Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Myths, Lies and Bullshit from the NRA

Having served in a Marine Corps Force Recon unit and being a hunter, I have spent a good amount of time around guns; I am very familiar, effective and proficient with a variety of deadly weapons. I've also been working to counter the National Rifle Association (NRA)’s bullshit for many years. Here's some of the biggest lies, distortions, myths and misconceptions they spread:

BULLSHIT: We need guns to defend ourselves against "bad guys." 

TRUTH: For every "bad guy" killed with a gun in our nation about 40 innocent people are killed. Many of these deaths involved kids involved in gun accidents. Statistically, people are far more likely to be killed by keeping loaded guns their homes, unless they are well-trained in the safe handling and use of firearms -- which most most gun owners are not. (It seems those most eager and ready to use guns have never actually been involved in gun-related violence; in reality it's not the macho, bravado, masculine experience they think it is, and as is often portrayed in movies.)

BULLSHIT: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people.' You can kill people with a baseball bat as easy as a gun. 

TRUTH:  It's a hell of a lot easier to kill a lot of people quickly with the right choice of weapons. Nobody can kill 22 kids in less than five minutes with a baseball bat. It's a lot easier to kill people when you have a weapon designed and made to efficiently kill lots of people in a short amount of time. This is why I was issued M16-A2 rifles, HK 9mm submachine guns, M60 machine guns, M240 grenade launchers and other potent, deadly weapons in the Marine Corps -- not baseball bats.

BULLSHIT: "We need guns to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government." 

TRUTH: Do people really think so little of our men and women in uniform to think they are like robots who will turn on their own friends, family and citizens when ordered to? As a Marine veteran, I find that pretty insulting. And in the highly unlikely (nearly impossible) event that a "tyrannical" U.S. government turns on us do people really think they can defend themselves against a modern Marine Corps, Army, Navy and Air Force? They better quickly arm themselves with a big arsenal of machine guns, grenades, grenade launchers, mortars, anti-aircraft missiles, tanks, air craft carriers, fighter jets, drones and other weapons; get themselves in good shape and start studying and training hard.  Even then, my money is on the Marine Corps; I sure wouldn't want to go against them, and I’m a highly-trained Marine. The real and actual threats of current gun violence seems more urgent than far-fetched delusions of a tyrannical government turning against us. Go dump tea in Boston harbor if you want, but let's face and deal with reality instead of indulging in paranoid fantasies.

BULLSHIT: Any and all restrictions on guns violate of our Constitutional rights. 

TRUTH: There have and always will be restrictions on Second Amendment rights. Even our "founding fathers" who crafted and approved of the amendment often fervently disagreed on it. Constitutional scholars, politicians, and others have had many rationale, reasonable, heated debates over it ever since. I am not allowed to have an M60 machine gun, an M240 grenade launcher, an M67 Abrams tank, a LAAW (Light Anti Tank Assault Weapon), Stinger anti-aircraft missile or a nuclear warhead. Those all seem like reasonable restrictions to me. We all draw the line somewhere.

Where does the NRA and its supporters draw the line? And why is it they think that wherever they chose to draw the line is what the rest of our nation should except --  and that any restrictions that cross their line is unconstitutional?

There is no legitimate reason for citizens to own weapons designed and made to rapidly kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. The risks and dangers to our nation and innocent people far outweigh any benefit that can possible be gained. The NRA defends the rights of people to own pretty much any sort of weapon they desire -- not because of Second Amendment rights, but because they have become an arm of and public relations firm for a huge, powerful, wealthy and influential gun and weapons manufacturing industry. They have purchased our Congress to do its bidding through money, threats and intimidation. It's about profit, not the Constitution.

And so they feed people lies, distortions, misconceptions and bullshit to rally flag-waving, so-called "patriots" to protect industry profits under the guise of "Constitutional rights."

The saddest part: That so many ignorant Americans believe them and serve as their pawns.

9 comments:

  1. It's a sad state as they will always preach to the lowest common denominator, and we all know they take what is given from the proper channels. Pitting people against their own best interests.. where have I heard that before?

    I'm a lifelong hunter and was lucky enough to grow up with a father who HAMMERED gun safety, etiquette, and respect into my head from a very early age. He still asks me to this day if the gun I'm bring in the house is open and unloaded.. and I'm 30. He belongs to the NRA, I do not. But it's no use changing a near 70 year old mans mind who's just as stubborn as I am. He doesn't own assault weapons, but he supports people's rights to have them.

    I don't like military style weapons in non-military hands. Even ex-military. Sure they can be modded for hunting, but we've had much more effective tools for the job for years. All the rhetoric is just that.. and sadly we are in a very tiny minority as modern outdoorsman.


