I always enjoyed Anthony Bourdain's "No Reservations". I recognized him as a person with rather left wing views. But this is proof that not everyone needs to be a card carrying Tea Party, Conservative Christian, Republican, NRA member to support the second amendment. Yes, advocacy groups have their place. And I believe that is what the NRA once was. However I truly feel that they have been infected by the same mutagenic virus that the Republican Party fell victim to. When I receive their news letters I see the same inflammatory and exaggerated language that I see used by the Brady Campaign. This always annoyed me, I believe that if your cause is on the right side of the argument, then you can win the battle with logic and facts, without using fear mongering, emotion, and hyperbolic language.
Here is the link to Anthony Bourdain on guns. His stance is not what one would expect.
This is the primary reason I am fed up with the NRA. Their mailed advertisements are dripping with Tea Party propaganda. They often overstep the issues of gun control and push an agenda related to healthcare and other conservative pet issues. They are no longer a 2A group, but a Tea Party propaganda machine. Additionally, if one does not fit their ideal right wing persona then their rights to own a firearm are somehow second to everyone those who lean more to the left. People who disagree with second amendment protections are labeled "liberals" and in the process their stance is immediately discarded regardless of validity. But the plain and simple fact of the matter is the current Tea Party tactic is to label anyone who disagrees with any of their talking points as a liberal. Don't despise the Affordable Care Act? Liberal. Do you agree that illegal immigration is a problem, but are of the opinion that it is unpractical to bus 12 million people out of the country? Liberal. Atheist? Liberal. Pro-choice, or support equal rights for the LBTG community? Liberal.
What's in a label? Well first and foremost the arguments presented by pro-gun rights conservatives and liberals are pretty much the same. However the unfortunate effect of Fox News and the spokespeople of the Republican Party has done a great deal to negate the credibility of anyone who associates themselves with issues considered conservative. When the time comes to debate concealed carry law and other issues related to gun control, even the most reasonable conservative speakers tend to get drowned out and associated with the latest clips from the likes of Cruz and Bachmann. I am sorry, but neither of those two are known for their conflict resolution skills or general intelligence. The current practice of drowning out those who believe in gun rights, but opposed the conservative world view in other respects is a disservice to the cause as a whole.
A prime example of this self defeating behavior is what happened to the former Guns & Ammo writer Dick Metcalf. Once you get past the hype of his article, and consider his intended message, it isn't illogical. He stated facts of current firearm legislation. The second amendment is not excepted from regulation, no constitutional amendment is. Is that the appropriate and moral way to treat the Bill of Rights? I am not prepared to answer that question. But as it stands, between legislation, and Supreme Court rulings, that's the way it is. He simply stated that firearm ownership is subject to laws, and that is not tyranny, it is simply a fact of life. He pointed to the "well regulated" part phrase in the second amendment itself. In addition he stated that the right to own, possess, and carry a gun is not the same as having the right to be irresponsible with that firearm.
As a gun owner you, and you alone are responsible for maintaining the reasonable security and safety of that firearm. Nothing about that is false. And the fact that the uprising caused the magazine to run away with it's tail between it's legs is the reason that the conservative base is not taken seriously when it comes to issues surrounding gun control. He then went out on a limb and said that background checks are not a bad thing. I can't fault this logic either. If felons were unable to obtain firearms via private sale, then the law abiding gun owner is even further removed from the conflict. Would I support universal background checks? Probably, if the mental health system was fortified to report into the NICS system the information that it was always meant to, then yes, as a reasonable gun owner I would be okay with preserving my right to own and carry a firearm while taking reasonable steps to prevent felons and those adjudicated mentally insane from being armed. Why advocate self-defense, yet cripple the legal mechanisms that are designed to increase public safety?
When a spree shooter is found to have stolen the gun, then gun owners are off the hook. No security system in the world is thief proof, and that can be argued when the push for new gun control comes. No amount of foresight in the world will stop all criminals. So don't punish gun owners for something beyond their control. But when a spree shooter buys a weapon from a private party from a gun show, be prepared for the backlash. The seller will be blamed, and that blame will transfer to every person who ever owned a firearm.
Really, one of our own came out and said that gun laws should be followed, and it's each individuals responsibility to maintain safety and control of their guns got him ran out of town. Sometimes I think we are our own worst enemy.
Mark my words, that us versus them mentality will eventually be the downfall of second amendment rights.