Why the NRA is NO LONGER Dangerous to the Second Amendment

[FireBreather01]

Many times I've heard the arguments that the NRA is a 'sell-out' because they aren't strident enough and because they are, or were, too willing to compromise. While in the past they may have been willing to give up a little bit to save the whole I just don't see that as their operative positioning now. As others have indicated, the past was marked by earth-shaking events and the NRA's position at the time was really a matter of recognizing reality rather than backing themselves into a corner of eternal irrelevance.

There are several political realities of the past 25 years that have changed how the NRA operates today - the country is clearly more conservative, or at least the conservatives now have more of a voice, the NRA developed the ILA in 1976 and it really only gained strength after the passage of the 1986 Firearm's Owners Protection Act, that's when the NRA really started to recognize and develop their strength - not coincidently under the administration of Ronald Reagan, and I believe the NRA also doubled their membership in that time as well.

The realities of politics are that relentless incrementalism works - the 'all or nothing' promulgations of some usually result in just that - nothing! So while the NRA agrees to support 'right to carry' legislation with significant restrictions that some deride, others are willling to throw it all out saying "only Vemont style laws are good enough". Then after the first of these laws was passed, the NRA has worked on 'shall-issue' vs 'may-issue', castle doctrines, etc. This relentless approach had obviously worked. Concealed carry was an almost unheard of right just a couple decades ago and now look where we are. I believe that ultimately many states may end up with Vermont style laws eventually, but look where it started. If the NRA took the all or nothing aproach I'm sure we wouldn't enjoy the freedoms we have today.

Have they been perfect over the years? - No, but they've had a much greater positive overall effect with the water-drip methods they've chosen rather than beating our collective heads against the wall of revolutionary change.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Ultimately, it is a cultural struggle and such takes a lot of time. Any strong move in any direction produces a sudden spike in resistance among those who might normally be apathetic but suddenly feel very threatened. Small moves produce much less resistance but integrate over time to a far larger total move.

I am happy to hear that the antis' strategy is being used against them. As a Californian, I'd wish the SCOTUS had the guts to slap down unconstitutional state restrictions and AWBs. Maybe in 10 years they will.

 

[GoRon]

We have lost freedom(s) over the years by "relentless incrimentalism" as stated above.

The freedom(s) were lost because the "relentless incrimentalism" of our opposition works.

So, I repeat and quote the pithy statement from FireBreather01

The realities of politics are that relentless incrementalism works - the 'all or nothing' promulgations of some usually result in just that - nothing!

Work the system.

 

[JohnBT]

"JohnBT, aren't most Republicans much less likely to be anti-gun? And don't you think the funding is for specific races, where the Democratic Party candidate is anti-gun?"

Of course. I don't have a problem with supporting Republicans over the majority of Democratic Party candidates. I just have a problem with mindnumbingly poor logic.

John
NRA Endowment Member
www.vcdl.org

 

[antsi]

--------quote----------
The realities of politics are that relentless incrementalism works - the 'all or nothing' promulgations of some usually result in just that - nothing!
-----------------------

--------quote----------
Any strong move in any direction produces a sudden spike in resistance among those who might normally be apathetic but suddenly feel very threatened. Small moves produce much less resistance but integrate over time to a far larger total move.
-----------------------

The above two sentiments cannot be repeated often enough. Sound realistic political strategy produces results.

---------quote----------
I restate my opinion......NRA is a republican fund raising group.
I don't have a problem with supporting Republicans over the majority of Democratic Party candidates. I just have a problem with mindnumbingly poor logic.
------------------------

Not sure what you're getting at here, but your numbers do not prove that the NRA is a 'Republican fund raising group.' As for mindnumbingly poor logic, you are committing a logical fallacy by confusing correlation with causation.

If you really wanted to prove that the NRA has a bias toward Republicans, you would have to demonstrate instances where the NRA supported a Republican despite the challenger's superior pro-gun credentials. I don't think there are very many cases of this; certainly not enough to support the idea that uncritical support of Republicans is NRA policy.

The NRA supports pro-gun candidates. In many cases, Republicans are more pro-gun than the other parties, so, in many cases, the NRA's pro-gun policy results in donations to Republicans. That is a very different situation than what you are implying, which seems to be an accusation that the NRA supports Republicans irrespective of their positions on gun rights.

 

[JohnBT]

"Not sure what you're getting at here, but your numbers do not prove that the NRA is a 'Republican fund raising group.' As for mindnumbingly poor logic, you are committing a logical fallacy by confusing correlation with causation."

My numbers? What numbers? I quoted somebody else's numbers and said the conclusions drawn from them were based on mindnumbingly poor logic.

Is this the Twilight Zone or the Outer Limits?

Look at the quotation marks ===>>> " " <<<=== in the following. I'm quoting somebody. My statements don't have quotes around them. :banghead:
__________________

I was 18. Meanwhile, this looks like a good fact to know...

"NRA gave 85% of its donations to Republicans in 2006 and 86% in 2004. GOA gave 100% of its donations to Republicans in 2006 and 99% in 2004."

Whereas, the second part of the following is nothing more than poor logic and double talk. Like it's the NRA's fault the GOA can only raise ten grand and change. Sheesh.

"2006 So far NRA gives 404,527 bux to republicans GOA gives 10,195

So, now I can say that NRA gave almost 40 times more to republicans than GOA did. I restate my opinion......NRA is a republican fund raising group."

 

[antsi]

----quote--------
Look at the quotation marks ===>>> " " <<<=== in the following. I'm quoting somebody. My statements don't have quotes around them.
-----------------

OK, my bad, I couldn't tell what was your opionion and what was quotes of others.

 

[JohnBT]

Okay, I feel better now.

