Ollie North ousted from his NRA role

[Medusa]

There have been a large number of anti lgbt, anti reproductive autonomy, actions taken by trump and his enablers, with many more desired. Some of this is done nationally, some of it is done locally with national cover and blessing. Some of the judicial appointments you believe you’re pleased about from a RKBA standpoint will almost certainly cause decades of harm to lgbt persons and to reproductive autonomy. So when the nra goes all in on backing him and causes that don’t relate to RKBA, it creates pretty serious animosity and resentment among people who could be allies in the RKBA effort. Fence sitters go to the other side of the fence. Etc. Younger people, as they grow up and form opinions, think - what kind of people back RKBA? And they see Dana and her ilk and think, hmm, not good. The nra is spending money to undermine the future of RKBA when it does such things.

All this has been covered before. The way forward is people working together on RKBA, understanding that it is a right that protects us all. All of us, or none of us.

I have to laugh at statements like, well we shouldn’t court people who make certain “lifestyle choices” in the RKBA movement. Know what’s a lifestyle choice? To go armed or unarmed, to take responsibility for your own self protection, to be religious or not, to live with honor and integrity in a way that is true to who you are or not, etc.

[BillSWPA]

There have been a large number of anti lgbt, anti reproductive autonomy, actions taken by trump and his enablers, with many more desired. Some of this is done nationally, some of it is done locally with national cover and blessing. Some of the judicial appointments you believe you’re pleased about from a RKBA standpoint will almost certainly cause decades of harm to lgbt persons and to reproductive autonomy. So when the nra goes all in on backing him and causes that don’t relate to RKBA, it creates pretty serious animosity and resentment among people who could be allies in the RKBA effort. Fence sitters go to the other side of the fence. Etc. Younger people, as they grow up and form opinions, think - what kind of people back RKBA? And they see Dana and her ilk and think, hmm, not good. The nra is spending money to undermine the future of RKBA when it does such things.

All this has been covered before. The way forward is people working together on RKBA, understanding that it is a right that protects us all. All of us, or none of us.

I have to laugh at statements like, well we shouldn’t court people who make certain “lifestyle choices” in the RKBA movement. Know what’s a lifestyle choice? To go armed or unarmed, to take responsibility for your own self protection, to be religious or not, to live with honor and integrity in a way that is true to who you are or not, etc.

NO ONE has said that any group of people should not be welcomed. I did say that no group should be specifically sought out, because that distorts the pro-gun mission.

The vast, vast majority of pro-gun politicians are conservative. If the NRA is to focus on their mission, they can only do that by supporting those who support that mission.

If the NRA is to start worrying about “reproductive autonomy,” I will hazard a guess that the vast majority of its members care a lot more about the innocent lives which are violently destroyed as well as the women who are left physically and mentally scarred by our society’s pretense that choices can be made without consequences. However, that would also distort the mission.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drang]

John Cornyn agreed to split Fix NICS from reciprocity in 2017. WHY?

Because national reciprocity is a non-starter, and any bill its tied to is doomed?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If the NRA is to focus on their mission, they can only do that by supporting those who support that mission.

That is ambiguous. Do you mean the NRA should explicitly support conservative positions such as those on sexuality? That's bullcrap. It is not an NRA issue to be pro or anti choice.

I hope this thread doesn't go down the abortion sink hole explicitly. I might ask Tom to state that or split it off to a thread to be ignored.

[Zincwarrior]

That is ambiguous. Do you mean the NRA should explicitly support conservative positions such as those on sexuality? That's bullcrap. It is not an NRA issue to be pro or anti choice.

I hope this thread doesn't go down the abortion sink hole explicitly. I might ask Tom to state that or split it off to a thread to be ignored.

Its the problem. If you focus on one political segment then that right becomes tied to that political segment.

Rights should not be tied to different political groups, but to all members of the USA.

[GardoneVT]

Its the problem. If you focus on one political segment then that right becomes tied to that political segment.

Rights should not be tied to different political groups, but to all members of the USA.

The practical source of the problem is there are no “rights” anymore.

Yes I’m well aware of the Constitutions enumerations, but I’m referring to there being no rights in the minds of voters. In the everyday political views of ordinary people the idea of something being a common truth to all is fundamentally alien. Political ideas are only applicable nowadays to people on a given tribe; as such one cannot be pro-abortion and pro gun. Being pro gun isn’t a political platform for the Democrats- and neither is abortion for the GOP. The fact the Constitution secures individual RKBA (or any othe right) is irrelevant to the modern political status quo. So one has to choose, and like a combo meal at McDonalds if you want X you’re getting Y and Z whether you like it or not.

This leads to the “statism” problem pointed out repeatedly here and elsewhere. Freedom isn’t even on the political menu, because that requires common ground on inalienable totems. Inalienable totems don’t exist between political tribes, so the political process turns into which team can leverage the state into enforcing its ideals. Parties switch and then those same statist tactics and tools are used for their team.

Back and forth it goes; until you get the modern picture where one simply has to select which mildly totalitarian flavor they want. The Republican type ( reproductive , religious and social decisions regulated by the state) or the Democrat type ( economic, financial, and lifestyle decisions regulated by the state).

[wvincent]

I have to laugh at statements like, well we shouldn’t court people who make certain “lifestyle choices” in the RKBA movement. Know what’s a lifestyle choice? To go armed or unarmed, to take responsibility for your own self protection, to be religious or not, to live with honor and integrity in a way that is true to who you are or not, etc.

You know what? I'm down with that statement.
After all, it's part of being a responsible adult.

Anything other than 2A rights is a diversion of the mission of the NRA. All those other "lifestyle" choices is NACHO, Na cho busness.

[0ddl0t]

The vast, vast majority of pro-gun politicians are conservative. If the NRA is to focus on their mission, they can only do that by supporting those who support that mission.

And yet when a pro-gun Democrat (Heitkamp) voted against "a mixed bag on guns" judge (Kavanaugh) because of non gun related disagreements (multiple allegations of sexual assault), the NRA attacked her and supported her opponent in the election.

Said NRA-ILA Director Cox: "Today, Heidi Heitkamp put partisan politics above the rights of law-abiding North Dakota gun owners. Right now, the U.S. Supreme Court is split 4-4 on the basic right to keep a firearm in the home for self-defense. Therefore, a vote against confirming Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is a vote against the fundamental right to self-defense.”

Seems to me the NRA was the one putting partisan politics above the rights of gun owners...

[BillSWPA]

And yet when a pro-gun Democrat (Heitkamp) voted against "a mixed bag on guns" judge (Kavanaugh) because of non gun related disagreements (multiple allegations of sexual assault), the NRA attacked her and supported her opponent in the election.

Said NRA-ILA Director Cox: "Today, Heidi Heitkamp put partisan politics above the rights of law-abiding North Dakota gun owners. Right now, the U.S. Supreme Court is split 4-4 on the basic right to keep a firearm in the home for self-defense. Therefore, a vote against confirming Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is a vote against the fundamental right to self-defense.”

Seems to me the NRA was the one putting partisan politics above the rights of gun owners...

I don't want to derail this thread too far away from the NRA issues, but if you believe the allegations against Kavanaugh had any credibility then I have some oceanfront property in Arkansas to sell you.

As much as we would like a judge that rules the way we want all the time, what we need on the Supreme Court is a justice who does what the Constitution requires. Normally that will be in support of us. The NRA was 100% right on that one.

[0ddl0t]

The point is Heitkamp's opposition to Kavanaugh had nothing to do with the 2A so the NRA should have "stayed in its lane" instead of playing the part of the Republican whip.