First of all, I do not believe I intimated that you are somehow less of an American than I. Nor do I have the slightest hint that you are anything less than the finest American out there.
I characterized the general membership of the NRA, which is composed of people like me, and not a few Presidents of the US, as being exemplary Americans.
I am a life member, but I've never been to a single meeting, nor do I know any other life members personally; in fact, I am not sure that I know ANY other members personally. However, I see bumper stickers around, so I know there are many. I do not have a bumper sticker myself, although I do wear my life member hat from time to time. My opinion of the citizenship values of NRA members in general is based on what people say when I do that, and from reading and general statistics.
Gun manufacturers support the NRA, as do many sporting magazines and conservation magazines and organizations. They do so for their own reasons, independent of the grass roots element.
The NRA does indeed have an agenda, a very focused one, which I alluded to in my previous post. A few years ago some people in power tried to force the NRA off that agenda onto a warm fuzzy agenda. There was a revolt, and those people are gone. The focus of the NRA is the principal reason why the NRA is successful. It does not go off on tangents.
I apologize if you interpreted my comments to mean that I was suggesting you wanted to trample on the rights of others. I was not referring to you, but to the type of activist who does interfere. For example, PETA and some fringe activist groups go out in bunny suits and try to disrupt legal hunting in the field. Peace activists hang from bridges, interfering with commerce or military passages. Tree huggers hang from trees and interfere with lawful harvests. These people trample on the lawful rights of others because they cannot get their way through the political process like everybody else.
One example of something I might see as reasonable is supporting "gun owner licensing and gun registration." That no more infringes on a person's right to bear arms than car registration infringes on a person's right to own a car.
Your logic here will not stand for the reason that there is no Amendment in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing one's right to own a car. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly to my position, is that there is no organized effort to destroy the private ownership of cars, but there is a very definite organized effort that would be only too happy to do away with guns altogether. I feel bound by responsibility to resist this possibility with every ounce of my strength.
I believe that having no restrictions whatsoever on gun ownership would lead to increased violence in our communities, which might interfere with every citizen's right to stay on this side of the grass as long as we can.
I know that is the justification for the position people who agree with your views have on gun ownership, but the fact remains that communities with a very high rate of gun ownership have less crime than those with a very high level of infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Washington DC is probably the best example of this principle, because it has very obtrusive gun laws and also has one of the highest crime rates of any city in the US.
Your statement also ignores the fact that guns are used to PREVENT crime very often. The NRA publishes a full page of incidents every month in which individuals defended themselves with a gun. Many of these do not even involve the discharge of the gun.
You see, if onerous gun laws are implemented, law abiding people like you and me will not have guns and will be defenseless against criminals who do not give a rip about any kind of law whatsoever. Criminals will know at the outset that we are defenseless, and will act accordingly. That's why I want the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS even though I do not intend to carry as a general rule. I do not want criminals to know whether I am or am not carrying.
Gun laws do not work. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books now, and not one of them prevents a crime that is not already covered by a suitable law.
Here is my idea of a 'reasonable' gun law: "Anyone committing a robbery or other violent felony against a person or person's property with a firearm shall receive double the sentence already assigned to that crime."
Here's another: "Anyone defending his or her life or property with a gun against a person committing a robbery or other violent felony shall be held blameless."
You, and as far as I know everyone who debates ideas as you do, are the epitome of a good American. That I say the NRA is populated with good citizens takes nothing away from that. |
