Guntards.net

Mozzarella - how would you interpret an NRA endorsement of Jerry Brown for Gov?

Not to dote on Brown too much and derail this topic, but I was reading the big JB hoorah! thread on CG today and was sort of baffled by the tone. Sure it'd be great to have someone who is at least seemingly receptive of 2A concerns, but for the most part, the battle in California isn't really being won and/or lost on the governor's desk too much lately.

IMHO, there are bigger fish to fry... or at least to get excited about.

Last edited by Mozzarella (2009-07-07 16:38:12)

I'm pretty much on the same page as Mozzarella, since my NRA membership is paid up until the end of November 2013 at this point. But I also own an autographed copy of Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist by Richard Feldman, and there is certainly no shortage of things that irk me about the Association.

As Mozzarella says, the incessant "the sky is falling" attitude wears thin very quickly. It does also convey a sense to gun-owning non-members, let alone non-gun owners, that the organization is somewhat out of touch with reality. The fact that a large section of the current federal executive is fairly hostile to the private ownership of defensive firearms, while true, is of little consequence if the Democratic Congressional delegations need only to have the words "1994 mid-term elections" whispered in their collective ear as soon as some congresscritter from New York, New Jersey or Massachusetts proposes some gun control legislation, for support for such legislation to disappear as snow before the sun. Honestly, an attitude in the mailings and magazines along the lines of "we're holding the line, we're even winning in some areas, but we have to remain vigilant" would go so much further than the constant "your rights are about to be taken away any minute so send money now!"

Then there is the fact that, at least at the national level, the NRA clearly espouses a conservative attitude towards politics. It sponsors CPAC, and Jesus, just look at the 2008 annual meeting; the theme was "Celebration of American Values," and the speakers included John Bolton, Karl Rove and Glenn Beck. It's hard to imagine a more right-wing circle-jerk. And frankly, I suspect my concept of "American values" is rather different from the national leadership's, since mine includes shunning Ollie North as a known traitor to the country who only escaped justice because Congress granted him immunity for ratting out his superiors.

And Christ almighty, I get so tired of the "freedom that protects the others" rhetoric from an organization that didn't hesitate to endorse the party that chipped away at the rest of the Bill of Rights for eight years as long as they paid lip service to not touching the RKBA. Though, in all honesty, I'm less than impressed with the Democratic party on that score as well; last time I looked, the Military Commissions Act hadn't been repealed, nor the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the armed forces, and I'm still waiting for the administration to pull the TSA up short, and scrap the "No Fly list." For starters.

jdberger wrote:

I've noticed here, and in other threads, the stunning amount of disdain held my most Gtard board members toward their fellow gun owners. It seems like there's a bit of that resentment in almost every thread.

I can't speak for the others, but my disdain stems from the fact that it is our fellow gun owners, and their paleolithic attitudes, that most threaten our gun rights in this country and especially California.

Also, during the times when I was a grassroots NRA volunteer, I really really really got sick and tired of having to listen to all the bullshit immigrant bashing and other delightful conversation subjects my fellow gun owners seemed to enjoy.

I was a grassroots gun rights volunteer for some years, and I am still in a firearms-related business.  I have seen a lot of my fellow gun owners.  It's not pretty.

BTW, I am an NRA member.  But no longer a volunteer.

C. lupus baileyi wrote:

When a pro-RKBA type bills himself as proponent of civil rights, but then turns out to think that arrests, detention without charge, and "enhanced interrogation" on suspicion of terrorist activity are just fine provided they don't happen--or even threaten to happen--to gun-owning, white, Christian conservatives (even ones that actually are terrorists), you might be forgiven for wanting to disassociate yourself from such an individual.

The people who think that wrongful accusations of terrorism apparently can't remember back 13 years.  In 1996, a typical White American named Richard Jewell found a bomb in a crowded area at the Olympic Games in Atlanta.  He called it in and started evacuating the area.  When the bomb went off, only a couple of people died. 

Reno's DoJ started investigating him and, for about a week, everyone in America was sure that he had planted the bomb just so he could call it in and look like a hero.  Then, after the investigation, it turned out that he was innocent and actually was a hero who probably saved a few dozen people's lives.

This kind of stuff is why due process needs to be protected - to avoid punishing the innocent.  The advocates of waterboarding, etc. don't seem to stop to think that, without due process, some of the detainees might be innocent.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, the fact that a lot of NRA folks seem to be OK with such human rights abuses as long as nobody goes after their guns is bad for RKBA PR.

-David
Minneapolis, MN

jdberger wrote:

I've noticed here, and in other threads, the stunning amount of disdain held my most Gtard board members toward their fellow gun owners. It seems like there's a bit of that resentment in almost every thread. This is the same kind of language that the "anti's" use.

Redneck.
Wingnut.
Goon.
Gun nut.
Apathetic.
Jerks.
Bigots.
Self-proclaimed Prophets.

This concerns me.

