Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist', Richard Feldman on NPR

[dm1333]

Texas Rifleman,

I haven't read the book so I can't comment on the content but I really don't like Feldmans' writing style. That was my beef with what I read.

 

[wulfbyte]

I just finished listening to the broadcast again and I have to say that it is very slick. It is amazing how well they camouflaged their anti 2A sentiments.

I won't say that the NRA does everything that I would like them to do, and there are some things they do that probably should be looked into, but this broadcast (and the book excerpt) makes them out to be unreasonable in the extreme.

I would have to say that this has been the best example of information manipulation that I have seen to date. Just enough truth mixed in with the falsehoods so all but the most educated and concerned listeners would accept every statement as truthful.

I may not like everything the NRA does, but I am going to continue to support them as well as my local organizations and hope that they can survive this type of propaganda campaign.

 

[Matt King]

Book is a good read. I am about 1/3 through it and so far it has been very informative. I would recommend it to anybody that wants to learn about the NRA.

 

[havanatrader]

From the NPR interview and having read portions of the book, Feldman seems less of a "pro or anti", and more of an opportunist.
He's just trying to generate some controversy and make some bucks. It seems that his statements are being tailored to his audience of the moment.

 

[Conqueror]

I read the excerpts on the NPR site, it seems like fully 50% of the paragraphs are devoted to "I'm such a pariah" whining and posturing.

"Then I went to the NRA dinner, here's a list of people who were mean to me."
"Then I went to the gun show, and people didn't like me."

Does this guy ever shut up about how hated he is and actually discuss issues?

 

[The Annoyed Man]

I only caught the tail end of the radio interview, and I couldn't tell who was who, but I did hear one of the speakers drop the name of the Hunters and Shooters association, and for some reason that raised a red flag with me.

Here's where you heard the name before:

nraila.org
Anti-Gunners Don Camo As Elections Loom
Seeking to pick up the baton dropped by the ham-fisted Americans for Gun Safety, the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) has arrived on the scene to become the latest front group for the anti-gun movement in America.
BY CHRIS W. COX, NRA-ILA Executive Director

Tracking the recent history of the Second Amendment debate wouldn’t be complete without a look at the shifting tactics of the opposition. Our tireless efforts and resulting victories at the ballot box have made it clear that openly campaigning against the Second Amendment is a political loser. The anti-gun groups have undertaken a concerted effort to mask their long-term agenda, but only as a mark of pure, calculating political expedience.

It surprised no one when Handgun Control, Inc., decided to change its name to the decidedly vague “Brady Campaign.” But the effort to paint the anti-gun agenda with the comfortable warmth of “gun safety” rhetoric moved from tactical to strategic with the formation of Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) in July 2000. Funded solely by New York City dot-com billionaire Andrew McKelvey—previously a member of the Handgun Control, Inc., board of directors—AGS supported the same tired gun-control agenda, but portrayed itself as “bringing a new, centrist perspective to a long-polarized debate.”

{snip}

Now comes, as if on cue, the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA). The group’s self-description that pops up in Internet search engines is: “Countering years of polarized debate and restoring pride in America’s hunting and shooting heritage.” Gee, that polarized debate thing sounds familiar.

But let’s go through the exercise, for those with any doubt. AHSA is certainly working to create that doubt, with a debut performance at the recent convention of the Outdoor Writers Association of America.

Hosting a press conference and a breakfast, the group made a minor splash. CNN fell for the routine, offering the group a clean slate from which to cast its own history. AHSA Executive Director Bob Ricker told the CNN host, “We feel that because of the extreme positions the NRA has taken in the past, as you mentioned, that it’s turned off a large number of gun owners. It just became clear to me that the extreme positions the NRA was forcing everyone to take was really hurting hunters and shooters, like myself.”

Pure theater, of course, but good enough for CNN to fawn over. Some of the outdoor writers in attendance, however, were well familiar with the false credentials of Ricker and AHSA’s board of directors. Ricker attempted to sidestep his checkered past, dodging questions on his well-known history as a failed gun-industry lobbyist, then as a paid shill for the anti-gun lobby and its lawyers. Board member John Rosenthal, founder of the anti-gun Massachusetts state group “Stop Handgun Violence,” has called himself a gun owner and shooter. One outdoor writer noted in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette: “They ask that you overlook their past associations and listen to their message.”

...etc., etc., etc. AHSA is just a wolf in sheep's clothing, trying to pose as pro-second amendment, but really just being another front for the gun grabbers.

 

[Beatnik]

I would have to say that this has been the best example of information manipulation that I have seen to date. Just enough truth mixed in with the falsehoods so all but the most educated and concerned listeners would accept every statement as truthful.

Haven't you listened to NPR before? Pick an issue, any issue. It's going to be portrayed this way. Compared to them, Göbbels was a rank amateur.

Does this guy ever shut up about how hated he is and actually discuss issues?

That's what I was trying to say earlier. It looks more like a diary than an issues book. If he wants someone to care, he can take his millions of dollars and pay someone to care. I'll use that money on a box of ammo instead.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Feldman may have had honorable intention towards reform of the NRA leadership in publishing his book.

He is, however, a fool if he believed that his book would not be used as a significant element of a FUD campaign (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to besmirtch guns and their owners.

Honestly, it's utility towards his stated goal of reforming the leadership is minimal, and it's utility as a tool of our enemies is maximal.

Therefore, it is my opinion that publishing it was a massive blunder in judgement on Feldman's part, assuming he held gun rights in priority over his personal issues.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Therefore, it is my opinion that publishing it was a massive blunder in judgement on Feldman's part,

One question. Did you read it?

