Guns, the NRA and the Obama Opposition
Guns, ammo and paraphernalia were bought and sold like baseball trading cards at sixty-one gun shows in twenty-seven states during the ten days between August 14 and August 23. Certainly, there are still sportsmen at these gun shows who use their rifles for hunting game and their pistols for target shooting competitions. A few collectors remain, who display antique weapons in the same way as their cousins might collect stamps, particularly at the smaller weekend events. Nevertheless, as anyone who has been around these shows long enough to remember the time when mahogany exhibits of Civil War muskets were the rule and not the exception, the larger expos have changed. Fewer deer rifles and more assault-style guns are sold each year. Hunter orange has been replaced by camouflage fatigues. Preparing for societal collapse has taken precedent over cleaning and oiling up your 30-06 bolt action Springfield.
This transformation of the gun show business reached its apotheosis in the 1990s, when restless young men like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh traveled these circuits like itinerant preachers looking for new souls to save. Even today, vigilantes such as the anti-immigrant Minutemen and the re-emergent militia groups search for recruits among the mountains of lead bullets and brass shells available at these shows. There is one organization that stands above all others, however, in its ability to channel the raw anxiety, fear, and anger of these gunners into money and political power: the National Rifle Association (NRA). And it has used both, largely in the service of an ultra-conservative agenda.
The NRA's annual convention usually show cases both its ability to draw the largest group of gun enthusiasts as well as to draw as many as possible to into its troubling political web. Last May in Phoenix, for example, a total of 64,329 people visited the NRA's Exhibit Hall. By personal experience I can attest to the fact that everything from the latest styles in backpack-holsters to black powder reload equipment has been available at these expos in past years. In Phoenix some 6,000 also attended the banquet dinner and listened to Oliver North and 20/20 host John Stossel. (At the 2008 banquet, TV and radio talker Glenn Beck gave the keynote address.)
The board of directors elected this year included names from the conservative and Republican stable of leaders, including American Conservative Union boss David A. Keene, now the organization's first vice president; Larry Craig, disgraced former senator from Idaho; the infamous Bob Barr from Georgia; Robert K. Brown, publisher of Soldier of Fortune magazine, Ollie North and a host of other similarly styled luminaries. They are joined by an occasional anomalous figure such as Harvard-trained attorney Sandra Froman.
Gun and ammo industry leaders are also on the board, and as Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center has repeatedly pointed out, there are numerous instances when the NRA protects the business interests of the firearms manufacturers over the rights of its own members. For example, it pushed for legislation limiting the liability of gun makers when they were sued for producing defective weapons that injured their users. The organization also opposed putting traceable tags in black powder, putting the gun lobby on the opposite side of the fence from federal and state law enforcement--agencies that it pretends to support.
In the 2008 election cycle, the NRA's Political Victory Fund PAC spent $17,938,707 in independent expenditures--money not directly given to candidates, but used to support campaigns and issues through mass mailings and advertisements of every kind. It gave a little over a million dollars directly to federal candidates, and 78% of that went to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Highest on their list for attack was Barack Obama, now characterized by the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action as "our greatest danger."
The Political Victory Fund PAC is already extremely active in the 2010 election cycle. As of June 30 this year it has received over $5 million in new contributions, and spent almost $900,000, according to Federal Election Commission documents. Among the many state and federal candidates it has already made direct contributions to 33 of the 93 members of the nativist House Immigration Reform Caucus. NRA also gave money this year to Wisconsin Congressman James Sensenbrenner (Rep.), not a member of the caucus, but an advocate of draconian anti-immigrant legislation nevertheless. (His bill failed to pass in 2005.) These funds are of particular note because early financial support is often the hallmark of a winning candidate--and the NRA knows this well. And the candidates are sure to show their appreciation. In addition to opposing Obama by giving money to his Republican opponents, the NRA mobilized as many resources as it could to oppose the Judge Sonia Sotomayor elevation to the Supreme Court.
The broad culture war politic of the gun lobby is best summed up in a recent pamphlet entitled, "Freedom in Peril." The enemies list here includes: "the gun-ban bankrollers," exemplified by the "Hungarian-born" George Soros; "the gang of opportunists," meaning liberals and Democrats all; "the one-word extremists," you guessed it the United Nations; the "animal-rights terrorists;" and the "illegal alien gangs." The NRA concludes that "Second Amendment freedom stands naked in the path of a marching axis of adversaries far darker and dangerous..." You get the picture.
