I’m sick of getting screwed. How ’bout you?
We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA’s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).
Later in the same statement:
We didn’t “sell out” to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that commitment is honored, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If that commitment is not fully honored, we will strongly oppose the bill.
If the NRA gets its piece of the pie, they’ll stay quiet. Only if they don’t will they actively oppose the bill.
That’s pretty much the definition of selling out, you two-faced, double-speaking morons.
EDIT: By the way, I’m really, REALLY sick of everyone making excuses for the NRA’s bad behavior. It absolutely galls me how many gunnies are willing to turn a blind eye every time they sell us up the river “compromise” on something because they’re the biggest gun rights organization out there. I don’t really give a good god damn how big they are when they fail at actually protecting our interests.
I don’t give anyone carte blanche to speak on my behalf, especially an organization hell-bent on securing a monopoly – to what effect? When every last check on the NRA is stripped of its political power, by a combination of gun owner fear and legislative action, and we have only the NRA to represent us… Do you really trust them that much? If we treat the NRA with such undeserved reverence when we have other options, they know they’ve got us on complete lockdown if they can kill the competition. And then what?
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
They were against it before they weren’t against it. Or something like that. What’s the spin now?
I don’t really give a good god damn how big they are when they fail at actually protecting our interests.
Nor do I. That’s why I haven’t joined and never will until they start standing up. JPFO and GOA are much better alternatives.
The Second Amendment Foundation is a far better choice, they’ve been the NRA’s surrogate brass balls more than once. (At least twice during Katrina, Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, etc)
http://standardmischief.com/blog/2007/02/14/full-text-press-releases-from-the-nra-and-the-saf-about-contempt/
Looks like the bill got nixed: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38698.html
Not that this exonerates the NRA, or anything, just saying.
Aaaand NRA takes credit in 3… 2… 1…
Looks like the NRA addressed your concerns directly and specifically in the last two paragraphs of that press release. Unfortunate that you didn’t see fit to quote them here as well.
I linked the article for your clickage, dude. You’re welcome to quote them. Here, I’ll do it for you:
Of course, I could have just typed “political doublespeak ass-covering blah blah blah” and it would mean the same thing to me.
Considering the NRA uses free speech to fight for the Second Amendment, they can’t very well claim they’re a single-issue organization. Frankly, no such thing exists. Our rights to speech, to assembly, to keep and bear arms – they’re all intertwined, and if we overlook or forsake one we risk losing them all.
They aren’t protecting the Second Amendment above all else, they’re protecting the NRA above all else. Maybe they really believe those missions are one and the same, but considering the concessions the NRA makes on our “behalf,” I don’t quite think so.
they are a single issue group, its just too bad that issue is hunting, not the 2nd. How long will the NRA members allow them to sell out the evil ‘black rifle’ crowd before we say something. They stand against lawsuits that they dont think will win, until that one gets in front of the USSC then they fight to get time to speak!
They have crapped on the gun owners of America for as long as i can remember, we need to quit feeding this beast. Starve it and support pro 2-A groups that will not compromise.
I’m not sure what exactly went on behind closed doors, but I do know that Gura’s argument was dismissed with extreme prejudice by the Justices other than Thomas. I like Thomas. I’d just as soon let him call the shots all by himself without “help” from the other 8, though there is that “absolute power” problem per Laurel’s post… Be that as it may, NRA’s argument was a hedge, wimpy by appearance, but far more likely to succeed than Gura’s.
NRA has crapped on GOA? When? GOA’s raison d’etre is to crap on NRA and collect money. I’m not sure whether GOA is just useless, or a net negative, for RKBA.
NRA’s greatest fault is its caution. However, it’s also NRA’s greatest virtue. NRA understands “laws and sausages” better than most of us want to. Sadly, Washington, DC does not run on principles, it does not run on “no compromise”. It runs on crap. Piles and piles of crap. NRA is part of the DC crap pile — but be careful not to interpret unsavory tactical moves as statements of principle. They’re not.
NRA had nothing to do with McDonald, but they will take credit for it, on their front page they talk about the long fight they are in to protect our rights, but then why do they work against the same rights?
http://home.nra.org/#/home
and how can they be a pro-2A group when they ban their board members from talking about 2A issues at/on the Kagan nomination?
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/27/nra-issues-gag-order-to-its-board-members-on-elena-kagan/
The ball never moves forward unless you get on the field and actually play the other team that’s there.
You sell out by giving up on your principles for reward.
The NRA was never by design a free-speech organization, so they can’t “sell out” being one. They’ve never been or pretended to be a general civil liberties organization.
(The ACLU has, and I emphasize pretended, because they’ve never given a rat’s ass about the Second Amendment or a right to self-defense. Thus, the ACLU can be called sell-outs on the second amendment, because they claim to be an advocate for all civil liberties and the Constitution as a whole.)
(And it should be pointed out that their opposition to the bill affecting them is what caused the exception and the exception is what killed the bill. I’m with Sebastian and Joe Huffman on this. It’s not like the NRA asked to be excepted without anyone else; that they were willing to accept it because it satisfied their objections is an odd thing to take as “selling out” a principle they never claimed to be in the business of supporting.)
They use free speech, as you say, but that does not oblige them to spend political capital opposing a non-gun issue.
I also disagree on the “concessions” issue.
Yes, they make them.
No, nobody who “never makes concessions” has ever done jack shit for gun rights comparable to what the NRA does.
Politics is dirty and leads to compromise. GOA-style “no compromise” positions lead to utter defeat.
I prefer compromise wins to ideologically pure defeat. (That’s why I’m not a member of the Libertarian Party.)
The NRA uses the postal system and roads to do their gun-rights advocacy. This does not require them to be advocates of highway repair or better postal service.
Dagamore: NRA opposed the AWB, did they not? And its renewal, yes? Please to explain how they “only care about hunters”? (And given limited resources, how can they support every lawsuit at every level regardless of its chances? This is not a rhetorical question – you’re complaining that they don’t, so tell me how they can, given limited money and time?)
Man, I’m not even an NRA member, but this kind of “no compromise” stuff makes me want to give them money. Because they’ve done a hell of a lot more for my 2A rights than GOA ever has, despite “compromising” all the time.
A compromised victory with statists is but a postponed defeat. Write that down.
But principled suicide is still suicide, too. The last society that rose on the foundation of principled suicide got nuked. What do you do?
dagamore; “they are a single issue group, its just too bad that issue is hunting, not the 2nd. How long will the NRA members allow them to sell out the evil ‘black rifle’ crowd before we say something.”
That would have been a legitimate complaint 15 years ago, and I made that same complaint directly to the NRA back then, but it’s not correct now. Things have changed somewhat for the better. For one thing, it is well known that the evil black AR-15 style platform is extremely popular right now. Back in the mid 90’s you almost never saw an EBR in American Rifleman (you’d see Heston holding a $20K dollar Italian double shotgun). Now the EBRs are featured on the cover, in full “tactical” regalia, being promoted to the general public. They’ve become far more threeper-ish than fudd-ish lately.
I won’t address the DISCLOSE cock-up. As Joe said, NRA is either crazy, or they’re crazy like a fox. One thing is for sure; the assaults on free speech have hardly even gotten started. Be ready for many, many more.
I have yet to see anyone address the fundamental issue at play here. That is the idea that Congress is blaming We The People for their corruption any time they come up with campaign finance laws, or anything like this DISCLOSE horseshit or any “get the money out of politics” ideas. They’re saying in effect, “How dare you corrupt us! We’re corrupt as hell, and it’s your fault! We’ll put a stop the THAT by taking more power and limiting what YOU can do, you no good politician corrupters, you!”
Uh, no. I don’t care if Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and all the rest got together and managed to get someone like Obama elected to every position in the U.S. There’s still that pesky little piece of shit (to them) known as the Oath of Office, and if any one takes that oath and then violates it, they’re supposed to be toast. Burnt toast. On a stick.
THAT’S the problem– we don’t hold them to their Oath. Regardless of where their campaign support comes from, and regardless of how well-reported or under-reported their funding sources are, and regardless of how much money was spent getting them elected, they’re supposed to protect our rights. There’s currently no enforcement mechanism whatsoever, unless we count the “Second Amendment Solution”.
If all we can do is vote them out of office after they’ve trampled on us, the Oath is 100% meaningless. There needs to be justice.
Lets say you had been stealing from your employer. Should his one and only recourse be to fire you? “Look, Jack, you’ve stolen fifty thousand dollars from me this year, so you’re fired. Bye now.” That’s it? Or should he expect that you be brought to justice for theft AND pay damages? Say you hire a nanny and she poisons your kid. So you fire her? That’s it? She can now go to some other town and get a nanny job? That’s how we treat Congressweasels who trample our rights. All we can do, at the very best, is fire them? Not good enough. “Attempted rights violation by a member of Congress” should get you 25 years to life in a just society. Just the attempt. Never mind that if failed. That should be at least as serious a crime as murder, and if anyone doesn’t like it they can always fuck off and get a real job, or move to Cuba and practice their shitheadery down there.
I heart Lyle. That said, I don’t think Congress is blaming “We the People”. No, they’re blaming those evil corporations which are made up of demon-like carbon life forms and are not in fact made up of people.
I’ve long believed that the Constitution’s fundamental flaw, and the flaw that may lead to the complete undoing of this nation, is quite simple.
It should have included an enforcement mechanism for those who attempt to violate it, with penalties up to and including death. The Supreme Court should be also function as a criminal court.
