Archive for the ‘Second Amendment Foundation’ tag
If there’s one thing I love it’s Internet drama. And boy do I have a heap of it for you guys. Dudley Brown, the main guy behind the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) rustled Alan Gottlieb, the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF), jimmies:
Dudley Brown and his “National Association for Gun Rights” (NAGR) have built a reputation by attacking every other major gun rights organization and even pro-gun politicians, to the detriment of the gun rights movement. His rhetoric has done more to marginalize Second Amendment activism than all of the slanders from gun prohibition lobbying groups combined.Now Dudley has spewed his venom toward Alan Gottlieb, a true champion of Second Amendment advocacy with a proven track record of accomplishment. Gottlieb is founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA).
In his latest effort to raise money for his own self-aggrandizement, Dudley Brown has launched a vicious canard against Alan Gottlieb, accusing the veteran gun rights advocate of “Leading the fight for national gun registration.”
Alan Gottlieb has never advocated for gun registration in his life. His legislative efforts have been to prevent that, and Dudley knows it.
Burn! Of course the SAF delivers an onslaught of just retribution:
The Second Amendment Foundation has championed gun rights legal actions and won in federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. Remember, it was SAF that took McDonald v. City of Chicago [PDF] to the Supreme Court and won. Where was Dudley?
SAF and CCRKBA have conducted the annual Gun Rights Policy Conference for more than 25 years, bringing together major gun rights leaders with grassroots activists to unify and expand the gun rights movement. Where was Dudley?
When SAF and the National Rifle Association joined forces to stop the unconstitutional gun grab in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, where was Dudley?
When SAF and NRA joined forces to defeat the San Francisco gun ban, where was Dudley?
When SAF, NRA and CCRKBA joined forces to defeat the City of Seattle’s parks gun ban – thus strengthening state preemption in Washington state and providing a lesson for anyone who might challenge other states’ preemption laws, where was Dudley?
When the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) was created, Alan Gottlieb was there to help bring together an organization that now has member groups from every continent and several nations. Where was Dudley?
When multi-national gun rights organizations gather in Europe to resist global gun control efforts, Alan Gottlieb is there, but where is Dudley?
I have been very critical of Mr. Gottlieb’s recent advocacy of universal background checks but there is one major difference between him and Mr. Brown. Mr. Gottlieb and the SAF actually gets shit down.
The NAGR is only well known for two things: whining about everybody else and taking people’s money. Scratch that, there’s a third thing they’re well known for: leaking the personal information of its members to random people. But as far as victories in the fight for gun rights? The NAGR has done all of jack shit. Sure they’ve cultivated some extremely zealous supporters, a couple of whom are friends of mine (more on that in a bit), but they can’t actually point to any of their victories.
What’s really annoying is that us Minnesotans have to deal with one of the NAGR’s dumb ass affiliate groups called Minnesota Gun Rights (MGR). MGR mimics the NAGR very well. It invests a lot of time bitching about the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) and asking for money from people but it hasn’t actually done a damn thing as far as fighting for gun rights in Minnesota is concerned.
Now back to what I said about the NAGR having a track record of cultivating some very zealous supporters. As I mentioned a couple of these zealous supporters are my friends. One actually went so far as to block me on Facebook when he was praising MGR and I asked for a track record of what the organization has accomplished (by the way being blocked was my only answer). This rabid devotion from people who are generally cynical and skeptical of any political organization leads me to believe, although I have no proof, that they’re getting some money from either the NAGR or MGR. Either way they tout both organizations as the greatest thing since sliced bread (and denouncing every other gun rights organization as quislings) but cannot produce any information demonstrating either organization’s effectiveness. When your most devout supporters can’t provide any proof that you’ve actually done something then you’ve almost certainly done nothing.
It amuses me to no end that the individual who runs the NAGR, and presumably its affiliate organizations, is criticizing organizations like the SAF while his organization has absolutely nothing to show for itself. That would be like me criticizing Ludwig von Mises for failing to advance the cause of liberty while being unable to provide any evidence that I have advanced the cause of liberty (the only difference is that I’m pretty certain I have done more to advance gun rights and liberty than the NAGR has, and all I’ve done is help introduce people to the shooting sports and write this blog). As the saying goes, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
I really hope this drama spreads (as you can see here I’m doing my part to fan the flames). Watching the NAGR shoot its mouth off is just fucking hilarious and I love watching it made a fool of in public.
