Another View - Join the NRA

I waited for my friend — a combat veteran of the First Gulf War — at a restaurant.

As I sat there, my Twitter feed was lighting up with news of Dana Loesch of the National Rifle Association who had put all of us lyin’ journalists on notice that our time was up. The practitioners of the First Amendment were being strongarmed by those who love the Second Amendment even more.

And as someone who cherishes the First Amendment, I support her right to freedom of speech. I also have a message for Loesch and her NRA zealots: Right. Back. At. You.

I believe the time for the NRA may be running even shorter than mine. I believe the organization has overplayed its hand because of friends like mine who know more about guns than I ever will (thankfully).

My lunch partner turned serious during our meal and said, “Now, I want to tell you something ... .”

When he begins sentences like that, it’s time to listen to every one of his measured words.

“When they talk about those weapons, oh Lord, do I know those weapons,” he said, pausing.

He got those faraway eyes. It’s an icy look I’ve seen, but never known. It’s the kind of stare from a man who saw a battlefield.

“I know them because I used them and they were used on me,” he continued. “They are not the weapons that are our heritage, they’re combat weapons. They’re tools of war.

“Remind people of that.”

I didn’t ask what kind of weapons he used, or what he knew.

“You want to go duck hunting? I’ll grab my shotgun. You want to go elk hunting? Let me get my bolt action rifle,” he said. “But there are just no reason for those.”

That’s what the NRA and a dwindling number of folks believe — that somehow weapons of war are the same as the Remington shotgun for duck hunting. But that’s exactly like equating a pickup truck with a tank.

Even a dense editor like me accepts that the federal buzzkills won’t allow me to have my own fighter jet, or acquire a fleet of tanks, or even build my own missile defense system. I understand those are tools of war and rightfully belong to the military, not civilians. I am not arguing that I have a right to those, even though I can’t find where God prohibited me from owning my own F-14. So not all rights must come so neatly packaged by the Creator, apparently. And our Constitution must have some limits.

I am damn glad for the men and women who have decided to carry war weapons so that I can concern myself with other things, like words.

That’s exactly why we have to demand more precise language. Media rightly opens itself to criticism when folks throw around “semi-automatic” incorrectly or believe that “AR” stands for assault rifle. But not all of us in the media are frightened snowflakes hellbent on taking weapons or guns. At the same time, we’re being intellectually dishonest when it comes to defending the civilian need for combat-style weapons. It’s not about hunting or self-defense. We have plenty of other firearms from which to choose. I am a fan of many of them.

If we want to have a debate about the right to own guns, fine. But we’re talking about a weapon more at home in war than at home on a mantle. And when we limit the capacity of guns for hunting, but not those used to cut down school children, well, we have our priorities wrong.

This brings us back to the NRA which has confused the issue by presenting AR-styled guns as the equivalent of your granddaddy’s Winchester. Besides a false equivalency, it’s also whipped up the worst kind of fear — of a totalitarian regime that will take your guns. But I have news for you: The government already owns big enough weapons that whatever a person has in the gun safe will be little match for the big guns of the military, already bought by the taxpayers of this country. In other words, if the government really wanted to take your guns, it would have done so by now. Time to take off the tin foil hats.

Ironically, the solution is probably the least expected: Everyone should join the NRA. Now.

For too long, the NRA has given good gun owners a really bad name.

Another good friend of mine suggested the only way to solve this problem is by gun owners demonstrating responsibility.

There are thousands of us in Montana who believe in hunter’s safety; who believe in owning guns to hunt; who believe in sport target shooting; who understand the power of them and don’t believe the answer to gun violence is making them as commonplace as a television.

More importantly, those owners also know the difference between a gun that can hunt or hit a target at 50 yards, and those that can mow down a company of rushing combatants.

Responsible gun owners need to overwhelm the NRA and demand a more reasonable solution. The NRA must be able to simultaneously fight for the right to purchase guns and stand against machines designed to kill humans in a war zone. It must stand for responsibility that tries to ensure background checks that may flag potential threats including those who would use a weapon to hunt kids at school.

The answer to the NRA is not to destroy it, but to reform it. Reasonable gun owners have to speak up instead of cringing and changing the subject every time one of Wayne LaPierre’s acolytes takes to the talk shows.

Dana Loesch was right about one thing — time is running out. If not for a change in adult citizens in America, the youth who are walking out and demanding change mean it’s not if our laws will change, it’s just a matter of when.

——

Darrell Ehrlick

Billings Gazette