So, I'm kind of a redneck. I live on a family ranch 35 miles west of Austin. I own multiple guns, and taught our two children how to use them safely. BUT, I've been alarmed at how our TX state leaders have failed to address major issues, including public education or a faint bit of gun control; while jumping on "bathroom" issues, Planned Parenthood, etc.
Two years ago I enjoyed the pleasure of a double bypass in an Austin Hospital. An old HS buddy brought by a stack of magazines to read. Turns out, they all proved to be NRA published. As I began looking through them, I became horrified. Truth obviously did not count for much; inflaming people seemed to be the main point.
I bailed on the NRA when the organization attacked GWHB, a true war hero. Turns out they have only doubled down in the time since. Beats me, they really seem only focused on enriching the organization, which calls for inflaming their base. As long as it works, they will be a PITA. And, they'll lobby against any common-sense gun legislation. So it goes.
2
I'd kind of prefer a piece titled "How to Destroy the NRA".
1
The NRA has been merely a lobbying firm for gun manufacturers for many years now. They really don't care how many people die as long as more guns are sold.
1
Excellent article that shows how the NRA evolved into a despicable brainwashing outfit. Trump really likes this kind of untruthful, emotion-laden approach, but most Americans don't buy their messages.
While some may wonder why the NRA has morphed into a rancidly shrill right wing action machine, it's worthwhile to remember that $millions have been donated to the NRA by Russia. Putin's fondest wish is to create chaos and the breakdown of American institutions and laws, and he has Russian oligarchs funnel "dark" money into Republican campaigns throught the NRA.
The NRA is extremely dangerous because they don't play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. They are brutalists, intent on supporting the election of politicians who are willing to ignore the concerns of a majority of Americans regarding the passage of stricter gun control laws.
2
The NRA, founded during the reconstruction, was designed solely as a conduit to get arms in the hands of whites who suddenly had to share the country with blacks. Their advocacy for gun rights is a farce - it's constitutionally protected and has never been under threat of repeal. The NRA would have us believe it's because of their constant obstructions to anything tangentially related to gun control that there has been no erosion of the second amendment, another farce. The NRA's sole ambition was, is and will always be pro-whites period.
As far as I can judge, this stand-off can only end in massive bloodshed. The N.R.A. remains recalcitrant and immobile in calls for gun control reform. And unfortunately the most pathological elements of this cultish homicidal movement will continue to leash out with total impunity upon innocent children, religious faithful, and shoppers supposedly all living the 'American Dream' which is now confirmed by most residents of developed nations to be an American Nightmare. N.R.A. members will respond with firepower in the event of Australian style gun restrictions ever being imposed. I don't see any way out for America-- those with the means should obtain passports and a one way plane ticket to Elsewhere....
1
Could We The People start raising money for democrats or moderate republicans running against N.R.A. sponsored politicians? Much like how people raised funds for a future opponent of Susan Collins. May be Warren Buffet and Bill Clinton could also chip in. All it would take is one major blow to the N.R.A. The only clout they have in Washington is because of the financial influence. If their influence no longer elects a candidate, then they would have lost all the clout.
I am putting $500 on the table for just such a campaign. Call me out.
Mr. Kristoff, the NRA is only one of the factors that prevents legislation restricting access to guns in this country. It is the most fanatical. But there are other factors that prevent gun control legislation. You repeatedly write about the NRA and present much data on gun violence in the US. I think that you should broaden your reporting to examine the other factors. A good idea would be to talk to some moderate members--both Ds and Rs--of the US House on what type of legislation they would support, if any.
see how strict of controls would they support. The fact is that in order to reduce the number of mass shootings and individual murders, very strict legislation is needed. Bans on large capacity magazines, bans on guns whose magazines can be changed quickly, registration of guns, licensing of gun owners are needed. Only those will reduce shootings significantly. How many moderate Ds and Rs would support those measures? Not enough, I bet. But please do some reporting on those moderates, because they also are standing in the way of reducing shootings. I know it is exciting and easy to beat up on the NRA over and over again, and the NYT has an audience that enjoys such columns. But the NRA is not all of the problem.
2
In my rural high school days.the NRA provided safety training material for the Rifle Club: it seemed like a sensible thing, to provide training to kids who were going to be using firearms - generally 22's. I don't remember this hysteria. This is the first time I have seen the trajectory of the organization from a "hunting" and sharpshooting focus to a powerful hyper-political group, not serving the community, but attempting to dictate values. The covers are pretty effective statements.
3
Dear Republicans,
How can you claim to be pro-life and also support the N.R.A.?
7
The old adage for Republicans, anti-abortionists and the NRA applies here: We’re pro-life as long as they’re in the womb; once they’re out, they’re fair game.
1
Adding insult to injury, the NRA has just told doctors who treat bullet wounds and gun-related injuries to “stay in their lane”; in other words, the organization most responsible for the mayhem inflicted upon people by firearms is telling the medical professionals who attend to its victims, often saving lives, to mind their own business when opining on gun control and safety. Transcending political fanaticism, the irony of the NRA’s statement is that, without its official policies and positions, these very same doctors would not be in the business of having to mend, heal and revive the largely innocent victims of their mindless munitions mania.
4
High-capacity semi-automatics, whether handguns (like those used this week in California and at Virginia Tech) or long guns (Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Pulse), are the biggest problem. Generally speaking I am a 2nd Amendment supporter; however, these weapons serve no useful social purpose (outside the hands of law enforcement and the military) but have amply demonstrated their social cost. I could live, figuratively and perhaps literally, with them being banned. There are plenty of other guns available for sporting purposes and self-defense.
6
The NRA recommendation to vote for Dan Frisa has a story behind it.
Many of his constituents were killed in a mass shooting on the Long Island Railroad, which did not stop Congressman Frisa from voting with the NRA against an assault weapons ban.
He lost his bid for a second term, defeated by the widow of one of the victims.
4
It's the singer, not the song. It's the shooter, not the gun!
2
Ah, but without the song, you wouldn’t have a singer, and without the gun, you wouldn’t have a shooter—mixed metaphors notwithstanding.
I can remember when the4 NRA taught gun safety. They trained people how to use them safely. Now they don't represent their members, but the gun manufacturers. And the illiterate masses who believe the 2nd amendment gives them the right to own unlimited numbers of guns and use them as they wish.
8
This looks a LOT more like political jealousy than any sort of reporting.
The NRA NEVER spends even CLOSE to he amount the big donors spend on races. And these writers KNOW that.
But that's okay because the visuals and white-on-black text send a strong message that the reader is to react EMOTIONALLY - never intellectually.
Indeed, the tragic decline of the paper that once boasted Abe Rosenthal and actual journalists is all tied up with its abandoning straight reporting in the areas of government & politics to become a propaganda outlet for a political party.
Funny part: when you go from reporting facts to cheerleading wmotional reactions, there eally aren't that many facts to try to double-check anyway.
1
Because they don't have that kind of money, and these readers know that.
Let’s find out which of our elected officials takes donations from the NRA and shame them and and get them out of office! NRA support = no elected office!
4
The most effective way an organization can hold its members hostage is through unrelenting fear. When folks exist in a constant state of fear, they can be manipulated, their ability to rationalize ceases to function, and they will defend the group they belong to with their last dying breath. Same traits found in Trump supporters, the GOP, and other quasi-religious cults.
8
Yes, this shows how the organization has effectively mobilized mass appeal amongst the general public, thank you.
But there is another side of it, and I‘d like the Times to let us know about that, as well: Gun manufacturers are the primary beneficiaries of the memberships and political support the organization generates. How much have the manufacturers gained from this alliance? and at what cost to them? (I would imagine this is a very efficient and inexpensive means for the manufacturers to engage in lobbying for legislation — or lack of legislation — that is in their interest.)
After all, isn’t it a matter of following the money? Sure, the NRA has some overhead/salaries to pay, but they can get enough from membership dues regardless of what D.C. does. It’s the manufacturers who really benefit from the work of the organization.
4
More guns = Less Crime. According to the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Statistics, as gun ownership has increased, gun-related homicides have dropped. U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased 69 percent, the DOJ found.
An analysis of five years’ worth of statistic collected by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number of citizens who prevent crimes by using guns at about 67,740 times a year. That means civilian guns are 6 times more likely to save a life, than take a life. Meaning, the NRA's proposals are life saving, while the ones offered here would actually create more victims. The NRA should be applauded, not vilified.
