search
top

Not Feeling the Unity

JPFO has picked up on the Joaquin Jackson thing. I have a long standing policy of not supporting groups that attack other pro-gun groups, so I was disappointed to see this:

It’s time to “Humiliate and Repudiate” Joaquin Jackson and the NRA. Go to http://www.jpfo.org/handbill-joaquin.jpg to see our latest handbill. Print it out and distribute it to those who still believe the NRA is working in the interest of gun owners. They are not.

Seriously, that’s not going to help anything. Going after Joaquin Jackson for what he said was fine, but undermining other pro-gun groups and promoting the fragmentation of the movement help no one. JPFO has done good work, especially with exposing abuses by the ATF, but I won’t donate or join groups that are actively trying to divide the movement. There’s no surer way to lose, and you can bet the Brady’s love this kind of stuff.

UPDATE: I should clarify here. I’m not suggesting that any group that’s not NRA is part of the problem. Nor am I suggesting that having groups aside from the NRA isn’t important. But NRA is hugely important, despite its flaws. Other groups need to figure out where they can make the biggest contribution to the fight. JPFO had the right idea with The Gang, because NRA has too high a profile in Washington to publicly make war on a federal agency, and last time they tried, it backfired in a big big way. That’s exactly the kind of contribution smaller groups can make. But what smaller groups should not do is try to compete with NRA, or try to undermine it by encouraging people to get angry with them and support their groups instead. That doesn’t mean NRA is above criticism, or reproach, but when we undermine it, it undermine our gun rights as a whole.

UPDATE: Ahab has more.

20 Responses to “Not Feeling the Unity”

  1. Yosemite Sam says:

    They’re having a debate on it over at the comment section at Kim DuToit. A big, Bash the NRA festival.

    What I don’t get is that if all these NRA haters would join the NRA, they could vote out the leadership that they profess to hate. Joaquim Jackson for example. But they would rather bitch and moan from the sidelines. Geez, how many NRA members even bothered to attend this years convention and of those who did, how many went to the members meeting. As a percentage of all the members, it wasn’t all that many. If you think the NRA is too compromising then become a member, attend the meetings and VOTE. Because these other gun organizations are just a blip, if that, on the radar to the members of Congress. Most of them have never heard of them.

    I’ll also go on to say that if it wasn’t for the NRA and it’s horrible compromising ways, we would have much, much, more gun control today. The NRA made the 68 gun control act much less onerous than it would have been. Let’s face it, some gun control was going to pass in 1968 and they probably could have gotten bans passed at that time. If we had had a crew that would have just said no compromise, bans would have passed. The NRA may not be perfect, but it is the most powerful and most effective advocate for 2nd Amendment rights we have.

  2. thirdpower says:

    That’s about the way I feel about it. If something is going to pass, no matter what, make it the least intrusive as you can and work on lessening it’s impact.

    IMO, had the “no compromise” GOA or JPFO been the primary groups when it came to the AP restrictions in ’86(?) or the ’94 AWB, we’ld be in a lot worse shape. Not saying they aren’t needed to keep the more “moderate” groups from compromising too much, but their rhetoric sometimes does as much harm as good.

  3. First sebastian, you need to accept the sad REALITY that nra is NOT, repeat NOT a “pro gun group.” NRA supported and still supports the evil and unconstitutional “National Firearms Act of 1934.”

    http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.asp

    NRA supported and still supports the evil and unconstitutional gun control act of 1968.

    http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/George-Bush-and-the-NRA.htm

    NRA supported and still supports the evil and unconstitutional ban of 1986 (proof on TOP of proof that the nra is anti 2nd amendment and that nra hates you being able to own a full auto). NRA supported and still supports the Lauten-turd ban, which they helped pass under a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS!!! As if this wasn’t enough to get you out of your denial, nra refuses to lobby for true 2nd amendment carry (Vermont/Alaska carry) in states where it WOULD PASS if they only tried, such as Wyoming, Montana, New Hampshire, and possibly Idaho and some day others. Local Alaskans worked to pass “free carry” and then nra showed up to claim credit even though nra didn’t push for it until the end.

