“Never let a good crisis go to waste.” –Rahm Emanuel.
After the latest shooting, as if on cue, and not unlike cuckoo clocks, crisis actors, scripted town hall meetings, and preprescribed outrage all appear right on time–as expected.
During the last week, members of the National Rifle Association, like me, have had to endure the expected barrage of smears and falsehoods that generally come floating downstream after a gun related tragedy. The biggest contention is that the NRA somehow “buys off” politicians to forward their agenda.
Before we delve into that, just what is the NRA?
The National Rifle Association was first chartered in the state of New York on November 16, 1871 by Army and Navy Journal editor William Conant Church and Captain George Wood Wingate. On November 25, 1871, Union Army Civil War General Ambrose Burnside, who had worked as a Rhode Island gunsmith, was elected president. Union Army records for the Civil War indicate that its troops fired about 1,000 rifle shots for each Confederate soldier hit, “Out of ten soldiers who are perfect in drill and the manual of arms, only one knows the purpose of the sights on his gun or can hit the broad side of a barn,” — Union General Burnside.
NRA’s creation was the development of a practice ground. Wingate sent emissaries to Canada, Britain and Germany to observe militia and armies’ marksmanship training programs. In 1872, with financial help from New York State, a site on Long Island, the Creed Farm, was purchased for the purpose of building a rifle range. Named Creedmoor, the range opened a year later, and it was there that the first annual matches were held.
Wingate then wrote a marksmanship manual.
The NRA’s interest in promoting the shooting sports among America’s youth began in 1903 when NRA Secretary Albert S. Jones urged the establishment of rifle clubs at all major colleges, universities and military academies. By 1906, NRA’s youth program was in full swing with more than 200 boys competing in matches at Sea Girt that summer. Today, youth programs are still a cornerstone of the NRA, with more than one million youth participating in NRA shooting sports events and affiliated programs with groups such as 4-H, the Boy Scouts of America, the American Legion, Royal Rangers, National High School Rodeo Association and others.
During World War II, the NRA offered its ranges to the government, developed training materials, encouraged members to serve as plant and home guard members, and developed training materials for industrial security. NRA members even reloaded ammunition for those guarding war plants. The NRA’s call to help arm Britain in 1940 resulted in the collection of more than 7,000 firearms for Britain’s defense against potential invasion by Germany (Britain had virtually disarmed itself with a series of gun-control laws enacted between World War I and World War II).
After the war, the NRA concentrated its efforts on education and training fo the hunting community. In 1949, the NRA, in conjunction with the state of New York, established the first hunter education program. Hunter Education courses are now taught by state fish and game departments across the country and Canada and have helped make hunting a safer sport. Due to increasing interest in hunting, NRA launched a new magazine in 1973, The American Hunter, dedicated solely to hunting issues year-round. NRA continues its leadership role in hunting today with the Youth Hunter Education Challenge (YHEC), a program that allows youngsters to build on the skills they learned in basic hunter education courses. YHECs are now held in 43 states and three Canadian provinces, involving an estimated 40,000 young hunters.
Gun Control
The NRA supported the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA), which regulated machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and sound suppressors. The NRA supported the 1938 Federal Firearms Act (FFA) which established the Federal Firearms License (FFL) program. The FFA required all manufacturers and dealers of firearms who ship or receive firearms or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce to have a license, and forbade them from transferring any firearm or most ammunition to any person interstate unless certain conditions were met.
The NRA supported and opposed parts of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which broadly regulated the firearms industry and firearms owners, primarily focusing on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers. The law was supported by America’s oldest manufacturers (Colt, S&W, etc.). The NRA supported elements of the law, such as those forbidding the sale of firearms to convicted criminals and the mentally ill.
The NRA influenced the writing of the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) and worked for its passage. However, in 2005 President Bush signed into law the NRA-backed Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.
The NRA-backed Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 prohibited the confiscation of legal firearms from citizens during states of emergency.
In 2012, following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the NRA called on the United States Congress to appropriate funds for a “National School Shield Program”, under which armed police officers would protect students in every U.S. school. The NRA also announced the creation of a program that would advocate for best practices in the areas of security, building design, access control, information technology, and student and teacher training.
That was a very high level view of the NRA, but back to the original question, does the NRA buy politicians?