One would never guess that gun rights are now fairly anchored in American life. The Supreme Court recently held (for the first time ever) that the Second Amendment includes a right to the individual ownership of guns. Nor would you understand that it is recently passed state-level legislation backed by the NRA that allows those anti-Obama protestors to carry guns at public events.
Not all gunners are convinced by the NRA's racist fantasy politics. Some understand the ultra-conservative politicking, and they oppose it. This fall, when deer season comes to Missouri, a small group of trade unionists, farmers and friends will gather in the north central part of the state to hunt and then clean and package their collective catch. These are pale-skinned men and women, angry at the government's continued inability to serve the interest of ordinary working and poor people like themselves. Significantly, not one of them will be a National Rifle Association member.
**
Leonard Zeskind is the author of Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream, and president of the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights. He blogs at www.LeonardZeskind.com
An illuminating and welcome expose that nonetheless lacks completeness.
What is missing is the story of the how anti-NRAers have managed to be incredibly and perpetually feeble at legislature achievement.
How hard can it be for police unions, teachers unions, human rights groups, progressive churches, environmentalists, and the overall intelligentsia to unite to make and fund the case that military machine guns are
NOT necessary for personal defense
NOT necessary for hunting
NOT protected under the 2nd Amendment ?
We need to better understand not THAT common sense has been massacred for decades on this issue, but WHY it has.
August 24, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
During the Reagan administration our UN representative, along with one other rep from another country, voted against a UN declaration which said in essence that every human being had a right to food.
Many of us were shocked at the time that our country would choose to represent itself to the world as a country that cared little if at all about the welfare of our fellow human beings to the point of actually denying them a basic right of survival.
As the 'saga' of possible health-care reform continues it has become clear that many of us have no problem denying others, not only food as we did years ago but another human need vital to survival - access to affordable health-care.
It's not so much that common sense has been massacred, it's that we have become greedy, violent, intolerant, unforgiving, cruel people.
August 24, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no "right to food" or right of "access to affordable health-care" in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, a document based on a great deal of common-sense, in addition to intellectual power and far-sightedness.
It this absence because the founding fathers were
"greedy, violent, intolerant, unforgiving, cruel people" ?
In the 1790s people did not take personal field artillery (e.g. weapons capable of killing many people) and claim that doing so was their right.
Technology has evolved since then, however, and along with it the techniques used by special interests to hoodwink the political masses into acquiescing in absurdly idiotic policies.
The histories of greed, intolerance, and cruelty in the USA display no remotely comparable evolution.
August 24, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
As to whether it's in the Constitution...I think it's the ninth-amendment which says in essence that just because a specific 'right' is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights does NOT mean that it is not a right. (Probably Madison's doing.)
(Maybe it's my bloody age, 77, which puts me in a position of 'living' history, but it seems to me that we have been on a down-hill trajectory in spirit, beliefs, priorities and actions for a long time.)
August 25, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was a chilling compilation of facts, Leonard. Are the targets like Obama and Sotomayor just manufactured for fundraising? I can't remember much Obama ever said except some wobbly question like, "Couldn't we all agree that assault rifles weren't the type of gun that the Founders were talking about?"
$17 million is a lot of scratch to spend on "issues."
August 24, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just another case where our roly-poly President rolled over for the right-wing and didn't get any thanks for it, as Jacob Freeze, "the prophetic wonder-man of political blogging," revealed in a brilliant blog about 18 months ago on Daily Kos...
"Barack Obama's Irresponsible Waffling About Gun Control"
Read it and weep!
August 24, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you folks for demonstrating once again that when conservatives OR liberals speak from fear rather than reason, they get it wrong to the point of demonstrating they really don't comprehend the topic at all. In counter point to Sarah Palin's "death panels" I submit the following exhibits:
PTroub:
"military machine guns" are not, in practice*, available to the public, and of those legally owned since the NFA was instituted in the 1930s, only two have ever been used in crimes (by police officers in both cases) NONE of the scary looking guns affected by the now expired "Assault Weapons" Ban were machine guns. The extent to which you might believe otherwise is a testimony to the effectiveness of propaganda.
