(Credit/Salon/Benjamin
Wheelock)
I
was once told that even in "the land of the free" there's perhaps
only about five percent of what happens in life over which any of us has any
real control. That could be true but if
so, I wonder what the percentage was prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Probably much higher.
Regardless, whatever the percentage
may be, it's largely determined by the fact that so many of the problems we
face are those that we bring to ourselves.
With only slight prodding, we easily relinquish significant portions of
that tiny sliver of the control which we do
have by surrendering to our own weaknesses, insecurities, and in many cases, to
mind-boggling stupidity.
There are endless examples of
this kind of deliberate and seemingly senseless forsaking of control. Another case in point might be those
head-in-the-sand types who choose to build expansive, beautiful, and costly
shoreline homes, creating a stake for themselves amidst the breathtaking morning
dawns like sitting ducks cluelessly awaiting the arrival of the next
"Superstorm Sandy."
These observations stem from
what I found to be a somewhat myth-busting incongruity involving rank and file
National Rifle Association members and the leadership at the top. It's been reported
that over 70 percent of the
NRA's dues-paying members actually support
many, if not most of the gun restriction proposals vehemently opposed by NRA
leadership. This revelation was among
the torrent of intriguing insights to emerge about the group following that other Sandy -- Sandy Hook. Apparently, most NRA members actually support ideas like concealed carry permits; criminal background
checks for prospective gun buyers; a prohibition on the sale of guns to anyone
on a terrorist watch list; closing the gun show loophole; requiring mental
health evaluations; mandating that gun owners inform police when guns are
stolen; and perhaps most surprising, bans on
assault weapons -- all
common sense proposals against which NRA leadership has worked tirelessly for
decades.
Perhaps this incongruity
shouldn't be a surprise. But what does
seem surprising is how rank and file NRA members are able to get around the
fact that the leadership of the group to which they belong could give a rat's
ass about them as gun owners. The blind dedication they exhibit is to a group
that represents the manufacturers of the guns being used to kill others
including some who happen to be NRA. It
suggests that rather than functioning as a cogent defender of 2nd
Amendment rights, the NRA operates more along the lines of a sect. Here, its purpose is to cultivate the
understanding of its dues-paying disciples about the necessity of acquiring
more and more of the weaponry gun makers are dumping into the marketplace. And, by engendering this philosophy of cult-like
endearment to all things guns, the NRA seems to have earned itself cult-like status.
The NRA's impact on American
culture is inarguable. Guns are
everywhere. Thanks to the NRA, nearly anybody
can swing through a gun show and cop as many guns of any type without a license
or a background check. The only thing
the sellers are looking for is cash. Also
at the behest of the NRA, there are places in America that encourage residents to pack
concealed weapons including a town in Georgia where gun
ownership is mandated . It's an NRA-backed law in Florida that
encourages the use of deadly force to settle disputes rather than through
police intervention or the courts. All
you need do is claim to be "standing your ground." Florida is also appealing a judge's
decision to block a law which makes it a criminal offense for
physicians to offer their patients gun safety advice; all because the NRA
considers it "an invasion of privacy." Thank
you, NRA
Yet as is typically the case
with cults and cultists, those caught in the fervor end up relinquishing a bit
more of the control they have over that which is possible to be controlled. In this example, it's a loss of control over
the likelihood of dying in massacres like the one at Sandy Hook.
Statistics
from 2010 show that at the conclusion each day, guns will have been
used to murder 85 Americans, more than 3 per hour. The carnage invokes a caricature of American
culture expressed back in the 1960's by black militant H. Rap
Brown : "Guns, baby; Guns!" It's true.
Here in America, it's guns 24-7.
We are this planet's resident paranoid lunatics; the five percent of the
world's population that hoards
more than half the world's guns. And though fewer Americans are buying guns,
those who do are buying
them in greater numbers .
Brown was right. Like apple pie, guns
are an entrenched American cultural value.
Both have their place, but too much of either can have devastating
effects. The outcome hinges on the firmness
of the desire to exercise control.
For years, the NRA has
functioned like an entity whose sole purpose for being is to rally -- to itself
and ultimately to the gun manufacturers to whom it is primarily beholden -- the
financial support of its membership, and to then use its massive financial war
chest to wage war on sensible gun ownership policies. Yet despite the Sandy Hook massacre, other
than recommending
more guns in schools, the NRA has offered little to indicate a re-thinking
of its resistance to the kinds of gun regulation favored by over 70 percent of
its members. On the contrary, it seems determined
to remain a more forceful representative for guns than for gun owners --
many of whom may one day become gun victims.
Indeed, the NRA's success in
thwarting nearly every good faith effort at reaching a rational consensus on regulating
guns has led to untold numbers of Americans meeting death with the same kind of
needlessness connected to those of us who face premature demises brought about
by too much drinking, smoking, or obesity.
To apply NRA logic, excessive alcohol, tobacco and food consumption doesn't
kill people; people kill people.
Perhaps the NRA is justified in
its tireless 2nd Amendment apron-ducking and the rote carping of its signature
rationale: "guns don't kill; people do"
even if that implies that it cares more about the guns than the people the guns
kill. And of course, from the standpoint of a gun
being an inanimate object; they are right -- technically. But each time
some NRA honcho mouths this claim, he or she is correctly describing a sinister
exercise of the freedom of choice. Sure,
the concept of unfettered gun ownership constitutes one portion of the tiny
percentage of that over which we have control, but in this instance, it's the
control over life and death, which is supposedly the province of a higher
force.
Perhaps the time has come to tag
the NRA as a quasi-terrorist organization.
Or, maybe it should be declared a public health threat as we would a
re-emergence of the bubonic plague. After
all, what organization holds a greater degree of responsibility for the
pandemic of gun violence in America than the National Rifle Association? Sandy Hook seems verification of this; illustrating
how the NRA's usefulness as an rational defender of legitimate gun ownership
rights has become as outdated and antiquated as the muskets, Flintlocks and "well-armed militias"
which were central to the establishment of the 2nd Amendment way
back in 1791.
So perhaps now is the time for the
70-odd percentile of rank and file NRA members who actually support reasonable gun control
regulations to join us all in our effort to regain a greater percentage of the
control we now have over prolonging
lives, especially the lives of children.
But they need to be mindful that the only truly effective course of
action may be to swiftly and decisively kill the National Rifle Association; to
eradicate it as we would any pox on society.
And the best thing about it is
that like dieting for better health, it wouldn't take a gun to do it.
