How to Make the Case for the End of Gun Violence
I was one of the first people on the streets when the National Rifle Association launched the assault weapons ban in the wake of the Newtown school shooting in December 2012.
A friend of mine who had served in Iraq had been killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2006.
I had spent several months in Iraq, where I had experienced the toll of war firsthand and the aftermath of a devastating bombing campaign.
And as a father of four girls, I understood that our military and law enforcement officers needed to be armed to defend our country.
I saw no reason why we could not keep those guns out of the hands of the bad guys.
I also knew that the assault weapon ban was wrong, even if it didn’t make sense for me personally.
After all, the guns that killed my friend and a lot of the people I knew in Iraq were assault rifles.
So I didn’t have a problem with the ban.
As a civilian gun owner, I was worried about the ban’s impact on the public safety, on public safety advocates, and on the NRA’s political fortunes.
In addition, I didn.
There are a lot more guns on the street today than there were at the time of the Columbine shootings in 1999.
I thought we were seeing the end of a long-term trend toward a less-gun-friendly society.
But as I listened to the NRA on Sunday, I began to wonder whether they had something to learn from the Columbines.
I wondered whether they were following in the footsteps of their late father, Jack Welch, a longtime gun-rights activist who was the first to lead the NRA into the gun control debate after the Newtown massacre.
I couldn’t get over how many times they talked about gun safety and how we should be more responsible about protecting ourselves from criminals and terrorists.
Their message was clear: We must not let the Second Amendment slip away.
It wasn’t the NRA that had changed the gun laws, it was the NRA itself.
It was the message they were selling to the public.
When Jack Welch announced his departure from the NRA in 2016, he said the organization would be the first major political organization to endorse an assault weapons law.
I remember reading the NRA magazine in the years following Newtown and how Jack was a constant reminder of how much he loved his country and its people.
His message to the American people in 2016 was simple: Guns don’t kill people, but the Second Amendments do.
And the more guns we have, the more likely it is that people will be able to buy weapons and get them to commit mass murder.
And it’s not just that guns can make us safer; it also helps us live more safely.
And this isn’t just true for the military, it’s true for all of us.
Gun owners have a moral obligation to do our part to keep the country safer.
It’s one of those things that should be obvious to anyone who has a clue about gun policy.
But I couldn`t get over the NRA`s message that guns don`t kill people.
Jack Welch wasn`t alone.
In the years since Newtown, gun control groups have been trying to persuade gun owners to keep guns out from criminals.
The National Rifle Assn.
and the National Shooting Sports Foundation have been lobbying to expand the definition of assault weapons.
The Center for American Progress and other left-leaning groups have pushed to require universal background checks for gun purchases.
The gun lobby has pushed for legislation that would require background checks on all gun purchases and a ban on all semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Every time gun control activists tried to tell us that our guns were just a means of protection, they were failing to get our attention.
There were a few moments during the campaign that seemed to change the conversation.
During the second presidential debate in late October, I caught wind of an article in the New York Times on how the NRA and the American Legislative Exchange Council were pushing to block background checks.
The article was about a proposal that would have required gun dealers to obtain background checks before the sale of guns.
The NRA was concerned that this would lead to a flood of firearms coming into the hands and hands of criminals.
But the Times article said that in fact, it wasn` t clear how widespread this problem would be.
The ATF had already reported that it had already received about 700 reports of guns going missing and that it would be taking action on at least a thousand more reports.
In fact, the NRA was working on a plan to make it much harder for gun dealers and law-enforcement officers to get guns from dealers who were not compliant with background checks, even though many states already require background check requirements.
The Times article made me feel like it was an accurate reflection of the NRA, which has long opposed the background check mandate.
I wasn`tthere was a moment in the debate where I realized that guns didn`t make us safe, but that guns did make us better citizens.
I think there is a lot to be learned