 

[bromdenlong]

Bartholomew Roberts wrote:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Add to that, the court must also decide whether the Second Amendment is incorporated under the 14th Amendment and you have enough issues to keep the NRA busier than ever for the forseeable future.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don't see what the 14th has to do with it, really. If the 2nd is recognized to protect an individual right, then the 14th simply reemphasizes that right. If the 2nd is "interpreted" :banghead: as a State's right, then the 14th doesn't apply.

So SCOTUS is left to laboriously ponder that delicate, intricate question, that most elusive of paradoxes: does the word "people" mean "people", "state" or "United States"?

(Insert s, s, s, s, s, s, :banghead: s, and s as you feel necessary.)

 

[Diamondback6]

Guys, why are we arguing about various organizations? So the NRA's not perfect. They play "good cop" to GOA and JPFO's "bad cops". Just like you wouldn't go golfing with only one club in the bag (outside the "putting zoo" or driving range, anyway), or wouldn't expect one firearm to serve every purpose you could want/need one for, NRA, GOA, JPFO, CCRKBA, and SAF all have their own places in the "RKBA Toolkit". Now if only we all could get them "on memo" with the talking points and coordinating strategy...

One organization by itself can look fringe. A coalition of organizations, acting as separate players toward a common strategy, really get people's attention...

Together we stand, divided we fall. If we let the Grabbers play us off each other by playing "NRA vs GOA vs SAF" games, the only ones who win are the enemy. As a wise man once said about 230 years ago, "We must all hang together, or we shall most assuredly hang separately..."

Just my little bit of copper-clad zinc for your consideration.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I don't see what the 14th has to do with it, really. If the 2nd is recognized to protect an individual right, then the 14th simply reemphasizes that right.

Because of the doctrine of selective incorporation, interpreting the Second Amendment as an individual right would only mean that the Federal government could not act. State governments would be free to register, confiscate and otherwise infringe unless the right is incorporated under the 14th.

If the 2nd is "interpreted" as a State's right, then the 14th doesn't apply.

Not necessarily true. The right to privacy is found nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights and yet the Supreme Court has held that this right exists as part of the substantive due process provided by the 14th amendment. Even if the Second was interpreted as a collective right, it would still be possible for the Court to decide that RKBA is a fundamental right that is part "of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty."

Of course the odds that the same Court that found a collective right in the Second would protect RKBA under substantive due process are somewhere in the neighborhood of winning the Powerball lotto five times consecutively. Really the only purpose it would serve is that a later Court might be able to undermine a collective rights ruling using substantive due process without actually overruling it.

 

[RealGun]

The right to privacy is found nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights and yet the Supreme Court has held that this right exists as part of the substantive due process provided by the 14th amendment.

it would still be possible for the Court to decide that RKBA is a fundamental right that is part "of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty."

As would be the right of privacy. Chief Justice Roberts testified that he considers privacy to be an extension of liberty, and we reinforce that here when commenting about government snooping. Many rights can be found in the 9th amendment. The Constitution makes no effort to fully enumerate rights and says so.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Many rights can be found in the 9th amendment. The Constitution makes no effort to fully enumerate rights and says so.

Yes; but there is considerable legal debate about whether the Ninth Amendment can be applied to the states. The counter argument is that the Ninth Amendment was a restriction on the Federal government and the laws it can enact. The States would (and have) argued that the Federal government cannot use the Ninth to restrict the states because that perverts the nature of the Ninth amendment. Additional arguments are the original sponsor of the amendment explicitly stating that the bill was meant to expand the protections of amendments 1-8 to individuals fighting state law.

From a practical standpoint, it doesn't really come up as an issue because of substantive due process and the 14th Amendment. Instead of saying that the states are restricted from doing this because of the unenumerated rights in the Ninth Amendment, they say the states are restricted from doing this because it violates fundamental values of fairness stemming from the 14th amendment.

You might also be interested to know that several of the conservative justices (Scalia and Thomas) have indicated in their opinions that they basically do not buy into the concept of unenumerated rights because they believe it gives the judiciary too much power. They acknowledge the Ninth Amendment shows that not all rights were listed; but they don't believe unenumerated rights should receive the same level of protection as enumerated rights.

The position you advocate is actually more in line with the liberal justices (though they are still quite selective about where they find rights and where they don't).

 

[RealGun]

While pragmatic, I don't feel very constrained by legal reasoning for why the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, State or Federal. Bottom line, I look to the 9th Amendment for the right of self defense and expect it to be protected at all levels of due process. I also feel that all fundamental rights should be completely portable from one State to another.

The position you advocate is actually more in line with the liberal justices (though they are still quite selective about where they find rights and where they don't).

I am indeed pro-choice, if that's what you mean or indicative of it.

 

[TIZReporter]

At the international level, where NRA is a player, the NRA uses, in my opinion, the UN as a fundraiser rather than effectively work to combat the international efforts on controlling guns.

For this year's UN SALW meetings, the NRA response is to have their members mail yellow postcards to John Bolton, Kofi Annan and the SALW chairman.

Watch for an August or September issue of your NRA magazine to feature a rant on the UN, followed by lots of calls for donations.

http://theinfozone.net/salw-news.html offers some insights and links to some of what is happening internationally.

The reason we need to pay closer attention to the UN is that there are countless treaties America signs internationally which will and are making impact on the USA.

TIZ

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I also feel that all fundamental rights should be completely portable from one State to another.

As do I; but until the 14th Amendment was enacted, they were not. The rule was that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government and not the state governments. States were free to do anything allowed by their constitution and the only relief was to change the legislators.

In fact, one of the first cases to consider whether the 14th Amendment applied to the states also refused to find that it applied the Bill of Rights to states except in a very narrow sense.