(May 04, 2014)
Second Amendment absolutists complain that gun-control advocates are an out-of-touch elite seeking to destroy the way of life of real men who pack heat, pass weapons on to their sons, and are a rampart against government tyranny. It’s dangerous out there.
At the National Rifle Association’s convention in Indianapolis last weekend, Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre warned his members that their lifestyle was under assault. “I have never seen it on edge the way it is now,” he said. “If it’s going to be saved, it’s in our hands. It’s in your hands.”
There’s no better venue than this gathering to experience the pain and joy of gun owners. To those not steeped in guns, the exhibition hall with weapons arrayed as far as the eye can see is a frightening display. It is also a place where the young and female are pursued. Kids are encouraged to fondle semi-automatics and take virtual target practice. Women have their own events, including one that features the latest fashions for heat-packing ladies. You don’t want your Glock to add 10 pounds.
The NRA’s 4 million members don’t seem to feel an obligation to understand the 90 percent of Americans who say in polls that they would like to see universal background checks for gun buyers.
“It’s a cultural thing,” Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., told me. He said his “A” rating from the NRA helped the background check legislation he introduced last year with Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., get as far as it did.
Manchin is still using that crossover cred to try to find the five Senate allies he needs to get the bill up for a vote again. He can’t explain to me those gun owners who will listen only to Ted Nugent (who gave a speech), or those who cheer stand-your-ground laws (there was a session on how not to have any post-traumatic stress should you shoot someone).
It would be a valuable cross-cultural field trip for LaPierre to take a look outside the hall, where representatives of the 90 percent were gathered. The moms at the gates gladly would have pointed out to him that 82 people die every day because guns fall into the hands of non-law-abiding citizens, curious children, the mentally ill and the suicidal.
These groups just put up a series of gripping ads showing the murderous downside of readily available firearms and have issued a report titled “Not Your Grandparents’ NRA.” It traces the gun-rights lobby’s move away from hunting and marksmanship to defending the rights of felons and terrorism suspects to buy firearms and take them everywhere.
The NRA spends $20 million a year to scare lawmakers into doing their bidding. For the first time, the other side will be spending more. What a great day it will be when LaPierre has to understand that.
Margaret Carlson is a Bloomberg View columnist.
- - -
[Apparently, The Columbian requires a FaceBook ID to comment. I don't use FaceBook; I don't care for "Social Media". So I've responded here.]
Dear Ms Carlson,
I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
That's why we have a Second Amendment; to defend all the other amendments ... including your right to say hateful things about good people.
(Oh, you don't think they're "good people"? Well, I do. I'm offended by your speech. But it is your constitutional right under the First Amendment of the Constitution to demean "my people".)
I object to your use of the term: "Second Amendment absolutists". The term implies intransigence, arrogance and a lack of social awareness. That does not accurately describe the community of people who enjoy the shooting sports, and who value their RIGHT (not whim) to defend themselves, their homes, and their "way of life". You have a "way of life", too, and it's not that far from mine. It's just that I don't like soccer.
You feel free to denigrate one of the spokesmen for my way of life - the Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association - and his statements at the 2014 NRA convention. Your attack on our constitutional rights serves as a good example to justify his remarks.
You also denigrate the membership of the NRA. Really, Ms Carlson, I understand that his statements offend you. Don't you think that he might just be justified is saying that MY lifestyle is under assault?
You are writing under the aegis of the First Amendment. You think that is reasonable. I own firearms under the aegis of the Second Amendment. Do you honestly think that one is more reasonable than the other? Why do you think that the 2nd Amendment immediately follows the 1st amendment? Were our founding fathers sane and reasonable the first thing in the morning, and then they morphed into buffoons in the afternoon?
You speak about the NRA gun show as if it was a gathering of trolls. Admittedly, their interests are not yours. Have you ever been to a Car Show, where new (or "classic" models of automobiles are exhibited? Men almost salivate over cars, but that's okay. Never mind that ten times more American citizens are killed by automobiles than by firearms. That does not figure in your world view ... after all, people got to drive, don't they?
However, a driver's license is not protected by the Constitution of the United States of America, since September 17, 1787. The right to Keep and Bear Arms ... is.
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics:
The most egregious remark is in your 7th Paragraph:
It [“Not Your Grandparents’ NRA.”] traces the gun-rights lobby’s move away from hunting and marksmanship to defending the rights of felons and terrorism suspects to buy firearms and take them everywhere.
No responsible gun owner in this country has ever "championed" the (non-existent) "rights" which you profess! We live here, too. We don't want armed felons ... these are exactly the kind of people who cause us to champion the rights of honest, law-abiding citizens to carry weapons! And when you're shopping at your local mall, and one of these "felons" start shooting at you with one of their illegal guns, you might wish that the "GUN FREE ZONE" announcement on the mall entrances had been ignored by a licensed gun owner. See: Clackamas Mall Shooting.
The NRA spends $20 million a year to scare lawmakers into doing their bidding. For the first time, the other side will be spending more. What a great day it will be when LaPierre has to understand that.
We understand that you are "a Bloomberg View columnist", Ms Carlson. When you are airing all the public financial disclosures of the NRA, with the unspoken insinuation that the legal organization has "big pockets", you should be aware that the same accusation should be levied at you ... personally.
And remember also that the NRA is financed by its member dues at $25 dollars a year per member.
This is not the same as being a hired shill for a billionaire, whose motives are suspect at best.
Margaret Carlson is a Bloomberg View columnist.
I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Even if you have benefited financially from Michael Bloomberg for being his toady.
