SOME FOUR decades ago, as a seventh-grader in upstate Idaho, I participated in a basic hunting-safety program the National Rifle Association offered at our school. I carried my NRA safe-hunter card in my wallet all through high school — and with it, my impression of the NRA as an avuncular group dedicated to the outdoors and to safe, courteous, sportsmanlike hunting.
Which is what it was back then. As recent stories in the Washington Post and Salon have recounted, for most of its history, the NRA was a mainstream organization that promoted marksmanship, conservation, and hunting. After the headline-grabbing shoot-outs involving heavily armed, Prohibition-era gangsters like Al Capone, John Dillinger, and Bonnie and Clyde, the NRA even helped the FDR administration to pass the nation’s first gun-control laws, in 1934 and 1938. Decades later, it deemed the gun-control act of 1968 something “the sportsmen of America can live with.”
Comments
I am most decidedly not the NRA. The genie is out of the bottle in terms of the goverment being able to confiscate existing firearms. But unfortunately, the NDAA provisions to lock up Americans indefinitely without charge,, which Obama signed twice, the claim that the president has the right to kill Americans abroad, the Patriot Act, the TSA's VIPER operations, the FISA nonsense, and the NSA's new data center taking shape in Salt Lake City, give the impression that feeds into the NRA's bloviated rhetoric.
Well, as the recent government actions you cite show, government *is* out of control. The only question is how to stop it and turn it around. As much as I support the 2nd Amendment, small arms in every home aren't going to do it as much as a massive groundswell of opposition from the millions of US Americans currently doing little more than sitting on the couch while the government grabs ever more power for itself and its corporate backers.
But as a friend keeps saying, keep your eye on the ball. It's about rights, not guns.
Great column. Its interesting to hear about the roots of Wayne LaPierre's rhetoric. Clearly he has been spreading fear amongst the membership, and getting them to cling more and more to their weapons, for quite sometime. Recently I saw a film from the 1920's, featuring Josef Goebels, Hitlers propagandist. The similarities to the tone of hatred were quite eerie. The NRA is abusing all of us by claiming he and ultra-conservatives like him are the only ones who are true "patriots" and Americans. I wonder when conservative NRA members they will develop some kind of salute, as in "Seig Heil". Zots
Wow, so the NRA is like the Nazis? Keep piling on the lies. I do know that the NRA has to take a hard line because every time we give a inch to the gun control groups, they come back for more so we have to take a no compromise position. I am convinced we would be in a much worse position as gun owners without the NRA. And its not gun companies who fund the NRA, its simply law abiding folks like me who have seen over my 56 years what has happened to our rights.
Ah, the famous: compare 'em to the Nazis and win the argument ploy.
That got old right after Al Gore invented the internet.
Replace NRA with GOP and the column still works. My Rockefeller Republican father was disgusted with the party by the time he passed away.
Well to be fair the Party was disgusted with Rockefeller by the time he HE passed away.
Entropic, isn't it funny how many people have Republican roots in their family but run screaming from the John Boehner and Eric Cantor party of today? My grandfather represented the Republican Party and he would be ashamed of Mitch McConnell. Great post.
I think Scot is a little over the top here. What he is describing is the coarsening of political rhetoric, which has happened among all special interest groups. Are the lobbies which promote abortion not equally apocolyptic? Or the lobbies which are pushing for immigration amnesty?
This is the state of our politics today, and it is indeed ugly. But that ugliness is not unique to the NRA. The NRA just happens to be in limelight today because of the recent gun violence. But we saw all these same tactics used to oppose much of the last president's agenda, and it is considered mainstream, when the target is Republicans.
How often are Republicans actually the target of fact-free attacks that are picked up in the national media? Except from other Republicans, I mean? Where is the Democratic equivalent of a campaign season poll that found over 40% of Ohio Republicans giving more credit to Mitt Romney than to Barack Obama for the death of Osama Bin Laden? You will seldom see this acknowledged in the so-called liberal media, but the ugliness comes disproportionately from the right, and no amount of "both sides do it" hand wringing is going to change that.
