I'm not going to link to specific individuals here. That said, there are certain conclusions being promulgated that could use a counterbalance. Just because assertions are made doesn't mean they're true.
We're told what a great victory NRA holding up the DC vote bill based on the gun amendment is--what clout it shows they still have. First, it ain't a done deal. Second the DC representation
bill is unconstitutional. It's defenders, though, are OK with that because that's how politics must be played.
I've never been big on you must destroy something to save it. And if we somehow do "win," the trade-off will be another socialist gain at the nationwide level (the Utah concession will not be a complete counterbalance, because they embrace plenty of leftist nonsense, too) while something already in the judicial pipeline will be implemented over a relatively small population--and most of them don't want it anyway.
We're also told that political capital is justified here, but not in the case of
Eric Holder because he never had a chance. We'll never know, though, what would have happened had Senators been told they would not get a pass, and had a membership of millions been mobilized. Perhaps if the statement were revised to say the Holder confirmation never had a chance because of lack of leadership and excuse-making for it...
We're also told that
Kirsten Gillibrand's turning is the fault of her critics--that instead, we should have sent her money or something. Good grief.
And finally, I would like to address NRA Board of Director nominations. We're told direct questions designed to evoke unequivocal answers about where they stand on RKBA/SNBI will not be asked because they are not politically effective.
I'll say this much--of the nominees I am seeing endorsed, one publicly dismissed hard liners to the
LA Times as "those people" (as in "I would not consider those people mainstream America"), and the gun he was lobbying to defend ended up banned. Perhaps publicly referring to it as "toy" and talking about "our fine hobby" was perceived as more politically effective than speaking of unalienable rights? You sure can't tell by the results.
Another of the nominees has publicly stated he would arrest an otherwise peaceable person who he discovered was carrying concealed without a permit. One can only wonder if he would do this on an individual level what his professional response to a general confiscation order would be.
You'll get no NRA Director endorsement from me until
my questions are answered--properly. Electing people who are not afraid to publicly and specifically declare their principles along these lines is the only thing that will bring real change to the board. Which means the apologists have "won" and the
status quo will continue.
And we'll continue to enjoy the same political effectiveness that brought us
Barack Obama and a democrat sweep of both houses.
You go ahead and listen to those fellows who disagree with me if you want--you'll hardly be alone. I don't expect more than a small percentage of gun owners to agree with me on any given day anyway. As an aside, of those who do, some of you are my best teachers. Thank you.
