JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/08/here-we-go-again.html (31 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1188531100-579269  anonymous at Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:31:40 +0000

Great blog entry Kevin, this guy needs to go and go now! The NRA is insulting my intelligence posting this drivel and spin.

jsid-1188532715-579273  fits at Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:58:35 +0000

Any "hunter" claiming to forever need but one shot is a braggart or a liar or both. I'd personally pay for the hunt were Mr. Jackson to square off against a 1600 lb. Grizzly with one single round to play with.

Think he'd go for it?

jsid-1188533463-579275  Kevin Baker at Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:11:03 +0000

With an anti-tank gun, maybe.

jsid-1188533617-579276  Gregg at Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:13:37 +0000

So, he believes that civilians ought to be restricted to 5 round magazines, and that the restrictions on the ownership of fully automatic weapons is a good thing.

1) Just what part of "shall not be infringed" does he not understand?

2) Why am I not surprised that this is coming from an NRA board member?

Ok, admittedly I had a niggling suspicion 10 years ago, when I was an NRA member, that the NRA was a Quisling organization. However, it is becoming ever more obvious that they are not part of the solution.

jsid-1188534474-579279  Kevin Baker at Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:27:54 +0000

The NRA in general, and the board in particular, is full of Fudds, but the organization as a whole does a lot of good. It needs some change, but I still support it.

I just think people like Jackson need some attitude adjustment.

jsid-1188541951-579301  Sebastian at Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:32:31 +0000

Throwing the "wide stance" in there was pretty amusing. I agree with you his follow up statement isn't really adequate. I'd be happier with him coming out and admitting he was ignorant on the issue, got a good talking to from some of his friends, and has since changed his mind.

I should note that I don't think Jackson is an enemy on the gun issue. We have to make common cause with people who aren't as extreme on this issue as we are. But they have to be made to understand that there's not really any compromise ground in this area. Legitimize the idea of magazine limitations, and you erode the very foundations of the second amendment that Jackson claims to defend.

Someone like Jackson, much like Jim Zumbo, I think can be made, and perhaps has been made, to understand this. But my inclination will be to not vote for him in the next board election, unless he can be convincing to the membership that he's going to really fight for us, including people who have AR-15s with the standard 30 round magazine.

I was sitting across from Jackson in a lounge area at the hotel for a bit in St. Louis, but didn't really get a chance to talk to him.

jsid-1188564878-579312  Kevin S. at Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:54:38 +0000

This is why I have serious reservations about the NRA, and why it took me so long to finally join.

jsid-1188574727-579336  1894C at Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:38:47 +0000

Suprised by the "shuck and jive"?

"Haven't you heard ? Conscience is dead....
It's fuck your buddy.
Cheat on your wife.
Call your mother
on Mother's Day.
it's all shit."

jsid-1188602986-579387  EricWS at Fri, 31 Aug 2007 23:29:46 +0000


I hardly see myself as "extreme" for asking that my rights not be infringed.

jsid-1188605308-579389  Sebastian at Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:08:28 +0000

Nor should you. Being extreme doesn't imply that one is wrong, it just implies a lot of people would accept more infringements than most of us would.

jsid-1188616508-579402  Robert at Sat, 01 Sep 2007 03:15:08 +0000

Where the hell do these ignorant people come from that they end up on the NRA board? Has he never been to the National Matches? The NRA National Matches?


jsid-1188618979-579403  Gregg at Sat, 01 Sep 2007 03:56:19 +0000

I will admit that the national recognition of the NRA teaching credentials may be a good thing. I can not say that definitively as I have not taken any NRA courses. Their sponsorship of some matches is possibly a good thing. Other than that I do not know what good they do.