Koch brothers
This is a good article regarding the NRA. A great many of us in our 60's attended NRA classes on hunting skills and safety. They were prominent at the gun club to which my grandfather belonged. But most of us drifted away after the years of turmoil in that organization and as it became more heavily involved in policitcal issues. Now a mere shell of itself in the public domain in terms of what it does for its members, it now simply shills for the gun industry and some very crazy people.
Sadly if my grandfather's NRA still existed they would have had some good ideas on how to write better gun legislation for the country. How to move forward in the modern world and keep guns relevant. I suppose for some folks the idea of living in a modern world where mountain men need not apply and where the color and culture of a modern America is changing is a hard thing to swallow. For them the NRA is a throwback a chance to hold back the tide. But neither they nor the NRA can hold back the tide of history and they like I will pass and the world will be hopefully a better place.
I believe that I heard on NBC that the NRA Convention was expecting to be overwhelmed with new members and attendees. Sadly, the far-left sees nothing but violence from old white people while the rest of us just want to protect ourselves, regardless of color or culture.
It's not just recent gun violence, but anytime one of these events happen the NRA is usually the first to claim that it would never happen if more citizen's were armed, or that this will be used as an excuse to take guns away. Which has decidedly never been the case, but the fear has to be siezed upon and used. It does show that political discourse has gone away, and that its taken place earlier than we thought, or maybe just started coming out of the woodwork then.
Still I found this one interesting, "if you have a badge, you have the government’s go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens", I could have said the same thing when people like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were around and claiming that if you were not a patriot you were a terrorist. If you were a terrorist you were not one of us. The terms and fear gets moved around, but its always there and wielded equally by both sides, anyone who claims the opposite is a hypocrite.
"but anytime one of these events happen the NRA is usually the first to claim that it would never happen if more citizen's were armed, or that this will be used as an excuse to take guns away. Which has decidedly never been the case"
Really? What planet you on? See what Cuomo did over in NY, or were you sleeping? Those people have about a year to sell their guns or become felons.
See the crazy laws Linsky wants to have passed here in MA?
"Has decidely never been the case"? Wow, make up facts much do you?
Now we see why Linsky was all over the press over this issue. He's considering a run for Middlesex DA.
Excellent, historical article. Very informative. Having solid background always puts things in perspective. This column should be distributed far and wide, and would go far to help educate the general public. Once more people realize what an insidious, anarchist group the NRA is, more could be done to deflect their far right-wing rhetoric and actions.
Interesting article. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people jump in and politicize every issue today. One person here suggests the you can replace "NRA" with "GOP" and get the same result. Another brings up Cheyney and Rumsfeld, et al. The membership of the NRA represents less than 6 percent of the legal gun owners in the United States, yet the organization inspires terror, hatred, and vitriol at an almost unimaginable level. I'm a gun owner. I am not a member of the NRA. The NRA doesn't speak for me. I do wish that they would tone down the rhetoric and stop giving ammunition (pun intended) the the equally rigid annti-gun people who describe gun owners as "nuts" and "hillbillies". We need dialog not angry discourse.
As a gun owner I'm with you on most of your comment. However, I don't think most of the anti-gun crowd and I don't even think most are anti-gun, just certain types, certain classifications, I don't think they consider all gun owners "nuts" and "hillbillies" merely those who take the NRA's positions regarding weapons and government.
There in rigid anti-gun crowd. People who think they are entitled to an automatic weapon are nuts. So please dispense with the false equivelency. There is nothing on the control side to compete with the lunacy of the gun rights mob
"...yet the organization inspires terror, hatred, and vitriol at an almost unimaginable level." And there's really nothing anyone in a spineless democracy like the US can do about it. You can have a dozen Newtowns and the result will be only more rounds of millions of ditless Americans going out and buying guns to "protect" themselves. The NRA feeds into this fear, it lives off of it. The leadership of this country--Congress--are handmaidens to the NRA, they'll do whatever the NRA wants. Why? They have no choice, they are terrified of these machine gun-wielding terrorists. LaPierre can do and say anything he wants because he has a gun, and this, in a word, is the essence of the NRA.
"machine gun-wielding terrorists" Well there is a new one!
Renaldo would like us all to believe that the US Congress is afraid of NRA members who legally own machine guns (which is a very complicated and expensive thing to do, so it is also very rare).
