The NRA says its mission is "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use arms.”
The words "protect and defend" are of special interest. They are part of the oath required of the President of the United States, and the military oath has the phrase "support and defend" the Constitution. So does the oath of members of Congress. Most law enforcement officers take a similar oath to support the laws of the state and nation.
Since when did Americans as a whole decide that the NRA should assume similar roles and responsibilities? The NRA is not a branch of government. It is not a military or law enforcement entity. But this language change to NRA bylaws in 1977 was a significant part of the organization's transformation to the radical advocacy group it has become.
Many of its members believe today that they are on call, as it were, to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" with military-style weapons when they and their enablers decide that it is necessary to do so. When the United States fought wars in Asia and the Middle East, did militant NRA members rush to enlist? Are they known to have made any difference? So why might they be so essential now? Who is it that will call on them to protect and defend? They and their supporters have purposely detached their activities from those of an authorized militia yet they nevertheless think of themselves as having such a role. If they have ceded to the military the role of fighting for America against foreign enemies, then who are the enemies against whom these self-appointed warriors are preparing to fight?
(See also The Real Sickness in America)....
Prior to 1977, the mission of the NRA was "to promote social welfare and public safety, conservation of natural resources, law and order, and the national defense...and educate and train citizens in good repute in the safe and efficient use of small arms...to promote good sportsmanship, and increase the knowledge of small arms and the efficiency in their use on the part of members of law enforcement agencies, the armed forces, and citizens who would be subject to service in the event of war..." Today, many NRA members still hold to the old ways of the organization: sportsmanship, hunting and conservation, gun safety, and, yes, a concern that Americans have the ability and knowledge necessary to defend themselves.
A desire to train "citizens who would be subject to service in the event of war" was one motivation for NRA founders in 1871. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the armed forces offered almost no firearms training, frequently sending soldiers into battle with little or no marksmanship skills. European powers such as England, France, and Germany, had extensive and formal firearms training for members of the armed forces. The NRA founders, then, were responding to obvious deficiencies in American arms. They wanted potential U.S. soldiers to be fully trained when confronting foreign enemies. Now, 150 years later, the nation's military is the best-trained force in the world and needs no assistance from the NRA or anyone else.
It is significant that neither the pre-1977 mission statement nor the goals of NRA founders in 1871 stated or implied that their training could be used against their own government. Nor did these statements appropriate the official language of Presidential, Congressional, military, or law enforcement oaths to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
So since 1977, when under the spell of Texan Harlon Carter the NRA prioritized the militia-type role of protecting and defending, this more martial orientation has help to justify the sale and use of military-type weapons, most notablt assault rifles. (Carter, known as "Bullethead," was once convicted of murdering a Latino in Laredo, Texas. This is a story in itself.)
Do non-military Americans need assault rifles in the first place? How many home invasions in the last quarter century have required such defenses? If homeowners across the nation were blasting out 50 or 100 rounds at intruders, wouldn't we hear about it? One wonders: Who does the NRA think it is defending against? Who are the enemies?
In recent years the so-called enemies of many radical NRA members are immigrants, legal and otherwise; Black activists with radical leanings; the small cadres of "Antifa" anarchists who are sometimes indulged by shortsighted local authorities; and, most of all, the "socialists" and "communists" who threaten White, Christian America. Each group is seen as an actual or potential existential threat.
Having found their enemies, the far right elements of the NRA and the nation claim an absolute right to own and bear weapons of war, even if these same weapons are used time and time again to murder American children in their classrooms and other American citizens in churches, businesses, theaters, and even country music concerts in Las Vegas. Nineteen schoolchildren and two teachers in Uvalde are the most recent, terrible deaths resulting from the widespread use of assault rifles. But in the eyes of the self-appointed protectors and defenders, such losses are the price of freedom that they, in their arrogated Constitutional role, have taken it upon themselves to defend in their dangerously perverse way.
The words "protect and defend" are of special interest. They are part of the oath required of the President of the United States, and the military oath has the phrase "support and defend" the Constitution. So does the oath of members of Congress. Most law enforcement officers take a similar oath to support the laws of the state and nation.
Since when did Americans as a whole decide that the NRA should assume similar roles and responsibilities? The NRA is not a branch of government. It is not a military or law enforcement entity. But this language change to NRA bylaws in 1977 was a significant part of the organization's transformation to the radical advocacy group it has become.
Many of its members believe today that they are on call, as it were, to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" with military-style weapons when they and their enablers decide that it is necessary to do so. When the United States fought wars in Asia and the Middle East, did militant NRA members rush to enlist? Are they known to have made any difference? So why might they be so essential now? Who is it that will call on them to protect and defend? They and their supporters have purposely detached their activities from those of an authorized militia yet they nevertheless think of themselves as having such a role. If they have ceded to the military the role of fighting for America against foreign enemies, then who are the enemies against whom these self-appointed warriors are preparing to fight?
(See also The Real Sickness in America)....
Prior to 1977, the mission of the NRA was "to promote social welfare and public safety, conservation of natural resources, law and order, and the national defense...and educate and train citizens in good repute in the safe and efficient use of small arms...to promote good sportsmanship, and increase the knowledge of small arms and the efficiency in their use on the part of members of law enforcement agencies, the armed forces, and citizens who would be subject to service in the event of war..." Today, many NRA members still hold to the old ways of the organization: sportsmanship, hunting and conservation, gun safety, and, yes, a concern that Americans have the ability and knowledge necessary to defend themselves.
A desire to train "citizens who would be subject to service in the event of war" was one motivation for NRA founders in 1871. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the armed forces offered almost no firearms training, frequently sending soldiers into battle with little or no marksmanship skills. European powers such as England, France, and Germany, had extensive and formal firearms training for members of the armed forces. The NRA founders, then, were responding to obvious deficiencies in American arms. They wanted potential U.S. soldiers to be fully trained when confronting foreign enemies. Now, 150 years later, the nation's military is the best-trained force in the world and needs no assistance from the NRA or anyone else.
It is significant that neither the pre-1977 mission statement nor the goals of NRA founders in 1871 stated or implied that their training could be used against their own government. Nor did these statements appropriate the official language of Presidential, Congressional, military, or law enforcement oaths to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
So since 1977, when under the spell of Texan Harlon Carter the NRA prioritized the militia-type role of protecting and defending, this more martial orientation has help to justify the sale and use of military-type weapons, most notablt assault rifles. (Carter, known as "Bullethead," was once convicted of murdering a Latino in Laredo, Texas. This is a story in itself.)
Do non-military Americans need assault rifles in the first place? How many home invasions in the last quarter century have required such defenses? If homeowners across the nation were blasting out 50 or 100 rounds at intruders, wouldn't we hear about it? One wonders: Who does the NRA think it is defending against? Who are the enemies?
In recent years the so-called enemies of many radical NRA members are immigrants, legal and otherwise; Black activists with radical leanings; the small cadres of "Antifa" anarchists who are sometimes indulged by shortsighted local authorities; and, most of all, the "socialists" and "communists" who threaten White, Christian America. Each group is seen as an actual or potential existential threat.
Having found their enemies, the far right elements of the NRA and the nation claim an absolute right to own and bear weapons of war, even if these same weapons are used time and time again to murder American children in their classrooms and other American citizens in churches, businesses, theaters, and even country music concerts in Las Vegas. Nineteen schoolchildren and two teachers in Uvalde are the most recent, terrible deaths resulting from the widespread use of assault rifles. But in the eyes of the self-appointed protectors and defenders, such losses are the price of freedom that they, in their arrogated Constitutional role, have taken it upon themselves to defend in their dangerously perverse way.