I
Hunt, but the N.R.A. Isn’t for Me
By
LILY RAFF McCAULOU
Published:
April 24, 2012
Bend, Ore.
“Let’s say, for argument’s sake,
that every N.R.A. member is also a hunter — which is highly unlikely,
considering that the most comprehensive national survey of firearm ownership to
date found that only 35 percent of gun-owning households say they hunt. Even
then, the N.R.A. would represent only
“The N.R.A. has
never had much to do with hunting. It was founded in 1871 by two veteran Union
officers who were dismayed by the poor marksmanship of their Civil War troops.
The organization promoted safe gun handling and target practice. By the 1970s,
after rising gun violence prompted a national debate over the interpretation of
the Second Amendment, the N.R.A. also made it its business to oppose gun
control.
“On its Web site,
the N.R.A. calls itself the “largest pro-hunting organization in the world.”
Yet during election season, the N.R.A. makes endorsements based largely on
candidates’ voting records on gun control — with little if any concern for
their views on other issues of interest to hunters. Candidates who voted to
allow the ban on assault weapons to expire, for example, are labeled
“pro-sportsmen” often despite their weak voting records on environmental
issues.
“Even if the
N.R.A.’s worst nightmare were to come true nationwide — expanded background
checks, mandatory waiting periods, limits to the number of guns purchased by an
individual per month — hunting could continue as it has for more than a
century, with rifles and shotguns…”
If there are
that few hunters who belong to the NRA, the NRA can’t honestly claim to be
supporting hunters. Nor are they
contributing much, if any, to the purposes of wildlife and land
conservation. Those programs get most of
their contributions from taxes placed on hunting and fishing licenses,
endowments, and membership contributions from various hunting and fishing
groups such as Ducks Unlimited.
If the NRA members aren’t hunting,
they are ignoring a legitimate heritage aspect of gun ownership. It is certain that some NRA members spend
time and money fine-tuning their target shooting skills, punching paper. Others may participate in combat type matches
that require the gun owner to see a scenario and then make a decision as to
whether or not to shoot. Such situations
rarely arise for civilian gun owners.
The Trayvon Martin incident may be one instance when the gun owner might
have received some benefit from such training.
However, given the information that is currently verifiably available, I
doubt it. I think that the incident
displays an all too common failure to stop playing cowboys and Indians, Cops
and robbers, or Soldier.
The NRA, by insisting that there is a
valid need for organized militias that are controlled by the states, is feeding
a dangerous fantasy held by a lot of men who should know better. The commonly voiced argument is that the 2nd
Amendment provides for local and state militias intended to enable those bodies
to overturn a tyrannical government. The
local 50-person group that shoots up the old quarry once a month in the guise
of “training” is not going to oppose the United States Armed Forces and be able
to brag about it the next morning. Any
militia member who believes otherwise is in need of a rapid and brutal
education before he takes the field with his AR platform rifle and homemade
explosives.
The NRA needs to be returned to its
original purpose. In that guise, it can
provide firearms safety training and host shooting matches. If it convinces its members that they have
any ghost of a chance of engaging in a successful revolt against the U.S.
government, it had better sell them burial urns. Their ashes will be blowing in the wind.
No comments:
Post a Comment