Holed Up in Fairfax and They Ain't Comin' Out

I said this morning I'd get around to addressing NRA's silence on the Holder nomination, and on Sebastian's defense of it.

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...

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.

I haven't been this inspired since Mel Gibson yelled "FREE-DO-O-O-MM!!!"

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