Tuesday, June 15, 2010

not feelin' the love

First I wasn't allowed to carry in Charlotte...and then, in the course of one single day, I find out about this and this.

I'll be sending my next donation to an organization that actually fights for freedom. (Sorry, NRA - you can keep your free hat & press room cookies.)

p.s. bullshit like this just proves that the NRA could use a little competition.


SayUncle said...

i'm pretty pissed about the DISCLOSE thing. But strickland is a no-brainer. A v. F on their grading scale is pretty clear cut.


Breda said...

For me, the concept of "freedom" is a holistic thing. Try living in Ohio.

Heath said...

I've gotta agree with the NRA on this one. I'm no huge fan of Strickland, but remember Taft? I'm done with RINOs, and a pox on Kasich

Geodkyt said...

Yes, but NRA CANNOT endorse an F rated (and well earned) Republican over and A rated Democrat, without losing ALL credibility as a nonpartisan single issue advocacy group.

The reason NRA has any serious clout on Capitol Hill is that even MArxists who will never win an NRA endorcement know that they are, at heart, a nonpartisan single issue group -- not a backdoor arm of the GOP.

As for the free speech issue, that's a little bit more convuluted.

That law IS going to pass, whether or not NRA opposes it.

So, the choice is between the next two election cycles with NO pro-RKBA group able to advocate, or one in which teh largest, most effective one can still advocate, all while making the law look even more obviously a gag order by the Dems pathetic and blatant attempt to carve out an exemption for the NRA to avoid ACTIVE opposition from the one realistically effective national RKBA group. (Yes, GOA is more adamant and more pure of heart. . . they also have less sway. Facts are facts.)

The NRA DIDN'T "throw anyone under the bus" -- they took the best deal they could get at the time. It was really a choice of NRA taking the deal, or having EVERYONE in the RKBA community silenced until this law can be eliminated.

sethmcdonald said...

Strickland also raises money for the party and helps support those like Diane Finstein, Nancy Palosi, Obama, Clinton, etc. I have to look at the bigger picture. Who is more likely to appoint conservative judges, etc?

I am not making excuses for Kasich on the AWB vote, but I do think he learned his lesson. Strickland did what for us while in office? Castile Doctrine? That was a gimmie. Where is his strong support for SB239??

Heath said...

Strickland is the Tall Dog in this state. Period, full stop. He has jack to do with the administration or any of it's decisions.

We can't whine about "State's Rights'" when it's convenient, then cry "bigger picture" when someone from the other team actually get's RKBA right.

Strickland, on a state level, is the better guy. (And it most be getting rather brisk in hell right now, because I'm sticking up for a Donk).

Kasich has had no obvious "Come to Jesus" moment on RKBA, other than being nominated for a higher office.

No thanks.

I'll throwaway my vote 3rd party before I give it to another slimy RINO. Again, have you forgotten Taft??

Montana said...

I could never believe you went the NRA convention. The NRA will never get any of my money, they call my house, during dinner, to complain about the current administration who has done NOT ONE THING to restrict my RTKBA. And the convention, really? Best you could do?

Mad Saint Jack said...

Strickland was interviewed on Cincinnati talk radio this morning.

He said he would sign a restaurant carry law. He even pointed out that many other states have the law and don't have problems with it.

I was impressed with him throwing out those details.

Old NFO said...

Interesting links, I need to sit down and read them. Thanks!

falnfenix said...

Well crap. I was looking forward to meeting you next year, too.

Breda said...

I'm still planning on organizing a super awesome shindig like I did in Charlotte. :)

falnfenix said...

Well I certainly hope so! I mean, Mike's got me actually planning to leave my hermitage and everything. :P

Justin Buist said...

"For me, the concept of "freedom" is a holistic thing."

Unfortunately you're not going to find a professional political entity that supports all what you could call "freedom." At least not an effective one.

The NRA is single-issue. And I like that. They're not even really equipped to handle all of the gun issue, really*, so I'm happy with them keeping to only the things that affect them and the RKBA directly.

That's part of the reason I'm a member of the ACLU. They're better equipped to handle the 1A cases, women's rights, etc. Sure, I don't like it when they support child molesters, but that's part of the bad with the good.

GOA? I was a member once. I like their stance but they're not effective. And they sold my contact info to just about everybody.

And if you want an example of what you get when a group aligns itself to nothing but liberty and freedom look no further than the Libertarian Party. Failure to soften a stance on some issues to gain ground in another is not their strong point and look where they are. They're more concern with being pure than actually winning a single battle. It doesn't work.

*: They tried to scuttle the Parker/Heller case because they were afraid of the court. They really need a team dedicated to working the courts instead of lumping it in with ILA. The lobbying efforts are entirely different from building up and winning court cases.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Live in Ohio (Same County as Ms. Breda), Life Member in NRA, Voting for Kasich. Why? Because I saw in the American Rifleman the photo spread of the NRA leadership and HARRY REID bragging about the new shooting range In Nevada. Screw the ratings. Look at the TOTAL PACKAGE of the politician, and ask yourself, "Do I really want to support someone who supports Obama, even if they have an NRA A rating?"

Mike W. said...

I've been putting off joining SAF and/or JPFO. (and I"m not even Jewish) I'll be putting it off no longer.

Sevesteen said...

NRA has to be single issue, otherwise they are only relevant in the Republican primaries. Based on that single issue, the Ohio governor's endorsement could not go any other way--even if non-2a issues would cause some of us to vote differently.

If the NRA merely dropped active opposition to the disclosure bill once it no longer affected them, that fits with 2a single issue--they aren't a 1a group. Active support would be another matter entirely, not only wrong, but violating their single issue focus.

Earl said...

One of the reasons I like the RWVA and Appleseeds is that I have worked with more shooters and rifles on targets than I ever have with the NRA, and I am a Life Member of the NRA, and only a five year member of the RWVA.

But Liberty isn't about only one of our Rights, but all of them - if the Mayor of New York can buy all the ads he can pay for, so can the Tea Party of two that isn't running.

tsimer said...

All I have to say is that I think it's hilarious that the group you linked to is having a gun rights convention in San Francisco. Intentional or simply sweet irony?

Anonymous said...

The NRA must support Democrats who vote with them, or they risk becoming "captured" by the Republicans. Once you become the client of a particular party, paradoxically that party can pretty much just pay lip service to your cause without actually doing anything substantive for you. After all, where else are you going to go?

Supporting Democrats who have better 2nd Amendment records than their Republican opponents is good tactics, forcing both parties to pay attention to us.

Mike W. said...

For all their faults, there's just no way the NRA can support an "F" rated (R) over an "A" rated (D). Not only would it be overtly partisan, but it'd destroy their credibility.

There are plenty of things I'm pissed at the NRA over right now, but they pretty much have to support Strickland.

The Packetman said...

The single-issue position is a red herring.

The NRA use lobbying, magazines, rallies, etc in the defense of the 2nd amendment, and they are all 1st amendment activities.

JP said...

Been pissed at them for years, and stopped my payments right around Katrina. They give my congress critter the nod every year, and as an FYI it is the man Pelosi wanted to be the VP. Yeah, forget he now votes as she tells him unless they have the votes he can get a pass, he answers the questionnaire the "right" way, and is an incumbent, so they endorse him over someone to help remove the anti-gunnies in charge. And they claim to look at the "Big Picture". BS.

Bradley said...

while the NRA is single issue, it turns out it is Hunting, not 2nd Amendment rights. They keep giving away my rights, and they get huffy when they are called on it. How many times are we, the shooting public, going to allow the NRA to bad mouth the 'evil black rifle' or NFA fire arms, before we realize that they have fully given up on the 2nd, and are now work just to keep hunting, and some shooting sports, like trap but not practical pistol, and haven forbid you ever call it a weapon in a NRA training class.

We need to quit coddling them and support groups that will not give any ground on the 2nd, such as JPFO, SAF, and others. And while i know that JPFO is not a lobbyist group, if you think there members are not making calls and doing as much if not more work then the NRA you are sadly mistaken.

Journey In Faith said...

The NRA is a single issue organization, you can’t possibly believe they should have picked an F rated candidate over and A rated candidate (with a clear record of opposing anti-gun legislation)? Strickland is like Harry Reid, you may disagree with every other stance he takes, but on gun issues he is solidly pro-2A. Kasich has a clear record of voting against gun owners. The NRA made the right choice for the single issue they represent.

James said...

The NRA is necessary. They suffer from what happens to all big organizations, they get too insular. I get tired of them playing it safe, but understand that that is their role.
Join and get active in local and state organizations and national organizations that are more aggressive, like those mentioned above.
I exclude GOA as a bad joke who's sole purpose seems to be to whip up phony issues to give Larry Pratt a steady income.
It is easy to bitch about the NRA and I do it too, but ask yourself what are you doing to make a difference.
Sue and I got tie off of work and rode a bus all night from Michigan to go to the Second Amendment March in DC. It cost me money I could have put somewhere else, and was physically draining, Neither of us are 21 anymore. I thought it was necessary to do.
If you think that you can be more effective than the NRA by getting yourself involved, you are probably right. If all you are doing is finding an excuse to not contribute to something because you don't like the NRA, you are a parasite.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what your beef with the NRA is. Yeah, it sucks that we weren't allowed to carry in Charlotte, but how on earth is that the NRA's fault? You couldn't carry at GRNC's events a few blocks away, either - only worse, GNRC members were misled to believe they could, thereby turning many of them into instant criminals. If the NRA could have gotten NC law changed to allow its members to carry at the convention center and the Meep, they would have. Maybe they still will (witness how much better the carry laws in AZ got since last year's convention there).

Think Kasich is better than Strickland overall? Then by all means, vote for Kasich and encourage others to do likewise. Getting mad at the NRA over this is silly, though. It's not their job to identify the candidate who will be most to your liking. Their job is to identify and endorse the candidate who has a better record on one issue and one issue alone. That person is clearly Strickland. You can quibble about the specific grades A and F, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to identify a single gun rights organization that has ANY grading system specific to guns, in which Strickland does not outrank Kasich.

Re GOA as "competition," you have got to be kidding. Everyone in DC knows who the NRA is, and that they're a force to be reckoned with. That's why Pelosi and Shuler agreed to exempt it from their unconstitutional DISCLOSE Act (though query whether this tactic will work, vs. convincing everyone to hate it equally). The average politico in DC could not give a rat's patoot what (or if) GOA thinks, if indeed he's ever heard of them at all. Like their brethren in the Libertarian Party, GOA offers 30+ years of "no compromise" and about as much in the way of results.

Gay_Cynic said...

Breda is mostly correct. As are others here. The NRA has grown too insular, and a reprise of the Cincinnati Revolt of 1977 may again be necessary

The choice to hold a Convention in a firearms-hostile city when a variety of firearm-friendly cities exist was, at best, unfortunate. I suspect, even now, the NRA hasn't gotten the message on this one. I'd rather stay in a tent in a friendly place than a palace among hostiles.

Regarding the GRNC situation, I will stick with my prior comments - Marriott took a bad situation and has made (and continues to make) things worse.

The DISCLOSE Act is sufficiently vile that anyone with more foresight and attention span than a sub-optimal gnat will realize that to fight for the 2nd Amendment without resorting to the rooftop approach...you need the First Amendment in all its' glory, and not just for your particular organization, but for all potential allies who might otherwise be muzzled.

The current NRA schtick of "all is well that ends well, aren't we clever" more than makes plain that fundamental changes in leadership are necessary - it almost demands changes in that leadership.

Anonymous said...

GC, you're wrong. There really aren't all that many cities across the country with venues large enough to accommodate the NRA, and large cities tend to be the least friendly to guns. The problem with Charlotte, though, is a matter of state law, not any city ordinance, so if the NRA had acted on your theory they'd have had to boycott NC entirely. And as a practical matter, the entire region, as all the states surrounding us have relatively gun-friendly laws but no suitable venue. Besides, when did gun owners become such friggin' wimps, anyway? If anything, the NRA should be targeting the cities most hostile to guns; they're the ones who need to hear our message the most.

GRNC, by contrast, dropped the ball. They didn't need a convention center for their event, just a reasonably large hotel. Had they done their homework they would have known better than to book with Marriott. They'd have booked the Hilton, or whatever, and the whole kerfuffle would never have happened.

As to the DISCLOSE Act, it's not a question of how vile it is (very) but whether it's a Second Amendment issue or not (it's not). The ACLU claims to be a First Amendment organization; the NRA does not. Therefore, it is very fair to bash the ACLU for not taking on the DISCLOSE Act. It is not fair to bash the NRA for identifying it as unconstitutional but otherwise leaving it alone. They only got involved with the issue in the first place because they themselves were targeted by it. With the amendment, it's still a bitch but it's not their bitch.

It sounds to me like both you and Breda are mad at the NRA for faithfully adhering to its own mission.