S.C. lawmaker proposes registry for journalists

[zukiphile]

When we mimic the stupid stuff the opposition tries to do to us, it does not make us look more intelligent or help to justify our position, even if it is sarcasm.

I don't agree.

Humorlessness isn't a virtue. Moreover, parody is a recognised critical vehicle. See A Modest Proposal.

The contrast drawn by the original article and some of the funny posts following it is informative. Levity and intelligence aren't natural adversaries.

[TimSr]

When we mimic the stupid stuff the opposition tries to do to us, it does not make us look more intelligent or help to justify our position, even if it is sarcasm.

I disagree. This is the very method the media has used for years to take down candidates they don't like, or protect the ones they do divert serious questions about their activities. If you question one of their favorites you instantly are ridiculed and decalred a whako conspiracy nut extremist, and teh questions are never answered.

[kilimanjaro]

Satire is the hole in the stuffed shirt through which the sawdust slowly trickles.

I think I recall that as from H.L. Mencken.

Paranoid busybodies, the antigunners, need to be ridiculed. It's an effective technique.

There is no such thing as moral relativism when the antigun half of the equation are amoral, lying, scheming, hate-filled, Fascists. The worst thing that can happen to them is for them to become irrelevant to the general public.

If you want to look more intelligent, get a dog.

[44 AMP]

If you want to look more intelligent, get a dog.

That doesn't always work.

Some of the anti's are dog owners, too.....

[Skans]

If only gun owners stood up for our rights the way that journalists attempt to stand up for theirs perhaps we wouldn't have had bans on carrying handguns in Texas, the Sullivan Act, restrictions on concealed carry, the NFA of 34, the GCA of 68 and all the nonsense since.

We do. It's called the NRA, GOA and others.

like the NRA? The same NRA that has folded on things like background checks and has advanced the notion that getting government permission to carry a firearm is a good thing?

The NRA is only as good as it's membership. People like to blame the NRA for "caving in" on the fight against oppressive anti-gun legislation. The problem is that the people who whine about this were not members of the NRA when this was going on. The NRA's membership was anemic back then compared to what it is now. And its members were not as concerned about protecting the 2nd Amendment. JOIN, CONTRIBUTE, and be an ACTIVE member. YOU get to make it what you want it to be. Life members and those who have been members for longer than 5 years get to vote! That's right, vote on who will run the organization.

[kilimanjaro]

"like the NRA? The same NRA that has folded on things like background checks and has advanced the notion that getting government permission to carry a firearm is a good thing?"

Yes, that NRA. The very same bunch.

Ponder this for a while. Without the NRA, you would have needed a $200 transfer tax stamp and paperwork with every handgun beginning in 1934. You would have had to register your firearms, all of them, in 1968. NFA items would have been banned and confiscated in 1968. You might be lucky to live in a 'may issue' state, one of perhaps six or seven states, for carrying a pistol, should you be even luckier to be a pal of the local politicos, and have the $200 for the pistol tax laying around. The other three dozen states wouldn't have a permit system in the first place. The supreme courts in states with RKBA in their constitution would have been packed with judges who rule that RKBA doesn't apply to handguns, concealed carry, things like that. Your semi-auto rifles would have been banned in 1992 and there would have been no exceptions. Turn them all in, Mr. and Mrs. America.

Folded on background checks? Pardon me while I laugh. The choice was either NICS or ten-day waiting periods, with no exceptions.

You can bluster about absolute rights all you want from whatever ivory tower you choose to build for yourself, but the reality is that the NRA is the best guarantor of your RKBA, bar none. Even after the last half dozen horrible mass murders in this country, with constant media drumbeats for action, and an entire political party in favor of confiscation, the NRA is so powerful that the only way even weak and ineffective national gun control actions can be done is for the President to take unilateral action. Congress won't touch it.

Yep, that's weak all right. Lapdogs. Spineless eclairs.

I don't mean to berate you, but if you don't have the brains or the guts to stand up and join with your citizens to protect your rights, then you're not going to have them very much longer.

