The NRA's Allegiance to Cops Undermines it's Credibility on Gun Rights

[Magneto]

They couldn't have handled the Philando Castile situation any worse, and Radley Balko is on it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ibility-on-gun-rights/?utm_term=.ddebc37b49e3

 

[Steel and wood]

Wow they did this story right.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

They couldn't have handled the Philando Castile situation any worse, and Radley Balko is on it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ibility-on-gun-rights/?utm_term=.ddebc37b49e3

You mean by saying "this disturbs us and we want to see the evidence" was somehow wrong? Maybe the NRA should have been setting fire to cars and throwing bricks through windows?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Wow they did this story right.

The story is complete nonsense.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

And yet as with Castile, the NRA was silent. It’s been that way ever since.

Complete and utter fabrication. Look, I get it, Libertarians don't like facts. Balko makes valid points from time to time, but he is off base here to make Libertarian starwood points.

 

[Jludo]

Complete and utter fabrication. Look, I get it, Libertarians don't like facts.

Hate 'em.

 

[IndyDave1776]

OK, you can pick a few points where you disagree. That said, it is hard to argue against the notion that the NRA is useless as **** on a boar, doing something worthwhile once in a great while notwithstanding.

 

[oldpink]

Oh look, it's yet another level.eleven clone out to talk about the big, bad NRA, run by a bunch of jack-booted racists.

 

[JettaKnight]

 

[HoughMade]

You mean by saying "this disturbs us and we want to see the evidence" was somehow wrong? Maybe the NRA should have been setting fire to cars and throwing bricks through windows?

Evidence, smevidence. React in the "right" way immediately, or else.

It's really no mystery why the Wapo would publish this. Hint, it's not because they love gun owners. Perhaps they actually hate them and would like to take their biggest advocate down a couple of notches? Naw, that's crazy talk. The Wapo has no agenda.

 

[ATM]

...Libertarians don't like facts...

I would expect libertarians to like liberty.

Factarians like facts.

Boring, boring facts.

 

[Thor]

Evidence, smevidence. React in the "right" way immediately, or else.

It's really no mystery why the Wapo would publish this. Hint, it's not because they love gun owners. Perhaps they actually hate them and would like to take their biggest advocate down a couple of notches? Naw, that's crazy talk. The Wapo has no agenda.

That's what I thought...WaPo gun story...no need to click on that waste of time.

 

[PhxCollier]

Complete and utter fabrication. Look, I get it, Libertarians don't like facts. Balko makes valid points from time to time, but he is off base here to make Libertarian starwood points.

I understand the political point attempting to be made by the article, but should we as gun owners, just accept the fact that we could die protecting our home from the police in the middle of the night? Then also accept the fact that our family left behind, should just accept that the police made a mistake, that they may or may not admit?

Shouldn't we expect the police to have processes and procedures in place that insure potentially deadly force encounters are 100% perfect? Yes 100%. We have industries that require 100% performance (nuclear reactors, particle physics...). Why not the police?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I understand the political point attempting to be made by the article, but should we as gun owners, just accept the fact that we could die protecting our home from the police in the middle of the night? Then also accept the fact that our family left behind, should just accept that the police made a mistake, that they may or may not admit?

It was the NRA that drove SB1 which was a response to the Barnes decision.

It was the NRA that drove the passage of SB1 and has now completely altered the rule of law in Indiana reinstating the common law right of resistance in Indiana. The NRA did this without a single police car being overturned and set on fire and without a single brick through a window in downtown Indianapolis. Instead it urged its members to contact their representatives and speak out in favor of SB1.

While black is slimming and high fashion, it is not the NRA's style to urge its members to dress in black, cover their faces and throw pieces of concrete at the cops as Balko seems to desire.

The NRA made a statement on the Minnesota shooting shortly after it transpired. It said it was concerned and wanted to see all the evidence. The NRA does not do screaming and running around the conference room table. It's not their style.

Shouldn't we expect the police to have processes and procedures in place that insure potentially deadly force encounters are 100% perfect? Yes 100%. We have industries that require 100% performance (nuclear reactors, particle physics...). Why not the police?

Sure thing. And the NRA is working to do such things as eliminate "duty to notify" provisions in the carry statutes of the states and re-focusing police training to eliminate police fear-biting over guns and veer training away from the death porn.

Balko wants/expects demonstrations and throwing bricks through windows. That's not how the NRA operates.

 

[Twangbanger]

I am torn on this one. Although the apparent difference in NRA response to enforcement actions against potsmoking black gunowners, and incestuous religious cult white gunowners, could reasonably seem compelling and give pause to some...I am also drawn to the points to be made on the other side. How can drawing the NRA into a urination contest against law enforcement, not predictably result in "certain" high profile LE groups firing back across the aisle at NRA when gun rights are on the line? (Understanding, of course, that although most police are pro-gun, not all are, and interested liberal media entities might wish to widen that chasm even more if possible).

I guess it really depends whether you think the NRA's voice can be effective in stimulating police reform. Balko seems to want the NRA to abandon its single issue focus, and become a broad spectrum civil rights organization in the mode of ACLU. I can see why NRA would be wary of getting drawn into that (and yes, I do understand Philando Castile was a "gun owner").

 

[indiucky]

It's really no mystery why the Wapo would publish this. Hint, it's not because they love gun owners. Perhaps they actually hate them and would like to take their biggest advocate down a couple of notches? Naw, that's crazy talk. The Wapo has no agenda.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I guess it really depends whether you think the NRA's voice can be effective in stimulating police reform. Balko seems to want the NRA to abandon its single issue focus, and become a broad spectrum civil rights organization in the mode of ACLU. I can see why NRA would be wary of getting drawn into that (and yes, I do understand Philando Castile was a "gun owner").

Balko wants more people in his Libertarian tent. He sees the NRA membership and financial status and sees an organization upon which to grow the Libertarian Party.

The NRA is far more "establishment" (I wonder if Balko has ever been to a NRAAM?) than "activist".

 

[PhxCollier]

I totally agree that expecting the NRA to lead demonstrations or throwing bricks is wrong. Maybe SB1 will be enough of a motivation to prevent - all - preventable mistakes.

Thanks for the reasoned response.

 

[oldpink]

Call me crazy, but when the man with the gun shouts not to reach for my own gun, it's probably a bad idea to reach for anything.
Why is that such a difficult concept for some people?

 

[JettaKnight]

Call me crazy, but when the man with the gun shouts not to reach for my own gun, it's probably a bad idea to reach for anything.
Why is that such a difficult concept for some people?

There's some Cliven Bundy supporters that would vehemently disagree with this concept.