BECK: We`ve already had that. We don`t put NASCARs onto highways and we don`t put machine guns into the hands of people, either.
HELMKE: That`s an interesting issue because there was a machine gun in effect ban that was passed by the federal government in 1934. What`s the NRA`s impression of that?
BECK: Chris, Chris.
HELMKE: How about the Brady Bill?
BECK: Chris, are you for fully automatic machine guns?
COX: We`ve never advocated fully automatic machine guns and Paul knows it.
There's a discussion going on over at Sebastian's about this, with a consensus being that we don't have the political juice to be talking machine gun legalization, so "the public rhetoric needs to be that we support the National Firearms Act."
I disagree. Strongly.
Yes, of course the observation that the NFA repeal argument is currently a political loser is obvious. But are we really saying that the only way we can address this is to endorse citizen disarmament with a back-door nod and wink that we'll get to it at some far off time in the future when we've won enough hearts and minds?
How about, if instead, we use this opportunity in front of a mass audience to educate?
So what could Chris Cox have said that would not have been an outright denial of our rights?
How about something along the lines of:
First, Glenn, Paul is wrong. For someone who's a national voice for changing gun laws, you'd think he'd at least know what the current law says.
The 1934 law didn't ban machine guns. The government was afraid it couldn't do that without running afoul of the Second Amendment, so instead they passed a $200 tax.
What that means is, right now, there are probably over a quarter million lawfully owned full auto capable firearms privately owned and enjoyed by our fellow Americans--our friends, neighbors and relatives. And they do this in a remarkably peaceful manner. This has been the case for the last 70-plus YEARS.
So if Paul-- who monitors the news and is quick to issue press releases every time there's a highly publicized criminal shooting-- is going to sit here and tell us these people are a danger, that we need to make their ownership of this property illegal and spend law enforcement resources rounding these firearms up, maybe he could tell us how often these gun owners have committed violent crimes with their firearms in the past seven decades--just so we can all see how big the problem really is.
Paul?
Or some such. We give up nothing and score a few points, plus leave our opponent with nothing substantive to offer for a reply.
I'd expect someone who makes a lucrative living arguing Second Amendment issues--one who employs a staff that includes professional wordsmiths--would be able to take this basic concept and run with it--as opposed to taking the basic concept of "shall not be infringed" and running away from it.
That is, assuming that's his belief. Me, I don't buy that this is some grand unspoken wink-wink-hush-and-we'll-get-to-it-later master strategy. I do Mr. Cox the honor of recognizing him as a policy articulator of the first order, and take him at his word.
26 comments:
David,
I agree with you. In fact I believe that most state & local 2A infringement could be dealt with by using Miller and full auto weapons since they would obviously fall under the definition of being useful by "the militia". I have to wonder about the acquiesence of the NRA in these arguments. Everytime the Brady Bunch or Jesse says that "these weapons" have no reason for civilian ownership we should be quoting Miller as to why those are more clearly protected than a .22 target rifle.
Can someone tell me where I'm wrong without telling me I just dividing 2A support and should trust the NRA like Sebastion and Bitchy have?
The anti-gunners made every single advance since the Sullivan Act through slow, deliberate, and incremental action.
We aren't going to take our rights back any other way.
As much as I'd like to be able to walk into my local gun shop tomorrow and buy a full-auto rifle, there's just no rational way that I can believe that tipping our hand in that direction would do any good for us.
After all, can you name even one currently serving member of Congress who would be willing to repeal the NFA in full? Or even the 1986 MG cap?
No?
Then what's the point of bringing it up in a public venue. Even if Chris Cox had laid out a completely rational argument, as you've detailed in your entry, it wouldn't stop Helmke from sending out a press release the very next day saying "ZOMG NRA WANTS TODDLERS TO HAVE MACHINEGUNS!!!!!!1111ONE!!!"
I'm confident we'll get to repealing the NFA, just not today. In the meantime, we should work to identify the baby steps that will get us there.
