Do we really live in a democracy or has police state tactics ruled the day? I wouldn’t have put my query quite so harshly if the National Rifle Association (NRA), with its ruthless tactics and uncompromising political stance, wasn’t so blatant and obvious that when it came to gun control legislation, as far as they are concerned, no compromise should be made. For to make compromise, some of the control the NRA has over gun legislation would have to be forfeited.

 

The latest casualty of the NRA’s inflexible and unyielding approach to political discourse and discussion, where the NRA’s prevailing attitude is ‘It’s either our way or the highway’, happened to be directed towards a loyal lifetime member of the NRA, Deborah Maggart. She had an A+ rating for her voting record in the Tennessee House of  Representatives before she was recently defeated for reelection, all because of her unwillingness to support an NRA position involving gun control legislation.

 

According to the May 19, 2013, THE DENVER POST reported an article written by Scott Higham and Sari Horwitz , for  The Washington Post, entitled: NRA tactics: ruthless, effective, in it they report, ” (Debra) Maggart, who was chairwoman of the Republican caucus, killed an NRA backed bill that would have permitted Tennesseans to keep firearms in their parked vehicles wherever they went –  work, school or the neighborhood bar.”

 

THE DENVER POST reports that, “Months later, Maggart was stunned to see NRA – sponsored ads on billboards in her district. Her face was next to a picture of President Barack Obama. The ads proclaimed: “Sure, Rep. Deborah Maggert Says She Supports Your Gun Rights, Of Course, He Says the Same Thing.”

 

In an interview, Maggert summed her feelings up this way: “As a pro-second amendment person and a life member of the NRA, I was shocked they did this to me.”

 

Maggert said, “They did this to send the message: ‘If you don’t do what we want, we will annihilate you.’”

 

Maggart estimated that the NRA and other gun groups spent $155,000 during her race. As reported, she lost the Republican primary by 16 percentage points to a candidate “handpicked by the NRA.”

 

Maggert further stated, “they will lie about you. They will use intimidation tactics. They will use bullying tactics, and because of that, people are afraid.”

 

Regardless what your political stance re: gun control legislation might be, NRA’s Gestapo like ruthless tactics, though effective, should play no part in political discourse. In the first place, it’s unconstitutional, because it violates one’s political integrity, all of which I discuss in my book What Would Our Founding Fathers Say?: How Today’s Leaders Have Lost Their Way.

 

When Sen. Barry Goldwater ran against President Lyndon Johnson for President of the United States, in 1964, in his Republican Presidential Standard-bearer Acceptance Speech, he stated: “Let me remind you, that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and let me remind you also, that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” I believe that the NRA’s position on gun control legislation and their unwillingness to compromise on any issues that don’t positively reflect upon their legislative political position endangers the very essence of what our democracy and republic is all about. Like Senator Goldwater’s quote, mentioned earlier, his extreme view, or the unwillingness to compromise, has no place in American political discourse.

 

In my book, What Would Our Founding Fathers Say?, I discuss how political scientists define power, which is “the ability to influence the behavior of others with or without resistance.”

 

“In the case of the American citizen, whether or not the power that is used by politicians (or the NRA) is corrupt or not is determined by whether such power is used to satisfy the politicians (or the NRA’s) own personal needs or to serve the needs of the American citizenry the politician was elected to serve.”

 

The NRA lobby is one of the strongest lobbies in Washington. They have established a kind of quid pro quo arrangement with our Washington’s politicians. In politics, nobody does something for nothing; there is always an implied or quite open, quid pro quo arrangement that has been made. Therefore, in the case of the NRA lobby, their favorite political candidates, who obviously favors their political positions, receive large sums of money if they swear to uphold and support the NRA political position regarding gun control legislation.

 

The question that needs answers is, are the politicians working for the American citizenry’s common good or does money indeed “talk,” thus corrupting their reasons to vote for what the NRA wishes, rather than the American citizenry the politicians have been elected to serve and protect?