Posted by Dan Ewert : 4/12/2002 01:03:00 AM (Archive Link)
I was intending to blog about an entirely different topic tonight, but my brother e-mailed me asking my opinion on the NRA. While I was going to put it on my list of things to consider, I couldn't help going ahead and typing a reponse. Here it is:

The NRA. I consider it a necessary evil. Strangely enough, I'm willing to lump it in the same category as the ACLU, although most conservatives would find such grouping repulsive. Really, though, they're similar warriors. The ACLU is an all-out defender of the first amendment. They will defend African Americans and the KKK with equal vigor in order to prevent free speech rights from being impeded by the government or other entities. This often leads them to defend causes that most would consider questionable if not outright offensive. They do this, however, in order to prevent the dreaded sliding effect... that one minor infringement of speech on an unpopular group leads the way for further censor on other groups until we get to the stage of a totalitarian government. It's an unlikely apocalyptic scenario that's purposely meant to frighten people, but the possibility for some rights encroachment does exist. So in this sense, while I often dislike the ACLU's tactics and the causes they support, I nevertheless find them necessary as they are an equal opportunity defender of the first amendment wherever it may be threatened. They therefore help to secure the overall right for the rest of us.

The NRA is to the second amendment as the ACLU is to the first amendment. A tireless defender of the people's right to bear arms. Not only tireless, but a complete opponent to almost any regulation whatsoever. They too paint a grim future... in this case it's a view of minor gun control eventually leading to jack booted ATF agents going door to door ceasing the citizenry's weapons. So in order to keep the absolute worst from happening, they try to prevent the least worst from happening. While I don't agree with this no regulation view since I consider some gun control appropriate, I see the organization as being important and necessary. In a country where there are many groups calling for extreme gun control, there must be a balancing factor that favors the other side. And since any concessions to the gun control lobby will easily lead to further, more serious restrictions, the all-or-nothing approach is perfectly understandable and it provides a clear agenda to follow.

Besides all this, I think the NRA is unfairly painted as a bunch of right-wing nuts. The organization has actually been around since 1871 and has always been as big a proponent of gun safety as it is of the second amendment. Many of the terrible incidents and accidents that the left has attributed to guns could probably have been avoided if more people were involved the NRA.... cases such as improper gun storage or use. People won't program their VCR without reading the instructions but think they know perfectly well how to use a deadly weapon and in what situations to use it. Personally, I think the anti-gun lobby would be better served by working with the NRA. Guns aren't going away, so you should instead vigorously promote the responsible use of them. Stigmatizing the one organization that does that doesn't help matters.

On the matter of gun control in general, I do think possessing guns is a constitutionally guaranteed right. There's always the debate about the verbiage of the second amendment and the intent of the founding fathers, but I find this irrelevant. Regardless of the original intent, the longstanding de facto meaning is that the average citizen has the right to keep and bear arms. When a law has meant one thing for so long and has been exercised so thoroughly, you can't turn around and then severely limit the scope... and do so retroactively. I do, however, favor some limited gun control. There are exceptionally powerful guns that I don't think the average joe should have... automatic weapons and the like. I also think there are some people who shouldn’t be allowed to have them such as felons and the mentally unstable. That's why there are provisions for such things and they should be fully upheld by gun sellers... including those at the largely unregulated gun shows where private dealers trade as they please. The safeguards need to be in place here too. I'd like them to be effective in all such private dealings but the logistics and ability to ensure that happens is iffy. As previously stated, I'd also like an emphasis on gun safety so that people are aware of how and when to use a firearm properly and the possible consequences for using them improperly. Guns are very dangerous weapons and while I agree with the platitude that people kill people and that if somebody is intent on harming you, they will in many cases do so by one means or another, guns do make it easier. It's a logistically simpler matter killing with a gun and it's also a very impersonal weapon that allows the killer to more easily emotionally detach himself from the victim. This is why the safeguards must be in place and enforced.