THE FEDS GIVE NRA REASON TO RESIST

I had to tell you how much I enjoyed the articles in the July 2
Perspective section. The two articles -- The changing face of NRA, by
Osha Gray Davidson, and Government protecting us to death, by Robyn
Blumner -- couldn't have been more ironic.

On one hand, you have what the author perceives as a national
organization run amok and, on the other, a government that has to
control every aspect of our lives. Davidson obviously takes great
umbrage at the present state of the National Rifle Association, and
Blumner discusses the autocratic rule of the federal government.

From my simple perspective, the NRA has become politically active
because of the overwhelming authority the federal government has on
everything a so-called citizen can do. Yes, in the case of the NRA,
the lead factor is gun control, but isn't any group that fights
against a social injustice doing the same thing? The federal
government doesn't mind at all running roughshod over states' rights.

Many states have allowed the use of medical marijuana. Because the
feds won't do the same because of the "war on drugs" thing, they
vehemently prosecute anyone who doesn't fall in line. Yet, as the NRA
rightfully states, why aren't the feds prosecuting more cases related
to gun violence -- which leads to the stated scenario: "Why don't you
enforce the gun laws currently on the books?"

The bottom line? Whatever the feds want, they will get. We have
states' rights and a Second Amendment -- both have been under federal
fire for generations. The Times would do well to print more articles
like these, showing the blatant abuse of power by the federal
government. Maybe more people would understand why there is a
politically active NRA and other organizations fighting against social
injustice.