September 24, 2018

By Corey Davidson

_Corey Davidson is a junior journalism major at MU. He is an opinion columnist who writes about student life and politics for the Maneater._

The NRA has been the de facto boogeyman for causes of recent gun violence in the U.S. However, I would argue that the NRA is a detriment to gun rights overall. What was once a gun-owners club with helpful legal connections has turned into a slimy political machine that doesn’t even serve its purpose for gun rights activists.

####Fudd Club####
According to Wiktionary, a fudd is “A gun-owner who supports traditional hunting guns but favors gun control for other guns such as handguns or tactical rifles.” You’ll often find fudds at the range acting tacti-cool, but in no way politically invested. To fudds, gun ownership is a hobby instead of a right to uphold or a valuable ideal to fight for. Fudds, and their lukewarm opinions on ownership, make up a large part of the NRA which leads to a weaker message. The widespread fudd presence in the NRA is a big turnoff to more zealous gun owners who wish to see their ideas represented.

For example, a common fudd phrase would be, “I enjoy hunting, but bump stocks and semi-autos should be banned because they have no practical use.” The NRA welcomes fudds for more membership dues, or lobbying money. This all wouldn’t be too bad. However, it seems in recent years that the NRA and right-wingers at large compromise on gun control. Fudds have infiltrated the movement, bending the organization to support measures that negatively affect gun owners. The most recent example of which being their wish-wash on 3D printed guns.

####3D Printed Backtracking####
3D printable guns have gained significant media attention in the past few months, which caused a lot of opinion forming and questions of their morality, legality and effects on the gun industry. The NRA has long been against 3D printed guns or otherwise untraceable firearms, but have switched their story in recent months. 3D gun printing is both extremely technical and expensive, barring most people from ever even using one. The NRA, acting in accordance with gun manufacturing donors, likely took an early stance against the technology but backtracked when it came under more attention. After all, no gun manufacturer would be happy that their product could be made at home out of plastic, and the NRA would take a hit when manufacturers take a hit. In an NRATV video, Dana Loesch, spokeswoman of the NRA, even refers to 3D guns as “freedom and innovation.” So which is it? Are 3D printed guns free and innovative, or are they dangerous and a threat to gun manufacturers?

####NRA Supporting Gun Control####
3D printing guns weren’t the first time the NRA worked against interests of gun owners. Way back in 1969, the NRA heavily supported the passage of the California Mulford Act, which prohibited the open carry of firearms. What sense did it make for a pro-gun organization to actively work against the ability of gun owners to carry? Apparently, it made sense when the legislation was brought up in response to Black Panthers demonstrations. Gov. Ronald Reagan at the time signed the bill into action, even saying that there is “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” While dated, the Mulford Act passage is a prime example of the NRA working to restrict gun ownership.

The trend continues to today, however. According to a Springfield News-Leader article, the NRA has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Republican Attorney Generals Association, which backs Attorney General Josh Hawley. Hawley has come out in support of a bump-stock ban as well as reforming the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to be more rigorous. It seems counter-intuitive of the NRA to support a guy for U.S senate who supports such measures. I anticipate that Hawley, if elected, will be open to compromise on gun control instead of, well, sticking to his guns.

####The NRA isn’t for all gun owners####
It has become increasingly clear that the NRA is not for all gun owners, as it showed in its prolonged silence over the death of Philando Castile. Castile, while not a member of the NRA, was an innocent man of color carrying a firearm legally. He was killed by a police officer after being pulled over and reportedly reaching for his wallet. Castile had been carrying a firearm which he had a conceal-carry permit for. The NRA, however, was silent when news of his death had come out. For almost a year, the organization released no statements or condemnation for the officer. Dana Loesch commented on her personal Twitter that “He was also in possession of a controlled substance and a firearm simultaneously, which is illegal,” in reference to Castile. Loesch’s claim points that his permit was thereby nullified because of his marijuana usage. Even though he had THC in his system at the time of his death, the NRA should have stood up for him.

The NRA seems to be a big political bandwagon. Instead of valuing the individual’s right to bear arms, it’s transformed into communal fudds throwing money towards convenient legislation. If they are to regain any sort of respectability, the NRA should seek to stand for all gun owners, no matter their race or interpretation of the second amendment. It’s time for them to grow a spine and have a serious stake in gun rights.