Pro-Firearm and Anti-Firearm Information Dissemination - Essay Example

Pro-Firearm and Anti-Firearm Information Dissemination There has been a long heated war of words between those who do and do not support gun control measures. This paper will look at two distinctly opposing views on the subject via their information websites and discuss the overall dissemination of information each provides. National Rifle Association (www.nra.org) This is clearly a politically motivated website that speaks silent volumes about their political backing and their motivations behind their opinions. Visually, this site doesn’t hold much of a person’s visual attention due to the vast number of association advertisements asking you to visit each of the different sub-pages that are located inside the site. The purpose, it would seem, is for you to actually know where you do want to visit and going there for that very reason. If you are a simple browser of the site and had not really been there before or perhaps reached there by accident, there is a multitude of impervious areas to click to in order to find out information. The site is much geared toward right winged fanaticism hiding behind a mask of out-dated and misappropriated use of constitutional measurements. The tools that would no doubt convince someone to join their cause are the “buzz words” used to embellish violence. Looking through some of the commentaries and discussions based on this second amendment right to “bear arms” has not been carried forward to read into the current societal concerns and general civil rights violations, but, rather has continued to be read as if this amendment was written yesterday. It seems that the country thinks that society should in fact propagate the rights that were afforded during civil war unrest. The amendment was meant to protect those in the military and fighting for the country to carry weapons (guns) while not out in the Warfield. By including on the same front page of their website the cause to carry guns by law enforcement along with moving forward with legislation to allow normal everyday workers to carry guns to the workplace clouds the reader into thinking both subjects is one in the same. Very deceitful in this writer’s opinion. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (www.bradycampaign.org) On the other end of the spectrum is the anti-violence, anti-gun crusaders that hope to shed light on subjects that the NRA is providing as “fuzzy logic”. The Brady Campaign website is also politically motivated by the general feel that one gets when directed to the home page of their site. Although their site is much simpler to navigate through as opposed to the mass media outlets that the NRA places on their site, the only fallible aspect of their site is that it is too politically motivated and no so much addressing the non-political psychological student of life. There is more of a feel that the person arriving at their site meant to go there and was not redirected by some other means. The tools that the Brady Campaign uses to have people join their site is the direct and open honesty of what they oppose. For instance, their education of the individual about the “shoot first law” (Brady Campaign) gives the average citizen a more of an insight as to how powerful the NRA actually is and as their site says, “in a country where thousands die needlessly every year in gun accidents and violent confrontations, this law is an enormous step backwards in civic responsibility and public safety. What's more, it envisions a society in which fear and distrust are the rule, and reason and responsibility are an endangered species”. (Brady Campaign) A major issue with this shoot first law is their exact astonishment by such organizations as the Million March Moms that if you are not a citizen of these states that have passed these bills to enact these types of laws and visit there, you can be an innocent victim of a shooting due to miscommunication between the victim and shooter. Which Side is Correct? The NRA’s site holds the heartstrings of many when they play the justice card in enlisting law enforcement as a means of backing up and defending the second amendment. Such factions of endorsing law enforcement by presenting them as the officer of the year, etc. in such notables as “in a country where thousands die needlessly every year in gun accidents and violent confrontations, this law is an enormous step backwards in civic responsibility and public safety. What's more, it envisions a society in which fear and distrust are the rule, and reason and responsibility are an endangered species” (NRA.org). Although these things are great and endearing qualities that such organizations as law enforcement are extremely important in protecting society, the mere fact that the NRA attaches their organization to such things does not bring credibility to an organization, but rather creates an umbrella over such other social issues that are masked as “protecting civil liberties”. The NRA also had a distasteful ability to attach their cause to the military causes and military families by “supporting the troops”. As stated before, this shows how politically motivated the organization is and by wielding this power, adds a disdainful undertone to what these people are fighting for: not the right to have other citizens of a country bear arms or for the military troops to have the right to bear arms in that country, it is to stop terrorist threats and help democracy in another land. My question would be “will the NRA now start backing terrorist groups for their right to bear arms and protect themselves?” With respect to the Brady Campaign’s ideas regarding their organization’s continued effort to stop gun violence, there is not much to contribute to joining their cause other than to oppose the NRA and the policies that are being put in place by a government bent on fundamentalist views. The entire concept of shoot first law is indeed appalling and inconceivable that it would pass in so many states that seem to have gone under the public radar screen. It would seem that unless these types of organizations are making the public aware, the NRA would probably put the country back in civil war. Another interesting aspect of the site is the NRA blacklisting of public figures and corporations. Although it is nice to clearly see those that oppose the NRA’s viewpoint of arming every citizen, it is a little too reminiscent of the McCarthyism that occurred in the 1950s. Extremely frightening that such an organization could wield that type of power and not be stopped in some fashion. Conclusion The debate about firearm control will rage on for millennia until large groups that insist on having their rights applied to current events and ideas are stopped and the bill of rights is rewritten or updated to embrace current history. The bill of rights and the second amendment was adequate for that time and place in history, but, not so much nowadays when society has access to more deadly weapons of choice and our current world affairs temperament. Read More