It seems every week the headlines of our newspapers are marred by a new, horrific tragedy, more senseless and unimaginable than the last. It wasn’t until a lone gunman, armed with a .223 caliber Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle, massacred 20 elementary-school children that policy-makers finally decided to step-up and even introduce the idea of possible measures to limit gun violence. Despite the President’s intention to introduce a gun control plan, there are two reasons that meaningful gun control policy will not be attained—money and fear.
President Obama’s hesitancy to release whether or not an assault weapons ban will be part of his plan reflects his reluctance to initiate the brutal barrage of rhetoric that is sure to ensue. The President, as well as House and Senate Democrats, have backed off of their staunch support for an assault weapons ban in favor of measures that are less politically sensitive.
In a Presidential News Conference on January 14th, The President specifically appealed to responsible gun owners, stating that their Second Amendment rights would not be violated; however, many gun rights supporters have already begun attacking the President for his stated willingness to review possible strategies using executive action to bypass Congress.
If gun control policies are to be implemented, executive action is the most promising avenue for these policies. Passing gun control legislation trough Congress would be nearly impossible given the specter that looms over that Capitol of one of the largest and most powerful interest group in America, the NRA. The NRA has over four million members and exerts influence over a vast many more gun owners and enthusiasts who read NRA publications and support NRA endorsed politicians, and thus, the NRA is a powerful force in electoral politics.
According to OpenSecrets.org, a non-partisan, non-profit organization that tracks money in politics, in the 2012 election cycle, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action spent just under $7.5 million on independent, candidate-targeted electioneering communication in Federal elections. Aside from election related spending, the NRA spent an additional 2.2 million on lobbying expenses.
In the aftermath of the Citizen’s United decision, which reduces the amount of regulation organizations are subject to in electioneering expenditure, organizations such as the NRA-ILA may have even greater influence in future elections as theses PACs adopt new strategies now available under the new regulatory regime, or lack thereof.
The most apparent example of the NRA’s power over political discourse in this country is this– Despite a shooting in a theater in Colorado that killed 15 people, an attack on a community of Sikhs in Wisconsin that killed 6 worshipers, and finally the slaying of 20 children and 6 staff members at an elementary school in Connecticut, politicians have only just began a substantive discussion of actual policies to address gun violence in our society.
But there is a reason that supporters of gun rights continue to exhibit such vitriol in opposing any additional regulations on guns, even those measures intended to ensure that the violence and killing on the scale of the recent massacres in Colorado, Wisconsin and Connecticut are not seen again. The NRA has propagated the idea that any discussion about gun control is a fundamental threat to all gun ownership, and furthermore, that gun ownership is essential for personal safety and security.
As alluded to in a statement at an NRA press conference on December 21st, we are living in a scary world of “killers, robbers, rapists and drug gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country.” Thus, without guns, every community school and gathering place is left “utterly defenseless” and vulnerable to the “predators…genuine monsters…deranged… [and] evil” people that inhabit “every community in this country.”
Danger is omnipresent and the only option to protect yourself and those dearest to you is to be armed and ready to defend yourself with lethal force. Vigilantism is not only acceptable but also necessary. But, what happens when you have an armed man who begins to feel threatened by a suspicious-looking, hooded, African-American teen? Trayvon Martin was killed in a Florida community carrying a bag of skittles and a soda because one legal gun owner decided that instead of heeding instructions and waiting for the police, he should protect himself and his community with his gun. America is supposed to be a society based on the rule of law, and the NRA’s glorification of vigilantism combined with inexperienced amateur shooters, who live in fear of attack, leads to a volatile situation, which threatens to erupt in even greater violence.
The NRA spreads fear amongst its supporter that the government is pursuing gun regulations that will make them less safe and infringe upon their fundamental 2nd Amendment right to bear arms; however, this argument has very little constitutional or practical basis. Many freedoms, guaranteed in the bill of rights, have been abridged or circumvented in certain circumstances. Inmates are denied many of their basic rights and freedoms of speech, privacy and due process have been rescinded when conflicting with the interests of national security—if these rights can be limited for national security, why can 2nd Amendment rights not be limited for the security of our nation?
