Meet the Boogeyman

Recently, I got hold of a fundraising letter that Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) sent out on behalf of a new group calling itself the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR). To give you a perspective on their ideology, NAGR Executive Director Dudley Brown calls the Brady Law (which requires federally licensed firearm dealers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers) “dangerous” and “extreme” in a video on their homepage.

But I digress... Here’s an excerpt from the letter:

Dear Concerned American,

The great pay-back has begun, and it's going to be ugly. The gun grabbers in Congress are paying back the anti-gun extremists who put them and Barack Obama in office.

Hi, this is Congressman Paul Broun from Georgia. I wish I had better news, but you and I are facing an assault on our gun rights like we've never seen before. You see, H.R. 45 is Barack Obama's gun control package, and it includes the most vile anti-gun measures he's supported over the years. It's only the first step...but it's a HUGE step. H.R. 45 establishes a NATIONAL gun registry database of every gun and its owner—for the whole county! Your private information and every gun you own would be in the system. But that's only if you succeed in buying a gun in the first place! And since H.R. 45 dramatically increases requirements for firearms purchases far beyond those ever proposed, you just might find yourself incapable of buying a firearm once this bill takes effect.

And it gets worse too. The National Association for Gun Rights has a survey ready for you to complete, but I want you to understand just how dangerous this bill is before I give you the link. Please bear with me for a moment. You see, H.R. 45 would establish a national gun registry database which would:

* Increase requirements for firearms purchases, far beyond those ever proposed.

* Create a national firearms registry overseen by the Federal Government.

* Invoke Draconian penalties for bookkeeping errors related to the Federal Firearms Database.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that gun registration has historically laid the groundwork for total firearm confiscation. Citizen disarmament is the watchword of tyrants everywhere. In fact, the most brutal dictators of the last century were famous for their gun registration and confiscation schemes. But H.R. 45, Obama's National Gun Registry and Citizen Disarmament Act, is more than just a forced registration of all firearms in America. The bill also makes it increasingly difficult to buy a gun in the first place.

It is certainly appropriate for this letter to hit mailboxes as Halloween approaches. Because here-in are three of the gun lobby’s biggest Boogeymen—Barack Obama, gun control and gun bans—all in one neat, scary package!

Never mind that the letter describes H.R. 45 as “Barack Obama’s gun control package,” even though it was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 6, 2009, two weeks before the president was even inaugurated...

Never mind that H.R. 45 has no co-sponsors and has received no hearing in a House committee—meaning you’re more likely to see a pig fly than this bill passing Congress...

Never mind that H.R. 45, “Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009,” is named after a young man who died heroically while shielding a young lady from gunfire on a Chicago bus; and fully supported by his surviving parents…...

Never mind that overwhelming majorities of Americans support licensing gun owners and registering firearms (79% and 77%, respectively)...

Never mind that virtually every other modern democracy licenses gun owners and registers firearms, and none of those reforms have led to “brutal dictators” or outright gun bans (although they have led to astronomically lower gun death rates than we have here in the U.S.)...

Never mind that a tougher screening process for gun purchasers might be a good idea in a country that routinely arms individuals who are clearly a threat to themselves and others…

I think you get the idea... While it is entertaining to see the lengths to which some groups will go to scare donors into sending cash, it is also an important reminder to all of us to check the facts whenever we receive alarming claims in fundraising appeals. It turns out that line between fantasy and reality isn’t so fine after all...

This Sounds Familiar...

Dr. Martin Luther King was a communist. The Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, had secret files to prove it. The entire "civil rights" movement was a Soviet Union-backed plot to lead induce race-mixing and thus weaken the fighting will of Americans. President John F. Kennedy was secretly set on disarming the United States. People who supported equal rights for non-whites were unstable, driven insane by mind-altering drugs and the devil's rock and roll music.

Listening to some of the charges being flung around in the current debate over health care reform, I can’t help but think that I’ve heard it all before. The charges above, of course, were some of those that we heard in America during the 1960s. People frightened by the changes taking place in our society were looking for a boogeyman and found it in the "Communist menace." Rightist politicians, organized hate groups, and some in the news media were quick to jump on the fear bandwagon. Civil rights supporters were shouted down in public meetings. Many universities were closed to certain speakers. Civil rights workers were openly harassed. Some were killed. Others were badly beaten or run out of town.

