You've got to hand it to the marketing brain trust at the NRA. They turned Constitutional law into a marketing channel; they use the single greatest foundation of government into an endorser as if it were Peyton Manning.
How they used the completely irrelevant Second Amendment to frame the gun debate demands study. Moreover, citizens serious about enacting meaningful gun legislation need to understand how to make the discussion more relevant.
But first, let's talk about SUVs.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Yesterday's unspeakable killings in Newton, Connecticut have already unleashed a loud, emotional discussion on gun ownership in America. We need this discussion.
However, this discussion will probably have the same one-sidedness as previous tragedy-borne gun discussions. Gun proponents, particularly the National Rifle Association, will denounce the tragedy and then retreat to the position that limiting access to guns will not make anyone safer.
While I personally believe that our country should tighten up gun control, it's clear that to see any progress, to keep our children safer, we need the help of gun advocates as well. Furthermore, I take the NRA, whose membership includes some of my friends, at its word when they say that they don't like dead children any more than I do.
I don't sit in Congress or on a court bench. I can't legislate or regulate the problem. I can, however, approach it from what I do know: marketing. So let me re-phrase the question: how do we market our way into a safer America?
Here's my suggestion: implore the NRA take up mental health as an issue along with gun owners' rights.