Leonard Zeskind:
You might look into the definition of "Black Powder". It doesn't mean what yo seem to think it does. **
You should also know that the 30-06 you mentioned in a benign tone, has greater range, and will do far more damage to a human than the .223 round fired by most of the ugly black rifles you find so disturbing.
Now I know full well you think I am just being pedantic. You don't consider your misuse of terminology important in the least, and think I am missing the whole point. You are wrong. Like the death panels, rationing, and socialism wailing coming from those opposed to health care reform, getting the details wrong shows your opponents that you really don't grasp the issue at all.
Keep in mind that unlike the Pharmaceutical and Insurance peddlers, Gun manufacturers are not a high dollar lobby. To the extent that the NRA has funding, it is due to a handful of dollars from each of it's vast membership. The extent to which it claims political power is it's ability to steer the votes of those members. These members band together to keep legislation from being made by folks that don't know that AR-15's and the like are not machine guns, and don't know that no modern gun uses black powder.
*Production of new machine guns for civilian sale is currently forbidden by law, as is the importation of such. Grandfathered guns are scarce extremely expensive, and require large fees, background checks, fingerprinting, and large taxes. So if you are wealthy, determined, have no criminal background, and are willing to sacrifice your privacy, you can technically own a machine gun. A pure guess would be that about one in 200,000 gun owners owns a machine gun.
** Black powder is an obsolete propellant (since the last century or so) now used only by model rocketeers, historical reenactors, a minority of Cowboy Action Shooters, and a yet smaller minority of traditional muzzle loading enthusiasts. (there are several modern muzzle loading propellants superior to black powder) With a lot of research you might find a modern example of it's use in a crime,(Maybe one or two in the last 50 years) but certainly nothing to justify expensive tagging agents being added.
...of course there was that lizardcide when Captain Kirk defeated the Gorn. Is the Gorn embassador that is pushing BP tagging?
August 24, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I used the term "machine gun" loosely, not being a gun maniac myself or being otherwise familiar with all the lingo. What I meant was a gun, as in the one used to kill 20 odd Virginia Tech students a few years ago, that is NOT designed for self-defense or deer-hunting, but for spraying bullets rapidly in order kill many people quickly. There is no reason for any civilized country to allow disturbed 20 year olds easy access to such weapons for decades. Only one country does this to any great extent, and there can be no explanation without an accounting for a phenomenal slaughter of common sense.
Some of the accounting, no doubt, can be allocated to deliberate trickery.
Getting trivial "details wrong" means
getting trivial details wrong
Period.
America has a rate of homicide by firearms astronomically higher than Western Europe and only someone chronically unable to see the forest for the trees, or who has the small detail of a well-below average IQ, would try to argue that our insane gun laws are not a big part of the reason for this monstrous difference.
August 24, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tire of the heat surrounding this issue, but can we agree we have seen more assassinations than any of our western-democracy friends in the last century? Not that I know how to distinguish the Hinckleys from the Ted Nugents, but it's kinda creepy to hang around an Obama event armed, huh?
Even though Hamilton can be found to say specifically, in the Fedralist Papers, that he intends personal possession of a militia-friendly rifle (along with yearly drill practice), no one seriously argues that the 2nd Amendment includes artillery or missiles. So where do we draw a line? Obviously it is a judgment call, not a basic principle. Black powder, single shot, clip loader bolt-action, semi-auto small clip hunting rifle, .50 cal single-shot, handguns from air-powered up to 44 magnum semi-auto Desert Eagle, large-clip anti-personnel .223, large-clip 7.62mm NATO cal., surely there is some line we can agree on, and more important, how much regulation is appropriate?
How about this: you can have a cannon if you make it on your property, and grind up the powder yourself. Once we take our weapons out into public space why can't they be regulated like cars and drivers? I'd add the one extra thing, that purchasing a gun from a dealer is a public act and should be recorded. We have to register to vote, after all.
August 24, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Nor would you understand that it is recently passed state-level legislation backed by the NRA that allows those anti-Obama protestors to carry guns at public events."
This is wrong. No recently passed state level legislation allowed this. Laws only restrict what you can do, they do not tell you what you are allowed to do. No law (as far as I know) in AZ or NH regulates "open carry." There is no "open carry law." Since there is no law against open carry it is legal. Check your facts.