I'm halfway through my second read now. I have yet to find a single thing that is anti gun in the book. The anti's will take ANYTHING out of context. Hell, they even take the very clear language of the Second Amendment itself and try to spin it into their argument. They take speeches made by Nugent and spin them to their purposes.

The same thing is happening, here's a shocker, in this NPR interview. You expected fair and balanced from NPR?

The massive blunder in judgement, if any, by Feldman was doing an interview with the scumbags at NPR.

 

[geekWithA.45]

TexasRifleman:

I don't think it matters that there isn't a single anti-gun thing in his book, and I never accused him of being anti-gun.

What I did say is that he has provided our enemies with rich fodder to twist, and when the dust has settled, I'm betting that the magnitude of the damage done will exceed the magnitude of the good.

Interviewing w/ NPR...well, you're right. The outcome of that was simply predictable.

 

[TexasRifleman]

What I did say is that he has provided our enemies with rich fodder to twist,

And I ask again, did you read the book? Please show me this fodder?

80% of the book has nothing at all but a chronology of how Feldman got into the gun lobby movement in the first place, and is nothing but a short history of the pro 2A movement, mainly NRA. There's nothing new or provocative at all.

20% of the book involves his last years at NRA, and subsequent years at other gun manufacturer lobbying groups.

His comments about the current NRA leadership being too mean, too harsh, too good at raising money, too strong with politicians, and too little compromise is hardly fodder for the enemy.

If what he says is true the NRA is to be feared as much as ever. He just disagrees with how the organization goes about things.
If anything Feldman is too soft, too willing to compromise, and the NRA ran him out for it.

I'm not sure how any of that can be used against us any more than before. Ever since Bush I resigned and Wayne LaPierre called the ATF "jack booted thugs" the argument against NRA has been in use. Feldman just restates it again.

Ask Al Gore if he feels the NRA is ineffective.

So I'm asking again, how many are basing their opinions off of this lousy, inaccurate NPR interview and how many have actually looked at what's being discussed, the book itself.

 

[Matt King]

What I did say is that he has provided our enemies with rich fodder to twist, and when the dust has settled, I'm betting that the magnitude of the damage done will exceed the magnitude of the good.

Have you read it?
It's true that the gun control crowd are already trying to play this one, but if anyone reads the book, they will realize that there isn't much for them to play off of. Albeit, so far I am only about 1/3 through the book.

 

[ArmedBear]

I have not read the book. I can, however, apply some basic critical thinking.

Just on the face of it, if the Brady Bunch, a rather small organization, can have politicians and the news media using its exact verbage and doing its bidding, and introducing and passing laws on every level, while the NRA, with millions of members who are known for voting accordingly, is forced to fight the Brady Campaign as if they were equals, in a supposedly democratic system, then the notion that the NRA is "too good", "too powerful", or has "too much influence", is on the face of it RIDICULOUS.

 

[akodo]

there are 33 states a convicted felon can purchase as many firearms as they wish without showing any ID what’s so ever”

...and that is why there are only 17 states in which you will never find a felon illegally in possession of a handgun

...and those same 33 states, that convicted felon can also purchase as many kilos of cocaine as he wishes without showing any ID whatsoever

...and those same 33 states need to invest in more prisons

...and in those 33 states, where a convicted felon can easily get a gun, we want you -the law abiding citizen- to be unarmed and at their mercy.

 

[ROMAK IV]

I don't have any use for Feldman, he will get press because he has a thing against the NRA. Sellouts always get press. The NRA isn't perfect, we all know that, and I had alot more respect for the late Niel Knox than I do for this guy, but of course Neil never got press coverage from major media.(Feldman has been interveiwed by US News and wWorld Report and the LA Times.) I don't know whether or not this is the same guy that was featured on "60 Minutes", but that guy was alos a former member of the NSSF, and his big thing was gun dealers selling guns to criminals. Never mind the fact that any legal sale by a gundealer had to have a federal background check.

 

[TexasRifleman]

but that guy was alos a former member of the NSSF

Feldman had nothing to do with NSSF. He was director of the American Shoothing Sports Coalition, a manufacturers lobbying group. By the time ASSC and NSSF had merged Feldman was out.

You will find, if you read this book, that Feldman is very complimentary of Neal Knox and his contributions to the fight.

So again, everyone is talking with hardly any basis in actual fact.
No surprise there I guess.....

I will quote from the last line of the book, then you can all argue things without actually having any direct info, which seems to be more fun.

Take this as really good advice no matter what you think of this Feldman guy:

Hopeless? No, but the American people, gun owners and nonowners alike, need to take an active role and not leave the outcome to the professional lobbyists - that's a guaranteed prescription for stalemate.

Yep, he sounds like an anti to me......let's string him up.

 

[ArmedBear]

double post

 

[ArmedBear]

Complaining about stalemate is like complaining about some issue being "divisive."

We're not SUPPOSED to agree, and we're not SUPPOSED to make all sorts of changes on a whim.

The Constitution is written to encourage political stalemates, even standoffs. The Founders WANTED stalemate.

When government isn't at a stalemate, it's almost always growing, and seizing more power for itself, while taking more freedoms away from individuals.

When we have not had a stalemate on gun rights, we got NFA34, GCA68, and AWB94. One of them is no longer in effect, and that is due SOLELY to "stalemate."

He DOES sound like an anti to me, just a much more clever one than Sarah Brady. Read 1984 if you haven't, not this guy.