David Codrea initially recommended that NRA members recall Grover Norquist.  We had already briefly discussed that, and it should be clear where I stand.  Todd Rathner penned a rebuttal to David’s recommendation.

I strongly disagree with his suggestion that the NRA should focus on issues other than the Second Amendment.”

“The NRA is powerful and can defend our gun rights against all comers because it focuses like a laser on strengthening the Second Amendment,” Rathner explains. “We [NRA] are not the Republican Party. The NRA wants the support of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. We are not the pro-life movement. Or the pro-choice movement. We want Americans of all world views to defend the Second Amendment.”

This is a silly statement.  People of all world views won’t defend the second amendment.  The constitution came from a world view that was unique in its understanding of the ultimate source of rights, which the constitution merely recognized.  As for needing people of all kinds to defend anything, I don’t really think there is such a real need, and I certainly have no felt need for such a thing.

But Mr. Rathner doesn’t want us to think two steps ahead.  Or another way to say it would be that Rathner doesn’t want us to consider logical consequences, simple first order effects.  We have gone to great lengths to make everyone understand that open borders, in addition to the other national maladies that would be involved, means loss of recognized rights to own firearms.  It starts with the cultural milieu of Hispanics and Latinos.

“For historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”

One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished.  South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology.  Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build.  This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.

Thus, Hispanics and Latinos poll at some 75% favoring gun control.  Even if we acquiesce to Mr. Rathner’s claim on single issues, we still win because we’re right.  On this single issue, we cannot allow unfettered immigration.  David writes this about the issue in his latest response to Rathner.

Here’s the thing, Mr. Rathner, and you have to know this, which makes your “response” appear more disingenuous than “respectful”:  “Amnesty” with a “pathway to citizenship” represents nothing less than an existential threat to the Second Amendment. If Grover Norquist and his apologists continue giving NRA a pass to ignore it under a phony “single issue” excuse (which I just demonstrated is one of convenience, not consistency), you’re not going to have anything to “focus like a laser” on. And that’s in a matter of a decade or two.

Lastly, Mr. Norquist has shown a propensity to align himself with people who would do harm to this nation.  This may not be the single issue Mr. Rathner wants to focus on, but it’s good enough for me.  After all, I’m a professional employee, I serve my employer “at will.”  They can fire me any time for any reason.  So can we with Norquist.