President Obama’s hesitancy to release whether or not an assault weapons ban will be part of his plan reflects his reluctance to initiate the brutal barrage of rhetoric that is sure to ensue. The President, as well as House and Senate Democrats, have backed off of their staunch support for an assault weapons ban in favor of measures that are less politically sensitive.
In a Presidential News Conference on January 14th, The President specifically appealed to responsible gun owners, stating that their Second Amendment rights would not be violated; however, many gun rights supporters have already begun attacking the President for his stated willingness to review possible strategies using executive action to bypass Congress.
If gun control policies are to be implemented, executive action is the most promising avenue for these policies. Passing gun control legislation trough Congress would be nearly impossible given the specter that looms over that Capitol of one of the largest and most powerful interest group in America, the NRA. The NRA has over four million members and exerts influence over a vast many more gun owners and enthusiasts who read NRA publications and support NRA endorsed politicians, and thus, the NRA is a powerful force in electoral politics.
According to OpenSecrets.org, a non-partisan, non-profit organization that tracks money in politics, in the 2012 election cycle, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action spent just under $7.5 million on independent, candidate-targeted electioneering communication in Federal elections. Aside from election related spending, the NRA spent an additional 2.2 million on lobbying expenses.
In the aftermath of the Citizen’s United decision, which reduces the amount of regulation organizations are subject to in electioneering expenditure, organizations such as the NRA-ILA may have even greater influence in future elections as theses PACs adopt new strategies now available under the new regulatory regime, or lack thereof.
The most apparent example of the NRA’s power over political discourse in this country is this– Despite a shooting in a theater in Colorado that killed 15 people, an attack on a community of Sikhs in Wisconsin that killed 6 worshipers, and finally the slaying of 20 children and 6 staff members at an elementary school in Connecticut, politicians have only just began a substantive discussion of actual policies to address gun violence in our society.
But there is a reason that supporters of gun rights continue to exhibit such vitriol in opposing any additional regulations on guns, even those measures intended to ensure that the violence and killing on the scale of the recent massacres in Colorado, Wisconsin and Connecticut are not seen again. The NRA has propagated the idea that any discussion about gun control is a fundamental threat to all gun ownership, and furthermore, that gun ownership is essential for personal safety and security.
As alluded to in a statement at an NRA press conference on December 21st, we are living in a scary world of “killers, robbers, rapists and drug gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country.” Thus, without guns, every community school and gathering place is left “utterly defenseless” and vulnerable to the “predators…genuine monsters…deranged… [and] evil” people that inhabit “every community in this country.”
Danger is omnipresent and the only option to protect yourself and those dearest to you is to be armed and ready to defend yourself with lethal force. Vigilantism is not only acceptable but also necessary. But, what happens when you have an armed man who begins to feel threatened by a suspicious-looking, hooded, African-American teen? Trayvon Martin was killed in a Florida community carrying a bag of skittles and a soda because one legal gun owner decided that instead of heeding instructions and waiting for the police, he should protect himself and his community with his gun. America is supposed to be a society based on the rule of law, and the NRA’s glorification of vigilantism combined with inexperienced amateur shooters, who live in fear of attack, leads to a volatile situation, which threatens to erupt in even greater violence.
The NRA spreads fear amongst its supporter that the government is pursuing gun regulations that will make them less safe and infringe upon their fundamental 2nd Amendment right to bear arms; however, this argument has very little constitutional or practical basis. Many freedoms, guaranteed in the bill of rights, have been abridged or circumvented in certain circumstances. Inmates are denied many of their basic rights and freedoms of speech, privacy and due process have been rescinded when conflicting with the interests of national security—if these rights can be limited for national security, why can 2nd Amendment rights not be limited for the security of our nation?