Talk about fear mongering, wow!
Anyone actually believe that a US Congress person would be threatened by someone with a machine gun? They do not even tolerate being threatened by someone with pellet gun.
What they ARE threatened by is the voting power the NRA is perceived to wield.
Then why do congresspeople not only CARRY guns themselves, but DEPRIVE others of the ability to do so?
Good article today. Always helpful to hear from someone who has some experience of being a member of the NRA, and sees the evolution away from moderation. The key to finding some type of workable solution for the gun control, and indeed most of the social problems we are struggling with, is to re-think the terms of the debate. It is no longer a situation in which it is liberal vs. conservative. It is not longer left vs. right. Those words have become meaningless. Framing the debate in those terms is misleading. The real debate these days is between sensible moderates and the extremes on either side. That is a much more difficult position to define, because by definition a moderate position has some elements of both sides of the issue.
One could also say that the debate should be between the vast majority (gun owners, households with guns, NOT NRA members,) and the vocal LaPierre-fronted NRA. CRONIN above, is correct: there are very few gun owners who belong to the NRA, but the media, mentality and money of the group enjoys a disproportionate influence over our elected officials and many Americans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-cannon/simple-truth-to-the-nra_b_2358827.html
"Now bear with me because this is where it gets fun. According to Bloomberg, an NRA website boasts that it had about 4.3 million members in 2011. Using its own numbers it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the NRA only represents about 7 percent of gun owning households in the United States and only about 30 percent of the people who use guns for hunting."
"So, while the NRA claims to be the voice of America's gun tradition, with their own numbers they are simply not.
The simple truth is the NRA is an extremely well funded organization that spends a LOT of money talking very loudly. Measured in dollars, in 2012, the NRA spent about $2,205,000 on lobbying. This is compared to the $180,000 spent on gun control lobbying. It is no surprise that the NRA is the largest gun rights lobbying organization in the United States. What is a surprise is how few moderate and fair thinking gun owners actually support their views.
Like any other political group backed by large corporations, they don't reflect the views of legitimate gun owners. They reflect the views of gun sellers and that is not American. That is what our forefathers ran away from when they left England. If you remember correctly, our forefathers created a Declaration of Independence because their voices were not heard over the political machine that was the King of England. Only this time the machine is the corporations that keep undermining a safe and peaceful society by putting weapons of mass destruction into the hands of killers with no controls, no safety mechanisms and no remorse."
So let's do something democratic! Amendment to the amendment? Popular vote to make certain types of guns, ammo, clips etc. illegal? What law-abiding American would not appreciate a chance to make his voice heard at the ballot box? Any group out there willing to get enough work done to put gun control to a vote?
I wasn't a member. The card was a certificate that said I had complete the hunter-safety program.
Having trouble posting this a.m., guys, but thanks for all the comments.
Great column! Thanks for the research and background.
Research and background are most helpful when they are impartial and accurate. Scot, your article was neither.
Here's my big problem with today's NRA. They treat any and all efforts at doing something about gun violence as a plot that has as its true end the confiscation of all private firearms. It makes it next to impossible to have any sort of rational discussion of the issue.
Exactly, Scot. The area where I grew up was full of gun owners and many of them carried rifles in gun racks with pistols in the glove compartments of their vehicles. These same people were usually hunters and they saw the danger of guns in the wrong hands. If you were stupid and even talked about pulling a gun on another person, you could be found behind a local bar or banished from the community. Who is the new NRA?
Well damn Scot, do you think that what NY has DONE, and the legislation proposed here in MA just might make people think that way?
The NRA does not have to say word.
Linsky: Make anyone who owns an assault rifle store it at a gun club.
Linsky: Make gun owners get insurance policies
The NRA is not making that stuff up, it is LINSKY!
I grew up around guns and I really appreciate this column. It's very sad that the NRA can stir up so much fear over nothing when our country faces real problems. President Obama has never touted restricting gun ownership, but the NRA has successfully scared the crap out of Uncle Zeke who owns a hunting rifle and a shotgun. Wake up, Republicans! Wake up King Wayne and the Radical NRA!
No, the NRA did not scare the crap out of Uncle Zeke. Cuomo over in NY and Linsky here in MA did that for them. Put the blame where it belongs. Zeke don't like having to sell his M1 garand from WWII cause Cuomo wants to take a run at the presidency.
