Tag Archives: NRA

I don’t like the NRA… Why?…. Because they arm the ones they fight.



I don’t like the NRA.

I wrote a post about this https://cogitabunda.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/im-not-a-fan-of-the-nra-but/.

At the time, I said to myself, “Well, I don’t like them, but they do seem to at least publicly do an important job for the sake of the public.”

Now we have this: http://www.buzzfeed.com/stevefriess/how-the-nra-built-a-massive-secret-database-of-gun-owners

Really, NRA? For a group who brings in over 200 million dollars annually, based on public records, they show little interest in something that I find pretty obvious.

It’s hypocritical to have an ‘in-house’ registry of gun owners while fighting against the government having such a list. You have effectively hamstrung your own argument against having such a list-there was previously a thought that no such list exists.

But now, it exists, everyone knows it, and you have it.

What’s the argument against Gun registration, now? That the government could use it too easily to bring about confiscation?

If they want the list, all they have to do is find a reason to hack your systems or raid your offices. If the intent is tyranny, they’ll do it and apologize profusely.

Of course, that would make them the bad guy, but you guys would wind up with plenty of bad press and a general increase in distrust and decrease in funding. I mean, why should you exist if “the big list” is in their hands anyway? Prevention of a registry has been your supposed hard line stance for years, and with that gone, you are nothing anymore.

But, if I were the government, and I wanted to bring about confiscation but maintain some kind of good press, I’d cut a deal with you. All you have to do is keep fighting the public legal fight, drawing in that cash, paying your six-figure incomes to your people, and one other small thing…

I would just want the list, quietly, discretely, no one would ever have to know…

That is, that’s if I were an untrustworthy government. That sort of thing would never happen, right?

Because we can trust our government. Just ask them, they’ll tell you that they can be trusted.

Just like you guys. You’d never agree to this, right? This is all a misunderstanding and you have the data kept nice and safe, at least as safe as the government’s highest level military secrets.


Maybe that’s not the best example, right?

But we can trust our government not to want to collect all of this information, right? They’ll respect our privacy as citizens, right?



So, in effect, you guys have made it so that your own major argument point is moot. Not only that, but since you have done it, and much of your information has come through publicly available sources, if the government had NOT figured out how to get the information themselves before, you have given them a simple template.

They don’t need to confiscate the guns, not really. They just have to make sure that the gun owners suffer, somehow. A note somewhere for Law Enforcement would do it,”Potentially dangerous, gun owner”.

Thanks, NRA. Over the past 10 years I suspect you guys have taken in somewhere near 2 billion dollars to defend gun owners from the government.

Now you have given the government what they need to do what you were supposedly trying to prevent.


The only questions left are these:

1: Did I call your collusion right, or was this simple imbecility on your part?

2: If you aren’t working with the government on this, then what are you going to do to prevent them from following in your footsteps?

Piece of advice for you guys, come out with a press release stating, “We were trying to find out how hard it was to gather this information, so that we can fight against the government acting to collect it.”

It’s really your only hope for justification.


Join the NRA, folks. They need your money to… honestly? I have no idea.


If you want to take your rights into your own hands, you can contact your representatives.


For more articles on politics I highly suggest ivoter.

For liberals: http://ivoter.net/

For conservatives: http://ivoter.com/



Filed under Social ideas, Thoughts

I’m not a fan of the NRA, but…

I don’t like the NRA. Don’t get me wrong, they’re supporting the 2nd amendment, they’re well funded, organized, blablabla. I guess that’s all a good thing. I want to take a walk down memory lane with you, though.

In the 90′s, we had background checks* come up. The NRA came out as supporting them. The leader said in a hearing they were all for “instant” background checks, something pointed out as being a political masterstroke, binding up congress with a technological impossibility, at the time.

Now, they have reversed their “position”. Why? Because “things like that won’t help anything.”

I’m all for the 2nd, and totally against registration and background checks as a tool that could be easily wielded by a tyrant to illegally move to take people’s firearms. I suppose the position “it won’t help” works, but I can poke a giant hole in it with no thought involved at all. “How will we know until we try?”

This is why I don’t like the NRA. They take a weak position to engender the most political support possible, offering politicians a position defensible to the public should they face reelection, but it puts them in a constant state of trying to cause congress to dither.

If they take the strong position, then I’ll be all for them. Until then, though, I can’t help but wonder if they are not an “agent provacateur” working WITH the government.

The knowledge that you send the NRA your money tends to make people think,”Well, I don’t need to do a thing as an individual. That’s why I pay them.” Thus, if they turn around and give the government an “in” to gun control, then you are caught unaware until they show up at your door to take your firearms because of the deal they struck with “NRA support”.

Do I think you should send your money to them? If you got the money to send, then go ahead. But never think they should be your ONLY advocate. YOU are your best advocate. Send your money, but make sure you drop a line to your government representative, congressman, sheriff, president, and whoever else you can. Think of them as one of your pawns in this maddening game of political chess, so that they do not make you a sacrificed pawn in a play of their own to maintain their own position, power, and income.


*-This was written some time ago, and I used “gun registration” instead of “background checks”, something which caused people to focus on the idea that the NRA had never supported direct “registration” rather than what I was trying to get across-the idea that being a pawn for one entity was as dangerous as being the pawn of another.


Filed under Social ideas, Thoughts