Despite these obstacles, dedicated civil rights activists—many of whom were students, both black and white—fanned out across the country to seek a change in the laws of the nation. Brave religious leaders stood up to speak truth to power. Advocates of reform organized and took action and eventually achieved great social change in America.

Now, once again, we seem to be on the threshold of major social change, and once again the threats, outlandish charges, and out-right thuggery are part of our public life this summer of discontent. Now there are new charges... President Obama isn't an American. He is part of a Muslim plot to destroy the country. The Democrats’ health care plan would create “death panels” to euthanize senior citizens, thereby reducing health care costs.

Again, the motivating factor is fear of change. I cannot help but believe that much of that fear is—just as in the 1960s—stoked by racial anxiety. It has finally sunk in that the election of Barack Obama is a reality and there is no going back to the “good old days.”

Another similarity is the stockpile of firearms in private hands. Only now the weapons are far more sophisticated and dangerous. I could not help but be alarmed by the New Hampshire man who recently showed up to a public forum held by the President of the United States with a 9mm handgun prominently strapped to his leg and a sign about letting the blood of “tyrants.” I am glad my colleague Josh Horwitz is keeping a close eye on such insurrectionist activity.

But there are two key differences between this upheaval and that of the 1960s. First, in the 1960s we did not have a 24/7 news coverage machine and the Internet to present unedited opinions instantly. Second, it seems that the majority of Americans are not buying into the scare tactics and will not stand (or fall) for such paranoia.

Ultimately, it is up to people of conscience to prevail against hate and intimidation and achieve the change we so desperately need. We can all have great confidence in our ability to reach this goal—those brave souls of the 1960s, who refused to bend against any opposition, proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The Times on the Times

On the west coast, Steve Lopez of the Los Angeles Times looked at a business that’s booming in tough economic times and wondered, "What’s Triggering Gun Sales?" Lopez visited several gun dealerships in the Los Angeles area to find out.

Three main reasons were put forward for gun purchases. First is the much ballyhooed fear promoted by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that President Obama is going to take away all guns. One dealer polished off the gun lobby’s old chestnut: "There are few things that stand between the people and tyranny. Once private gun ownership is eliminated, there's nothing to stop the government from doing what it wants to do."

The second reason has to do with fear of where the current Obama hatred might lead. As one dealer said, “If somebody shoots this guy, there's gonna be wars in the streets," adding that the violence would make the Rodney King rioting look like a picnic in the park, and some people are afraid to get stuck without enough bullets.

The third reason given was a real doozy: Some people "don't know whether [Obama’s] Muslim or Christian."

I loved Lopez’s response to these arguments. “If war broke out between the U.S. government and the Inland Empire, would it be that easy to choose sides? … Then again, if there are people in this country unstable enough to think Obama might lead a jihad, shouldn't I be prepared to protect myself from them?”

In another recent editorial, New York Times columnist John Herbert wrote, “Americans are not paying enough attention to the frightening connection between the right-wing hate-mongers who continue to slither among us and the gun crazies who believe a well-aimed bullet is the ticket to all their dreams … As if the wackos weren’t dangerous enough to begin with, the fuel to further inflame them is available in the over-the-top rhetoric of the National Rifle Association, which has relentlessly pounded the bogus theme that Barack Obama is planning to take away people’s guns ... While the NRA is not advocating violence, it shouldn’t take more than a glance at the newspapers to understand why this is a message that the country could do without.”

Herbert pointed to the obvious irony that “gun control advocates are, frankly, disappointed in the president’s unwillingness to move ahead on even the mildest of gun control measures.” He wisely concluded that the first step to addressing the threat of insurrectionist violence in our country, “should be to bring additional gun control back into the policy mix.”

It’s great to see some editorial sanity from both ends of the country.

Playing with (FOX)fire

The FOX television network and the Republican Party were major promoters of the “Tea Parties” that were held around the nation on April 15. These events, which were promoted as protests against tax policies, seem to have turned into a foul mix of anti-Obama and anti-government diatribes.

According to Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, here in Washington, D.C., demonstrators carried signs with such slogans as “The Audacity of the Dope,” “One Big Awful Mistake America,” “Napolitano—Obama’s Gestapo Queen,” “Obama Bin Lyin” and “Hey Big Brother: Show us Your Real Birth Certificate.”