Gun control is not about saving lives, its about power. The NRA and I believe power belongs to the people. Politicians and their mouthpieces want government agents should be armed, and armoured, to the teeth; and a public that is unarmed, helpless and powerless like a flock of sheep. That is the only way the ruling elites can manipulate the population as they wish. Raise taxes to provide 'protection'. Pass more intrusive laws like the Patriot Act, for 'our own good'. A scared public has no choice but to go along. Gun ownership makes much of the police & prison industrial complex (800-900 Billion Dollar annually) less necessary, and that scares them.
Virtually all U.S. crime went down in that time period. You specifically chose a "start" date representing a high-point in US homicide rates.
Conveniently, you ignore the fact that every other developed nation has stricter gun control than we do, and in each of those nations, gun-related homicide is exponentially lower than here. To boot, in our own country, the states with the most restrictive gun laws consistently have the lowest gun deaths. How do you explain that in the context of your thesis?
14
Why are we comparing America to only "developed" countries, why not all of them? Also, why only focus on gun deaths, why not all intentional murders. Is a stabbing murder any better than a shooting murder? Its only by cherry picking facts that the anti-gun lobby can score any points. But the fact is that 'gun free' London now has more homicides than New York City. In intentional murders, the U.S. ranks 83. Gun murders, the U.S. ranks 12, far below 'gun free' countries like Venezuela and Mexico. Domestically, Chicago has the most murders. Guns (all guns) have been banned in Chicago for 30 years; so there is an inverse correlation between gun ownership and gun crime.
Guns are not responsible for gun violence, otherwise gun heavy Switzerland would not be so peaceful; and 'gun free' Honduras, so violent. It is a host of factors such as the economy, job market, social values, peer pressure, family make up and mental health. Note, 1/3 of all mass shootings have been done by former military men. So there is much more a direct correlation there than simple gun ownership. Simply put, passing more laws will not give you the desired results, its more complex than that.
To Ayaz in Dover
Some of your comment is not quite accurate. For one, Switzerland is not so peaceful as you imply. Two, Mexico is not "gun free":
"A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Mexico and that no person may possess them.[3] This belief originates due the general perception that only members of law enforcement, the armed forces, or those in armed security protection are authorized to have them. While it is true that Mexico possesses strict gun laws,[4] where most types and calibers are reserved to military and law enforcement, the acquisition and ownership of certain firearms and ammunition remains a constitutional right to all Mexican citizens and foreign legal residents;[5] given the requirements and conditions to exercise such right are fulfilled in accordance to the law.[6]"
1
American society is withering and the country is moving from a welfare state to a warfare state. The state of violence is normalised.
In a failing society the violence is inextricably tied to economic violence and the violence reproduced by politicians who would rather support the military-industrial-gun complex than address the most basic needs and social problems faced by the people. When violence becomes an organising principle of society, the fabric of a democracy begins to unravel suggesting that the country is at war with itself. When politicians refuse out of narrow self and financial interests to confront the conditions that create such violence, they become accessory to murder.
Where else but in society under disintegration, politics becomes an extension of violence driven by a culture of fear, cruelty, and hatred legitimated by the politicians supported by the gun lobby (merchants of death)?
Violence is now normalised as a sport, a pleasure-producing industry, a source of major profits for the defence industries, and a corrosive influence upon American democracy.
As long as the society and the political commentators including NYT esteemed columnist, Nicholas Kristof, are not prepared to directly unambiguously confront the deeper political and ethical corruption in American society, the world will see no hope for the country.
Karl Marx was prophetical saying the more capitalism creates wealth, the more it sows the seeds of its own destruction.
6
Resurrecting an earlier suggestion: To my knowledge, guns are treated uniquely in the constitution as the only manufactured items that citizens are specified a right to own. Since they are unique in this way, let's subject them to unique commercial regulation. Let's require that manufacturers of guns may not profit from their sale. After all, every dollar in profit they make is a barrier to ownership.
NRA leaders speak so vociferously of the importance of gun ownership as a sacred right, and their only, passionate concern. Surely they'll agree to such regulations, which will only help more American's be able to own guns. Surely it's not really *money* that's driving their passion for gun manufacturing.
Or maybe their reaction to such a policy would reveal their true motives.
5
I was a Benefactor Life Member of the NRA. One day, I got my copy of American Rifleman. Inside was one of its incendiary articles attacking Democrats for their anti-gun positions. Prominently quoted was Senator Howard Metzenbaum. Only problem was, Metzenbaum was already deceased several years and obviously not in a position to influence anything.
And the final straw was the welcoming of Oliver North to the NRA Board of Directors. North was convicted of crimes against the United States, and his conviction was only reversed due to the fact that some of the evidence used at trial came from testimony before Congress, where he had been granted immunity. While that may have been a barrier to his legal conviction, that did not change the fact that he committed the crimes.
So I resigned my NRA membership. In my resignation letter, I cited their misleading of its members that dead Senators were still a danger to the Second Amendment, and their embrace of felonious committers of Treason. I never heard anything back.
46
So I think we should all join the NRA and then push for rational gun control. The poor members are being used as puppets.
5
So are the poor being used who embrace this president. I do care about them but the inescapable fact is that they have made this choice.
I wish we could accomplsh what you suggest by joining that nefarious organization but I think it’s been reported many members already favor stricter gun laws.
Maybe the new Democratic controlled Congress will find out more about the NRA’s Russia connection during the 2016 election when they reputedly accepted campaign funds from agents of that government.
The biggest threat to the US, is not desperate people seeking asylum in the US, it is unstable white men with powerful guns!
12
So many of us agree!!
1
Oh for the Messiah's sake... this is a criminal organization that funnels dark money from unknown sources, Russian sources included, it might be cultish yes, but what is important is that it bribes Congressmen and launders money.
The NRA is organized crime. We all know that. Sure Joe Nobody thinks they're on his side, but so what? Joe Nobody likes the Mafia bosses he sees in the movies too.
Any article that isn't promoting a rational call for a federal shutdown of this organization is just talking down to us at this point. I don't care how the NRA brainwashes the yokels — follow the money.
20
The whole enterprise is also deeply racist. When they say we need to protect our homes and families, ask yourselves, from WHOM? The brown and black folks, of course. And the "illegals" in caravans. It's not from your friendly white neighbor down the street. It's not even from that pesky family of bears who forage through the garbage in your front yard. No, the fear is of the black man in a hoodie or the "bad hombre". Make no mistake about it.
7
The latest massacre looks like another "Incel" shooting. What a great country this is.
1
I used to like playing cowboys and Indians when I was a kid, but eventually
I gave it up for other things.
NRA members never do.
8
But Nicholas K. -- where's the kumbaya campfire? I thought liberals are supposed to listen and compromise because, don't you know, right-wing gun fanatics believing absurdities or using lies to stir passions are people too!
What is this? It's okay when *you* give up?
1
It is the height of absurdity that far too many of these right wing crackpots cowardly hide behind the 2nd amendment and are seemingly incapable of understanding that something written in and for the 18th century cannot and should not be applied to a modern society of the 21st century....or perhaps we should still be burning witches and religious heretics and still believe the earth is flat ?
8
Thank you.
2
If you think civilians don't need guns today, then you should actually read the NY Times instead of just posting on it. How many Rohyngyas were killed by their own government last year? (10K in a week). How many civilians have been rounded up and put in 'reeducation camps' by the Chinese? (800,000) How many people have been forced to leave their Central American countries because the gangs are armed, in supposedly "gun-free" countries, and the good people are not.
Almost half of the world's problems would be solved if there was an assault weapon in each responsible, trained and non-criminal person's hands. Just imagine how many people would be alive today had they been able to resist the Nazis, Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin with real arms. So please, expand your mind and try to understand the wisdom enshrined in the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. Otherwise, you may just be propagating further violence and injustice.
"Almost half of the world's problems would be solved if there was an assault weapon in each responsible, trained and non-criminal person's hands."
Thanks, that's the best laugh I had all weekend. Small-minded thinking is how we got into this mess in the first place. What you suggest would not only not work, but would most likely trigger (pun intended) the end of civilization.
BTW, Weimar Germany was severely restrictive of all gun possession by civilians. The NSDAP merely continued this policy.
The N.R.A. is a fearmonger, pushing people to acquire guns for all the wrong reasons, the main cause for the civil carnage by paying off republican politicians to skip any rules, and allow anybody with a pulse to acquire weapons of mass destruction. These United States are most dangerous in promoting mayhem, so to satisfy their god, avarice. This is not freedom, as it requires discipline and responsibility; license to kill instead.
3
They got crazy when after President Kennedy was murdered, the NRA lobbied for continued mail order guns. That is their bizarre way of thinking.
