There was a time, back before the late 1970s, when the National Rifle Association (NRA) represented their members. But not anymore.
Once they fully reentered the world of politics on the heels of the Cincinnati Revolt, they became corrupted by the very special interest politics from which they claim to protect their members.
With their decision to reject the calculated negotiation of their previous "old guard" board members, who for example, came out publicly in support of a proposed ban on Saturday Night Specials by then-senator Birch Bayh of Indiana, they embarked upon a "no compromise" plan of action for the future.
This, of course, made them natural allies of the gun manufacturers, who like arms dealers everywhere are far less interested in who they are selling weapons to than that they sell as many weapons as possible.
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that the NRA's mission has nothing to do with its members, but everything to do with protecting the profits of the gun manufacturers who support the organization with big bucks -- not to mention pay the million-dollar-plus salary of the NRA's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre.
After all, those lunches at The Palm aren't going to just pay for themselves.
In the December issue of the American Institute of Philanthropy, its "Charity Rating Guide & Watchdog Report" showed that when including all categories of "compensation" LaPierre came in fourth on the "charity" list with a healthy $1.281 million per year. Apparently, some non-profits can be profitable for some.
In February of 2006, a blog called Gun Guys run by the Freedom States Alliance, a 501(c)(3) organization working "to reduce gun violence in America" found that LaPierre's then-million dollar package was the equivalent of 35,000 NRA membership renewals.
One wonders whether these members know that not only are the views of LaPierre and the rest of his leadership team way out of touch with its membership -- who overwhelmingly support universal background checks for gun buyers and stopping those on terrorist watch lists from enjoying easy access to firearms (see Part I of this series for poll numbers) -- but that they are also subsidizing LaPierre's lavish lifestyle.
This might explain the NRA's need for constant crisis marketing (Obama's coming with the Legion of Doom to take your guns!) to misinform the public at large and shake their members' wallets loose -- the NRA's very own "We've got trouble! Right here in River City!" routine.
Of course, the direct influence that gun manufacturers exert over the NRA and their huge windfalls when there are runs on guns and ammunition also readily explains the NRA's play to paranoia and fringe politics, and their view that no gun sale is a bad gun sale.
In fact, if you're looking for more than circumstantial evidence, the Center For Public Integrity will make your job easy. This past week they sent out a press release that started in the following manner:
It's no accident the National Rifle Association staunchly supports high-capacity magazines - it gets money from their manufacturers every day. Missouri-based gun company MidwayUSA pioneered a fund-raising tactic called "Round-Up." The program involves asking customers to round up their purchases to the nearest dollar. The company then donates the difference to the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, a lobbying arm of the gun rights group. Since 1992, MidwayUSA, along with other firearm companies, have funnelled a total of $7.5 million to the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action using the "Round-Up" tactic. MidwayUSA's wares include high-capacity magazines similar to those used in the Arizona shooting spree...
If that doesn't make the symbiotic relationship between the NRA and the gun manufacturers undeniable, maybe an additional investigation by the Center For Public Integrity, with additional research by the Violence Policy Center (VPC), will do the trick.
Among its other delivered nuggets of wisdom, the fact that co-owner of MidwayUSA Brenda Potterfield is also the National Rifle Association Foundation board vice president. Meanwhile, another NRA board member, Ronnie Barrett, manufactures the REC7, according to the investigation, "an AR-15 type assault rifle which comes with two 30-round ammunition magazines."
Then there is Pete Brownell who owns Brownells Inc, "which sells a wide-range of high-capacity ammunition magazines for pistols and assault weapons, including the same capacity Glock magazine as the 33-round magazine used in the Arizona attack."
As you can imagine, it is not NRA members who sponsor its National Youth Shooting Sports Ambassadors. Its Brownells. In fact, when seeking support from his campaign for the NRA Board, he all but admitted that his industry's interests were 100% in tune with the "overall mission of the organization."
Arguably the best evidence is provided by Tom Diaz, author of Making A Killing and former NRA member and "gun nut" by his own admission. That is until he discovered in the course of working as an attorney on the House Crime Subcommittee that:
...the gun industry and manufacturers had changed the profile of who their target market was. It was not about self-defence or the right to bear arms. They were hyper-marketing very lethal guns and they flooded the US with them. The NRA doesn't represent sport shooters and hunters. They were selling these killing machines.
In other words, what the NRA does has nothing to do with its members. They have created ever more lethal gun designs, laughably argue that one needs high-capacity clips for "defensive situations" (you never know when Genghis Khan and a platoon of Mongol soldiers might be right around the corner), and have supported concealed carry laws, according to Diaz, all in an attempt to keep selling ever more guns and gun paraphernalia.
It's not about the rights of hunters and sportsmen. It's simply about the right of Wayne LaPierre and his plutocratic pals on the NRA board to get ever richer with no apparent regard for the body count.
Even Robert A. Levy of the libertarian Cato Institute, who served as co-counsel in the Supreme Court case that established a second amendment right to bear arms, stated that "I don't see any constitutional bar to regulating high-capacity magazines...The Second Amendment is not absolute."
But then again he is not in the business of manufacturing guns. He is actually trying to protect what he sees as constitutionally granted rights.
