Are you on the NRA "list"?

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by CrankyAsAnOldMan *
**

What is working against me now is not my inability to understand why some gun owners are so passionate about their cause, but rather my lack of imagination when it comes to the relationship between gun control advocacy and the ultimate repeal of the Bill of Rights. Call it naivete or possibly too much faith in the will of the people.

I just don’t personally believe it. Therein lies our difference. I’m not, at this point, trying to convince you of anything (and am not asking you or others with this concern to explain it to me). **

Ah, ok, well, we’ll just have to disagree.

It seems to me that there is a vocal, sizable minority of people who dedicate a large part of their lives to eridicating private gun ownership in the US. Laying it all on the table, of course, and saying they wanted a complete ban, would not be productive. They’d be laughed out and be unable to affect any change.

So they do what they can to chip away with it and accomplish their plan step by step. And at evey turn, we have a “compromise” that leads to further restriction.

The problem is thus: If someone won’t stop at a certain point, and you continually “compromise”, you lose everything. If side X wants a complete ban of Y items, and side Z ‘compromises’ with them by only banning half of Y items, that really isn’t a compromise. Side X is one step to their goal, and side Z has gotten nothing.

It repeats. Side X demands a ban of Y items, and side Z compromises by agreeing to banning half of them. Another compromise has moved the bar from 50% to 75% ban. Repeat eventually until side X has everything it wants, and side Z has lost everything.

That’s exactly how every last bit of gun legislation has proceeded for the last 80 years or so. One side gives up something in “compromise” and the other side gives nothing. Repeat, repeat, and repeat, and the pro-gun side has comprimised themselves into nothing.

In any case, this is why some of us object to things that even seem minor, and don’t affect them personally - because it’s one more step to ‘compromising’ everything away.

Of course, someone will scream ‘slippery slope! fallacy!’, but think what you will. That’s the momentum of everything that’s happened to guns legally in the last 80 years or so, and that’s the way it’s headed. The only choice left to pro-gun types is to draw the line anywhere they can.

As far as threatning the entire Bill of Rights - the government having a monopoly on the use of force is antithetical to a truly free society. Nothing is as dangerous as government power, and handing a complete monopoly on force puts a society at its whim. I know, I know, paranoid nutcase, etc.

[SenorBeef]

I realize that was probably a pretty bad way to state what I meant. I should stop posting after I come home from work worn out. In any case, parse through that and take out what you will.

[Weirddave]

*Originally posted by Early Out *
So, Weirddave, can I sum up your argument like this: "Since there are already so many handguns out there, there’s nothing we can ever do about it, so we should just throw up our hands. In fact, let’s get even more handguns."

Sure you could. In fact, I would venture to say that that is an extremely accurate and much more concise way of saying everything that I typed out in the above post…if it wasn’t for the fact that it is nothing more than a knee jerk response from people who don’t want to consider all the ramifications of what they are spouting, illogical and 180 degrees opposed to my point. Other than that, it’s spot on. Guns exist. Wishing all guns away won’t work. An intelegent aproach to gun ownership will. Wanna read what I actually posted and respond, or are you just looking to score point agains a “gun nut” ( who dosen’t personally own a handgun, BTW) so you can brag on it to your friends?

[Beagle]

I hate to disagree with another hound, but this list is pretty tame. I actually checked all three pages – cop killer bullets, Hallmark, doctors, lawyers (guns, and money), Second Amendment, silly gun owners – see? – just to post this.

It’s not an “enemies” list. The idea is to influence the organizations from within. Yes, subversion. The same kind of subversion every special interest group uses – members in the “enemy” organization. Yes, Virginia, there are NRA doctors and lawyers.

From the “Fact Sheet.” OK, I’ll grant you, “fact sheet” is always strike one.

The following organizations have lent monetary, grassroots or some other type of direct support to anti-gun organizations. In many instances, these organizations lent their name in support of specific campaigns to pass anti-gun legislation such as the March 1995 HCI “Campaign to Protect Sane Gun Laws.” Many of these organizations were listed as “Campaign Partners,” for having pledged to fight any efforts to repeal the Brady Act and the Clinton “assault weapons” ban. All have officially endorsed anti-gun positions.

The idea is to have NRA members attempt to influence these organizations. No, not with deadly force.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Beagle, you may not have read everything closely–we did in fact already discuss the appropriateness of the term “enemies,” and I confessed to being quite sheepish about repeating it myself.