I give credit to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) for developing a successful alternative strategy to political lobbying. But every time its founder opens his mouth about background checks I cringe:
“The gun rights lobby has to wake up and realize we need to lead, not follow,” the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation and the the chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms told Guns.com in an interview at the at the NRA’s 143rd Annual Meetings and Exhibits in downtown Indianapolis last weekend.
Gottlieb’s desire to strike a deal on an enhanced background check measure that would cover private sales made over the Internet and at gun shows is based on the premise that fighting UBCs is a losing battle over the long run.
Do you know what a great way to commit suicide is? Cooperating with your enemies. Trust me, they will find a convenient way for you to die if your work with them. Gottlieb obviously has some powerful gray matter in his brainpan as his organization has lead several successful lawsuits that ended in favor of gun owners. But his belief that the gun rights movement needs to strike a deal on background checks is, to put it nicely, really fucking stupid.
Fighting universal background checks isn’t a losing battle. Private sales remain legal in many states (Minnesota being one of them). It also looks like most of those states will continue to allow private sales without mandating they go through a federally licensed dealer. There is also the fact that firearms are simple mechanical devices that can be built by small groups of people. Distributing the knowledge on home gun manufacturing would render universal background checks of any sort impotent.
The history of gun control in this country is proof that cooperating with anti-gunners is a losing strategy. First they said they only desired to control machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, and a few other odds and ends. Then they wanted the purchase of machine guns by non-state entities to be entirely verboten (and only settled on newly manufactured machine guns being verboten). After that they wanted aesthetically offensive rifles, which they erroneously called “assault” rifles, prohibited and all magazines to only be legally allowed to hold 10 rounds. Every time the gun control advocates got what they wanted they demanded more and the same will happen with universal background checks. If gun rights activists cooperate with gun control advocates on universal background checks the initial bill may not be as bad as it would otherwise be. But then the anti-gunners will demand more. And they will likely get it because the precedence was set by the law gun rights activists initially helped pass.
As a radical my interest in politics is probably far lower than most people involved in the gun rights community. But I’m a sucker for stories of political corruption. Like a fine mystery novel, stories of political corruption can keep me turning pages into the wee hours of the night. Although I’m not as integrated in the local gun rights movement as others I still keep my ear to the ground and have friends who are. That’s why I was surprised that I hadn’t heard about a new gun rights organization here in Minnesota calling itself Minnesota Gun Rights (MGR).
The organization came to my attention only recently. A few people, after expressing displeasure with the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA), have been pointed towards MGR. MGR describes itself as a no compromise gun rights organization. While I have had my disagreements with the tactics of GOCRA in the past, the organization has a long track record of getting things done in regards to gun rights and consists of some damned good people. Unlike GOCRA, MGR has no track record to speak of but their site is pretty boastful (without providing specifics).
Thankfully we have the Internet so it’s easier than ever to research a new organization. My search for information on MGR lead me to a series of posts on Shot in the Dark, a website operated by local gun rights activist Mitch Berg. The series starts with this post, which covers the organization know as Iowa Gun Owners (IGO). Post two is where the story became interesting. It seems that IGO was responsible for sinking an Iowa billion that would have allowed veterans who suffered post-traumatic stress syndrome (a medical condition that can prohibit you from legally owning a firearm) to get their gun rights restored. In its zeal IGO reintroduced some additional pro-gun legislation as an amendment to the above mentioned bill. This additional legislation effectively killed the bill. It also appears that the people in charge of IGO are also in charge of MGR, which is important to note because the third post indicates one of them was involved in some political shenanigans of a corrupt nature. The series is a great read if you’re into political corruption or curious about MGR.
This brings me to a subtopic I wish to discuss: being unwilling to compromise. As my long-time readers know, I have a no-compromise position on many issues. For example, I want to eliminate the state in its entirety. When it comes to masters I have a zero tolerance policy. So I have respect for individuals and organizations that are unwilling to compromise on issues (even when I disagree with those issues). With that said, I must also point out that not compromising requires a different set of tactics. I learned some time ago that politics is not the realm for radicals. Radicals, by definition, wants something radically different. For example, I find the very concept that people with guns taking guns from nonviolent people will somehow reduce gun violence. Because of this I oppose gun control. Instead I focus on the reduction of violence in society as a whole. Even though I acknowledge that completely eliminating violence from a society is impossible I believe there are methods that can greatly reduce the amount of violence present in a society. But these methods are not achievable politically because they rely on the destruction of the state, which politics cannot do.
