NRA’s Second Amendment Perception Is fallacious

"Hurray for the NRA!" is the clarion call of gun owners all
across America. That’s because the National Rifle
Association (NRA), with about four million members,
staunchly defends the Second Amendment right to keep
and bear arms. They spend tens of millions in support of
favored political candidates, and are the leading special
interests group in America. Needless to say, their political
clout is vast.
The political influence of the NRA is so significant that Democrats feel in some way they must
buy into NRA’s ideology. Disappointingly, President Obama in 2009 signed into law legislation
that would allow visitors to carry guns into our national parks and wildlife refuges, and in 2010
made it legal for Amtrak passengers to carry guns and ammunition. And he, like the
Republicans, has repeatedly stressed his belief that the Second Amendment “guarantees an
individual right to bear arms.”

After the attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, President Obama rejected
those who were pushing for stricter gun laws. Later, he wrote an article for the Arizona Daily
Star calling for a “new discussion” on an “intelligent way to make the United States of America
a safer, stronger place.”

That “new discussion” has yet to transpire, and with an election coming up in 2012, it’s unlikely
it will. Besides, I don’t believe he ever intended to launch that “new discussion.” Obama’s
weakness is that he is a politician and feels his tenure is in jeopardy if he doesn’t kowtow to the
NRA. Just as he took the risk to approve the assault on Osama bin Laden’s compound and to kill
him, we desperately need an Obama who will take the risk to make that call for strong federal
gun regulations regardless of NRA’s political influence.

President Obama said, “But one clear and terrible fact remains. A man our Army rejected as
unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently
bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun.” What Obama alluded to but
didn’t have the courage to directly say is that the lack of sufficient and appropriate gun
regulation is precisely the reason the Giffords tragedy happened. That happened in Arizona, but
it could happen in any state or in the District of Columbia. The lack of federal regulation allows
purchasers who cannot buy in one state to acquire a gun in another state. The lack of federal
regulation allows gunrunning from the United States to Mexico, where there are strict gun laws.
The lack of regulation allows the gangbangers to easily acquire guns.

NRA outgoing President Ron Schmeits, speaking at its April 2011 annual convention,
egregiously encouraged members to motivate young people to join NRA, and towards the end of
his remarks said, “Get out and shoot, take along a young person.” NRA Vice President Wayne
LaPierre called for the Justice Department to cease its initiative intended at stopping the flow of
weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Although the sting operation initiative known as Project
Gunrunner misfired, that initiative would not have been necessary if in the first place congress
had enacted strong federal gun laws.

The NRA and gun rights activist associate their freedoms with an unintrusive right to purchase a
firearm. In 1776 as now, money gives one that right, not the U.S. Constitution or its Second
Amendment. Freedom, therefore, now as in 1776, is reserved for those who can afford it.

Furthermore, just imagine what kind of a world we would be living in if everyone had the right
to own any of today’s armament(s) that money could buy. Would Americans, especially those
who could not afford a weapon, be safer and would their freedom be enhanced? Under these
circumstances, could world peace ever be achievable? I certainly don’t think so, but judging by
the number of politicians who support the NRA, the answer to those questions is yes. For those
who kowtow to the NRA, yes is the answer they will capitulate to, even though yes may not be
in their heart of hearts. And Americans who have a proclivity to violence will always support
the right to own a gun, and their answer is yes.

However, if we could turn the pages back to before the Wild West, and if today the Second
Amendment were upheld under the dictate of original intent, it would mean that "the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms" would be limited to flintlock muskets and pistols. And if that
were the case, I do agree, America would be safer, we would have greater freedom, and we
would have a better chance at world peace.

Video:

NRA, April 30, 2011 annual convention

Sources:

James Hohmann, National Rifle Association members focused on ousting President Obama,
Politico