August 25, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zeskind here. On the question of does the NRA attack Obama and Sotomayor as a "manufactured issue" or just to raise funds. I would venture it is a little of both. The NRA has had a "culture war" perspective for over a decade, enunciated most infamously by Charlton Heston at a convention of conservatives. At the same time, it does need to constantly raise money from its members, although the last time I looked (for a Rolling Stone piece in 1995), the NRA's annual budget was already over $100 million a year back then. On the technics questions, I do not want to turn this into a Guns and Ammo conversation. I used the reference to the bolt action 30-06 because it is a hunter's rifle, and not a piece of "survivalist" gear. Yes, if you hunt deer with a .223 bullet, you must use one that is heavily weighted to meet regulations (at least in Missouri). The folks who are buying AKs and AR-15s are not using them to go after deer or elk. As to black powder: as I understand it, the Congressional debate was about taggants in black powder, and the NRA opposed them while law enforcement agencies support the taggant requirement. If I am wrong on that point please let me know. As to "open carry" laws, I will double check. We all know that the NRA has been extremely active pushing for "concealed carry" laws.
August 25, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Taggants in black powder -- yes, I think you're right. From the Executive Summary to Black and Smokeless Powders: Technologies for Finding Bombs and the Bomb Makers, published by the National Research Council in 1998 (my bolding, and any typos are mine as well):
It goes on to note that a 1997 amendment to the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996" required the Treasury Department to conduct a separate study of the feasibility of adding taggants to black and smokeless powders, which had been excluded from the original study of adding markers and taggants to high explosives in the original legislation.
The NRC says in this study that between 1992 and 1996, the number of reported bombings using these powders averaged about 650 per year. The number of "significant" bombing incidents (defined as actual bombings resulting in, or attempted bombings capable of causing, death or injury or a minimum of $1000 in property damage) was 250-300 per year. A little more common than one or two in the last 50 years.
August 25, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you enjoyed the previous 8 years, just keep pushing a gun grabbing agenda.
There are but few non-coastal states where an anti-gun democrat can expect to be elected. It plays OK in a few urban congressional districts, but overall, pushing gun regulation is a losing position. Passage of the Brady bill did wonders for the number of republicans elected to congress in 1994, and I doubt this lesson was lost on the righty tighties. If this congress passes strong gun regulation, I will need to start a pool as to who will be the new Newt.
My suspicion is that the morons that are showing up to rallies armed to the teeth are trying to provoke exactly the hysterical over-reaction from progressives that we see in this thread. Like Bush's stupid reaction to the 9/11 attacks, the obvious approach will provide emotional satisfaction in the short term, but prove to have disastrous consequences in the long run. Like the abortion issue, republican politicians don't really care one way or the other, (No money in it) but are more than willing to exploit the strong emotions to deliver votes.
PTroub:
There are plenty of 20 year olds with _real_ machine guns wandering the airports and trains stations of Europe....but then I suppose that police and Army personnel are never, ever "disturbed". I guess the VERY strict anti-gun laws for civilians in Mexico accounts for their low murder rate...oh wait..it is higher than the US, so Mexico must not be a "civilized" country after all ("no true Scotsman" fallacy). Of course you'll point to Canada, and I'll note that Canadian gun laws are far more lax than Mexico's, showing a correlation that doesn't do much to support your position. Australia has seen NO drop in violent crime or murders since virtually eliminating private gun ownership. True the criminals aren't using guns so much anymore, but I guess when I'm dead it won't matter too much if I was killed with a knife or with a gun.
The Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) had little/no effect on crime, because such guns were never much used by criminals. To the extent that they encourage "spray and pray" tactics rather than carefully aimed fire, they most likely serve to reduce carnage when used by nut cases in high profile crimes. Because the AWB eventually expired, we have had two opportunities to measure the correlation between such a law and violent crime, and in neither case has any correlation been observed.
Oh yes, this:I guess we should follow advice on health care reform from people who don't know the difference between democratic socialism, and national socialism...just minor details after all, they sound pretty much alike, so why quibble?
Tom Wright:
Existing laws already represent a compromise. The lines you suggest having been long established: .50 cal maximum for rifles. No short barreled rifles or shotguns. No silencers. No machine guns. No artillery. No grenades. No bombs. While many gun enthusiasts would like to relax these restrictions, there is no legislative push to do so.
