Dan Simpson: Whitewashing the gun lobby

[Solaran_X]

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/...s/201501140036

The NRA is not about protecting the Second Amendment, it’s about selling guns

The question remains how the National Rifle Association managed to block virtually any change in U.S. gun regulations after the slaughter in Newtown, Conn., of 20 first-graders and six school staff members two weeks before Christmas 2012 by a gun-wielding 20-year-old.

The PBS program “Frontline” last week explored the question in “Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA.” The piece was inadequate, to the point of raising my suspicions that it was involved in a whitewash of the NRA and making me wonder if Frontline or PBS had been “supported” by the gun industry. In effect, it presented as truth a picture of the NRA sailing under false colors.

The NRA is popularly portrayed, including in the broadcast, as an organization of 4 million members, representing an estimated 80 million American gun owners, out of a U.S. population of 316 million. NRA members are generally presented as a relatively benign collection of hunters, gun collectors, a few people obsessed with gun possession and a few more who consider it necessary to be armed against a potentially dangerous U.S. government or to resist the United Nations — the paranoid “black helicopter” crowd. It is also assumed that the NRA’s estimated $250-million-a-year budget, including a generous amount for Washington lobbying, is financed by its dues and programs.

This is only half true. At least half of the NRA’s budget comes from some 16 U.S.-based weapons manufacturers or marketers, including the ubiquitous, profitable Walmart.

The companies, which form a $12-billion-per-year industry, include MidwayUSA of Columbia, Mo.; Springfield Armory of Geneseo, Ill.; Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems of Escondido, Calif.; Beretta USA Corp. of Accokeek, Md.; Cabela’s of Sidney, Nev.; Sturm Ruger & Co. of Southport, Conn.; Smith & Wesson of Springfield, Mass.; Crimson Trace of Wilsonville, Ore.; Taurus, a Brazilian company with U.S. offices in Miami, Fla.; Glock USA, an Austrian company with U.S. offices in Smyrna, Ga.; SIG Sauer, a Swiss company with U.S. offices in Exeter, N.H.; Freedom Group in Madison, N.C.; Windham in Windham, Maine; Barrett Firearms Manufacturing in Murfreesboro, Tenn.; Walmart in Bentonville, Ark.; and Brownells Inc. in Montezuma, Iowa.

Note that these companies are distributed around the country — to help maximize the impact of their lobbying of members of Congress.

In other words, the NRA in principle represents Cody the Friendly Squirrel Hunter. In fact, it represents a major industry with deep pockets from which to provide campaign contributions to legislators and other cooperative officials.

And what it wants is not to preserve Americans’ Second Amendment rights. What it wants is to increase sales of guns, to both good guys and bad guys, and to block any regulation of gun sales and use. It wants high-capacity magazines to be freely available, surely not to gun down deer that might pose a road hazard. It wants no background checks on gun buyers, even deranged ones. It wants people to be able to buy assault rifles.

The whole concept is so far from the original American-Revolution, Lexington-and-Concord basis of the Second Amendment as to be a sick joke. Even Dodge City under Marshal Dillon didn’t normally have people toting guns into churches and schools. Miss Kitty didn’t even like them in the Long Branch Saloon.

I had sighed in resignation as two years passed after the Newtown murders, and as other mass shootings followed, and nothing happened. But watching a show as theoretically serious as “Frontline” blow past gun-industry corporate financing of the NRA was more than I could bear.

At different times, including after the butchery of children in Newtown, President Barack Obama has showed himself disposed to take on the gun lobby. I note his feistiness now, in the last two years of his presidency, by changing U.S. Cuba policy, by taking action on immigration and, as he grays, showing a human side in his objectives that was sometimes missing in earlier policy calculations. The lack of reasonable limits on gun sales, ownership and use is one of the true stains on America as a civilized nation, very much worthy of his attention.

Why can’t Mr. Obama now take on guns? He could take a stand and do what he can as president. Even if the NRA continues to block meaningful legislation, he could make an important point on a key American issue.

I hope the Secret Service hasn’t deteriorated so far that he is afraid for his life if he takes on the NRA. Then there was Martin Luther King Jr.

Dan Simpson, a former U.S. ambassador, is a columnist for the Post-Gazette (dsimpson@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1976).

Since I refuse to make an account for that rag, I e-mailed him this:

I read your recent editorial (I assume it was an editorial or some other opinion piece, since it was dearly lacking in actual facts), and I have to ask:

Do you even do any research on a topic before writing about it?

