He gives a list of pros and cons. I'm not going to address every one, but will comment on what I think are the most important points.
The gist of his first "risk" is that a vengeful Holder will cut off access to the DoJ. If he did, that would certainly be worth raising a ruckus over, but what makes them think this anti-gun zealot who hates NRA and everything they stand for is going to not make things as difficult for them as he legally can as a matter of course?
This reminds me of the NRA representatives' stated position when they arranged for the California DoJ to come tell their members that there was no individual right to keep and bear arms, and that they had to fill out registration cards for their lawfully-owned semi-autos. The NRA rep actually told us how lucky we were to have the DoJ come speak to us, and how they didn't have to--like we were being done a favor--arranged through NRA's vaunted access to the corridors of power--to have the enforcers come and personally dictate to us the terms of our surrender.
His second stated "risk" is that if we lose, we'll be seen as impotent.
That all depends.
A man very close to me told me a good thing that happened to him when he was a teenager at a Depression-era CCC camp was that he got beat up in a fight on the first day.
"Why was that a good thing?" I asked.
"Because it took the guy half-an-hour to do it. Everybody knew they might be able to beat me, but they wouldn't be able to do it without a lot of effort and getting hurt back."
This business of being afraid to engage because you might lose is precisely the excuse given when they tried to derail Heller, a decision they now can't take enough credit for. It is simply unworthy of any who would call themselves our leaders.
Talk about appearing impotent.
The third "risk" he lists, "distracting membership from bigger fights looming on the horizon" is simply not credible. He's not just saying we can't walk and chew gum at the same time, he's saying we can't walk now and chew gum at some undetermined time in the future.
If this is the capacity and commitment of grassroots gun rights activists for multitasking, it's difficult for me to fathom why the "pragmatists" (there, I said it) put so much faith in their way being the strongest and most reliable.
What--if I ask you to write a letter on Holder today, when I come back to you next year and say "Obama's trying to ban assault weapons," you're going to turn around and tell me "Sorry-- I'm burned out on all I did last time"...?
This is our last best hope?
And what if we win and we get someone just as bad? If we win, the new administraiton won't put up someone just as bad, because they'll realize why it was they lost and not want to repeat it. If we win, they'll be so rocked back on their heels, their momentum will have been broken and their confidence challenged.
If we win, they'll know the old lion still has some teeth left.
And if we lose, well, remember the CCC camp.
NRA needs to understand that a growing critical mass gun owners are fed up. They're like the dumb republicans--more worried about what their avowed enemies will say about them than keeping faith with their core constituency. They don't understand that guys like me want a strong and principled NRA--and their hiding when they should be leading disgusts and alienates activists sick of all the compromise. It guarantees they'll be weak with the people who count--gun owners with a fire in their bellies for freedom.
And the opinion that NRA can't afford to lose and have it's reputation tarnished, but other, smaller groups can is insulting. What, like we don't have any credibility and NRA does?
Let me share some NRA credibility. Or better yet, let Mr. Cox:
Your NRA-PVF does not just pick the easy battles. There are groups that endorse only “safe” candidates, but avoid the tough races completely...I haven't been this inspired since Mel Gibson yelled "FREE-DO-O-O-MM!!!"
And when we walk the halls of Congress to defend our rights, we need to know—and your lawmakers need to know—that you’re standing behind us all the way. United, we—and the Second Amendment—will prevail.
Mr. Cox reveals something else very interesting:
[T]he NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) endorsed 23 candidates for the U.S. Senate, of whom at least 14 were victorious...OK, guys, we backed you. You're now in, thanks to us.
How about you now give us some return love, and EVERY DAMN ONE OF YOU pledge to put a hold on Holder? How about we start with the biggest "risk" NRA backed out of the entire herd, the old bull elephant himself, John "End Private Sales/Free Political Speech" McCain?
How many millions did NRA sink in his campaign, and on promoting other Republicans?
It's simply not credible that an organization that screamed so loudly and relentlessly on Obama being "the most anti-gun president in American history" would remain hidden and mute on the ascendancy of the most anti-gun Attorney General in American history.
The only excuse I can make for them is that they could be quietly working behind the scenes to get a "hold" commitment. That's the only thing I can think of that's acceptable. And since I haven't heard it floated from their apologists, I don't have confidence that's anything more than my desperate wishful thinking.
One last thing and then I've said enough--for now. If I were the Bradys, or some smaller group trying to establish relevance, I'd be looking at this latest schism. How would I exploit it?
The antis are already crowing every chance they get about how NRA is now impotent and ineffectual. It doesn't matter that they're making much of that up, the bottom line is they're doing it, and the media is helping them amplify their voices.
Do our champions at Fairfax really want to be portrayed as not only too insecure to fight, but hiding in their fortress afraid to even speak out?
-------------
NRA may be unwilling to engage on the Holder confirmation. How about you?
The following links are from a four-part (and ongoing) series from Examiner.com explaining why Holder is so bad for gun owners, what reasons a non-gun owner would have to oppose Holder, what citizens can do to oppose his confirmation, and new information regarding his contempt for using the legal system to defend yourself.
This guy will be a disaster for our liberties. Please help me let people know that.
Holder" To-Be" or Not To Be
How to Hold Holder Without "Using Guns"
How You Can Help Hold Holder
Another Reason to Hold Holder
21 comments:
I was raised to always be on my best behavior. It was paralyzing, always worrying about what other people would think. In long years, I learned that some people will like you, no matter what; some will dislike you, no matter what; and most will be indifferent to you, no matter what.
It's odd that successful professional men and women at the NRA have not realized this and try to -- Gee, like the republican party itself -- bring into the fold people who would not p--- on them if they were on fire. At the same time, they tell their main membership that THEY "want too much" in "changing times" and that extremism (the verbal, rhetorical, electioneering kind) in defense of liberty is not only a vice, it's terrorism.
Feeding the beasts only makes them hungry for more. Eventually you can't shovel their food fast enough and they eat the ones feeding them. The NRA wants to be the last zookeeper down the gullet, and hopefully delaying long enough for it to be their children or grandchildren rather than them. Despicable. But selling your children's future TO YOUR ENEMY seems to be the Washington Way.
We're not alone David
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner
we need to open up the tent a little on this one. Both barrels, all sides, and stool.....
David, does it seem to you that perhaps the NRA is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome?
If they are, then they have become rather useless.
Yes Tom--I was corresponding with J.D. on doing that one and am going to give it a standalone post tomorrow.
And when we walk the halls of Congress to defend our rights, we need to know—and your lawmakers need to know—that you’re standing behind us all the way.
Bullshit, Cox--some of us are standing in front of you--a long way in front of you, it would seem.
I'm thinking maybe the NRA is as battered as Blue Dog Democrats:
Blue Dogs or Battered Wives?
I Don't Like Getting Slapped Around, But I'm Sure I Earned It
It was only a week or so ago that we caught Blue Dog leader Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin spinning nonsense to her local press. Now The One has told the Blue Dogs that their proposal for a reform commission to address long-term fiscal imbalances cannot be in the stimulus bill.
Are the Blue Dogs angry? Are they going to vote against the stimulus bill? No. They’re tickled that Obama invited them to a meeting.
Codependency is pathetic.
Good point, Mack.
Wait a second--aren't our two "last, best hopes" supposed to be the NRA and the Blue Dogs?
I hope "The Lightworker" and friends at least buy us a drink before they get down to business.
Thank you, David. This is a fight worth fighting. No matter the cost, no matter the outcome. This guy is bad news, not only for us, but for the country as a whole. If the NRA won't fight his nomination, then we have to. It's as simple as that.
"I hope "The Lightworker" and friends at least buy us a drink before they get down to business."
They will...coolaid, cherry or grape?