All that I have seen politically has been to the detriment of the 2nd Amendment. The NRA does not support members who are persecuted by the government (e.g. Red's Trading Post). The NRA does not support the repeal of the GCA of 1968, or the NFA of 1934. The NRA does support CCW and the inclusion of questionable mental health data into the NICS, which I think they support. (I see CCW as a de facto registration system.) The NRA does not support the abolishment of the BATFE. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the NRA does not have a problem with the fact that the mechanism to appeal erroneous information in the NICS database has not been funded in years, if ever.

So, just what good work does the organization do?

Oh, did I bring up their rating system which gives anti-gun sheriffs and politicians A and B ratings?

(e.g. Sheriff Bill Brown http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2007/03/rated-sheriff-bill-brown-denying-ccw.html )

jsid-1188621769-579408  Kevin Baker at Sat, 01 Sep 2007 04:42:49 +0000


They work very hard to keep target ranges open and protected from lawsuit and encroachment. They work very hard to support the shooting sports, especially youth shooting sports.

If we don't have younger shooters and places to shoot, our numbers will inevitably dwindle, and so will our political power.

Ask the Brits.

That is reason enough for me to support the NRA.

jsid-1188633183-579410  Gregg at Sat, 01 Sep 2007 07:53:03 +0000

Then I think the NRA is lucky that you are out there.

Personally, I don't think that counter-balances the damage that they do. Which is why I am no longer an NRA member.

jsid-1188659696-579418  Sebastian at Sat, 01 Sep 2007 15:14:56 +0000

There is just no pleasing some people I guess. The biggest obstacle we face as a movement is that so many of our folks don't understand politics or the political realities NRA has to deal with and work with.

jsid-1188700201-579446  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 02 Sep 2007 02:30:01 +0000

or the political realities NRA has to deal with and work with.

Or, Sebastian, We disagree with the NRA, and we're tired of being told about "political realities".

The NY Times calls the NRA "Craven" in an editorial - admitting in fact what we've long suspected, anything the NRA promotes is automatically suspected, the NRA is portrayed in an evil, negative, child-killing light continually...

And the NRA then says "Well, let's compromise".

Or, like this guy "What, you need more than 4 rounds on the skeet field?"

Or Zumbo (who, IIRC, was running for the NRA board.)

I know all about political realities, I don't think the NRA does. Either that, or they're .. quite literally Fudds concenrned only with their skeet guns.

Which is what the evidence strongly points to.

Yes, it's debatable. But dammit, Mr. Jackson's, Zumbo's, the signing onto the AWB until the last minute, those are the evidence that you're ignoring.

I'm not unaware of those (and I know you're not, too), and that's what I'm comparing when I think about "political realities".

The advances in CCW - done almost totally by grassroots with at best no help, and quite often, the "national" NRA stepped in to "help", by adding restrictions. (The case I'm aware of, the NRA strongly advocated banning carry in government buildings, churches, places serving alcohol - you know, "political reality" at work - when it would have passed handily without those restrictions.)

The NRA missed the Zumbo party for a week. Was late to the Katrina-lawsuit filed by SAF. (Who they've insulted and ignored, taking all the credit for themselves.)

What has the NRA done recently - for us? And in particular, explain how that mitigates especially their almost-missing the SAF lawsuit, attempting to derail Parker...

Political reality? Fine, if you say so. In my opinion, I want a civil rights organization who pushes political reality, who stands for (I'm sorry, I'm sick, I'm tired, I'm feeling like shit, but goddammit, this is a meme that's annoying) THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WE'RE PROMISED.

Not the "political reality" that black rifles are bad, mmmmkay, and hey, 5 shots is good enough for hunting, and hey, 10 rounds, that's all you need for "self-defense" (unless you're a agent of the government, then you need full-auto,big magazines, cause they're better than you!)

No, I don't want to have this civil war inside "our" brotherhood. But dammit, that's what "The Gun Guys" (and other Joyce-puppets) are exploiting and counting on. That we'll "respect our elders", and allow the NRA to "compromise" away, being political expedient, our guns.