The NRA has 5 million members. With 10 million members, the Democrats would be sputtering about nothing but the minimum wage and global warming.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by BarryLee

I’m also concerned about the number of electronic devices some journalist have. I understand that some of them have a literal “arsenal” of devices in their homes. Who needs anything more than one desk top computer.

"No honest man needs a hard drive with a capacity of more than ten gigabytes."

[heyjoe]

Double Naught Spy, i disagree. i think that sarcasm drives home how ludicrous these restrictions on the second amendment are. satire has always been a very potent political tool.

[44 AMP]

The sad part is the critics of the NRA on our side say the NRA "sold us out" when in fact all they did was not win completely.

The simple fact is that there have been times when some kind of gun control was absolutely going to become law. Despite all we could do.

The "sell outs" kept things from being WORSE, and you will never convince me otherwise.

Look at it this way, if you are fighting for the steering wheel trying to keep a fanatic from driving you off a cliff, sometimes the best you can manage is to crash into the uphill side. You take damage, but you don't go off the cliff.

Is that selling out???

Not to me.

[Skans]

My guess is that the pro-gun folks that vocally berate the NRA perceive them as "conservative" or "Republican". They see the NRA backing more politicians with an "R" rather than a "D" next to their names, and they don't like this.

Rather than coming right out and saying "I like what the NRA does, but they aren't supporting XYZ who is backed by my union (which is more important to me than gun rights), I can't support them," they justify their non-support based on old battles lost or compromised by the NRA. This is a dishonest and disingenuous position.

[zukiphile]

My sense is that the sentiment is more often naive rather than dishonest.

It can be hard to communicate the details of negotiation and brinksmanship to someone who hasn't been there for all the work. If one isn't interested in the details, but also doesn't like the result, it may be easier to conclude that the better solution didn't manifest because it was "sold out".

This isn't peculiar to 2d Am. issues.

[scrubcedar]

Down in Southern Colorado we used to have the, now mythical, animal the "conservative Democrat". This creature would have had high NRA ratings as well as normally a strong military background that led to an unwavering belief in the 2nd amendment.

My Father knew and hung around with these men (bringing me along frequently).I can remember such creatures when confronted with anti 2nd amendment rhetoric uttering some pretty insulting terms about the persons intelligence as well as (to them) the obvious lack of education involved.

The reason I bring this up is I think I remember something like this being floated as something to bring up in the Colorado legislature and being abandoned because the people who it was aimed at (big city anti-gun/non-conservative politicians of BOTH parties) simply would be incapable of seeing how it applied to them.

As I recall heads were sadly shaken across the board, another round was ordered, and the question was asked "Where are we hunting this weekend?"

As we talk about this I'm again reminded that we need to stand behind those who stand behind our rights regardless of the letter next to their name.

[kilimanjaro]

There are a lot of gun-owning Democrats who are not NRA members, some have told me it's because the NRA is 'the enemy', and they would rather not deal with friends and acquaintances finding it out.

[TXAZ]

If "the pen is mightier than the sword" shouldn't there be a good one-liner here?

[Skans]

There are a lot of gun-owning Democrats who are not NRA members,

I agree with this. It's just that I wish they would be honest, come right out and say they don't like the NRA because they (perceive) them as supporting too many Republicans. Rather than claiming they don't support the NRA blaming it for "caving in", gun bans and other things that just aren't true when you look at the totality of the circumstances at the time.

It's fine to not want to give one cent to an organization that supports a politician(s) that you can't stand. It's not fine to be disingenuous about WHY you don't support the NRA if you are a knowledgeable gun owner.

[BarryLee]

they don't like the NRA because they (perceive) them as supporting too many Republicans

I wrestle with this issue and wish the NRA could attract more Democrat leaders. However, the reality is the NRA supports leaders who support the Second Amendment and have in the past supported leaders from multiple parties. The problem now is one party has made gun control a key part of their platform, so obviously they won’t get much love from the NRA. We need Democrat gun owners to take a stand and push their leaders to take a more rational approach to this issue.