3
Going deeper, an analysis of the advertisements in The Rifleman reveals the firearms and ammunition manufacturers who support the NRA financially. In their ads, weapons and ammo sellers brag in superlatives about the speed, penetration power and lethality of their products. The politicization of the NRA goes hand in hand with the increased development and widespread distribution of high capacity revolvers and rifles, automatic and semi-automatic, in the wake of the Vietnam War. All wars accelerate the proliferation of weaponry. The arms industry is the real puppet master.
5
That's called freedom of speech Kristof. Their magazine covers are perfectly legal and proper.
So, was the latest shooter an NRA member? Not many, if any, of the past mass shooters were members.
Now about your blatantly false claim that the 2008 Heller decision was a "reinterpretation" of the second amendment. When are you going to admit that is a false assertion? If Frederick Douglass recognized the second amendment as a right for even black men to be armed, he actually said so, then how could a 2008 Supreme Court decision create a new, reinterpretation of the amendment that gave American citizens and residents the legal right to own a gun for self defense?
1
The National Rifle Association is a wonderful civil rights organization no different than the ACLU, NAACP or Human Rights watch; all groups that I support. Most public advocacy groups curiously forget the 2nd Amendment. It is this void that the NRA fills, defending the fundamental right that protects all of our other rights.
Mr. Kristof should know better. He has traveled all over the world documenting genocide in Burma, human rights violations in China, civilian deaths in Yemen and innocents butchered in Syria. Yet, has he spent even a minute pondering how all of this horror could have been prevented? Imagine a world where every sane, responsible and trained person has an AR-15 in the closet. There would be no more genocides, ethnic cleansing, programs, military coups and other government run massacres. 6 Million armed Jews would not have quietly walked into the gas chambers, preventing the Holocaust. 20 million armed Kulaks would never have surrendered their lands to Stalin, preventing millions of deaths from starvation. 10,000 Rohingya butchered by the Burmese Army last year may still be alive, had they been armed. 600,000 refugees living in squalid conditions in Bangladesh would be able to go home. Egypt may still be a democracy had an armed citizenry been able to fight off General Sisi’s bloody coup.
Civilian ownership of guns may sadly take a few dozen lives each year, but it saves lives by the millions. Too bad these opinionators just don't get it.
The 2nd amendment was to arm a militia with smooth bore muskets. Not to arm the entire populace, include madmen, with assault weapons.
3
I see, so the term People, doesn't really mean "people". And the right to free speech is just that, free speech.. doesn't apply to radio, tv, internet or blogs. And freedom of the press was, at the time, only for new papers. Guess today it would not apply to the news in broadcast or electronic formats.
Constitutional rights are based on principles, not technicalities. Smooth bore muskets were the latest weapons of the day in the 1770s. And they were fighting a force (Brits) armed with similar muskets. Today, anyone showing up to a gun fight with a smooth bore musket would be committing suicide. Remember, the right to bear arms is not for hunting, but to prevent government initiated tyranny, suppression or genocide. When the cops and the army won't protect you (as many minorities already experience) who will? Your gun will. Don't give away your personal rights out of fear. Do you have a crystal ball that ensures you that you will forever be safe, and never need a gun for self-defence?
Ayaz -- I know how to build an atomic weapon (really, was a scientist at a US laboratory that does so). So why cannot I and my like-minded buddies (it does take a significant team) have one?
More prosaically, if I am preparing to fight an asymmetrical war against the US government forces I want explosives, field mortars, and particularly portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. Why can't I have those?
Have you studied what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you understand how useless the AK-47 is as a weapon to fight the American forces ... and why?
1
Yes, but then there are us NRA Members who know this all a bunch of agitprop, ignore it, and support the foundation because it helps stop cities like Washington DC and Chicago from enacting firearm bans. With a 5-4 in the Supreme Court, I could also see California and Washington laws getting contested soon, too.
We have a flood of Californians in Arizona, hundreds of thousands, so any new one at work gets invited out to the range. Also, the Brits that fly in direct from London for business love it.
1
I wonder how the members of the NRA would answer the question "Yes or No: Would you be willing to give up your guns if doing so would have saved the children at Sandy Hook?"
7
It's a nonsensical question in the real world.
You might as well as Trump voters if they'd switch parties if they could get a unicorn.
Every intact adult realizes that with millions of guns here you can only keep crazy people in medical care until they are safe to let loose - and still away from guns, large ocks, cars, and sharp objects.
Please tell me I'm wrong.
In reality, nothing of any significance can be done here.
Unless we make owning a gun illegal nothing is going to change, and we all know that is not going to happen.
California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
It's up to every individual to say owning a gun is unacceptable.
3
It would be nice if the rest of us had the member mailing list and after mass shooting, we could fill their home mailboxes with non-threatening, civil letters simply expressing our sympathies for the victims and their families and our concerns for our own families' safety. This issue needs to be personalized and humanized and I assume NRA members are parents, spouses, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins like those of us who want sensible restrictions to save lives.
2
The founders were very leery of democracy and of tyranny of the masses. That’s why they limited voting to a very limited group of their peers.
Given their fear of rebellion, why would they grant permission for everyone to be armed to the teeth? Answer: they wouldn’t – and didn’t. What they said that the right to bear arms was contingent upon the existence of a well-regulated militia and as “part of” that militia.
All this talk about “intrinsic” rights, God-given rights, natural rights is a front for fear – which is the engine of the NRA. I defy anyone to show me where God said everyone should have a gun.
And
There will always be hate of some kind; that’s a given. A reasonable strategy, then, is to restrict the implements by which hate is carried out. You don’t have to be a brain scientist to recognize this simple logic - which turns out to be good social science and healthcare.
8
Thank you Michael. Additionally, the founding fathers feared standing army's because they thought it would lead to foreign adventurism, but they also feared invasion -- therefore the idea of the citizen militia that gets together and trains and is trained periodically so as to be available to call if needed to defend the new nations and secure the west. The founders never intended citizens to stock pile arms so that some could self-appoint to overthrow the new government. That would be treason.
3
More multiple murders today.
And, of course, the NRA just smirks.
Not one of us. We just are exercising our second amendment rights under the constitution. Guns don't kill; people do. etc. etc.
Guns do kill.
Today I spoke with someone from Australia.
He told me, After assault weapons were banned in our country, shootings went way down and have never risen since.
Gun control is inevitable as more and more Americans realize that assault weapons, automatic weapons and other weapons not created for hunting and target practice, were not intended by the authors of the constitution.
The NRA is controlled by people who are to the right of Attila the Hun. They love Trump because he speaks their language, the language of division, hate and fear.
The NRA , like Trump, needs to be held accountable for its encouragement of hate and division and the resultant escalation of crimes with guns in America.
The NRA is the enemy of all Americans who love what our country really is built on : tolerance, love of community and diversity, and democracy.
4
The NRA is not the only entity that uses fear and paranoia to gain power and influence over others while extracting financial support from their marks. For example, have you seen the endless parade of prescription drug advertisements running on free, over-the-air television? Or how about the tactics in the latest election? But what the NRA is peddling serves only one purpose: To kill it's target.
2
The news of the day is that an ex-marine, no criminal record, who may or may not have suffered from PTSD, and who was interviewed for irrational behavior but determined to "not be a hazard to himself," walked into a bar with a legal handgun, and oversize magazines that are legal at the moment too ... and killed 12 people.
What about the constitutional rights of those 12 people?
4
I read that while the perpetrator's handgun was legal, the magazine was not legal in California. The NRA distorts the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment which is only one sentence long: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". This is in response to America's history as a colony when the colonists were not allowed, by Great Britain, to keep or bear arms. OK, I'm not a constitutional historian or attorney but I can read. The NRA and others consistently misinterpret the intent of the 2nd amendment. I am a psychologist and gun owner. These are not mutually exclusive.
1
Read more history. You are mistaken.
California attempted to ban large magazines, but it is tied up in court due to a lawsuit by you-know-who. As a result, the magazines are legal at this time, in California.
1
“'The interesting tension is that the organization is simultaneously flag-waving and patriotic, and it also treats politicians and the state as though they are the actual enemy,' said Matthew Lacombe, a graduate student at Northwestern University who has studied The Rifleman’s editorials."
Excellent point made by Matthew Lacombe. How and why does the NRA get away with this kind of rhetoric? Generally speaking, I've always found it curious that Americans who demonize the U.S. government claim to love their country more than anybody else.
