The NRA versus the Rest of Us Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Another example of how well conservatives have staked out the terrain at the intersection of politics and ideas: This month's Foreign Policy magazine has a terrific article about the worldwide influence of America's highly influential gun lobby, the National Rifle Association.
Author David Morton, writing from South America, depicts how the NRA exploits the dark side of globalization--using shallow "feel good" messages about liberty and freedom to push its ideological agenda--one that allows no limits on individual ownership of guns.

The disappointing part of the NRA is not found in its basic premise, gun ownership, education and safety. The problem for society and, apparently, for the rest of the world is their "slippery slope" insistence that any regulation will lead to complete disarmament. When they decide to take their message international, therefore, the painstakingly constructed and maintained regime of international arms control is threatened. If gun control is bad in America, goes the NRA logic, then arms control must be bad for the world. The NRA and their flacks in other countries claim that gun control advocates want to leave citizens vulnerable to "criminals".  Well, in increasing circumstances those "criminals" just might be free-agent or organized jihadistas who want to get their hands on deadly devices to kill us.

But the NRA, though not explicitly, through its anti-gun control agenda--erodes away domestic will and support for government programs that help reduce that threat-- like compliance and inspection, like participation in international arms trafficking,  (or supporting the UN conventional arms registry) like discussing limits, period.

Both the military and the State Department have excellent arms control programs--and do mighty amounts of work for pennies (appx 3 million a year at state). They have received more attention lately because of real military threats, small arms and light weapons like shoulder launched missiles (MANPADS) and the dual-use nature of regular old munitions that create pernicious destruction (IEDs.) 

Last summer, I spoke with an American soldier who worked on an inspection team in West Africa--he said he had visited villages where they found huts that looked like "Wal Marts for Terrorists". 

It seems the NRA is willing to risk all of our safety--military and civilian alike--with its distorted version of individual rights and a worldview seemingly unchanged despite the threats that 9/11 brought home. The Bush administration has recognized that criminals and terrorists can be one in the same, nevertheless his supporters will not pass up a chance to drive a Mack truck through every gun control loophole that's presented itself, domestic and international. Maybe its because their political base includes those gun fanatics who shoot out the traffic cameras in Idaho intersections, but say nothing about his domestic spying agenda.  A convenient political tradeoff: their votes for our safety.  Thanks, NRA.

Comments

[bill]

Funny, a little paranoid are we...

[Guav]

As a gun-owning member of the NRA, and a left-wing liberal, I have to take exception to the title of this entry. Needless to say, I also don't see eye-to-eye with you on the content either.

Just wanted to let you know we exist :)

[James]

If the mongoloids of this world, in every country could exercise a little more self control and better judgement then un-restricted firearms ownership would not be an issue. But you want to punish everyone because some can not be responsible and act like violent children. Just because you can not understand that kind of personal responsibility does not mean that it is foreign or mysterious to the rest of us.

The NRA advocates personal freedom and responsibility. Something clearly alien to the author of this piece and the rag that would publish the inaccurate and lie ridden filth.

[Zedekiah]

Thanks goodness there are fewer and fewer "rest of us" every day. Join the NRA and support your constitutional rights.

[Lorelei Kelly]

Funny, none of the comments actually address anything that I wrote about, specifically about how the pro-gun fundamentalism of the NRA leadership zaps support for legitimate, life saving policies that protect all of us in an age of terror. Thank you for illustrating my point so expeditiously.

[Fagan Roberts]

Why would anyone, including this writer, really believe that we can control terrorists by forcing them to obey international gun owner control laws? Why would anyone, including this writer, place so much faith and stock in the integrity of criminals and terrorists to obey them? I would submit that most international terrorists favor gun controls on the civilian population because civilians are the primary target of terrorist operations. Criminals hate armed victims because it makes their job killing them so much harder. Disarming innocent potential victims in the face of men who will never obey gun control laws is a dangerous and highly suspect proposition.

[jc]

Interesting. I recall a couple of years ago the complaints of the "Gun Grabby Lobby". The complaints were essentially that the NRA was taking interest in other freedoms besides the Second Amendment and -GASP!- offering news and journalism services to the American Public. The NRA which works to protect gun rights, free speech, free press, privacy, etc, for ALL Americans is a BAD organization?

