Friday, April 20, 2007

"The Gun Lobby Doesn't Disagree"

The gun lobby—typically opposed to any attempt to tighten federal gun controls—doesn't disagree. The National Rifle Association has decided to make no public comment about any aspect of the Virginia Tech tragedy, according to a spokesman. But a source close to the gun lobby (who asked not to be identified because of the organization’s sensitivities about making any political points related to the tragedy), pointed out that pro-gun lobbyists and groups like the NRA have long supported adding all relevant mental-health records to background check databases. "We have no problem as long as one is adjudicated mentally incompetent [in denying gun purchases] and we have no problem with mental health records being part of the NICS," the source said. "The problem is not with the gun community. The problem is with the medical community" that has traditionally opposed making such records available on privacy grounds.
That's it?

Four days after the fact--when the whole country is furiously debating the impact of the Virginia tech shootings on the Second Amendment--there's still no leadership from our self-proclaimed leaders? All we get are plausibly deniable signals sent through seconds that they'd endorse an expansion of NICS if only there were some way to work around privacy protections?

I'll repeat myself
: anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian. But absent due process, you cannot deprive a citizen of his rights. That's one of the prices of a free and open society.

I expect the recognized leaders in promoting the Second Amendment to promote the Second Amendment. I expect them to lead us in demanding an end to victim disarmament zones. Are they so cynical to believe that fighting unbendingly for the truth and for liberty is indefensible? Are they really so afraid of the Bradys--who are currently out grubbing for massacre money--accusing them of "making political points"? Does anyone at Fairfax really believe that saying nothing will accomplish anything?

[Via Ryan H]

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

A few years years ago I decided not to renew my NRA membership for many reasons, among them being the NRA's placating stance.

I joined Gun Owners of America instead. Besides being no compromise, I think GOA understands that trying to appease both gun owners and gun prohibitionists is a lost cause.

I intend to give a contribution to GOA - and tell the NRA that I am doing so, and why I am doing so.

Anonymous said...

...NRA have long supported adding all relevant mental-health records...

The problem I have with this is that "relevant" is broad, and the disqualifications are at the discretion of unelected government employees. If it's going to go into NICS, it has to be specific, or it's going to be a loophole that will be used to disqualify a lot of people.

My opinion is also consistent with felonies. A felony is only a classification; a particular category of crime can be added or removed from that class. As far as I know, it may vary by state. That's why I would prefer a specific list of categories, such as murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon, and robbery.

-TJH

Voolfie said...

I believe that VPC/Brady/McCarthy have looked very bad and come off as opportunists over the last few days.

The NRA has completely avoided that.

Further, the fact that the NRA has stayed silent has removed the possibility that they could be "blamed" for the amazingly broad-based swell of opinion that armed citizens could have prevented some or all of this. I think that this response, without a word from the NRA, has made people realize that THE PEOPLE are not behind gun control and that they are not just getting whipped up by the evil NRA giant.

Anonymous said...

Objectively, what happened is there was an "amazingly broad-based swell" against the deadly policy of "gun-free" school zones by people already on our side, IN SPITE OF NRA doing nothing and in spite of NRA's demoralizing OPPOSITION to school carry, and NRA has avoided being "accused" of being pro-self-defense or of calling for common sense policies that would save lives. Bravo.

What's wrong with taking an opportunity to promote policies that probably would have saved many of those lives?

What's wrong with addressing the issue? It's not "opportunism" if your intent is to save lives and stop it from happening again.

When is the right time for putative mastermind LaPierre to drop his SUPPORT for "gun-free" school zones and start supporting carry on campus? He's had well over a decade to fix the VA law, and instead he spent those years sabotaging grassroots efforts to fix it. VA is a pro-gun state, and the major gun groups are headquartered there. Clearly, NRA could've fixed the law and many of those kids might still be alive.

The OBJECTIVE evidence, as opposed to the wishful-thinking "everything the NRA does is by definition genius" explanation, is that they didn't fix it because they didn't want to. If they wanted to, LaPierre wouldn't publicly support "gun-free" school zones. And that's also the OBJECTIVE explanation for why they're not saying anything now. It's against NRA's STATED policy.

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

After their initial support for H.R. 297, the NICS "Improvement" Act (and their support for the same kind of bill in the past), the NRA has been pretty quiet about it for awhile. I was beginning to hope that maybe they had thought better of it.

This talk of "having no problem with" incorporating mental health record checks into firearm purchase requirements leads me to believe that I was overly optimistic.

Voolfie said...

Popular opinion recoils at the idea of arming students or teachers. It may well be the case that the best we can hope for in the short run is to arm some teachers and perhaps some grad students, but I don't know anyone who thinks that it is a sign of societal improvement that we need to do so.

Perhaps the NRA should now change their mind on "guns on campus", but up to this point, taking the lead on this particular issue would not have been politically popular.

Again, WE know that one armed person could have stopped Monday's atrocity - but *MOST* people can't or won't accept the logic behind our position.

Anonymous said...

First, you David. "Does anyone at Fairfax really believe that saying nothing will accomplish anything?"

Yes they do. They believe the anti-individual rights groups that enabled this atrocity, will gain some ground and allow the NRA (does that stand for NO RIGHTS ANYMORE?) to send more hysterical letters for money. That is exactly what they believe it will help.

Now Voolfie, I know you're just woofing us, right? I mean when you say something like this "......It may well be the case that the best we can hope for in the short run is to arm some teachers and perhaps some grad students, but I don't know anyone who thinks that it is a sign of societal improvement that we need to do so." Right?

Surely you know that what we are seeing now is a sign of societal decay. You have your cause and effect backward. Removing the impediments to the tools of defense of self and others would cause societal improvement. Societal improvement will occur when a self reliant and able population of adults can effectively dissuade and/or destroy attackers of innocents.

Restoring our observance and practice of our 2nd amendment rights results in societal improvement. It is not a result of it, but the causation.

Your next point is invalid as well. Being politically popular does not necessarily equate to morally or patriotically correct. If the NRA is to be what they undeservedly call themselves, and be a leader for unalienable rights, particularly those guaranteed by the second amendment, they just may have to forego favor with those that would rob us of them. Else, they are not on our side, no matter what they say.

Anonymous said...

This isn't going to change until LaPierre and those of his ilk are ousted from NRA leadership and replaced with actual firearms owners rights people.

And I don't have a clue on how to accomplish that, sadly.

If you belive the solutions are political [I don't, personally], then the only real option is to strengthen the GOA and similar no compromise lobbies to where they have as much visibility and clout as the NRA.

And then hope that they don't evolve into yet another CYA group.

Voolfie said...

Straightarrow,

Your point is well taken. To again require people to take responsibility for their own safety would be a step in the right direction. My problem is, I guess, that I haven't fully realized how far our society has regressed.

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

Just found this article in the Washington Post--it looks as if I was right to worry.