1
Nick Kristoff, you are doing a tremendous public service. I've admired and respected your work over the years, but your recent pieces on the NRA are journalistic commentary at its best.Your focus on our gun culture as a safety issue is precisely on point. We can maintain the Second Amendment and produce a safer environment at the same time. Bravo!
1
Hey, don't forget about Sahil Chinoy and Jessia Ma. I have no doubt that Nick works hard, but his name isn't the only one there on the byline.
1
"These horrors happen far more often in America than in other advanced countries partly because..."
That is the kind of vague language the NYT should really edit out.
The language suggests that it is only bad in contrast to advanced countries, but not other countries, when in fact this happens nowhere but in America. You have civil wars, terror attacks and drug wars going on that involve multiple homicides. But rarely - maybe 1/120th of a time anywhere in the combined rest of the world - do we get senseless killing sprees like these. They are an American invention brought to you by the NRA and video game ego shooter culture.
28
It's actually hard to even classify the United States as an advanced country anymore. How can a country be called "advanced" with mass shootings occurring on a monthly or even weekly basis? Everybody points to America's vaunted system of higher education as evidence of the country's advanced status. OK, but what is the use of attending a U.S. university if you run a high risk of getting shot at a bar off campus? You can attend a slightly less prestigious university in any real advanced country and never worry about such violence.
3
Cannot get pass the irony of NRA members living in fear.
3
That magazine is so emblematic of the NRA's shift from apolitical organization about, well, guns, to a rabidly right-wing cult. Fascinating and disturbing piece. I hope the Times produces something like this every time there's a mass shooting. It'd probably require another full-time position.
2
Well, let's see. I think we can safely track the NRA's apolitical abandonment back to when it became political fodder for the extreme anti-gun Left.
Sorry, the NRA-GOP complex is not, as you call it, a "political organization". It's part business enterprise, part cult.
2
Six million members?
Now, has that number gone up or down?
What's the age breakdown? The sex breakdown? Income breakdown?
Flashy article, thanks, but sure could use more facts.....
2
It is sad and telling that on the issue of gun ownership and safety the political sphere is totally polarized. This is not the opinion of the general population. Guns, like abortion, has both sides in their corners not trusting or willing to listen to the other side. Only when we get political leadership on both sides that can bring the gun rights and gun control factions together will we move closer to a solution. Unfortunately the two party system depends on the most passionate actors and contributors of time and money. They know they don't win elections finding common ground. This is a mini civil war where both sides believe the other is wrong and giving in a little will result in that side losing. I believe that most of the readers of this article believe that gun control represents common sense and gun rights is irrational, but until the gun control side makes connections with the NRA things will stay the same.
It’s interesting to compare the development of the ACLU’s First Amendment defense with how the NRA more recently has been approaching Second Amendment rights. What we see is the NRA borrowing the ACLU’s tactics: any attempt to control free speech must be opposed because any loss, even in the most outrageous case, is a slippery slope leading to eventual complete loss of our free speech rights. The NRA unfortunately learned its lesson well from the ACLU.
The NRA is a 501(c)(3 non profit—they are tax exempt.
That means every U.S. taxpayer subsidies their mission. They perpetuate violence and have no remorse.
A friend, is now a widow. Her husband, a universally liked police officer, was pursuing a suspect. The officer’s gun was in his holster, and the suspect, a convicted felon, fatally shot the officer six times with a glock handgun. This is the same brand of gun used in last evenings massacre in California.
I would like to start a tax exempt 501(c)(3) with the sole purpose of paying the travel expenses of NRA staff to go to the funerals of victim’s of gun violence.
In the case of the shooting mentioned above, NRA staff would have seen a 13 year-old who no longer has a father, and a wife who is now a widow.
4
Charlton Heston. His cold dead hand is still at work in this country.
The republican politicians who cannot envision existing without their base supporters who love guns seem to have grown progressively more comfortable with the murder of American citizens by armed lunatics. Do they stick their fingers in their ears and recite lines from Ben-Hur when confronted with news of yet another tragedy perpetrated with guns?
1
While I agree that the NRA's magazine has repeatedly used outrageous and even incendiary images & language -- so have numerous liberal publications. As a member of a military family, I will always remember the ad in the NYT placed by Move On.org in 2010 - labeling the general who shaped our withdrawal from Iraq (and saved 100s of lives in doing so) as General "BETRAY US." So, I ask Mr. Kristof and his fellow writers -- how about an even handed discussion of fanaticism -- on both sides of our political divide ?
1
The NRA is similar to Fox News: everything is apocalyptic and it is meant to force members to vote out of fear. With Trump, the fear of losing guns and ammo is over, as is apparent with the lack of runs on .22 ammo at Walmart, but the NRA simply manufactures new boogeymen to flaunt for its membership. The Obama administration was awesome for ammo and gun manufacturers, as the fear the NRA spread allowed its high priced sponsors to make huge profits.
2
I wasn't even surprised by the Thousand Oaks massacre. So what else is new? When I first heard that the massacre happened in a bar in California I was a bit apprehensive as my eldest son is a bartender in California. But hey...what are the chances? Then I reflected on the fact that if even one of my son's friends had been killed in this shooting, his life would be irrevocably changed for ever. For the worse. Another son, who lives in Austin, has a girlfriend who went to the University of Florida. One of her sorority sisters there got shot through the lung but survived the massacre at the Las Vegas country music venue. The shootings are getting closer to home. Mentally, as an American in this absurd and nasty environment, I'm working at getting mentally prepared to get the news that someone close to me has been shot in a mass shooting. What a country...
1
Why couldn't we overwhelm them with membership, elect someone else besides Oliver North, change the bylaws, redirect the money, and end the lies and Russian money laundering. They would start another private organization, but we would have accomplished something and exposed them.
2
The usual massacre occurred
Gun slaughter is never deferred,
The Land Trump made great
Doesn’t run out of hate
Effective gun control? Not heard.
15
Twenty something years ago, I took my son to an NRA hunter safety class. He was 13 and wanted to go hunting. After that I was constantly receiving mail from them, increasingly shrill about how I was just moments away from guns confiscated from me..Demands for money coupled with promises that only the NRA was going to save me if only I could donate some more money. They have a massive hysteria machine going. And their magazines, in between dire warnings of government taking your guns is nothing but fluff pieces for the gun manufacturing lobby. Never once saw a bad review for any new gun. They are now just a money making machine for politicians.
74
Your comment about "never a bad review" is telling. Look around the web and you can find all sorts of scathing commentary about bad guns, and there are plenty of them.
But as gun advocates always remind us "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people" ... and you might also ask were is the NRA coverage of bad or incompetent people with guns? They claim to talk about safety -- how can you do that without talking about bad stuff that happens and those who did it?
The NRA is sensitive to the most egregious cases though. Jamie Gilt wants to be a NRA safety instructor now ... and as far as I know, they haven't accepted her as one.
3
Do you guys have any idea how articles like this come off to those outside of your progressive bubble? Let me clue you in: it comes off as elitist, condescending, and totally out of touch with reality. If you want to bridge the gap that divides this country, this sort of analysis, where you presume that you understand what we on the right are thinking and why, needs to stop. Want to know what motivates NRA members? Ask, and then listen.
You also need to come to terms with the true size of the NRA's support. While you note that there are six million members (a number the article questions for some reason), that number only includes dues-paying members. It ignores all those who are politically aligned with and support the NRA, but whose membership has lapsed or who are too cheap to write a check. While it's hard to tell how many voters are NRA aligned non-members, consider this: while there are an estimated 300k members in my home state of Florida, there are over 1.9 million active concealed carry permit holders according to the FL government's 10/31/2018 report (this does NOT include permits for retired cops or professionals, like security guards).
It may be hard for all of you to believe, but the NRA has a massive following, and they are not tricked or fooled into their positions on the issues. If you want to understanding what motivates them, you will need to actually talk to them and listen, rather than make assumptions that feed into your own sense of superiority.
9
But we have talked to them. Here is what they say:
"This is not the time to talk about gun control, right after this week's scheduled mass shooting. Maybe we should wait until next week."
16
You haven't talked to gun owners, you attack them and demand they continuously surrender more and more of their freedom so you can feel "safe". We say that because legislation passed in haste and built on emotion are bad laws. Look at the NY Safe Law, that was passed and put restrictions on not only the citizens but also on police officers, so they had to go back and ammend the law. Also the only time you seem to want to talk is right after a tragedy when you come out and demand we surrended our rights so you can feel "safe". And that "safe" argument has been used over the last 60 years to place more and more restrictions on my rights. When are you going to finally settle for "safe", when guns are banned?
