Paul Feist, NRA instructor, Life Member, Gun Collector, Competitive Shooter, and Author.
Answered Mar 6
Several things would help your (the left side of the American political aisle) case.
First - it would be very nice if you could ask the question without the politically charged epithet “Right-wingers”. Unless you would like the answer to contain “liberal nazi goons”, which also sets a negative tone and doesn’t further a useful discussion - avoid this sort of language.
Let me give you some positive ideas to consider;
Genuine Compromise
Since National Firearms Act of 1934, the anti-gun side has considered “compromise” to be “Give us some of what we want now, free, and we’ll come take the rest later”.
Here’s a radical idea - How about you offer something WE have wanted for a long time? I can think of two things - National Concealed Carry Reciprocity, and the removal of the Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986.
No tricks, no adding rider amendments to pull those out at the last minute, at 2am before a Senate vote… an actual, genuine offer.
Now, to be honest, those of us who have been following the debate for 40-ish years wouldn’t buy it. We’ve seen it before. Any gun control bill of any kind with any sort of actual c
ompromise in it gets re-written at the last minute before the vote to remove any provisions that might interest the pro-gun side in voting for it - hoping that it would get enough votes to pass anyway.
You wonder why the pro-gun side is so steadfast against
any form of legislation? Well, that’s because we’ve never ONCE seen a bill that ONLY does what the proponents say it does. Ban “armor piercing ammo”? Sounds reasonable… except it was written to ban virtually any ammunition of any design - on purpose. Even the generally positive “Firearms Owners Protection Act” of ’86 got that little “gotcha” slipped in to take the rate of crime from lawfully possessed fully automatic weapons from ZERO point ZERO percent, to.. what exactly was the point of that? Since 1934, NOT ONE SINGLE CRIME had ever been commited with a lawfully tax-stamped full auto weapon. Not one. And yet, the Hughes Amendment closed the registrations for them for law abiding citizens.
You’ve screwed us enough times we’re not buying into it any more. Our shields are up, and we’re not believing you any more when you offer “compromise”.
You want us to
consider a few things? Show us you’re not just trying to tighten the noose on
all firearms ownership. Compromise - for real this time.
Prove it will work here, now, in the 21st Century America.
You can point to different cultures, like Japan, or Europe, or the UK, or Australia - guess what: we’re not any of those places.
Show us how disarming law-abiding citizens will make a statistically significant difference in the
overall violence in this country. Don’t cherry pick the data - show us how the number of people killed with hammers (which is more than those killed with rifles) is going to change with a particular law and you might just be shocked when we voice support for it.
You see, MY AR-15 has harmed no one. Nor will it ever. You need to make a pretty strong case that me giving up MY rifle is going to affect anything.
You also need to show me how my more accurate, longer range, bolt action rifle is not “next up” on your agenda. That again is going to be a long hard road for you to regain that trust - we’ve seen it before. One thing gets banned, then within DAYS, you’re looking for something else.
Don’t give us that bulls*** about how “we banned gun violence research”. We did no such thing. We stopped the CDC from
actively seeking gun control legislation. If you don’t recognize the difference between doing
research which is, and has always been, perfectly legal for the CDC to do, and
pushing a political agenda from a bully pulpit with tax dollars - then we really don’t have any common ground for discussion.
Accept that the Second Amendment is a RIGHT, and an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT that shall not be infringed.
We get it. You want to ban all guns. You’ve been saying it for more than 50 years. “We’ll ban this now, and ban everything else later!”. Yeah, that’s why we oppose unequivocally each and every one of your “little steps” towards that.
If you really want responsible gun ownership, and gun safety, then you’re going to have to accept that the second amendment exists, and that it means what the Founding Fathers said it means in their other writings. It’s an individual right. And it
shall not be infringed.
You want to talk about improving mental health reporting? Felony reporting? Keeping criminals from purchasing firearms? Improved background checks?
It’s real simple - Accept that these are not just a “step towards banning guns”.
Don’t talk out of one side of your face saying “Oh, yeah, I’m a hunter, and I think people should be able to own hunting guns”, while supporting banning handguns, etc.
Accept that a free country, with free citizens, is based upon The People having arms for their own defense, defense against a tyrannical government (heaven forbid it should ever come to that - believe it or not, gun rights supporters do NOT want to overthrow the government, we just want to be certain that the government is never overthrown from within and can act with impunity against the People…), AND hunting, target shooting, etc.
If the political left were unequivocal and vocal about that, and backed it up by stopping support for any legislation that infringed upon that - you would be flabergasted by how fast we could work together on legislation that improved how we conduct background checks, track felons, and keep firearms out of the hands of those adjudicated mentally incompetant.
Until then - we know damn well you’re going to load any such bills with little “Gotcha’s” that classify wanting to own a firearm as a “mental disorder”. Don’t say you won’t, we’ve seen it happen in the early 90’s - it’s in the Congressional Record. “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”.
Finally;
Let’s have a talk about whether you want to reduce crime or just “ban guns”.
You want to reduce crime? Hell,
so do we! I’ll bet that with all of 20 minutes of discussion, we could come up with 20 ways to reduce crime, and violence, that have
nothing to do with banning guns.
You want to reduce crime? Let’s talk about education, prison reform, and maybe have a long talk about how we treat ex-cons in this country (often leaving them damn little choice but to return to crime, because virtually no jobs or job training is open to them).
If you just want to “ban guns”, the conversation is going nowhere - and you know that.
Understand and accept what the National Rifle Association is, and isn’t.
The NRA is an association
of it’s millions of members. It is not a trade association, and it’s not a “think tank lobbying organization”. And it’s not a “Firearms Industry Lobby” (that’s the NSSF).
The NRA is between five and seven
million gun owners that, of their own choosing, pay their membership dues to support the NRA and it’s subsidiary organization, the NRA-ILA.
When you say “
stop the NRA” - you’re not talking about a faceless corporate lobbying group - you’re talking directly to
me, a life member, and when you call the NRA murderers? You’re calling
me a murderer.
You cannot insult me into agreeing with you. In fact, I have a very long memory. I was called, to my face, a murderer for being a gun owner back in the early 90’s. That was when I put down the first payment on my Life Membership.
Recognize that I am not a criminal. I am not mentally incompetent. I do not have a “gun fetish”. I am a citizen that has committed no crime, threatened no person, and enjoys collecting and shooting firearms for competition, sport, and keeps a couple for self defense in full accordance with the law. Attacking me, personally, or by association, will not serve your goals - it will turn me into an active voter and campaigner
against you.
I will not forget, and I will not forgive, past transgressions, insults, and lies directed against me and my fellow gun owners. If you want my cooperation, you need to begin by making amends - then, maybe, we can work together to solve the problems you
say you want to solve.
You work on those five points. Then we can have an honest, genuine, conversation about how to reduce crime and violence in 21st century America.