The NRA, in which I still have a membership that I will not renew, is not interested in waking up, but only in sucking on the teat of its duped membership and complicit industry backers. In the mean time, I and as many as possible who know better, need to do more to call out the insanity that it has too-long represented.
When will peopel learn? The NRA does not represent gun owners. It represents gun manuafcturers. More regulation reduces sales. Plain and simple. They have duped the fools into screaming second amendment in order to cover their motive. The second amendment does not guarantee unfettered access to firearms. But even if it did. Any person who thinks that modern society should be held captive to what some people thought 250 years ago is an idiot. Is it a good idea now? Policies rise and fall based on their merit. Not on the fact that they exist in a document.
Yes, when will people learn? Can you spell Mao? Hitler? Pol Pot? Stalin?
Politicians do not like having an armed citizenry, the mere knowledge keeps them from getting any stupider than they already are.
h11: You could not be burther from the truth. What gives the NRA power? The fact that about 4 million US citizens are members, and we are people who vote and will contact our legislators on issues that concern us. That is where the NRA's power comes from.
Concerning what the Second Amendment does or does not cover, I suggest that you read the majority opinion in Heller v. DC.
Finally, if you think that the Constitution should no longer govern the US, there is a procedure to amend the Constitution. Instead of writing laws that violate the Constitution, amend it. That is how our Republic is supposed to be governed.
Scot, you outdid yourself today. The NRA changed just as you described. You did leave out that they still do many programs that have nothing to do with radical politics. You also left out that the NRA did not change all by itself in a vacuum. I am old enough to remember that we did not have a serious "anti-gun" movement in this country until sometime after the 70's. I would not speculate as to the cause of it.
But we all know that by the 90's, we had people like Dianne Feinstein wanting to confiscate all weapons, in her words "Mr and Mrs America, turn em all in" She said all she needed was one more vote. So exactly who was supposed to speak for gun owners as someone like Feinstein did her political dealings in Washington?
We have seen what politicians will do in the latest craze. Cuomo pushes through his legislation because he has a majority in his legislature, banning and forcing people to sell legal items out of state within a year. Now a bill is introduced both in NY and in MA to force gun owner to buy insurance. No one is fooled, it is a blatant attempt to reduce gun ownership by sidestepping the constitution. (by law, gun owner must have insurance. insurance company makes regulations. owner violates regulation. insurance company drops policy. owner is now in violation of the law) Who spoke for gun owners in NY?
It is just too bad that antigunners do not like that gunowners have a lobby group. I notice that you did not mention all the lobby groups with their hate speech that support "gun control".
How one sided.
Oh, I forgot to mention. Dianne Feinsteins Assault Weapons Ban (a manufactured term, btw) did exactly nothing in the end. It was all political grandstanding at the expense of her career goals.
I am not interested in having anyone tinkering with my rights so they can further their careers as politicians, ala Linsky.
Thanks for demonstrating Scott's point beautifully. Now, grow up will you? And give up the tin soldier schtick. It doesn't stick.
Thanks to the nut cases running the NRA, I can't be sure I can find a safe and responsible place to sell guns I want to get rid of, much less worry about the government taking them away.
Finally, it is the NRA that is encouraging, and would love, a government run by a Pol Pot, a Stalin, or a Hitler of its own making. That is what it, itself, is preaching from its own pulpits as it seeks to reduce all rights to its own vision of a Second Amendment Utopia. It is all fanatasy and self-inflated interest.
Sometimes I wonder if the hidden wish of Wayne La Pierre and his ilk is a kind of Alamo's last stand against a government take over, with all the NRA membership assembled together under their command and facing all the heat of the US Government.
What utter insanity!
What is clear is that adults with real responsibilities increasingly have less-and-less time for it, but it's growth and malignancy is wasting more-and-more of that precious time.
Good article, good comments. I support the right to bear arms, with sensible limits/checks. I am not the NRA. Wayne's Lapeirre's response after the Newtown shooting was just plain crazy. The NRA has become a shrill, extremist, anti-government, gun lobby, nothing more.