[Tom Servo]

Without the NRA, you would have needed a $200 transfer tax stamp and paperwork with every handgun beginning in 1934.

Minor correction: the proposed tax on handguns would have been $5.

On the rest, you're correct. It's easy for folks (most of whom admit to not being members) to blame the NRA for not making everything perfect while missing the magnitude of the burden the organization has had to shoulder.

Back to the original subject, I really think it's a bad idea from top to bottom. It seems quaint, but what we really have is a lawmaker deliberately introducing a bill he knows to be unconstitutional. Furthermore, he's wasting the taxpayers' time and money with it.

And for what? To make a rhetorical point? To whom? The only folks who get the joke are the folks who already support the RKBA. It's not going to change anyone's mind, and it just comes off as wasteful and petty to rest of the population.

[WyMark]

Originally Posted by Skans

I agree with this. It's just that I wish they would be honest, come right out and say they don't like the NRA because they (perceive) them as supporting too many Republicans. Rather than claiming they don't support the NRA blaming it for "caving in", gun bans and other things that just aren't true when you look at the totality of the circumstances at the time.

It's fine to not want to give one cent to an organization that supports a politician(s) that you can't stand. It's not fine to be disingenuous about WHY you don't support the NRA if you are a knowledgeable gun owner.

Just so I'm clear, if I don't support the NRA for reasons other than what you've enumerated them I'm dishonest or just being disingenuous? That's a pretty absurd assumption, I think.

I honestly believe that more D's, and probably even more I's, would join the NRA right now if 'lil Wayne wasn't the face and voice of the organization. And I think even the current administration would be a little bit less anti-NRA if someone a little less caustic and maybe less anti-Obama were in that position.

[Tom Servo]

I honestly believe that more D's, and probably even more I's, would join the NRA right now if 'lil Wayne wasn't the face and voice of the organization.

LaPierre and his mouth have been a recurring problem. It started with the "jackbooted thugs" quip and continued through his disastrous response to Newtown.

And I think even the current administration would be a little bit less anti-NRA if someone a little less caustic and maybe less anti-Obama were in that position.

I disagree here. The administration needs a strawman to make their narrative work. The story they've built is that they're just trying to do some good, but the supposed Goliath that is the NRA is blocking their efforts in order to line the pockets of the "gun lobby."

Even with a more sensible spokesperson, we'd have that narrative.

[zincwarrior]

I disagree here. The administration needs a strawman to make their narrative work. The story they've built is that they're just trying to do some good, but the supposed Goliath that is the NRA is blocking their efforts in order to line the pockets of the "gun lobby."

Even with a more sensible spokesperson, we'd have that narrative.

Indeed. Politicians making hay on this need an EVILZ boogeyman. Its a common tactic on all sides.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by WyMark

I honestly believe that more D's, and probably even more I's, would join the NRA right now if 'lil Wayne wasn't the face and voice of the organization.

Depends on why an individual identifies as a D. If a person is a D because his parents were or because "dirtyyankee" is one word and he associates it with Rs, you might be right. For a person who indentifies as a D because he considers constitutional rights and checks as undesirable frustrations in the implementation of federal policy, you aren't going to see a lot of enthusiasm for an individual right held against the state.

Originally Posted by TS

LaPierre and his mouth have been a recurring problem. It started with the "jackbooted thugs" quip and continued through his disastrous response to Newtown.

I don't write any of this as a LaPierre fan.

How was LaPierre's response disasterous? What disaster ensued?

In the hours following the Sandy Hook news, there were some advocates of more firearms restriction who figuratively ran through the blood to get to a camera and push their policy wish list. They didn't get their way.

LaPierre's observation was factual in that there were staff whose only means of resistance was to soak up a few shots.

Jeb Bush noted a few months ago that the impulse to make a law isn't always the right one. He has been mocked for that too, but there is more than a little wisdom in it.

[Tom Servo]

How was LaPierre's response disasterous? What disaster ensued?