That being said, compare our argument with the internecine warfare of the Kossacks as to who's a "real" Liberal. You're not accusing me of not being a "real" gun owner, or vice versa. As heated as it might get, at the end, we will be on speaking terms, and nobody's getting tossed off the bus.

jsid-1188703563-579449  Kevin Baker at Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:26:03 +0000

Or, hopefully, under it.

Yes, I think the NRA board is occupied by a large number of Fudds. The only way to correct that is from inside. That's how the socialists took the Democratic Party, so, obviously, it works.

But we don't need Ted Nugents all that bad, either. As Say Uncle says, "they frighten the white people."

jsid-1188703604-579451  Sebastian at Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:26:44 +0000

I understand that a lot of you guys are angry, but we're starting to win this, and the NRA, whether you want to recognize it or not, has been a big part of that. They aren't perfect. They make mistakes. Some of the board members are bozos.

We are rolling back the gun controllers, but it won't happen overnight, and we're not at the point yet where we can even talk about things like GCA 68, NFA or things like that in the public sphere. We can talk about it amongst ourselves, but it'll be a while before the public accepts it.

We still have a lot of work ahead of us.

jsid-1188706023-579453  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 02 Sep 2007 04:07:03 +0000

the NRA, whether you want to recognize it or not, has been a big part of that.



I asked that before, I'll reiterate it.

HOW? I don't see it - I laid out the areas where they've done the exact opposite. The gains aren't coming from the NRA, they didn't push CCW, they didn't push Parker, they didn't note Katrina confiscation until after SAF filed suit, and then (let's talk about division), took all the credit. Repeatedly. Non-accidentally. SAF's been keeping NO's feet to the fire - NRA's already forgotten it, despite the evidence that the illegallity is continuing.

So, OK, obviously I don't know something.

Tell me what that is. What has the NRA done for us? Waving your hands airily and saying "NRA helps" - I just listed a lot of ways they didn't. That's what you're gonna have to convince me, and lots of anti-Fudds who are angry with the NRA - that they're doing something to help us, instead of trying to maintain the "political reality".

As I said to pdb: "Well, Kevin and Sebastian answered me. Kinda." His reply: "Yeah. Kinda".

So let's educate me. I went to the same school district as the newly-famous Miss Teen S.C. Maybe I'm slow.

jsid-1188707056-579455  Sebastian at Sun, 02 Sep 2007 04:24:16 +0000

The CCW fight started with Florida, and it was Marion Hammer, an NRA Board member, who was instrumental in getting that through the Florida legislature. Why else do you think states were so eager to adopt RTC? Was it just because they loved gun owners so much? Yes, state organizations were also instrumental, especially in the fight in some of the more recent states, but I've never been one to claim state organizations don't matter.

Political reality is that for the past fifty years, gun owners, and RKBA issues have been increasingly marginalized. People say "Oh yes, I support the right to bear arms", but when you say "Well, then what about machine gun ownership and background checks?" and they'll tell you "Oh, no, not that. Clearly the second amendment doesn't mean that."

That's the reality I'm talking about. If you talk to most people about the right to own a machine gun, or purchase a gun with only a fistfull of cash, they'll quickly tell you their support of gun ownership doesn't go that far.

That's what we have to overcome, and until we do, there's no way even the Hughes Amendment, which outlaws new machine gun registrations, is going to be repealed.

Because of public perceptions, we have been on the defensive, for the most part, for most of the twentieth century. When you're in retreat, the best you can do sometimes is to fight the enemy strongly enough to prevent a total route.

I think we're at the point where we've stopped retreating, and can now think about advancing on the enemy. But I doubt that will happen, because people will get complacent, people will get angry that we have a lot of ground to make up, and we can't take it all back at once, and will just go home.

We will fragment, the anti-gunners will regroup, and they will come at us again. That is what I think is going to happen, unfortunately.

jsid-1188708309-579461  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 02 Sep 2007 04:45:09 +0000

The CCW fight started with Florida, and it was Marion Hammer, an NRA Board member, who was instrumental in getting that through the Florida legislature.