Enlighten me, what was crazy about providing security for schools? You do know that 26,000 schools in this country have armed security in them?
I will say that the line "Only a good guy with a gun...." was at best awkward. But then LaPierre is an awkward sorta guy.
This same analysis could be applied to most organizations on the Left, such as Planned Parenthood, whose radical screeds of today are a far cry from the cool, calculating, eugenics-based apologetics of its early days. (But don't expect the boy from northern Idaho, or anyone else at the Globe, to look at the pictures and examine the science that thoroughly discredits the myth of "woman's health" carefully constructed around Planned Parenthood.)
For that matter, Lehigh's analysis of the NRA applies equally to what passes for journalism today: advocacy-based, and driven largely by whom and what the reporter or editor likes, it is a far cry from those days in journalism when the facts alone mattered, and were reported by professionals who strove to be fair and to apply neutral principles.
Since 2010, there have been hundreds of state laws and several national laws passed that make getting access to abortion more difficult, in spite of opposition from Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice organizations. How many gun control laws have been passed in the same period? Any?
Those glory days of journalism you are so nostalgic about never existed; it's just that you don't like this particular built in bias. At least the publisher of the Globe doesn't send flunkies to tell nationally prominent individuals they should run for president, the way Roger Ailes of Fox News does.
NER: Because laws were passed concerning abortions, you think that laws should have passed concerning guns?
You do understand that abortion was in the Declaration of Independence (sort of, Right to life...) but definitely is not in the Bill of Rights.
Not so the case with guns.
As for the glory days of journalism? Yes, they really existed. One could turn on the TV back in the day, and watch about 15 minutes of real NEWS without getting some morons slant of what HE thought it all meant. In addition, they reported the important NEWS, all of it.
Menendez anyone? anyone?
I am always amazed when people post how NRA members are duped by the organization into buying MORE guns, and how it is all a big conspiracy on the part of the gun manufacturers.
Most of the members I know think the political articles are garbage and do not read them, me included. (read one, read em all, sort of like reading democrat/republican propoganda) But we do take a look at interesting articles that appear concerning old guns, etc. Sure, there are some tinfoil hat wearing types that spout their stuff, but that is a small minority.
But if anyone thinks that NRA members rush out to stores like robots to buy more, more, MORE guns because of what the NRA writes is a fool. Guns are expensive.
The NRA is a symbol for the anti gunners. It is also a huge target, because it is a lobby group they want it gone. It would only leave THEIR lobby groups in Washington. So of course, villify the heck out of the NRA. And while they are at it, try to make any member feel ashamed of belonging to it.
Nah, I like the fact that someone speaks for gun owners. I don't like the Brady Bunch's ideas, I know where they are going, and I don't need the NRA to tell me that.
"But if anyone thinks that NRA members rush out to stores like robots to buy more, more, MORE guns because of what the NRA writes is a fool. Guns are expensive."
Funny, I didn't notice that mad rush that cleaned out gun stores after Newtown. You didn't either?
Ina: that occured when Obama opened his flapper to announce HE wanted to start passing legislation. He has become the best gun salesman in history.
The NRA did not immediately call up all the members and tell them to run out to stores to buy guns.
Since Sandy Hook, NRA membership has risen by almost 1 million. Over 5 million guns have been sold since then. If you think those guns were purchased by NRA members, or influenced by the NRA, you are mistaken. It was caused by Obama and state legislators screaming they would start banning guns.
Remember, the NRA said NOTHING for more than a week after Sandy Hook. Within a few days, the stores were swamped and running out of stock.