While such verbal assaults on the President and/or the government are fully within bounds of political dissent—and can even be clever—many of the things said at the various events bordered on incitement to insurrection. At a rally in Austin, Texas Governor Rick Perry suggested that Texans might at some point get so fed up they would secede from the Union. Here in the District, radio talk show host Mike Church treated the crowd to a mock fascist salute and said that “It’s time to have a little revolution, I think. We don’t have to fire weapons. You should own them, you should have a lot of ammo to go with them, but you don’t have to shoot them.” “Unless we have to!” someone yelled back.

My esteemed colleague, CSGV Executive Director Josh Horwitz, is publishing an exciting new book on this topic next month, “Guns, Democracy and the Insurrectionist Idea.” He also has a marvelous new blog on the Huffington Post, “Insurrection Goes ‘Mainstream.’”

The blog focuses on the role of national news media outlets in promoting insurrection. In addition to the endless promotion of the “Tea Parties” on all of FOX’s “Fair & Balanced” programs, Fox News personalities Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto and Tobin Smith were among the featured speakers at various Tea Party sites. Smith even began his presentation at the District of Columbia event by saying “On behalf of the Fox News Channel, I want to say welcome to the Comedy Channel of America, Washington, D.C.” He ended his speech by exhorting the audience to “Keep watching FOX, will you?”

I cannot help but wonder if the Fox News Channel—in its relentless and forceful denigration of our current government—is not playing with fire.

An Interesting Age

In 1936, Sir Austin Chamberlain, brother of the British prime minister, wrote to a friend: "Many years ago, I learned from one of our diplomats in China that one of the principal Chinese curses heaped upon an enemy is, 'May you live in an interesting age.'"

Given the severity and depth of the economic crisis in which our country is enmeshed, it is safe to say that we are living in an interesting age. Our great depression is already having an impact on the crime rate in the nation. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) reports that certain crimes are up across the nation due to the financial crisis. At the same time, our state and local law enforcement agencies are facing severe budget cuts and hiring freezes. Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey has pointed out to the Washington Post that “cities may have to curtail successful programs that have flooded crime ‘hot spots’ with officers.”

An added factor is the recent upturn in gun sales. As one Forth Worth firearms dealer described it: “The volume is 10 times what we ever expected. It started with assault rifles, but at this point, people are buying ammunition, high capacity magazines, Glocks—it’s all flying off the shelf. With the economy the way it is, people are worried about instability. They are scared of civil unrest.”

The National Rifle Association (NRA), of course, is exacerbating these fears by telling gun owners that the Obama Administration plans to ban all firearms. In a recent editorial, NRA Board Member Ted Nugent described President Barack Obama as a “gun control zealot—typical of the loony, anti-freedom wing of the Democratic Party” and new Attorney General Eric Holder as a “Fedzilla ratfink” (no, I’m not making this up). In Nugent’s words, “they know the first thing that needs to be done to turn us from citizens to subjects is to disarm us.”

The Administration’s actual gun violence prevention plans are far more modest, and have been laid out publicly in their recent Urban Policy Agenda statement. The only ban being contemplated is a renewal of the widely popular 1994-2004 ban on assault weapons. The Administration will also undoubtedly be watching Congressional debate over a proposal to use a portion of Homeland Security grants to help state and local law enforcement agencies.

Reflecting back on Sir Austin Chamberlain’s words, let us pray that that the interesting days ahead turn out to be a blessing and not a curse. I have great confidence that the current crisis will provide our country’s leaders with tremendous opportunities to move forward and better the lives of all Americans.

Yes We Can Save Lives

Over the past several years, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has proposed a series of positive steps that could/should be taken by the government to help reduce gun violence in America. For the past eight years, these proposals received either indifference or outright opposition by the Bush Administration. Thus, it was greatly heartening to see that—in its first week in office—the Obama Administration set forth several of our policy goals as part of its comprehensive Urban Policy Agenda.

The document in question reads as follows:

“Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.”

As refreshing as it is to see these meaningful goals put forward so boldly, we must remember that they cannot be achieved without support on Capitol Hill. Now is the time for each of us to step forward and let our elected Members of Congress know that there is strong public support for these measures, and a new administration eager to sign them into law. So pick up that phone, write that email, or pay that long overdue in-person visit to convey your concerns.

Can we do it? Can we finally put common sense laws on the books that will frustrate criminals who attempt to obtain firearms? To borrow a phrase from a campaign that preached hope and grassroots action ... Yes we can!

