Letter: NRA Agenda Makes Society Less Safe


The following is in response to the Sept. 19 letter titled “It’s Not The Gun That Kills.”

This notion of “law abiding” gun owners is a false construct. When laws are twisted from their original, outdated meaning, it puts our safety and security at risk.

Let’s start with facts. There is NO federal law that allows for individual, private ownership of firearms in the United States. Not even the Second Amendment. The political lobbyist and special interest group known as the National Rifle Association, which represents gun manufacturers, worked over several years to subvert and change the general interpretation of the Second Amendment from its original intent. They spent a ton of money over several decade and pushed their selfish agenda, thus making our society far less safe. Read the law:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This amendment was intended to ensure that local community militias could protects their collective interests. But over the past 100 years, this became an antiquated notion that no longer applies. As a result, gun manufacturers used the NRA for self-preservation and turned losses into business opportunity. They funded extremist candidates for Congress while conservative majorities in the Supreme Court were swayed by the political and financial bullying.

This can no longer be tolerated. Private gun ownership can and should be both infringed AND highly restricted, even if that means revising the Second Amendment. Automatic, semi-automatic and accessorized pieces that enable mass killing are a threat to our national security. And most sane, rational, even barely-literate citizens agree.

This may not change overnight, but the march of progress always bends toward social and collective good. When the laws are unjust, we change them. Would the author of “It’s Not The Gun That Kills” have supported slavery because it was specifically legalized in the Constitution? Let’s hope not. And like the end of slavery, civil rights, female enfranchisement and LGBTQ equality movements before them, change for the better will happen. The scourge that is private gun ownership will slowly dissipate as the younger, more enlightened generations move into influential positions of power within our society.

It’s just too bad that many more innocent victims are likely to be shot before this happens. So hope is not enough. And if it takes pressuring cowardly restaurant owners to not host the gun-loving accessories to mass murder (NRA members) so our kids can be safer, so be it.

—Matthew Wurst


  1. Dear NRA…..
    Stop “negotiating” excuses to INFRINGE on OUR RIGHTS… If there must be background checks, let’s try this idea… Are there any ‘legislators’ that are interested in a UnConstitutional Background Check?
    Since SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means exactly that..

    Let’s try a “Background Check” that DOES NOT INFRINGE on anybodies RIGHTS…A FULL, IN DEPTH background check for ALL Politicians, Bureaucrats, and ALL government employees, and set MINIMAL INTELLIGENCE, JOB SKILLS AND CHARACTER QUALITIES that must be met before they can run for office, be appointed or hired.

    That way, WE, THE PEOPLE, get a much better class of politicians and bureaucrats, as well as EMPLOYEES that can be trained to do the jobs they are being hired for.

    Any bets on how hard the political class will fight to prevent it?

    THAT would be a Background Check that nearly ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS will support and I don’t much care if the illegals and their sycophants don’t like the idea.

  2. Dude, you’re delusional. The default isn’t “everything is prohibited except what the government allows”. That’s the most ridiculous, anti-American thing anyone could espouse, yet here you are, espousing it.

    The default is liberty, not restriction. Either you’re uneducated or you’re indoctrinated. Clue: The progressive world view is the inverse of American originalism, and is therefore counterfeit.

  3. The anti-2nd Amendment community has for a long time deliberately misread the Second amendment, to the point of ignoring the logic structure of the sentence.

    The structure is this:

    “This is a benefit derived from X; the rights to X shall not be infringed.”

    To read it in any different context requires deliberate, intentional ignorance.

    For example; suppose we said:

    “Healthy bones being good for children, the right of children to drink milk shall not be infringed”.

    The “progressive” read of that sentence, taken as they read the 2nd amendment, would be: “Only children with healthy bones are allowed to drink milk”.

    Excuse me, but you have to be a real arse to interpret that sentence that way.

    “Quality orchestras being of value to the culture of the state, the right of the people to own and play musical instruments shall not be infringed”.

    Have I’ve just said that only orchestra members can own or play instruments?

    They are not making a mistake with their faulty interpretation- it’s very chillingly deliberate deception.

    “A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.”

    Who has the right to keep and eat food? A well balanced breakfast or the people?

    “A well-read electorate being important to a representative democracy, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed”.

    The modern day gun controller would demand that only those on the voting rolls have the freedom to read and keep books. This shows their moral and ethical bankruptcy.

    But let’s take one last look at that sentence construction. The importance of a horse in the 18th century to army personnel was extremely high. It was their transportation, it was their luggage carrier, and they could even eat it if necessary during a siege. Therefore, it was paramount to know that all the milita could show up with their horse in hand when called upon. So… the Founding Fathers put a clause in the Constitution that read something such as this:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and ride horses shall not be infringed”

    Now, based upon the interpretations of those who have difficulty understanding English they would have us believe that only those who belong to the milita have the “right” to keep and ride a horse. No other people do. Not farmers. Not cowboys. Not horse racers. Not teamsters. Not stagecoach companies. Not little girls with their ponies. No one has the “right” to keep and ride a horse except a “militia member.”

    And furthermore, those that have the “right” to keep and ride a horse must abide by the government regulations as to the particular, allowable breed of horse, the number of legs the horse must have, how old it must be, how tall it can be, the color of its hair, how long the mane can be, whether or not it is male or female, and if it is gelded. Not to mention the total number of horses one can keep and ride, or the sum total poundage of the herd. Or how fast it can be ridden and how many miles in one trip.

    If this seems exceptionally silly… that is because the basic argument of those who dismiss the 2nd Amendment as only applying to the miltia is exceptionally silly. They really know that deep in their heart… which is why they generally just wave their hands and don’t ty to actually defend their position.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here