Photo (Web)  Business as usual. How can this position possibly be justified?
Feb 2017: 330)

The NRA continues to use the Second Amendment as a large part of their justification for maintaining the right of US citizens to own firearms without restriction (reference notes in footer). Their position is summarized in the following quote:

“The Second Amendment is not about hunting, target shooting or self defense. It is about the tyranny of government. It was born from a profound first-hand experience of how the loyal British subjects were betrayed on April 19, 1775, by their government, which sent soldiers to seize guns and ammunition. This is why Americans and in particular the NRA, are adamant in defending and preserving the Second Amendment. They know the tyranny of government.”

As a basic tenet, the NRA suggests it is only by arming the citizenry that government can be held to account. Think now about the nature of government in the US and Canada. What could possibly lead to a state of affairs in which it was deemed necessary for the citizens to pick up firearms and confront government? Our entire societal structure would first have to undergo such profound change that we would be in no different position than are the citizens of countries such as Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc..

With the advanced military-industrial complex that exists within the United States (and to a lesser extent in Canada), it is inconceivable the citizenry could ever mount a successful rebellion such as that taking place in the countries mentioned above. The entire NRA position is, in my opinion, simply a public relations exercise designed to justify the existence of the NRA as a title sponsor of the Republican Party.

If any modern, law-abiding, democratic country has deteriorated to a point where it was deemed necessary that ordinary citizens take up arms to defend themselves against each other or against their government, that country will already have fallen so far as to have become only a shell of it’s former self.

About the only organizations that would fit the NRA definition of being able to ‘fight’ a very limited guerrilla war against government would be fringe groups such as the White Supremcists and Patriots along other organizations such as the Sovereign Citizens in the US and Freemen of the Land in Canada. For various reasons I think the Tea Party has moved closer to becoming one of those groups and it is certainly not on the fringe as are the others.

On a positive note, the majority of citizens in the US and Canada recognize those organizations pose far more danger to our societal well-being than do the majority of ordinary citizens and the governments of our respective countries combined. Even so-called ‘terrorists’ cells do not match up to these fringe groups in their ability to damage our society.

While ‘freedom’ to own a gun is largely a US issue, it is one that also impacts Canada as the United States is our closest friend, neighbor and ally. The recent move by the Federal Conservatives to remove the Long Gun Registry and destroy all the records in spite of the requests by some Provinces to retain the registry, suggests their is an undergound movement to likewise lesson controls on ownership even though over 90% of Canadians support stringent gun ownership restrictions.  Within the United States, public support for greater control of guns is relatively strong, currently holding at over 60%.

As our two countries continue to evolve, it is important to see our futures evolving toward a more peaceful state of being, not nations in which organizations such as the National Rifle Association, White Supremcists, Patriots, Sovereign Citizens, Freemen, Tea Party and others threaten our well-being because of their fear mongering and extremism.

Just say’n…

Harold McNeill
Victoria, BC

Notes:

Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to gun lobby propaganda on this issue as “one of the greatest pieces of fraud…on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”  (Link here for discussion)

Wikipedia provides a short description of the 1939 US Supreme Court Decision (United States vs Miller) which upheld the right of State and Federal governments to place restrictions on gun ownership. (Link Here). Since that time a number of other Federal and State Court decisions across the United States have followed that precedent. That the NRA and others have been able to perpetuate the myth that the right of individuals to own firearms is protected under the Second Amendment ranks right up there with the myth that Christopher Columbas discovered North American in 1492. (Link Here)

Gun Ownership in the United States:  Since 1973 the percentage of individuals in the US owning a gun has fallen from 47% to 36% in 2011. (Link Here).  The number in Canada is estimated at 20%. The number of guns per 100 people in the United States stands at an estmated 88 (the hightest in the world) while in Canada that number stands at 36.

Canadian National Firearms Assocition (Link Here) Not surprisingly, Canada has its own NRA, although it is not as powerful nor as extreme as its US counterpart.

Link here to NRA Attack Ads

The NRA in Canada:  The February 10, 2013 edition of the Fifth Estate provided a very good summary of the NRA position. The report stated that by 2015 in the United States there will be more deaths by gun shots than in car accidents.  In 12 US states, gun shot deaths already exceed vehicle accident deaths.

The NRA opened a branch office in Canada in order to help fight our existing gun laws.  The organization provided considerable support and funding to gain public support for overturning the Long Gun Registry and destroying all the files in order to make it more difficult for the registry to be implemented at some point in the future.

Businesses in the United States are the largest purchasers of handguns produced around the world.

