National Association for Gun Rights, or against?
As a former gun ban supporter, I’m curious about one dynamic in the pro-gun community: “crotch-grabbers” who love to bellow about the Second Amendment as if it’s a sacred, self-evident truth, and if you don’t get it, you’re just too stupid for words. Perhaps they think volume trumps their small-caliber capacities in other areas?
This type doesn’t attract people like me who are open to exploring the truth. (I fortunately had reasoning people who knew how to explain things in a way I could get.)
They form new “pro-rights” associations because the NRA isn’t a “true” Second Amendment organization: One marketing gambit is “join us because the NRA stinks.” They struggle for relevance by attacking the most successful lobby in America.
The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) is one such organization. They’ve circulated an email asking for donations to fight an alleged magazine ban attached to an FAA appropriations bill. The goal is twofold:
- Make money off fear-mongering.
- Undercut confidence in the NRA for allegedly missing this.
Snowflakes in Hell, an excellent pro-rights blog, covers the details (the rumor is false to date).
Apparently, a NAGR operative commented there, claiming their PAC donated to Rand Paul’s campaign. Open Secrets says NAGR gave $0 to candidates.
Oops!
NAGR members should join the Brady Campaign and be honest about who they’re supporting.
As a former gun ban supporter, I’m curious about one dynamic in the pro-gun community: “crotch-grabbers” who love to bellow about the Second Amendment as if it’s a sacred, self-evident truth, and if you don’t get it, you’re just too stupid for words.
Its not too fine a point to put on it–if you dont get that the 2nd amendment protects a fundamental human right from interference from government, you are too stupid for words.
Your crass attempt at snobbery–crotch grabbers–is as offensive as Connie Chung once blaming the Oklahoma City bombing on people who pronounce Amerika as Murrica.
They struggle for relevance by attacking the most successful lobby in America.
What success have they had? They own none. They really do stand for Negotiate Rights Away, and opposed the 2nd amendment in DC v Heller in an especially devious manner.
The above message brought to you by the Brady Campaign.
And a perfect example of the problem I mentioned.
There is already enough divisiveness in the pro-gun community and someone posting unsubstantiated rumors as holy writ, does not help the cause. Thats just makes the whole community suffer more …
Not sure what ‘holy writ’ you refer to. I have a copy of the email, which links to:
http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=82163a9613c7daee10ba06c9f5b0b19f&CID=7933974382&ch=B0843D6AF3236E59B451C6A7A27D7483
This page contains some of the same allegations from the email.
And what about people dismissing something as unsubstantiated rumors without investigating fully, including a *POLITE* request for sources?
I looked up the relevant bills at Thomas LOC. http://thomas.loc.gov/
The Tatler format is a bit brief to discuss all sources. I wouldn’t post without double checking Snowflakes just to be sure I understood what they posted.
The rumor-mongers commenting at Snowflakes were asked for their sources. The only source I saw was a link to another blog. That gets rather circular, but not authoritative. Essentially an evasion, or perhaps inability to understand the question.
Do YOU have a credible citation regarding the alleged McCarthy/Schumer/Lautenberg amendment to the FAA appropriations bill?
Calm, Howard, calm…
I was replying to johnnyreb, regarding his characterization of your post as unsubstantiated rumors, indicating that he hadnt even bothered to politely ask you for your sources.
I was defending you, not attacking you.
Have to say I understand where Howard is coming from here. While I’m a recreational pistol shooter myself on occasion….
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/01/23/shootin-with-the-governor-perry/
…. that argument “Its not too fine a point to put on it–if you dont get that the 2nd amendment protects a fundamental human right from interference from government, you are too stupid for words…” feels a bit on the nostalgic side. In this era of of UAVs and other unimaginable high tech weapons in the hands of the government, a forty-five or even a machine gun doesn’t help much if that government really wants to interfere with you. Maybe if you owned your own Predator.
Yea, Roger the British made the same argument in 1776. History is replete with small arms weapons taking out the big guns. Perhaps a Predator trumps a 45 but I would rather take my chances with one as not. Now you feel free to swagger all you want and fly the white flag when needed.
Sorry Roger, but history is full of examples of citizens with small arms defeating a better equipped government military. And what makes you think that elements of a governments military and police will not defect to the rebels and fight their own governments tyranny and oppression, bringing heavier weapons with them? I detect a return to your previous liberal views in your post.