The Numbers
In the years between 1998 and 2016, the NRA spent approximately $13 million on all candidates, parties, and leadership political action committees, according to fact-checker, Politifact. However, the NRA also spends money on ads, which amounts $144.3 million, plus another $45.9 million on lobbying. That’s a grand total of $203.2 million on political activities over 18 years, or approximately $22.6 million per 2-year election cycle. The NRA spent some $54.4 million in 2016 on politics.
Is this unusual?
According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, labor unions spent $1.713 billion on political activities and lobbying for the 2016 election cycle, and $2.2 billion on political activities in 2008 and 2010, and $1.69 billion in 2012.
Planned Parenthood, spent $33.9 million on outside spending from the 2012 through 2016 election cycles, according to OpenSecrets. EMILY’s List, another abortion group, spent $33.2 million on politics in 2016. NextGen Climate Action, which promotes climate change legislation, spent $22.9 million.
So, is the NRA actually “buying off” anyone? No. In other words, lots of groups spend lots of money —the NRA is not disproportionately “buying” politicians, and is not pushing politicians to change views any more than other lobbying groups. The NRA supports pro-gun candidates just as Planned Parenthood supports pro-abortion candidates. It is all legitimate to do so.
The NRA is a powerful lobbying organization, but not because it outspends other groups. They have close to 5 million active members, and a huge number of other Americans that agree with their agenda. Most gun-owners, even if they aren’t members, see the NRA as a vital organization in defending their Second Amendment rights.
Congress isn’t so much beholden to the NRA as much as it is to its own constituents, many of whom support the NRA.
NRA 2.0
Since its inception, the NRA has been the number one advocate for gun safety, legality and training. While overall gun related homicides may be historically low, mass shooter episodes just cannot be tolerated. The NRA has historically had the knowledge and training to take on these kinds of problems. In reality, they be the only ones that can solve gun related problems. The organization has to step up, and that may involve changes to its own philosophy.
It should be understood that not all NRA members walk in lock step with the organization. Many question what is wrong with a 30-day waiting period, closing the gun show loophole, limiting magazines to 10 shells. Why shouldn’t a gun owner have to justify why they own a firearm, especially if they own more than five? Should the data integrity be improved? Shouldn’t we know when someone is stockpiling weapons and ammunition? Should there be a limit on how much ammo someone can own? Does anyone really need a bump stock? Isn’t it pragmatic to try and limit the massive availability of firearms when it so easy for them to fall into the hands of bad actors?
It should also be noted that not all members are completely thrilled with NRA leadership, and have floated the idea of change.
The NRA can’t do anything about crime related gun violence in cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia or LA, but it can take the initiative to buy back illegal guns no questions asked. This of course will not end deaths from illegal weapons, but it is a start in the right direction.
As a member of the NRA, I am looking forward to an end to the divisiveness. I would like see a new era of partnership where gun and rigid gun control advocates can come together to make our schools and cities safer. We have to do this together.
About the Author
Excellent history and commentary Wayne.
A well-thought-out article, as one has come to expect from the Cape Charles Mirror on issues of importance to all Americans, and in there, you bring up two important points, to wit:
1) It should be understood that not all NRA members walk in lock step with the organization; and
2) It should also be noted that not all members are completely thrilled with NRA leadership, and have floated the idea of change.
As an observer, and as someone who lives out in the country surrounded by guns and gun owners who themselves are quite upset at these school shootings, this Wayne LaPierre is coming across as a crackpot who is out of touch with reality in his defense of the AR-15.
It reminds me of General Motors and the Corvair back when, attacking Ralph Nader as they did, and coming off looking like thugs and fools in the process.
LaPierre is looking the same way today with his stridence.
Personally, I have not come across anyone in my straw polls who is for the AR-15, and I am talking both gun owners and non-gun owners.
The universal question is what purpose does the AR-15 serve?
Nobody I have spoken to can see a legitimate purpose for their continued existence, so by defending them, Wayne LaPierre is putting himself in opposition to the voices of a lot of the American people.
That he might not be speaking for the NRA is therefore good to hear.
And talk about hype and hysteria, check in with the Washington Post article “Opinions | The NRA is losing its grip — on reality and on politicians” by Jennifer Rubin on 26 February 2018, for it is a doozy:
National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre and spokeswoman Dana Loesch have in recent days helped pull back the curtain on the mind-set of the NRA.
