Good job NRA

[Eat Beef]

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html


Gentlemen,

I posted the link in response to several members saying that I "just made stuff up" regarding the NRA's stance on the GCA of '34. I did not make anything up, I merely pointed out a well documented historical fact.

Perhaps I should have found another site to quote, but that was the first one at which I found the transcript. I don't see how the site's "NRA bashing" has anything to do with the official .gov transcript of the hearing.

For the record, I had never visited that site before a google search to find the transcript, and I didn't reference the editorial, but the transcript. Had I been able to cut and paste the entire transcript, I would not have felt it necessary to post the link. I personally compared no one to a Nazi, and would appreciate it if others wouldn't accuse me of such, or accuse me of making things up.

Mr. Roberts, I appreciate your argueing FACTS. I also respect your stance that the NRA has changed and is no longer supportive of gun control. Of course, I disagree, and think that they are still in the business of appeasing and compromise, and I hope that you can respect that stance.

I would love for you and other members to debate me in a logical manner on this subject. I am quite willing and able to reverse my stance against the NRA should you be able to prove that they currently hold the line, with no retreat, and no surrender.

I've often found it odd that those who shout the loudest against appeasment and compromise when it comes to foreign affairs are the quickest to allow it with regard to thier own Rights.

 

[Brad Johnson]

should you be able to prove that they currently hold the line, with no retreat, and no surrender.

You won't, because that tactic is inherently self-defeating.

The only effective "all-or-nothing" strategy is a war where surrender or defeat is both unilateral and unconditional. We are not at that point, not yet anyway, although groups like the GOA seem to delight in heading us in that direction.

An entity cannot be effective in the political sense with an "all or nothing" attitude. Human nature will not allow it. History is conclusive in this respect. For an entity to be politically and socially effective long-term they must use a net-gain strategy (aka positive incremetalism). The NRA knows that and is very good at it. Unfortunately, people who glom on to the "no compromise" strategy tend to use any comprimise by the group as a reflection of their non-effecacy (example, this thread) while universally ignoring the net positive effects.

You can't, and won't, find any type of "no compromise" strategy in the NRA because they know that, politically, it is a fool's paradise. Thus your challenge becomes self-fulfilling and allows you to thump chest in victory. You get the personal satisfaction of having your view of the NRA justified, but what have you really accomplished? In a word, nothing. All you've done is make yourself feel better while turning potential NRA members, and contributors, against the cause.

You support a group who's list of accomplishments is shockingly short, the greatest of which is being able to say they are "no comprimise. (Which they trumpet, at great length and volume, on every possible occasion.) Yet you chastise the group which has been acknowledged by the gun-grabbing left as the 800 lb gorilla when it comes to 2A issues. That makes it harder for the NRA to recruit new members and to maintain contributions from current members. You are effectively hamstringing the group that is actually accomplishing what you want just because you don't like the way they do it. That's like breaking the cook's hands because he put the dressing on the side instead of on the salad. You have, in very real terms, become your own worst enemy.

Brad

 

[JohnBT]

"It would seem this thread got off the original intent when people got their feathers ruffled over the idea that not everybody thinks the NRA is the greatest thing ever."

The fact that not everybody thinks the NRA is the greastest thing ever is not news. Hasn't been for decades. Why would anyone get upset in this thread or any other after all these years and all the discussion? For instance, I'm not the only person here who remembers the run-up to the GCA of 1968 and the heat the NRA took for even participating during those 5 YEARS. The trouble is, most of the recent heat ignores the facts of the 5 YEARS of run-up to the passage of the GCA. It could have been worse. Same with the '34 law, but I wasn't born yet so I wasn't around and will have to trust the word of those who were.

What is aggravating is to be subjected to the same old weak, if not totally false, arguments full of misinterpreted history about why the NRA isn't the best thing since sliced bread. Certainly there is room for improvement, but the anti-NRA rants that are presented as all-new original thinking are tiresome. But that's life on the interweb I guess.

John

 

[Eat Beef]

You support a group who's list of accomplishments is shockingly short, the greatest of which is being able to say they are "no comprimise.

What group would that be? I've not endorsed any group.

I'm sorry, but can you point out any accomplishment of the NRA, other than the sunsetting of the AWB, which, by the way, became law on the NRA's watch?

Incrementalism is what is killing us. How are we MORE free today than our fathers were? This isn't just a Second Ammendment problem!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Brad Johnson stated my own thoughts on your comment far more eloquently than I could have.

I'm sorry, but can you point out any accomplishment of the NRA, other than the sunsetting of the AWB, which, by the way, became law on the NRA's watch?

Well if we are going to take the view that the NRA is responsible for every gun control law they are unable to stop on their watch (and gun owners have no culpability in allowing those conditions to develop), then do they get credit for all that happens on their watch as well? For example:

1. UN Small Arms Restrictions blocked by US in 2001 and again in 2006.

2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right - reverses 35 years of previous Justice Department doctrine on the matter.

3. Attorney General refuses to allow legitimate purchase of NICS data to be used for fishing expedition - Ashcroft stops grabbers from sifting through NICS data of legitimate purchasers to look for "terrorists".

4. Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy

5. Lawsuit preemption bill introduced by NRA passes

6. Gov't ends taxpayer funding of useless HUD gun buybacks

7. President signs bill arming airline pilots. Signs bill closing loophole that prevented cargo pilots from being armed

8. Congress passes Tiahrt Amendment that protects gunowner privacy by making item #4 the law of the land.

I can come up with more if you like; but I think those few items should be sufficient to make the argument that "The NRA has accomplished nothing" isn't a particularly well-informed position.