    ReplyDelete
  2. Again, brilliant! Everything you write is excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Glad I stumbled across your site. For some reason I found it after watching a video of a Mexican artist who had gotten his hands on hundreds of guns, seized by the Mexican Gov...he had turned then into musical instruments and had a group playing...good old internet. Anyway, thanks for giving a s..t.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Question was Nazi Germany a myth? Truth: we are following in their footsteps right now, have been doing so since 911. That is why I support the right of the law abiding citizen to have the arms to protect themselves. The Constitution has served us well before Clinton became President, since he was in office there has been a steady attack against it, now more then ever.

    The rights to free speech, voting, and to have a private life all are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Take the 2nd away, the others will go away too.

    Truth about numbers: children who are killed with guns, guess what, most of them are the under 18 who are dealing drugs or fighting gangs and who gets to sell drugs where. Take those numbers out of the equation and the numbers of child deaths do to accidental shootings has dropped because of programs that the NRA developed, like Eddie Eagle.

    Lets be honest, when one side wants to use static’s to prove their point, they can skew the numbers to say what they want. The BS comes from not being real with the data and trying to change to a safer society. Since when does giving up a liberty make you safer?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Two wrongs do not make a right - why insist on the right to own something purely designed to kill? Every war/argument etc ends with dialogue and understanding each others point of view. Sane and rational people try to learn as they progress through life - read up on Harry Patch.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. End the drug prohibition and as a side effect you will eliminate much of the gun crime in the U.S. Drug profits are what fuel the black market for guns as well. It wasn't all that long ago that blacks in the south were living as serfs and armed groups protected the activists from lynchings.

    ReplyDelete
  8. More bullshits:

    Bullshit: Cats are a menace (in the current issue of American Hunter published by NRA, title, "Prowling Felines" Aug 2015).

    Truth: even the article admits there is no known effect of toxoplasmosis or anything else, on Whitetails, that slaughterhouses are at LEAST 38% affected by T. gondii, and that there isn't any risk to humans except under low immunity conditions ... significantly, they don't mention the risk to pregnant women. Why is that? They also don't mention that any cat that has regular vet care is free of the disease.

    They also vilify cats as if foxes don't kill just as many birds and "small mammals" as cats. Should we consult history and see that the Black Death coincided with an anti-cat program that led to large numbers of "small mammals" such as mice and rats carrying infected fleas to populated towns? Hmm... maybe they need to look further. Maybe those hunters are just jealous they didn't think of it first. You're not much of a hunter if you don't understand psyching out your prey.

    Bullshit: On a final anti-cat note, the same current issue mentions that you can now go to Zambia to hunt big cats again.

    Truth: Hunting of jackals not mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  9. More bullshits part 2:

    Bullshit: We're a conservation organization. We're environmentalists.

    Truth: In the NRA sponsored hunting class I took to get my license, they actually said in a totally unqualified manner: "No hunter has ever hunted anything to extinction." Well, I could've accepted "No hunter in the last 50 years, in the USA" or some such statement, but what a load of hog slurry. The average hunter is not concerned with conservation, they're concerned with getting a meal or a trophy.

    Using the kill would be conservationist. Restrictive laws that don't allow you to sell the skin to someone who wants it if you don't, even for a nominal fee, and in some places, you can't even GIVE the skin away... these are not conservation practices because it forces the people who want the leather to hunt separately and maybe they will waste the food portion.

    They only published their conservation mission in the previous issue (June or July? 2015), it had literally never been published before (according to them) and it would take someone with more expertise than me to find the holes in it, but it seemed way too vague to my eyes. They seem to assume that the suburban environment is the only one. Wilderness is totally ignored in the conservation statement. There is little wilderness left, but enough that it should get a mention. It isn't mentioned because of the commercial interests, I think... loggers would be mad. But conservationists and loggers are often at ahem, loggerheads.

    Bullshit: Trapping is bad. Use a gun, get a "clean kill" it's merciful.

    Truth: While torturous trapping is indeed an unnecessary cruelty, it's far safer to kill an animal in a trap than it is to shoot across a field at a free animal during hunting season with a bunch of goofballs who don't wear hunter orange hiding everywhere, especially the bow hunter goofs. Yeah, bow hunting is reallllly merciful. Uh huh. Admit that you like the hunter-prey relationship and you want to use a bow because it's fun, ok? Don't go bs-ing about clean kill when dealing with bow hunting. Using the most efficient means to kill something is a clean kill, that' a gun or a humane trap and a gun. The latter option will save the most human lives. But for some reason it's banned in most places. I guess because we're too dumb as a society to devise smarter traps and too lazy to try implementing them. So saving lives is not the goal of the NRA either.

    There's no reason why the number of traps couldn't be limited, or the type. We're just dumb and lazy on this subject. And the cost is human lives as we shoot each other while hunting.

    The NRA as it is today turns my stomach and I can't wait until my membership runs out. I suppose I could cancel and give them an earful, but I don't think they'd listen. They have an agenda and that's all that's true to them.

    ReplyDelete