In a Vice interview, crypto-anarchist Cody Wilson mentioned, perhaps absurdly for some, that the NRA is for gun-control. I think that despite this very brief analysis provided by Wilson, it’s still worth to dissect it, and points out the flaws of the gun “debate”, as envisioned by both sides of the political spectrum.
What’s not news for us is that the National Rifle Association’s main concern is that of making money. They prioritize profit over anything; that is their worry and their bottom line. As Wilson, “they introduced and helped pass in 1968 Gun Control Act… They’re for industry and capital. They are not for the liberalization of access and absolute property rights.”
Wilson’s view of property notwithstanding, he also left out the portion of how the conservative gun-lobby regulated guns in face of leftist armed groups in California, like that of the Black Panthers and the Brown Berets. Ronald Reagan and the NRA both were in collusion in controlling the supply and spectacle guns to what they perceived as a political threat.
In other words, the NRA is a representation of the domestic gun lobby, concerned with profit. The rest that comes with the language of the 2nd Amendment is merely a shield and a cover, pretty much how the alt-right tries to disguise it’s violence with the guise of “free speech.” As weapon manufacturing companies passed regulations, they succeeded in the monopolization of the gun industry. Gun-making and selling would be illegal, unless its done through the legal (corporate) venues. Their records on laws pretty much stands for itself. The NRA lobby should be seen as an extension of the gun-industry, and pretty much has a leg up than any other industry with a claim of Constitutional protection.
The other part is how the NRA distances itself from the proliferation of guns in neighborhoods. This is a whole other issue, I think the bulk of the debate of guns really is about the rapid spread of weapons to be begin with. This is where sociological questions of violence in the poorer neighborhoods, as well as questions of access, are most poignant.