What's your opinion? Is it fair to blame the NRA in this way? Is it accurate to say that they've "intimidated otherwise responsible and reasonable public servants into silence?" Is it true that they've "handcuffed the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to investigate and prosecute crimes involving gun dealers and gun owners?"It is futile, of course, to try to enter the tortured psyche of such an actor as the man charged with killing 12 and injuring 58 in Aurora, Colo. At the same time, it is essential to realize that while he might have been alone in his conception of this violence, he was not alone in acquiring the means to pull off the horror.Standing squarely behind him, assuring him access to whatever means and level of gun violence he might wish to get his hands on, is the National Rifle Association, a lobby that holds an entire country hostage to its twisted notions of freedom and security and its agonized interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The power of both its money and its propaganda is again evident. It has intimidated otherwise responsible and reasonable public servants into silence in the face of gun laws that are patently absurd in their lack of oversight.The NRA loves to pose as a protector of constitutional rights and friend of law enforcement. In fact, however, since the first meaningful federal gun control legislation passed in 1968, the lobby has repeatedly and effectively interfered with law enforcement, backing measures that have seriously handcuffed the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to investigate and prosecute crimes involving gun dealers and gun owners.
Yes, of course these charges are true. In the same way I blame the gun-rights advocates and others who support such tactics. For various misguided reasons they make it possible for the NRA and the gun lobby to continue doing their dirty work.
What do you think? Will President Obama do the right thing in his second term? Will the citizens of the United States come out of their lethargy regarding the gun debate and begin demanding action from their political representatives?
Please leave a comment.
Of course you do. Your problem is that not many go along with your distribution of blame. And don't be too sure about an Obama second term. That's far from guaranteed.
ReplyDeleteBut... but.... but...., they are a defunct organization made up of all paid phone phone-bank employees, they don't have any real members......
ReplyDeleteHow much do you blame me? What percentage of blame of this crime do you place on Holmes, the NRA, and me, in that order? Can you give me a break down in numbers?
ReplyDeleteTS, the way I see it we don't have a blame pie to divide up. You're each responsible for your own actions or lack thereof.
DeleteReally, Mikeb? I'm savoring the moment.
DeleteYou said that we're all responsible for our own actions. In other words, not the NRA, not the gun industry, not the gun itself, but the person is responsible. Is that correct?
No, you know very well that's not what I mean. If you support lax gun laws that result in people dying that otherwise wouldn't have, you're responsible for that.
DeleteSo if you support homeowners having the ability to own a pool are you responsible for all drownings that occur at home pools? What about car accidents - if you support car ownership are you responsible for the deaths due to cars?
DeleteThe blame game works both ways. How many unarmed citizens have criminals injured or murdered that would have successfully defended themselves with firearms had laws and culture not demonized firearms?
ReplyDeleteGuns do more harm than good. That's the way I see it.
DeleteThe harm that you name represents the actions of one tenth of one percent or less of the gun owners and guns in this country. As always, your assessment of the numbers baffles me.
DeleteIt's not as low as that, Greg.
DeleteThere are some eighty to one-hundred million gun owners in this country, and perhaps 300,000,000 guns. The total annual number of deaths and injuries due to firearms is around 100,000. Doing the calculation yields 0.00125 or 0.125 percent. O.K., slightly above one tenth of one percent when using the conservative figure for owners. How am I wrong?
DeleteLaci would argue with you. He says that the NRA is a paper tiger that is in reality insignificant and has no real power.
ReplyDeleteWe're dealing with a "heads I win, tails you lose" narrative here. The NRA is simultaneously a paper tiger and an evil puppet master. They have no members and no support, but at the same time, they wield enormous influence over legislatures. Perhaps the gun control people watch too many Bond movies.
ReplyDeleteOf course, since I joined the NRA precisely because of the demonization that it receives here, I wonder how much responsibility this site is going to take.
Greg, I think the way it works is this. The NRA has a paltry membership, especially considering how many gun owners there are. They have tremendous resources though, much of which comes from the gun manufacturers.
DeleteAnd how many members does the ACLU or similar have? (500,000, if the number is correct.) How about the National Organization for Women? (Also about 500,000.) The point here is that advocacy groups have a core of active members, but represent many more people in this country.
DeleteBy the way, the Brady Campaign is more secretive, but the reports that I've seen suggest around 60,000 for them.