That you might want to extend these restrictions is exactly why hunters and target shooters do NOT find your positions in the least reasonable. After the "Assault Weapons" Ban (AWB)was passed, there was talk in the halls of congress about going after "sniper rifles". "Slippery Slope" is not a logical fallacy when the opposition demonstrably moves the goalposts after each and every compromise. Sarah Brady has publicly admitted that this EXACTLY the strategy she supports. Note that this is the the same tactic the right is using on health care: Public option IS the reasonable compromise....it is single payer that is/was the progressives' goal.
If you hate all guns, and want to ban them, then press that agenda, for holding such an opinion is certainly your right. BUT:
1)This pretending that you only want to ban certain guns, (which you can't define beyond "I know it when I see it") and that only the unreasonable would oppose you is blatant dishonesty that I will never support. Hunters and target shooters, mostly, have at last caught on to the attempts drive a wedge between them and "those bad people who like bad guns". Gun owners HAVE ALREADY made all the reasonable compromises.
2)Stop inventing inaccurate, emotionally charged terms for things you want to eliminate: Very few assaults are committed with "Assault Weapons", and only a minuscule fraction of "Assault Weapons" are every used to commit an assault. Not one policeman has ever died after being shot with a "Cop Killer Bullet". Military and Police snipers have long employed what are essentially deer rifles. Re-branding these as "sniper rifles" is just another propaganda tactic.
3)Drop the silly "nobody needs" argument. Nowhere in the second amendment are target shooting or hunting mentioned. SCOTUS has explicit held that such a hunting or target shooting needs test is contrary to the amendment, ruling in US v. Miller that Miller's rights were not violated by the 1934 NFA because he failed to show that his weapon had a MILITARY purpose!
4) You need to admit that you didn't arrive at this emotional position through reason. It makes you look as silly as those who use "socialism" as cover for their deep seated mistrust of having a black man in the oval office.
August 25, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two lengthy posts from you kevbo, with nary a comment therein on the article in question by Mr. Zeskind nor the slightest acknowledgment that the US is off the international charts when it comes (a) to murders by guns that are not hunting rifles and (b) gun rules that mainly serve the interests of death merchants. Is the NRA paying you to recycle their BS ad nauseum or are you a true believer in their gun manufacturers' propaganda?
August 25, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well it wasn't I that made the "astronomical" claim without backing it up, but fine, I'll do some of the research that Mssr. Zeskind aschews.
There are 23 countries with higher per-capita murder rates than the US, many of them with draconian restrictions on private gun ownership. This hardly rates as off-the-charts. Cite:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
This chart shows the US murder rate to be only about half that in the world at large (weighted average at bottom of chart) and ~3X that of the UK and Canada.
Higher to be sure, but doesn't really meet the standard of
"2 : enormously or inconceivably large or great "
Cite: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/astronomical
Would more draconian gun laws improve our standing? It shure didn't do much, if anything, in Australia, and other violent crime rates, rape in particular, ( http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita ) accelerated with the gun ban:
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
"Bu-bu-bu-but we said _gun_murders_" you answer. I will concede that if you make guns scarce, then killers will need to find other ways to commit thier crimes. I'm sure the grieving relitives of the victims are greatly relieved that some of them were killed with nice friendly knives or clubs, and not evil guns.
And if it is those high profile, mass killings that are depriving you of sleep, That is probably tough to do single handedly with a machete, but you need to ban matches along with guns:
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-02/2009-02-09-voa7.cfm?moddate=2009-02-09
August 25, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw that same graph, convenient for diehard NRA publicist-fanatics no doubt, but it looks much different if you remove the failed state basket cases with endemic Civil Wars and compare apples to apples, e.g. the U.S. with Western Europe. If you want to compare the U.S. to Columbia, it wouls be more objective to use 1861-65 in which case Columbia looks like a non-violent paradise.
August 26, 2009 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for sharing. This information is very useful.
Best regards, Katya, CEO of facebook, metasan iscsi
March 25, 2011 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for sharing this. dissertation writing | custom assignment
April 5, 2011 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep up the good work. buy book report
April 5, 2011 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of virtualization high availability
April 27, 2011 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink