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

[2A_Tom]

Actually, the problem with Libertarians is that it is merely another political party.

I still expect libertarians to like liberty, and all of my binary concepts go to 3.

011

 

[IndyDave1776]

011

Cute, really cute proving that 11=3

 

[2A_Tom]

Well if everything is binary, what choice do we have.

 

[jamil]

Well if everything is binary, what choice do we have.

Not everything is a binary choice. Just the important stuff. Like who leads government.

 

[2A_Tom]

Well, if you live in the Martix...

 

[gregr]

Because part of being the de facto leader of the pro-2nd amendment movement in the eyes of most politicians (and probably most citizens) is to champion the 2nd amendment. That includes countering the narrative that gun owners are racist, the organization is racist, etc.

Sorry, I just don`t buy this baloney. If anyone in the nation wishes to be a part of defending our Second Amendment rights, they have the option of joining us. These "poor people" are already "reached out to" enough on everything else. If they could they`d have the "black caucus of NRA". The cataloging and separation of Americans has gone far enough. You`re American, or you`re not, there`s no hyphenating. Same for gun rights, you`re an NRA member, or you`re not, period, end of story.

 

[jamil]

This may sound foreign to you. But I have to come out of the closet a bit here.





I've never seen The Matrix.

 

[jamil]

Sorry, I just don`t buy this baloney. If anyone in the nation wishes to be a part of defending our Second Amendment rights, they have the option of joining us. These "poor people" are already "reached out to" enough on everything else. If they could they`d have the "black caucus of NRA". The cataloging and separation of Americans has gone far enough. You`re American, or you`re not, there`s no hyphenating. Same for gun rights, you`re an NRA member, or you`re not, period, end of story.

The ACLU calls itself an advocacy group. If anyone in the nation wishes to be a part of defending civil liberties, they have the option of joining them.


Problem is, the ACLU has a real perception problem on which civil liberties they'll defend and which sorts of people they'll defend. The NRA has a similar perception problem on the other end of the spectrum. Liberals who agree with gun rights have some hurdles to knock down because they perceive the NRA as being made up of nothing but conservatives and their points of view.

I'm not trying to say that the ACLU and the NRA are functional equivalents. The ACLU is not all that interested in protecting civil liberties like gun ownership and use for protection. I am saying that they're similar in that both sides have similar perceptions, earned or not.

If the NRA is neither conservative nor liberal, then what you say makes sense. That anyone who advocates for the right of citizens to own and use firearms, for sports, hunting, protection, etcetera, should feel that the NRA will aggregate their support into a force that will fight for their rights.

As a white male conservatarian, I don't have any feeling at all that the ACLU would represent me. I think many liberals, minorities or not, feel the same way about the NRA. Their minds will not be swayed by honest media coverage of the NRA. That's why the outreach is necessary. They've been lied to by progressives through mass media, other liberal friends, that the NRA is racist, heavily funded by "the gun lobby", and only caters to white conservatives.

To the extent that the NRA (perhaps unintentionally) tends to do things that help the misconceptions, those beliefs are confirmed. I have to applaud the NRA for whatever outreach they're undertaking, and I hope it's not just a "token" undertaking. I hope they're serious about it.

But. Are you comfortable sharing the NRA with liberals who agree with you on gun control but disagree with you on the other issues. Can Liberals and Conservatives share an advocacy group for a common cause? In other words, are you okay with narrowing your perceived scope of the NRA to its charter, unlike the TEA Party, which ultimately failed because every branch of conservationism wanted to latch onto that group for perpetuating their own pet interests.

 

[gregr]

The ACLU calls itself an advocacy group. If anyone in the nation wishes to be a part of defending civil liberties, they have the option of joining them.


Problem is, the ACLU has a real perception problem on which civil liberties they'll defend and which sorts of people they'll defend. The NRA has a similar perception problem on the other end of the spectrum. Liberals who agree with gun rights have some hurdles to knock down because they perceive the NRA as being made up of nothing but conservatives and their points of view.

I'm not trying to say that the ACLU and the NRA are functional equivalents. The ACLU is not all that interested in protecting civil liberties like gun ownership and use for protection. I am saying that they're similar in that both sides have similar perceptions, earned or not.

If the NRA is neither conservative nor liberal, then what you say makes sense. That anyone who advocates for the right of citizens to own and use firearms, for sports, hunting, protection, etcetera, should feel that the NRA will aggregate their support into a force that will fight for their rights.

As a white male conservatarian, I don't have any feeling at all that the ACLU would represent me. I think many liberals, minorities or not, feel the same way about the NRA. Their minds will not be swayed by honest media coverage of the NRA. That's why the outreach is necessary. They've been lied to by progressives through mass media, other liberal friends, that the NRA is racist, heavily funded by "the gun lobby", and only caters to white conservatives.

To the extent that the NRA (perhaps unintentionally) tends to do things that help the misconceptions, those beliefs are confirmed. I have to applaud the NRA for whatever outreach they're undertaking, and I hope it's not just a "token" undertaking. I hope they're serious about it.