  4. Sebastian says:

    Dude, if you think the NRA is a gun control group, it’s YOU who needs a reality check, my friend. All those things you’re going on about are completely and totally politically infeasible right now.

    We are not going to get rid of GCA 68 any time soon
    We are not going to get rid of the Hughes Amendment any time soon
    The NRA fought Lautenburg, and it passed, and we are not going to get rid of it any time soon.

    New Hampshire, one of the most pro-gun states in the union, couldn’t pass Vermont carry. Here in PA, we’re still years away from Vermont carry. These kinds of political accomplishments take a lot of time and resources.

    RKBA activists must learn two things 1) patience, and 2) not to be so angry. Anger accomplishes nothing. The NRA is not perfect, but they are part of the solution. Without them, our gun rights would be far far worse shape than they currently are.

  5. thirdpower says:

    So you feel we would have been better off w/ a complete ban on fully-auto’s and any ammo that could penetrate class II body armor being classified as “armor piercing?

    That’s what we would have gotten instead.

    The NRA didn’t have a legislative arm before 1975.

  6. Sebastian says:

    The NRA didn’t have a legislative arm before 1975.

    That’s totally correct. The NRA was not a politically savvy organization before 1975, when ILA was formed, and they actively started lobbying. These people are pissed off over something that happened 70 frigging years ago. The people running NRA today largely weren’t even alive when NFA was going down, and if you read the transcript carefully, NRA is trying to prevent the same definition of machinegun that DC uses today, which is to say anything that holds more than 12 rounds of ammunition, whether it’s automatic or not.

    I would like nothing better than to get rid of the NFA, but it’s not going to happen, and it’s definitely not going to happen if people just get angry, take their toys, and go home.

  7. No YOU need the reality check sebastian. Also you need to stop avoiding what people say. I wasn’t talking about whether it was “feasible” to repeal 1934/1968/1986 and YOU KNOW IT. You side stepped 99% of what I said probably because you don’t want to deal with the fact that nra really DID support those things. Your post was full of avoidance and denial.

    People like you love to make the absurd claim that “nra wasn’t politically savvy before 1975.” More denial and avoidance. Again, I NEVER said anything about nra’s political “savviness,” YOU are the one who brought that up in an effort to avoid my point. “Savviness” has absolutely NOTHING to do with it and you know it. The truth is that nra acutally DID support all the things I listed and you know it. They supported those things, they were WRONG, and you don’t have the courage to face up to that fact.

    It’s interesting that you want to talk specifics about New Hampshire being unable to pass free carry, and you did it with this defeatist attitude as if it can’t be passed (clearly your attitude that it can’t be passed is how you attempt to justify nra not making it a goal or even putting it on the agenda in certain states). You avoided mentioning how CLOSE Wyoming came to passing it, and instead mentioned PA so you could avoid the several states I mentioned where it is a REAL possibility if nra would only TRY.

    I find it offensive that you want to get personal and talk about my emotions and you accuse me of being “angry,” because again, you’re doing it to divert from my point and to avoid the issue I raised. I didn’t sling mud at the nra, I simply pointed out the truth of their past and current support for 1934/1968/1986/Lautenberg and their glaringly obvious LACK of support for Vermont/Alaska carry.

    NRA had over a DECADE of republicans controlling congress and they didn’t even try to repeal any part of 1934/1968/1986 bans, and instead, nra didn’t even put up a fight against the Lautenberg ban. So with republicans running congress for over a decade, nra helped us get MORE gun control.