"The question remains how the National Rifle Association managed to block virtually any change in U.S. gun regulations after the slaughter in Newtown, Conn., of 20 first-graders and six school staff members two weeks before Christmas 2012 by a gun-wielding 20-year-old."

Why should the actions of a lunatic be justification for restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong?

I live in the Garfield-area of Pittsburgh, a rather "unfriendly" area to be in. I am a US Navy veteran who held a secret-level clearance as a Phalanx CIWS technician and operator and I am a holder of a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms. I am well trained in their use and am licensed by the state to carry a concealed firearm.

Yet I am the person people like you hold accountable for the actions of lunatics like Lanza. I am the person you want to punish by telling me I have to use low-capacity magazines, or that I can't own that rifle because it LOOKS like what the military uses.

"And what it wants is not to preserve Americans’ Second Amendment rights. What it wants is to increase sales of guns, to both good guys and bad guys, and to block any regulation of gun sales and use. It wants high-capacity magazines to be freely available, surely not to gun down deer that might pose a road hazard. It wants no background checks on gun buyers, even deranged ones. It wants people to be able to buy assault rifles."

What you are calling "high-capacity magazines" are, in the real world, standard-capacity magazines. They are what the firearm was designed to use. My Glock 17 comes standard with a 17-round magazine, that sits completely flush with the base of the pistol when inserted. My Glock 21 comes standard with a 13-round magazine, that sits completely flush with the base of the pistol when inserted. My Glock 22 comes standard with a 15-round magazine, that sits completely flush with the base of the pistol when inserted.

Those are not "high-capacity magazines," they are standard-capacity. But people like you want to force me to use low-capacity magazines.

Let me enlighten you a bit.

1) The vast majority of illegal use of firearms results in less than 10 rounds fired. Banning standard-capacity magazines will have absolutely no impact on crime. Even at Sandy Hook, every single magazine recovered by police had over half the rounds left in the magazine.

2) In a defensive gun use situation (estimated at anywhere from 108,000 to 2,500,000 times a year, although thankfully very few of those involve rounds fired), you are fighting on the terms of your attacker. He (or she in some situations) is in control of the situation - not you. As such, you may not have time to switch magazines. I don't know about you, but if I ever have to use my gun in self defense (again), I would rather be alive when its over with extra rounds in my magazine than laying on the ground dead or dying with an empty magazine.

As for background checks, I'm pretty sure one of the founding principles of this nation was "innocent until proven guilty," yet when you go to purchase a gun you are "guilty until proven innocent." Why is that?

Oh...and regarding assault rifles. Let me enlighten you a bit more about assault rifles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

"An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] Assault rifles are currently the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Examples of assault rifles include the StG 44, AK-47 and the M16 rifle."

An assault rifle has a very short list of features, 100% of which must be present on a gun to be classified as an assault rifle. They are as follows:

"In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[11][12][13]
It must be an individual weapon
It must be capable of selective fire
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine
And it should at least have an effective range of 300 metres (330 yards)
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being called such."

Assault rifles are heavily regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Furthermore, there are very few civilian-transferrable assault rifles in the United States (less than 200,000) and they common a premium when they are sold - upwards of $20,000 (sometimes more) for a M16 and upwards of $30,000 for a M14 (which is actually a battle rifle and not an assault rifle).

Those $800-$2,500 AR15s people can buy are not assault rifles. They do not meet the second requirement of an assault rifle (it must be capable of selective fire). The proper term for them is "modern sporting rifle," and they are indeed sporting rifles. They are used extensively in recreational and competitive sport shooting, and are a highly popular rifle for hunting in the 48 states that permit semiautomatic rifles for hunting (the two holdouts being Pennsylvania and Delaware). In fact, the AR15-platform should be a rifle people such as yourself ENCOURAGE gun owners to own - since a single AR15 can replace an entire gun safe due to the modular nature of the firearm and the wide variety of calibers it can use simply by replacing the non-serialized upper receiver and using a different magazine (and some rounds even use the same magazine - such as 223 Remington, 300 Blackout, 458 SOCOM and 50 Beowulf all using the standard AR15 magazine).

I could point out other major errors in your opinion piece, but I think perhaps you get the point by now. In the future, perhaps you should research a topic before writing an opinion piece on it, so you can at least get the terminology correct and have some basic knowledge of what you're speaking about.

I do not expect you to bother responding to this, since people like you hate being corrected. But this e-mail will be made available on various social media pages.

[papatriot1981]

I'd love to hear this D-Bags reply, if he has the balls...

[RockIsland]

I'd love to hear this D-Bags reply, if he has balls...

FIFY!

