The Battle Over Bullets
This week I�m out of town. In the meantime, here is an article that I wrote in March as a substitute for my absence. Enjoy!
Recently, (well at least in my case since I wrote this in March) Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke signed an order that would lift the ban on lead bullets being used in wildlife refuges. Why do you think he would do something like this?
The answer can be explained in three simple letters; N-R-A. �Bingo!� as Cousin Eddie famously exclaimed. If you answered correctly and understood my reference just then, congratulations. You understand the corruption in our political system and you have a good taste in comedy. If your answer was not the NRA, well I�m afraid you have much to learn about American politics. There really is no other explanation for why a Republican would risk poisoning countless animals by allowing lead to be in bullets. The animals shot by these lead bullets will die and be eaten by other animals. One of those animals is the bald eagle, �you know the symbol of our� country� said Bill Maher while discussing this topic (If you know what Bill Maher is like you probably know why I was forced to use � in that quotation. If you don't know, Bill Maher can be profane at times).
The NRA pays Zinke and people like him to block any sort of legislation or order that might have a slight effect on the gun industry in America. The ban on lead bullets made bullets more expensive to make so the NRA responded by paying Zinke to overturn the law and cite that there was no clear evidence to support that lead bullets result in the poisoning of animals. If the NRA could give me a reason why the banning of lead bullets is somehow infringing on their second amendment rights, I would be glad to hear it. But they just want to make more money so they can continue lobbying for politicians that they want to see in office. It�s a corrupt cycle and it in no way benefits the American people.
The NRA hides behind the cloak of the 2nd amendment to justify these actions. No matter the corruption in their organization or the danger of some of their positions on gun policy, they will always claim that they are protecting the 2nd amendment. They justify spending $50.2 million on 6 candidates including our President and others running for Congress by arguing that those candidates will protect the 2nd amendment.
I think to further understand the importance of the 2nd amendment and why it was worth spending over $50 million on to protect it, we need to analyze the amendment and its purpose. The Constitution itself states, �A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.�
I think the amendment speaks for itself. However, it does not specify the term �infringed.� Does �infringed� mean that anybody and everybody should have the right to bear arms, as long as they are an American citizen? What if that right �infringes� on the rights of other citizens or creates a dangerous environment?
It�s also important to take into account the context of this amendment. The American Revolution had just been fought and won. The soldiers in that war were mostly untrained farmers who fought in unorganized militias because there was not an existing army that was strong enough to defend the nation in multiple places. The war, particularly in the south, was in the hands of guerilla fighter militias led by patriots like Francis Marion. During the time that the Constitution was drafted, the militia was still necessary to protecting America from Native American tribes and other European nations. That is where, �A well-regulated militia,� was derived.
Another important factor to take into account when defining the amendment is that guns are a lot different now than they were in the 18th century. The constitution was written in the time of muskets. We live in the era of assault rifles and machine guns. These are weapons that can kill lots of people in seconds.
In the hands of the right people most Americans do not have a problem with guns. But common sense gun reforms like universal background checks and banning lead from bullets when hunting on wildlife refuges are often construed as policies that are anti-gun and un-American. In reality, these are policies that protect American�s rights to live and pursue happiness. And yes, banning lead bullets on wildlife refuges does make bullets more expensive to manufacture. But that is not a reasonable excuse seeing that the NRA spent over $50 million on last year�s election. They can afford a slight increase in bullet costs. The people that help fund the NRA can afford that cost.
The issue of gun reform has become an argument not based on logic, but on emotion. Politicians or figures who support gun legislation are often construed as being anti-gun and part of an effort to take your guns. It�s a fear tactic used by the NRA and talk radio show hosts. They tell their audience that the government is trying to take their guns and that they are fighting back by funding political candidates with millions of dollars. The NRA makes huge profits and so do the politicians by exploiting the fears of their base. It�s corruption at its finest.
Comments
Post a Comment