The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old June 13, 2010, 10:37 PM   #1
cptnjm
Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2006
Location: Just East of Indianapolis
Posts: 29
NRA, GOA Confusion

Hi Folks.

I wanted to post my 2 cents here and see if I was alone in this train of thought. I welcome responses and opinions both pro and con. Thanks.

I really don't understand some of the NRA's decisions, lately. (I'm very close to paying off my life membership dues, so I've been a supporter and contributor for a long time.) The June issue of "America's First Freedom" has a good article in it about a new gun range that was built in Nevada, and shows Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre buddying up with Sen Harry Reid (D) and thanking him profusely for helping push the bill to allocate the funding. This is a man who has repeatedly cast anti-second amendment votes and sided with the hard left liberals.

The NRA has also recently endorsed John McCain in the current AZ Senators Race, and he was the co-author of the McCain-Feingold bill, which restricted the rights of organizations' ability to politically advertise 30-60 days prior to an election.

In McCains case, for this one election, it's probably just a case of the devil you know, because his opponent is said to have a worse gun-rights voting record than McCain; but a photo op with Harry Reid? Do they think he's suddenly a good guy and worthy of such accolades?

Are any other members out there a bit put-off by this?

Another prominent gun-rights organization is the GOA, of which I'm also a member. They do a great job with their action alert emails, and are more timely than the NRA's alerts; however, those pre-written letters they offer for members to contact their representatives with are a little pigeon-holed and harshly worded for my taste. I appreciate the contact and info, but I usually re-write a portion of them before I send them out, or simply author my own letter altogether.

These two groups seem to often differ on contents and interpretations of bills, and gradings of politicians. However, what they both do well is prompt people to get involved and do some homework. (The thomas.gov web site is a great resource for all things legislative. If you haven't tried it yet, check it out for full versions of bills, updates on their movements, and how your legislators voted.)

Don't get me wrong, I thank God that there are advocacy groups out there, and I will continue to support them and get active in my local elections. But I may have to reconsider that if I continue to see conflicting information on the same issues adn news items from these two pro-gun groups - because it forces me to wonder who's info is accurate, and who's dropping the ball.
Thanks for letting me vent. Your thoughts?
cptnjm is offline  
Old June 13, 2010, 10:58 PM   #2
sakeneko
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2009
Location: Nevada
Posts: 644
I think of the NRA and GOA as the lower and upper bounds of second amendment activism in the U.S. Take, for example, a law that affects the right to keep and bear firearms in some fashion.

If the NRA objects to that law as infringing rights, I will most often agree with them. If they approve of it, I might agree or might think that they're entirely too accommodating to those who do not value my freedom.

If the GOA *approves* of the law as not infringing my rights, I'll usually agree with them. If they object to it, I might agree or might think they're raving loons. (It has happened.)

That difference accounts for such cases as Harry Reid, which the NRA gives an A rating and mostly supports, while the GOA gives an F rating and mostly opposes. Looking at Reid's voting record on second-amendment issues alone, he isn't too bad. I moved to Nevada from California about eighteen months ago: compared to either of our senators in California, Reid is a miracle of pro-second-amendment activism. (wry grin)

The NRA has the habit of looking at second-amendment issues alone. They are not interested in how conservative or how liberal a politician is otherwise. IMHO that's smart; it avoids entangling them in issues that they are not qualified to judge and creates a "big tent" for second amendment supporters who might not all be in agreement on other political issues.
sakeneko is offline  
Old June 13, 2010, 11:06 PM   #3
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,597
Regarding the NRA and Reid. My viewpoint is the NRA is giving credit where credit is due. You mean to tell me that even if a politician has an anti-gun voting record as a whole is automatically disqualified in receiving credit when they actually do something GOOD for the gunowning community? His support on that bill for the funding was huge. The NRA and the surrounding local communities have fought very hard to make it happen. Kudos for Reid in the involvement. On top of that, kudos for the NRA to print the article. Kudos for our elected board members of the NRA to spend time with Reid to discuss in a professional manner. Why would anyone think it's a bad idea to expose Reid to our culture and have him see what our true image is?
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old June 14, 2010, 08:09 AM   #4
johnbt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
"They do a great job with their action alert emails"

Except for the fact that over the years the alerts have tended to run to extra-shrill caterwauling and playing real fast and loose with the facts. Or lack of facts as it were.

