All of us who wrote got the same letter (thanks to everyone who forwarded theirs), and Armed and Safe presents it and pretty well sums everything up, so I won't duplicate that here.
It's what I expected when I said they didn't want to give an unequivocal "yes" or "no" answer. Their world is too labyrinthine for directness, and they're counting on being a force of influence on pending legislation. As such, they'll do nothing to alienate or jeopardize access, which, for lobbyists, is everything.
And this way, if and when "Maximum Mike" is confirmed, they will not have been among his assailants, providing additional capital.
If nothing else, it's masterful political judo, turning this to their advantage. And here's the other thing: While the rest of us are making noise, they're in there quietly behind the scenes working on legislation that should provide relief for some of the more egregious determinations of dealer noncompliance, such as abbreviations on forms...
And while the rest of us want nothing less than elimination of BATFU, well, really, if that's going to happen, how? Who's leading the effort, how much support and resources do they have, how many sponsors in the legislature...? Truth is, no one has assembled that army, let alone taken the first step to make it happen.
So, what, have I given up? Can I now expect comments about selling out, or asking who got to me?
No, not at all to the first, probably to the second. I'm just laying out the way things are--if we refuse to see them because they piss us off, well, nobody ever won anything through self-imposed blindness. And those of you who decry the NRA's position without anticipating and understanding the rationale for defending it will not be well served.
My biggest problem with the NRA's writing Sullivan a letter, rather than working to get him out of the picture entirely, is that he seems to have had any number of "talkin'-to's," without any appreciable change in his egregious behavior.
ReplyDeleteI realize, of course, that the problems with the BATFE go far beyond "Maximum Mike," but I think a BATFE with him at the helm will be an unmitigated disaster, one that even H.R. 4900 won't be enough to offset.
Kurt, I totally agree with you. I'm not defending NRA on this, I'm merely pointing out what will be said to rationalize their position.
ReplyDeleteI'll have more later--if I make posts too long, or throw too many ideas into the mix, people's eyes glaze over and they don't read them.
Huh? What? I'm sorry, what were you saying again? :)
ReplyDeleteMy complaint isn't that your posts are too long or have to many ideas, there is just not enough of them! Keep them coming.
ReplyDeleteYou most probably are correct in how the NRA will rationalize their egregious lack of character on this issue. But that doesn't mean I believe them.
ReplyDeleteIn a street fight against odds I do not count among my friends those who stand by so as not to hurt their relationships with the people trying mug me.
That is what they are doing and this is a street fight with muggers. These particular muggers want treasure worth far more than your wallet.
Okay, I can take a hint. I'll shorten my posts.
ReplyDeleteWhat?
Whaddya mean it's not about me? When is it EVER not about me?
David,
ReplyDeleteI have to respectfully disagree about long posts. I really depends upon who you are trying to reach. If you want to reach those who only have a two minute attention span, then you are correct.
However, my experience is that those folks (the two minute characters) aren't worth much in a fight anyway, and are reading blogs for entertainment purposes. They are not reading to learn something useful, or to arm themselves against the opposition, but for enjoyment only.
I would much rather find one person who will stick with a longer post and learn, than one who rejects anything longer than 4 or 5 short sentences. They will be there in the end. The lack of focus of the other folks will show up in a fight as well -- they won't be in it very long.
As far as the NRA -- well, I think that sleeping with a Copperhead is just about as healthy.
In the first comment, I mentioned what my biggest problem with the NRA's strategy regarding Sullivan is.
ReplyDeleteMy second biggest problem is that I don't think trying to stop the Sullivan confirmation would be tilting at windmills--I think there's a real chance that it can be done, with enough of a concerted effort.
Of course, I don't claim to have nearly the sophistication necessary to understand the complexities of the Machiavellian machinations in which LaPierre and Cox engage on the behalf of simpletons like me.
Unfortunately, Paul, my experience with most bloggers is their posts are long because they lack the writing skills to compose powerful and purposeful prose.
ReplyDeleteMark Twain once wrote a friend and apologized for the length of his letter. "I didn't have time to make it shorter," he explained.
That is more true than most are aware of. I remember when I first started writing for GUNS & AMMO--they gave me 2,000 words and it was everything I could do to compact my first article to make it in under the wire. A year or so later, their new editor decided to pare things to 1,000. I had no idea how I would be able to get everything I needed to say into such a small space.
For the past four years, the mags I work for give me 500. I find it forces me to distill and reconsider and prioritize and, sometimes, anguish.
When you get paid by the word, it's easy to wax on and on. When you have integrity, making sure you cover all bases, even though you don't have the luxury of room, requires no small amount of discipline.
So I'm guilty of the short attention span myself. When I see a long essay, it had better capture my attention from the outset--and not let it wander along the way. Very few writers, particularly Internet "pundits," can pull that off.
And once they lose you, it's improbable you'll come back.
A lesson I should probably take to heart.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteUnderstood. However, it highlights a severe problem in a society that is driven by the 30 second soundbite. I write for a totally different purpose than most, and my sole goal is understanding on the part of the reader. As such, I do not have an editor telling me to "cut it short."
I understand you have a tough task, but we need a society that can think things through. Having the ability to read through a long article or book, even if somewhat dry, contributes to that end.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like to write (or read) boring stuff. My editor of 21 years is very pointed when it doesn't read well. Since she is usually correct, I change it.
Anyway, if things don't change in this society, it won't matter how much we stand, the vast majority around us will not have the concentration, understanding, nor perserverance to learn the why of what the Founders established.
Without the why, we get people like ER, who doesn't understand the why, and is thus open for overthrow.
45superman said...
ReplyDeleteA lesson I should probably take to heart.
No, you should not. Your posts are well thought out, but more importantly the lens through which you view the issues is slightly angled differently than most others. Thereby causing light to be shed on other aspects that often remain in the shadows. For many, they are aspects that have not even occurred to them as they pursue understanding of what they think, sometimes correctly sometimes not, as the central tenet of the issue.
Just keep doing what you're doing.
Yeah, I got the same letter. I find it unsatisfactory.
ReplyDeleteNobody I ever heard of ever complained about Bill Whittles' posts and they are gargantuan. I'd rather read Davids' long posts than just about any other blog.Even when he knocks me on my can.
ReplyDelete