For instance, I think that there are many public nuisance and health reasons for removing the impediments to suppressor ownership. I've successfully convinced a left-wing friend of mine that suppressors should be easy to get and legally available at any gun store.
We've won the debate on "assault weapons." We've won the debate on concealed carry, and we're winning the debate on further federal and state expansions. But we can't go for everything all at once. We need to get the public on our side first, and this is going to take years of incremental movements.
The NRA knows this, Chris Cox knows this, and if we get to the point where we're having a public policy debate over private MG ownership, I have no doubt that the NRA will be on our side, even if we have to twist their arm to get them there.
mediageek--I don't know what about this post was unclear, so perhaps you can help me.
I never suggested Cox bring up machine guns--it was brought up for him. The microphone was in his face. He had to say something.
His audience consists of three types--those for us, those on the fence, and those who will always be against us no matter what argument we make.
So why should we make their argument? Why on earth should we take that opportunity to align our beliefs with those of our enemies, when we can instead make a factual statement that will resonate with at least a portion of the fence-sitters who haven't been exposed to the facts before?
You truly believe the best answer is to say we agree that mgs should be illegal?
Your proposed response is a good one. I would guess that Chris Cox just wasn't able to come up with it in the heat of battle and with the cameras rolling. He's a first-rate lobbyist (advocate) and pretty good in interviews, but I can forgive him for failing to make the killer response in this instance.
Saying the NRA has never advocated for machine guns doesn't imply NRA opposition to machine guns. It does, I think, try to make the point that our AR15s aren't machine guns and hence the "assault weapon" terminology is incorrect.
I'd advise bringing up the very low rate of criminal use of lawfully-owned machine guns in civilians hands (possibly compared to being killed by a butterfly or some other thing with similarly ridiculously low odds), and that the same law could be used to prohibit paintball markers, many shotguns, and potato guns (destructive device category).
We can't point try to get machines guns looking less evil in the public awareness, but there are few things that make them look more evil than the Vast Right Wing Baby-Shooting NRA finding them too icky to touch.
Thanks Flashman--thing is, it wasn't me who proposed saying we support NFA 34--I was simply quoting a blog that recommended it and said I disagree . That said, Cox's disavowal is pretty much indistinguishable from repudiation here, and a television audience is left with that impression--I doubt they appreciated the subtlety of your distinction.
In re thinking in the heat of the battle, I expect a professional to be a master. There really are only about a dozen or so arguments the other side makes--everything else being a variation of a theme. Those representing gun owners in the public forum need to practice recognizing and categorizing these arguments whenever they are raised, so we are prepared with an immediate rational sound bite response that resonates on both an intellectual and emotional level with anyone who has an open mind.
This is well within the talents and capabilities of Mr. Cox. If you're correct, he's simply too prominent a figure in the gun rights movement to have blindsided and stumped by such a softball pitch.
This ought to be like karate for him--intellectual "muscle memory" and all that, to where any attack prompts an instinctive defensive move and devastating counter-attack.
Sorry, David: you're completely right on the facts yet still wrong. You, more than most folks, know what sort of lying and distortion the Brady's use daily, and this would not have gone well for us.
Simply dismissing the subject was the smart, if not the right, thing to do. At least in October of 2007.
So far as I'm concerned personally, Miller gives me every right and permission I need to build a sten in my garage. Or to take an AR and make it into an M16A2. The sheeple don't know that, and would probably be horrified to find that out. Before then, we need to kill NICS and these idiotic waiting periods. If we have to submit to some regulation, then I want a national CCW that by way of the 14th Amendment is binding everywhere.
Given the current lay of the land, a Waco-like abuse of authority would be needed to put automatic weapons on the front burner. Until then, how about we start with some 'unHughes' amendment? How hard would that be, given the whole earmark culture that is modern Washington? Stuck onto a military appropriation bill that W will absolutely sign.
We'd have better luck dealing with the random parts of the NFA than taking down the Brady Act. NICS and Brady can actually take some semblance of logic. Banning things wider than a half an inch doesn't, nor does chasing down legal gun owners to have them report their position ever time they cross state lines. Banning cheaper import shotguns can get even Fuddite support.