JT
johnbt is offline  
Old June 14, 2010, 09:14 AM   #5
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by sakeneko:
The NRA has the habit of looking at second-amendment issues alone. They are not interested in how conservative or how liberal a politician is otherwise. IMHO that's smart; it avoids entangling them in issues that they are not qualified to judge and creates a "big tent" for second amendment supporters who might not all be in agreement on other political issues.
On the other hand, the NRA's choices for speakers and activities at our convention in Charlotte strongly and clearly identified the NRA only with strident Conservative commentary and evangelical Christian religion in the public's perception. The presence of Glen Beck, Sarah Palin and an Evangelical prayer breakfast publicly welds the NRA and thus its gun rights advocacy to the manners, the perspectives, and what many see to be the strident, thoughtless, disrespectful distortion and mendacity and latent racism of far right commentary. Whether that's a fair assessment of it or not is irrelevant; attaching the voices of the far right to the NRA and thereby its gun rights advocacy begets an unnecessary burden for that advocacy. It creates a situation of "you can't have one without the other" which is a "poison pill" on gun rights to those who would otherwise be supportive of them without commentary and politics they reject as odious attached.

The fate of the NRA's impact on gun rights now rises and falls with the fate of Conservative evangelical Christian politics which is an unnecessary, risky, limiting and imprudent alliance in the realm of gun rights advocacy: It's impossible for a legislator to support Second Amendment rights without also being seen to support the commentary, perspectives and politics of the far right as well, which may not be his politics or the politics of his constituency. Thus he's kept silent on gun rights issues he would support were they free of such taint.

Unfortunately the NRA's marriage of gun rights to the perspectives and manners of the far right has permanently burdened gun rights issues with unrelated, contentious politics and that hurts all of us and unnecessarily limits membership and political support for our Second Amendment rights- not just the NRA, but gun rights themselves.
Uncle Billy is offline  
Old June 14, 2010, 10:27 AM   #6
azredhawk44
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
Both organizations pale in modern relevancy to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) when it comes to the judicial battles we must face down to re-establish our beliefs in the eyes of the law.

The NRA lobbies for the status quo.

The GOA screeches to simply be heard.

The SAF is working to protect us via well established case law.
azredhawk44 is offline  
Old June 14, 2010, 10:52 AM   #7
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
I am no fan of Reid, and do not plan to vote for him, but is is not generally anti-gun. His support for Sotomayor was the last straw for me, though. If Sotomayor comes down on the wrong side of McDonald vs Chicago, Reid and a lot of congressman and senators are going to be in the political crosshairs in November, and so might Kagan's confirmation process.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old June 14, 2010, 10:59 AM   #8
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,737
We don't want to be too overtly political here. The theoretical issue of tying the NRA to conservative causes and politicians is a good one (it's written up in analysis of the NRA) but we can become rude to each other - so be nice.

No bashing of social positions in general outside of support of the RKBA.

__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 14, 2010, 12:27 PM   #9
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
As for Harry Reid, on gun rights, his record is not bad. He voted against the AWB for instance. I admit he's more socialistic on economic policy and other left wing causes. The NRA has given A ratings to other liberal politicians depending on their stance regarding gun rights. Gun rights will cut across the political spectrum more than some other issues. Yes, conservatives will offer stronger support, but there are some moderate to liberal politicians who aren't bad on gun rights. It could be the states they are from. The democrats, in fact, actively recruited candidates from traditionally red states who were more supportive of gun rights in order to gain control of congress. This has frustrated the far left as it prevents them from passing more gun control even with control of the whitehouse and both sides of congress. They sold out gun control for political and economic control. I won't go any farther than that and risk veering off to far into pure politics unrelated to gun rights.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old June 14, 2010, 12:51 PM   #10
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,737
Christian Science Monitor had an article in 2009 and Harper's had one a few years ago, that argued that folks left of center are becoming supportive of gun rights and buying guns. Basic reason is the mistrust of the stability of the country and the need for self-reliance. Also, folks left and right are mistrusting government and starting to buy into the notion that the populace maintains a resevoir of ability to resist government tyranny. Now the left and right differ on their feared tyrannies but the American people seem to feel that resisting government is a potential that they might want to have.

I was listening to an analysis of the Iranian people's seemingly growing discontent with their government (if that is to be believed). The commentator made an interesting observation that street demos portray weakness as the religious fanatic governmental militias can control the streets easily as the people have no real ability to contest them. Thus, strikes and labor shutdowns might be a better strategy. It would be different in the USA as it is pretty clear than heavy handed use of force by a left or right government in the USA would not have such an easy time.

