While on line today I came across an article posted by Business Insider about the NRA members and wanted to respond. First, I feel I am responding to an organization that is anti-gun and gun ownership. Much of the article places a stigma on those that believe in and are dedicated to what the NRA does, not only for its membership, but also for all gun owners in America, This being said, I doubt if my reply will ever be read and a reply sent. Why do I think this? Well just look at some of the other articles they published;
More from The Trace:
- A Missouri Student Imagines Life on an Armed Campus
- We’re Just Starting to Comprehend How Social Media Breeds Shootings
- I’m a Police Chaplain Who Had to Tell Virginia Tech Families Their Children Were Dead
- My Son Was Murdered in the Line of Duty by Right-Wing Extremists. Trump Should Focus on the Threat Posed by ‘Sovereign Citizens.’
- The False Promise That ‘Armed Citizenship’ Will Keep Women Safe
- Their minds have been made up, guns are bad, people that own them are nut-cases for wanting to be able to defend themselves in their homes or on their persons. Or they pose an intrinsic danger and threat to society. In the July 31, 2017 edition "The Trace" featured an article entitled "the NRA Annoyed Me into Quitting-But I Get Why Some Gun owners see It As a "Necessary Evil." The article was by Anshel Sag, as told to Kerry Shaw. The article was written July 21, 2017, and asked a rhetorical question, "One of the Most Consequential Questions in the Gun Debate boils down to this: do the policies promoted by the National Rifle Association-and the groups heated, divisive rhetoric-represent the real beliefs of its members?" Like any article, it cited a survey, or surveys, to support its opinion.I have been a member of the National Rifle Association 24 years, joining in 1993, shortly after the murder of my son by a violent felon who obtained his hand gun illegally. I want to respond to Mr.Sag's opinion piece, expressing my thoughts and experiences, based upon facts, not statistical anomalies used which are common-place in most surveys. Anyone can find a survey that will seemingly support their viewpoint or opinion they want to express.
Mr. Sag has cited, ("a recent Pew Survey, and other sources,") but has not identified the particular survey, or other sources and/or polls he has relied upon to reinforce his opinions, and as I have already mentioned, I or anyone can find a poll, study or statistics that will support a particular argument they are trying to advance.
In response to Mr. Sag, as an NRA member, I can Say unequivocally that their policies they promote, and what you have described as heated, divisive rhetoric, do in fact represent the belief of this member. Further, I find the NRA's, so-called divisive rhetoric not nearly as caustic as the opinions expressed by their antagonists. Just like having a Second Amendment Right to keep and own a firearm for the purpose of self-defense, by many is considered dangerous and divisive, it is absolutely necessary and correct to take this perceived aggressive stance to protect those rights.
This past April, I had the privilege and honor to be able to attend the NRA's Annual Meeting held in Atlanta, Georgia. More than 80,000 people, (NRA Members) were also in attendance, most if not all were gun owners and perhaps as Mr. Sag's Pew Research statistics, that he has relied upon, that shows support among gun owners (including Republicans) for universal background checks. For the four days I was in attendance at this annual meeting I neither found, or did not hear of any comments or support of or for what the Pew Research survey indicated. Quite the contrary, I heard and experienced the exact opposite, and just like the 2016 presidential election of Donald Trump proved, the Pew Research, and most if not all other polls were wrong as well.
Now, I want to express my thoughts as to why I disagree, and what this article has called the NRA's heated, divisive rhetoric (their belief or perception) which is in fact representative of my beliefs and the realities of life if anti-gun ownership, anti-Second Amendment Rights opponents prevail.
As I mentioned earlier, my son was a victim of gun violence perpetrated on him by a criminal that did not care about or adhere to any gun control laws or restrictions on ownership of a firearm. In fact, this murder took place in California, a state that had, even in 1993, some of the most restrictive and severe gun-control laws already in place. While my son was not a member of any gang, he was, however, shot and killed by a gang member while attending a private party near our home. The person who shot him, and his gang banging buddies by chance found the party and crashed it.
There were two handguns present and used, both obtained illegally, irrespective of the gun laws already on the books, when my son was killed.
Some of those who were in attendance at the party and also friends of my son would later be called as witnesses in the trial of his murderer. Attempts at intimidating potential witnesses were conducted by gang member friends before the murder trial, as they followed them, and in some cases shot at them.
Up until that time, my wife and I made the choice of not having firearms in our home when our kids were growing up. That was our choice, not one that was mandated by anti-gun advocates. Naturally, my wife and I became fearful that the gang members might try to intimidate us as well. We were advised by the rank-and-file members of the Los Angeles police department that they would be unable to give us round-the-clock protection, and suggested to us that our best means of self-defense would be to arm ourselves in our home.
Following their advice, I purchased a handgun, (following all the then existing handgun laws, e.g. , waiting the required 15-day waiting period) before taking possession of it.) Also, I applied for a concealed carry permit through the necessary channels, giving as a reason for being allowed to legally carry a firearm my fear for the safety of my wife and I, based upon the advice given to us by members of the LAPD. My request for a concealed carry permit was denied, and the reason (s) given were very vague and strictly bureaucratic boilerplate gobbledygook.
Being a U.S. Army veteran, and trained on the safe, and proper use of a firearm, I trained my wife and daughter how to properly and safely use the handgun we now owned.
It is for these reasons, and many more experiences we had over the next few years in the criminal justice system of the United States who sole intent and purpose is to protect the rights of the criminal rather than their victims that I joined and have become a vocal advocate of the NRA, and it's legislative arm the NRA-ILA. I support 100% its effort to represent all gun owners, not just NRA members, aggressively the rights given us by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Second Amendment to the Constitution. And as Mr. Sag's article describes "the heated, and perceived divisive rhetoric of the NRA, is just that, a perception, rather than a fact or acknowledgment that the organization is rightfully correct that we must use the "clenched fist of truth," method or approach in defending and preserving our right to bear arms.
As the father of a murdered son, a veteran and a strong advocate of the Second Amendment. I will never voluntarily give up my rights to own and bear arms, and at age 75. I am ready to die, protecting those rights.
There you have it Trace.org, the view of one loyal, dedicated and adamant member and supporter of the NRA.
Ralph L Myers, Proud member of the National Rifle Association