Nice reply Solaran!

[raxar]

Don't even need to read the article. THE NRA IS EVIL, THEY RUN THE GOVERNMENT SO THAT GUN COMPANIES CAN MAKE MORE MONEY. Which is what they say every time they don't say "THE NRA IS IMPOTENT AND SHRINKING!"

Orwellian doublethink

[win67]

I never got the "gun manufacturers' lobby" angle the Left uses to color the NRA. The gun industry is very, very small compared to most other segments of consumer products manufacturing. This is especially so if you take .gov sales out of the picture. The amount of money that manufacturers would lose if guns became more restricted, is not enough to justify the amount of money being spent on opposing gun control. Pro-gun activism is from regular people.

As to why the Communists claim otherwise, I guess it's all just an attempt to appeal to the more ignorant members of society.

[Didnotcomply89]

This article was wrong from the get go. Besides that, he has a 'theory' about sponsors being around the country to maximize 'impact'. Manufacturers believe in rights as well, but they [anti-rights advocates] accuse the NRA of being the 'gun lobby' so that 'they' can 'sell more guns'. Funny, I don't remember seeing legislation being proposed by the NRA to get backdoor deals or monetary benefits to gun manufacturers. I am not buying it, at all. The 'gun lobby' they are referring to is the NSSF.

And what it wants is not to preserve Americans’ Second Amendment rights. What it wants is to increase sales of guns, to both good guys and bad guys, and to block any regulation of gun sales and use.

This is the biggest 'lode' of the article. Right here. He spells the antithesis of what the NRA stands for and what it does. NRA stands for punishing criminals and protecting the rights of the law abiding.

The whole concept is so far from the original American-Revolution, Lexington-and-Concord basis of the Second Amendment as to be a sick joke. Even Dodge City under Marshal Dillon didn’t normally have people toting guns into churches and schools. Miss Kitty didn’t even like them in the Long Branch Saloon.

He fails to explain his point here. The entire point of the American Revolution was to safeguard freedoms. Perhaps he is going to lean down into the 'muskets only' argument? or perhaps the old 'militia only' argument? Those are just my guesses.

At different times, including after the butchery of children in Newtown,

Wrong again. They were shot, not cut.

The lack of reasonable limits on gun sales, ownership and use is one of the true stains on America as a civilized nation, very much worthy of his attention.

The 2nd amendment protects against 'reasonable limits' sought by anti-rights advocates. By ownership and use, all I can extract from this person, because he fails to explain or reveal his motives- is that he supports a ban on any scary looking firearms. The 2nd Amendment explicitly states that the right to those weapons will not be infringed. Reading between the lines, it seems that the author is suggesting that we as law abiding citizens are no better than murderers and criminals, and that our use of firearms is a stain on civilization. At the VERY LEAST, he infers that all firearms owners are unreasonable; a blanket generalization with no supporting facts.

I hope the Secret Service hasn’t deteriorated so far that he is afraid for his life if he takes on the NRA. Then there was Martin Luther King Jr.

I am also not sure why he thinks every NRA member is on the lunatic fringe, or that the heads of the NRA want the death of the president. What does he mean by MLK? Did MLK ever 'take on' the NRA? When, in fact, it was the NRA pushing for rights for all American citizens to keep and bear arms?


This author has little knowledge of what he is talking about because he fails to explain his points. To me, all of this sounds like anti-rights drivel. Typical anti-gun rhetoric, either purposefully disguised or a lack of facts due to ignorance OR ignoramus. I would be happy to try and explain myself further.

[c45man]

Just another irrelevant rant based on a fountain of bad information. Despite the antis making an attempt to vilify the NRA, the membership of that organization continues to grow, and the overall public opinion of the association has grown.

When an organization grows to be among the top lobby organizations in the country, the haters will crawl from the sewers, dragging their hysteria along. If the NRA was not effective, fools likes simpson would not bother with their intellectual dishonesty.

[JenniferG]

I never got the "gun manufacturers' lobby" angle the Left uses to color the NRA. The gun industry is very, very small compared to most other segments of consumer products manufacturing. This is especially so if you take .gov sales out of the picture. The amount of money that manufacturers would lose if guns became more restricted, is not enough to justify the amount of money being spent on opposing gun control. Pro-gun activism is from regular people.

As to why the Communists claim otherwise, I guess it's all just an attempt to appeal to the more ignorant members of society.

They do it so it appears as though they are attacking a corporate entity rather than a group of freedom loving individuals. Their base has this dog whistle thing going when they hear the words "manufacturers, corporate, company etc...".