My point is this: if you’re not willing to compromise then you are a radical and you need to seek nonpolitical strategies. Any organization that labels itself as a no compromise group and a political group should be treated with a great deal of caution. In my experience such groups are perfectly aware of the incompatibility of their position and methodology. They don’t care because their actual goal is different from their stated goal. These organizations tend to exploit groups of political activists in order to extract cash from them. Gun rights activists are a great target for such a strategy because they’re passionate and willing to give their time and money in the pursuit of winning their fight. Proof of this fact can be found by looking at the number of members the National Rifle Association (NRA) has. If an organization is able to position itself as fighter for gun rights it stands to make a good amount of money.
Based on what I’ve found it seems MGR is an organization created to extract money from gun rights activists without sincerely investing itself in the fight for gun rights. Any new political organization should be taken with a grain of salt until it demonstrates its trustworthiness. Even though I have disagreements with the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and GOCRA they have demonstrated trustworthiness. If you’re going to support gun rights organizations those are good candidates. MGR has, so far, failed to demonstrated trustworthiness in my opinion and their list of accomplishments is nonexistent.
I won’t tell you to support or not support MGR. You’re all adults (I think) and can make your own decisions. But I urge you to research the organization, and all other political organizations, to determine whether or not you want to support it. What I can tell you is that MGR’s stated position and methodology are incompatible, which raises red flags for me. Finally I will close by offering to hear counterarguments to the claims made on Mitch Berg’s blog. Any members or supporters of MGR may post whatever counterarguments they wish in the comments section. Due to spambots I must manually approve all posts by first time posters, so if your comment doesn’t appear immediately please know that I will get around to approving it. You can also feel free to e-mail me at blog[at]christopherburg[dot]com.
Since their support of the Manchin-Toomey Amendment I’ve been questioning whether or not the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is still supporting gun rights or has finally succumbed to The One Ring’s corrupting power. A post by Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned leads me to believe the latter:
We noticed SAF/CCRBKA’s booth on the NRA floor, but decided not to stop. But Think Progress did, and noticed they were handing out literature taking NRA to task over Manchin-Toomey:
But despite the bill’s (perhaps temporary) defeat in the Senate, CCRKBA doesn’t appear to be backing down — The Gun Mag, a Second Amendment Foundation publication, published an “NRA Meeting Special Issue” whose lead article takes apart the NRA’s line on Manchin-Toomey.
Many of the comments question the claim as it was posted on Think Progress. On the other hand neither the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) or SAF have refuted the claim.
It’s not wise for gun owners to support an organization that is trying to support gun control legislation and it’s even more unwise to support an organization that is trying to resurrect gun control legislation that has been put to rest. Because the charges against the CCRKBA and SAF are so severe and their previous behavior of supporting the Manchin-Toomey Amendment put their position into question I must hereby withdraw my support. If a representative of either organization is willing to come forth and refute the claim made by Think Progress I will reconsider but I will not give support to an organization that is trying to sell people down the river.
It appears that a little irony is playing out in Joe Biden’s task force. The Obama Administration has announced that they will consider spending $50 million to put police officers in public schools:
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is considering a $50 million plan to fund hundreds of police officers in public schools, a Democratic senator said, part of a broad gun violence agenda that is likely to include a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips and universal background checks.
The school safety initiative would make federal dollars available to schools that want to hire police officers and install surveillance equipment, although it is not nearly as far-ranging as the National Rifle Association’s proposal for armed guards in every U.S. school.
