Matthew Tully

I'm not a politician, but the flood of furious emails that landed in my inbox over the weekend, after a column that gently poked at the NRA's stubbornness, provided clues as to why our political leaders are so afraid to push even minor changes in gun laws.

Politically, there's not a lot to gain by taking on the nation's most powerful gun-rights organization. Even minor and sensible legislative proposals (or, in my case, semi-critical columns) lead to seething reactions from the NRA's most vocal supporters and, in truth, not an equally loud level of cheers from those on the other side.

It's why we've been deadlocked for years over laws that could help keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them and reduce the availability of weaponry more suited for soldiers than average Joes. It's worth noting that as the most vocal of gun supporters railed over the weekend against my column, there was relatively little talk about the country's latest mass shooting, this one at a mall in Maryland.

After all, what's the use in talking? If Newtown, Virginia Tech and the Navy Yard didn't change the national debate, neither will the Maryland murders. There's clearly little room for sensible debate when it comes to guns.

"You are an idiot," read one of the first emails I received after my NRA column ran.

The writer, Tony, was one of several who used that particular descriptor and he was joined by others who called me "a liberal bed-wetter," an "anti-gun ninny," a "twit" and, of course, "a raging fascist." Others used obscenities that can't be printed here and, for some reason, one man from Seattle even chose to share details of his alleged sexual exploits to explain why his views on gun laws trump mine.

After a few days under email fire, let me offer two thoughts.

First, like many others, I have supported laws that would make it harder for guns to land in the hands of criminals, kids and others who shouldn't have them. Those laws include things such as better background checks, improved mental health services, and the elimination of gun-sale loopholes. I've also supported limits on military-style assault weapons and the ability of cities to bar guns from parks and certain other places.

More than any of that, though, I've supported efforts to crack down on the illegal gun trade in Indianapolis. But some gun-rights advocates in recent years have harshly criticized city leaders for even proposing that.

Second, the name-calling doesn't bother me. Sure, it's tiresome but it's hard to take seriously a grown man or woman who fires off an email filled with the type of taunts you might expect to hear on the playground in elementary school. What bothers me more than unhinged emails is the reality that the shouters and the NRA overwhelm the voices of the millions of rational gun owners who polls show support things such as better background checks. And it bothers me that we can't have a sensible debate because, as my emails show, many people truly believe the government and commentators like me are trying to take their guns away.

"It is because the debates always have the same goal in mind: no guns for any of the public," wrote a reader from Greenwood named Vaughn. He then proceeded to compare President Obama to Adolph Hitler.

I've learned that there is little to be gained by trying to convince certain people that certain things are not happening. Even though Obama, here in year six of his presidency, has offered only modest proposals on guns, many believe there is an all-out assault on gun ownership. Part of the reason for that, of course, is that the NRA's leaders have a vested interest in selling that narrative. And they do. Even if it is provably untrue.

Soon the NRA will be selling that narrative in Indianapolis during its annual convention. And you know what? That's fine. Because while some might not like my perspective on what the Second Amendment means, I have faith in the First Amendment. If the NRA wants to bring 70,000 people to my city to spend money, pay taxes and celebrate their views on guns, that's fine with me.

A reader named Dan might not believe that, as he wrote me last weekend to suggest that, "for a raging fascist the very idea that anyone be permitted to have a different viewpoint than yours must really make your blood boil."

Actually, it doesn't. And to prove it I'll wrap up today's column with a few thoughts offered via email from those who read my last column on the NRA and had a different viewpoint.

* "You are one of those insufferable liberal (expletives)."

* "I hope the NRA keeps coming back for years and years, and you leave."

* "I'll keep this short. You are an idiot."

* "You twit."

I could go on. Because the emails certainly did.

You can reach me at matthew.tully@indystar.com or on Twitter @matthewltully.