But. Are you comfortable sharing the NRA with liberals who agree with you on gun control but disagree with you on the other issues. Can Liberals and Conservatives share an advocacy group for a common cause? In other words, are you okay with narrowing your perceived scope of the NRA to its charter, unlike the TEA Party, which ultimately failed because every branch of conservationism wanted to latch onto that group for perpetuating their own pet interests.

To your point, it is indeed true that the majority of Second Amendment advocates are conservative, just by the very nature and makeup of the liberal agenda. I get that, there are some who may be fiscally and socially liberal, who embrace Second Amendment rights, and I`m fine with that. I`m a very ultra conservative man, socially, economically, politically, theologically, and any other way you can catalogue. I won`t have my position changed on the issues I believe are important, nor do I expect my arguments will cause a liberal person to abandon their perspectives or causes. If someone has the wisdom and foresight to understand how the Second Amendment is both a Natural Right, as the Framers put it, and, a necessity for a free republic, then I would gladly share that platform with them, with the caveat that, there are no "common-sense, reasonable restrictions" that aren`t directly in opposition to the words: shall not be infringed. Conversely, I absolutely reject the notion that NRA, GOA, JPFO, or any other Second Amendment advocacy group must "reach out" to any special group. Further polarization of of, and separation of Americans into sub-groups is not only disgusting, but in reality, is counterproductive to moving the Republic ahead towards meaningful resolution of these existing problems.

 

[IndyDave1776]

To your point, it is indeed true that the majority of Second Amendment advocates are conservative, just by the very nature and makeup of the liberal agenda. I get that, there are some who may be fiscally and socially liberal, who embrace Second Amendment rights, and I`m fine with that. I`m a very ultra conservative man, socially, economically, politically, theologically, and any other way you can catalogue. I won`t have my position changed on the issues I believe are important, nor do I expect my arguments will cause a liberal person to abandon their perspectives or causes. If someone has the wisdom and foresight to understand how the Second Amendment is both a Natural Right, as the Framers put it, and, a necessity for a free republic, then I would gladly share that platform with them, with the caveat that, there are no "common-sense, reasonable restrictions" that aren`t directly in opposition to the words: shall not be infringed. Conversely, I absolutely reject the notion that NRA, GOA, JPFO, or any other Second Amendment advocacy group must "reach out" to any special group. Further polarization of of, and separation of Americans into sub-groups is not only disgusting, but in reality, is counterproductive to moving the Republic ahead towards meaningful resolution of these existing problems.

Taking these two points, I would argue that polarization and making an issue of demographics does not have to be part of the program. You would see no difference between declaring the Gospel to a member of ethic group A, ethnic group B, or ethnic group C. You are inviting them all to the same faith available at the same church. You send missionaries to areas and/or groups which have a very small number of people of faith. I see nothing wrong with doing the same thing here. It is entirely possible that some subgroups within America have been on the receiving end of the same snow job for so many generations that they simply don't understand the truth, and just like with evangelism, if no particular effort is made to reach them, then they probably aren't going to change their understanding.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

... if no particular effort is made to reach them, then they probably aren't going to change their understanding.

Salient point. Folks can talk about "natural rights" as much as they want, but if a tipping point of anti-gun sentiment is reached exercising your "natural right" will be illegal, there will be no shooting ranges and gun shops, stores won't have ammo, etc. Sure, you can talk about the failure of gun turn-in programs, but that ignores that the gun culture is largely destroyed and your ability to actually enjoy the use of your guns is severely hampered.

Large sea changes in culture happen. Remember it used to be a "natural right" with theological backing to own other people.

 

[gregr]

Salient point. Folks can talk about "natural rights" as much as they want, but if a tipping point of anti-gun sentiment is reached exercising your "natural right" will be illegal, there will be no shooting ranges and gun shops, stores won't have ammo, etc. Sure, you can talk about the failure of gun turn-in programs, but that ignores that the gun culture is largely destroyed and your ability to actually enjoy the use of your guns is severely hampered.

Large sea changes in culture happen. Remember it used to be a "natural right" with theological backing to own other people.

You seem to have an obvious disdain for Natural Rights, too bad. And no sir, it was never a Natural Right to own slaves, it`s a shame you buy into, and spread such a disgusting lie. And all are surely entitled to have the notion we must cater to a segment of society, but I reject that silly and pointless notion. They can embrace their freedom and join us in supporting what is right and proper, or they can choose to remain vocal victims and never understand why they`re always a victim. That choice id theirs, certainly not mine, and not NRA`s.

 

[hopper68]

[video=youtube;6M92H8oTH64]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M92H8oTH64[/video]

 

[jamil]

To your point, it is indeed true that the majority of Second Amendment advocates are conservative, just by the very nature and makeup of the liberal agenda. I get that, there are some who may be fiscally and socially liberal, who embrace Second Amendment rights, and I`m fine with that. I`m a very ultra conservative man, socially, economically, politically, theologically, and any other way you can catalogue. I won`t have my position changed on the issues I believe are important, nor do I expect my arguments will cause a liberal person to abandon their perspectives or causes. If someone has the wisdom and foresight to understand how the Second Amendment is both a Natural Right, as the Framers put it, and, a necessity for a free republic, then I would gladly share that platform with them, with the caveat that, there are no "common-sense, reasonable restrictions" that aren`t directly in opposition to the words: shall not be infringed. Conversely, I absolutely reject the notion that NRA, GOA, JPFO, or any other Second Amendment advocacy group must "reach out" to any special group. Further polarization of of, and separation of Americans into sub-groups is not only disgusting, but in reality, is counterproductive to moving the Republic ahead towards meaningful resolution of these existing problems.

I think it's important to note the difference between liberals and progressives. I think if you ask many of them they wouldn't make a distinction but that may be more because the terms are just as fused among them as among people on the right. They're leftists. Right?

As near as I can tell, the distinction may be along the lines of individual versus group rights. And I feel pretty comfortable with that distinction when speaking in terms of US Politics. I think it gets muddier if we bring in European liberalism.

What I consider liberals are the sort of JFK liberals. They're liberal in the sense of civil rights, justice, fairness, etcetera, but they're still individualists to a large degree, and they still want their liberal ideals within the framework of Capitalism. So most of them are more like Classical Liberals except with more publicly funded social programs. I think it's fair to say people like Jim Webb and the late George Carlin. Maybe Bill Mayer, but he kinda flirts a lot with progressives too. But maybe that's virtue-signaling. They are fierce proponents of free speech, and they seem to be at great odds with their fellow leftists who are progressives.

The distinction where liberals veer into progressive ideology is where they tend to start seeing Capitalism and especially individualism as a failure to bring about what they believe is social justice. They are not individualists. They are leftist collectivists. Group "rights" supersede individual rights. Examples: Elizebeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA on the extreme end.

If we're looking to win some allies on the right it is not coming from collectivists. Period. It's just not. The right to use deadly force against another individual to protect oneself is probably the most individual kind of right conceived. This is heresy to a group "rights" advocate. I put "rights" in quotes because I can't bring myself to consider that a right at all. When extending "rights" to a group over other individuals, that's an authority, not a right.

Liberals who aren't progressives I think mostly believe in natural rights, that is the right to do what whatever you want that doesn't infringe on other people's rights. They're quite fond of the saying, live and let live. I think a convincing argument can be made to show liberals that the right to own and use firearms is every bit as much an individual right as freedom of speech. And that right is every bit as important to protect.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You seem to have an obvious disdain for Natural Rights, too bad. And no sir, it was never a Natural Right to own slaves, it`s a shame you buy into, and spread such a disgusting lie.

What you seem to miss is pragmatism. It doesn't matter what you or I think "natural rights" include. If you don't think the "Natural Rights" argument was used to justify slavery, you also seem to miss a historical perspective. If you do not reach out to those who are against gun rights and who openly advocate against them...you will eventually take your "natural rights" underground or to prison.

 

[jamil]

Not that we need to make this about Slavery, but just to BBI's point, it absulutely was an issue of natural rights.

Slaves were deemed as property, and property ownership has been deemed a natural right for a very long time. The disconnect is not that slave owners were wrong about property rights being a natural right. It's that they were wrong that people can be regarded as property.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You seem to have an obvious disdain for Natural Rights, too bad. And no sir, it was never a Natural Right to own slaves, it`s a shame you buy into, and spread such a disgusting lie. And all are surely entitled to have the notion we must cater to a segment of society, but I reject that silly and pointless notion. They can embrace their freedom and join us in supporting what is right and proper, or they can choose to remain vocal victims and never understand why they`re always a victim. That choice id theirs, certainly not mine, and not NRA`s.

Never a Natural Right to own a slave? This would come as quite a shock to such men as Alexander Stephens who founded the Confederacy.

 

[HoughMade]

Never a Natural Right to own a slave? This would come as quite a shock to such men as Alexander Stephens who founded the Confederacy.

Revisionist. It was always about tariffs and northern oppression and such. there is absolutely no evidence that the founding of the Confederacy had anything to do with slavery.

 

[jamil]

Revisionist. It was always about tariffs and northern oppression and such. there is absolutely no evidence that the founding of the Confederacy had anything to do with slavery.

It's all about State's rights...





























...for people to own slaves.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Not that we need to make this about Slavery, but just to BBI's point, it absulutely was an issue of natural rights.

Slaves were deemed as property, and property ownership has been deemed a natural right for a very long time. The disconnect is not that slave owners were wrong about property rights being a natural right. It's that they were wrong that people can be regarded as property.

Right. And both abolitionists and anti-abolitionists believed the Bible to support them. Certainly some folks believed it a "natural right" for all men to be equal and free regardless of skin color. Equally evident, others did not. The take away is the civil law is what actually mattered in day to day practice. It's great to believe, and to argue, that owning weapons is a natural right. Some folks really believed in the natural right to own other people...but once the law changed those beliefs did not matter. You fool yourself if you think gun ownership is any different.