National Shooting Sports Foundation Fights Gun Control from Newtown

 

On January 24, 2013, Michael Daly, a special reporter for the daily beast.com website posted an article entitled National Shooting Sports Foundation Fights Gun Control From Newtown.

Daly writes, “Minutes from the scene of the Sandy Hook massacre, a leading gun-industry trade association is rallying against those ‘seeking to destroy the Second Amendment.’”

 

I really take exception toward “leading gun-industry trade association” members  stating those seeking stricter gun legislation are doing so because they are trying to “destroy the Second Amendment.”

 

Even though Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the legal protections of the First Amendment are some of the broadest of any industrialized nation, nevertheless, making a gross over generalization that those who want stricter gun laws because they are trying to obliterate the Second Amendment is simply not true.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who want stricter gun laws want to restrict the number of rounds a gun or rifle can fire before they are forced to reload.

 

Daly reports the gun industry’s “leading” trade association’s headquarters, which resides in Newtown where the “20 schoolchildren and six educators were massacred is marshaling opposition to the gun-control measures that state legislators are drafting to prevent future horrors.”

 

“Really”

 

I interpret the “really” comment is an interesting bit of sarcasm that Daly uttered. Assuming I’m correct, he emphasized his sarcasm by underlining that 20 schoolchildren and six educators were massacred, noting that “the gun industry’s leading trade association is marshaling opposition to the gun-control measures that state legislators are drafting to prevent future horrors.(italics mine)

 

At this point, I will add a little sarcasm of my own by following suit to what Daly said and add “Oh really!” I don’t know how you can be anymore disingenuous than what the gun industry’s leading trade association allegedly is doing to prevent “future horrors.”

 

If they were really honest in preventing the horrors of death to children and adults alike, they would support what the Connecticut legislature is trying to accomplish, by reducing as many rounds of ammunition they can use in one cartridge to help eliminate the number of bullets that can be expended before another clip would need to be inserted in the gun’s chamber.

 

Of course, by doing that, the assassin has to take time to reload which will impede the number of rounds that can be used before another full magazine can be employed. Hopefully, by the shooter having to do that, he will be apprehended sooner than later, consequently, more lives will be saved.

 

 

Daly further writes, “The National Shooting Sports Foundation,(NSSF) which calls Newtown ‘our home’, has issued an ‘action alert’, calling on like-minded firearm owners to make their objections known at the January 28 (2013) public hearing of the Connecticut state legislatures Gun -Violence Prevention Working Group.”

 

I’m sure anyone who wishes to further restrict the use of firearms will take umbrage at having the NSSF call Newtown “our home.” The reason I say that is because, when you talk about your home, you’re talking about a peaceful tranquil setting, not quarters where an “action alert,” summons calling for “like-minded firearm owners to make their objections known….”

 

Now I ask you, how hypocritical can you be?

 

“‘Connecticut Legislators seeking to destroy the Second Amendment,’” the action alert says, “‘Bills will make CT citizens instead criminals.’”

 

I’ve already addressed the first section of this sentence; however, the statement that the possible legislation will make “criminals” out of Connecticut citizens is absurd. That type of statement is simply rabble rousing and serves no useful purpose in a thoughtful and heartfelt debate.

“The NSSF warns that the proposed bills include a measure ‘restricting your ability to defend yourself and family by arbitrarily restricting the magazine size to 10 rounds.’”

 

Anybody who uses critical thinking as a means to come to a logical conclusion can see how absurd the above statement is. We’re talking about what we must do to minimize the carnage that results when an assassin enters a school classroom and mows down all, or a large number of children or adults in the room.

 

Even if we’re talking about someone who breaks into your home with the intent of potentially doing you bodily harm with a gun that he has, it doesn’t require having to use guns with magazines that hold multiple rounds of ammunition.

 

Realizing there are too many people in the country today that have guns of one type or another, at the moment, we cannot require of them to turn in their weapons. On the other hand, we have to make some restrictions in the type and number of firearms that we as a society can allow a household to possess.

 

Daly reports: “At a 2011 hearing on this bill just like the hearing scheduled for next week, the NSSF and its buddies testified for nearly 12 hours, passionately insisting upon their sacred right to fire more than 10 bullets without having to reload.”

 

Since when has being able to fire more than 10 bullet thought as being a “sacred right?” There’s nothing that’s “sacred” about being able to potentially being able to destroy innocent lives by the civilian use of firearms that should be limited to target practice or for hunting purposes.

 

I could go on and on, but I’m going to stop here, since by continuing this discourse will only cause me to feel more riled up which could ultimately be harmful to my health.