In their newest video, the NRA proposes(among other things) that there be mandatory gun carry zones, some sort of rewards for people that carry, and that school children not be allowed to progress unless they take a gun course that would not just encompass what to do if they encountered a gun, but would require them to learn how to shoot. The video says that what is needed is an official pro-gun policy, that guns should be promoted as being needed “because guns make people’s lives better.” The video also proposes that, since the government pays for food and housing for the poor, why can’t it pay for government-run firing ranges and free ammo for the rest of us Americans?
I really don’t think that guns should be pushed onto the general public by the government, let along schoolchildren, and there is a world of difference between feeding a child and feeding a magazine.
I’m not entirely sure he’s being serious about proposing those things. Note that at the end he says that his proposals sound ridiculous and that “even 2nd amendment advocates can’t fathom a world where we treat guns as a need”.
I guess I’m middle of the road in the firearms debate in this country. I see no reason that the ownership of firearms should be outlawed, but neither do I object to reasonable restrictions on the ownership of firearms. I also have no objections to reasonable restrictions on the concealed or unconcealed carrying of firearms.
That said, in my opinion, the NRA is run by insane people.
I watched it again, and I’m certain now that he is NOT suggesting we do those things. He’s describing what a pro-gun policy would look like in order to prove that what we have is an anti-gun policy. It’s a bad video, because it could credibly be seen as offering policy proposals.
If you look at that page you will see that they have a series of these videos with this spokesman. They are throwing a bunch of shit out there to see what will stick-if people go “Hell, yeah!” they’ve got a movement, and if people get upset they say “What’s your problem? We weren’t being serious.” I do think, though, that the general tone of this video is that the NRA wants the government to be pro-gun in its policies…whatever that might mean.
John Mace has it: the video couches every comment about the pro-gun policy in “what-if” subjunctive terms. Nowhere in the video does he say, “We should do this.” Instead, he points out that our existing “gun policy” is unique: all other rights, freedoms and valuable social aspects are associated with policies that incentivize their use, by subsidy or by education about their availability. Guns, he says, are only right enshrined in the Constitution that our implementing policy seeks to limit as opposed to protect.
I don’t agree with any of them. I think the government has no need to take a pro-active position that encourages firearms.
I also believe the government’s regulation of firearms should be consistent with the understanding that the Second Amendment confers a broad individual right.
Yeah, that’s the only right the government doesn’t actively promote, and frankly I’m getting sick of all those PSAs telling me I don’t have to quarter troops in my home during peacetime.
It’s run by people who are primarily concerned about driving up business for the gun industry. I’m sure Philip Morris would also like us offer smoking classes with cigarettes purchased by sweet, sweet, government money.
Bad move by the NRA. I get that it’s a satire. I understand that the NRA is actually trying to argue against a government gun policy through the use of irony. But let’s face facts - irony flies right over the heads of a lot of people.
There are going to be a lot of supporters who pick up this ball and try to run with it. The NRA is now going to have to go around and explain to its members that they didn’t really mean what they said. These people are going to be left feeling confused and betrayed by the organization that wants their support.
Meanwhile on the other side, there will be gun control advocates who will take this as gospel. They’re going to run around saying the NRA wants to force people to buy guns. The NRA will try to explain the concept of satire but there are always people who can’t or won’t understand context. For the next twenty years, people are going to be talking about the NRA’s “real” agenda.
If they are treated as serious suggestions (which, as I said above, I understand they’re not) they’re really bad suggestions.
I’ve pointed out in some recent threads about the Civil War how the southern states made a huge blunder in the decade before the war by pushing slavery as a federal issue. They’d have been a lot smarter arguing that it was a state issue.
And the NRA proposal is making the same mistake. They should be pushing the idea that gun ownership is a matter of personal choice that belongs to the individual. Sure, they’d like every individual to choose to own a gun but they should go out of their way to say they respect the decision of those individuals who choose to not own a gun.
Because if you argue that the government has the power to make you own a gun, then you’re taking the decision away from the individual. If the government can decide whether or not you should own a gun, they can decide the answer is not. If the government has the power to make you own a gun then it also has the power to make you not own a gun.
Look a little closer-they aren’t proposing mandatory gun safety classes. They are proposing mandatory gun proficiency classes. Your kids are going to be marksmen.
Should we be scheduling the gun proficiency classes before or after the sex proficiency classes? I’m trying to figure out which way will have the students less distracted while handling firearms.