This is not a group that wants responsible gun ownership.
(Do responsible people have a weapon of war designed purely to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible?)
end quotes
Ah, yes, the “weapon of war” argument, even though it is ridiculous, since the AR-15 is a civilian weapon that fires semi-automatic, which means to shoot a round, the trigger must be pulled each time, so it is hardly a “weapon of war designed purely to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible.”
But there I go, off narrative, since the narrative today is that the AR-15 is indeed a weapon of war designed purely to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible, even though it isn’t.
Getting back to Jennifer Rubin:
This is not a group that is focused on making cogent arguments about gun legislation.
Instead, like President Trump and Fox News, the NRA now operates in the fever swamp of what used to be a conservative party.
Now, it’s a cult based on the preservation of Trump, a cult that requires conspiracies, bizarre rhetoric and out-and-out lies to keep its members in a high-pitch frenzy.
end quotes
Holy cow and zounds and OMG and WTF altogether here, Wayne, you didn’t tell us any of that.
But of course, that is the Washington Post, while this is only the Cape Charles Mirror, so they would know that stuff, being main-stream as they are.
According to Jennifer Rubin, the NRA’s arguments no longer depend on or even include facts; they are tribal calls to signal that it’s time for the faithful to toss away rational debate.
Oh, really, Jennifer, as if we are getting rational debate from Washington Post writers such as yourself who tell us the AR-15 is a weapon of war designed purely to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible, even though it isn’t.
Then Jennifer set her sights on the National Rifle Association itself as follows, using a high school student as her foil:
David Hogg, one of the surviving students now leading a movement to curtail weapons of war and organizing the March For Our Lives, immediately followed.
His candor was refreshing:
“Honestly, it’s just disgusting.”
“They act like they don’t own these politicians.”
“They still do.”
end quotes
Do they, Wayne?
A grieving high school student says it so, and the Washington Post and Jennifer Rubin say its so, so it must be so, or they wouldn’t say it, would they?
And then they shift the focus to National Rifle Association spokeswoman Dana Loesch:
“And what I want people to know is look at Dana.”
“Look at what she saying, is she actually saying anything or is that just a tone to distract the American public and distract her NRA members from the fact that she’s not serving them?”
“She is serving the gun manufacturers.”
“She’s not serving the people of the NRA, because the people that are joining the NRA, 99.9 percent of them are amazing people that just want to be safe, responsible gun owners.”
“And I fully can support that.”
end quotes
If what this David Hogg, one of the surviving students now leading a movement to curtail weapons of war, is saying about the NRA is true, that 99.9 percent of the NRA members are amazing people that just want to be safe, responsible gun owners, then where is the problem with the NRA?
Jennifer Rubin starts out the article saying the NRA is not a group that wants responsible gun ownership, and then she segues to a high school student telling us that 99.9 percent of the NRA members are amazing people that just want to be safe, responsible gun owners.
Is that what she calls “rational dialogue?”
And then back to the hysteria she goes, in overdrive:
One can see the contrast between the survivors and the older generation(s) of dogmatic, irrational NRA lackeys forced to raise the rhetorical ante in order to keep their followers in a tizzy.
Using broadcast TV and a stale convention format, the latter are desperately trying to keep a grip on the gun conversation.
The student leaders remind us that the NRA’s opponents and to a large extent the media have been far too deferential to the NRA and too respectful of its disingenuous arguments.
They grant the NRA’s arguments legitimacy — no matter how afactual or bizarre or off-point.
They give LaPierre’s unfounded assertions the same status as a scientific study, personal life experience and elementary logic.
That decorum and false equivalency have been exploited by not just the NRA but also the rest of the ethno-nationalist posse that now controls the GOP.
If nothing else, these students have taught us a powerful lesson: Don’t accept afactual hysteria as if it’s a legitimate political position; dismiss it.
Don’t afford respect to arguments from those who have nothing but contempt for their audience and disdain for facts.
end quotes
If we are not going to accept afactual hysteria as if it’s a legitimate political position, then it seems we should dismiss Jennifer Rubin and the Washington Post.
“Trump defies the NRA!”
That is the headline story in today’s Albany, New York Times Union.
Tis the season, apparently, to demonize the NRA.