The Viet Cong and the Mujahadeen were inferiorly equipped. Yet they somehow prevailed. Much of our own military would undoubtedly refuse to kill fellow citizens. Therefore, I refute your argument that because the citizens do not access to UAVs or predators Resistance is futile.
The selfsame argument was made about the longbow. The form of the argument may change, the words change, but the reality does not.
The longbow was supposedly such a deadly weapon that it would ‘end war forever’.
As was the repeating rifle… the machine gun, and the atomic bomb.
Yet we still make war. We tend to forget that complex devices, no matter how devious, are expensive… and often have extremely low-cost methods for their disruption. That kind of economic battle there is only one outcome for.
One thing I have noticed is that all the big talk comes from those without a seat at the table, particularly at the United Nations where the largest threat to our right to keep and bear arms exists. There are very few Pro-gun NGOs recognized by the UN, if you are not recognized you do not take part in any part of the debate. The NRA is recognized and has done an exemplary job of stopping the Global Gun Ban treaty in its tracks.
We got gun control incrementally starting with the NFA and continuing through the 1990s, it will have to be regained incrementally. To that end NRA has done a great job building and assisting in winning strong court cases that now have gun control orgs. cringing. Did the NRA argue that incorporation of the 2nd Amendment could justifiably be done through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment? Yes they did and they were right to do so, because selective incorporation has been the law of the land for 150 years or so. The privileges and immunities clause was gutted over a century ago and to reverse course on such narrow criteria would be weak at best.
“To that end NRA has done a great job [s]building and assisting in winning strong court cases that now have gun control orgs. cringing[/s] trying to make sure a 2nd amendment case never got to the SC.”
Fixed that for you. They tried to make sure DC v Heller never would happen.
That’s the NRA. Good on jumping on the bandwagon after it’s rolling.
It would be nostalgic if the UAV operators never had to leave the wire and go home, to go amongst their fellow citizens. As a practical matter, widespread ownership of mere firearms–more precisely, the weapons of the infantry–will prevent prolonged and intolerable tyranny even if UAVs are employed to support it.
Because those people do need to leave the wire, and thats just in the first week or three.
That email is exactly what i was trying to convey. Because of this type of “Chicken Little” behavior, that rumor spread like wildfire through the gun community. There is no way I was going to re-post something like that without having found any evidence to support it. That is what the left is fond of labeling as ‘Fear Mongering’. Every time someone asks me if i’ve heard the latest from NAGR’s website I cringe.
Ah. Thanks for clarifying.
I attended an excellent seminar with Apostle Claver last night. http://www.ragingelephants.org/
He talks about the Southern Strategy: whites encouraging other whites to join together as a voting bloc. Some gun owners do the same thing, creating an echo chamber. It’s a losing strategy. If we don’t bring in reasoning people who used to oppose gun rights, we lose.
Just as American racial demographics are changing, so are political demographics. If you can’t reach out to people unlike you, and can’t devise strategies to do so, you will eventually lose gun rights.
By the way, this comment is curious: “Its not too fine a point to put on it–if you dont get that the 2nd amendment protects a fundamental human right from interference from government, you are too stupid for words.”
My mentors were able to help me understand that self-defense was not only a Constitutional right, but a civil right, too. Looking at it as a civil right begins to undercut the moral high ground in today’s gun control politics, especially after America elected a community activist as president. We can claim moral equivalency to our president as civil rights activists. This is in part why gun control has become political suicide.
If you don’t understand what I refer to, please look at Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals.
http://polizeros.com/2009/09/16/saul-alinsky-rules-for-radicals/
You can also read Barbara Curtis’s series on Alinsky:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/blogging-alinskys-rules-for-radicals-prologue/
One winning strategy is to understand the successful strategies of your adversary, make them your own, and do them better and differently.
Bringing in new people with new perspectives is a way to accomplish this, but takes effort in learning how to outreach in new ways. But I suppose it’s easier to shoot the messenger.
Interesting how the NRA has also put out an alert about a proposed gun magazine ban. Perhaps it is the same one. Will your inquiring minds investigate or focus more on crotches?
The NRA isolated a lot of people with their insider efforts to limit free speech (reporting requirements) and by their crazed endorsements of Congressmen who were clearly not supporters of the Second Amendment like Harry Reid.
In the interest of proper disclosure and honest reporting, has Mr. Nemerov identified his work with the NRA and whether or not that is a paid position. Seems a little ironic that someone who works for the NRA would be allowed to write an attack piece on another gun rights organization. Let us have some standards here, sir. Surely we are better than ABC News?
