North Carolina Rifle & Pistol Association
Established 1938. Affiliated with NRA and CMP
|
North Carolina Rifle & Pistol Association Established 1938. Affiliated with NRA and CMP
|
|
|
Last year I was interviewed for a college newspaper regarding firearms, the NRA/NCRPA, and the 2nd Amendment. For this issue’s President’s Column, I thought I would share with you the questions I received and the answers I gave. The interviewer tried to be as objective as possible, but it was clear to me (as I think it will be to you) that his questions were heavily influenced by anti-gun bias in modern news media and popular culture. After responding to the questions, I asked him a few of my own, and found that he had recently viewed Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine film, and had been strongly swayed by its overt and covert messages. Notice that in one of his questions he refers to the US having a “culture of fear.” INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR MR. RUSS PARKER When and why did you first become active in organizations involving firearms and the 2nd Amendment, including the NRA? 1989. I was raised around firearms, and always believed in the right to keep and bear arms, but until 1989 I didn’t really understand the NRA’s goals or what was wrong with some “reasonable” gun control. A friend challenged me to research the issues for myself instead of basing my opinions on the news media. I did so and what I found horrified me – it was clear to me that there was (and is) a concerted effort by many groups and individuals to deprive US citizens of the right to keep and bear arms. I joined the NRA in 1989, and joined the NCRPA in 1992 when I moved to North Carolina. With the NCRPA, you are serving many of the functions that the NRA was specifically founded to provide. Do you feel that you get the support you need from the NRA? Absolutely. NRA has a tremendous breadth and depth of programs, and we deliver a subset of what is available, plus several of our own. We get as much assistance as we need to implement various programs here in North Carolina. How important are the lobbying and political aspects to the NCRPA? NCRPA was chartered to promote shooting sports, competition, gun safety, and training. That is our primary mission. In a perfect world, that is all we would do. Unfortunately our sport is controversial, so we are constantly battling efforts to take away our sporting implements, take away our sporting venues, and take away our ability to teach and train. Would the NCRPA ever differ from the NRA on a political issue, for example endorsing a different candidate? Perhaps, but it’s very unlikely. If there were differences in opinion we would work to resolve them internally rather than display a public rift. We believe it is critical to be supportive of our parent association and present a united front. Do you believe that the NRA membership accurately represents the majority of its membership’s point of view? If yes, in what ways does the NRA solicit feedback from its members? If no, why not? Yes, I do believe NRA represents the view of the majority of its members. NRA performs regular surveys of its membership, and there are a large variety of methods (email, group meetings, telephone hotlines, etc.) for members to provide feedback. At the Annual Meeting of Members, individual members can propose bylaws changes, which are then voted on by the members. Why is Charlton Heston an effective leader for the NRA? How big of an impact will his departure from the organization have? Mr. Heston is an incredible man. He has a dynamic presence, he is a very articulate speaker, and he is principled and forthright. Mr. Heston has fought for equal civil rights alongside Dr. King, he has been an outspoken advocate for the 1st Amendment, and of course he has always been a steadfast supporter of the 2nd Amendment. For these things he has been condemned and blacklisted. He will be missed when he steps down, but we will continue to have effective leadership and others of his stature will serve. In your lifetime, when have you been most concerned about infringements upon the 2nd Amendment? During the Clinton administration there was a concerted, multi-pronged attack from nearly all arms of the civilian government, and the popular news and entertainment media, on the right to keep and bear arms. There were horrible abuses of personal freedom, atrocities, lies and distortions perpetrated in the name of “gun control.” We expended more effort and funds during that time period than we ever have in the history of the organization. Do you believe that the 2nd Amendment is the most important one in the Bill of Rights? No, I believe all 10 Amendments are equally important. They are like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle – without one, the picture is incomplete and the structure is unstable. All of the Amendments are constantly under assault; however, the 2nd Amendment seems to be the one most frequently attacked. What is your interpretation of the first part of the 2nd Amendment, the section that reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State..."? Well, that’s not exactly what it says. It reads, “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.” The way it is written in the original text breaks it up into 4 sections. The way you wrote it makes the first two sections into one section, and then makes that one section appear to be a conditional modifier for the remainder of the text. Prior to the ratification of the Bill of Rights the Founding Fathers argued vociferously over the wording and punctuation of each Amendment (ref. Federalist Papers), and the wording and punctuation of the 2nd Amendment was careful and deliberate. Do not distort it. As to my interpretation: A Militia was then and is now considered to be all of the People who are capable of bearing arms in defense of self, community and Nation.. That’s all of us. The fledgling country had just finished a long war against one of the largest standing armies in the world, and they a) relied heavily on militiamen, and b) had a justified fear of standing armies. So they made it clear they felt that militias are essential to the maintenance of the Republic. Much has been made of the “well regulated” phrase. In late 20th century/early 21st century parlance “well regulated” is synonymous with “controlled by law or statute.” In late 18th century parlance, “well regulated” was synonymous with “properly functioning.” Thus a well regulated piece of farm machinery was equipment in working order, a well regulated flintlock was a firearm in working order, a well regulated Militia was a properly trained and equipped body of armed men. Even so, the remainder of the Amendment stands alone. The People referenced in the 2nd Amendment are the same People referenced in the 1st, 4th, and 9th Amendments. To