EDITORIAL • March 16, 2000 http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-house-200031619816.htm
The NRA fires back
President Clinton has a talent for emotional exhibitionism.
Nothing illustrates this talent better than the current war of words
going on between Mr. Clinton and the National Rifle Association
over the issue of gun control. The NRA has been critical of the
president's exploitation of recent shootings —one by a disturbed
child who lived in a crack house with felons who traded guns for
drugs — to call for yet more restrictions on regular Americans who,
of course, are not the problem when it comes to violence,
"gun-related" or otherwise.
The president has been calling for mandatory trigger locks,
labyrinthine licensing requirements and paperwork to hobble people
who have never committed a crime of any sort — let alone misused
the firearms they are constitutionally entitled to possess. NRA
Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre has done his best to rebut
the president's demagoguery — but his oratorical skills are not in
the same ballpark as Mr. Clinton's. In an awkwardly worded
statement made on ABC's "This Week," Mr. LaPierre said that Mr.
Clinton "needs a certain level of violence in this country . . . he's
willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political
agenda and his vice president's, too." Sounds not so good, eh?
What Mr. LaPierre could have said is that Mr. Clinton isn't
willing to pursue policies that would actually cut down on criminal
misuse of firearms (such as aggressive prosecution of those who
use guns to commit violent crime). Instead the president would
rather demagogue incidents such as the shooting by the sixth-grader
near Flint, Mich., to score political points.
Mr. Clinton did not take long to issue his rejoinder: "I'd like to
see him look into the eyes of the mother of little Kayla Rolland" —
speaking of the girl who was killed by her crack house-dwelling,
revolver-packing classmate in Michigan. Mr. LaPierre promptly
shot back, "The president is the one who needs to look in the eyes
of the American public" and explain to them why the federal
government doesn't more effectively pursue gun criminals.
He's right. While incontestably awful, shootings such as the one
in Michigan are not going to be prevented in the future by pestering
middle Americans with more anti-gun edicts. It's irrational to believe
that possession of firearms, as such, by responsible people who
comprise the vast majority of gun owners, is the problem. The
president plays to the emotion and fears of an audience that is 1)
increasingly unfamiliar with America's hunting and shooting-club
heritage and 2) desperate for an end to the string of shootings. One
hopes Americans will resist his seduction, for their own sake.
The NRA fires back
President Clinton has a talent for emotional exhibitionism.
Nothing illustrates this talent better than the current war of words
going on between Mr. Clinton and the National Rifle Association
over the issue of gun control. The NRA has been critical of the
president's exploitation of recent shootings —one by a disturbed
child who lived in a crack house with felons who traded guns for
drugs — to call for yet more restrictions on regular Americans who,
of course, are not the problem when it comes to violence,
"gun-related" or otherwise.
The president has been calling for mandatory trigger locks,
labyrinthine licensing requirements and paperwork to hobble people
who have never committed a crime of any sort — let alone misused
the firearms they are constitutionally entitled to possess. NRA
Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre has done his best to rebut
the president's demagoguery — but his oratorical skills are not in
the same ballpark as Mr. Clinton's. In an awkwardly worded
statement made on ABC's "This Week," Mr. LaPierre said that Mr.
Clinton "needs a certain level of violence in this country . . . he's
willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political
agenda and his vice president's, too." Sounds not so good, eh?
What Mr. LaPierre could have said is that Mr. Clinton isn't
willing to pursue policies that would actually cut down on criminal
misuse of firearms (such as aggressive prosecution of those who
use guns to commit violent crime). Instead the president would
rather demagogue incidents such as the shooting by the sixth-grader
near Flint, Mich., to score political points.
Mr. Clinton did not take long to issue his rejoinder: "I'd like to
see him look into the eyes of the mother of little Kayla Rolland" —
speaking of the girl who was killed by her crack house-dwelling,
revolver-packing classmate in Michigan. Mr. LaPierre promptly
shot back, "The president is the one who needs to look in the eyes
of the American public" and explain to them why the federal
government doesn't more effectively pursue gun criminals.
He's right. While incontestably awful, shootings such as the one
in Michigan are not going to be prevented in the future by pestering
middle Americans with more anti-gun edicts. It's irrational to believe
that possession of firearms, as such, by responsible people who
comprise the vast majority of gun owners, is the problem. The
president plays to the emotion and fears of an audience that is 1)
increasingly unfamiliar with America's hunting and shooting-club
heritage and 2) desperate for an end to the string of shootings. One
hopes Americans will resist his seduction, for their own sake.