Ok. And the next counter?

But that really doesn't counter what I was saying. Yes, Hammer was instrumental. The local NRA people have been invaluable in many cases.

But not the national. Hammer's on the board. (I don't think she was then, however, but I'd have to check.) (A quick Google would indicate she was a NRA lobbist in 1987. But that's a literally, under-a-minute search)

Which gets us right back to where I was pointing out specific issue where the (national) NRA dropped the ball, or didn't even show up to the game.

It's really insulting to give a itemized list and be dismissed with: whether you want to recognize it or not, has been a big part of that.

That's an insult, and now it's verging on being downright dishonest. I gave you some detailed reason why I disagree. That's why I'm "refusing to admit it". And I gave you the list before you insulted me.

If you're right, then, fine, show me where the NRA is doing more than collecting money and stashing it and going out to eat and taking politicians out.

There's my list of utter failures. Why I'm disagreeing with you.

If you want to insist - against the available, current, latest evidence, that the NRA is behaving in a certain manner, then at least do me the favor of showing me the cases I'm apparently unaware of.

I understand, even if I disagree with Kevin's stance - take it over from within. (It won't happen. The NRA is now staffed by too many Zumbos (or is that Pre-Zumbo?), and too many people with vested friendships, contacts, and opinions to change. They've become one of the huge lobbying groups that want nothing to do with what might obsolete them).

But I'm going to tell him I disagree. Not that he's delusional.

I had high hopes with the recent changes that had occurred. I saw Frohman on C-SPAN, and almost rejoined there.

But immediately after that, they tried to derail Parker, and the back-breaking straw was their attitude (Which is what pissed me off, and part of why I'm pissed off at your assertation that of course only the NRA can help) post-Katrina, cutting the SAF out of the press-releases. (Something the SAF had the damn basic and normal decency to not retaliate or point out what asses the NRA was being).

If you can't give me some concrete examples, might I suggest that your efforts would be far better spent kicking your NRA's ass and get them to apologise for those issues that I have with them?

Rather than insisting that those issues are delusional and in my head?

jsid-1188744158-579480  Sebastian at Sun, 02 Sep 2007 14:42:38 +0000

Look, dude, I'm not insulting you. If you want a list of things the NRA has done since the 70s, which is the time they got involved in politics in a serious way, I'll give it to you. It won't be complete, because there's a lot of stuff they do at state level that I'm ignoring:

1. Following up on GCA 68, the gun control movement wanted complete registration of all pistols, with long term plans to ban them all. They weren't quiet about this either. In the 70s, it wasn't a fore drawn conclusion they would lose. They were fought.

2. FOPA - FOPA was a significant legislative achievement that repealed some of the most onerous parts of the Gun Control Act of 1968, as well as giving safe travel provisions. It was, until a Congressman from New Jersey, Congressman Hughes, added an amendment on at the last minute through a voice vote that the machine gun ban was on there. NRA had little time to fight the machine gun ban, and FOPA passed, and was signed by President Reagan. NRA vowed to get the ban removed later, but turned out to not be politically possible to do so (and it's still not right now).

3. After FOPA, they came head on at us with the Brady Act. NRA fought the Brady Act for the better part of a decade, from 1987 to 1993, when it became apparent it was going to pass. If it wasn't for NRA, you'd have a seven day waiting period today to buy a handgun. Also, NRA was instrumental in getting part of the Brady Act overturned in court.

4. Assault Weapons Ban - If it wasn't for NRA, you'd have a California style ban that never would have expired. You might have even had confiscation.

5. CCW - Already mentioned, Marion got the ball rolling in Florida, and it exhausted the anti-gun movement enough fighting it, that they couldn't come at us with anything else. This issue is where we started going on the offensive.

6. Lawsuit preemption - It was a difficult fight, but a renewal of the assault weapons ban was successfully fought off, and we came out with a clean bill. There was a real risk that the firearms industry could be sued out of existence if this didn't pass.

7. Parker - Internally there was a lot of disagreement within the NRA on Parker. Do you know why some people in NRA wanted to scuttle Parker? Because Parker is extremely risky. It is essentially playing Russian roulette with the second amendment. There's no guarantee that the supreme court is going to rule our way. Internally, the pro-Parker folks in NRA seem to have won out. But it wasn't some nefarious conspiracy, it was legitimate concern over the fact that the case was going to do more damage than good. Plus, Parker will rest on the shoulders of pro-gun scholars, who affiliate with the NRA, like Dave Kopel, Steve Halbrook, Rob Cottrol, Dave Hardy, Joyce Malcolm, Nelson Lund, Carol Bambery, Robert Dowlut, the list could go on. Don't get me wrong, Alan Gura and Bob Levy have put together one hell of a case, but the case doesn't exist in a vacuum.

This is by no means a comprehensive list, but it does show that we've been on the defensive. Sometimes in the 90s, we came off defensive, and starting going on the offensive. It's difficult for me to understand why some people are so angry that we haven't been able to achieve total victory; it's the fault of the quite large segment of the public who is completely indifferent to the right to bear arms, and the politicians who represent them. It's a tough issue to fight, but it's winnable, it's not going to happen overnight though.

jsid-1188780654-579510  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 03 Sep 2007 00:50:54 +0000


Thanks for actually discussing the subject at hand. I do appreciate it. Now we can find out if there is the common ground.

I'm afraid there's not, because as much as I keep staking out what I'm talking about, you keep talking about something else entirely.

Which at least is better than you and I arguing in differing contexts and getting more upset as we talk past each other.

If you want a list of things the NRA has done since the 70s

No, I don't. I've said, I'm talkin about the NRA now. Not 30 years ago. Not 20 years ago. Now. The problem as I see it, is the NRA (Really, NRA-ILA, as you know), got active in the 70s, and they're still stuck in that mindset.

That's really, exactly my point, and as long as you're talking historical context, and I'm talking immediate present-day context, there's very little way we'll come to agreement.

That being said, let's discuss history.

GCA '68 - A bill the NRA wholeheartedly supported. Especially helped with shutting down the cheap importation of "surplus" guns and ammo. Yes, after that, after it became obvious that no, the grabbers weren't being honest that it's "all they wanted", the NRA did put up some fights. (This is when they started to lobby, and became stuck in the mentality. What's the tenure of the averge NRA Lobbyist? Wayne's been around as long as I (used to be an NRA member).

FOPA - True, back then. But then, the NRA didn't have a problem on the machine gun provision, either. The Fudd effect. "Who's it gonna bother?"

AWB - Ok, we're not going to agree on this. Because I remember the NRA trying to convince the grassroots that SOMETHING was going to pass, and it would be better to be "part of the process", and nobody needed 30 rounds to hunt... And it wasn't until it turned out to be potentially endangering those precious damn skeet guns (like the one the UAW? gave to Kerry?) that they came out against it.

Again, my recollection of that (And I was an NRA member at the time) was the national was dragged, kicking and screaming, into fighting the AWB by the grassroots. That's when I first started to ponder what my my money was going for. If the national was only going to "compromise" every single time....

CCW - Already mentioned,

And already discussed. Not to the benefit of your position. NRA National has not been in the forefront of the CCW debate, they've hung back, and hamstrung more than a few states. To claim CCW for NRA is to pull a Katrina-lawsuit-credit-claim for the NRA. They did almost none (I'm giving them credit for possibly doing SOME) of the heavy lifting, only taking the credit after the local guys, the grassroots got it going.

Shall we discuss Wayne's fearful running away from discussions about the atrocity of VA Tech? That's here and now. Even if the NRA National had been at the forefront of CCW, now they're at the forefront of insisting that "Only the Only Ones" should be allowed to carry on campuses.

As a CCW-permitted citizen who works on a college campus, this rather strikes close to home.

Lawsuit preemption

This you're right on. Somewhat not-in-my-mind coincidentally, this is the only item on your list that affects the big companies, the same ones the NRA wanted to support with their original support of GCA 68 and the outlawing of the Carcanos, Mauser, Enfield importation.

Do you know why some people in NRA wanted to scuttle Parker?

Yes, I do. And the NRA's actions were even riskier. As well as being extremley assholish, and dividing the community. They could have jumped in behind it. Instead, they tried to derail it, in a remarkably self-destructive way.

But if they're going to be a civil rights org, if they're going to argue for gun rights, they've got to do it.

You're taking all the good gains, in large part made without the NRA (ILA), and giving them credit.

Even if, if, what you say was all right (and some of it is strongly debatably, and quite a lot is at odds with my personal experience), it doesn't get to what the NRA is doing for us today.

Considering the subject matter of this post - yet another damn NRA Board Member being a Fudd, it's ironic that you're arguing that in the past, they did some good. And hell, they did. But that was then. They've not reacted to the changes in our favor.

That's why I'm not an NRA member - nor is anybody that I shoot with save one (his 1 year membership came with a gun purchase, and he's not re-upping).

I'm not giving the NRA positive credit for stuff they didn't do, and I'm damn sure going to give them negative credit for the negative things they did.. Right now, they're in a serious deficit, relying upon scare tactics and people's amnesia.

Go back and read the original post of Kevin's, and then come back and let's retalk about what the NRA is doing, right now, to advance gun rights.

If you want to talk long ago history, well, that's fine, and it's handy to know, but it's not what I'm discussing. I'm talking largely-post-AWB - because that's when the NRA's membership boomed - then busted. As the local grassroots started fighting, and more and more and more people gave up on Wayne and the D.C. NRA, who were always talking "political realities", abandoning our reality.

jsid-1188785097-579517  Kevin Baker at Mon, 03 Sep 2007 02:04:57 +0000

Unix-Jedi, ask your shooting club if they receive NRA support for the shooting sports, for youth shooter training, for range improvements or other aid of that type.

And if not, why not.

As I mentioned above, that kind of assistance alone is enough for me to fork over $35 a year for my membership.

NRA-ILA gets pretty much nothing from me, but the SAF has received a couple of $100 donations.

jsid-1188786150-579519  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 03 Sep 2007 02:22:30 +0000


They don't.

But that is a good point. :)

(They don't because our range is filled with old Fudds interested in being their Own Club, excluding everybody who's not, and upset they accidentally let is some of us "pistol" and "tactical shooting" guys.)

But yeah, see, those areas are where the NRA shines, and if they played that up more, I wouldn't be as PO'ed.

Hell, if the NRA was willing to forgoe the money and "prestige" as the "Gun Rights", and stick to that side of what they do very well - letting SAF handle the legal aspect, passing through money, etc. etc..... Ah, but if wishes were fishes...

jsid-1188789348-579524  Sebastian at Mon, 03 Sep 2007 03:15:48 +0000

Post AWB you have lawsuit preemption, because that's what could be accomplished. You also have a few more states going RTC, like Nebraska and Kansas.

I mean, what are you expecting? Two years after AWB expires, you have a Democratic Congress with leadership hostile to guns.

jsid-1188790948-579527  Sebastian at Mon, 03 Sep 2007 03:42:28 +0000

And yes, I'm not going to address your issues point by point, because it's pretty clear to me you're only interested in being angry, and I've had about enough of folks like you.

jsid-1188794048-579530  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 03 Sep 2007 04:34:08 +0000


That's fine, if totally dishonest and again, insulting.

So which one of us is "refusing to admit" to reality?

I even told you that that "list" was purely to debate on your terms, because that's not my focus - you're talking old history, we're talking what's going on now. Like with Phoenix, this topic of this post.

