The National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre thinks we should pay less attention to guns and more attention to the men and boys who fire them at schoolchildren, firefighters, and other unarmed innocents.
But isn't it past time we took the same approach to the NRA itself?
Isn't it time we stopped acting surprised every time the organization reprises the more-guns-equals-less-crime theme its paid mouthpieces have been promoting for decades and started inquiring more closely into who's pulling the NRA's strings, and for what purpose?
Because the more you know about today's NRA, the less credible its claim to be the voice of American gun owners seems.
And the better you understand the shifting sources of its vaunted lobbying power, the more you appreciate why today's NRA may fear campaign finance reform almost as much as it fears more restrictions on assault weapons.
Greener than grassroots
The NRA likes to paint itself as a grassroots organization whose political influence can be traced directly to the depth and breadth of its membership -- a roster of ordinary Americans that stands, according the organization's own figures, at a robust 4.5 million. The organization's promotional materials have long disavowed any forma affiliation with companies that manufacture or sell firearms or ammunition.
But although the NRA says its populist strength continues to grow, demographic data show a long-term contraction in the number of gun-owning households in the United States.
And especially since 2005, when it launched an aggressive campaign to recruit corporate sponsors for its pro-first-amendment message, the NRA often has appeared more responsive to the priorities of manufacturers and retailers than to those of firearm owners.
An April 2011 study published by the non-profit Violence Policy Center found that corporate donors had contributed between $19.8 million and $52.6 million in the first five years of the NRA's Ring of Freedom fundraising campaign, and that 74% of that total -- $14.7 million to $38.9 million -- came from companies involved in the manufacture and sale of firearms or shooting-related products."
Paying the piper, calling the tune
Laws that limit public scrutiny of 501(c)(4) organizations make it difficult to quantify, in percentage terms, the significance of such corporate support. But independent surveys -- including a 2009 poll, commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, indicating that 69% of the NRA's members would support a law requiring gun show dealers to conduct background checks of prospective buyers -- suggest that the NRA leadership's more uncompromising posture is something more than an amplification of grassroots sentiments.
If we think of the NRA as an organization that increasingly promotes the agenda of manufacturers and retailers rather than owners, it's unreasonable to expect that someone like LaPierre would ever back any safety initiative that might depress gun sales.
When questions about airline safety arise, after all, you don't expect the industry's spokespeople to promote solutions that would precipitate a dramatic decline in passenger traffic.
At the same time, the NRA's aggressive solicitation of corporate sponsors suggests we all should be more skeptical of its self-described mission -- and its claim that constitutional principles are at that mission's core.
Brian Dickerson is the deputy editorial page editor of the Free Press. Contact him at 313-222-6584 or bdickerson@freepress.com.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Does today's NRA still speak for gun owners? - Detroit Free Press
Dengan url
http://goartikelasik.blogspot.com/2012/12/does-todays-nra-still-speak-for-gun.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Does today's NRA still speak for gun owners? - Detroit Free Press
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Does today's NRA still speak for gun owners? - Detroit Free Press
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar