NineseveN
member
Um, that was meant to be a parody of the anti-NRA crowd who are always accusing the NRA of having secret anti-gun agendas. Obviously any attempts at parodying conspiracy theorists tend to be lost on actual conspiracy theorists.
Are you insinuating that I am a conspiracy theorist? There is no conspiracy or theory about it. The NRA supports some forms of restriction. Period. It’s not secret, they admit it. So do a lot of gun owners.
I have never said people should not join GOA or JPFO or any of the other smaller gun rights groups. I just said that if you want to effectively support RKBA, you should not EXCLUDE the NRA from your support. It is true that some of the other groups have a more absolute interpretation of RKBA. But, they are by definition small splinter groups and there are some things the NRA can do that the small splinter groups cannot.
What has the NRA done, specifically, and by itself, that no other group could have or helped to do?
Let's take an example: let's say I am personally committed to the idea that all US citizens should have the right to own tactical nuclear weapons, and that all US households should be required to own at least one crew-served infantry weapon. I'm also opposed to firearms licensing and registration.
I am obviously going to have some diffferences with the NRA, because although the NRA does support my views on licensing and registration, they have never supported private ownership of nuclear weapons nor have they ever supported mandatory weapons ownership.
If I follow the example of NineseveN and others here, I will support from the NRA, actively campaign against the NRA, and support only my own tiny fringe organization which is in favor of private nukes and mandatory mortars and HMG's.
Bad hypothetical. There is no such provision in the USC that would include such weapons. There is a difference between arms and ordinance. Here’s a better hypothetical.
Suppose the ACLU supported the right to speak freely in public, except when the speech is criticizing the government. Now, they tote themselves as being pro-First Amendment and the ACLU supporters feel they are the most important game in town due to their power in Washington and their money/membership numbers.
Now, suppose the ACLU does a number of great things such as:
Opening literacy camps to train people to use words more effectively.
Supporting a wide variety of national spelling bee and essay contest every year.
Campaigning loud and hard against censoring journalists
Campaigning loud and hard against censoring musicians and performing artists
Boycotting companies that fire an employee for criticizing the company they work for
Those are all great things, but suppose the following was also true:
Every time the issue of freely criticizing the government came up, the ACLU suddenly got quiet.
They did no campaigning, either loud or hard against censoring private citizens when talking about their government
They have had spokespeople comment in the past that they “support reasonable restrictions on speech”.
They have done nothing notable in quite some time, if ever, to repeal a law banning public criticism of the government that was enacted 60 years ago.
Now, here’s what it comes down to. Yes, they do fight infringements on free speech on a lot of levels, except on the level it matters most, the level that was intended by the First Amendment. The amendment was not recorded so that rap stars could say mutherf%$@*& on every rap album, or so that Wiccans could claim equal protection of their religion as any Christian, those things were not even around then on this continent (at least, not in the forms we see today). The drafters of those articles knew very well the need to keep the government’s leash tight enough so that it could not stop a free people from publicly questioning or criticizing the actions of the government. If you do not support that, absolutely, are you really a supporter of the First Amendment? Supporting free speech and supporting the First Amendment can be two very different things.
The NRA supports the right to own firearms. They tote themselves as being pro-Second Amendment and the NRA supporters feel they are the most important game in town due to their power in Washington and their money/membership numbers.
The NRA does a number of great things such as:
Sponsoring a number of educational and safety course and programs on firearms
Supports and sponsors a number of shooting competitions
Campaigns loud and hard for hunters and sportsmen/women
Campaigns loud and hard for the support of Law Enforcement Officers
Boycotts companies that prohibit an employee from having a gun in their car while on company property
Campaigns for CCW rights (with mixed resolve, but they do work for it generally)
Those are all great things, but the following is also true:
Every time the issue of NFA weapons comes up, the NRA suddenly gets quiet
They do no campaigning, either loud or hard for the rights of a free citizen to own NFA weapons
They have had spokespeople comment in the past that they “support reasonable restrictions on firearms”.
They have done nothing notable in quite some time, if ever, to repeal a law banning fully-automatic weapons that was enacted over 60 years ago.
Now, here’s what it comes down to. Yes, they do fight infringements on firearms ownership on a lot of levels, except on the level it matters most, the level that was intended by the Second Amendment. The amendment was not recorded so that hunters could kill some critters every season, or so that target shooters and competitors could engage in their chosen sport, nor was it recorded so that we may own semi-functional, watered down copies of military small arms. The drafters of those articles knew very well the need to keep the government’s leash tight enough so that it could not enslave a free people by removing their ability to defend themselves using the very same tools a government soldier or law enforcement officer would, or to keep an invading army from enslaving them without a means of defending themselves using those very same tools. If you do not support that, absolutely, are you really a supporter of the Second Amendment? Supporting gun rights and supporting the Second Amendment are two very different things in this case.
The opposition - the Brady Bunch, VPC, and so on - would LOVE for us all to follow this pattern. By splintering all the gun owner groups into smaller, less effective, narrow-interest groups, there will be no organized unified opposition next time they try to pass a national firearms registration and licensing scheme.
Let’s be realistic. The NRA was the only real game in town when the GCA, NFA, AWB and Brady Bill Passed. By my count, only one of those is no longer in effect, and that was due to a sunset clause, which the NRA did help to get put in. However, that clause did bring many of the fence-sitters over into agreeing with it. We may never have had the AWB if that piece had not been in there. Politicians like duality and deniability. Any constituents upset over the AWB were often told that it was “a temporary measure” and “when the people see that crime does not go down, there will be a new understanding of how gun control does not work which will eliminate gun control completely”…we were also told that “you can still hunt and defend yourself, we’re not banning guns, simply certain features which you have no need for and serve no purpose”. The NRA made the safe play, and it can be argued that what they did was smart, it can also be argued that the shot themselves and us in the foot. Neither here nor there.
If the NRA is so powerful, tell me how every significant, widespread firearms control measure has passed under their watch? If it is because they can only do so much, then do we really need them? If it is because we didn’t campaign hard enough as individuals, then again, do we really need them? I say the NRA is needed on a lot of levels (their education and training programs are excellent IMHO), but they have failed on the levels that matter most to me, thus I do not support them.
P.S. Ted Nugent is awesome, but not a great spokesman for Mainstream Joe to relate to.