It shouldn't. There's a fair amount of rhetoric that gets tossed around in here but there's also a much smaller audience than compared to say, an NRA mailing (since we're discussing their own brand of rhetoric). You've cited a lot of my own up above so I'll address what I can. For one thing, to me personally, 'gun nut' is a term of endearment. It's just as fitting as 'gun fan(atic)' or 'gun lover' or 'gun freak' would be, and ummm... don't forget, 'guntard'. The term is accurate imo. As for charging fellow gun nuts with apathy in the context of voting, it's hard to deny that as bearing at least a smidgeon of truth too. You (I) don't see gun nuts marching on the capitol everytime restrictive anti-gun measures get proposed, let alone passed. Contrast that to groups that really do know how to organize (the gay community, unions, etc.) and it becomes pretty evident that the voice of gun folks is, for the most part, a mouse squeak of a fart... if that. Linda Thompson anyone?

But since we're talking concerns, something I noticed in your initial post struck me sort of late in this conversation. You put the term right wing in between quotation marks. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your meaning, maybe not -- bear with me. From what I can surmise, you don't particularly subscribe to the theory that the NRA has a right-leaning bias hence the use of the quotes. But after reading some of these replies here, do you not think that there is some evidence that the NRA does indeed push that sort of agenda?

Last edited by Mozzarella (2009-07-10 15:38:21)

Mozzarella wrote:

Not only that, but considering the crop of candidates overall, it would be a really safe move on their part too. What better election to endorse a 'D' candidate than in one where the 'R' versions are going to suck balls anyway? About the only members I can see it pissing off would be the hard-liner partisan folks.

Well, that's precisely why they might not do it (probably won't do it).  It could have a very real impact on their fundraising if they publicly endorse Governor Moonbeam.

WAAAAH! THE NRA HAS BETRAYED US AGAIN!
    \


We haven't had a pro-gun rights Republican candidate for governor make it past the primaries in a long time.

cousinkix1953 wrote:

Silly gun show promoters ramble on and on about Obama in their radio advertising.

In his first eight months in office, Obama has signed as much pro-gun legislation (guns in national parks) as the Moron in Chief did in eight years (immunity of gun businesses from frivolous lawsuits).  I wonder what all these right wing gun nuts have against him.  It couldn't have anything to do with his skin color, that would be racist.

Finally, I got around to finish my writeup on the NRA.  "Why aren't you a member of the NRA" is not a trivial question, so the answer will be multi-faceted.

I'm not a member of the National Rifle Association, and I refuse to join them.  I have occasionally donated money to the "California NRA" (officially known as the "NRA Members' Councils of California" or something like that), and if there were a way to join the CalNRA as a member without joining the NRA, I would do so.  Maybe, the CRPA will become a way to accomplish something similar in the future, as it cleans up its act.  In the following, I'll use the term "NRA" to refer to the national organization, and "CalNRA" to the California organization that's run by Paul Payne.

Why don't I like the NRA?  The executive summary (which glosses over a lot of differentiated detail): because they are the "fifth column" of the right wing of the republican party, and I consider myself a dyed-in-the-wool leftist progressive.  And because they are more interested in their own self-preservation than in either being honest or being useful to gun rights.

Now the details.  What's wrong with the NRA?  The biggie: they are closely aligned with the republican party, in particular with its more conservative wing.  This is most visible in their endorsements and grades (I'll just use the term "endorse" here for brevity).  Admittedly, they occasionally endorse democrats, but the pendulum swings massively to the right.  Exhibit A are the presidential elections.  The NRA endorsed GWB, in spite of the fact that he did nothing tangible for gun rights, and had announced he would gladly sign a renewed AWB if it reached his desk.  The worst one happened when the NRA endorsed McCain: For many years, the NRA had waged war against McCain, and his anti-gun agenda.  Then when it became clear that he was going to be the republican nominee, the anti-McCain rhetoric from the NRA stopped.  Over a period of about 6 weeks, all the anti-McCain materials slowly vanished from
the NRA web site, and then they finally endorsed them.

I don't know which aspect makes me more mad here: (a) that the NRA endorsed a politician who is on the record as being anti-gun, just because he happens to be an elephant, or (b) that they are dishonest about it, and lie by retroactively changing history to pretend that they always liked him.  In both the Bush/Kerry and McCain/Obama election (which had no candidate that was really great for gun rights), the NRA should have kept its big mouth shut, instead of doing the party-line endorsement of and advertising for the republican candidate.

Admittedly, on average republican candidates are somewhat better for gun rights than democrats (although this is by no means a 90-10 statement, more a 60-40, remember the anti-gun actions by Reagan (both as governor and as president), George HW Bush as president, Dan Lundgren as AG in California, and so on).  Given that republicans are by no means angels, and democrats are not always devils, the strong bias by the NRA is inappropriate.

It is also self-defeating, because it turns the NRA into the laughingstock of politics.  Outside of its core constituency, it is not taken seriously; the term "NRA" has become a code-word for "the right fringe".  Quote from CNN about Judge Sotomayor: "Not even the NRA is strongly opposing her nomination".  That tells us way more about the NRA than about Judge Sotomayor.