The Brady Bunch will lie? Fine, let them. Grab the microphone for a second, and correct them on the friendly stuff -- the American people are rather notorious for reacting negatively to actual "knew-the-facts-before-hand" lies.
Peter, the reason I posted on this, and go back and read my blog again--is because the statement was made that "the public rhetoric needs to be that we support the National Firearms Act."
If that's the alternative, I disagree that I'm wrong. I also think anything we say always will be used against us anyway.
And the way Cox stated his "dismissal" will only be interpeted as his support of a ban. Now the Bradys can trumpet how NRA ILA head says machine guns should be banned--even though that's not what he said. How is that helpful?
At least my way, those who have not thought the issue through and rigidly fixated their minds will be hearing something they haven't considered before.
And yes, other legislation to roll stuff back is much more achievable--that's not the point of this post. I specifically stipulated that "the observation that the NFA repeal argument is currently a political loser is obvious."
So I'm not sitting here recommending that we raise this banner and charge up the hill, because I know it won't happen. But to adopt a position of surrender at the outset is no strategy I'm willing to adopt.
David is right. Why do we have to be afraid of telling the truth?
David, I would have to agree with your comments. I think your being a realist about this situation and what can be done and that is a good thing.
Because, regardless of your opinion on consensus reality, when a good 60-80% of the population literally can't believe the truth.
At the very least, your average non-gun owner knows nothing about automatic weapons other than what they see on TV and the movies. Many gun owners think that way, too.
I also think anything we say always will be used against us anyway.
Yes, correct.
So don't even care what people will think, what our enemies will think, or even what our supposed "allies" will think.
Just speak the truth. I am so damn tired of hearing why I can no longer stand for the truth because whatever imagined or otherwise circumstance don't make such a stance "realistic".
C.H.
I'm in a hurry here (sorry for the fly-by) but upon reflection the only reason to be concerned about NRA using a responses such as David suggests here (I have made related arguments myself, and am personally fond of the "if it was good enough for the Sons of Liberty" card) is not the fear of the general public, but that we don't have consensus within our own ranks.
In other words, are there enough Fudds out there who would blanch and faint dead away to harm the momentum of the RKBA movement? Apart from that strictly tactical question, I like David's answer a lot.
This is to address all those weenies who say we can't or shouldn't speak the truth until public opinion is on our side and we have won their hearts and minds.
Yeah, that's right! I called you weenies,and I damn sure mean it.
Apply that strategy to all the rest of your rights. Put them all up to a popular vote on each issue that elicits an emotional response.
Trust you 1st amendment rights to a popular vote, or how about your 4th and 5th or 6th? or any of the rest. Perhaps when an issue becomes so emotionally charged and public sentiment is further fueled by ignorance we would all be willing to trust all our rights to their whim of the moment. Because after all, we all know rights are only what "they" let us have.
and we sure wouldn't want to overstep our bounds by demanding our rights be honored, nor would we want to offend anybody who tries to strip them from us.
Yeah, that sounds like a plan of baby steps to me. And I mean baby steps as in infantile.
WEENIES!
And one more damn thing, how do you win their hearts and minds without presenting them your side of it. Osmosis?
... beware of the FUDD!!!
There's nothing I can think of that I would ever do or support that would harm his interests. Sadly, it's not the same for all the FUDDs when it comes to the true intent of the 2A.
Yep--it does seem that Neville Chamberlain . . . um, I mean Chris Cox is trying to achieve "peace in our time," by appeasing the crocodile. That approach has a rather poor record, it seems to me.
I much prefer David's.
Sorry for being so late to comment on this, but I should clarify that there's a difference between using the existence of the NFA as a security blanket to convince the public and politicians to take a baby step, and actually believing it's a good thing and not wanting to get rid of it.
In no way, shape or form do I agree with the National Firearms Act, but if I have to stand on that to convince the public to acquiesce to the elimination of the 1986 ban, I'll do it. Once the sky doesn't fall, the public might be receptive to further easements.