I’m sure the National Rifle Association (NRA) will receive no credit for the idea, which is rather ironic consider the NRA’s actions towards the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). But this decision by Biden’s task force doesn’t surprise me, in fact I would have been surprised if they hadn’t announced something like this. When the NRA announced its School Shield program and voiced my concerns over expanding the police state already rampant in public schools:
This concerns me as well. Securing schools as much as sports stadiums requires making schools even more like prisons than they already are. Many major stadiums have metal detectors, cameras everywhere, and guards performing pat downs on those entering the venue. Since stadiums are private institutions I don’t care how they run their operations. In his apparently desperate attempt to the Connecticut shooting on something LaPierre hasn’t considered the consequences of making schools more like prison. If he believes violent media causes violence in society then submitting children to prison style security is likely to make them more subservient to the state. As the state has a vested interest in disarm the populace it would seem counterproductive to the goal of protecting gun rights to instill even more obedience into today’s youth. Maintaining gun rights requires a populace that will stand up to the police state, not submit to it. Having children go through metal detectors, submit to searches of their persons and belongings, and being under the constant eye of Big Brother can only instill authoritarianism, which directly opposes the stated goals of the NRA.
Putting armed officers in schools makes sense from the state’s perspective as doing so will help instill more obedience at an impressionable age. We already have schools teaching children that the police are their friends and that one should always truth police officers, which isn’t true:
In reality the police are the state’s expropriators:
The true purpose of police officers is to act as direct state expropriators. Notice that a majority of offenses one can be punished for involve no victims. Speeding tickets, parking tickets, fines for possessing verboten drugs, etc. are victimless crimes that involve the payment of money from offenders to the state. Even the prison system is nothing more than a special form of subsidy in the form of slave labor. Federal prisoners are generally “employed” by Federal Prison Industries, more commonly known as UNICOR. UNICOR is a government owned corporation that produces goods and services for the federal government. All federal agencies, with the exception of the Department of Defense, are legally required to source all needed goods and services through UNICOR unless UNICOR is unable to provide it or gives permission to the federal agencie to seek an alternate provider. Private prisons are another form of subsidy. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the largest private prison industry in the country, uses prisoners to provide goods and services to at extremely cheap prices. The police, through enforcing jailable offenses, provide both UNICOR and private companies like CCA with a source of extremely cheap labor. Both corporations enjoy a benefit over other domestic providers of goods and services since neither is obligated to follow labor laws such as paying workers a minimum wage. Effectively wealth, in the form of labor, is being transfered from prisoners to entities like UNICOR and CCA. The state’s courts have also ruled that the police are not obligate to provide protection, further invalidating any claim that their primary purpose is the defense of individuals from domestic threats.
It’s pretty easy to see why Biden’s task force has decided the NRA’s plan was a swell idea. Of course Obama’s administration needs to sell the idea, which will take a little finesse. Gun control advocates have been decrying the NRA’s idea because it would put more guns into schools. If Obama and his gang want to sell the idea they’re going to have to change the message, which they’re trying to do by claiming their plan won’t be as extensive as the NRA’s. This claim is an attempt to make the NRA look like overzealous extremists. Making the NRA appear to be overzealous extremists is necessary to forward the agenda of gun control because admitting the organization had a valid idea would give some the organization some credit and that may cause people to consider more of their ideas.
If Obama pursues the federally funded armed guards route you can rest assured he will say the federal funds will only go to arms school that are “at risk.” That is to say the federal government would start putting armed officers in a few schools initially and expand from there. At some point every public school would likely have posted armed guards but by then everybody will have forgotten about the NRA’s initial proposal and the gun control community’s reaction to it.
One question remains, why would gun control advocates go along with such an idea? They’ve been railing on the NRA’s proposal since it was made. How could they support the same proposal by the federal government? Easy. Gun control advocates don’t oppose guns, they oppose non-state agents having guns. Remember that gun control advocates are authoritarians and desire to grant the state totalitarian control so it can “advance” society in the “right” direction.
This will end up being an interesting month as far as gun rights are concerned. I wonder what other ideas will be announced by Biden’s task force next week.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) does a lot of things that really irritate me. On top of being unable to adopt new strategies in the fight for gun rights now that their strategy of political action has become less effective they also like to steal credit for that accomplishments of other gun rights organizations. Read the NRA’s press release regarding the gun rights victory in Moore v. Madigan. Do you notice anything missing? That’s right, the press released doesn’t mention the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). Even though the case was initiated and funded by the SAF the NRA is taking sole credit for the victory.
