Photo (Web)  Business as usual. How can this position possibly be justified?
Feb 2017: 330)

The NRA continues to use the Second Amendment as a large part of their justification for maintaining the right of US citizens to own firearms without restriction (reference notes in footer). Their position is summarized in the following quote:

“The Second Amendment is not about hunting, target shooting or self defense. It is about the tyranny of government. It was born from a profound first-hand experience of how the loyal British subjects were betrayed on April 19, 1775, by their government, which sent soldiers to seize guns and ammunition. This is why Americans and in particular the NRA, are adamant in defending and preserving the Second Amendment. They know the tyranny of government.”

As a basic tenet, the NRA suggests it is only by arming the citizenry that government can be held to account. Think now about the nature of government in the US and Canada. What could possibly lead to a state of affairs in which it was deemed necessary for the citizens to pick up firearms and confront government? Our entire societal structure would first have to undergo such profound change that we would be in no different position than are the citizens of countries such as Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc..

With the advanced military-industrial complex that exists within the United States (and to a lesser extent in Canada), it is inconceivable the citizenry could ever mount a successful rebellion such as that taking place in the countries mentioned above. The entire NRA position is, in my opinion, simply a public relations exercise designed to justify the existence of the NRA as a title sponsor of the Republican Party.

If any modern, law-abiding, democratic country has deteriorated to a point where it was deemed necessary that ordinary citizens take up arms to defend themselves against each other or against their government, that country will already have fallen so far as to have become only a shell of it’s former self.

About the only organizations that would fit the NRA definition of being able to ‘fight’ a very limited guerrilla war against government would be fringe groups such as the White Supremcists and Patriots along other organizations such as the Sovereign Citizens in the US and Freemen of the Land in Canada. For various reasons I think the Tea Party has moved closer to becoming one of those groups and it is certainly not on the fringe as are the others.

On a positive note, the majority of citizens in the US and Canada recognize those organizations pose far more danger to our societal well-being than do the majority of ordinary citizens and the governments of our respective countries combined. Even so-called ‘terrorists’ cells do not match up to these fringe groups in their ability to damage our society.

While ‘freedom’ to own a gun is largely a US issue, it is one that also impacts Canada as the United States is our closest friend, neighbor and ally. The recent move by the Federal Conservatives to remove the Long Gun Registry and destroy all the records in spite of the requests by some Provinces to retain the registry, suggests their is an undergound movement to likewise lesson controls on ownership even though over 90% of Canadians support stringent gun ownership restrictions.  Within the United States, public support for greater control of guns is relatively strong, currently holding at over 60%.

As our two countries continue to evolve, it is important to see our futures evolving toward a more peaceful state of being, not nations in which organizations such as the National Rifle Association, White Supremcists, Patriots, Sovereign Citizens, Freemen, Tea Party and others threaten our well-being because of their fear mongering and extremism.

Just say’n…

Harold McNeill
Victoria, BC

Notes:

Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to gun lobby propaganda on this issue as “one of the greatest pieces of fraud…on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”  (Link here for discussion)

Wikipedia provides a short description of the 1939 US Supreme Court Decision (United States vs Miller) which upheld the right of State and Federal governments to place restrictions on gun ownership. (Link Here). Since that time a number of other Federal and State Court decisions across the United States have followed that precedent. That the NRA and others have been able to perpetuate the myth that the right of individuals to own firearms is protected under the Second Amendment ranks right up there with the myth that Christopher Columbas discovered North American in 1492. (Link Here)

Gun Ownership in the United States:  Since 1973 the percentage of individuals in the US owning a gun has fallen from 47% to 36% in 2011. (Link Here).  The number in Canada is estimated at 20%. The number of guns per 100 people in the United States stands at an estmated 88 (the hightest in the world) while in Canada that number stands at 36.

Canadian National Firearms Assocition (Link Here) Not surprisingly, Canada has its own NRA, although it is not as powerful nor as extreme as its US counterpart.

Link here to NRA Attack Ads

The NRA in Canada:  The February 10, 2013 edition of the Fifth Estate provided a very good summary of the NRA position. The report stated that by 2015 in the United States there will be more deaths by gun shots than in car accidents.  In 12 US states, gun shot deaths already exceed vehicle accident deaths.

The NRA opened a branch office in Canada in order to help fight our existing gun laws.  The organization provided considerable support and funding to gain public support for overturning the Long Gun Registry and destroying all the files in order to make it more difficult for the registry to be implemented at some point in the future.

Businesses in the United States are the largest purchasers of handguns produced around the world.

(550)