[Jay]

Lorelei writes:

"The problem for society and, apparently, for the rest of the world is their 'slippery slope' insistence that any regulation will lead to complete disarmament."

How silly of the NRA to think that! So what "arms control" has the NRA been opposing, in Brazil as quoted in the article from "foreign Policy" that Lorelei links to?

"Proponents of the gun ban proposed outlawing the commercial sale of arms and ammunition to civilians, capping a series of controls enacted in recent years. Unless you were a police officer, a soldier, or a private security guard, you wouldn’t be allowed to acquire a gun or the bullets to fire one."

Well, what do you know? It's the "complete disarmament" that Lorelei mocks the NRA for fearing.

[John]

Lorelei,
It is about rights. If you read the article you would remember that over 60% of Brazilians voted to keep their right to own firearms, eventhough only 2% of the Brazilian population are actual gun owners.

[Norm Cook]

Here's what you wrote:
"The NRA versus the Rest of Us"

So everyone not in the NRA is against them? Lovely title.

"Maybe its because their political base includes those gun fanatics who shoot out the traffic cameras in Idaho intersections..."

WOW you are really good at stereotyping!

"like compliance and inspection, like participation in international arms trafficking, (or supporting the UN conventional arms registry) like discussing limits, period."

I'm not even an NRA member, but I do own a few guns and I don't want anyone beside me knowing that I have them. Giving that to the UN seems like a terrific way of exposing yourself to not only your own country, but many others. In a time when, "the NRA is willing to risk all of our safety--military and civilian alike--with its distorted version of individual rights and a worldview seemingly unchanged despite the threats that 9/11 brought home." I'd like to keep my weapons to myself...and keep my weapons period.

[Richard]

The last time I looked, more unarmed civilians were klilled by their own governments in the 20th Century than by any band of criminals or terrorists combined. That was to the tune of over 4 Million in Nazi Germany alone. So disarming civilians is BAD? If that is the only way to keep a Khmer Rouge or a Pol Pot or a Stalin or a Hitler from killing their own people, I am all for arming everyone with fully automatic rifles. Let's start the training in elementary school.
To quote R.A. Heinlein "An armed society is a polite society".

[Lorelei Kelly]

Thanks for the comments, I remain unconvinced. I don't dispute that the NRA (and the membership) is a fine organization in several ways, what I do say is that there is a correlation between gun-rights fundamentalism and diminishing support for international regulatory regimes that protect all of us. The second amendment also says something about regulation, right? One more thing, I'd appreciate it if every one of the commentators made a statement about our president's domestic surveillance policies. I'm eager to hear how his self-designed eavesdropping relates to individual freedoms, and/or anything in our constitution, for that matter.

[Jay]

Lorelei is right about the "correlation between gun-rights fundamentalism and diminishing support for international regulatory regimes," but that is a response to governments and organizations that have not been satisfied with firearms regulation but continue to push for complete civilian disarmament (see my earlier post about Brazil -- that is NOT an anomaly).

It seems to me that our president's domestic surveillance policies may have gone too far, and that is also the position of some gun-rights fundamentalist groups such as GOA, which displays unusual consistency. Many groups and figures on the left who have criticized infringements on civil liberties in the fight against terrorism have nonetheless endorsed the concept of prohibiting gun purchases by US citizens if the US government places them on a secret list of "terror suspects," with no reason given for being included on such a list.

[Tim Butler]

" The problem for society and, apparently, for the rest of the world is their "slippery slope" insistence that any regulation will lead to complete disarmament."

Are there many places in the world where regulation is NOT leading to complete disarmament for everyone except the police and military? How many places in the world where regulation is currently in place are the common people now more easily able to acquire defensive arms than they were five, ten or twenty years ago?

When they decide to take their message international, therefore, the painstakingly constructed and maintained regime of international arms control is threatened..."

That would seem to be the entire point. That carefully crafted international regime seems to have as its goal the complete disarmament of the various communities it purportedly serves. Those communities, when the NRA's message causes them to examine the situation, seem to disagree with that goal. Furthermore, their reasons seem to have a lot to do with a healthy interest in their own continued survival.

The NRA and their flacks in other countries claim that gun control advocates want to leave citizens vulnerable to "criminals". Well, in increasing circumstances those "criminals" just might be free-agent or organized jihadistas who want to get their hands on deadly devices to kill us."