Armed and Rudderless

In the wake of less-than-stellar results in the November elections, the Republican National Committee (RNC) is in the process of selecting a leader for the future, with six men vying for leadership of the GOP. Last week, all six candidates appeared together in a debate at the National Press Club here in Washington.

The debate was moderated by the “radical rightist” Grover Norquist. You may remember Norquist as the man who said his goal for the U.S. government is “to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

In addition to being the head of a lobby group called Americans for Tax Reform, Norquist is a prominent member of the National Rifle Association Board of Directors (along with Ted Nugent and other luminaries). So it comes as no surprise that one of the main questions he asked the candidates for RNC was about how many guns they own.

As reported in an entertaining “Washington Sketch” by Dana Milbank in the January 6, 2009 Washington Post, current RNC Chairman Mike Duncan claimed four handguns and two rifles. Saul Anunzis, chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, boasted of two guns. Ken Blackwell, former Secretary of State of Ohio, reported that he has seven guns—adding, “and I’m good.” Chip Saltsman, former chair of the Tennessee GOP, responded, “In my closet at home, I’ve got two 12 gauges, a 20 gauge, three handguns and a .30-06. And I’ll take you on any time, Ken.”

The image of a six man shoot-out at the GOP Corral is admittedly an intriguing one.

Equally odd was the response when Norquist asked each candidate to name his favorite Republican president. The tally, reported Milbank, was Ronald Reagan 6, Abraham Lincoln 0. Perhaps this helps to explain why candidate Saltsman recently mailed GOP party members a CD containing the parody song “Barack the Magic Negro.” And why a minority of right wing gun owners continue to cling to the belief that the Second Amendment gives them the right to overthrow our democratic government by force.

Question No. 59

The intricate web of organizations that make up what is commonly called the “gun lobby” has relied for years on scare tactics to stir up their members and raise funds. One of the staples of the fear factory has been the claim that Democrats want to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of firearms in the United States. This “Chicken Little” tactic was recently used by the National Rifle Association in the November elections. The NRA wasted $15 million trying to convince hunters and sportsmen that Senator Barack Obama planned to take their guns—and then watched him win a landslide victory over Senator John McCain, their candidate of choice. Maybe Wayne LaPierre & Co. simply forgot that bugaboo is no longer available for exploitation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. Justice Scalia made it patently clear that gun bans are unconstitutional and therefore impossible.

The gun lobby needed a new fear to exploit—and the latest “smoking gun” they have zeroed in on is a real beaut. In an attempt to again paint the Obama Administration as a threat to gun ownership, the current hue and cry is about a widely disseminated questionnaire for those applying for jobs in the new administration. Specifically, this question has drawn the pro-gunners ire:

“Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”

The NRA has described the question as “chilling” and suggested it could be used to disqualify law-abiding individuals who use firearms for hunting or self-defense in the home. Republican Senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina has also claimed (again without evidence) that the question was designed to “discriminate based on lawful activity.” Finally, Brendan Miniter of the Wall Street Journal argued that President-elect Obama has displayed “a typical ignorance of how gun ownership works in America.”

That’s funny. To hear the gun lobby tell it, I always thought gun ownership was about personal responsibility. It seems to me that the new administration’s questionnaire was simply trying to determine if applicants have exercised their Second Amendment rights in a responsible manner. Moreover, there is no evidence that gun ownership was being specifically targeted by the incoming administration. There were more than 60 questions on the questionnaire that sought to assess the overall character of applicants—including lobby ties, financial records, property ownership and the like. Given that these individuals seek to serve at the highest levels of government, that’s not only reasonable, but necessary—even in a pre-9/11 era.

I suspect the true reason the NRA got its tail feathers ruffled is because they seek to make private gun ownership in our country anonymous and unregulated. But responsibility and accountability go hand in hand—and no law-abiding citizen will ever have anything to fear from a little transparency when it comes to employment screening.

The Last Thing They Want

Sometimes it's easy to forget that the gun control debate is not restricted to the United States. I would like to share with you in its entirety a recent article written by Ralph Ahren from Israel's oldest daily newspaper, Haaretz:

Founder of Israeli NRA Seeks to Import American Gun Culture

While the gun lobby in the United States took a setback last week with the election of Barack Obama, who supports the ban of assault weapons, a group of Israeli-Americans are now trying to ease restrictions on gun ownership here in Israel. Modeled and named after the powerful but controversial Virginia-based National Rifle Association, it is unclear whether the Israeli NRA will be able to gather enough support to be in any way influential. Several experts have already voiced criticism of the group's agenda.

