@cameron_kasky
@davidhogg111
@sarahchad_
@MichaelSkolnik
@shannonrwatts
@Everytown
@chrislhayes
@jonfavs
THREAD: Why do the media and politicians treat NRA spokespersons as if they officially represent the 2A (and, implicitly, the Constitution)? 1/40
@davidhogg111
@sarahchad_
@MichaelSkolnik
@shannonrwatts
@Everytown
@chrislhayes
@jonfavs
THREAD: Why do the media and politicians treat NRA spokespersons as if they officially represent the 2A (and, implicitly, the Constitution)? 1/40
The NRA has no right to speak for the 2A above anyone else. The NRA can say it does. But that's not true. The NRA and the 2A are two different things entirely. 2/40
The NRA should do what it wants within the limits of the law to promote its agenda in a free marketplace of products and ideas. Great, have at it. 3/40
But the reasonable majority can assert its freedom *from* the NRA. The public should be free to deliberate over the 2A without consulting them and without the NRA using every opportunity to undermine productive debate. 4/40
The political establishment should be free to make decisions about the 2A without catering to them. Perhaps this writer is even an enthusiastic defender of 2A rights. That doesn’t mean I’ve given up my freedom of independent thought and decision-making to the NRA. 5/40
No fringe group in a democracy should ever claim to speak above all others for part of the Constitution. The Constitution should be reclaimed from this fringe group. It doesn’t belong to them. 6/40
If, as the NRA says, our freedoms are God-given, then they were given to everyone by God equally to do what each person wishes with them. 7/40
It’s undemocratic to have one special interest given such deference by politicians and the media in binding up our political processes and subverting informed public discussion. 8/40
The reasonable majority doesn’t have to agree that the NRA possesses superior knowledge of the 2A and defends it more than anybody else. 9/40
That mythology has earned them disproportional stature in the media as un-elected corporate bureaucrats. It’s marketing, not historical or constitutional truth. 10/40
Why is a single fringe group allowed to stifle informed public deliberation? The reason that the NRA exists is to represent gun manufacturers and increase their profits. (And that’s a neutral description, not a critique, of who the NRA is and what it does.) 11/40
The NRA represents a small amount of Americans. Its membership includes a fraction of U.S. gun owners (about 5 million--that's all). Their spokespersons aren’t elected officials. They’re not public servants. They represent lobbying interests. 12/40
All Americans enjoy the freedom to understand the origins and nature of their own freedoms however they choose. The NRA has no special authority to speak for the 2A. They don’t answer to the people at large. The people don’t need to answer to them. 13/40
The 2A is part of our common constitutional history. It is not intrinsically linked with the NRA. NRA spokespeople offer one interpretation of the 2A and its history, but they are not essential defenders of it. Their views are optional and subjective. 14/40
People--including education and medical professionals--don’t have to consult them or seek their permission to discuss 2A policies and implications. 15/40
And the NRA will be just fine if politicians and the media grant its spokespersons less priority: they have their own radio and TV. The public doesn’t need to bend over backwards to let them speak for the Constitution more than other groups. 16/40
The NRA has no superior claim to speak for the 2A over any citizen, including those who don’t care about gun ownership at all. Making and selling guns for large profits isn't essential for defending the 2A. That’s about manufacturing and marketing. 17/40
Plenty of experienced gun owners think the NRA promotes an immature understanding of firearms, let alone the 2A. The 2A can be, and is, well protected through laws and the courts. 18/40
The right to arm oneself doesn’t mean one has to fetishize weaponry, or that fetishizing weaponry to increase sales is a part of 2A rights. 19/40
Politicians who accept money from the NRA aren’t protecting the 2A per se. It’s already well protected. They’re agreeing to be tools with which the NRA promotes a particular interpretation of the 2A to make money. 20/40
The NRA’s claim to ownership over the 2A implies that they speak for the source of all our freedoms. The NRA argues that 2A rights ensure all other freedoms. It also claims to be more patriotic, more authentically American, than other people or groups as a result. 21/40
NRA efforts to fuse corporate identity with the 2A are part of an ongoing effort to claim authority over the Constitution. 22/40
CNN allowed DL to speak as if the NRA held some legitimate authority over policing, mental health, and public policies. It allowed her to claim some kind of expertise regarding the Constitution and U.S. history. She has no such authority and expertise. 23/40
DL is a corporate spokesperson like all NRA spokespersons. She presents a highly skewed, and incoherent, interpretation of those things—and to what end? NRA spokespersons appear in public as marketers for public relations, not the public interest. 24/40
One of the most dangerous parts of the broadcast was when Jake Tapper invited DL to speak unchallenged, without context, about an NRA study of school safety. The basic reason the NRA would produce such a study would be to protect its main interest: gun manufacturing. 25/40
Hence their proposals to arm school personnel after mass shootings (the cost of doing so would create millions of dollars in profits). 26/40
Their study has nothing to do with sound public policy and nonpartisan safety measures. It’s fake policy. Why should it receive unearned attention and legitimacy in democratic discussion and decision-making? 27/40
Moral authority is not the issue here. It’s a question of honest, evidence-based democratic decision-making. Nobody elected NRA spokespeople. Nobody appointed them. They’re not responsive to the public at large. 28/40
The NRA has no special authority or rightful say over what police do, what legislatures do, what mental health professionals or schools and teachers do, etc. They have no claim to governance. No special interest does or should. 29/40
It’s fine for them to make their claims (first amendment rights—great), but it’s bad public deliberation to give unearned priority to such claims. 30/40
The point of DL’s presence—which she accomplished well—was to derail discussion of law, rights, and safety. Hence her pretense to have superior knowledge of constitutional history, with references to George Mason and irrelevancies about colonial-era guns taken out context. 31/40
Those references diverted discussion into irrelevant cul de sacs. On purpose. 32/40
Like her faux public authority over school safety or mental health, she promoted a fabulistic understanding of constitutional history. But that was the point: to filibuster, frustrate, and derail constructive deliberations. 33/40
Questioning why CNN would so feature any NRA spokesperson does not mean we should narrow the scope of debate. A mature and honest discussion of policy, law, and safety would, in fact, include a much more diverse set of actual experts—including gun rights advocates. 34/40
People who go on television don’t need to debate NRA spokespersons in split screen style. They should ask, on air, why it’s a requirement to debate them at all. Who are they? 35/40
They should ask who gave them the authority to wield such a hugely inflated influence over that discussion when they're not honest brokers in it. 36/40
People should have the freedom to practice reasonable and constructive public dialogue without catering to the NRA—especially when its public messaging is devoted to undermining reasonable and constructive public dialogue. 37/40
The public is craving a meaningful discussion between gun rights, mental health, and safety advocates all dedicated to finding common ground and new ways to speak to one another. 38/40
Citizens, the media, and political process should be free from the NRA’s artificial influence over democratic discussions and decision-making. It’s just one special interest. 39/40
The 2A itself, and the Constitution in general, should be freed from NRA claims to speak for it with superior authority. They belong to all of us. 40/40