Please tell us where and in what way the criminals and/or jihadists have been more than momentarily inconvenienced in acquiring "deadly devices" by the machinations of the arms control regime. Seems to me that the NRA and their flacks have a more accurate view of just what "arms control" leads to when they look at Sudan, South Africa, Cambodia, Jamaica, Russia, Ukraine, England, Australia and now Canada.

"But the NRA, though not explicitly, through its anti-gun control agenda--erodes away domestic will and support for government programs that help reduce that threat-- like compliance and inspection, like participation in international arms trafficking, (or supporting the UN conventional arms registry) like discussing limits, period."

Which might be a good thing. As far as all these measures seem to be taken, they apply only to limitations on those who obey the law in the first place. You know, the people who aren't "part of the problem". The "bad guys" never seem to be even moderately affected. No wonder we wind up quickly fading in our support for such programs!

[Mark Harper]

"Maybe its because their political base includes those gun fanatics who shoot out the traffic cameras in Idaho intersections"

I think that answers your question about how we feel about "self-designed eavesdropping". You call them gun fanatics, I call them freedom fanatics.

[George Hatch]

Lorelei, regarding Bush's domestic surveillance policies, I'm not happy about it at all. It's a big step towards a Nazi-style "show me your papers" society, which is incompatible with the free society that our founding fathers envisioned. Bush could make himself more useful by closing up our borders instead of spying on our own people.

As for "international regulatory regimes that protect all of us", I think your faith is misplaced. Let's not forget that the UN consists of governments, including those of totalitarian states, whose only interest is maintaining power over their subjects. Their influence can't mean anything good for the safety of American citizens.

And by the way, "well-regulated" refers to a militia that is sufficiently equipped and proficient, it doesn't mean governments have authority to "regulate" by way of gun control. You are taking the Second Amendment completely out of context.

[Lorelei Kelly]

I'd like someone to tell me how not knowing exactly where the 500,000 man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS)out there in the world today are is improving my personal and our national security--not to mention the security of all aircraft and deployed American soldiers. I think the argument here is where you are willing to place the risk. I'm not convinced by any arguments thus far that the risk bias that presently exists (guns over all) is best for America.

[Isaac]

Lorelei, I appreciated your article and the responses- one thing to remember is- gun freaks are gun freaks. I grew up with guns, but wouldn't think of wasting my time or money with the NRA. If the 2cd amendment ever truly comes under threat- we'll have alot bigger things to worry about. The people that believe unrestricted ownership of 40 cal automatic weapons should be protected are zealots- they're the same people advocating closing down the federal governement. The NRA is like any other far right political machine- they drape themselves in the American flag, spout off the obligatory rhetoric and then go about their real business of helping the gun and ammo industry make more money. The NRA is just tapping new markets south of the border.

[Vincente]

Sigh,

If I still had my .30 carbine, I'd be popping off traffic cameras too. While riding around without a seatbelt... I kid.

I appreciate the intent of the article, LK, and I kind of understand what you're getting at. Kind of the MO for the Ethan Hawke character in "Lord of War," and his crusade against the proliferation of small arms... after all, nukes just sit in their silos.

But all those guns need fingers to pull them.

As I've aged and put more distance between my reactionary leftist youth and gained more of my libertarian skepticism, I've come to realize that the Left's tendency to pillory the Gun Lobby is not helpful, and does not advance civil libertarianism.

I take a cue from Paul Hackett when I say that I don't want government in my bedroom anymore than I want them in my gun cabinet. And yes, warrantless searches fall into this level of "don't tread on me" skepticism as well -- people deserve their constitutional freedoms, whether that be due process or the right to own a firearm for your own self defense against thuggery.

San Francisco just instituted a gun ban, which is being challenged right now. Washington has had one for over 25 years. As a resident, I remain duly unimpressed with its' results. But I digress. The State of New Hampshire has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation, yet is consistently rated a safe and affordable place to live.

I suppose this might make me a gun nut, so be it. Consistency is something to be striven for among those who espouse personal liberty, however, and I feel that piling on the 2nd Amendment diminishes credibility when attempting to defend the 1st.

I wouldn't knock Idaho either, y'all. For all his capital "R" ways, Sen. Larry Craig is one of the few people responsible for making sure the PATRIOT act is still an open book.