My father paid somewhere in the neighborhood of $50.00 for life membership in the NRA back in the late forties or early fifties and I’ve been a junior and then an adult member off and on since the middle 1950’s. For the last several years all I’ve seen coming out of the NRA are pleas for more money. My membership lapsed in November and, until the NRA’s administration decides to support the rank and file members whose money and efforts pay their salaries, the corporate NRA will have to do without my money. If everyone who claimed to support Dr. Paul but didn’t vote for him because he was “unelectable” had actually voted for him we very well could be celebrating his inauguration later this month instead of dreading the coming next four years.
A man has to stand up for what he believes. He will get slapped down occasionally but that is to be expected. The fear of being slapped down should never deter one from supporting his core beliefs. In the traditions of the Christian culture the most righteous man who ever lived was hanged on a cross for standing up against an overwhelmingly politically correct majority. We can expect no better treatment today. We’ve still got to stand up and speak out somebody just may be paying attention..
The NRA is calling me EVERY DAY now. Having supped with the devil, they're beginning to see blisters rising.
You might want to put some ice on that, Wayne.
"NRA needs to understand that a growing critical mass gun owners are fed up."~D.Codrea
That statement doesn't even begin to cover it. Fed up? Disgust, violent loathing, and rage are a little closer to the mark.
Are you listening Prags?
The NRA is symbiotic with the State, just like the mainstream media is. I can't imagine why you do more than shine a bright light on the depredations of either. Maybe you have faith in the NRA as an example that government can be good; all it takes is the election of the "right" board members. Ha ha. Power corrupts. Any group that attains too many legal privileges will be turned and work to maintain them, even if it started out as grassroots. The federal government and the constitution started out as grassroots, however many years ago. How did that turn out?
Unfortunately, Sebastion has admitted in the comments at Snowflakes that if we lose this fight politically he (and he believes evidently all other gun-owners will too) will "lay down".
As much as I respect Sebastions' efforts both at the political level and at his blog, the un-willingness to commit to the cause beyond winning politically is worrisome.
As for the NRA, well, I'm a life member for 35+ years now, and though I have a lot of complaints I won't give up on them or quit the NRA, but they are not going to save us or win this fight by themsleves.
That said, any gun-owner who is not a member is a fool. Ignore their fund-raising but pay the $50 (whatever it is) for an annual membership. Better yet, spring for the Life Membership.
If there were 20 million life members of the NRA we would win this in a walk.
Scott
Phx, AZ
Scott,
"If there were 20 million life members of the NRA we would win this in a walk."
Sorry, but I have to call bullcrap on this one.
It is NOT in the best interests of the employees of the NRA to win this thing. Simple as that. If the NRA actually WINS then ALL of those jobs go away. If the 2nd Amendment is actually recognized as stating what it states, what need is there of high paid lobbyists, and all of the perks?
The NRA has never actually done what it claims to do. Heck look at the anti-gun legislation that the NRA helped to write, and helped to pass.
Both doctors and the staff at the NRA have a vested interest in making sure the problem DOESN'T GO AWAY. Both sets of professional leeches will do their damnedest to insure what is wrong stays just enough wrong to have you seem to need their assistance latter on.
If you can avoid going to doctors and avoid having to deal with the NRA, you would be healthier and have more freedom.
LibertyBill
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." --Sir Winston Churchill
GOA tells me they'll be fighting.
From the NRA, I hear . . . rather less.
As I said further up the page, it just could be the NRA is too busy writing the new AWB to waste political capital when currying political favor is so much more profitable.
And of course, the apologists and pragmatists are working full time to spin it to gun owners as a good thing.
But, Hell, maybe I'm just bitter at past and continual betrayal by both sets of these assholes.
The NRA will never get another dime out of me!
There are groups out there who deserve your support.
The NRA is not on that list.
Looks like unfortunately members of our own cause would rather fight internally than band together to win.
Short-sited, foolish, and worse, but I won't bother to go further.
Scott
Phx, AZ
Scott,
Perhaps our definitions of "win" are not the same.
Giving up everything that we desire is NOT winning. Allowing our rights to be legislated into crimes is not winning. I know that the NRA claims that such is winning. However, they are actually mistaken.
I will happily support those moving in the direction I wish to go in. Sadly, the NRA is moving in the direction of the gun banners.
Post a Comment