Curiously consistent responses here, which only prove my original point. I get accused of not examining source material sufficiently, but then the accusers fire off allegations that a tiny bit of research would have proven false.
Kipling: “The NRA isolated a lot of people with their insider efforts to limit free speech (reporting requirements) and by their crazed endorsements of Congressmen who were clearly not supporters of the Second Amendment like Harry Reid.
The NRA didn’t endorse Reid in 2010, after doing so in earlier elections.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/28/nra-declines-endorse-reid-nevada-senate-race/
The NRA did not do the DISCLOSE ‘carve out.’ (What you called ‘reporting requirements’.) Dem leadership did. This is an old and tired accusation that was never substantiated. Whenever I asked accusers to show me the smoking gun, they didn’t respond. You again accuse with no citation.
The NRA mentioned the McCarthy magazine ban, but did link it to the FAA appropriations bill. http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6139
That alleged amendment is still nothing but unsubstantiated rumor.
Kipling: “Seems a little ironic that someone who works for the NRA would be allowed to write an attack piece on another gun rights organization.”
“In the interest of proper disclosure and honest reporting”, Kipling, are you paid by another gun organization like the NAGR?
You accuse me of being paid by the NRA. Could you tell me where my NRA paycheck went? I could use the additional income.
In case you can’t see what site you’re at, I work for Pajamas Media. And yes, it IS better than ABC.
You demand standards for me. How about yourself?
I refer you to your own authors bio:
Howard Nemerov
Former civilian disarmament supporter and medical researcher Howard Nemerov investigates the civil liberty of self-defense and examines the issue of gun control, resulting in his book Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working? He appears frequently on NRA News as their “unofficial” analyst and was published in the Texas Review of Law and Politics with David Kopel and Carlisle Moody.
So I assume from your response that you are unpaid but still closely associated with the NRA or at least NRA News as their unofficial analyst. Does that associaiton have anything to do with your attack upon a rival Second Amendement organization? Does it have anything to do with unsupported allegations that the NAGR is comparable to the Brady Campaign?
The NRA moved to endorse Reid and then backpeddled when the rank and file began demanding refunds. The NRA also embraced the disclose carve out until that blew up in their face as well. I am not interested in NRA spin nor do I consider a single link credible research into the matter.
I do not work or belong to the NAGR. In fact, I am a member of the NRA. I just dont like smarmy sneak attacks by people who hide their own associations. I reserve the right to demand honest reporting standards from anyone who wants my business and I expect better of Pajamas Media.
Appearing on NRA News is by invitation. Many people appear, including Peter Hamm.
I used to belong to a number of pro-rights organizations. After the DISCLOSE ‘carve out’ whining, I became unimpressed with how other organizations used an unsubstantiated allegation to promote themselves at the NRA’s expense.
I also see you haven’t responded to my request here to provide evidence of the smoking gun where the NRA met in some smoky back room to get the DISCLOSE exemption. You offered more revisionist history and anti-NRA rhetoric.
Kipling “nor do I consider a single link credible research into the matter.” I have provided multiple links here, you offered zero. Again, you ask a standard of me you are unwilling to hold yourself to.
As for my “smarmy sneak attacks,” it looks like I have corroborated my point repeatedly here-and you helped-and I stand by my conclusion that organizations like NAGR bring little to the table, and the little they bring, because it is done in a divisive, derogatory manner, detracts from our goals more than it adds. If they chose to change, they should discontinue trying to build themselves up by tearing the NRA down.
Check their link in my posting. You’ll find both revisionist history and allusions to NRA’s reputed flaws:
“We believe that what sets us apart from other national gun groups is our commitment to being a grassroots-oriented group. Our agenda is not dictated by a top-down mentality…”
NAGR is either ignoring examples like the California Members Council, or is deliberately misleading readers.
Otherwise, they serve the anti-rights goal of dividing and conquering us.
In conclusion, other organizations have tried to “profit financially or in any material way from attacking” the NRA, to use your own words.
This had been interesting, Kipling, but I see you as another example of what I referred to in my post. As a result, I will sign off from you by urging that you examine your own motives for spending so much time trying to project something on me. Usually people do that when they know deep down inside that I struck a nerve.
