I went
off to summer camp when I was thirteen, and along with canoeing and lanyard
weaving and archery, and swimming in the chilly, tidal backwaters of the
Sheepscot, I took riflery. We might
honestly understand, that both in my personal history and in America’s, this was a more innocent
age. Camp
Chewonki - which still exists, just
south of Wiscasset, Maine – had been around for
generations. Two of my uncles, my mom’s
older brothers, went there, and Roger Tory Peterson, the much-celebrated author
of A Field Guide to the Birds,
dedicated his book to Clarence Allen, who was even in my day the benevolent
eminence, a little shaky on his pins, but very much present. Looking back, Chewonki might be said to
represent a lost world, where Saltonstalls and
Cabots, among the New England elite, were
destined to rule the American imperium; salt water and the Episcopalian catechism
were brisk and bracing.
But
for the purposes of the immediate discussion, we can narrow the field to shooting
skills. Chewonki had a rifle range. We used single-shot bolt-actions in .22
rimfire, at fifty feet. To qualify for
awards like Marksman, or Sharpshooter, and graduating up to Expert, you
followed a course of fire – a minimum score in each of the four positions,
prone, sitting, kneeling, standing - established by the National Rifle
Association. The
NRA offered these programs all over the place, summer camps, the Boy Scouts,
schools and social clubs, and nobody found it odd. They were a sportsmen’s organization, with no
political affiliation. They also
published the only national shooting magazine, American Rifleman, which was for hunters and recreational shooters
- handguns featured very little, in those days, primarily in competition. The craze for military-style weapons and
combat-related content was some ways off.
The
year it all changed was 1977, at the NRA national convention in Cincinnati. This isn’t a date or an event that registers
much with the general public, but it looms large in NRA lore, and has had a
lasting effect on American gun culture, and the ongoing debate over gun control.
The
short version is this. Historically,
from the 1870’s to the 1970’s, the NRA was recreational, environmentally aware,
and committed to gun safety and education.
The coup in Cincinnati
toppled longstanding leadership policy, and brought the 2nd
Amendment absolutists to power. Their
emphasis was on gun ownership, and a
rigid interpretation of the right to bear arms.
They moved the goalposts. More
importantly, they caught the Old Guard off-guard. Nobody organized any effective
resistance. They didn’t recognize how
radical a change was in the wind. And left
a vacuum.
Into
this empty space stepped an activist and self-selected lobbying group, devoted
to a single issue. What you might
describe as more reasonable voices surrendered the stage. They let the other guys set the terms of the debate. Which is
where we’re at now.
Now,
like the Port Huron Statement, for SDS, or the Seneca Falls Declaration, in
support of women’s rights, the NRA wanted to cast their position as about
fundamentals. These are rights denied -
more to the point, not exercised, or not affirmed. Allowed to atrophy. If you argue original intent, the 2nd
Amendment is a bulwark against tyranny, the well-regulated
militia. In the context of England’s wars against the French, or for that
matter, against the Stuart pretenders in Scotland, this makes perfect
sense. Troops could be billeted in your
home, against your will. They’d steal
the eggs, and then kill the chickens.
Not to mention rape the women.
This is a common-sense precaution.
Interestingly,
as the argument warms up, we hear even legal scholars on the Left saying, Oop,
sorry kids, but the 2nd actually means what it says, commas and all. You can’t restrict legal ownership of
guns. And the Supremes weigh in. An overly repressive DC law is voided. (In that particular case, a security guard,
licensed to carry on the job, wanted to know why he couldn’t protect his
home. The court, quite sensibly, ruled
in his favor.) The problem is not the 2nd Amendment.
Wayne LaPierre,
and the direction the NRA has taken in the last fifty years, is contrary to what
a lot of us think. I’m not talking about
the drift of liberal opinion, I mean gun guys.
It’s ridiculous to conflate Ruby Ridge or the Branch Davidians or some
other asshole who hates the Feds with people who hunt, or shoot, or need
personal protection in a dangerous place.
What
we lost is that we ceded the argument.
We let the other guys get possession, we need to take the conversation
back. Like everything else.
Enough
with the crazies sucking the air out of the room.