My conclusion is that the general American consciousness is moving towards gun rights except in some pockets that may be shocked and moving the other way - towards move regulation (NY, CA, MA - for instance). But that's a variant of group polarization as faced with values challenge you become more extreme. Certainly, we see pocket on the right becoming a touch nutty also, lately.

As far as a party selling out some constitutency to win, stay in power, collect bribes, etc. Well, isn't that a surprise!
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 14, 2010, 01:22 PM   #11
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by cptnjim
I really don't understand some of the NRA's decisions, lately. (I'm very close to paying off my life membership dues, so I've been a supporter and contributor for a long time.) The June issue of "America's First Freedom" has a good article in it about a new gun range that was built in Nevada, and shows Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre buddying up with Sen Harry Reid (D) and thanking him profusely for helping push the bill to allocate the funding.
Reid is the Senate Majority Leader. Any gun control legislation has to pass the House of Representatives (Judiciary Committee chaired by Conyers, Pelosi is Speaker) and the Senate (Judiciary Committee chaired by Leahy) before it goes to the President for signing.

In that list of Democratic senior leadership who can control the fate of gun control in this Congress, there is exactly one guy who voted against the AWB, who sponsored an amendment to prevent gun ownership from being an issue in the new healthcare plan, voted yes on prohibiting foreign aid that restricts U.S. gun ownership and voted to protect firearms manufacturers from spurious lawsuits. Reid happens to be that guy.

Now the NRA's choice is whether to reward the Senate Majority Leader for his active pro-gun votes and assistance in the past or whether to reward a newcomer who will have significantly less power and so far hasn't done anything on guns but talk.

I can understand where you might not be enthused about Reid as a Senator; but from a purely Second Amendment standpoint, he is easily the smart choice for the endorsement.

Quote:
This is a man who has repeatedly cast anti-second amendment votes and sided with the hard left liberals.
Do you have some examples in mind?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Billy
The fate of the NRA's impact on gun rights now rises and falls with the fate of Conservative evangelical Christian politics
NRA endorses quite a few non-Conservative, non-Evangelical politicians. Former DNC Chairman Howard Dean? NRA endorsed in both the 2004 Dem primary and as governor of Vermont.

For that matter, the first NRA general election endorsement for the 2010 elections? (If you don't count the American Rifleman article on Reid I guess) Ted Strickland of Ohio (D). So NRA is definitely not wedded to "Conservative evangelical Christian politics" - having said that, if you want to pick watermelon, you don't go looking in the Himalayas. Before the NRA can endorse more pro-Second Amendment, non-conservative, non-evangelical Christian politicians, there have to be more pro-Second Amendment, non-conservative, non-evangelical Christian politicians to endorse - and that endorsement can't come at the expense of sound political strategy (like that mentioned in the Reid example above).
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old June 14, 2010, 04:06 PM   #12
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,289
Quote:
Before the NRA can endorse more pro-Second Amendment, non-conservative, non-evangelical Christian politicians, there have to be more pro-Second Amendment, non-conservative, non-evangelical Christian politicians to endorse - and that endorsement can't come at the expense of sound political strategy (like that mentioned in the Reid example above).
Bullseye! About what I've come to expect from Mr. Roberts.

Glenn, too, is spot on about a broader spectrum of Americans realizing that gun rights are important.

I may not be in complete agreement with the NRA at all times (who is ever in complete agreement with anyone else all the time) but I've learned that there is always a method to their madness.

Look at their endorsement of McCain, for example. True, he's for an AWB, and for closing the so-called "gun show loophole," but in the main, he's been supportive of gun rights. OK, if the NRA throws their endorsement to his primary opponent, who (according to my sources in AZ) isn't likely to unseat him, now they have to try to influence a P.O.'d senior senator who regards them as a political enemy. Not a position I'd care to be in, or see the organization I belong to put themselves in.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows. Like it or not, that's the way it works, and the NRA has played their hand very well the vast majority of the time.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old June 14, 2010, 04:50 PM   #13
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
The June issue of "America's First Freedom" has a good article in it about a new gun range that was built in Nevada, and shows Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre buddying up with Sen Harry Reid (D) and thanking him profusely for helping push the bill to allocate the funding.