Senor Beef, I do understand. This comes up in other concerns about legislation. Most notably (for me) on abortion, where some advocates of abortion rights fight any new restrictions on the assumption that giving any ground starts an inexorable march towards completely outlawing abortion. I happen to be pro-choice, but I don’t buy into that either–even though we don’t have an explicit constitutional amendment granting abortion rights, and are therefore probably a lot more vulnerable. All this to say, I’m not just optimistic about gun rights; I tend to be an optimist about other stuff too. Lest you think my obtuseness was restricted to one area. Har.

catsix, I don’t know how to take it when you say, “I wish more people defended the entire Bill of Rights, not just 9/10 of it.” This is almost insulting. This suggests that every one of us is out there boycotting and lobbying or protesting on every single issue involving #1 and #3-#10, but that a core group of us negligently sit down when anything involving guns is involved. I promise you that on every issue where regulations bump up against the Bill of Rights, there are a group of intelligent, dedicated people exploring the legal intricacies of the issue, while a million other Americans are sitting on their asses, either not caring, or unaware, or too busy to be actively involved, or of the belief that some regulations are compatible with the “right” in question, or content to let legal minds sort it out. The 2nd amendment is no different, and certainly not neglected in comparison to the others.

I’d write more, but I’ve got four letters to write about whether terrorism suspects should get a jury trial, and must tape that debate about whether overcrowding makes for “cruel and unusual” punishment. And let’s not forget the school board meeting about search-and-seizure as it pertains to lockers. And all before lunch! All in a day’s work for one of us merry souls who defend exactly 9/10ths of what our forefathers intended. I don’t know how you folks who defend all 10 manage! Someone do me a favor and remind me again – who are boycotting over the states-rights issue?

[Earl_of_the_CC]

*Originally posted by Johnny Pebs *
**You know what this means… Somebody doesn’t like Sara Lee.

**

Thank you, sir. You are great.

[catsix]

CrankyAsAnOldMan said:
catsix, I don’t know how to take it when you say, “I wish more people defended the entire Bill of Rights, not just 9/10 of it.” This is almost insulting.

Well, the way I see it, many people on this forum have said they will not lift a finger either way regarding the Second Amendment until it reaches the stage where they’re doing house to house collections. Now maybe they’re not boycotting for every freedom, but most people would at least verbally defend a right to free speech, to a fair trial, to have an attorney, or to not have cruel and unusual punishment. Most of those same people state outright that they won’t even touch the Second.

The very same people who will, on a web forum, argue that censorship of unpopular speech is wrong, or that the death penalty is ‘cruel and unusual’ will actually say that they don’t bother to have an opinion on gun control now because it’s not an immediate issue to them. Well, sorry if you find it insulting. I just find it a little funny that the people who argue vehemntly that a pedophile should have a right to pen himself some short stories about having sex with a kid, or that the detainees at Gitmo deserve jury trials will even flat out say that the right to keep and bear isn’t worth their time yet, because well, nobody’s banging down their door yet, and hey there are other people to defend it.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

“I just find it a little funny that the people who argue vehemntly that a pedophile should have a right to pen himself some short stories about having sex with a kid, or that the detainees at Gitmo deserve jury trials will even flat out say that the right to keep and bear isn’t worth their time yet, because well, nobody’s banging down their door yet, and hey there are other people to defend it.”

Well, one of the points made earlier in this thread is that people are entitled to get heated up about some causes more than others. It’s a matter of personal preference. Now you seem to be saying it’s all or nothing–if you’re an activist for freedom of religion, you must also be an activist for gun ownership rights. If you’re not, you’re and a crappy patriot to boot.

As for me, I already claimed to be a lazy ass. Threats to Constitutional amendements are all neglected with equal fervor Chez Cranky. The causes I dedicate time to don’t have anything to do with the Bill of Rights. That doesn’t mean that I’d use the ol’ Bill of Rights for toilet paper, or that I am inconsistent. We happen to be talking about gun restrictions in this debate, which is why talk turned to the second amendment, which is why I confessed to not being worried about the right to gun ownership being completely taken away. You really don’t know how hard I’d fight (or not) for any other right. I’m not sure why it would matter.

You imply that the second amendment is specially disadvantaged when it comes to apathy and neglect. I don’t agree. Every right has its threats, its defenders, and hordes of complacent citizens who aren’t doing anything one way or the other. One could probably argue that with a strong, politically-active, vigilant organization like the NRA out there, the average American is justified in not sweating the 2nd amendment. Even if one doesn’t agree with the NRA’s tactics, one can still have faith that it isn’t going to let the 2nd amendment die without a whimper.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

And if I’d not accidentally removed the word “inconsistent” before the phrase “and a crappy patriot” my last post would have a greater chance of making sense.

[UncleBeer]

Well, well. Over the weekend, I received an e-mail from the NRA explaining the purpose of this list. Here what they have to say:

TIMESMAN AND BRADY BUNCH “DISCOVER” DECADES-OLD DOCUMENT
For decades, NRA has tracked, researched, and documented the positions taken by organizations and celebrities on issues affecting our Right to keep and Bear Arms. This information has been periodically published in our magazines, disseminated to literally hundreds of thousands of interested parties upon request, and posted on our website for as long as it has existed. It is nothing more than a catalogue of groups and individuals who have lent their support, activism, and in many cases, their money, to anti-gun causes. In short, those listed have gone out of their ways to lend their active support for restrictions on our Second Amendment Rights.
In any event, NRA’s decades-old list was recently “discovered” by a sharp-eyed New York Times columnist, who penned a rather inane column about it. His scribbling just happened to coincide with a desperate fundraising gambit from the Brady gun-ban group. The Brady bunch has thrown together an anti-NRA website, which attempts to bash NRA as “blacklisters” for exposing the anti-gun leanings of such mainstream Americans as Madonna, Britney Spears, and Alec Baldwin, to name but a few. NRA members and gun owners want to make conscientious and informed decisions. They want to know whether the hard earned dollars they spend are benefiting companies or individuals working against their constitutionally-guaranteed Second Amendment rights. The compilation of this list provides that information to pro-gun individuals so they can choose for themselves if they wish to patronize those on the list. Nothing more, nothing less
Nonetheless, if it is okay for gun banners such as Michael Moore, Martin Sheen, and Rosie O’Donnell to use their celebrity and influence to speak out against our rights, why is it not okay for NRA to alert the nation’s 65 million gun owners of their positions? The same goes for corporations that actively support the gun ban lobby’s agenda. If those listed are so embarrassed or ashamed about NRA documenting their anti-freedom position, perhaps they should reconsider their positions. When an individual or company stakes out a position or gives money to an anti-gun cause, you can rest assured NRA will continue to inform its members and supporters so they can render judgment themselves.

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Beagle *
**
It’s not an “enemies” list.

**

It’s a “list” of the perceived political/philosophical enemies of the NRA (or the positions taken by the NRA)…see my earlier post with handy dandy link to the definition of enemy.

**
The idea is to have NRA members attempt to influence these organizations. No, not with deadly force. **

Ummm, I knew this when I posted the thread. I knew exactly why the NRA posted the list (although I did not know the specific “sins” of each of the groups…Sara Lee & the KC Chiefs? )

I refer you to the last sentence of my OP if you wish to “get” my point.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Apropos of nothing, Uncle Beer, it never ceases to amaze me that even though we’re probably pretty close to being on opposite sides of this issue, I’d still like to throw you down onto a stack of slippery “Guns-N-Ammo” magazines and take your clothes off and … oh. Hi, Barb.

[BF]

throw you down onto a stack of slippery “Guns-N-Ammo” magazines and take your clothes off

Giving another meaning to the slippery slope arguement…

[BF]

Here’s some pretty standard rhetoric from a pro-control site.

“The ad goes to the very heart of how the NRA is trying to corrupt the American justice system,” said Michael Barnes, former Maryland Congressman and President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "The NRA wields an unparalleled control over our political process that is unhealthy for a democracy and out of touch with the common sense of the American people. The values of the NRA are not the values of Americans."

Sarah Brady, the wife of Reagan press secretary Jim Brady, said it was "unthinkable that one year after the terrible sniper shootings the U.S. Senate would consider providing protections to Bull’s Eye because of a lobby that has never cared about the safety of Americans."

Even under the recent Senate Minority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-SD) amendment, the Bull’s Eye shop would be immune.

Stopthenra.com, a new national effort to expose the NRA’s influence in Washington, **launched on Monday www.nrablacklist.com, a Web site that exposes how the NRA **keeps a blacklist of what it considers “anti-gun” organizations and individuals. The 19-page list, hidden in the belly of the NRA Web site, contains the names of some of America’s most respected institutions, including major corporations, religious organizations, actors and actresses, non-profit organizations, writers, artists, journalists and even sports teams and police groups. The Web site offers visitors the opportunity to sign up to be on the blacklist and voice their opposition to the NRA. As of yesterday, over 10,000 people have added their names in just three days.

Emphasis mine. As Dave Barry likes to say, we don’t make this stuff up…