August 1, 2017 — I’m not a member of the NRA. Never have been because, as a journalist, even an advocate journalist, I never wanted a reader to claim, “You only said that because you’re a mouthpiece for the NRA.”
President Donald Trump is currently going through political training camp. It’s a place for rookies, especially the really talented ones who think they know it all but find out they don’t after they’ve been hit several times by experienced linebackers.
But we’re confident he’ll recover just in time to name another draftee to the U.S. Supreme Court. That’s all I need to support him and his efforts. No one knows – even though there are many who think they do – if all the enemy media sniping will take him out. It’s possible – but not probable – that should he have to resign, or worse, that some of the blowback will also take out Mike Pence, that he’d be leading us with another round of primary-like circus acts featuring people from both parties scrambling to move into the White House.
Either way, my vote for Trump last November was, as I said at the time, a vote for the Supreme Court and absolute protection of my Second Amendment guns.
But what finally got to me were all those wannabes who’ve bluntly said for suspect reasons of their own that they don’t like the NRA, which put up $30 million bucks to protect every gun owners’ rights, because it has become too political instead of “teaching shooters to shoot straight,” as they ‘claim’ they used to do. (Breaking News: They still do).
Not every American is going to see the target through the same prism shooters do. The NRA only has some five million members and anti-NRA’ers like to say that the NRA doesn’t speak for every gun owner. That’s when the anti-gun nuts break out the “Hate The NRA” banners and attempt to show their strength by ‘marching” (I’d bet that unless they’ve been to boot camp they don’t have a clue what marching is) a couple miles in defiance of America’s gun rights.
That brought to mind a headline story last week in The Trace, a quasi left-leaning but mostly professionally done online publication supported by Michael Bloomberg’s checkbook. The big black boldface headline read, “The NRA Annoyed Me Into Quitting — But I Get Why Some Gun Owners See It as a ‘Necessary Evil.”
The piece was allegedly based on the recent Pew Survey that, depending on which way, right or left, you sway when it comes to guns and gun ownership, provided interesting results. Without degrading the Pew organization, or any other from the same army of surveyors and serial “study” rapists, such surveys are generally accepted by media as the gospel from the mount, even though – as ‘practical’ as they may be in ‘sampling’ say, 1000 Americans as representative of 100 million American gun owners – they turn up answers pro or con, one way or the other, about how in this case gun owners state their ‘for’ or ‘against’ stance on such issues as universal background checks, concealed or open carry, national reciprocity, semi-auto rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
Without disparaging the professional surveyors or college “study” collectives, it might be wise to consider that most “studies,” polls, and surveys are designed to do one thing; provide the client who’s paying for the event with the kind of results they want. The so-called Big Pharma is famous for this. They want to sell their pills or ‘relief products’ and they have to get the word out by advertising the product’s benefits to the afflicted.
They hire someone to do a “study,” an outfit that has a reputable background for no nonsense results. Like a college or a professional association. If the study were to reveal that five out of ten people surveyed had nothing good to say about the product the authors of the study would be fired on the spot. You can’t sell relief by reporting to the guy who’s paying you for the results they want that half the people interviewed wouldn’t buy the product, would you?
So the guy who The Trace interviewed is a 27-year old tech industry analyst from San Diego who says he was an NRA member for two years before he became disillusioned by the NRA’s gun rights protection tactics and he quit the group.
“I became a member when I was really young, like 18 or 19,” The Trace quoted him as saying. “ I had just started getting really interested in guns. I thought that, by joining, I’d get cheaper classes, discounts on guns, and I’d be protecting my right to own a gun by the time I was able to buy one. I think I was a member for about one or two years. The main reason I left was they were bombarding me with emails and political garbage I had no interest in. So I quit. I had to call them to get myself removed from their lists.”
Hey, it’s a free world, right?
The young man certainly has every right to pick and choose with whom he associates. And if he doesn’t care for how they run their business – even if it’s the business of protecting his gun rights – he has every right to quit the NRA.
But, without the NRA and their deep pockets, Donald Trump would still be running beauty contests and firing people – yeah, we know, he’s still doing that on the nightly TV news – for entertainment.
Because those puny little bunch of five million members and the people who raised the big bucks – just like the pollsters (who were all wrong, remember?) – were able to put up $30 million, we now have a Supreme Court who will let the young man The Trace profiled keep his guns. Unless, of course, he moves like so many other millennials to the tech world of liberal-inundated California.
So for those of us – the other 95 or so million gun owners without an NRA membership card but who strongly support the organization’s efforts to speak for us, we gladly say ‘thank you’ for putting up the dollars instead of donuts to assure the protection of our gun rights.
All the way to the Supreme Court.