That's generally how the concealed carry issue has gone, and, for the most part, I think it's worked well for us. I think it should eventually be possible to convince one big state go to ahead with Alaska style carry, which could get the snowball going down the hill on that, as Florida did for us with shall-issue licensed carry in the late 80s.
I don't think there's anything wrong with David's suggested statement. I've used similar arguments to try to win people over to the idea of repealing the ban on machine guns before. But it's not going to work on CNN, because you'd never be able to finish a statement that long without being interrupted or backed further into a corner before you get all your points across. TV is a sound bite world, which is why I'm willing to give Chris a break on what he said. There was no right answer that was going to get Chris out of that clean. Either he was going to piss off the base, or scare the fence sitters. Neither is good for us.
I appreciate you weighing in, Sebastian. I agree with you that TV requires sound bites, and have been advocating developing responses based on this for well over a decade--it's the reason we developed the GunTruths Myths section many years ago. We came up with, initially a 250 word limit response, and then did what I termed "highlight the sound bite" to come up with the punch.
(Incidentally, one motivator for developing that was from seeing Wayne LP face Chuck Schumer in a Washington Press Club debate. Wayne actually "won" on logic, but his execution was so ponderous, and Schumer's rebuttals and attacks were so snappy and visceral that emotionally, he kicked ass. And I was an NRA True Believer in those days.)
You'll note I immediately followed my proposed text with "or some such," meaning this was the gist of the idea. Yes, of course, the strongest writing is that which gets the idea across in the fewest words, so don't take my first pass proposal as the final finished product--as I also acknowledged, NRA employs professional wordsmiths, and I would hope, have access to experienced media advisors.
That said, and with all due respect, just because you say it's too long to be effective doesn't make it so. We need to distinguish between opinion and the evidence.
My text, without taking into consideration paring for time, is 196 words. Paul Helmke has a statement in the Beck transcript that went to 191 words, Cox to 173.
I certainly think the concepts I discussed could be effectively presented well within those limits. And I also think--no, I take that back--I know that an experienced talking head is more than capable of holding the floor and finishing his points. So I don't cede that as a given, either.
And finally, I will never--that's never--cede the point that we should endorse gun control as a strategy. Avoiding certain issues, or talking around them I can almost find a strategic excuse for, but to outright adopt the position of the enemy is flat out wrong, and not something a not insignificant portion of your fellow gunowners are apt to take kindly to.
So you may want to think through the costs associated with the benefits you perceive from this approach. The antis are always going to have nonsense to attack us with, and if they don't, they'll just make up lies--so whatever perceived gains you think this gives us needs to be weighed against the hostility and alienation you will garner among a population of hard core activists who are fed up with compromise.
You read KABA every day, and I assume you check out WoG once in a while. You know the sentiment, the feelings of betrayal, the outright disgust some express. For someone who advocates gun owners need to stick together, I fail to see how poking this hornets nest with a stick is going to foster anything but a deeper rift.
In any case, we pain in the ass thorns in the side aren't going away. You're worried about alienating the enemy, or dolts, the lazy, and the uninformed who don't have a clue as to what their rights are. I submit you might also want to give some attention to alienating the people who most strongly advocate the right to keep and bear arms, that is, the base.
We've seen the republicans employ this moderate political approach. They lost both houses of congress.
I didn't expect you'd agree on this, and I respect your point of view. To be honest, I regret my wording a bit, as I think I would have a problem getting on national TV and saying "I support the NFA" even though I don't agree with it. But I wouldn't have a problem pointing out it's existence and saying "We don't oppose this, but we do oppose this outright ban" Sounds like the same thing, but in the political sphere, the politicians take "support" and "not opposed" as distinctive.
I disagree with folks who suggest that the hard-line people ought to be marginalized and ignored. I don't think that would do us any favors. It's always a tough call between alienating the base and building a public consensus that can take the issue forward. I don't pretend to know where the sweet spot is, and perhaps I'm drifting toward the other side too much these days.
For the record WoG is a regular read. I may not always agree with you, but I do enjoy reading what you do here.
David:
I don't know whether or not you're just being modest, but I don't think Cox is in any way your equivalent. The NRA has evolved from just a shooting-sports organizer to a rights protection lobby that claims to be interested solely in the Second Amendment. Cox is only expected to defend that single piece of the Constitution.
The problem is that this artificially limits the argument to just: "I can own a gun." I much prefer your all-encompassing individual liberties approach. Without the whole context, any reasonable person would conclude that the right to own a material object appears trivial to greater public safety, for example.
That there is an NFA '34 to begin with is the question that should be asked of Cox. Perhaps that's unfair, though, because the NRA is worthless without voters. The opposite, however, is not true.
The problem with arguing about the NFA is that it spills over into economics, and the NRA won't follow along, nor do they seem to want to whip out a chart that shows the historical violent crime rate rising like Mount Everest as the disarmament legislation rolled in. I don't think I could personally make an argument against the NFA without pointing out that it was a late response to organized crime that made the gangs extremely wealthy, that similar thinking in another piece of legislation made the gangs wealthy and powerful almost overnight, by suddenly pushing a popular and widely-accepted product into the black market.
Sorry, an edit didn't take, that last paragraph should read:
"I don't think I could personally make an argument against the NFA without pointing out that similar thinking in another piece of legislation made the gangs wealthy and powerful almost overnight, by suddenly pushing a popular and widely-accepted product on to the black market.
That would be a very difficult point to make without informing Americans of some disappointing realities about the War on Drugs."
Hi David-
Thanks for your response to my post. I have to say, I agree with much of what Sebastian has posted.
Having gone back and re-read the transcript, I stand corrected. Beck and Helmke tried to put Chris on the spot about machine guns.
Re-reading it, Cox's statement was
"We’ve never advocated fully automatic machine guns and Paul knows it."
This is the truth, or at least, I'm not aware of when/where the modern NRA has ever jumped in on the debate over Title II weapons.
It's an out-of-hand dismissal of Helmke's attempt to set a trap which he would have then used to derail the topic under discussion.
Again, I hardly see Cox's statement as stumping for gun control. He simply stated a fact- that the NRA doesn't advocate for machine gun ownership. It doesn't mean that they can't, or won't at some point when it becomes advantageous to do so.
However, it's completely possible that I'm trying too hard to read between the lines of his statement.
And if that time comes (and I expect it to be within the next ten to fifteen years) and the NRA doesn't advocate for repealing the 1986 cap, or for revising or deleting the NFA, it's our job as members to bring them into alignment with what we want.
"You truly believe the best answer is to say we agree that mgs should be illegal?"
No. In a venue such as television news, the answer should be a shrug and a wave of the hand, and saying something about the law being on the books.
As a gun owner and second amendment supporter, however, it's my job to bring up the arguments against the NFA to people on a one-on-one basis. Either through discussion, or by inviting them to a machine gun shoot or other NFA event.
The other thing to consider is that we don't really want the MG issue in the public light right now because we don't really want the Supreme Court thinking too much about it.
Unless the Supremes are going to say something in the opinion that's positive about machine gun rights, which I think is very unlikely, we'd prefer they be silent about them.
It could create enormous complications for us if they mention in dicta "right not need not go so far as covering, say, machine guns". Dicta isn't precedent, but the lower courts will be aware of it, and you can bet they won't be eager to recognize machine gun rights.
Parker/Heller just being a clean individual rights ruling will be one giant leap in the right direction. That will be something that can be built on later.
The problem is that the NRA believes in Good Guns / Bad Guns, and so does the membership. The term "machine-gun" has now become a disarmer's buzzword. A machine-gun was formerly something not man-portable, and not capable of being fired from the shoulder. Allowing there is some sort of meaningful distinction between a select-fire, full-auto or a semi-auto rifle just allows the disarmers to confuse the issue further, and extend their reach.
So I ask: What is obvious, legally-definable difference between a "machine gun" and any other kind?
The ATF has been trying to nail this down for decades, and have so far succeeded in outlawing things like shoelaces.
Post a Comment