Whether you belong to the NRA or not, there can be little doubt that there is a "slippery slope" of ever-increasing attempts by the political Left to limit and eliminate civilian ownership of guns. The original Clinton Assauly Weapons ban restricted the right of private citizens to own semi-autonatic rifles and magazines exceeding 10 rounds; when it failed to produce any meaningful decrease in crime (in the judgment of the Justice Department, not just the NRA)it was allowed to expired. Nevertheless, virulent anti-gunners like Nancy Pelosi have repeatedly called for ever-increasing restrictions, with a clearly stated aim of total civilian disarmament ("If I could, I would take them all"). In MA, we kept the Clinton ban; we then passed supposed "consumer protection" gun laws, and banned outright the sale of thousands of different hand guns, including some of the most expensive and well-made guns available; and now our Governor, despite the fact that gun crime is at its lowest level in 10 years (according to the FBI), wants to limit magazine capacity to 7 rounds, effectively banning even more types of guns for which no such small magazines are made. Is it any wonder that law abiding gun owners see a pattern of governmental intrusion into our rights, or that we see validity in the NRA's position that the untimate goal of the Left is to make us defenseless? It is a mistake to write off the NRA as a fringe organization that does not represent the concerns and interests of gun owners. Is their dialogue over the top on some issues? Sure. Do they contemplate the worst when fund raising? Sure. And none of that is dissimilar from the Democratic Party's fund raising claims that Republicans are waging a "war on women", or the Republican's claims that Obama was not born in the US. Exaggeration and hyperbole motivate the base - or so the current political wisdom dictates. But underneath the war of words lies the nasty truth that some folks do not respect the 2nd Amendment, and by incremental steps, want to eliminate our rights, as free men, to protect ourselves, our families, and our country.
Is that slippery slope why there has been no significant national gun control legislation passed since the Clinton administration?
NER: The slippery slope, the realization that gun control legislation does not work (contrary to what many liberal new englanders think), and the fact that gun crime has been on a steady decrease for years.
It could also be that some people actually believe the constitution means what it says.
Compromising with "gun controls" folks is like having a conversation with a cannibal concerning what is for dinner.
If you are smart, you don't have it.
Unfortunately, legislators have a problem with those four words "shall not be infringed". It seems our school systems have utterly failed in that some of them cannot comprehend those words. So they want to dance around thinking they can pass legislation that infringes.
Result? The lobbying arm of the NRA. That is right, the lobbying "arm" of the NRA. Contrary to what Scot would have you believe, the NRA is not purely engaged in lobbying.
And you have a problem with three other words in the 2nd Amendment: "well regulated militia". A poorly regulated militia is like what Timothy McVeigh was a member of in Michigan. A well regulated militia is one with government oversite.
NER, you need to do a LOT more reading of what the Founders had to say on this subject. They definitely would not have approved of government oversight of any militia. In their terms, the militia was not the "national guard" or any type of standing army. It was the people, armed, ready to be called to action.
In any case, that amendment serves two purposes, it establishes the right of the people to have a militia, and to keep and bear arms. The two are linked, but they are not necessarily joined at the hip. That is why SC decisions have come down the way they have.
Looks like the banishers of rational conversation have decided to throw their weight in, as is typical. And they will, no doubt, make sure they have the last word in this commentary, as well.
So gun owners are the "banishers"? Too funny!
If you really take a hard look at this, gun owners pretty much sit quiet until the "gun banners" go nutty.
It also seems you do not like us excercising our 1st amendment rights either. We should just be "banished" from speaking out.
While the NRA may no longer be my Grandfather's NRA it is the only game in town for gun owners. I don't agree with everything they do but who else is going to even make an attempt to protect legal, law abiding gun owners? The Globe? Scot Lehigh? Highly doubtful. The left is in control right now and the left wants guns banned....period, end of story. There is a proposal in Westford to basically ban almost all guns (see below) and confiscate them within 90 days or face stiff fines even if LAWFULLY POSSESSED. Is it any wonder that the NRA appears as extreme as it is? Scot, please report BOTH sides of the story. "No person shall sell, transfer, or possess any assault weapons, large capacity weapons, machine guns or large capacity feeding devices, regardless of the date of manufacture, within the Town of Westford. Any person in LAWFUL POSSESION of any firearm prohibited by this bylaw shall have a period of ninety days from the effective date to lawfully remove it from the town or to surrender possession to the Chief of Police." Board of Selectmen meeting on this tonight. I am hopeful Mass. gun owners and the NRA show up!
"The left is in control right now and the left wants guns banned....period, end of story." Yes, that's why there has been a wave of gun control laws passed after every mass shooting the last few years. Oh, wait...no such thing has happened.
I wrote that is what they WANT not what they got. Try to keep up.
Sound slike Planned Parenthood
This comment has been removed.
The NRA feeds on paranois
And you feed on Brady Bunch buzz phases.