Posted on 05/28/2008 4:15:33 PM PDT by neverdem
As expected, I heard an earful about my column last week on a new gun group that opposes the National Rifle Association's hard-line views and allegiance to the Republican Party.
NRA loyalists from around the country sent me e-mails echoing the organization's claim that a small rival, the American Hunters & Shooters Association, is just a "front" for gun-control activists. They said that anything that weakens absolute Second Amendment freedom is a slippery slope that will lead to the nation being disarmed.
I believe just the opposite is true -- and I think many gun owners realize it.
There's a lot of money and power to be had by representing gun enthusiasts. Nobody knows that better than the NRA and its many competitors. With guns in nearly half of all American households, these organizations know that fear -- "sneaky liberals want to take away your guns!" -- is a powerful recruiting tool.
Both Democrats and Republicans love to exploit wedge issues that will energize their base. Republicans have become masters of the technique, courting factions that feel so passionately about hot-button topics -- guns, gay rights, abortion, prayer in schools -- that it has become difficult to find common ground on many important issues in American life.
I don't know whether the American Hunters & Shooters Association is a good organization or a bad one. What I found interesting was its willingness to say what many "pro-gun" Kentuckians like me think about this endless debate: that we need some intelligent compromises to protect responsible gun ownership and make communities safer.
Many law-abiding Kentuckians want guns for self-defense or farm use, or because they enjoy shooting, hunting or collecting. Or they believe that America would be less safe if responsible, law-abiding citizens were disarmed. Members of the NRA and similar groups are generally the most responsible gun owners and shooters out there.
Guns were an important part of the frontier heritage that helped make America great. And Kentucky, after all, was the nation's first frontier.
But gun violence and crime are serious problems. The no-compromise crowd has kept law enforcement agencies from having some tools they need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. And that has led to some over-reaching, such as when police in New Orleans illegally seized hundreds of guns after Hurricane Katrina.
Without some intelligent compromises, each new tragedy, like the Virginia Tech or Columbine massacres, will prompt more emotional calls for banning guns. All guns. There are zealots on both sides.
The NRA and other gun groups could learn something from the horse industry.
High-profile deaths of horses in Thoroughbred racing and eventing have created some public backlash against those sports. Rather than stonewall, though, horse industry leaders are aggressively working to make their sports safer. They love horses, sure, but they also realize that their sports could live or die with public opinion.
As society becomes more diverse, we must regain the lost art of compromise. Otherwise, we'll never be able to deal with complex problems in ways that protect everyone's rights. Polarization may be good for special-interest groups and political parties, but it's bad for America.
If Second Amendment absolutists keep standing up and daring others to pry their guns from their "cold, dead fingers," eventually somebody's going to do it.
Reach Tom Eblen at (859) 231-1415 or 1-800-950-6397, Ext. 1415, or at teblen@herald-leader.com.
The police TURNED LOOSE criminals and crazy people and in addition became looters themselves. There was a total breakdown of society. Those who were awaiting trial never went to trial. Police abandoned their posts.
A police state requiring the public to turn over their guns to a corrupt police force was NOT the answer. It was all about stemming any bloodshed from those doing the shooting that the police were unwilling to do.
I don't know either, but I do know that "Hunter's rights" is Liberal code for "we don't need no stinkin' Second Amendment". I wonder how long before some enterprising conservative blogger finds the Soros/Democrat connection to "American Hunters and Shooters Association".
American Hunters and Shooters Association
Connections to the usual suspects was better than I expected in Wikipedia!
One common interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it guarantees private ownership of weapons that can be carried & operated by an individual, meaning anything short of crew-served weapons. Quite frankly, that interpretation may be overly restrictive (many 'historical' militias possessed artillery). IMO, the most common references to WMD as they relate to the Second Amendment (and I am not saying this applies to YOU) are as 'straw man' arguments by the uninformed and ignorant, opposing the rule of constitutional law, and supporting totalitarian government...
By WMD, I mean destruction on a massive level. Nukes of all types, bio and chem-warfare stuff.
As for crew-served, I wouldn’t mind an 80lb grenade thrower.
;>)
Into a mortar barrel?
I would guess he was referring to a standard 42 gallon steel ‘oil’ barrel. Whatever they were, they were definitely disposable. ‘Training’ is one reason we have the finest military in the world...
By the way, you seem to have wandered off topic - apart from historical references, I don’t believe anyone here has suggested that the Second Amendment refers to anything but small arms...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.