Donald Kaul’s recent missive for otherwords.org lists, in lenten fashion, what the guilt-ridden, self-described granola liberal will be giving up for 2012. He first covers global warming. For some reason. But then he swings around to gun control, his dogged support for it and ultimately his lamenting that he didn’t find enough fellow travelers to back him up. His words perfectly embody one of my biggest peeves; the pathetic yet pervasive argument from the left that the NRA – and gun lobby in general – is a faceless entity with mysterious millions of dollars to push a purportedly minority agenda.
What he and the rest of our friends on the left need to get through their thick noggins is that pro-2A entities are anything but faceless. A great example is the many businesses participating in a program that relies on countless small donations like NRA Roundup. Since 1992, Midway USA alone has collected $1.5 million from folks voluntarily rounding up their order totals to the nearest dollar. And then some if they wish.
That’s money contributed by average folks giving what they can when they can. My point is if just one website giving customers the option to give what basically amounts to pocket change can raise $150,000 a year for ten years, what does that say about NRA membership and donations?
And that’s only the NRA. We also have GOA, SAF and many other eminently worthy organizations operating on donations from thousands and thousands of everyday folks. The gun lobby isn’t faceless in any sense of the word. We don’t need to rely on lump sum donations from Ben & Jerry’s, the Joyce Foundation or numerous mouthy celebrities. We stand on our own, patriot to patriot.
Kaul also has the audacity to contend that the gun lobby gets its way purely through monetary means. Any politician knows that, in the end, what counts are votes, votes, and more votes. Money greases the wheels but votes seal the deal. Politicians are, for the most part, sycophants who say or do what will get them reelected. And with the tide moving towards increased gun rights, the politicians are taking notice.
Kaul also buys into the tragically uniformed opinion that the Founding Fathers never intended the Second Amendment to cover current weapons. If he had a modicum of forward thinking ability, he’d realize the founders didn’t mean citizens’ rights to arms ended with muzzleloaders. In its original wording, does the first amendment specifically cover what’s said on radio, TV or the internet? So what’s the difference in the progression of technology with firearms? But Kaul is a vitual poster boy for denial and double standards. Pretty much par for the course.