Some things never change.

According to an Associated Press report, the National Rifle Association is warning members to prepare for a big fight over gun laws in this year’s legislative session. The Columbine shootings have convinced many members of the public that the time has come to crack down on gun sales, and the Legislature is responding to that pressure.

"The gun-grabbers won’t be pulling any punches, nor wasting any time in pulling out their anti-gun propaganda machine," said a letter inviting Colorado NRA members to legislative workshops this week and next.

"Gun-grabbers" isn’t exactly an epithet, but it’s not exactly accurate either. None of the measures considered this year propose to take away anyone’s legally acquired guns. Some gun owners indulge in a great deal of fear that there’s a plot afoot to disarm them, but there’s very little evidence of that. Instead, the Coloradoans who are proposing gun-control measures this year are attempting to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

It’s clear to both sides that different controls are necessary, because kids continue to get guns and shoot each other. Gun-control advocates say more laws are needed; the NRA lobby says more laws are pointless because the ones we have now don’t control the problem. NRA spokespeople point out that as long as there are guns to be had, criminals will find ways to get them. That seems to suggest that we might be better off if guns were eliminated altogether, but despite the paranoia, that’s not going to happen and it’s dishonest in debating as though it might.

"Gun-grabber" may be an accurate designation to attach to a parent whose child was shot to death by one of the Columbine gunmen. Undoubtedly many of those parents would like to snatch guns away from anyone with similar murderous intent; is there any reason the rest of us shouldn’t share that sentiment? Is there any logical reason NRA members don’t, especially since an effective method of controlling illegal weapons would surely reduce the pressure on all gun owners? Why direct intentionally inflammatory rhetoric at people who sincerely are attempting to solve a real problem?

The NRA takes great pains to mouth sympathetic sentiments. "We feel your pain, but of course your anger is misdirected and we know you don’t realize you’re threatening our constitutional rights. Guns don’t shoot people, and if teenagers with guns do ... well, that’s the fault of their parents, television network executives, video-game programmers, and the teachers who should have noticed their antisocial behavior."

How refreshing it would be if the NRA didn’t automatically oppose any measure intended to control the acquisition of firearms by people who shouldn’t have them. The tide is turning; it’s counterproductive for them to characterize their opponents as irrational, over-emotional and unAmerican. Surely nothing can be more American than to allow differing opinions about such an important topic. Yet we have such difficulty conducting civil discourse about guns. Gun advocates fear any erosion of their rights; gun-control advocates fear the proliferation of illegal weapons, and the dialogue is shrill and accusing rather than productive.