The article by Eric Lipton and Alexander Burns analyzes the true reason for the success of such an organization as the National Rifle Association (NRA). It is considered to be one of the most prosperous and influential non-profit companies in the US. It brings together the supporters of the Second Amendment, according to which people have the right to keep and carry firearms. Another factor about NRA is that despite the fact it presents itself as an apolitical organization, it openly supports the policies of the Republican Party and its presidential candidates.
One of the main points of the following article is that this organization successfully set its agenda on the issue of carrying and concealing weapons. According to researchers, because of NRA, gun owners have a “leeway to shoot in self-defense” (Lipton & Burns, 2018, para. 1). In addition, at some point in time, people were given more privacy when it came to their firearms since doctors were forbidden from asking their patients about them. All these policies make the reader assume that the National Rifle Association indeed has a significant amount of political power. For some reason, NRA’s opinion is so significant that the association can participate in law-making. As a consequence, many opponents of NRA question whether its power is valid to make such a strong influence.
There is no doubt that NRA has critics, including gun control activist groups and some politicians. It gets a substantial amount of criticism, especially after cases of gun massacres and school shootings. Nevertheless, even these incidents do not seem to lower the authority of this organization. The article also states that they believe the National Rifle Association acquired their political support illegally by buying it (Lipton & Burns, 2018). However, another main point of the article is that the source of NRA’s power is more complicated and goes beyond buying votes.
Even though there were several financial contributions to political facilities, including the House of Senates and federal offices, other companies offer more. The authors present Comcast and Pfizer as examples of organizations that made significant donations (Lipton & Burns, 2018). For this reason, it would be wrong to assume that NRA’s power comes solely from its money.
Another major argument against the financial source of the organization’s influence is the instances when pro-gun politicians have often received a public backlash. As the authors mention, openly supporting NRA is not easy because, “at times like this, it’s very easy to get stampeded by the media and the left” (Lipton & Burns, 2018, para. 15). For this reason, despite the company’s popularity and political impact, it does not guarantee that everyone supports it. John Feinblatt, the president of Everytown for Gun Safety, declared that the situation is reversed (Lipton & Burns, 2018). It means that during recent years the power of the National Rifle Association has been reduced.
As for my opinion, I believe that even though the right to carry firearms should not be declined altogether, it needs control. For this reason, such an organization as NRA, should not have a significant amount of political influence; otherwise, the result of the dispute over gun possession would not be fair. There is no doubt that the National Rifle Association will continue to participate actively in discussions, but it does not have to influence votes.
Reference
Lipton, E., & Burns, A. (2018). The True Source of the NRA’s Clout: Mobilization, Not Donations’. New York Times, 24.