To the NRA, and to Legislators Who Submit to the NRA’s Will
The piece that was very briefly here under this title moved to the Avidly blog.
http://www.avidly.org/2013/04/23/to-the-nra-and-to-legislatures-that-submit-to-the-nras-will/
3 responses to “To the NRA, and to Legislators Who Submit to the NRA’s Will”
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
 | glenntwo on To the NRA, and to Legislators… |
 | David on To the NRA, and to Legislators… |
 | List of X on To the NRA, and to Legislators… |
Glenn's blog 
Thank you for your article. It’s refreshing to see a gun owner who sees NRA for what they really are: a sales/PR division of the gun industry And I am well aware that most gun owners support universal background checks, but it’s always the minority that screams the loudest and gets the most attention.
FYI: I’m not a gun owner; never have been (though my father was). I participated in–and taught–target shooting in a structured institutional environment.
I have gone through numerous NRA training courses. I am certified as an instructor, and a range safety officer and what you experienced on one day “years ago” was a regretful aberration. I don’t like everything the NRA does. I wish Wayne La Pierre would retire and the NRA would get some younger, more articulate spokesman. But for us who need someone to speak for us in government, they are the only game in town. And by-the-way the NRA does not oppose punishing straw purchases or trafficking. Those laws are already on the books and the NRA has repeatedly urged that they be enforced vigorously- which isn’t being done.
As to background check- I’m all for them but the problem is the proposed bill would create a defacto national gun registry. Did you know that the ACLU had “serious concerns” about the bill also? I’ll bet you didn’t.
As for “assault rifles” and large magazines, you know what they say, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. And that is what you have- a little bit of knowledge. Most people who aren’t really familiar with firearms assume that without the assault weapon and large magazines these mass shootings couldn’t occur. That is not the case. Even if we could remove from society every last assault rifle and large magazine, what happened at Sandy Hook could still be accomplished (same number of casualties) by anyone with half a brain using so called “sporting weapons” which noone is talking about banning. I could explain how but I won’t for obvious reasons.
A very recent poll of police officers ( over 15,000) most of whom are active duty cops showed that a vast majority of them disagree with your position. here are some of their opinions: 71% think that banning assault rifles will have no effect on violent crime; 79.7% think that banning private, non-dealer transfers of guns will have no effect on violent crime; 70% oppose a national database tracking all legal gun sales; 80% believe the presence of legally armed citizens at events like Aurora and Newtown would likely have reduced the number of casualties. You can read the entire poll at policeone.com These are the men and women who have to deal with armed criminals. What makes you think you know more about this than they do? Can you please just answer that question?