How The NRA is Corrupt and Provides False Information But Is Also a Beneficial Organization

Table of Contents: Select a Link to be Taken to That Section

Executive Summary

The US has increasingly been restricting gun rights.
The NRA provides false information to its members but blocks this growing desire for restrictions.

Introduction

This article covers the reality of the NRA but points out its necessity.

Our References

See our references for this article and related articles at this link.

Go to top

The US Government Supports Gun Control, But Only For Americans

Those restricting gun ownership in the US aggressively support sending lethal weapons to Ukraine. The US did the same in the war against Russia in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and the US sent large numbers of Stinger missiles to Afghanistan. How is it that most US Democrats want to take weapons from US citizens, weapons that they paid for, but want far more lethal weapons sent to Ukrainians? Do Ukrainians pay US taxes? Do they have some superior citizenship rights over US citizens that we are all unaware of?

This is part of a repeating pattern of citizens of another country receiving superior weapons rights. There seems to be no discussion of “gun control” in Afghanistan, Ukraine, or any of these countries the US chooses to arm as there is in the US. Becuase in the US, the presentation of far less lethal handguns and rifles is that they should not be necessary. Democrat-leaning individuals often state that “no one needs an assault rifle.”

Biden thinks that US citizens should not be allowed to have assault weapons. But he will buy whatever he can for Ukrainians. Biden states that no one needs assault weapons, except for Afghanis, Ukrainians, ISIS, the Taliban, etc.. Isn’t it curious that when the US handed over perhaps a billion dollars in arms to the Taliban, none of the Taliban had to go through a background check?

More On the Javelin Anti Tank Missile

There is no Constitutional support for the US Federal government providing weapons to armies of foreign countries. The US government is neither approved to arm foreign militaries nor is it authorized to maintain its military.

Appreciating the US Innovation of the Citizen Soldier

This was such an innovation because militaries of professional soldiers are under the federal government’s command. However, citizen soldiers have to be managed differently. As I will discuss, such a force would not be deployed internationally to support the types of wars the US has today. The Founding Fathers opposed standing armies because they are historically, and they are, in fact, today, instruments of subordinating both foreign people and of the domestic US population. This could not be clearer in their writings in multiple areas. If this current and WW2 era and post-WW2 era scenario were understood, none of the states that signed the US Constitution in 1778 would have signed. That is how seriously the founders considered standing armies.

Why Were Arms Aggressively Encouraged by the US Colonies and the Early US Federal and State Governments?

The original purpose of the right to bear arms has several supporting reasons, which I get into in the article The Complicated and Confusing History of the 2nd Amendment. Still, the most substantial supporting reason is to provide for the common defense. It is only the right for personal defense in an ancillary way and is not to be used against the federal or state government. But this right was also accepted long before any of the colonies became states and created state constitutions. Regarding the supposed right of US citizens to use arms to overturn their government, there have been several rebellions in US history, including the Shay Rebellion and Whiskey Rebellion. The US Federal Government did not accept the right of these rebellions and smashed them quickly, and in the case of Shay’s Rebellion, used mercenaries to do so. The famous statement of Thomas Jefferson about the blood of tyrants and patriots being necessary to be periodically shed is not part of the US Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. The US government and US public lost their collective minds at a minor threat to the US Federal Government on Jan 6th, which was unarmed. Imagine the response to an armed insurrection. But why isn’t the tree of liberty to be periodically watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants? It is curious how frequently gun owners in the US propose that the founding fathers wanted US citizens to have weapons to overturn the government when it no longer served the people how a) they don’t look at the history of rebellions in the US, and b) they can’t seem to explain why the US government has not already been overturned as it stopped serving the people long ago. This is a topic I cover in the article The Revolutionary Elite’s Double Standard on Insurrections.

The Problem With Listening to the NRA

A major problem with gun owners in the US is that they receive most of their information about US historical documents regarding gun rights and the founding fathers’ thinking from the National Riflemen’s Association. However, the NRA is not an independent entity, and they have no research capability nor any concern for what is true. The NRA promotes false research when it fits what they would like their readers to think is true, as I cover in the article Do Guns Reduce Crime Through Posing a Threat to Criminals?

The NRA is a lobby representing gun manufacturers masquerading as a broad-based organization. This masquerade is critical to their ability to achieve their objective. If the NRA was honest that it is a lobby for gun manufacturers, then it could not get anyone to accept their claims that they support gun rights because they believe it is true, or these are rights that are supported by the 2nd Amendment (which is a vast oversimplification, which I cover in the article The Complicated and Confusing History of the 2nd Amendment). The NRA has 5.5 million members, but the members don’t control the NRA.

The objective of the NRA is to sell more guns and the NRA needs to restrict gun control for that to happen. However, listening to the NRA as to what is true and not true would be like getting one’s information on the oil and gas industry from the American Petroleum Institute or getting one’s view on feminism from MS Magazine. And they have created several false understandings in public, specifically the gun owners of the US.

The Gun Control Debate in the US

In the US, the gun debate ping pongs between the corrupt NRA and the broader misinformed left-leaning public who know far less than the NRA and who are often led by women who react emotionally to various violent incidents. However, most of the violent crime in the US is engaged in by the black population of the US, as I cover in the article Is Gun Culture or Black Culture to Blame for Gun Violence? The inability of gun control advocates to engage in this undeniable topic further illustrates their complete lack of interest in what is true. Democrats and gun control advocates want to reduce violent crime, but only in a way that is PC and “not racist.” BLM has also conveniently sidestepped the issue of black violent crime and recast the problem as police shootings of blacks. The Democrats and BLM compete to see who can be more innumerate as police kill only around 20 black unarmed people in any given year, which is lower than the number of people killed by lawnmower mishaps in the US every year. I cover these topics in the article Why the Claims by Black Lives Matter on Police Shootings Are False. By getting the police to back off on law enforcement after the 2020 BLM protests/riots, the black murder rate increased from roughly 7,000 in 2020 to approximately 9000 in 2021. BLM has the same expertise in policing as Democrats have when it comes to guns.

Why the NRA is Necessary

While purveyors of false information on history, the NRA is one of the only groups that block the desire of most Democrats to disarm the US public. Therefore, in this regard, they have a critically crucial positive effect.

Conclusion

The NRA is not a reliable source of information on US history, the founding fathers, or the original US documents. However, the NRA is correct, and those that oppose the NRA are incorrect on whether the original design of the US was of an armed society. Many of the arguments made by those that support gun control, that assault rifles are not used for hunting, or that hunting is the reason for an armed citizenry, show that most gun control advocates have not put in even the tiniest effort to understand the original documents or US history.

Finally, the NRA must stop people who know nothing about these topics from pushing through more gun control legislation.

Secondly, all the pearl-clutching around guns by Democrats cease immediately as soon as the violence statistics of blacks, who are responsible for 1/2 of all gun murders in the US, is brought up. At that point, these gun murders are blamed on racism. Racism causes black to have 5x violent crime levels, while 90% of their victims are other blacks. The pearl-clutching also ceases when some favored country requests arms far more lethal than what is legal for US citizens to possess. Then, quickly, guns and much more become a “good thing.” None of these gun control advocates realize that the US Constitution does not support arming foreign militaries. The original design of the US was to stay away from involvement in foreign conflicts, particularly those that the US itself instigates.