Do members of the NRA look at those magazine covers and have any reaction besides laughter and immediate disposal?
If so, then yes, they are being "tricked or fooled into their positions". These magazine covers are propaganda from any objective standpoint. NRA TV is propaganda from any objective standpoint. If the "massive following" (which I don't deny) does not require propaganda to reinforce these supposedly legitimate viewpoints, then why does the NRA have such a large media arm, virtually all of which is dedicated solely or largely to propaganda?
5
Let us keep in mind that, according to their own published statements, the senior leaders of the NRA earn annual incomes of about one million dollars each. Even their Florida rep, Marion Hammer, takes down about $400K per year.
So yes, anything these self-described "patriots" can do to keep the big bucks flowing in, they do.
39
The Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, controlled by the NRA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
2
Looking at the dates on the magazine covers it is clear that the NRA has waged a long-term, multi-generational approach to radicalizing Americans about gun ownership. They have changed our culture by changing our thinking about guns. Marketing 101. We could ban the NRA. Whether that would help, I don't know.
3
Violence with guns is the norm for any angry, depressed, disaffected male, usually under the age of 40, who wants to leave a mark in this reality based 24-7 news cycle. No one is safe, as long as extended magazines for any type of gun or assault weapon is available. There are still much more gun incidents in the inner cities across America, but no gun death should happen to anyone, anywhere. To not see that even members of the NRA, and their families are possible victims, is where the emphasis needs to be placed. Slowly, but surely, we need to arrive at a consensus about the truth about the nature of the human animal, access to guns, and what really would prevent these type of murders, whether the synagogue in Pittsburgh, or the one in the bar in California.
5
I support guns for hunting and self defense. Not all gun owners are unreasonable. My issue is with those gun owners who do not want responsible laws to protect Americans who die at such prolific rates. The blatant indifference to human life and lies told to protect profits and power, should be criminal. Concern for "individual rights" is the lie used as cover to protect profits and assure NRA allies in government. It is clear that severe distortions of "outside" threats are designed to stoke fear, sway votes and demonize those who would try to stop the slaughter of innocents. DT has aggressively partnered with them as a means to hold power. They use lies for gain and now both have the blood on their hands for profit. This must stop. We must also assure that the NRA was not a conduit for foreign money to DT.
He has also proven that he believes he is above the law.He is not.
Lies and distortions by leaders on BOTH sides have been used to gain/keep power. Dems are not equal in their abuse of power IMO but we cannot deny that the truth has lost to convenience too often, by some. Until we hold both parties responsible to lead with truth, we will be divided as a people. Propaganda by ANYONE must be challenged. Fox News has proven, egregious record in regards to propagandizing and promoting lies told by our current leadership. CNN and MSNBC must be called out for distortion and lies as well when they occur. Our leaders serve us. We will serve them if we allow lies to be truth.
1
One thing that is glaringly absent here is that the tone of the conversation changed during and after the 1960's; the NRA's stridency goes hand in hand with increased efforts at gun control. So of course the NRA becomes more militant. Prior to the sixties, there was very little debate as to the role of guns in America; hunting and sport shooting was common and the nation was far more rural.
During the sixties, in large part due to the riots and political assassinations, gun control became a central tenet of political conversation. There were calls to ban handguns and direct mail order gun sales stopped after Oswald shot JFK (he mail ordered his Carcano rifle). The rhetoric has hardened on both sides since then. One GVP advocate in my state recently referring to the NRA as a "terrorist organization"; its members should be purged from government appointments. The Santa Fe Newspaper was equally strident.
But gun culture has changed too and become more focussed on shooting adversaries rather than animals. That has been reflected in gun magazines including the American Rifleman. As far as the history of the American Rifleman, there is some less obviously biased info at Sociology Prof. David Yamane's blog, including this piece: https://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/2017/10/17/paper-available-on-the-rise-of-self-defense-in-gun-advertising-the-american-rifleman-1918-2017/ I'm a little unsurprised that the Times authors did not contact Prof. Yamane.
I could care less about the NRA. Given the relatively small membership (about 1/20th the number of gun owners) most gun owners would agree. I am a gun owning liberal Democrat.
It isn't the NRA or its 4-6 million members who are causing the stalemate. Instead, it is non-gun owners.
There are close to 100 million gun owners in the country.
Those gun owners know that most of the yelling about guns comes from the 1/3 of the population that has never even fired a gun. Gun laws would affect them about as much as laws restricting me from flying to Mars would.
Not only that, but we gun owners also know that about 30% of Americans want to ban handguns altogether. This, not the NRA, is the basis of my view on gun control. I'm not opposed to many of the proposed laws, although none of them will work, but what I know is that for millions of Americans they won't stop there.
They are the ones causing the stalemate. And the reason is that no gun laws can prevent the violence we are seeing---only a total ban can. So, stop blaming the NRA.
Leave me and my gun alone. We had a break-in at our house--took the Sheriff's Deputy an hour to get to us.
Ignore the NRA and find a way to enact gun laws that would (1) be effective (nothing proposed would be anything more than a superficial cure), and (2) protect gun owners from the 30% of Americans who would take these laws as a first step. (while you are at it, you can also work on the frequently-observed arrogance of gun control advocates.
2
Sigh -arguments like this make me crazy. Nobody cares that a family has a little handgun in their night table drawer. Nobody cares that you enjoy hunting deer on the weekend. Nobody wants a total ban. We care about ASSAULT RIFLES which no private citizen NEEDS or should have. Can we focus on THAT, please?
4
Nobody cares? I quoted data that 30% of Americans want to eliminate handguns altogether.
These data come from Gallup polls. I would provide you the link but the Times' automatic reviewer frequently won't allow that.
Look up Gallup and guns and see if you can get these large-scale surveys.
And the "sigh" is totally uncalled for.
(and besides, you missed my point completely: These people who kill are not killing because they have a particular gun. They are motivated and will simply find other ways to cause as many deaths)
Thank you for this detailed exposition of the excellent work that the NRA is doing to protect the constitutional rights of gun owners. You have convinced me that I should be donating more to this organisation in the future. They deserve our support.
2
The morphology of this group clearly implies it was never about hunting and sports. It has always been about guns, the intoxicating power to kill, and the seduction of holding life and death in one's hands.
5
The NRA wants firearms everywhere except in their headquarters. As a teacher, I especially resent that someone wants to put weapons in schools yet won't allow them in their workplace. It was once a respectable organization and now has become a shill for the firearms manufacturers.
21
I enjoy target-shooting just as much as the next person. It's fun. I admit it. Black powder is booming. As long as firearms are used responsibly, my own political views place no priority on the fact that other people also like guns.
That being said, I am aware of how some of the various types of firearms function, and I know what ArmaLite rifles are capable of. They are most certainly made for hunting, they just happen to be for hunting people.
A practiced shooter with a bolt-action rifle can hit a target the size of a quarter from over a mile away, and that's with a rifle designed to hunt wild game. The NRA used to operate under the pretense that their existence was for "sporting" purposes, now they operate using levers of neuroses in order to convince people that they'll die unless they are armed at all times.
The NRA is a 501(c)(3) organization. This effectively makes gun culture a religion, whose president is Oliver North. If that doesn't seem like a major problem for a culture already inundated with violence, then Oliver North has been quite successful at hiding his past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
5
What?? A superbe rifle might be half a minute of angle precision. That's about 8 inches at a mile. Actually, those "modern sporting rifles" are among the most precisely shooting rifles made today and affordable to boot.
8 inches at a mile, in the proper conditions, sounds like it qualifies for "can hit." And were I unaware of how terrifying the aforementioned modern sporting rifles can be, I would not have brought them up.
1
"A practiced shooter with a bolt-action rifle can hit a target the size of a quarter from over a mile away, and that's with a rifle designed to hunt wild game. "
This is nonsense ... unless you add "once in a very rare while."
There are 1760 yards in a statute mile.
There's a list of "Confirmed kills 1,250 m (1,367 yd) or greater" done by military snipers in combat on the Wikipedia ... and it's a short list (19), humans are much bigger than a quarter, and most of these were done with very specialized large caliber sniping rifles.
There are many reasons to criticize the NRA, but this it nonsense.