No taxpayer funds were involved in the building of that complex. Harry Reid is a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter. Reid voted against the AWB. Reid also voted against the 2004 extension of the AWB. The extension of the AWB passed the US senate with the help of 10 (R) members.
thallub is offline  
Old June 14, 2010, 07:16 PM   #14
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
The NRA has an incumbent endorsement policy if the candidates have the same grade. This is an extremely smart policy from a political standpoint. Incumbents have more power and ability to get things done so if you have an incumbent who is pro 2A you want to keep that person.

A one issue group can't concede either side of the political spectrum. Getting face time with the senate majority leader is never a bad thing no matter what party he is from.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old June 14, 2010, 07:22 PM   #15
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
I think it's naive in the extreme to posit that an armed resistance to the federal government by everyday citizens would have any effect other than to get a lot of armed citizens blown away. Look what happened at Ruby Ridge or Waco- anyone who wants to resist the Federal government (or whatever vocabulary you wish to use that describes taking a course contrary to what's "lawful"- armed insurrection is certainly not among the legal recourses we have available) is looking to have the BATF, the FBI, Homeland Security and/or the National Guard right in their faces with all the force available to the Federal military (which can't be used inside the US because of "Posse Comitatus", but their weapons and tactics can, in the hands of other than the Federal military). The last armed revolution that will be allowed was the one in the 1770's; a modern recreation of it won't survive for more than a minute or two.

People on the left believe in personal freedom, in having the government butt out of their lives when it comes to personal choice- who to marry, whether to have an abortion or not, and whether to arm one's self in his or her own defense. So they increasingly believe in individual gun rights with the same fervor they believe in all the other individual rights- firearms as the means to protecting themselves is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment which they recognize and wish to support.

It's a different politic that's emerging and the old alliances aren't as prevalent as they used to be. Using the old pigeon holes of political viewpoints increasingly won't fit the situation, and when that becomes clearer the politics of candidates will reflect it.

Quote:
So NRA is definitely not wedded to "Conservative evangelical Christian politics"...
The display of Conservative evangelical Christian politics that the NRA sponsored in Charlotte is much more visible than the list of whom we endorsed, and makes wonderful fodder for any candidate who wants to run against someone who has stood up for gun rights- "if you like guns then you like Glen Beck and Sarah Palin because the NRA likes them and the NRA supports gun rights". Said differently, there are a legion of voters who want nothing to do with those folks, but are in favor of the Second Amendment as an individual, inalienable Constitutional right. But they won't support gun rights if it means supporting the politics of the far right on any other issues, some of which are much more important to them.
Uncle Billy is offline  
Old June 14, 2010, 07:38 PM   #16
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,074
So, what are you suggesting?

Ostracize from the organization some of the Second Amendment's staunchest supporters just because the left doesn't think they look good?

That sounds suspiciously as if it would be playing exactly into the left's hands over the entire matter.

Simple fact is, NRA doesn't forge its alliances based on how Holy a candidate claims to be, or how racists CNN claims them to be.

NRA forges its alliances based on the candidate's or politican's demonstrated support for the pillar position of the entire organization.

There are numerous Democrats in that fold, too, staunch Christians whose beliefs are based on a strong personal morality and who are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment, as well.

But they, obviously, don't really fit into the media's attempts to paint NRA as a radical, racist organization.

Whose fault is that?

Ours, or theirs?

And again I ask, should we ask NRA to toss its supporters to the curb simply because CNN and the like won't point to the far left and expose the blatant racism and other virulent ism's that are part and parcel to that iniquitous band?
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old June 14, 2010, 08:28 PM   #17
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
The best case for keeping Harry is that anyone who replaces him will be a junior senator with no juice. Right now we have a liaison in the enemy camp. Harry picks his battles well enough to retain sufficient credibility with his party to be able to put his foot down when it comes to gun control.

As long as the Democrats are in the majority, we can't do better than that, no matter who we elect. This is as true for the country's 2A advocates as it is for the state of NV.

I think I just talked myself in to holding my nose in November.

Last edited by maestro pistolero; June 15, 2010 at 12:08 AM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old June 14, 2010, 11:52 PM   #18
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,737
People who preach armed insurrection now are usually nut cases, IMHO. I was not talking about Ruby Ridge, Waco or various cults outraged by this and that.

However, being somewhat a student of history, it's clear that researchers (not gun folk zealots) have determined that genocides occur when the out group is primarily defenseless. Aslo, organized repression of freedom (not the rantings of some group about some trivial cause) occurs when a population is defenseless.