Perhaps his final quote was most apropos. Levy said a high-capacity clip ban "...may stop a few of these loony tunes." One wonders if he was talking about the Jared Loughers of the world or the "charity" organization who would put these weapons of mass destruction in their hands.
Cliff Schecter is the president of Libertas, LLC, a progressive public relations firm, the author of the 2008 bestseller The Real McCain, and a regular contributor to The Huffington Post.
Follow Cliff Schecter On Twitter: @Cliffschecter
Part II of a Two-Part Series @ Al Jazeera English
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Follow Cliff Schecter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cliffschecter
Such a relationship does in fact exist in the form of SEMA, yet no one finds their activities to be anything but acceptable. So why should the NRA be viewed any differently?
You use an oxymoron, the weapon you describe does not and can not exist as the meanings of the words are mutually exclusive.
An "assault rifle" is a selective fire or fully automatic rifle, an M-16 is an example of an assault rifle. An AR-15 is considered an "assault weapon", while nearly identical is a semi-automatic rifle, they have most parts in common and use the same equipment and accessories.
It should also perfectly meet the defined requirements of the Supreme Court 1939 Miller decision, implying the second amendment would guarantee the right to keep and bear arms suited to the "preservatÂion or efficiency of a well regulated militia" or, if it was "within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment".
""In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationshÂip to the preservatiÂon or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrumentÂ. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html
You just refuse to listen. Fortunately, most people are capable of listening, reading, and learning.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/in-u.s.-record-low-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx
That's DOUBLE DIGIT declines in support for gun control from the early 90's through the present.
The deciding factor on firearms in America is us gun owners. Gun prohibitionists cannot admit that fact to themselves.
“Well, Scorpio, since you’re so well-versed on what other people need, suppose you tell me what ‘tool’ my wife needs as she tries to protect our grandchildren from the two thugs, one armed with a ball bat and the other with a large fixed-blade knife, advancing down the hall of our home toward her and the grandbabies in our bedroom.
Perhaps you can further enlighten me as to what tool I might need to defend my home & my family from the looting thugs coming out on the evening of the fourth day without power, stranded by flood waters and washed out roads in the aftermath of a category 3 hurricane, knowing that I cannot rely on an already weary and overburden¬ed police force?â€
I eagerly await your response!
Old SF MJT
It's so funny how the gun banners keep insisting that the NRA "doesn't represent us" as if groups that advocate near-total gun bans like the VPC do. It's a pure desperation tactic. They see that there is no popular support for gun bans, so they try to claim groups like the NRA don't really support gun rights just because some of their members are in the firearms business. Sorry guys, but the fact that some people who like guns happen to make a living from them doesn't really come as a surprise to anyone, nor does it create any obsticle to support for gun rights.
Henigan from the Brady Center is a lawyer, so by your logic the Brady Center must represent lawyers.
http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/law-and-public-interest/brady-center-to-prevent-gun-violence-in-washington-dc-1136
For a group with 1% of the membership of NRA, that is equivalent to paying NRA's LaPierre 24.9 million a year if we base salary on membership.
Also, BC gets a D- in the BBB wise giving report.
But they also recognize that if there are millions of high cap mags in the country, and 99.9% of them are used for perfectly legal purposes, then maybe we shouldn't be so quick to condemn the high cap mag if one deranged individual decides to use one in his gun.
The argument that "no one needs" something is a dangerous argument when it comes to constitutional rights. Who "needs" an internet connection to enjoy their 1st amendment rights? Who really "needs" to assemble, protest, or express themselves?
And how can you be sure I'll never need X rounds to defend myself or for some other legal purpose? I hope I never need to use a gun for self defense, but if I do, I don't want to be limited to X rounds. Even if we could agree that "no one needs more than X rounds", how do we decide what X is? Who gets to decide what X is - people who are already opposed to guns and armed self defense?
The NRA is effective because it's members support it. We right, call, fax, e-mail, and show up for meetings. We volunteer our support for pro-gun candidates and work against anti-gun legislation. Isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work?
Cliff Schecter wrote: “There was a time, back before the late 1970s, when the National Rifle Association (NRA) represented their members. But not anymore.†Really? Odd! Somewhere between 3 & 4 million members see it differently. And please explain how it is that the NRA receives more than 85% of its funding from its members!
Then our “pundit/bon vivant†author offers up this little gem: “It's no accident the National Rifle Association staunchly supports high-capacity magazines - it gets money from their manufacturers every day. Missouri-based gun company MidwayUSA pioneered a fund-raising tactic called "Round-Up." Manufacturers? Seriously Cliff? MidwayUSA is a retailer! He then turns right around & contradicts himself by correctly stating the true source of these contributions is actually MidwayUSA’s customers who opt to contribute! NOT the manufacturers at all!
I could go on, but the reader gets the idea!
Cliff, old buddy, old pal! You really need to get better at this & get some new material. The prevarications that you offer up in your little screed above are pathetic!
Old SF MJT
What rational justification exists for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to illegally impose regulation outside of their endowed authority?
That's subjective. Do you support making a felony out of buying, selling, or possessing magazines that have a capacity of 11 or more rounds?