1
Quoting from the epic film THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, the question arose "how can I make bricks without straw"? How indeed. I apply the same reasoning to the power of the N.R.A. "How can they build loyalty and fanaticism without the willing mindless followers who hearken to their callous message?" Let's be frank and say that the mindless masses who repudiated the GOP in the midterms are mostly immune to the callous message of the N.R.A. but those tiny minds that remain loyal will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I might hasten to add that there's no way that they will be reading either the article or my comment for they are mostly uninterested in thoughtful discussions on serious issues. I have come to the conclusion that meaningful gun regulations are not on the table in the foreseeable future and therefore we must start to look at less savory options so that we can protect ourselves from random gun violence. The idea, for instance, of placing armed guards in venues meant for celebrations and entertainment and worship abhors me deeply. Still, whatever steps can be taken to protect myself and my loved ones I am beginning to look at more favorably (if reluctantly) until the time comes when sane regulations can be implemented. What else can we do? I am NOT willing that I or my family should become just another statistic and recipient of a meaningless " our thoughts and prayers are with you".
1
Really when you get down to it, it's in large part a business model. You can make a pretty good living these days peddling anger, fear, or paranoia. One or two well known news organizations and any number of political commentators and websites also use it.
4
I recall this transformation happening back in the early-mid '70s. Back then alls we had in our cars was AM radio (without the crazy right wing component there is today). One day on the hourly news report there was an item about the proposed ban on "cop-killer" ammo and how this group called the NRA opposed it because something to the effect that: first they ban this ammo, then the next thing you know they will take away your guns. Even then as a teenager I just shook my head at the nonsense argument. And the NRA has only gotten much worse and more radical with time.
3
I recall this very clearly, and I had the same reaction. Something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear....but the sense that it was wrong, and the curious lack of common sense reaction, haunts us now.
4
the barn door is still ajar, the hoses still leaving in drives...no way to blame trump for this one...the abridgment of gun rights is prohibited by the constitution because of the necessity of "a well-regulated militia..."
but, as usual, we cling to our "rights" and skip the heavy lifting of obligation, and, so, here we are, guns all over the place...what's being abridged is our freedom to attend school and church or walk and gather, without fear.
the suggestion here is to reclaim the entire second amendment, give every gun owner/possessor 90 days to sign up (state by state with no other obligations than to maintain readiness and demonstrate competence, if not already certified) and be subject to call for times of disaster (anti-looting, etc.) or other critical need (why not a volunteer cadre within the militia of those of demonstrable skill and suitable temperament for, say, one day a week of plain-clothes assistance to security officers in schools and churches?)
by extension, it's also possible to imagine an elite corps of especially adept shooters in a well-regulated militia who can be granted concealed carry permits and authorized to act against attacks in public places when no law enforcement is present.
Failure to regulate this fake militia now imperils the liberty and union of all of the states. No more moronic reading of the second amendment is possible than how this gun-idolizing psychopath-enabling nation reads the second amendment.
1
Doesn't the NRA enjoy a tax-exempt status? When they taught farmers how to shoot like soldiers, they were eligible.
Not now. Where is IRS?
5
Gun shootings are nothing new in the USA. When myself and a friend were backpacking around the world in the 1970's we kept USA off our list because of gun violence. We backpacked in Spain that had a dictator for their leader and there was military everywhere and we neve felt threatened. Same in Israel as the army took their guns onto buses. Another argument is about responsible gun use or the reasons people have guns. There's no need for a domestic household to own guns as it's like playing Russian Roulette with your families lives if there is a domestic argument and in that split second of anger and madness one of the house members grabs a gun. If the gun wasn't there they might rant and rave, stick their fist through a wall or whatever but themselves and the people in the home would still be alive.
In my opinion, using guns in the USA is seen as a way of getting rid of all your anger and angst about life, something that doesn't happen in other developed nations. Maybe teach anger management and teach people that guns don't solve your problems and neither does suicide. Maybe more households should be made aware that the gun in your home could be the reason why your kid will commit suicide or kill someone with lifetime consequences. No guns in the home then no impulsive suicides and deaths of other household members.
8
My father was a NRA member when growing up in French Lick IN, a very poor area and a lot like Eastern Kentucky. NRA members and their families got to purchase for $5 one each of the following - 1903 O3AC Springfield 30-06, 45 caliber pistol and a semi automatic carbine.
Unfortunately a Emory University professor wrote a book called, "The Arming of America". Emory fired him because the references he used did not exist. Also a famous literary award was given to this stupid author and it pointed out graphically that their award group never read this piece of trash.
I lived in Manhattan for four years at the height of the heroin crisis. The Sullivan law works well - the addicts used knives and achieved the same results.
The murder of 12 people in CA last night is the latest example of our gun madness. I saw a sign indicating a gun show to be held this weekend in Cumming GA - no questions asked, no ID required just pay in cash.
In the USA there are over 300 million guns in various places. After my brothers death, I had to dispose of his gun collection through a gun dealer. These were all legal and ID's were provided.
We are awash in guns. While living in NYC, I got to know several NYC detectives and they used stop and frisk effectively. But these efforts are wasted given that we live in a free society. I live in a safe subdivision and you never hear shots fired here.
I see no way out of this mess.
The only way you can stop people being gun fanatics is through the USA State school system. Replace guns with caring for the environment in schools and government make laws that do not allow gun topics to be taught. In NZ we don't even think about guns and they're just fictional things we see in movies or war documentaries. The NZ school curriculum needs looking at so USA can imitate it.
You can't change adults but you can change the next generation by changing what you teach in schools.
Our government makes laws so the military can't take guns into schools and kids can't be photographed holding them. There was an incident in NZ within the last year about this and everyone in NZ was horrified to see some teenage girl at a school in a photo holding a gun. There is a time and place for everything and guns in schools is not one of them.
5
This brings up another topic, however. How do you censor, (or prevent), so many violent video games with guns? How do you stem the tide of Western culture, which is awash with violence and the condoning of hatred?
It's not Western culture that's the problem, as NZ is nuclear free and doesn't have the domestic gun deaths that the USA has. If you use deduction you'll see that guns in the real world are the problem, not Western culture.
1
Our latest Serial Killer had a legally registered Glock with the extended clip , all purchased legally so he could kill more than 6 people. You try to talk to some of the lunatic fringe with the NRA and they will tell you its their second amendment right to own these extra bullet clips.
4
Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA has stated he SUPPORTS some sensible gun restrictions.
Right, like the Kremlin’s vociferous denials of political killings.
1
There's actually no tension between their view of themselves as patriots and their hatred for government. They simply don't see government as legitimate unless it's a right-wing government favoring their values and demographics (regressive white male identity politics.)
Note the figures chosen for derogation on their covers -- Soros, who is Jewish, Obama, who is black, and Hillary Clinton, who is female. Lesser derogation for Schumer and Bloomberg, also Jewish. Etc., ad nauseam.
4
Please keep this in the forefront of your news. Another senseless, brutal massacre of too many innocent women and men by yet another madman in my home state, CA. I think I speak for millions of Americans when I say that we are NOT immune, shocked, yes, but never, never accepting. Each ruthless slaying brings on more determination to fight the amoral insensitivity and lustful greed of the NRA. THEY are pulling the trigger by making weapons accessible to the unstable. Donald Trump, his rabid GOP Congress and supporters at large are pulling the trigger when they advocate a vigilante-type country under the guise of protecting the Second Amendment. This while trying to destroy our most precious of rights..freedom of the press and speech and unimpeded voting.
One commenter of another Times' piece today from British Columbia wrote the obvious sad truth. When this nation turned a blind eye not too many years ago, when beautiful CHILDREN became victims of another madman, that's when we lost our way and our souls. But souls can be redeemable. Maybe not those of the NRA or too many politicians in DC, but certainly ours, the everyday American. We have more power for good than not.
3
The sad thing is that they had to. For a couple of hundred years the personal right to bare arms was a given, only over the last few decades has that right come under attack which has prompted them to change focus.
5
In what way has the personal right to bare arms come under attack? Last I checked, the discussion is about gun laws that limit the ability for people to carry out randowm mass shootings on innocent people. Is that wrong? Are you ok with shootings in night clubs, and churches, and schools, and parks, and grocery stores, and concerts? Is someone's ability to utilize a high capacity magazine or a bump stock infringing upon anyone's right to buy a firearm? Is limiting access to an AR-15 infringing upon anyone's right to buy other guns for sport or protection? At what point to gun owners/enthusiasts decide that senseless gun violence is more important to the people of this country than open access to anything and everything involving guns. The 2nd Ammendment was never about the ability to kill anyone anytime you chose.
23
This is false. That the 2nd amendment DID NOT give individuals the inviolable right to purchase and carry all manner of weapons in all manner of places was a given until the Black Panthers used the 2nd amendment in a novel legal strategy in the 1960s. The Radiolab offshoot "More Perfect" did an excellent episode on this history, if you're interested.