Although I am sure we all honor your I know you are but what am I defense, you have still not supported your allegation that the NAGR is no better than the Brady Campaign. You speak of divide and conquer tactics but you have not demonstrated that the NAGR is a pawn of the liberal estalishment. Nor have you demonstrated why competition between competing democratic based groups is wrong. Instead you preach organizational loyalty and smear your opponents as serving leftist purposes without proof. Where is the smoking gun? The backroom where the NAGR and the Brady Campaign have conspired to undo the Second Amendment?
As to your own motives, I simply ask for the same disclosure that we demand of the left. After much knashing of teeth, I see you eventually conceded that but without answering any of the subsequent questions.
I agreee with you on one point, I think your thread of attack and condescenion here has come to an end.
It appears that what you work for rather than whom you work for may have been in question. Attempted infiltration of patriotic institutions, including Pajamas Media, is nothing new. Policy of the NRA has allowed the sale of expired members personal data and drafting of local and state firearms legislation for many years. Be advised that any legislation other than a mirror of the second amendment is by design contrary to the shall not be infringed peoples mandamus there in. Assuming that you selected your own topic of discussion your first amendment rights must be protected even unto free exercise of the second amendment.
Freedoms dues shall be paid primarily by sustained vigilance.
To pull off the disquises of cunning, vanity, and affectation.
Perhaps Mr. Nemerov would like to begin with a post disclosing his association with the NRA and whether or not that association led to his attack upon a rival gun rights organization? Is the NRA aware that you wrote the post and, if so, did they encourage the writing? Does Mr. Nemerov stand to profit financially or in any material way from attacking a NRA rival?
While the NRA has become the most well-funded and best organized gun rights organization that mission was not the one it was setup for at its founding.
Founded with a mission of improving marksmanship among American citizens the NRA has grown. It has not lost the original goal but it is not always the first one that comes to mind when the NRA is brought up.
The NRA has been forward thinking on introducing real education for children about what to do about firearms they might encounter in their home or the homes of friends.
The NRA has contributed to marksmanship not only for the average citizen but also encourages our civillian police and military personnel to reach their best.
Every gun owner, every person who cares about freedom, every person who cares about hunting, fishing and true conservation should be a member of the NRA. If you then want to also give money to other groups, its your dough. But you should be an active, informed member of the NRA and hopefully your state NRA affiliate organization.
The NRA has sold out and gone squish more than once in my long lifetime. The true Gun Rights people have had to take it back both times, amidst much acrimony, some of which continues to this day. I dropped my membership before the Second Revolution and will not support them again. This article is a good example of their tactics. Screw them.
Hm, let me see if I have this right … Nemerov writes something on Tatler, people criticize him for it and he replies by saying see, you prove my point, Im right after all.
Thats some pretty thin gruel trying to pass for a reasoned argument, Mr Nemerov.
Heres a clue, sir. 20 days in the wilderness is not sufficient. Go back, finish the full 40 and then come back and talk with us about the details in the struggle to save the 2nd Amendment.
Hmm, let me see if I have this right: If you build an organization’s rep at the NRA’s expense, it’s a wonderful expression of the First Amendment. But back at you and it’s wrong. Nice double standard. I certainly wouldn’t want people like you running the country.
Here are some Facts:
1. As majority leader, Harry Reid is a part of ANY amendments offered on the Senate floor. That might be embarrassing to organizations who give him almost $5,000 in the last election (and pat him on the back in their publications), but that’s their problem, not ours.
2. My sources on the potential Durbin amendment are top-level Senate staffers, not rumors in the intern closet. Multiple offices contacted us and confirmed the intended amendment (and those offices confirmed that our alerts, along with the alerts of a dozen state-level gun rights groups, put enough heat to get Senators nervous).
3. Former V.P. Dick Cheney, “Republican” Sen. Richard Lugar, Peggy Noonan, and others have recently signaled their willingness to appease the media and gun-haters by suggesting a reauthorization of the Feinstein Ban (or some portion thereof).
4. The White House has been leaking information about a push for gun controls. Chris Matthews started talking about it a week after Tucson.
5. No, I’m not a Gucci-loafered K Street lobbyist on Capitol Hill, buying cocktails on an expense account. If NAGR had the resources of the NRA (literally hundreds of millions of dollars), we still wouldn’t employ a lobbyist like that.
5. I’m a live person, and have been in the trenches of the fight for gun rights since 1993 – and I haven’t sold gun owners out once.
6. TTAG called me, and got me on the phone in minutes. Try talking to the NRA types. Unless you’re stroking $20,000 checks, you’ll never get a call back from anyone but their low-level stooges… with a “just trust us” song and dance.
