The president is going after people who have threaten our existence. The NRA's agenda threatens our existence as well.
The NRA couldn't threaten our existence if it tried.
It probably doesn't threaten you or your immediate family's existence but it could, and it does threaten a lot of other people. It does by opposing almost every bit of legislation that would restrict gun ownership and usage in this country. And this opposition is done aggressively with a lot of money.
And if you don't believe me, then talk to someone who has lost someone to a gun....or just look at the reaction to the NRA when Columbine happened. The NRA was supposed to meet in Denver about that time, but after Columbine, it was told to get over it. There is an indirect correlation between the NRA and every gun death and injury in this country.
Its agenda is mostly defensive in that it seeks to avoid new gun control laws.
Its agenda is not defensive......it wants very little infringement on the right to own guns in this society, and it aggressively defends that position. Look, like I said above, the lack of gun control probably don't endanger your family directly because either they don't own a gun or if they do, they are informed enough to know how to keep the gun secure. However, you never know when a gun will intrude into your life.
There was an incident here a couple of years ago that shows the effect of guns on our culture and the impact they can have on the least violent members of our society. There were two families in a middle class suburb who were close friends and their two boys were best friends. The husband of one family was a cop. For security purposes, he kept a revolver at home in a carefully crafted hiding place in the master bdrm. that required a key to access. The two boys were honor students, played sports and were basically good kids.
One day the two of them were playing alone in the house. Long ago, the son of the cop had figured out the hiding place for the gun and knew where the key was hidden. He had been taught how to handle a gun...point it at the floor when holding it, never pull the trigger until all the chambers have been emptied etc. He did all the things you are supposed to do but he never got around to checking the chambers because before that could be done that day, he slipped and the gun went off as he fell. The bullet hit the other boy in his chest barely missing his heart......he survived but it caused serious damage to his lung, and a loss of breathing capacity. It was a very bad accident and the injured boy to his credit never let his parents forget that it was an accident, and never allowed them to blame his friend. He will be forever handicapped and won't be able to play team soccer or basketball. Its a pretty sad story and one that shows that no matter how well you secure them, how well you inform your children, accidents happen with guns and those accidents can be very destructive.
Forgetting these two families, there are other innocent people in this country who are very susceptible to injury from guns and they will benefit most from stricter gun laws. However, in the end, all of us will benefit because you never know when in what capacity a gun may intrude into your life, inflicting considerable pain and anguish. Because they are so commonplace in this culture, we all are at considerable risk and danger.
Its beyond my ken to understand the paradigm of an organization that encourages the ownership and wielding of weapons of mass destruction
Again with the "weapons of mass destruction"...
Guns are not weapons of mass destruction. They kill one person per shot.
Last year, they killed nearly 30 thousand people in the US alone......I dare say that's probably more than terrorists have killed in the last ten years throughout the world. I consider that pretty massive destruction.
Also if there was a organization that said "the people should have the right to own nuclear and chemical weapons", it would not be a terrorist organization unless it used terrorist methods. I would be against it just as you are against the NRA but it would have a 1st amendment right to argue its case. Again, does the 1st ammendment not apply to people you don't like? If you aren't going to answer just say so and I'll stop bugging you with the question.
What is terrorism......its the product of actions taken by a group of humans whose intentions/agenda result in the widespread loss of lives and encourage terror in people. Loosely drawn in that manner, the definition fits the NRA.
Now, I realize I am stretching. The undelying point of all of this is that the NRA [unlike terrorists] may care that a lot of people are dying because of its agenda......but not enough to compromise that agenda so that gun usage is dramatically restricted in this country. That stance p*sses the hell out of me....not nearly as much as hitting the twin towers with airliners but enough.
Its like setting up an organization to promote smoking....which I think did exist in the 50's.
And if such an organization existed now would you support bombing its headquarters and rounding up or killing all of its members?
I would work to restrict its power.
Edit - And would you still support this action if the organization did not actually promote smoking but just the right to smoke? BTW such groups do exist, so I suppose they are next on your anti-"terrorist" hit list.
Yes.....smoking and smoking guns both kill.
ted |