2
I will try to address your points:
1. When there are democratic politicians (ie Hillary Clinton) proposing mandatory gun buybacks similar to Australia, I consider that to be an attack on the 2nd amendment and a mainstream democratic position. However, I at least respect that it is an honest position that we can debate.
2. There are no laws that are going to stop crazy people from killing others. In fact, if we are being honest, removing all guns from existence is the only way to ensure that nothing like this happens again. Which means we would have to get rid of the second amendment and confiscate all firearms by force. That will never happen
3. There is always so much talk about the AR-15, but the thing that people who are not familiar with guns don’t realize is that you can get two .45 caliber semiautomatic (which is what almost all guns are these days) pistols and cause just as much or even more damage.
4. The high capacity magazine solution is also a non-starter. Magazines are nothing but a box and a spring. They are not difficult to create or put together.
5. I don’t have an issue with regulating bump stocks.
6. Of course the second amendment isn’t about killing people, murder is illegal as I think you already know. Although that law didn’t seem to stop this shooter for some reason.
So my question is, what gun law do you have in mind that will prevent this from happening again?
1
Yet another reason to divide the country into multiple independent states. If some of these states want to suffer daily carnage in their schools, places of worship, and at entertainment events, so be it. The rest of us can live in places with sensible regulation.
8
"How the N.R.A. Builds Loyalty and Fanaticism"
Is this a joke ?
The authors, are the fanatics.
The rest of us can read and understand a simple phrase: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"
As any lawyer will tell you, the commas in that sentence mean something.
The right to keep and bear arms is not a right that is granted to the people by the government, or that can be revoked by the government.
It is, an intrinsic and fundamental right.
Get over it.
5
So am I, and, as you know, there is more than one side to every argument. Perhaps more time reading the academic literature would be helpful.
5
Dear Objectivist- I'm sure you jmissed the irony of the cover featuring Wayna LaPierre and Donald Trump, two draft dodgers who did everything in their power to use semi-automatic rifles for their designed purpose- defending the freedom of the United Staes in military service.
No, we're not 'getting over it'.
8
@objectivist Your perceived "right" comes at the expense of my freedom and safety. Are you part of a well-regulated militia? No? Tell the family and friends of all the victims of mass shootings in this country to "get over it." Absolutely disgusting.
6
These people come off as complete drooling certifiable idiots except for the fact that we still let them carry weapons. There is serious mental illness at work here.
10
Being an amateur target-pistol shooter, many years ago I joined N.R.A., only to drop out after a few months because of their mixing sports with politics.
The biggest problem in the US acceptance of firearms, as precision and self-defense instruments, are the two erroneous translations of the immortal words attributed to Wilhelm Tell that, as such, were never taken up as slogans by N.R.A. and N.S.S.F. The two better known translations into English read: "I want (lack) my arm when I want (lack) my bow". The translators substituted "bow" for the German original "Waffe = weapon". Obviously, neither N.R.A., nor N.S.S.F. is interested in archery, apart from the historically questionable placing a bow instead of a arbalest in Tell's hand.
2
Funny, your reason for quitting the NRA (their mixing of sports with politics) is exactly why we don't go to professional baseball games anymore.
1
If you notice the gun that Charlton Heston says must be pried from "my cold dead hands" ... it's a traditional long rifle. It's not a handgun or a carbine large-magazine semi-auto (aka "assault rifle")
Despite his inflammatory speech, it's old-school NRA ... or perhaps calibrated dog-whistle?
Suppose he were waving a Glock or an AR-15? Wouldn't the former look like every gangster and bandit movie you've seen, and the latter look like Al Qaida or ISIS promotional videos?
But the current NRA is exactly about large-capacity semi-auto guns -- either handguns or carbines.
6
And one other thing about that NRA national meeting ,it was held in Denver just weeks after the Columbine massacre. The NRA refused to postpone or move the meeting after what happened. Wonderful Americans, No?
3
You might notice that the NRA has become increasingly 'right wing' in step with the Democratic Party becoming increasingly anti-gun rights.
The NRA is reacting against perceived threats to that which it holds dear. And those threats stem almost entirely from (not the GOP.)
2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-- Second Amendment.
Bowers was armed with an assault rifle and two handguns when he entered the synagogue, and had 21 guns “legally” registered to his name.
This man was a militia all by himself alone, but -- thanks to the NRA -- a virtually unregulated one.
35
Calling Andrew Cuomo a socialist means you’re so far to the right you can’t see the left through the scope of a McMillan TAC-50.
23
NRA has won. Even were it to be neutered, Supreme Court will kill any (or almost any) gun control regulation or legislation. By the time Trump is finished, it will be a permanent extremist majority.
2
The NRA has become a political cult that provides its members with a justifying logic that owning a weapon is more than just buying something and enriching the gun industry; it's a noble action and higher purpose. Towards what is what's unclear and disturbing. A gun is indisputably a source of power and that appeals to a certain psychology that wants to be heroic, that is fearful of the unknown in the world, and, frankly, has an inclination toward domination. There are plenty of sane gun owners out there who would not oppose restrictions. I'm a hunter who owns three guns for that purpose only and I despise how the NRA and has twisted the Second Amendment toward the purposes of greed and making it a marketing tool for the gun industry profits. I don't dispute that Second Amendment sets the right for citizens to own arms. But it was written in the 18th Century and it's intent is obviously not that any citizen can be armed at the same level as a soldier and law enforcement. That's absurd. If that were the case, then why can't we all go buy grenades and RPGs? Because citizens don't need weapons of that scale. The NRA's campaign of fear about noble gun owners as patriots vs. the enemy (government, the libs, whoever) is so entrenched now that it's hard to see a way past it. The NRA and GOP are sacrificing the safety of society for greed.
6
Back in the 1950s when I went to YMCA sleepaway camp the NRA was known for providing targets for our supervised rifle classes. The also provided medals and patches for competitions.
The NRA doesn't need to provide targets anymore, since the targets are now people, and the shooters are usually killed after they've finished their competition, and before the medals can be awarded.
5
We had waiting periods. We have instant background checks. Some states limit gun accessories and ammunition.
These have had some effect, but, if someone has purchased a weapon and met all of the requirements, and goes crazy sometime after that, there isn't much that can be done, ala Pittsburgh. It is like predicting someone will be a drunk driver in the future. Same same for a crime of passion.
Insurance won't stop mass shootings. If you want to kill a lot of people, an insurance requirement or future renewal will not be a hindrance. Banning guns and gun ownership will have ZERO, really, less than ZERO chance of passing.
I haven't done anything wrong and I don't plan on it. So, don't waste your breath on me, you can't have my guns. I don't know how a crazy person can be prevented from killing people any means. Gun free zones have yet to prove their worth.
This was a senseless, but unavoidable tragedy. Every parents greatest fear.
1
Good story, but please don't miss stating the cold hard fact that NO ONE in the US government has EVER introduced legislation that would "take people's guns away." All proposed legislation (and, in the Case of the Brady Bill - strongly supported by Ronald Reagan - legislation that passed into law) has been about banning future sales of certain weapons and accessories.
Why do gun nuts and the alt-right have so much difficulty distinguishing the truth from their own fictional spin?
14
A few years ago a friend of ours lost his computer when his house burned down in a forest fire. My husband agreed to help him set up a new computer. In doing so he got a look at the vile nature of the NRA and its ilk. Our friend got daily emails full of fear and lies that shocked my normally unflappable husband. Fear and lies are the mother's milk of the NRA. Truth is the furthest thing from their interest.
2
The National Terrorist Association, sponsored by Guns and Greed Over People and Vladimir Putin's white nationalist Kremlin campaign assistance.
Russian-Republicanism has destroyed America.
Heckuva' job, Grand Old Patriots.
7
You only have to look at the actions of Democrat governed states and municipalities to see why the NRA's message resonates with gun owners. Useless gun control laws, such as CA's "assault weapon" modification ban, that focuses on cosmetics. General pushes for semi-auto rifle bans, one of the most popular firearm in the U.S., despite being used in about 1% of firearm deaths. Demonization of law-abiding firearm owners. And yes, Democrats have pushed for a federal firearm registry as alluded to on the American Rifleman's September 1991 cover. Democratic candidates have openly stated that a mandatory gun buyback program ala confiscation is laudable. So it is reasonable that the NRA's publication(s) would address these issues.
4
Righ, because reducing gun violence is "useless".
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/21/states-most-and-least-gun-violence-see-where-your-state-stacks-up/359395002/
Gun. Control. Saves. Lives.