"You hear about mob shootings in Netanya, where innocent people get killed, you hear about people being attacked with knives, with guns, with bulldozers," said Joshua Moesch, who founded the group last week. "I think that having more responsible citizens out there with weapons is very important. The police can be the greatest in the world, but they can't be everywhere at the same time."

Under the banner of self defense, the Israeli NRA advocates "the right to carry a firearm for all law abiding, military-serving Israeli citizens," as well as the expansion of what is known as the Shai Dromi law, which allows anyone who kills or injures an intruder on his or her property to be absolved of criminal responsibility. Other group goals include gun safety, self-defense courses, promoting shooting as a sport and creating police athletic leagues.

Moesch's first step was to create a Facebook group and a Web site. The 29-year-old Beit Shemesh resident told Anglo File he wants to first see how much support he can expect from the Israeli public before taking further action. If his group sees "a reasonable showing," the next move would be to register as a nonprofit organization and lobby to members of Knesset, he said.

Moesch, who immigrated to Israel from Vermont about six years ago, rejects the anti-gun lobby argument that more weapons would lead to greater violence. He counters by saying that compulsory army service makes Israeli society well acquainted with firearms, giving most people "a certain respect for guns." He adds, "People know in most cases when to use and when not to use them. We don't see many cases of off-duty soldiers getting into a fight in a club or something, using their guns to sort it out."

Yet it remains doubtful whether pro-gun advocacy will become as important in Israel as it is in the U.S. "The general trend to transplant American ideas to other countries is often not successful or very useful," said Gerald Steinberg, chairman of political studies at Bar Ilan University and an expert on American culture. The arguments put forward by the Israeli NRA are not convincing, he told Anglo File.

"We don't need a situation where hundreds of people shoot in all kinds of different directions in the case of a terror attack. That's the job of the police or the army," Steinberg said. He said that if more people carried guns the chances of more people getting hurt would be greater than the chance of neutralizing an attacker more quickly. "The last thing we want in Israel is an American gun culture," he added. "Israel has enough dangers, and making it easier for people on the street to carry guns is not what we need."

The Latest Charade

It seems that every election cycle there is an elaborate and almost comical charade that takes place. It goes something like this:

1) The National Rifle Association (NRA) alerts the media of a massive war chest to be spent to elect or defeat candidates based on their position on gun control.

2) Very small amounts of NRA monies are doled out to candidates in extremely safe seats.

3) Late in the election cycle, massive NRA funding is spent to defeat designated "gun grabbers." Wild and outrageous charges are hurled at these candidates.

4) Immediately after the election is concluded, the NRA claims a great victory, citing the percentage of winning candidates it has supported. This is duly reported in the press and touted in all the pro-gun publications. The elective power of the NRA becomes part of the “conventional wisdom.”

5) Later, careful analysis of the election results reveals that the majority of NRA-supported candidates would have won without the NRA. More importantly, in races where the NRA concentrates its attacks, their tactics are shown to have had no significant impact on the results. Unfortunately for the purveyors of conventional wisdom, the NRA claims of great victory have already been set in concrete. Future candidates are warned of the fearsome power of the big bad NRA.

Last Tuesday’s election once again followed the first half of the traditional pattern. During the summer, the NRA announced that it intended to spend $40 million in the elections—including an eye-popping $15 million campaign intended to defeat Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama. The NRA backed some ‘A’-rated supporters in safe seats and launched outrageous attacks on other politicians, with Senator Obama their primary target.

But after Senator Obama’s landslide victory in the presidential election—and Democrats’ significant gains in both the House and Senate—the national media finally called attention to the NRA’s sleight of hand.

