National Rifle Appropriation
Maggie Doyle
At least once a month, I am asked to join the NRA. Glossy packets will arrive in the mail or men in red hats will stop me at the mall. I’ll smile and nod, politely declining to “protect my rights and family”. I’ll throw the rubber wristband or commemorative koozie away as I leave fuming. I’ve learned that fighting back is futile- “screaming-teenage-girl-outside-Great-American-Cookie” doesn’t carry the strongest ethos. But the NRA appealing to Alabama’s youth infuriates me.
Because, at least once a month, I wake up to NPR notifications of casualties and body counts. No matter the latest massacre, pro-gun nationalism remains an unextractable part of southern culture. If anything, the prospect of Sandy Hook legislation only spikes gun sales and NRA donations as neighbors, teachers, and siblings fear the loss of a seemingly essential part of life and culture.
Many hear my position and assume that I speak ill of my home and family. Disliking guns, in many minds, is equivalent to despising the south. Yet- despite differing interpretations of the second amendment- I love my family, friends, and neighbors deeply and without hesitation. “Dixieland Delight” in Bryant-Denny and skiing on Lake Martin are as central to my life as they are to any other Alabamian. I learned young that Fridays are for high school football, Saturdays are for college football, and Sundays are for youth group football. I refuse to disinherit the south and do not believe I should have to. Advocating for safety should never be considered a rebuttal of culture.
However, despite science and statistics, support of buybacks and assault bans is near treasonous. The clear correlation between guns in circulation and people killed is- of course- fake news or liberal propaganda. Talk of gun control degrades a rich legacy of wholesome tradition because an impediment to the second amendment must translate to an impediment to southern culture.
If this must be the case, then southern culture must lose.
Beyond this sentimental aspect, gun owners frequently argue that guns “keep us safe.'' The idea of protecting the family is admittedly noble but is also admittedly contorted. As defensive gun usage drops and murder plateaus, the argument for guns in the home nullifies itself. Additionally, though gun-owners are paying private companies to fit their house with gun locks, local news remains peppered with children dying because they fiddled with loaded weapons.
Outside the home, this logic seems even more flawed. If we cannot regulate the weapons used to kill children in Columbine and Parkland, we cannot claim to care about the safety of our students. When you refuse to control domestic weapons of mass destruction, you forfeit the right to play the family man.
Unlike many, I do not blame our representatives for legal shortcomings. Amidst a “loss of tradition” and “protecting the family”, there are only so many southern senators can do without losing office to an administration that would overturn minute progress. Whenever friends from New York or California are surprised by vetoes, I am not. I have grown up in a neighborhood with gun-locked closets. I’ve seen friends admire antique hunting rifles and listened to teachers bemoan anti-gun legislation. It does not surprise me that red state representatives block this legislation. I know who and what they must represent.
English class has taught me that an article like this should end with a proposal for change or a solvency mechanism. However, I believe that the long road ahead positions gun violence as the issue that will reflect future American progress. Change must come with time, and time must bring with it change. I hope that the political climate will one day allow for broader moves toward moral safety. Until then, I pray for schools, hospitals and homes while hoping for safety and change.