How about VT Tech? Care to discuss that? Again, current events. What's going on now. The SAF/NRA lawsuit against NOPD/Nagin, et al. Current. Events.

If you want to dismiss me, that's your choice - but I will have to counter your rose-tinged-and-not-honest NRA cheerleading with honest accessments. I'm really sorry to have to say that about honesty, but dammit, I've made several points that you've ignored in favor of repeating (contentious) NRA talking points.

This at least does go to show why/that a schism will have to open in the gun-rights groups. Dammit.

Sorry, Kevin. This is why your "take it over from inside" is doomed to failure - they (as shown by this discussion) don't [want to see] see what big problems they have.

In My Opinion, of course. And Kevin, I do wish you luck. Hell, Sebastian, I wish you luck. I don't like to have to point out he failures of the NRA, or constantly hear the NRA run down at the range, and know that the NRA insists that really, no, it's not a problem. But they're not going to fix it as long as you're not prodding them to recognise that they've got a huge problem. They'll keep electing Fudds/Zumbos/LaPierres who are interested in "political reality", which is keeping their skeet guns.

"Had enough of folks like me"... (by dismissing current events, current NRA behavior, the historical record, in favor of a taking-credit-for everything amnesia) Yeah, that's a really good way to bring me, and all the other ex-NRA-members back. Sadly, it is the current plan (such as it is) by D.C. NRA. Really, you guys ought to consider hiring Kevin.

jsid-1188794515-579532  Sebastian at Mon, 03 Sep 2007 04:41:55 +0000

What would it take to bring you back? I'm curious about that? Be specific.

jsid-1188797060-579534  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 03 Sep 2007 05:24:20 +0000


If you're serious:

Several of these tend to go together/complement each other.

* Share the credit. They're not the only gun rights org out there. Others have done better, instead of strong-arming them, or taking credit for their work in fundraising, work with them.

Lots of the RTC stuff was done without the NRA. I was there in S.C., when the DC NRA and the S.C. NRA were in a constant battle - DC NRA didn't want to rock the boat, coming "too soon after Florida." D.C. showed up late, contradicted the locals, tried to re-do a lot of agrements, damn near sank a done deal, and got us a lot of restrictions "as concessions".. for something that was going to pass.

* Work with others. (Well). They've got a serious NIH issue. JFPO has some incredibly damning ATF exposes (that I'm sure you're aware of).

The NRA has the ability to get that out to the media/much more people. Proof of ATF perjury in multiple prosecutions?

* Recognise that they'll be blamed, no matter what, say "Fuck it", and do what's right. Can you imagine the ACLU behaving like the NRA? The NAACP counselling people as to "political realities?.

Example: the MSM, to a single story I saw, blamed the NRA for Zumbo's repercussions. Despite the NRA being the next-to-last (well over a week after the firestorm started) sponsor/employer to fire/sever ties with Zumbo.

But, the MSM blamed the NRA. The VT shooter chained doors shut, and went hunting unarmed, trapped targets. The first phone calls went to the NRA. Not to Masterlock. Or Ace Hardware.

Why "try and play nice?" My analysis: The lobbyists are NRA (and other clients) old-school, and they're not there to really push, to cause disruption. They don't see a problem with the status-quo, things are good. And for the lobbyists, they are.

* Recognise that the status quo is not acceptable. The Liberal/Progressive wave of the 60s and 70s is passing, people are starting to understand the nanny state won't be there for them. In the last 40 years, we've had over 90% of our 20,000 gun laws passed. (The one place I've seen them do well here is pushing for state preemption laws on guns in cars at work). Start pushing hard on the cost of these laws, their wastefulness, and push hard for their repeal.