In the USA, the existence of substantial force in the population plus our traditions is likely to act as a damper or cadium rod set against an Ayotallah of some religious fanatic imposing beliefs or a left wing takeover as happened in Czechoslovakia where the Communists became elected and then imp[osed tyranny.

it is a mistake to view the defense of liberty aspects of the RKBA with the actions of some recent loonies with bizarre causes as compared to the horrific possibility of a true general tyranny. Could racist or religious discriminatory laws be reinstated? Not without a confligration. Note in Iran, the dissidents must resort to symbolic measures. Try to be the religious dictator of the USA?

This is of course unlikely but the RKBA provides a buffer against it. Folks like to quote the perhaps bogus Yamamoto quote about a gun behind every blade of grass making invasion impossibility. A communisit or nazi style coup is as unlikely as an invasion but if one did think of such, one must know that you would not have an easy ride.

Might sound nutty - but maintaining a potential against a general tyranny is a good thing. This is not the ravings of a cult but a principle that defines the strength of the people. Can you imagine a military officer engaging in planning a coup like Seven Days in May? We are pretty clear now that massive resistance in urban areas stymies even our existing forces (given they cooperated with such).

I do agree that lately the NRA trots out folks I disagree with like Beck and Palin. I'd prefer if they didn't. Beck is one of the reasons to have the RKBA, IMHO - oops, I'm getting political.

The NRA should make more of a concerted effort to have nonconservatives come to the fore. If they would show up - have a progun liberal/Democratic speaker set at the convention.

It's complex isn't it. However, the lessons of history are clear that in a few years, civilization can fail and governments can become tyrannies. Be nice to have a reasonable chance to damp that down. This is a different principle from defending some nuts in compound.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 15, 2010, 06:03 AM   #19
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
The NRA should make more of a concerted effort to have nonconservatives come to the fore. If they would show up - have a progun liberal/Democratic speaker set at the convention.

The NRA should ask pro-gun politicians from all walks of life to show up and speak at their convention.

IMO: My Second Amendment rights are the most precious of all my rights as a US citizen. I will vote for the pro-Second Amendment candidate every time. I could care less that the pro-gunner is a fire breathing Protestant minister or a lesbian Wiccan who has had two abortions.
thallub is offline  
Old June 15, 2010, 09:15 AM   #20
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Irwin:
Simple fact is, NRA doesn't forge its alliances based on how Holy a candidate claims to be, or how racists CNN claims them to be.

NRA forges its alliances based on the candidate's or politican's demonstrated support for the pillar position of the entire organization.
But its most public persona, the one that speaks the loudest about its nature, the identity the most easy to ascribe to it, the label it forges for itself that's most likely to show up when opposition to its aims (gun rights) wants to disparage its politics, is now built of Glen Beck, Sarah Palin and evangelical Christianity, three very controversial and polarizing entities that stand in the way of universal support for the NRA's goals and intentions. Such a public confession of its wider politics will alienate many who would otherwise be supportive of those aims and intentions.

Quote:
Ostracize from the organization some of the Second Amendment's staunchest supporters just because the left doesn't think they look good?
No, because that would only represent a shift to different irrelevant politics. The best course for the NRA would be to not identify itself with ANY politics and perspectives exterior to the gun rights issue. What is served when its national convention, where it's on display in detail for all to see, is a far right lovein of the most strident commentary, the part of Conservative thought and politics that are the most offensive and odious to those who think reasoned debate and intelligent conversation are non-existent with the right? Does the NRA, which ought to court every politician to support its advocacy, serve its aims and advocacy best by labeling itself with commentary that offends potential supporters and makes alliance with it a wholesale acceptance of the most useless and polarizing of right-wing discourse? Aren't there reasonable voices on the right, who don't stand apart from the political process and bark and howl but instead reason and debate with respect and intellect? Aren't there politicians and voices on the left that would participate in gun rights debates on our side, if the forum wasn't such a brawling barfight of ill-tempered shouters and after Charlotte is so obviously the venue of the NRA/strident right wing? I think so.