NBC’s Carrie Dann reported: “As the vote margins of the presidential race rolled in, the one-time wedge issue of the Second Amendment did not seem to pack the national-stage punch for which the influential gun lobby had aimed. Nationally, gun owners broke for McCain by almost the identical margin that they broke for Bush in 2004. But in the states where the NRA Political Victory Fund's toughest efforts against Obama were concentrated—gun-rich regions in states like Colorado, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico—Obama’s victory was decisive. The Democratic nominee won those states by eight, 11, and 15 points, respectively. Of the 11 states where the NRA's anti-Obama ads were reportedly aired, McCain won only one: Texas. Down the ballot, the NRA backed all six of the Republican Senate candidates who lost to Democratic challengers. And in several high-profile House contests, NRA-backed candidates like Ed Tinsley, Bill Sali, Steve Chabot, and Phil English came up short … The influence of the once-dominant gun lobby appears to be up for debate...”

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence pointed out some other salient facts about the election in a new report, noting that “The NRA spent over thirty-one times more money against Obama than it spent in its negative efforts in 2000 against Al Gore” and “The NRA spent over 90% of its independent expenditures on losing candidates.”

Only time will tell if the purveyors of common wisdom will finally absorb the truth of the effect of the NRA on national elections (or lack thereof). We should remain cognizant, however, that the NRA had $15 million to waste on this election. Pro-gun control forces did not. Now is the time for those who support sensible gun laws to put some of their money where their heart is—there is still important work to be done to reduce the 30,000 lives lost annually to gun violence in our country.

The NRA Cries Wolf...Again

Over the years I have observed the underhanded and sleazy political campaign tactics of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). It has been my experience that their practices hew to a familiar pattern—wait until near the end of an election cycle, then attack those who support common sense gun laws with a series of unsubstantiated and false claims.

This election cycle, the NRA-ILA has announced that it will spend $40 million on campaign activities. $15 million of that amount will be used to portray Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama as a threat to individual gun ownership in the United States. The NRA-ILA is circulating fliers and mailers that claim to expose "Barack Obama's 10-Point Plan to Change the Second Amendment." This bogus "plan" is really an NRA invention that purposely distorts the Senator's voting record and public statements.

In addition, the NRA is running TV and radio ads that claim that Obama plans to "ban use of firearms for home self-defense," "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns," and "close 90% of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition" if elected. These accusations are a familiar mixture of misrepresentations, twisted language, fabrications, unsubstantiated conjecture and outright lies. To any informed voter, the NRA’s tactics are pure political satire worthy of Saturday Night Live. The ads themselves are so ridiculous that they would be funny were they not so dangerous.

You can check out the accuracy of the NRA’s claims about Senator Obama at the nonpartisan Annenberg Political Fact Check website. A recent editorial by American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) President Ray Schoenke also refutes the NRA’s Confiscation Myth.

Let us remember that just two election cycles ago it was Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain who was in the NRA’s crosshairs. In 2001, the NRA lambasted McCain as one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment. Now, NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox brags about “over 20 years of high-profile agreements” with the Senator.

Like “The Boy Who Cried Wolf,” the NRA will continue to raise their confiscation fears as long as there is money to be raised and politicians to intimidate. The moral of that famous story is "Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth.” At least Wayne LaPierre & Co. will never find themselves in that situation...

To Dream the Impossible Dream

Forty-five years ago my wife-to-be and I stood amongst a huge multitude of people on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. and heard a young black preacher spell out his dream of a future for America. It was a stirring vision of a society that, "one day," could become a reality.

At the time, his dream seemed like a beautiful but unreachable goal. However, last Thursday, exactly 45 years to the day, we sat in another crowd to witness a young African-American fulfill the promise of that long-ago dream. We heard Barack Obama spell out his own vision of the future of America. Like the dream of the preacher, it seems like an unreachable goal. But we now know that dreams can come true with lots of hard work, dedication and sacrifice on the part of the dreamers.

I was pleased to hear the Democratic candidate for President of the United States include the following in his vision of our future:

"The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

That is an important goal for a candidate running for public office in this day and age when gun violence has become an epidemic and most politicians are trying to ignore or run away from the issue of gun control.

A day later we were presented with a stark contrast when a self-proclaimed "lifetime member of the National Rifle Association" was chosen to be the candidate for Vice-President on the Republican ticket. It was a curious and disappointing choice for a presidential candidate who had hinted at his independence from the gun lobby when he recently reiterated support for closing the Gun Show Loophole.

In the days ahead, we will have an opportunity to find out who is the real John McCain: the maverick willing to buck special interests to better the lives of everyday Americans, or the politician eager to court right-wing favor even if it means betraying his principles?

Soon we will have a clear choice of visions. And then the future will be in our hands when we head to the polls in November...