Those holding elected and appointed offices have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, similar in form and function to the Oath of Enlistment used by the US Armed Forces. This oath should be enforced using a code akin to the UCMJ. If a law is found to violate the Constitution, those who wrote it and voted for it should be brought up on charges. John McCain and Russ Feingold, for example, should be in Federal Prison for about 25 years, George W. Bush 5 years for signing it, and everyone who voted for CFR should have a felony record, be barred from office, and do 5 years of probation.
Think of the incentives this sort of a system would create! Would we have anyone willing to see how far they could stretch the Commerce Clause? Hell no! Politicians have a top priority: save their own skin. All the dreams of power in the world don’t stack up to the nightmare of hard time (and I suggest they spend their sentences somewhere other than Club Fed).
Incentives change behavior. Politician training is like dog training. If corruption is rewarded, and power grabs never punished, you will get ever more of both. That’s just how it works.
Of course, the NRA, whether it’s good or bad, principled or compromised, ethical or self-serving, have absolutely NO power to bring this about. Ultimately, I think that’s what frustrates us. We hate the game, but we take out our frustration on the playas.:-)
Like unions, I’m afraid the NRA exists for its own preservation and growth, rather than the interests of its members.
Barry and Lyle, I believe, have it surrounded. What good is a meaningless oath that’s never enforced?
Enforcing violations of the Constitution for all but the most blatant and vile of offenses would severely destabilize the country much like many of those down in South America.
Go beyond your personal beliefs as to what is/isn’t Constitutional and consider the public at large. The left accuses the right of Unconstitutional behavior all the time, and vice-versa. In the event we started levying criminal penalties then you’d find the new guard constantly imprisoning the old. This is why it isn’t currently enforced. Both sides know they cannot do what they do, but with a wink and a nudge both sides can get away with it. So long as the Dems didn’t toss Georgie in the klink, then Barry and crew will be safe too, regardless of their behavior.
I never suggested that the next administration nor Congress should have this power. That would be a banana-republic-style Really Bad Idea of the highest order.
What I would suggest is that the Court has such power, in extreme and deliberate cases, which CFR certainly was.
I would guess that such prosecution would seldom, if ever, take place, because of an overabundance of caution by politicians across the political spectrum. Right now, we have a system where the stated rule is to pass the law, and let those who are harmed by it try to prove it’s unconstitutional, at their peril and expense. Those who passed the law — caused the harm — never suffer for it. I am proposing that we should have a system where politicians err on the side of total respect for, say, Freedom of Speech and the Press. They wouldn’t try to enact any law infringing this freedom, because they knew that somewhere along the line, they could be thrown in jail for doing it.
“Congress shall make no law” is easy enough to understand. If Congress makes no laws about what can be said, written, printed, etc., then there will be nothing for its members to fear.
Also, the punishments must fit the crimes. A clear and conscious violation of something in the Bill of Rights would need to be treated differently from a relatively harmless and unintentional violation of some obscure procedure. The latter need not be punished at all.
I hardly claim to have the system for enforcement worked out completely. I am fairly certain, however, that the total lack of any such system, and the unmitigated incentive for politicians to grab power by any means possible, are not working.
““Congress shall make no law” is easy enough to understand. If Congress makes no laws about what can be said, written, printed, etc., then there will be nothing for its members to fear.”
Goodbye, copyright and libel laws.
Nope. That’s a very short-sighted view. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Instead of “goodbye” anything, it would be “hello, specific and clear amendments to define these things.”
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Fuck the NRA.
High Shooter honors go to Buzz for being closest to the bullseye ….
“Like unions, I’m afraid the NRA exists for its own preservation and growth, rather than the interests of its members.”
All you NRA haters make me laugh out loud. Without the NRA’s political power helping to protecting our 2ndA rights you fucking cowboys would’ve cleaned up ALL your guns and turned them in years ago. That, or you would’ve resisted about as hard as the Hutaree militia did when faced with force. BWHAHAHAHA!!!
The NRA hasn’t been around since 1871 because they suck at politics and they sure as hell can handle any bullshit blogs like this and the liberal media say about them.
I’m an NRA life member so I am the NRA, Dave Smith. So FUCK YOU back from the NRA!
Here, fixed that for you:
All you Republican Party haters make me laugh out loud. Without the Republican Party’s political power helping to protecting our Constitutional rights you fucking cowboys would’ve lost your Constitutional Rights and turned them in years ago. That, or you would’ve resisted about as hard as the Hutaree militia did when faced with force. BWHAHAHAHA!!!
The Republican Party hasn’t been around since Abe Lincoln because they suck at politics and they sure as hell can handle any bullshit blogs like this and the liberal media say about them.
I’m a Republican Party life member so I am the Republican Party, Dave Smith. So FUCK YOU back from the Republican Party!
How do them boots taste?
…shitbird.
LMAO! :-D
PERFECT!
Without the NRA I wouldn’t have running water, my kids wouldn’t be able to read or write, my guns wouldn’t shoot straight, my car wouldn’t run and the corn would stop growing. All hail the mighty, all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent and kind NRA!