He never should have made a statement at all. The NRA wasn't responsible in even the most tangential way.

You have to look at it from two points of view: the anti-gunner and the uncommitted person.

To the uncommitted, the act of giving a speech and proposing policy solutions seemed to imply some sort of guilt. Furthermore, the idea of flooding our schools with armed security came off as opportunistic and tone-deaf.

To the antis, it was a goldmine. They twisted the "good guy with a gun" phrase and used the speech as proof the NRA was somehow trying to take advantage of the situation.

Let's remember that Timothy McVeigh had an NRA membership. So what, right? That's what we think.

At the time, the antis pounced on that. He also had some remote involvement with the KKK, and the media had a field day. They stressed his memberships in both organizations as a way of "proving" some connection between the NRA and KKK.

Public relations were terrible for the gun culture at that point, and what did LaPierre do? He referred to law enforcement as "jack booted thugs." Thanks, Wayne. The backlash was epic.

If there was to be any statement following Newtown, it should have been a noncommittal "our hearts go out to the families, but this has nothing to do with us" sort of thing, preferably delivered by someone without such a poisoned public-relations history.

LaPierre really needs to be replaced with someone with a better sense of public opinion.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by TS

He never should have made a statement at all. The NRA wasn't responsible in even the most tangential way.

You have to look at it from two points of view: the anti-gunner and the uncommitted person.

To the uncommitted, the act of giving a speech and proposing policy solutions seemed to imply some sort of guilt. Furthermore, the idea of flooding our schools with armed security came off as opportunistic and tone-deaf.

I think you are quite wide of the mark on this.

In fact, the NRA stood accused. One is permitted to draw an adverse inference against a person who remains silent in the face of an accusation. That part of common-law reflects ordinary human intuition. For the NRA to have failed to respond with vigor would more likely have been interpreted as an admission.

To the antis, it was a goldmine. They twisted the "good guy with a gun" phrase and used the speech as proof the NRA was somehow trying to take advantage of the situation.

Let's remember that Timothy McVeigh had an NRA membership. So what, right? That's what we think.

At the time, the antis pounced on that. He also had some remote involvement with the KKK, and the media had a field day. They stressed his memberships in both organizations as a way of "proving" some connection between the NRA and KKK.

One should hope that his adversaries always offer incompetent arguments.

Proponents for additional firearms restrictions had those restrictions drafted and ready to go. It would be unrealistic to imagine that they would not also make their arguments with vigor. That they incorporated or caricatured parts of the NRA response should not suggest to you that the NRA response was wrong. Indeed, had the NRA been conspicuously silent, don't you imagine that the silence would have been incorporated into gun-control arguments of the moment?

So, we heard derision of "a good guy with a gun", a manifestly true observation. An advocate who derides the truth is unlikely to buy credibility with that derision.

On the other hand, a civil rights organization that remains silent in the face of calls to abridge the right it is charged with defending invites the observation that it is not responding because there is no response and that of the idea the organization represents is itself bankrupt.

Public relations were terrible for the gun culture at that point, and what did LaPierre do? He referred to law enforcement as "jack booted thugs." Thanks, Wayne. The backlash was epic.

That was a couple of decades before Newtown. While some of the language is over the top, the judgment of some of the people in federal government and responsible for some high profile matters was dubious at best.

If there was to be any statement following Newtown, it should have been a noncommittal "our hearts go out to the families, but this has nothing to do with us" sort of thing, preferably delivered by someone without such a poisoned public-relations history.

I believe that would have been demoralizing to the many people who stood in defense of the rights described in the Second Amendment during the Newtown hysteria. "We are the NRA and we haven't anything to do with this" isn't much of a rallying cry.

LaPierre really needs to be replaced with someone with a better sense of public opinion.

If a better sense of public opinion drives one to submit to it or acquiesce when the argument is difficult to make, I do not believe that quality would be desirable in NRA leadership.

Neither of us seem particularly enthused by LaPierre, but for somewhat contrary reasons.