Defending The NRA?
BY Herschel Smith
2 years, 6 months ago
Harold Hutchison at Ammoland.
There are times when Second Amendment supporters rip the National Rifle Association over the Gun Control Act of 1968 or the 1993 Brady Act. Let’s be blunt; the bulk of the provisions in those laws probably should be repealed – or greatly modified – to properly reflect the Second Amendment.
But in 1968 and 1993, Second Amendment supporters were in a bad position. Second Amendment supporters faced a dire situation in 1968. There had been the high-profile assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. earlier in the year. President Lyndon Baines Johnson was pushing for licensing and registration.
As noted earlier, that was the “second problem” Nelson “Pete” Shields outlined in a 1976 interview. Once they have the guns registered and gun owners licensed, gun owners are in a dire situation. Look at England, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada if you don’t believe me. As such, the NRA back then made probably the best choice they could – limit the damage and prevent licensing and registration from happening.
The same situation was in place with the Brady Act in 1993. The real threat was a permanent waiting period. NICS has a lot of problems, and the NSSF has outlined the fixes that are a bare minimum, and Second Amendment supporters should work to make that happen. In an ideal world, there would be no NICS, but we’re not in an ideal world, and post-Uvalde/Buffalo, the conditions are decidedly less than ideal.
[ … ]
In the wake of Uvalde, there will likely be a push for “red flag” laws. In this case, with the heightened emotions, Second Amendment supporters should keep the long-term threats in mind …
Second Amendment supporters will need to work hard to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local levels via the ballot box, but part of that hard work will be effective damage control after events like Uvalde.
The presupposition behind this badly framed and entirely mistaken argument is that if we don’t compromise some, the collectivists will do worse to us.
But that presupposition is falsifiable. The collectivists have already said what they want to do, and it is reflected in the wish list proposed by the House, i.e., a renewed AWB, magazine capacity limits, red flag laws, universal background checks, registration of all firearms by serial number, and on and on the list goes.
If they currently had that much power they would have already pushed through their agenda. There is nothing to be gained from any sort of compromise. As far as the voters go, you cannot convince a collectivist to vote for liberty by compromising. It runs fundamentally against their nature.
His defense of the NRA is silly. One commenter posts this in response.
But just so that you don’t miss it, make sure to read Harold’s piece. He appears to be actually defending or speaking out in favor of red flag laws.
On June 16, 2022 at 3:03 am, skybill said:
“10-4”
skybill
On June 16, 2022 at 6:55 am, Fred said:
“But in 1968 and 1993, Second Amendment supporters were in a bad position.”
It’s not a Bill of Rights but the Bill of Good Positions.
On June 16, 2022 at 7:32 am, June J said:
The only gun control any 2A organization should support is marksmanship.
On June 16, 2022 at 7:59 am, Longbow said:
Don’t piss off the Bully… He might really really get mad!
On June 16, 2022 at 8:12 am, X said:
The NRA is fond of saying it was founded in 1871 to encourage marksmanship because during the Civil War, it was discovered that an insufficient number of Union soldiers from urban areas had good shooting skills.
In other words, it was founded so that when the Federal government wanted to conscript Northern Americans to kill Southern Americans, they would need less training…
On June 16, 2022 at 8:29 am, Joe Blow said:
No, zero compromise on gun control. The 2nd was written to restrict the government, from infringing on The People, not to restrict the people in any way, shape, or form. Any idiot who knows the English language can understand that by reading the thing. To debate ANYTHING else (magazine size, automatics, etc.) is to miss the debate entirely. When you engage in one of these infringing side debates, you’ve already lost the bigger argument. Do not negotiate ANY conditions on your superceding right to defend yourself against any threat by all means available.
On June 16, 2022 at 9:29 am, Nosmo said:
It is LONG past time for gun owners to employ a one word answer to any and all efforts at gun control and anyone who supports it: “No.”
We are not the problem. We have never been the problem. Criminals and the mentally disturbed are the problem and always have been. Until The Powers That Be decide to deal with the real problem our response to everything should be: No.
There is no point in engaging in a rational discussion with anyone, individual or group, who refuses to abandon emotion and seriously examine the facts; since that is not forthcoming, the answer is: No.
Not now. Not ever. No.
On June 16, 2022 at 11:13 am, Mack said:
Brilliant message.
5×5
Perhaps Harold should look at the 2nd as a Commandment. Thus:
“Thou Shall Not Infringe on the Right of Man to Keep and Bear Weapons”
Do not fear the NRA – Fear the Lord!
On June 16, 2022 at 1:15 pm, Red Man said:
Why anyone sends the NRA $$ is beyond me!
On June 16, 2022 at 3:46 pm, DDS said:
I posted a link to this article under the comment mentioned above. Hopefully it will increase the number of people who read Harold’s silliness.