Anti-NRA PAC Needed

Today between my electrician coming to fix the circuit breaker that controls my ovens, (which was the problem, so I thankfully did not have to buy new ovens) and teaching advanced Mah Jongg to the lovely Chapel Hill Players pictured here, I was thinking about the Florida school shootings and the President’s press conference where he did not once mentioned guns or gun control.

It is clear to me that the NRA owns too many politicians. The two senators from North Carolina are two of the worst, receiving over $7,000,000 together from the NRA. I heard a clip of Trump during the campaign saying at an NRA rally, “You’ve supported me and I will support you.”

This pay for protection is clear as can be. Why do we as the electorate continue to allow one industry to determine policy. And guns are an industry. The NRA is all about their gun producing members being able to sell more guns, which is about revenue and profits.

The shooter yesterday had an AR-15 assault rifle which he bought legally. Yes, he may have some mental illness, anyone who carries out such an act probably does, but why should anyone outside of the military buy an assault rifle?

We are the only country that has such a huge issue with mass shootings of this scale. How can we force our politicians to start a conversation about how to change our current reality? One way is we create an anti-NRA PAC that donates to candidates who refuse to take money from the NRA. Money is at the core of this issue. It is hard for candidates to win against better funded opponents.

Currently there is a law before Congress that would allow people with a concealed carry permit in one state to be able to use that permit for all states despite the individual state’s actual laws. This is idiocy. It flaunts states rights.

It is time for us to make guns a more hot button issue for those of us who want gun control and not just for those who want more guns. I am not against hunting, or sport. If you want to kill a defenseless animal that is not for me to say you can’t. After my garden has been decimated by more than a few deer I understand, but I can’t be the one to actually do it. I just don’t think that allowing people less supervision when they want to buy a gun is the way to go and that is the direction things are headed all the while we have mass shootings multiple times a month.

Unfortunately this is an issue that must have government control. It is not like ending hunger. We can’t have a No Guns Bank like a Food Bank. But we can have a PAC and make gun control a plank in political campaigns that is more prominent.

Politicians who take this NRA money and refuse to even talk about gun control should be ashamed. They have the blood of the victims of these shootings on their hands.

4 Comments on “Anti-NRA PAC Needed”

  1. Jane C Wagstaff says:

    There are 340 million guns, 15 million AR-15s by some reports. They exist. We cannot make them disappear. And not a single one of those guns in the hands of NRA members and law-abiding citizens killed anyone yesterday. There’s a Second Amendment which IMO holds politicians more accountable than any NRA donations ( which really aren’t that big compared to others like Steyer on climate change ) So far, law enforcement and politicians have not offered one single “law” that would have stopped Cruz yesterday with the circumstances that exist today. Until there is a legitimate proposition that would actually AFFECT a Parkwood, Newtown, Columbine, etc., there shouldn’t be knee-jerk reactions just to “do something”.

  2. Stori Cadigan says:

    There is a part of me that doesn’t want to tell your friend Jane how wrong she is because I hate fighting on face book but….Jane you are oh so wrong. Just ban these weapons. No one needs them and no one should have them. Seriously you think it is a knee jerk reaction to think AR-51s are needed by anyone not serving in the military? Guns are so not needed in day to day life and should not be available to children.

  3. Mary Few says:

    The fact is that at the time of the writing of the second amendment most guns could shoot only one metal ball that didn’t go very far, therefore bayonets on the end were necessary. The writers of the 2nd Amendment never could have imagined guns that could shoot hundreds of armor piercing bullets in minutes. It takes very little study to know those men held fairness and doing the right thing in the highest regard. This was never the intent. No one needs a weapon of war for anything legal. You can’t even hunt with one. No law can stop all gun violence but if common sense rules save just one young life, it would be worth it. If you must have a gun and you only want it for legal reasons following a few rules shouldn’t be a problem.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s