolical plot to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.
Cheap, small caliber low power guns are “Saturday Night Specials” and they need to be banned. Very large and very expensive .50 caliber guns are too powerful and they too need to be banned. “Assault Weapons” which are very much mid power weapons, look scary and they also need to be banned.
So, let’s see, small guns, large guns and mid powered guns all need to be banned. There doesn’t seem to be a gun that is “just right”, but you and the rest of the gun banners don’t want to take away anyone’s guns… Yeah, I’m convinced.
If the “Assault Weapons” ban made any sense, perhaps gun owners and the NRA would take it seriously, but it’s a ridiculous law. It bans guns almost entirely on cosmetic features. The one possible exception is the maximum 10 round magazine, but the difference between shooting a gun with one 30 round magazine and three 10 round magazines is about 6 seconds tops. The only thing banning magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds accomplishes is to make magazine manufacturers wealthy.
You write: By any and all measures, the ban on semi-automatic assault rifles -- along with magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition -- has had a positive impact in the 10 years since it was passed.
There is no proof of your position. Gun crime had been trending down well before the “Assault Weapons” ban and that trend continued all through the ban even though the existing “assault weapons” were grandfathered in, and were still in the hands of citizens.
You write: But the NRA doesn't care.
The NRA spends many millions of dollars for gun safety and gun training for citizens and law enforcement officers every year. You name one organization that cares as much as the NRA and shows it by spending even half as much as the NRA to promote the safe use of guns.
You write: The NRA's fantasy is that extending this particular ban would lead to bans on other guns -- "The Boogeyman will getcha" argument.
Until the early 1900’s there were virtually no restrictions on gun ownership, do we have more gun restrictions and bans or fewer restrictions and bans since then?
Also, refer to the small, large and medium guns that must be banned, above.
You write: The NRA has gone from influencing government, to controlling it.
Pointless overheated rhetoric, and you contradict yourself. Above, you state “At the moment however, all the NRA can do”, yet here you write that the NRA is “controlling” the government. Which is it?
You write: Some say they can live with that. But how many others will die because of it?
An estimated 56 million people were killed by their own governments in the 20th century, not in wars, but purposely killed by the likes of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler. What do all of these 56 million people have in common? They were all disarmed and powerless to resist.
I guess you can live with that, but how many others have died and will continue to die in Kosovo, Rwanda, Tibet, Zimbabwe, Iraq, and… because they are powerless to resist?
Today it seems highly unlikely that we would ever need to fight enemies foreign or domestic here in America, but I will do my best to make sure that we have the ability to do so if it’s required.
Excellent point by counterpoint response, RJL. Thank you. I especially liked what you wrote about the NRA. The ban camp portrays or citizens' organizations like GOA, JPFO, and the NRA as "industry lobbies." There's a three-fold lie in that slander.