Ted Nugent on its' Board. He should be an embarrassment. But maybe the NRA agrees with the extremist nonsense and offensive language spewed by this man. It's good to have someone on your Board to stir up the ranks of the members. Do they really think this kind of talk is O.K? Once again Nugent has decided to enlighten readers of the Washington Times with this editorial piece attacking the United Nations. What is it about the United Nations that the gun guys and conservatives love to hate? I have never been able to understand this feeling of anger towards a world-wide organization devoted to peace keeping. From Nugent's latest rant in the Washington Times: " The despots, thugs, scoundrels, punks and various crooks at the United Nations have it all wrong again. Imagine that." Can you imagine using those words to describe representatives to the United Nations from Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Luxembourg, Maldives, or Switzerland? Nugent paints a broad brush when talking about the U.N. member countries. It is certainly possible that some of the rulers of some of the member countries have terrorized and controlled citizens with weapons. How do the weapons get into these countries in the first place? Isn't that what this treaty is all about?
And then there's this: " Let’s cut to the chase. The reason the U.N. may pass such an agreement is because many of the nations that belong to the U.N. either directly or indirectly support terrorism and are viciously opposed to liberty and freedom. At its core, the U.N. is not about promoting freedom and liberating people by killing bad guys. It is about controlling people by limiting their ability to defend themselves against tyranny and slavery imposed by evil and maniacal regimes." These words come mainly from the NRA who fears "gun grabbers" even amongst the U.N. member nations. Really? Read more of what Nugent has to say: " Eliminate evil people, and good people live. Enable evil people to control people, and good people are slaughtered. It’s so simple it’s stupid." I wonder to whom Nugent is referring here. Or do we really want to know? Oh yes, and then there is the personal hygiene of the U.N. members- " Perhaps some of the soulless voodoo punks at the U.N. can’t read. Based on their personal hygiene shortcomings, it wouldn’t surprise me." Right.
That about sums up the intemperate complaints against the U.N. by an NRA Board member. At the end Nugent invokes Charleton Heston's famous words: " Paraphrasing the words of the late freedom addict and American hero Charlton Heston, a U.N. stooge or anyone else can have my gun when they remove my cold dead fingers from around it. Know it." Freedom addict? What does that mean? And more Nugent "unplugged" from this ESPN article gives us this quote: "Numerous people have asked me, "If you could only own one gun, which would that be?" I say, "Well, first of all, I'd shoot the guy that told me I could only have one. Then, I'd continue to have the hundreds I own.""This comment came in the middle of musings about his family and the military and didn't fit with anything else but Nugent did manage to get in his extremist views again about guns. Common sense tells us to reject the rantings of this man as should the organization he represents.
Here are more of Nugent's rants, some unrelated to guns. He appears to think himself an expert in all areas and runs his mouth off inappropriately about subjects he should leave for others who can talk about them without being offensive. There must be some people who think what he says is O.K. with them. That's sad and actually scary. More recently Nugent turned down an e-mail interview with a writer for Media Matters. His offensive comments are indefensible so I can see why he may not want to repeat the offensive comments already made and, most especially, when the one asking the questions does not share his views.
As a post script to this blog post, here are the remarks made to the United Nations by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre about the Small Arms agreement. In LaPierre's own words: "The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind. Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to defeat any treaty that includes civilian firearms within its scope." Right. Here is a fact checking article about the U.N. Small Arms Treaty that corrects the misinformation spewed by the gun rights extremists. Given that there is no official treaty at this time and that the U.S. has signed nothing, the fear mongering coming from the NRA just does not make sense. What is this all about really? From the Snopes.com article linked above, it is clear that second amendment rights could not and would not be altered or taken away by any U.N. treaty. The American Constitution supersedes International Treaties. I am betting that Wayne LaPierre and the other folks crying foul about this treaty know this. Is this about the NRA trying to protect the sales of guns rather than protecting the lives of human beings all over the world? The U.S. gun industry provides a lot of guns legally, and in some cases illegally. ( see my post about illegal gun dealers)The proposed treaty would go a ways to stopping that.
And just one more about the U.N. and the NRA- we can follow the money yet again. From the article: "Private security companies (PSCs) have also been fighting this legislation to protect their booming businesses. PSCs reportedly control 1.7 to 3.7 million firearms and employ 19.5 to 25.5 million people globally, according to the 2011 Small Arms Survey. The report contends that increased transparency requirements would drastically improve the United Nations’ ability to hold the private security sector to more stringent international standards." Here's my question. What's more important? Human life or the "booming business" of the private security companies? Perhaps people wouldn't need their services around the world if we didn't have so much trafficking of small arms. " While countries like the UK and other supporters argue there is nothing in the treaty that specifically threatens the Second Amendment to the Constitution or other national gun ownership policies, the NRA has predictably taken up the fight against the ATT." If the NRA doesn't want something, it will be hard to make it happen. Their influence even extends beyond our borders. Common sense tells us that human lives are more important than gun sales.
Welcome to Common Gunsense
I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.