Being dishonest by omitting due credit is a pet peeve of mine. In fact it irritates me to such an extent that I wouldn’t renew my NRA membership if I could do so and still remaining a member of the Oakdale Gun Club. My NRA membership fees would be far more productive in the hands of the SAF. The NRA is continuing to prove itself to be dishonest and incapable of adapting to changing circumstances. Both are unfortunate but I can at least understand the reason for the latter, it’s easy to become fixated on a strategy that has served you well in the past. What I can’t understand is the NRA’s unwillingness to acknowledge the efforts of other gun rights organizations. Far more could be accomplished through mutual cooperation than going it alone.
I know one of the biggest concerns the gun rights community has now that Obama will be in office for four more years are Supreme Court nominees. Several of the current robe-adoren ones are getting up there in age and will likely be retiring relatively soon. The main concern gun rights activists have is Obama appointing anti-gun justices who will reverse the decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. While the Supreme Court is potentially worrisome it’s also one of the branches that the gun rights community can, for the most part, control.
The Supreme Court only rules on cases that have been appealed to their level and they are willing to hear. Because of these two requirements, and the nature of the gun control movement, the gun rights community can mostly control whether or not gun rights cases get to the Supreme Court. Needless to say so long as the gun rights community doesn’t appeal cases to the Supreme Court level the Supreme Court doesn’t get to make a decision. Unfortunately this may mean holding off on lawsuits, which have proven to be a most effective tool as of late, if anti-gun justices are seated but it also means that the threat of seeing either previous victory reversed is mostly avoidable. This means that gun rights would not move forward through the judicial system but it also means it won’t move backwards either.
I also mentioned that the nature of the gun control movement plays are part in this equation. When it comes to court cases regarding gun rights the only two sides that are apt to file lawsuits are advocates of gun rights and advocates of gun control. Advocates of gun rights have good reason to file lawsuits against municipalities that violate gun rights but gun control advocates don’t because they want municipalities to violate gun rights. Without some kind of violation there aren’t grounds of lawsuits so it’s far more difficult for gun control advocates to initiate one. Furthermore the gun control movement has more limited resources available to it. The only gun control game in town that still has money is Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which is funded by the personal fortunes of Mayor Bloomberg and his cronies. On the other hand the gun rights movement has the National Rifle Association (NRA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Gun Owners of America (GOA), Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (JFPO), and numerous state gun rights organizations. Combining forces these gun rights organizations have a funding base of millions of members. Considering the expense of hiring a lawyer that has the required credentials to argue in the Supreme Court it’s unlikely that gun control advocates are going to pursue such lawsuits.
If Obama appoints anti-gun justices to the Supreme Court the gun rights community stands to lose one of its most valuable tools, but it mostly control whether or not ground will be lost. The worst case scenario is that gun rights activists will need to pursue another strategy. One of my biggest criticisms of the NRA is their laser-like focus on a single strategy even when it’s ineffective. When one strategy fails or is no longer viable then another must be developed. Innovate or die is the name of the game. Just because the gun rights movement becomes cut off from the Supreme Court doesn’t mean the game is over, it means a different game must be played.
Of course the real problem is the fact that nine robe-adoren individuals can decide what is and isn’t allowed for an entire country but I touched on that argument already so I’ll not repeat it here.
The election may be over but self-declared Republicans and the gun rights community are still angry at Tuesday’s results. Ultimately nothing has changed on a federal level. Looking at Google’s federal election results the Democratic Party has retained its control of the Presidency and the Senate while the Republican Party has retained its control over the House. For the gun rights community this should be treated as good news. As I said, the presidential race was a complete loss as far as gun rights were concerned and that energies would have been better spend on congressional races. Without Congress to make and pass gun control laws the presidency doesn’t matter. This is where some gun rights activists will point out that the president gets to nominate Supreme Court justices but history demonstrates that “conservative” justices aren’t reliable defenders of individual rights anyways.
I know ammunition, gun, and gun accessory prices are going to jump sky high for the next few months because of Obama’s victory. This is an irrational response by the gun community because everything is the same today as it was the previous four years as far as the federal government is concerned. If you’re truly worried about the Supreme Court then you should advocate the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) to cease brining more gun rights lawsuits. The Supreme Court only gets to rule on cases that get appealed to its level so if there are no new cases their previous judgements stand. Gun control advocates don’t have enough money or influence at this point to get cases to the Supreme Court so it’s really up to the gun rights community to decide whether or not new Supreme Court cases regarding gun rights are heard. Avoiding any detrimental affects caused by possible Supreme Court nominations is almost entirely in our hands.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the largest gun rights advocacy group in the United States (and probably the world). They’re feared by gun control advocates and cheered by most gun rights advocates. It’s easy to see why since the NRA has a notable history of success when it comes to fighting gun control legislation. Unfortunately success is often followed by stagnation and it has become apparent that the NRA has become stagnant.
