If you’re an opponent of gun control, Friday’s edition of The New York Times isn’t for you. The Times editorial board hurled one of the most blistering critiques of the National Rifle Association that has ever been seen in print. As far as the Old Grey Lady is concerned, the NRA’s obstinate opposition to common-sense reform of our gun laws amounts to complicity in acts of terrorism.
The NRA says that it doesn’t want guns in the hands of terrorists. However, The Times editorial board lays out ample evidence that this claim, like just about everything we hear from the NRA and its puppetmasters in the gun industry, is hot air. As proof, last winter the NRA derailed a bipartisan bill drafted by Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein and Republican Congressman Pete King that would have allowed law enforcement to block gun purchases if they could prove that he or she was known or suspected to be involved in terrorism. Even though anyone who would have been ensnared by this law could have challenged the denial in court, it wasn’t good enough for the NRA.
As The Times editorial board sees it, the lack of such a provision is “a full-blown national security hazard.” As early as 2011, al-Qaeda was calling for lone-wolf attackers to take advantage of the loopholes in our gun laws. The Islamic State has picked up that call. If the Feinstein-King law had been on the books, it’s very likely that a good number of these lone wolves wouldn’t be able to get their hands on guns, since several of them are under investigation for terrorism links.
The Times also scorched the NRA for its opposition to restrictions on high-capacity clips–like the 30-round clip that powered Omar Mateen’s AR-15 clone. It has been amply established that there is no legitimate purpose for these clips. My girlfriend grew up around guns in rural New York and Vermont; she is from a family of hunters. She told me that you really don’t need a high-capacity clip for hunting or self-defense unless you’re a really bad shot. The Times also can’t understand why the NRA opposes closing the gun-show loophole, even though doing so would prevent a number of people from getting guns when they legally can’t be within an area code of one.
Rather than support meaningful steps to reform our gun laws that have overwhelming support from the American people, the NRA’s response to mass shootings is like clockwork–“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” The Times believes that the Orlando massacre should disprove this “absurd fantasy.” Pulse had an armed guard on duty, and he was powerless to stop 49 people from being shot to pieces.
It’s hard not to conclude why the NRA has forced our lawmakers into inertia on gun reform. Remember, folks, it is the trade association for the gun industry, which is made up mostly of privately-held companies. So when Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent, and other NRA luminaries move their lips, they are actually speaking for a cabal of faceless men who are not accountable to anyone. Their sole interest is in keeping the sales rolling in–and everything else, including national security and fighting terrorism, be hanged.
I suspect that this editorial must have hit a nerve. As I write this on Thursday night, the NRA has not responded on its Facebook or Twitter feeds. Hmmm–perhaps LaPierre and friends know the Old Grey Lady has them busted.
