The NRA infringes our democracy.

Though I respect Pro for their argument, I have to state that I flat out disagree with their entire argument. First, The NRA has about 4.3 million members. So If these people feel that a ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional, Is it not their right to be members of the NRA and use democracy to support their opinions? This is the epitome of democracy, people voicing their opinions through peaceful voting and donating to causes such as the NRA that they believe in. I may not agree with assault weapons, but I would defend to my death the right of these people to state their opinions peacefully, which is what the NRA does. Second, If the NRA had no support from the people, It would not be able to influence our laws at all. The NRA relies on grassroots funding efforts for its funding. If millions of people did not support the NRA, it would have no money to fund its lobbying efforts. Refutations "Should we allow the NRA to lobby for its own interests instead of interests that benefit our entire society, including children?" This argument does not hold water for many reasons. First, the NRA lobbies for the interests of its supporters, much like the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green or Constitution Parties. If the NRA did not have a wide base of civilian support, it would not have funding or power to argue its beliefs. Second, there is no evidence that tighter gun control laws would solve the problem of school shootings. Criminals buy illegal handguns and rifles just like any other commodity, so why wouldn"t school shooters do the same. In addition, the columbine shooters, Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold, planned to use 20lb propane tanks as bombs to kill even more students. So should we ban propane tanks even though they have peaceful purposes such as grilling and heating, much like guns that have peaceful uses such as hunting, or target shooting. The constitution gives the NRA the right to make points like this, and it improves democracy by giving the people both sides of an argument before they vote. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Relying on background checks and psychological exams do not guarantee a successful resolution, especially because no one is born with a criminal history and there is always a first time. Likewise, people become insane and crazy overnight. When authorities have checked the behavior pattern of former active shooters, all they have found is a lack of evidence concerning unusual behavior and criminal history. Furthermore, record checks on the majority of active shooters have revealed a clean history. For the benefit of our children, all assault weapons should be relinquished. That is the only way we can start building a more peaceful world for new generations to come and for the present one. Our children deserve the best environment to prepare themselves and be ready to compete in this globalized world. That is what should be a right, not assault rifles." This argument does not pertain to the NRA nor democracy. I will say however that if the majority of the country wanted to ban assault weapons they could, and the NRA would be powerless to stop them. The NRA can only voice its opinions and use money that "the people" have given to them for causes that "the people" believe in, is this not democracy. I will say I agree with you on a ban of assault weapons, but the people who do not agree with us have a right to voice their opinions, exactly what the NRA does. With that I pass the ball to pro and wish them good luck.