The NRA’s primary power is its influence in the political system. When the NRA throws their support behind a politician gun control and gun rights advocates perk up. In the case of gun control advocates they take the NRA’s endorsement as a reason to oppose a politician while gun rights activists take the NRA’s endorsement as a reason to support a politician. This presidential election is important to note because both of the leading candidates have a history of opposing gun rights. It would seem in order to remain consistent supporters of gun rights the NRA would have to either endorse a third-party candidate or nobody. Instead they have decided to officially endorse Mitt Romney:
NRA Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre and NRA Political Victory Fund chairman Chris Cox will formally announce the endorsement at a Romney rally in Virginia later Thursday evening. Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan will also be on hand.
When all you have is a hammer it’s easy to see every problem as a nail. Let’s consider the situation, the NRA’s most effective tool to defend gun rights cannot be applied in this presidential election because both leading candidates oppose gun rights. Instead of searching their toolbox for a different tool they’ve allowed themselves to give their support to a candidate who open supports an “assault weapon” ban.
I’m glad the NRA isn’t the only game in town. If organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) didn’t exist we would soon find ourselves stuck between a rock and a hard place. The NRA exhibits typic behavior or a large behemoth organization, wild success has cause it to be entirely unable to innovate. While the NRA continues with its strategy of endorsing candidates even though no pro-gun candidates exist SAF has opted for the strategy of filing lawsuits against violators of gun rights. Both District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were SAF lead initiatives (which the NRA later tried to claim credit for) that ended up being very successful. Being smaller and more nimble SAF was able to recognize a failure in the NRA’s strategy and try something else.
It’s come to the point where I wish an NRA membership wasn’t required to maintain my Oakdale Gun Club membership. That requirement is the only reason I keep renewing my NRA membership. Instead of sending additional money to the NRA’s Political Victory Fund I send money to other organizations like SAF. Endorsing Romney is an overt move against gun rights and I don’t support organizations that oppose gun rights.
It appears that the National Rifle Association (NRA) has decided to surrender on the topic of gun rights this election cycle:
The NRA leadership is throwing its wholehearted support behind Republican Mitt Romney, who once incurred its ire by supporting stiff gun restrictions as governor of Massachusetts. Despite that history, it sees Romney as a vastly better gamble than President Obama, although Obama has done almost nothing to restrict gun use.
“We believe Mitt Romney would do a better job than President Obama,” said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA, which claims nearly 4 million members. “We believe that any of the candidates on the Republican side would be better on the 2nd Amendment” — the right to bear arms.
Thanks for nothing guys. I’m sorry but endorsing Romney is not the answer, it’s not even a valid option when it comes to supporting gun rights. I talked about this before but the NRA’s approach of supporting the “lesser” of two evils is pointless. We are all aware of Romney’s track record when it comes to gun rights, it’s abysmal. The very fact that he signed a permanent “assault” weapon ban in Massachusetts should have disqualified him from receiving any support from the NRA. I’d rather see the NRA come up and publicly state a vote of no confidence then concentrate their policial money on the legislature. Better yet move on to a new strategy like emulating the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) tactic of suing state entities that violate the rights of gun owners.
You know what else pisses me off? Not only are the leaders of the NRA supporting Romney but, as I predicted, members of the NRA are now backing the dumb bastard as well. He suckered a huge audience with one speech. One measly speech caused a massive number of NRA members, the supposed guardians of gun rights in this country, to forget Romney’s track record and get behind him. What… the… fuck?
I knew this would be the outcome but it still hurts to see it officiated. Romney isn’t going to be any better than Obama when it comes to gun rights (or anything else for that matter). He’s talking a big game now as he’s trying to gather support from
suckers voters but we’ll be tossed under the bus the second he’s in office. Personally I’m not a fan of supporting a man when I know he’s going to run a knife in my back the second it’s turned.