3
Thank you for this.
The covers really do tell the story. The NRA magazine went from a periodical that could have been read by Sargent York to a glossy, paranoid marketing tool for gun manufacturers and conscienceless conservative politicians.
39
Can you please explain why the Democrats, when they controlled Congress with margins wide enough to pass the ACA, refused to rein in the NRA and pass real gun control legislation? Can you identify the Democrats who talk gun control, but who then act and vote as NRA-controlled puppets? Now that the Democrats control the House, will they pass strict gun control legislation?
8
For years, Senator Murphy introduced or cosponsored legislation to close loopholes in our background check system; to make it illegal for those on the FBI terror watch list to buy a gun; to end the ban on gun violence research at the Center for Disease Control; to encourage licensing requirements for handgun purchases; and to help keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. And he's also said repeatedly that we need legislation to prevent machine guns from being on the market.
For the years Harry Reid was in control of the Senate, what did Reid do to put in place these reasonable, necessary requirements?
Absolutely Nothing.
Why?
Harry Reid said he would not put any measures to control guns on the table for a vote 'because the votes weren't there'.
In reality, Harry would not put such legislation up for a vote because that would be a sore spot on a senator's voting record - since a senator with a voting record that turned down reasonable gun legislation would not last long in the senate when gun massacres occur near election time.
Also, Harry received plenty of $$ from NRA, and being from Arizona, gun totin' capital of the world, he'd have been booted out of office.
That's why.
1
Let me explain. The NRA. Got it now? The NRA.
As for the House, any gun control legislation would not get through the Senate - or the Fake-Pres - or the Supreme Court.
2
Not that it makes a difference but Reid was from NV, also gun totin' capital of the world.
1
I will never forget actor Charlton Heston holding up a rifle and saying, "They'll have to pry this from my cold, dead hands" in an NRA ad right after he became their spokesman. It was chilling. So out of place at that time in MY America.
He is just a paid actor following a script. Unfortunately too many people believed he was some kind of hero because of the movies he acted in.
They are just like The Con Don supporters. Either they can't see what a phony he is or they are so brainwashed by fox so-called news, hate radio and nra propaganda that they have lost sight of the REAL United States of America.
It's the one where we are coming together to put the nra, The Con Don, radical religionists and their Robber Baron pay masters in their place. In prison and/or OUT of OUR United States Governments at every level.
WE THE PEOPLE - average people across OUR America - will not let them destroy OUR lives.
Not now. Not ever again.
24
No mention of the gun manufacturers, who are the direct beneficiaries of the NRA's activism and who provide the financial backing for the NRA. That too is relatively new, yes?
All I know is that folks in my community would rather take out a billboard saying that they have syphilis than admit to owning a gun. It is considered that shameful. We have very low violence in our city, and low gun presence is largely the reason.
9
Of course we have no idea what city or state you are in, but I assure you that gun ownership and NRA members abound in the Northeastern USA.
I would not broadcast my gun ownership either, but that's only because I don't want to encourage thieves.
Great article, but it is missing the Russian connection.
The NRA is now a conduit for funneling money from rich foreigners (eg Russians) into GOP campaign contributions (aka bribery).
38
Yet another mass shooting today. Some 100 Americans killed daily. The NRA has become a domestic terrorism organization, advocating for unrestricted access to firearms that kill far more Americans than ISIS or al Qaeda ever have.
64
This article dovetails with the one in last weeks magazine that described how law enforcement tacitly condones white nationalist violence. We take comfort that the percentage of core Trump supporters is around a third of the population or less.
What we try to block out of our consciousness is that it includes a large segment of our militarized police forces along with those who see the NRA as a type of religion. And as with all fundamentalist religions the identification and smiting of the evil enemy is an essential component.
The two months before the Democratic house is sworn are a critical period. As of this moment, just as Trump still maintains he can end birthright citizenship unilaterally (restated at press conference) he could just as easily declare a form of martial law, and deputize those with membership in the N.R.A.
If only the forgoing is as absurd as I hope it to be.
11
The cigarette companies went through a similar process when they were under siege - They took the "individual liberty' track and had ads to that effect.
None of it worked, the patchwork of laws tightened against cigarettes and eventually they were banned from everywhere except private homes - and even then apartment buildings and condos are now banning them. And they're banned in parks too.
Once Russian funding of the NRA is investigated the collapse will start, most likely the organization will be forced to close, similar to what happened to the Ku Klux Klan - drowning in a flurry of lawsuits.
6
the NRA is peak republicanism...if you can make a few people rich, convince other people that you are creating jobs and are good for the economy then most people will turn a blind eye to the death and destruction your product causes. bonus points for convincing an easily convinced few that their constitutional rights are somehow being threatened!
3
Can we be honest for a minute? Organizations like the NRA use fear mongering to garner support and increase their power and influence in the political arena. "Arm yourselves to protect your homes and families!" That power, and the resultant lack of stricter gun legislation, has lead to increased gun sales. So that perceived threat and resultant fear has lead to Americans arming themselves to the teeth. The result is now mass shootings, primarily committed by the same people who purchased their weapons legally.
In 2016, after 8 years of a black president at the helm of the country, Americans voted Donald Trump to lead the country. He too used fear mongering to get Americans to support him. Now you have a President who is slowly destroying your democracy.
America, you are letting perceived fear destroy your country.
24
Surely it’s pure serendipity that the NRA’s devolution from hunting and gun-safety to political fanaticism coincided with its cozying up to Russia and accepting funding and laundered money therefrom. Nothing like a loaded weapon in the hands of a paranoid, political fanatic!
5
This is what the phrase "The enemy of the people" means!
8
In other words, the NRA taught Trump every tactic he needed to win.
2
I always thought the usual anti-gun pieces appear on Tuesday.
If you want incendiary topics just refer to the typical anti-gun politician's stump speech, which in most cases includes misinformation and lies. The first clue is where banning assault rifles is part of the program, since they are already banned and AR15s are not assault rifles.
7
The rhetoric is increasingly being seen for what it is.
An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that is extremely lethal. We're talking a large number of high-velocity bullets that can be fired very rapidly. That's not a hunting rifle; its an assault rifle. An assault rifle. Very much like the M-16's typically used in burst fire mode by our military.
As for the rest of your complaint, perhaps when people with guns stop killing other people in high numbers, the "anti-gun" pieces will go away. I'm not holding my breath though, human nature being what it is.
11
@kwb I am sick of people like you who claim AR15s are not assault rifles, but sporting rifles. The AR platform is identical to the M4 platform (same upper and lower) but for the internals. Some ARs even have bayonet lugs. But for the ability to fire in full-automatic mode, they are identical to the military variants. And, if you've ever served in a combat unit, you would know that—for the sake of conserving precious ammunition—soldiers rarely use full-automatic mode anyhow; most of the time their rifles are on semi-automatic. Regardless of what it is referred to (assault rifle, sporting rifle, etc.), AR-style rifles are the civilian version of an infantry weapon that is designed and optimized for killing people on the field of battle. Despite the fever dreams of the NRA and its scared-of-their-own-shadows devotees, American streets are not a battlefield. If owning and shooting AR-style rifles is your hobby, you need to find a different hobby that doesn't involve a weapon designed for battle, and there are lots of low-capacity, lever-action rifles out there you can do happily that with. Your "freedom" selfishly comes at the expense of mine (a veteran), and that’s not what America is about. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50400806/t/gen-mcchrystal-assault-rifles-are-battlefields-not-schools/#.W-Rhw3pKh-U
20
The bolt-action Mausers, Enfields, and Springfields were each "...an infantry weapon that is designed and optimized for killing people on the field of battle"
What has changed is the rate of fire and ammo capacity. I wish people would stop referring to these as weapons of war, etc, as though older rifles were not weapons of war. Most rifles and handguns were designed for that purpose. The difference now is that the technology has made them nastier.
1
The NRA, like the Republican Party, has been thoroughly co-opted by right wing interests who use it as a vehicle to whip up fervor among false-information voters. That fervor then translates into votes for politicians whose real agenda is protecting their wealthy patrons without regard to the costs to the rest of us.
And also like the Republican Party, we may discover that a foreign power has been using the NRA to funnel money into American politics to further their own interests.
53
The NRA, like Trump, builds and maintains its base by generating and stoking fear, blaming people they define as "different" from us as those against whom we need to arm ourselves with everything from pistols to guns originally built for war. Among a certain group of (mostly) Republicans, fear seems to be more easily aroused. This seems to be a characteristic of right-wing groups around the world.
15