claim that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual’s right is to claim that the 1st, 4th, and 9th Amendments don’t apply to individuals either, which is ludicrous. Why did the authors of the Constitution write more than, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? See above and read the Federalist Papers. It’s all explained there. Do you think that the United States has a larger problem with gun violence than most other Westernized modern nations? I think the US has a larger problem with violence than many other Westernized nations. Notice I didn’t say “gun” violence. In general there are more killings with hands and feet in the US than there are in many other countries. To put the focus solely on one type of violence is to attack a manifestation of an illness, rather than look at the illness itself. Interestingly, Great Britain has all but outlawed private gun ownership, and their violent crime rate (with and without guns) has soared to levels higher than the US. Similar things are happening in Australia. Something to think about. If you answered "yes" to the above question, what is the cause of this problem...for example, is it America's diversity, a culture of fear, poor law enforcement, or something else? It is not any one thing. It is a collection of many factors. A common fallacy is to try to make it straightforward and lay blame on one thing, i.e. if we just banned all guns then killing would be eliminated. As H. L. Mencken said, “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” Is the United State's military power connected in any way to the fact that we have the 2nd Amendment and widespread gun-ownership? Absolutely. Have you studied or learned about the history of the NRA or gun-control movements in the US? Yes I have, which is why I entered the fray. Upon learning what the leaders of the gun control groups were really after as opposed to the moderate public statements they made, I decided to take steps to protect my right and the right of future generations. Why does the NRA use the symbols of the United States (Bald Eagle, Flag, etc..) in almost all of its literature and its own insignia? Well, the full name is the National Rifle Association of America. Why does the Brady Campaign (formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc.) use the American flag as its logo? What is the greatest threat to the United States at this time? Would you say that domestic issues (crime, the economy, etc.) or the international geopolitical unrest and terrorism are bigger concerns? I believe the greatest threat to the United States is that fear of terrorism may cause the People to be willing to surrender some freedoms for the illusion of greater security. You say in a column posted online, that a big difference between Germany and the United States is that there are many safety precautions Germans must take that we as Americans don’t have to, like for example, locking our doors. Judging from my travels across Europe and Australia, I would argue that to a large extent, there are not such large differences between Germany and the United States, but rather large differences between safety in rural versus urban settings. I would guess that people in Berlin and Charlotte take similar precautions while people in the countrysides in both nations are able to be more lax. Do you disagree with this assumption and if so, why? I lived in Germany 30 years ago, and things have changed there, many things for the worse. 30 years ago the crime problems were not even close to being as significant as they are today. I agree that there are probably similar precautions taken by residents of Charlotte and residents of Berlin; however, I disagree with your supposition that the people in the “countryside” are able to be more lax. There are vast areas of truly rural settings in the US. There are very few in Germany. What most Germans would consider to be “rural” we would consider to be fairly densely populated. My wife’s mother lives in Brandt, which is outside of the city of Aachen. It’s an upscale suburban area, and she lives in a nice neighborhood. There are literally dozens of burglary rings in operation in Brandt on a constant basis. In another article, you say, “Giving up those risks for some perceived security means that we would, like the Europeans, simply trade freedoms for new risks. It’s not a price I’m willing to pay.” Are you totally opposed to any kind of weapons control? For example, should individuals be allowed to make large bombs or even keep nuclear materials on their private property? Are you serious? I’ll assume you are, although this question is, if you’ll pardon me for saying this, ridiculous. In a nutshell – my rights end where my neighbor’s rights begin. The items you mention are basically not controllable by an individual. There is no way I could store weapons-grade explosives or nuclear material without adversely affecting my neighbors. On the other hand, my neighbor is in absolutely no danger from my possession of firearms, because they are under my control and can only be activated by deliberate steps on my part. What does it mean that a politician was “educated” and then changed their views on gun control? Who does the educating and what are the methods used? The vast majority of people who support further restrictions on firearms ownership do so out of ignorance. Ignorance of the current laws. Ignorance of the true impact, both positive and negative, firearms have on our society. This same ignorance applies to politicians. We find that most rational people who take the time to study the data from all sides of the issue will come to the conclusion that a) firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens isn’t the threat it’s made out to be, b) that “gun control” doesn’t solve crime and violence, and c) locations in the US with higher rates of gun ownership and less restrictive gun laws have LOWER rates of crime and violence, whereas locations in the US with lower rates of gun ownership and more restrictive gun laws have HIGHER rates of crime and violence. For a close-to-home example, the City of Durham has one of the lowest rates of lawful gun ownership in North Carolina, and has the most restrictive gun laws in the State, yet it leads the State in murder and most other violent crimes. Rational people who look at these issues tend to conclude that gun control is a fraud, unless they have strong emotional bias. Education of politicians is similar to the education you receive. Provide access to information, and hopefully the politician will study all sides of the issue and reach a rational conclusion. Lastly, how many members are currently in the NCRPA? We do not publish our membership lists or membership numbers. Firearms owners naturally value their privacy.
|
|
Copyright © 2007 NC Rifle & Pistol Association. All rights reserved. |