7. The real place to put pressure on politicians is not while sitting in Bullfeathers (a Capitol Hill tavern underneath the NRA-ILA’s federal lobbyist shop). It’s in the states, where grassroots gun owners are wary of the slick and only want to be left the hell alone. If you want change in Washington, go into their districts/states.
8. I’m an NFA weapon owner – any time Congress critters are amending legislation I get nervous, as machine gun owners are the first to be thrown under the bus (think “McClure-Volkmer”).
All of these holier than thou politicians have armed security guards. Should we list them? Obama, Bloomberg, Hillery Clinton, Mayor Daly. They are just sooooo much more important than some poor smuck that only has a $450 pistol and a permit to carry.
I do think the NRA has flaws, but they do a fairly good job advancing at least basic 2od Amendment issues. Bloomberg on the other hand is very close if not over the line and violating Federal Firearms laws with his Ghay straw purchases the latest of which was in Arizona.
I am not the author of this but there are people thinking.
If you are so fed up with the Federal Government that you have reached your limit grab your gun and go outside now! If you are the only person outside with your rifle yelling like an idiot go back inside it isnt time yet.
Just pointing out that some where people have limits.
The problem with the NRA is tunnel vision, support of Harry Reid is not supportive of inalienable rights. That he makes the right votes from time to time is expediency, he “supports” gun rights because it would be politically dangerous not to, not because he’s got principles. The arguments for restricting “dangerous” speech are alarmingly similar to the arguments for gun restrictions. Even if gun restrictions would save lives that’s not a good enough argument for those restrictions. The reason is simple because the constitution say’s so. I’m always surprised when people who truly support free speech are willing to make exceptions to gun rights.
Just stumbled across this and found something interesting…
Howard Nemerov, the author of this article, bashes the National Association for Gun Rights.
Then, in the comment section, he bashes anyone who disagrees with him, except…
Dudley Brown, director of said organization, writes a comment and from the author of the article we hear…
…crickets.
In addition, the author of the Snowflakes in Hell blog (mentioned in this article) admits in the comment section of said piece about the National Association for Gun Rights as to why their contributions did not come up on Open Secrets and that they did, in fact, donate to those candidates.
These two things say a lot about the author of this blog who, even by his own admission, was an anti-gunner himself. Are we sure he’s really a “former” gun ban supporter?
Most people don’t realize the colonists fought a long brutal battle against THEIR OWN oppressive government, NOT a foreign nation. Yes,they were British subjects. As I understand it, the government tried to register, then confiscate the Colonists’ guns to crush the rebellion. They also restricted the sale of gun powder, and quartered troops in Colonists homes to keep Colonists in line. The Colonists never would have had any chance against the Redcoats had they gone out to meet them with pitchforks and torches. No, they needed the “assault weapon”of the day, the musket, to match up with the British army. In those days Armies marched in “regulated” lines, not unruly mobs. That’s what “regulated militia” means. Not an organization controlled by the government.
The Founding Fathers knew that free speech and a fear of the people would keep a government in line, so that’s why the Freedom of speech and the Right to Bear Arms are #1 and #2 in priority in the Bill of Rights. I contend the Founding Fathers, if alive today would STILL want citizens to have access to the SAME arms used by the military. That includes AUTOMATIC weapons. Otherwise, what “threat” would the public be to a corrupt, tyranical government?
The Founding Fathers gave one reason for the right (a “well regulated” militia), before declaring the right. The RIGHT is not conditioned by the reason for the right, anymore than Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Religion are conditioned by the reasons for those rights. They knew people needed guns for hunting, protection from criminals and marauding indians. They just listed one of the most important reasons for owning firearms. Yes, the Founding Fathers didn’t want the US to have a standing army. They were tired of being conscripted into the British army and navy. They wanted to depend on the people to defend the newborn country.
A couple more things… Early in the Revolution, the colonists formed their own impromptu militias to meet the Redcoats. They weren’t formed by the “state” because the “state” WAS the British government. The militias the Founding Fathers are speaking of are formed by the people, not the state.
Finally, what part of “infringed” does our current government NOT understand? If they ban ownership of certain models, force me to pay a tax on the gun or my ammo, register my ownership, pay licensing fees, or restrict where I can possess a gun, that’s infringement. Plain and simple
The 2nd a
The NRA buys from China and sold out veterans by going along with taking gun rights away from delayed stress syndrome victims.
Gun Owners of America delivers better and more bang for the buck.