You can also see the pro-R tendencies in the NRA's outreach.  Just look at its website: Still filled with lots of anti-Clinton rhetoric.  I remember getting a phone call from NRA fund raisers around the time of the 2004 presidential election, and all they wanted to do is to talk my ears off about how evil Hillary is (who wasn't even running for any office at that time).  The real purpose of such activity is to whip up the anti-Clinton anti-democratic hate, and use that anger for fund raising.  It would not be far fetched to classify the NRA as a hate group - the main purpose of their political activism is to polarize and inflame against democrats.

This directly leads to another criticism: The NRA whips up crazy tinfoil-hattery, and puts out bogeymen to scare its members with.  Many of the threats that it reports on are far-fetched, and outlandish.  This is good for the NRA, because it increases donations from the hard core.  It is bad for the gun rights community, because it puts the NRA in the neighborhood of (lunatic) fringe organizations.  The chicken little dance the NRA always does is a good rain dance as far as its fundraising is concerned; but seen from the outside, it makes the NRA look like the dance a chicken does with its head cut off.

Another aspect: The NRA considers itself the king of the hill of gun rights organizations.  One regularly finds them attempting to undercut or damage other gun rights organizations.  For example, look at the efforts to derail the Parker lawsuit (before it became Heller): If it comes from an organization other than the NRA, it must be bad.  Only after other good people (Cato etc.) had done all the legwork, and it became obvious that the Heller lawsuit would be unavoidable (the supreme court had accepted it) and would have a great chance at (re-)defining the meaning of the 2A, did the NRA grudgingly get behind it.  Another example is Mike Haas (who seems to be the pitbull among the public voices of the NRA in California, even though he doesn't seem to have an official position) going out of his way of dumping in the meanest way on other gun rights organizations.  I can understand that not all gun rights organizations are well run (some pro-forma pro gun organizations may actually just be fronts set up by anti-gun forces), and clearly the NRA and its members should be helping improve disfunctional or disruptive gun rights organizations, but it doesn't behoove the NRA to be openly damaging to its competitors.  It seems to suffer from a combination of NIH syndrome and having to be the alpha male.

The NRA has lots of visibility (it is a big organization, with about 4 million members, and good funding).  As I said above, it uses much of that capital to be the fifth column of the republicans.  Some is used for detailed backroom legislative work, and for supporting various lawsuits, but that's not generally known outside of the core gun rights community.

Contrast that with the CalNRA: It has just about zero visibility in public (which is probably good, a public presence of the NRA in California could only make matters worse and invigorate the progressive and anti-gun side here).  And the CalNRA does a lot of good legislative backroom work; I don't know whether it financially supports lawsuits (both criminal defense and policy-setting ones like Nordyke); probably that is funded either by things like the Calguns foundation and Cato, or by the National NRA.  Even though the CalNRA isn't perfect (it allows its apparatchik Mike Haas to spew vitriol all over the landscape, and his writings in a variety of locations make him a poster-child for NRA bashing), they don't screw things up too badly (unlike the National NRA), and does useful work.

I think the endorsements in the California governors race will be the real test of what the NRA stands for.  If they were in favor of gun rights, the only candidate to endorse would be Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown.  He is pro-gun (quietly and effectively), he is a gun owner and shooter himself.  I've had the pleasure of spending a few afternoons working with his campaign staff, and they are reasonable people.  But if the NRA were to endorce Brown, their California members (who are mostly angry old white men) would stop giving money.  So in the primary, they'll probably endorse whoever is the most right-wing candidate, judging them on the issues that really matter to their right-wing consituency: anti-abortion, xenophobia, anti-immigrant, law and order.  In the general election, they'll endorse whatever republican emerges from the primary, even if that republican is a committed gun hater, and the democratic candidate (likely to be Jerry Brown) is pro-gun.

Last edited by treelogger (2009-09-14 09:13:47)

cousinkix1953 wrote:

One of our local AM stations runs the commercials for those TS Gun shows in San Jose.  It's just more ammo hoarding talk and nothing said about AB 962 at all.

You need to be more cynical.

Why would a local gun show promoter be opposed to a bill that restricts California ammunition sales to local gun stores and gun shows?

simonov wrote:

Treelogger, that is a very good essay.

Counting the spelling and grammar errors, I doubt that conclusion.
I just had to add the word "democrats" in the sentence "they occasionally endorse democrats.  Oops.

treelogger wrote:

The worst one happened when the NRA endorsed McCain: For many years, the NRA had waged war against McCain, and his anti-gun agenda.  Then when it became clear that he was going to be the republican nominee, the anti-McCain rhetoric from the NRA stopped.  Over a period of about 6 weeks, all the anti-McCain materials slowly vanished from
the NRA web site, and then they finally endorsed them.

It's also worth noting that this fact did not fly under the radar and was noticed by the likes of Brady, et al.