Hey! I Got a Response!
A lame one, but a response!
Yesterday I found this piece about the eeeevil NRA, but instead of writing a post on it, I simply emailed the author. This is what I sent him:
I followed the link back to your site, and found your contact information.
I must say that I find your phillipic misguided at best, regardless of the ad hominem attacks: LaPierre in jackboots, “oily Dick Cheney.” (Ooh! Clever, that.) At worst (and I suspect the latter) it’s merely intentionally vicious with no intent to be anything other than vitriol. That’s your perogative, of course.
I’ve perused a bit of your archive. It’s pretty obvious that your politics are anti-Bush and anti-Republican, but precisely (or even generally) what you’re FOR has eluded me.
So, if I understand it correctly, you hate the NRA because they’re a front for the eeeevil Republicans? If there’s more to it than that, it wasn’t apparent.
I’m sympathetic toward Mr. Mauser and the loss of his son, but how is the NRA responsible for Harris and Kleibold having a (that’s ONE) Tec-9 pistol, a Marlin Camp Carbine, TWO sawed-off shotguns, and knapsacks full bombs? Would it have been the fault of the NRA if Mr. Mauser’s son had been killed with a duck gun identical to the one Sen. Kerry uses and professes to want to protect?
Here’s a link (ten seconds on Google to find) detailing the weapons carried by the pair:
As I said, I’m sympathetic to Mr. Mauser’s loss, but his anger is misdirected.
As is yours.
Here’s his response I received this morning:
I included you in the article, I believe, when I said that some NRA members were no doubt horrified by the hurtful barbs hurled at Mr. Mauser. I thank you for displaying your sensitivity… to me, at least.
Here’s what I sent him in response:
It’s almost certain that you’ve received a volume of hate-mail from gun owners over your piece, and that you hold that hate mail as simply more evidence that gun control is an obvious “right thing to do,” but in relation to your “No Reason Allowed” assertion, I hold that it is the gun CONTROL groups that are guilty of that. We’ve “compromised” for years – “compromise” being defined as “giving up only half of what the other side wanted to take.”
As someone said, we gun owners have been the victims of a decades-long slow-motion hate crime. We’re tired of it. Some of us are pretty angry about it, and most are not as willing to discuss the subject any longer. (And some people have a way with words. Others not have way.) So, I’ll apologize for them even though it’s not really my place to do so. Yes, the comments made toward Mr. Mauser were wrong and inexcusable, but Mr. Mauser in his grief has picked the wrong target. Its understandable. As H.L. Mencken said, “For every problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong.”
You might find it interesting that I believe the NRA is not protective ENOUGH of the right to arms. I believe the NRA to be too WILLING to “compromise,” and the only reason the recent Senate bill protecting firearm manufacturers and dealers from lawsuit was killed after the “Assault Weapon” (scare quotes intentional) Ban extension was added was because people like me held their feet to the fire.
It’s difficult, I admit, being on the side defending the right of people to possess weapons when one maniac with a handgun can run wild, but for me it’s a matter of the rights of individuals and their corresponding responsibilities. I do not want to live in a society where government acts as parent and citizens are merely children to be told what to do. It’s a philosophy I can defend well, but it requires people to THINK. I’m greatly in favor of that, though most people seem to want to avoid it. You attempted to include me in your article under the blanket heading of “No Reason Allowed.” I assure you, I reason quite well.
But merely FEELING is so much easier, isn’t it?
We’ll see if that draws any response, but I doubt it.
UPDATE, 4/22. I got a response. Here it is, verbatim: “nice.” No capital, one period.