It seems Erick Erickson NRA hatin’ knows no limits. Fortunately for me, because I’m sick of dealing with his nonsense, Kevin at Exurban League has taken care of it already. In any legislative issue there’s going to be concerns about language, and what you can get enough votes to support. If you want to know the consequences of reaching too far, take a look at National Reciprocity. As it is, NRA supported the Coburn Amendment. That’s the end of the story. Who else got the language attached? GOA? If so, then why do all my lobbyist friends tell me they never see GOA on the Hill?
16 thoughts on “Latest Attack on NRA from Red State”
So, legislators must ask the NRA permission before submitting a gun bill? That’s rich.
Coburn provided a freedom-rich gun amendment. The NRA wanted a tightly worded and restrictive amendment for concealed carry only.
Sebastian, what if you were told you only had to wear dull, black bow ties? Knowing there are other, more colorful bow ties, and even neck ties available you’d feel rather restricted in your “rights to wear any tie you want.” Welcome to the NRA’s vision of gun “keep and bear” arms.
I won’t go along with it. And many others won’t also.
You know what’s another word for an “uncompromising” political advocacy group?
Once you understand that Erik Erikson is vastly more interested in disintering supposed heresies against his vision of conservatism and in castigating the supposed heretics than he is in making tangible political progress for causes he cares about, both he and RedState become much more comprehensible — and ignorable.
I agree that Erickson hurts his own case by trying to insist that the NRA become a subservient part of the (presumably Erickson-run) Republican Party. I agree, for instance, that the NRA was right to endorse pro-gun Strickland over (at least formerly) anti-gun Kasich. Personally, I would probably vote for Kasich if I lived in Ohio, but the NRA isn’t the National Republican Association.
Also–and you should bring this up when you mention Red State–that site didn’t even bother to mention the McDonald verdict for 24 hours. So much for their supposed concern for the Second Amendment.
Having said that, however, the fact is that Red State is dead-on right about Harry Reid (and, unfortunately, is hurting its own case with all its other anti-NRA crap). The fact is that Harry Reid is at least as compromised on 2A as is Kasich, and Sharron Angle is rock-solid on the Second Amendment.
I refer you to the following article, in which Reid attacks Ensign for having the support of Charleton Heston in the 1998 Senate race, calling the NRA out of the mainstream, and condemning him for “glorify[ing] guns”:
And I’m sorry, but I don’t for one minute buy the “Majority Leader Chuck Schumer” argument. Chuck Schumer will crash and burns if he brings up gun control, which is despised by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Remember how Obama’s election made a permanent AWB supposedly inevitable? Yeah, so do I.
It isn’t Harry Reid, or even the NRA (that’s not a criticism of them, BTW) that has caused the amazing turnaround in the 2A movement’s fortunes. It’s partly SAF and Alan Gura, but mainly it’s the changing attitudes of the American people on this issue. The idea that one man can reverse the political tide in favor of gun rights is just as stupid as the leftists’ claims that if conservative X is elected/confirmed, blacks will sit at segregated lunch counters. In both cases, that ship has sailed.
Don’t shoot the messenger. The email highlighted by the red state article is indicative of how the NRA will subvert legislation it doesn’t approve of. That is the takeaway message of the article.
Residents of Georgia and South Carolina gun groups will instantly recognize this tactic of disapproval of an otherwise satisfactory bill.
So are the emails fake?
Has the NRA not sent them?
So are the emails fake?
Has the NRA not sent them?
The emails most likely real, but because a) Erickson doesn’t know the difference between a rifle and a Class III firearm, b) doesn’t understand that the Coburn Amendment was about allowing the CCW laws in national parks to mimic the laws of the state that surrounds them, that therefor, the NRA is now over and done with.
Something’s over and done with, that much is certain.
Forget not ever being on the hill, from what I’ve seen in my years in DC is that GOA exists ONLY as a half assed occasional newsletter and more recently on the internet appealing to – really and I don’t mean to insult anyone – the least informed, the most gullible, tin foil wearing, never leave the house or open the drapes conspiracy nuts out there.
To say they are a non player would be to give them too much credit.
For the record: in what form did the Coburn amendment eventually pass? Does it now cover only pistols?
Applies to all firearms (pursuant to the state’s laws) as passed.
I’m curious how Chuck Schumer would crash and burn if he touched the gun issue. Sure, he’d have his party to deal with, but anti-gun issues seem to play well with the crowd that keeps electing him.
So the NRA’s idea that a wide Coburn Amendment would be difficult to pass based on pragmatism grounds was wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Because the Amendment passed.
To quote a TV show:
“Sir, your treatment is wrong”.
“But the patient keeps getting better.”
I’d rather have “sometimes wrong” (NRA) than “bombastic yet politically irrelevent” (GOA).
You know full well I was not arguing that people should join the GOA.
But IMO instead of stating “Hey! BUT IS THERE ANY OTHER GAME IN TOWN! IS THERE!” people *who are NRA members* should express disagreement with such things to the NRA leadership both now and during the next Board elections.
Definitely they should, but the only folks who can do that are NRA members.
My previous was more directed at the “screw the NRA, they are secret 2A traitors and Brady-sympathizers, I’m with the GOA” types.
They can do what they want but that road leads to irrelevency and losing politically.
Comments are closed.