home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1990s
/
Time_Almanac_1990s_SoftKey_1994.iso
/
time
/
012990
/
01291015.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
5KB
|
121 lines
<text id=90TT0247>
<title>
Jan. 29, 1990: The Case For Firearms. . .
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990
Jan. 29, 1990 Who Is The NRA?
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
NATION, Page 22
COVER STORIES
The Case for Firearms...</hdr>
<body>
<p>The N.R.A.'s executive vice president says guns will keep
America free
</p>
<p>By J. Warren Cassidy
</p>
<p> The American people have a right "to keep and bear arms."
This right is protected by the Second Amendment to the
Constitution, just as the right to publish editorial comment in
this magazine is protected by the First Amendment. Americans
remain committed to the constitutional right to free speech even
when their most powerful oracles have, at times, abused the
First Amendment's inherent powers. Obviously the American people
believe no democracy can survive without a free voice.
</p>
<p> In the same light, the authors of the Bill of Rights knew
that a democratic republic has a right--indeed, a need--to
keep and bear arms. Millions of American citizens just as
adamantly believe the Second Amendment is crucial to the
maintenance of the democratic process. Many express this belief
through membership in the National Rifle Association of America.
</p>
<p> Our cause is neither trendy nor fashionable, but a basic
American belief that spans generations. The N.R.A.'s strength
has never originated in Washington but instead has reached
outward and upward from Biloxi, Albuquerque, Concord, Tampa,
Topeka--from every point on the compass and from communities
large and small. Those who fail to grasp this widespread
commitment will never understand the depth of political and
philosophical dedication symbolized by the letters N.R.A.
</p>
<p> Scholars who have devoted careers to the study of the
Second Amendment agree in principle that the right to keep and
bear arms is fundamental to our concept of democracy. No
high-court decision has yet found grounds to challenge this
basic freedom. Yet some who oppose this freedom want to waive
the constitutionality of the "gun control" question for the
sake of their particular--and sometimes peculiar--brand of
social reform.
</p>
<p> In doing so they seem ready, even eager, to disregard a
constitutional right exercised by at least 70 million Americans
who own firearms. Contrary to current antigun evangelism, these
gun owners are not bad people. They are hardworking, law
abiding, tax paying. They are safe, sane and courteous in their
use of guns. They have never been, nor will they ever be, a
threat to law-and-order.
</p>
<p> History repeatedly warns us that human character cannot be
scrubbed free of its defects through vain attempts to regulate
inanimate objects such as guns. What has worked in the past, and
what we see working now, are tough, N.R.A.-supported measures
that punish the incorrigible minority who place themselves
outside the law.
</p>
<p> As a result of such measures, violent crimes with firearms,
like assault and robbery, have stabilized or are actually
declining. We see proof that levels of firearm ownership cannot
be associated with levels of criminal violence, except for their
deterrent value. On the other hand, tough laws designed to
incarcerate violent offenders offer something gun control
cannot: swift, sure justice meted out with no accompanying
erosion of individual liberty.
</p>
<p> Violent crime continues to rise in cities like New York and
Washington even after severe firearm-control statutes were
rushed into place. Criminals, understandably, have illegal ways
of obtaining guns. Antigun laws--the waiting periods,
background checks, handgun bans, et al.--only harass those who
obey them. Why should an honest citizen be deprived of a firearm
for sport or self-defense when, for a gangster, obtaining a gun
is just a matter of showing up on the right street corner with
enough money?
</p>
<p> Antigun opinion steadfastly ignores these realities known to
rank-and-file police officers--men and women who face crime
firsthand, not police administrators who face mayors and
editors. These law-enforcement professionals tell us that
expecting firearm restrictions to act as crime-prevention
measures is wishful thinking. They point out that proposed gun
laws would not have stopped heinous crimes committed by the
likes of John Hinckley Jr., Patrick Purdy, Laurie Dann or
mentally disturbed, usually addicted killers. How can such
crimes be used as examples of what gun control could prevent?
</p>
<p> There are better ways to advance our society than to excuse
criminal behavior. The N.R.A. initiated the first hunter-safety
program, which has trained millions of young hunters. We are the
shooting sports' leading safety organization, with more than
26,000 certified instructors training 750,000 students and
trainees last year alone. Through 1989 there were 9,818
N.R.A.-certified law- enforcement instructors teaching
marksmanship to thousands of peace officers.
</p>
<p> Frankly, we would rather keep investing N.R.A. resources in
such worthwhile efforts instead of spending our time and
members' money debunking the failed and flawed promises of gun
prohibitionists.
</p>
<p> If you agree, I invite you to join the N.R.A.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>