If you’re a candidate for public office, as I am, you receive questionnaires from various groups seeking your opinion on the issues that they and their members care about. The first questionnaire I received was from the NRA, the National Rifle Association. I knew it was coming (I didn’t know it would be first) and was pretty sure I knew what I wanted to say.
Unlike many liberals, I support the right of Americans to own firearms. I’ve read the history of the development of the Second Amendment, and it’s abundantly clear that it gives citizens an individual right to own weapons. (Perhaps the best, most even-handed analysis of the history is “Gunfight” by Adam Winkler.) Millions of Americans are sensible and responsible gun owners, and I support their right to own and use those weapons. (I’ve never owned a gun, though I did serve in the military and was trained to use them.) That being said, I agree with Justice Antonin Scalia, who said in the case of D.C. v. Heller (the case that said the right to bear arms is an individual right) that Second Amendment rights, like all rights, are subject to reasonable restrictions.
I recognize that more could be done to keep guns out of the wrong hands. But I also recognize that the fight over guns is bitter and divisive and a major distraction, and so it’s a fight that I’m not interested in being part of.
That was essentially what I planned to tell the NRA. Keep the laws where they are. I know that will piss off plenty of liberals, but basically I’m a coward and I have no interest in taking on the NRA.
But then I looked at the questions. First, they’re not broad, open ended essay questions asking about my views of the Second Amendment and gun rights. They’re multiple “choice” questions, but there are only two choices. And they start out with a blatantly biased statement that is purportedly “fact,” and is what a lawyer would call a leading question. Then there are two answers set out in the following format:
A. Do you support Americans’ God give, and Constitutionally protected, right to protect their families against home invasions?
B. Do you support stripping families of the ability to protect their families (including pregnant wives, infirm grandmothers and newborn babies) against marauding hordes?
Gee, I don’t know.
So I decided to reject their premise. If they really wanted to know what I think, I would tell them. And I wouldn’t feel constrained by their simplistic answer choices. I decided to add an option “C.”
If you want to know how the NRA thinks and views the world you should read some of their questions, and their proposed answers. I’ve set out four of the more galling questions below the fold. (There were 25 in all. If you want to read them all, click: NRA Questionnare.)
They want people on the Terrorist Watch-List to be able to get guns:
8. Legislation has been introduced that would ban persons on the so-called "Terrorist Watchlist" - which is comprised of several secret federal government lists - from purchasing or possessing firearms. The listing process is highly subjective, highly secretive, and affords virtually no due process or opportunity to challenge mistakes. The Watchlist currently contains approximately 1.1 million names and is fraught with errors. At one point, for example, former U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (D.Mass.), former U.S. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), and children as young as two years old were included on the Watchlist. The NRA opposes the use of secret government lists to deny Americans their fundamental Second Amendment rights without due process of law.
A. I agree with the NRA that secret government lists should not be used to deny Second Amendment rights and oppose this legislation.
B. I disagree with the NRA and support legislation authorizing the use of secret government lists to deny Second Amendment rights.
C. I disagree with some of your contentions regarding the “Terrorist Watchlist.” It, like all human creations, is imperfect, but if a person is not allowed to fly on an airplane, they should not be allowed to purchase a firearm. I also think that this is the kind of issue that makes the NRA look extreme. If the NRA is truly interested in being a reasonable voice for the rights of gun owners, they should, on an occasion as simple as this, act reasonably.
They want to make “silencers” legal once again:
23. The lawful use of sound suppressors (known in federal law as "silencers") is becoming increasingly popular among shooters and hunters. Possession and use of suppressors is lawful in 35 states, with 30 of those permitting their use in hunting. Suppressors protect the hearing of the shooter and enhance control of the firearm. The NRA supports legislation to treat suppressors as ordinary firearms under the federal Gun Control Act, instead of regulating them like machine guns under the National Firearms Act, as is the case in current law.
A. I agree with the NRA and support legislation to classify sound suppressors as ordinary firearms.
B. I disagree with the NRA and oppose such legislation.
C. Silencers. Really? This is another one of those issues where you lose credibility with rational people.
They oppose the development of advanced “smart gun” technology:
22. Gun control proponents want taxpayers to fund research and development of so-called "smart guns" - i.e., firearms that incorporate technology that would allow them to operate only for authorized users - with an eye toward making such technology mandatory when it is sufficiently developed. The NRA opposes public funding for "smart gun" research and development, as well as legal mandates that such technology be incorporated into firearm design, and believes that marketplace technologies should be market-driven.
A. I agree with the NRA and oppose any attempt to use taxpayer funds to develop "smart gun" technology or enact legal mandates for its use.
B. I disagree with the NRA and believe that development of this technology should be publicly-funded and its use should be mandated.
C. Seriously? Why is it none or both? I support the funding of a wide variety of technological developments, including “smart gun” technology. I would not, however, support a requirement that this technology be somehow “mandated” for all gun owners. I also disagree with your contention that the underlying purpose of this research is to make the technology mandatory
They want to preserve the ban on any research into the safety of guns:
3. Government funded gun research was openly biased in the 1990's. CDC officials unabashedly supported gun bans, used CDC funds to advocate strict gun control, and poured millions of taxpayer dollars into funding "research" that was in fact advocacy-thinly disguised medical journal hit pieces against gun ownership. Congress investigated this practice, and in 1997 forbade the CDC from using taxpayer funds "to advocate or promote gun control". Notably, this prohibition does not prevent the CDC or other federal agencies from studying issues related to firearms use and ownership, nor does it prevent any studies by nongovernmental entities -- it simply states that CDC studies must not advocate or promote gun control. Recently, gun control groups and some anti-gun elected officials have wrongly attacked this provision as preventing all research and studies relating to firearms.
A. I agree with the NRA and support prohibiting the CDC from using taxpayer funds to advocate or promote gun control.
B. I disagree with the NRA and would repeal the prohibition against the CDC using taxpayer funds to advocate or promote gun control.
C. I support government funding of CDC research into a variety of public health issues, including questions regarding firearms and public safety. I recognize that some researchers may have an “anti-gun” bias, but under the current law all research has been banned. Perhaps this wasn’t the intent of the drafters of the laws in question, but it has been the effect.
They want to ensure that gun manufacturers are shielded from liability:
1. During the late 1990' s, dozens of big city mayors, backed by gun control groups, filed lawsuits against American firearms manufacturers to try and hold them responsible for the unforeseeable criminal misuse of firearms. The goal of these lawsuits was to bankrupt the industry by forcing it to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees and settlements. To stop this abuse, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Without this law, America's firearms manufacturers would have gone out of business. Had that happened, our military and law enforcement would have been forced to procure their firearms from foreign countries. Hillary Clinton and gun control groups have recently expressed their desire to repeal this important legislation.
A. I agree with the NRA and support the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
(Although I must note that I disagree with your contention that without this law “America’s firearms manufacturers would have gone out of business … [and] our military and law enforcement would have been forced” to buy weapons from foreign countries. That kind of needless scaremongering serves no purpose in a serious debate.)
B. I disagree with the NRA and would repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.