* Something is badly wrong with the candidate ranking system. Tell us - publically - what is wrong with it, and fix it.
"I called Bill Brown and talked to him for some time a few weeks ago. He does not believe in citizen having the right to carry with a permit/CCW."
NRA "A-rated" sheriff denying CCW renewals
To date, the NRA refuses to admit that an "A" rating was totally inappropriate. Meanwhile, I've personally seen the NRA work hard, skew the ratings on Republican campaigns when the Democrat was actually more pro-gun.

This might be really wishful: * Start fighting the militarization of the police. Too much of the NRA is still thinking of the officers they knew in the 60's and 70s.

* Task the ATF with a joint mission - promoting lawful gun ownership. The FAA has dual goals - safe flight and promoting air transport. This is often attacked as "unsafe" - but in the reality of bureacracy, brilliant. Otherwise, the FAA could easily "safely" regulate airplanes out of business. The ATF has a single mandate - if they close down every gun store, they can chalk that up to a "success".

But the "Stop the revisionist history", admit that there are other - quite valid - gun rights organizations is the biggest one. Stop trying to be the sole source for gun rights (especially when the board is sadly, made up of Fudds and pre-Zumbos). When was the last time the JFPO were on Cam Edwards show? I can't find anything showing JPFO being on there, ever.

Kevin's done a huge amount of work, largely unrecognised, IMO, showing the "Joyce Swarm" with largely fake/front groups appearing as multiple actors. Here's a case where there are multiple actors! Stop trying to deny them/marginalize them, welcome them and their particular idioms, and take Joyce-puppets to the cleaners.

That's what I want to see. Lots more I'd LOVE to see, but that's why I dropped out of the NRA, and haven't rejoined.

jsid-1188829849-579541  Sebastian at Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:30:49 +0000

Share the credit. They're not the only gun rights org out there. Others have done better, instead of strong-arming them, or taking credit for their work in fundraising, work with them.

Yes! A fair criticism of NRA. They tend to be shits about this.

Work with others. (Well). They've got a serious NIH issue. JFPO has some incredibly damning ATF exposes (that I'm sure you're aware of).

They are going to be wary of this. Last time NRA went after ATF in a big way they ended up with a public relations disaster with having President H.W. Bush resigning his life membership. This is probably something best left to groups like JPFO.

Recognise that they'll be blamed, no matter what, say "Fuck it", and do what's right. Can you imagine the ACLU behaving like the NRA? The NAACP counselling people as to "political realities?.

ACLU has a lot more money than NRA, and a more politically powerful membership. But these groups do operate within political realities. NAACPs political strategy for the civil rights movement was very carefully considered and orchestrated. Jim Crow was not ended in one fell swoop. They understood what was possible, what was achievable, and what wasn't, and kept an eye on the bigger picture. The civil rights movement is actually a great model for RKBA.

Recognise that the status quo is not acceptable. The Liberal/Progressive wave of the 60s and 70s is passing, people are starting to understand the nanny state won't be there for them. In the last 40 years, we've had over 90% of our 20,000 gun laws passed. (The one place I've seen them do well here is pushing for state preemption laws on guns in cars at work). Start pushing hard on the cost of these laws, their wastefulness, and push hard for their repeal.

This is true, things are starting to change, but people still elected a Congress who's leaders are hostile to gun rights. Congress is afraid of passing gun laws because of the NRA, but you can bet that they won't be repealing laws any time soon. We still face the fact that most people are totally indifferent to someone's right to own a gun. We have to change that before we will start steamrollering over all the 20th century gun control.

Something is badly wrong with the candidate ranking system.

They make mistakes here, I won't deny it, but the rating system is a political tool. An A in California is a lot different than an A in Texas. I don't know why Bill Brown has an A, because they don't seem to want to explain why. Someone that was part of a back room deal, and if you spill the deal, the deal ends up being off. I know people don't like that, but it's politics.

Task the ATF with a joint mission - promoting lawful gun ownership.

This is a good idea. ATF reform was on the plate until Congress changed. I would prefer to see ATF abolished, but that's not going to happen. Getting rid of a federal agency is a herculean task in Washington.

 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>