(545)

Photo (from Web). Further comments purported to be made by the NRA President are printed
near the end of this article (Note: I have not included a picture of the NRA ad attack on Obama, preferring
instead to point to the extremist views of the NRA).

Any who may have watched a US TV network over the past week or so, will likely have seen one or more of the dozens of Attack Ads mounted by the National Rifle Association (NRA) against Federal and State government attempts to bring in some form of gun control concerning high powered weaponry that is more suited to war. It is a small step supported by significant majority of citizens in the US.

To overcome this challenge, the NRA has targeted the Presidents daughters suggesting the President is being elitist because he provides his daughters the protection of armed Secret Service Agents both at school and at other locations to which the girls travel.
 
The NRA go on to state in dark, dramatic tones:  “Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” The narrator asks. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security guards in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools?”

The video continues: “Mr. Obama demands the wealthier pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.”  The last statement brings in the subject of taxation that is near and dear to the Republican Party.

This is the classic form of an attack ad used so successfully, not only by the NRA, but by the US Republicans and Canadian Conservatives in recent years. Many on the left suggest these ads have crossed the line, but there is no denying the ads are extremely effective in molding public opinion. The more outrageous, the more effective.

Democrats and Liberals have been loath to attack in the same manner preferring instead to use some form of logical, reasonable argument to present their case. However, it has become patently clear this will not work as those dark, vengeful, repugnant and cowardly ads will win hands down every time.

In Canada, pay attention to the ads the Conservatives mount each time something significant is taking place in one of the opposition parties. The attacks were very effectively used against Stephan Dion, Michael Ignateiff, Bob Rae (Link Here) when they were named leaders of the Liberals. Thomas Mulcair, on becoming leader of the opposition NDP, was vicously attacked on several fronts (e.g. economic, not a Canadian, etc.) with the same creepy pictures, ominous dialogue and scary music: (Link Here).  The goal is to define those leaders in the most unflattering way possible.
 
As the Liberals work towards naming a new leader you may have noticed an increasing number of attacks against Justin Trudeau and others. On the day the new leader is named the Conservatives will go wild just as they did with Ignatieff  (Link Here)  and other Liberals before Ignatieff. Hopefully, the new leader to be named later this spring, will be prepared to mount ads to counteract the effect. Ignatieff seemed to think he could take the high road, but by the time he realized he could not defeat those attacks with reason, the game was all but over.

Politics, as played by the NRA, Republicans, Tea Party, Conservatives and others on the right, does not follow the Marquis of Queensbury Rules (of fair play).  The sooner Democrats in the US as well as the Liberals, NDP and Greens in Canada wake up to that fact, the sooner they will be able to neutralize the attacks they know will be coming.

Over the past several years the Stephen Harper, members of his cabinet and the party in general, have provided ample fuel for these ads and in most cases there would be no need to exaggerate the misdeeds and missteps. Take any one of the following:

Moving the economy from surplus to a major deficit (as did Bush over two terms in the US), War in Iraq (calling Canadians who opposed our entry as ‘cowards’), the Omnibus Bill on changes to the Criminal Code, the recent Omnibus Budget Bill, F-35 costs, robocalls, Quebec request to maintain the Gun Registry, sidelining all environmental and climate change discussions, proroguing parliament and the list goes on. 

Just think how easy it would have been to create attack ads involving any of these many items or even an attack on Stephen Harpers personality.  Harper and his cabinet collogues could have been made to look like idiots, yet they walked away free and clear with only a little blathering by the back benchers in Parliament and a few editorials complaining and whining about the Conservative agenda.  It was (and is) painful to watch.
 
Now, back to the NRA and following on the comments in the lead picture, the NRA President might well have gone on to say:

“It is a known fact that guns save lives. The more gun deaths we have in the United States the more people will realize they need to arm themselves. The more children we have killed in schools, the sooner people will come to realize that we need to arm parents, teachers and even older students to protect themselves. In America there could be no better deterrent to gun violence than by ensuring every American carried a gun. We at the NRA cannot fathom why people do not understand the logic. Go out today and buy a gun, it will not only help the economy, it will help the United States to become one of the most peaceful nations on earth.”

What has stopped the Democratic National Committee from creating a series of attack ads on the subject? With very little effort the NRA could be painted as the war mongering, big business serving, agents of the Republican Party they are without even doing any digging. It would not take long to create the conditions in which their attack ads against the President and others would be turned against them. What we get instead is silence and that silence is deafening.

Harold McNeill
Victoria, BC
January, 2013

Link Here to a Discussion of the NRA position on the Second Amendment

(381)