Live Free or Die,
MVS
(Granite State Native)

[Jay]

Lorelei, I have not seen where the NRA has advocated the unregulated private ownership and sale of man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS).

If they ever opposed an attempt to do so (and I don't know that they have), it was probably because the same attempt included rifles as well.

[Jason]

"It seems the NRA is willing to risk all of our safety--military and civilian alike--with its distorted version of individual rights and a worldview seemingly unchanged despite the threats that 9/11 brought home."

You don't get it. The laws imposed by *governments* risk our safety. How? By disarming decent, law-abiding people who simply want the means to protect themselves and their loved ones. Gun control laws are simply an inconvenience to most criminals. They'll get the guns one way or another. You could shut down every US gun factory right now and the flow of guns would come from somewhere else such as overseas or from underground (manufacturing crude guns is not difficult). It's Microeconomics 101. If there's demand, there will be supply.

The NRA fights for average citizens who simply want to be left alone but understand that in the real world, a gun is about the only thing that guarantees their freedom and a chance to defend themselves from tyranny, criminals, and whoever threatens the lives of them and their children.

If anyone puts forth a "distorted version of individual rights", it's you. You have no concept of rights.

I recommend you step out of your ivory tower of moral righteousness and elitism and step down into the pits of reality that most Americans (and people of the world) live in.

It's not the "NRA vs. The Rest of Us".

It's "NRA and Us vs. You."

[John Thayer]

"Mayor Bloomberg yesterday boosted his anti-gun rhetoric, insisting that the only reason to carry a gun in New York City is to "killsomebody"." http://www.nysun.com/article/25477 In keeping with the
mayor's pronouncement, he announced that he was giving up his armed bodyguards, who, until now, have protected his person and family 24/7. "I know it will seem foolhardy to many," replied the mayor, "but most ordinary New Yorkers cannot get a permit to keep a gun in their homes, let alone to carry one with them when they venture outside. Why is my life, and that of my family, more precious than that of a regular person?" said the mayor. "As of tomorrow, my security team will only use methods approved for ordinary citizens to defend me and my loved ones" insisted Mayor Bloomberg. "That means no Glocks or pepper spray or electronic stun guns or Tasers" the mayor said. "We'll rely soley on un-armed self defense techniques" he insisted. Sarah
Brady of Handgun Control hailed the mayor's move as "Breathtaking", she called it a "heroic and principled stand." Wayne LaPierre of the N.R.A. was quoted as saying, "Well, it's his safety at stake, he can do as he pleases." It is too soon to tell if other high flying celebrities in music, show business, motion pictures and the entertainment industry, who often tout gun control while being protected by armed bodyguards will follow mayor Bloomberg's lead.

Cobber

[rdf]

Gun death statistics:

"In a cross-border comparison for the year 2000, Statistics Canada says the risk of firearms death was more than three times as great for American males as for Canadian males and seven times as great for American females as for Canadian females.

Because more of the U.S. deaths were homicides (as opposed to suicides or accidental deaths), the U.S. rate of gun homicide was nearly eight times Canada's, the agency says. Homicides accounted for 38 per cent of deaths involving guns in the United States and 18 per cent in Canada."

Here is the full article:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/28/gun-deaths050628.html

To those who support the current gun policies in the US, I would just like to ask the question, how do you propose to lower the death (and injury) rate?

Standard answers like "better enforcement of existing laws" don't work. After all they have been tried for decades with minor effect.

[Jay]

rdf posted:

"In a cross-border comparison for the year 2000, Statistics Canada says the risk of firearms death was more than three times as great for American males as for Canadian males and seven times as great for American females as for Canadian females."

If Canadian gun laws work so well, why has the current administration in Canada proposed a sweeping gun ban
and confiscation?

Maybe those of us "who support the current gun policies in the US" would be more amenable to changing those gun policies if gun control advocates did not so frequently demonstrate that they will NOT stop with increased gun regulation but will push on towards gun bans and confiscations as seen in Canada, Britain, Brazil, etc..

[Jay]

rdf asked:

"To those who support the current gun policies in the US, I would just like to ask the question, how do you propose to lower the death (and injury) rate?"

If I have no proposal to "lower the death (and injury) rate," does rdf have evidence of a country that changed their gun policies and subsequently saw a lower death (and injury) rate as a result of those changes?