unix_jedi (unix_jedi) wrote,

Missing the point. Again.

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/03/26/fight-to-pass-real-right-to-carry-gets-personal-and-ugly/

This bill is something that many “moderate anti-gunners” are in favor of because as watered down as this bill is even they can support it! That’s why anti-gun politicians Senator Mike Gronstal and Representative Kevin McCarthy introduced this bill for the NRA last week.

Because of all of your emails, phone calls, and trips to the Capitol the NRA bill is not moving as quickly as they would have liked. You see, your elected officials realize that Iowans both want and deserve the best gun bill possible – and that you don’t want to settle for anything less.

So yesterday the NRA did the unthinkable. The lobbyist that the NRA sent to Iowa, sent one of his subordinates to Representative Sorenson and gave him an ultimatum: either help us with our bill (and we will make you a hero in Iowa) or we will help your opponent in the upcoming election.

That’s right, an NRA lobbyist said that he was going to try to defeat a pro-gun Representative like Sorenson because he’s too………….pro-gun.

And, the opponent that Sorenson has in his upcoming election is a notorious anti-gunner!!!

So the NRA is willing to support an anti-gunner over pro-gun Representative Kent Sorenson just because he does not like the details of the NRA bill.
I really wish I were surprised. But we've seen this before, many times.

Just the other day I bit my tongue when someone at our range association meeting said "We ought to require everyone to be in the NRA, you've got to support the people who are doing the fighting."

That was probably a mistake. But I was tired, and didn't feel like arguing with another NRA apologist who'd argue from feelings, not facts. I gave in to practicality, rather than standing on principle. Well, you have to, you can't always be principled and unwavering. (Or, rather, not for very long, and you won't have many friends in your short time.)

But this shit needs to stop. Now, it's possible, this is bad information. That this is blown out of proportion.

But this sounds just like the other times I'm aware of that the NRA tried to kill legislation that allowed far more freedom than was their desire, or had been specified in their pet bill(s).

http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=4611&posts=1&start=1

I've detailed in the past the NRA's PSH over the origination of shall-issue concealed carry - they only came around to it when it had been a winner for some time. And NRA fans and I have argued about Heller, and the NRA's attempts to derail that until again, it was a winner in the public eye. The "Katrina lawsuits" that the NRA joined (filed by the SAF) - and then took all the credit (and begging for donations), save in the next-to-last press release.

The NRA's not in the forefront of the fight - until it's obvious that the battle is being won there. Then they show up, and claim the credit. Or derail the attempts that they don't like, that they're scared of, that they fear might be used as ammunition against them.

That behavior, the spoiled-brat, scorched Earth, if I can't be in charge just cause, then take the ball and go home behavior is inappropriate for a organization ostensibly founded around an individual right.

And it's why I'm not the NRA.

Site Meter
Tags: nra politics gunrights gunownerrights il
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded  

  • 4 comments