Readers will know—a group of people and I have been reading 30,000 randomly generated names for weeks now. Why 30,000? That’s the number of people killed by gunshot every year; using information from the CDC, I compiled a list of 720 pages.
I had been nervous about doing the reading, since I don’t do confrontation well. And I had thought that I would run into a lot of NRA supporters. So in all these weeks of talking to people, how many card-carrying NRA members have I spoken with?
Two.
And I have spoken to many, many people. So what’s the story? Yes, I am in Puerto Rico, but there are many tourists here. There are days, in fact, when two or three cruise ships come into the harbor—the city becomes Des Moines, linguistically and culturally.
The two cases of pro-NRA folk were identical; they were white, middle-aged men. They didn’t want to talk, one saying frankly, “I’m not interested in your views,” after I had asked him why he was in favor of the NRA. The other engaged briefly in debate, but declined to sit in front of the camera and give his point of view.
Generally, I would prefer to be wrong rather than right—you learn something. And if someone can tell me, for example, why gun shops require background checks but gun shows do not, I’m willing to listen.
And I started out this project wanting to know—what is it that fuels this debate about guns and gun control? What is it that stirs such strong feelings on both sides?
I’m hard-pressed to think of a more potent symbol than a gun. Yes, I considered briefly the image of Christ on the cross, or the swastika (please note—I’m not likening the two) or the sickle and hammer. Strong, yes—but as strong as a gun?
And I’ve come to believe—the NRA advocates, based on my brief encounters personally and my longer encounters electronically, are deeply fearful people.
And whom do they fear?
The government.
They see their guns as the only thing stopping the government from tyranny. And I’ll go further.
They see their world disappearing. There’s a black guy in the White House. Gay people are getting married, and Spanish is spoken everywhere. Hillary may well be president in 2017, and that will drive them nuts.
They see their guns as protection, and each day brings with it added urgency; more need for bigger, more destructive weapons.
But there’s a problem. And a journalism professor at the University of Kentucky brought it out, as reported by the Daily Caller:
In a bizarre op-ed in The Charleston Gazette last week, journalism professor Christopher Swindell argued that the National Rifle Association “advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America.”
Bizarre? How so? The most extreme gun advocates quite openly state—their guns are their defense against the government. And how far is it that defense become offense?
A Libertarian wants to get 10,000 people carrying loaded weapons to march through Washington DC on the Fourth of July. He says it will be peaceful, but who knows? To me, it’s a pretty provocative act.
It’s also provocative to argue, as the new president of the NRA has, that Obama is a “fake president.” In olden days, it would be called unpatriotic; I still think it is.
People are reacting to a series of threats to our liberties. The media calls it fear. That’s not it, that not it. It’s a sense of rational outrage that’s been building for a very long time. It’s not going to diminish. It’s not going to go away….
I hear some Americans say with the last election the country is lost. No. No. An election was lost. There’s another election more important to the Second Amendment right around the corner. With the U.S. Senate and the House up for grabs, we as individual N.R.A. members can direct the massive energy of spontaneous combustion to regain the political high ground. We do that, and Obama can be stopped.
That was Porter speaking recently at the NRA national convention, and it’s clear—the NRA is playing out the demagogue’s favorite trick: create a false crisis and stir up the masses.
God save us all.