When it's time for another convention, the NRA would serve itself and all of us better if it picked less controversial keynote speakers. It may be too late- trying to broaden its appeal by eschewing polarizing commentary and pop stars of the far right might not be possible because such a pernicious identity is like a tattoo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Meyer:
it is a mistake to view the defense of liberty aspects of the RKBA with the actions of some recent loonies with bizarre causes as compared to the horrific possibility of a true general tyranny.
If it's a tyranny we face, it will come from a powerful, organized entity with all the weapons and other means to protect itself. It seems to me that armed private citizens will have little chance of besting that entity. My mention of Ruby Ridge and especially Waco and the Branch Davidians was prompted by what I see to be a similar juxtaposition of forces- a powerful government "oppressing" citizens (the Davidians' perspective); they resist by force of arms and get obliterated. Where the RKBA has bearing for the general welfare of armed citizens is in the case of anarchy- if the only peace to be made and kept is sourced in individual citizens, then having the means to do that in place beforehand is a powerful justification for the Second Amendment, and seems to be what the Founders had in mind when they wrote it. And in microcosmic situations wherein someone is accosted by an attacker and there's no police around is a form of local anarchy, and the Second Amendment has merit here as well. But taking up arms against any form of rule that has become the government of the US will be much worse for the insurgents than Lexington and Concord were, because unlike the parity of arms of the British army and the Colonials, the National Guard has tanks and Apache helicopters and private citizens don't.
Uncle Billy is offline  
Old June 15, 2010, 10:08 AM   #21
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
Pardon a temporary diversion from the topic.

Excellent post, but here I disagree:
Quote:
If it's a tyranny we face, it will come from a powerful, organized entity with all the weapons and other means to protect itself. It seems to me that armed private citizens will have little chance of besting that entity.
All the military might in the world doesn't change the fact that conflicts inevitably end up being door-to-door, street-to-street affairs. If this wasn't true, we wouldn't still be struggling in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is perhaps even more true on our own soil, where the government would be extremely reluctant to turn WMD on it's own infrastructure, let alone it's own people, posse comitatus notwithstanding.

The 300 million guns in private hands in this country include more military-style semi-automatic rifles than are held by any two of the largest armies in the world. I consider that a quite sufficient deterrent to tyranny, so much so, that I think as long as we have a meaningful 2nd Amendment, we will never need to use it for that purpose. That's the irony, as long as we have 2A protection, we won't need it. Take it away, or weaken it enough, and the need for it becomes great.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old June 15, 2010, 10:26 AM   #22
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Ask yourself this:

Who would you rather have as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or Dick Durbin?

On a whole host of issues there may not be much difference but when it comes to the RKBA Harry Reid > Dick Durbin.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old June 15, 2010, 11:07 AM   #23
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
It's really very simple. You're going to find yourself disagreeing with every person or organization who is not you.
You may even find yourself disagreeing with yourself from time to time.
The question is, do they do more harm than good? If they do, try to support their activities. If not, do not.

NRA, yes.

GOA, I'm not so sure. They're a bit too far on the "shrieky side". I don't necessarily think that they help the cause.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old June 15, 2010, 03:48 PM   #24
TexasFats
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 130
There is one simple fact to remember about the NRA. It's mandate is not about health care, evangelicalism, welfare, immigration policy, or anything else that is not related to guns. The NRA's political mandate is to protect gun rights, and it has to be a one-issue organization. Of course, that one issue has a lot of facets, including campaign advertising laws, potential terrorist lists that include Iraq War veterans, and a lot of back door ways to strip us of gun rights, but their one purpose, politically, is gun rights and nothing else. If somebody wants to be involved in other causes, then there are groups out there that advocate for those causes. Just be aware that some of those groups may be actively working against the NRA's agenda at the same time that they are supporting your other cause.
__________________
Gun laws are designed to extend and solidify the power of an elite over a peasantry.

Sauron lives, and his orc minions are on the march.
TexasFats is offline  
Old June 15, 2010, 04:06 PM   #25
bikerbill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2007
Location: Lago Vista TX
Posts: 2,363
I was in a lather about the NRA's latest hijinks, conning an exemption to the bill being concocted by liberals to gut the Citizens United ruling ... TexasFats kind of put it in a different light for me; he may be right that the NRA, as THE pro-gun organization in the U.S., has to focus on gun rights, often at the expense of other issues. Reid may be a gun rights guy, but he's so horrible in every other way that it's hard to justify supporting him. But if you look at in from the one-issue side, maybe the NRA is doing the right thing for gun rights in general, even if having Harry around for another term isn't in the best interests of anything else you can think of.
__________________
"If all guns were built with mechanisms that kept them from firing when held sideways, we could end gang violence." humorist Frank Fleming
bikerbill is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15601 seconds with 7 queries