On the very day that James Eagan Holmes shot up a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., it was reported that the National Rifle Association had recently bestowed a lovely gift upon one of its favorite Missouri politicians.
The NRA had given state Rep. John McCaherty (R–High Ridge) an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle—formerly banned as an assault weapon—to use as a raffle item for an upcoming political fundraiser. “McCaherty has been a long supporter of the NRA. And the organization has supported him back,” wrote the Fenton–High Ridge Patch.
Holmes was partial to the AR-15 as well, employing it as one of his weapons of choice in the shooting spree that killed or wounded 70 people on July 20 in Aurora. Fortunately, his AR-15 jammed, sparing countless lives in light of the weapon’s ability to discharge upwards of 50 to 60 rounds per minute.
Holmes’ reign of terror occurred nearly a thousand miles from St. Louis, yet it seemed to take place around the corner, at the proverbial theater near you. This was a local story everywhere.
But it was McCaherty who kept things truly close to home. In a spectacular display of NRA derangement five days after the tragedy, he proudly assured supporters that he would go forward with the raffle at his fundraiser, AR-15 and all.
For just a $25 ticket, folks could have a chance to win their very own AR-15. Just like James Eagan Holmes used. Just barely over a month after the Aurora tragedy.
It says all you really need to know about the NRA and its robot army of God-and-guns politicians like McCaherty that he would even consider going forth with a raffle featuring the weapon used in one of the worst mass murders in American history. But he did.
Why?
I think McCaherty’s own emailed words to the faithful speak for themselves. His argument is best digested in unedited form:
“There has been a lot of interest in the AR-15, especially since the shootings in CO.
“Let me begin by saying that there are some bad people in the world that will use weapons of any type for bad things, and we are praying for those who were injured, and the families of those who lost loved ones in CO. Still there is no way for the government to make everyone safe…if we outlaw everything that can hurt someone, we would have nothing left. I believe those that commit such horrible acts should be dealt with immediately, and with all the justice system has to throw at them.
“I have been contacted by several news sources, all of which are looking for someone to hang all of the problems of the US on…which I am not interested in being their scapegoat…So…
“If anyone in the media contacts you about the tickets, please forward them to me. However, I will not be doing any media comments about this event at all…the less attention we give them, the quicker they move onto the next story. The families affected do not need the media beating them up, or drawing out the story anymore. So please…Do not answer any questions about the event at all…”
After a paragraph explaining that the word “raffle” had been changed to “drawing,” McCaherty closed with this:
“For those of you not familiar with the rifle, it is used primarily for target shooting, hunting, and self-defense.”
So there you have it: The carnage in Aurora was nothing more than the act of a bad person who would have done bad things anyway. Holmes’ legal ability to amass lethal armaments had nothing to do with his use of them, and anyone suggesting a relationship is trying to make a “scapegoat” out of NRA soldiers like McCaherty.
The problem isn’t that there are about as many guns as people in America or that it was easier for Holmes to acquire weapons than to buy a bottle of Sudafed; it’s that the media insists on “drawing out the story.” And that, somehow, has the effect of “beating up” on the affected families.
This last point is a beauty, even by NRA standards, but it’s in keeping with the mantra that the assault weapon didn’t shoot the victims, Holmes did. For all its cheap talk about getting tough with criminals after the fact, the NRA will abide no “anti-gun” effort designed to prevent crime proactively.
Remember that Holmes wasn’t a criminal before July 20. Until then, as a legal gun customer, he was what the NRA likes to call “a law-abiding American exercising his Second Amendment rights.”
The NRA opposes all restrictions on access to assault weapons, or any guns, that would have even inconvenienced Holmes. That’s a fact.
As to the local media, it largely has acquiesced to McCaherty’s view that it’s no problem for his raffle to go forward. The Post-Dispatch deemed it no more newsworthy than a mention in its Political Fix column, describing McCaherty’s situation as a matter of “unfortunate timing.”
I’d call that an unfortunate understatement. And the fact that the Post didn’t see fit to call out McCaherty editorially was unfortunate journalism, as was the fact that most other local media outlets considered the story a minor oddity at best.
It would be convenient to dismiss McCaherty as a fringe lunatic unworthy of attention or just as a rural conservative who simply cannot relate to people in metropolitan areas like St. Louis. But it’s not true: McCaherty duly represents St. Louisans in a district about a half-hour’s drive from the city limits.
McCaherty should be neither marginalized nor ignored. He is a member in good standing of Missouri’s new right-wing mainstream, one that has so overrun discourse in Missouri with red-meat bigotry that traditional, thinking, moderate Republicans are regarded as Marxists in comparison—especially when the subject is guns.
But the real story here isn’t about McCaherty or the media. It’s a story of warped public priorities.
It is no small detail that the AR-15 rifle used by Holmes was among the weapons once outlawed under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. The ban expired with a sunset provision in 2004, and the NRA has since used its clout to keep renewal from even reaching the floor of Congress.
Thanks to that, it was legal for Holmes to amass the lethal arsenal he employed in the movie theater. Is there a guarantee that bad things wouldn’t have been perpetrated by Holmes had he not had legal access to military-style weaponry? Of course not.
But it’s very possible that the carnage wouldn’t have been nearly as awful—or unstoppable—if an AR-15 (among his weapons) had not been so accessible to Holmes. And this is hardly the only instance that an assault weapon like the AR-15 has had deadly consequences after landing in the wrong hands.
If all government laws and regulations had to meet the litmus test that they could guarantee the prevention of the activity that was outlawed or regulated, none would ever pass. That sort of anarchy is what the NRA demands for gun laws, in the name of the argument that “bad people are going to do bad things, so why bother trying?”
But we do pass laws to make the world a safer place. We do pass laws to reduce the odds that something like the Aurora tragedy could happen. And we do pass laws to protect police from being outgunned by dangerous weaponry that shouldn’t be in circulation.
McCaherty says the AR-15 is “primarily used for target-shooting, hunting, and self-defense.” Really? It would be interesting to hear why target shooters, hunters, and self-defenders need a military-style weapon that can unload 50 to 60 rounds per minute.
There’s no rational answer for that, which is why restoring an assault-weapons ban represents the low-hanging fruit that could restore a semblance of sanity to the nation’s gun policy. Stronger background checks for gun buyers, including at gun shows, would also provide a step in the right direction.
More guns do not make America a safer place. The opposite is true. And while Americans’ basic right to own firearms under the Second Amendment should not be denied, it does not follow that gun control is either unconstitutional or undesirable.
Gun-control laws don’t kill the Second Amendment. The First Amendment right to free speech doesn’t mean one can legally threaten to kill someone else, nor does freedom of religion allow ritual human sacrifice, nor does the right to assemble mean there can be no parade-permit ordinances.
All freedoms have some reasonable limitation. Only in the case of guns—and only because of the NRA’s immense political clout—is this principle ever questioned.
But until rational people of all political stripes are willing to fight back, the NRA will dominate the debate, because there will be no debate. Guns will perversely be equated to God and to liberty, and Americans will continue to live in the most dangerous democracy in the world.
In fact, here’s guessing that the AR-15 raises the most money of any dadgum raffle we’ve ever seen in these parts. With their assault rifle under assault, NRA disciples can be expected to open their wallets like gay-marriage foes at Chick-Fil-A.
That’s the way the NRA likes it, and that’s the way it will stay as long as John McCaherty’s people line up—unchallenged—for a chance to own the weaponry that helped make James Eagan Holmes famous.
SLM co-owner is a panelist on KETC Channel 9’s Donnybrook, which airs Thursdays at 7 p.m.
Commentary by Ray Hartmann