    Your weak excuse that the “nra wasn’t politically savvy before 1975” is laughable. The 1986 ban and Lautenberg came AFTER 1975 didn’t they? Please point me to ANY nra publication or web page where they say they would like to enact “Vermont/Alaska” carry ANYWHERE (again, Wyoming would only require a few years of nra’s support before Vermont carry became law there). You can’t point to any nra publications or web pages in support of Vermont carry because nra is quietly opposed to free carry.

  8. thirdpower says:

    Or maybe they realize that there’s little chance in hell of getting it so aren’t going to waste there time. Besides the fact that dozens of states have passed CCW under their watch, what evidence do you have on your side?

    The bills were going to pass. There is no question of that. By your ignoring of that fact, you would rather have had the laws be a lot worse than they presently are.

  9. Jym says:

    repeal17thamendment: I say this as someone who has no stake in this debate, as I am not now nor do I ever really plan to be an NRA member… You come across as extremely angry, arrogant, and confrontational. If you’d like to be taken seriously, perhaps you should learn to be a bit more diplomatic. As it is, I fear you do more harm for your cause than good if this is typical of your tactics.

  10. Sebastian says:

    NRA actively tired to repeal the Assault Weapons ban in 1996, and Congress, the newly elected Republican Congress, failed to do it. NRA was able to scuttle an attempt to get it passed as an amendment to lawsuit preemption.

    Did NRA support GCA 68? I don’t know. I wasn’t born then, and it’s water under the bridge. I’m certainly not going to blame the NRA of today for the NRA of yesterday’s failure to stop it, and I’m sure not going to take a lot of anti-NRA gun activists words for it. But as for the thing you linked to in regards to the NFA, the NRA was trying to avoid a DC definition of a machine gun. Would you have preferred to pay a 200 dollar tax for any pistol with a magazine capacity of more than 12 rounds?

    If you want to blame NRA for every gun control law they failed to stop, be my guest. But if you believe they are a gun control group, you’re delusional.

  11. Alcibiades says:

    I think the NRA formed a mailing list during or after ’34 in order to inform their members about legislation.

    I’m wondering if any states or localities had tried to restrict machine guns before ’34. (I know NYC had started restricting handguns by that time.)

  12. Sebastian says:

    I think more than a few states did when machine gun crime started to get national attention. The real problem, though, wasn’t really the machine gun, but the car. Law enforcement was largely unprepared to deal with the idea of highly mobile criminals.

    One of the reasons that lawmen of the time preferred the BAR over the Thompson is because the BAR’s 30-06 rounds would punch through a car like a hot knife through butter, whereas the .45s had a difficult time penetrating a moving vehicle.

  13. Sebastian, the very fact that you ended your last post towards me with name calling, just shows that you feel threatened. It shows that you are immature. It shows that you will use weak tactics to avoid an issue.

    Clearly you refuse to deal with the evidence and facts concerning nra’s past support for major gun control bills. You even admit that you don’t know whether they did or not. You like to mischaracterize what I say. You lie about what I’m saying (you claim I’m faulting nra for “failing to stop ____, when in fact I’m exposing their very clear SUPPORT for gun control in 1934 and 1968 http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e49/bigmackdaddyboy/nraadmitsin1968thatitsupportsgunban.jpg unless you ignore what the nra presidents said). It’s pretty hard to reason with people who behave that way you do so I’ll see ya later.

  14. Sebastian says:

    Oh well, I guess there’s no use trying to hide it now. You are absolutely correct. The NRA is the world’s leading gun control organization. What most people don’t know is that the board is just a figurehead. The _real_ board is composed of Sarah Brady, Josh Sugarman, and Wayne LaPierre. They all decided years ago that working together to destroy the shooting sports was better than working separately, because that’s what the NRA wants to do after all; destroy the second amendment.

    Hopefully they won’t read this, or I’ll be in big trouble for spilling the beans.

  15. I see you’re still quite good at totally avoiding a person’s post. Why run away from what I said? Why use mockery to divert completely away from the point? If I’m so wrong, then why the need to do that? I have not engaged in any of the avoidance tactics or personal attacks that you have. Clearly you are not interested in reasoned discussion. By your behavior, anyone and everyone can see that I have raised points that you are frightened to deal with.

  16. I especially love how you didn’t even have the courage to so much as mention the image link that I just posted here (let alone the content of it). Is there something in that image that you simply refuse to accept? Looks like it.

  17. Sebastian says:

    Have you ever talked to any NRA board member? Talked to anyone who works there? Ever probed their views on gun control measures or where the legislative priorities should be?

    I did look at your graphic, and to tell the truth, I don’t really give a shit. It happened 6 years before I was born and was a statement of a president who was dead four years before I was born.

    Truth be told, if I’m lobbying for repealing the 1986 Hughes Amendment, I’m also going to say I support the NFA. Because if I say “I demand you repeal the Hughes Amendment and the NFA” the politicians are going to laugh me out of the room. It’s a common tactic in politics to stand on a previous law in order to avoid more onerous regulation.

    Yes, this was not supposed to happen. The second amendment was meant to put gun rights outside of the political realm, where we wouldn’t have to play horse trading games with our rights. But until the courts step up and say the second amendment means something, we’re stuck playing this underhanded game. And so, yes, until I can get rid of the 1986 ban, the NFA is not a priority for me, and it its existence makes politicians comfortable with the idea of repealing the outright ban, I’m OK with going for that.

  18. You went on and on with some nice stuff, but you (again) avoided nearly everything I said. You (again) avoided my central point, which is (for the millionth time now) that the nra has supported a LOT of major gun control in the past and that it STILL SUPPORTS every inch of those same 4 bad laws (1934, 1968, 1986, and lautenberg, in addition to not pushing vermont carry in states where it would pass).

    Attempting to reason with you is incredible because you don’t like to address the things people say and you avoid everything that supports my very CLEAR central point.

    If you think the hughes amendment should be targeted first, then fine, whatever. Are you going to even ADDRESS my point which is that the nra helped make the 1986 ban into law?! NRA could have stopped the so called “firearm owners protection act” when that amendment was added in 1986 and you know it. NRA has a long history of ignoring or encouraging attacks on the 2nd amendment as it pertains to FULL AUTO OWNERS (or wannabe owners).

    Tell me what nra has done to help get rid of the 1986 ban that it helped pass? You know the answer as well as I do: nra has done NOTHING to get rid of it.

  19. Sebastian says:

    The Hughes Amendment was a last minute addition to FOPA. There was no time to fight it. NRA vowed it would get it removed later, when it passed, and they failed. The reason no one has done anything to get rid of the Hughes Amendment is because there’s no political will in Congress to do so. We can’t even get the Veterans Heritage Firearms Act passed, and that’s a minor minor thing.

    It’s very difficult to get rid of legislation once it’s on the books.

  20. sanchez says:

    Hate that the NRA has to play just like the Brady bunch. Picking at current gun control laws and fighting off others.

    “But until the courts step up and say the second amendment means something, we’re stuck playing this underhanded game.”

    Hate to say it, but even then we wouldn’t be able to take on the Hughes amendment. Since it isn’t really a ban you can’t really use the Second Amendment as an arguement. Hughes amendment isn’t the only thing I want to see gone that would be fine first steps. I want to see the 89 import ban, the import ban within the GCA’68, and a few other parts gone.

    As for the arguments on NRA supporting the GCA’68 and the FOPA’86. The NRA and other pro-gun groups did support parts of the GCA. I’ve got a stack of Guns and Ammo magazines from 61 to 69. They did support the FOPA because it had stuff that covered exactly what part of it is called; ‘firearm owner’s protection’. Even though the Hughes Amend. was a low blow there’s no sense in throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Call me Ahab » Blog Archive » Knock it off, guys - [...] gain anything by sub-dividing and fighting amongst ourselves.  At Snowflakes, Sebastian does a pretty good job of summing up…
top