S.C. lawmaker proposes registry for journalists

[BarryLee]

they don't like the NRA because they (perceive) them as supporting too many Republicans

I wrestle with this issue and wish the NRA could attract more Democrat leaders. However, the reality is the NRA supports leaders who support the Second Amendment and have in the past supported leaders from multiple parties. The problem now is one party has made gun control a key part of their platform, so obviously they won’t get much love from the NRA. We need Democrat gun owners to take a stand and push their leaders to take a more rational approach to this issue.

 

[Tom Servo]

Without the NRA, you would have needed a $200 transfer tax stamp and paperwork with every handgun beginning in 1934.

Minor correction: the proposed tax on handguns would have been $5.

On the rest, you're correct. It's easy for folks (most of whom admit to not being members) to blame the NRA for not making everything perfect while missing the magnitude of the burden the organization has had to shoulder.

Back to the original subject, I really think it's a bad idea from top to bottom. It seems quaint, but what we really have is a lawmaker deliberately introducing a bill he knows to be unconstitutional. Furthermore, he's wasting the taxpayers' time and money with it.

And for what? To make a rhetorical point? To whom? The only folks who get the joke are the folks who already support the RKBA. It's not going to change anyone's mind, and it just comes off as wasteful and petty to rest of the population.

 

[WyMark]

I agree with this. It's just that I wish they would be honest, come right out and say they don't like the NRA because they (perceive) them as supporting too many Republicans. Rather than claiming they don't support the NRA blaming it for "caving in", gun bans and other things that just aren't true when you look at the totality of the circumstances at the time.

It's fine to not want to give one cent to an organization that supports a politician(s) that you can't stand. It's not fine to be disingenuous about WHY you don't support the NRA if you are a knowledgeable gun owner.

Just so I'm clear, if I don't support the NRA for reasons other than what you've enumerated them I'm dishonest or just being disingenuous? That's a pretty absurd assumption, I think.

I honestly believe that more D's, and probably even more I's, would join the NRA right now if 'lil Wayne wasn't the face and voice of the organization. And I think even the current administration would be a little bit less anti-NRA if someone a little less caustic and maybe less anti-Obama were in that position.

 

[Tom Servo]

I honestly believe that more D's, and probably even more I's, would join the NRA right now if 'lil Wayne wasn't the face and voice of the organization.

LaPierre and his mouth have been a recurring problem. It started with the "jackbooted thugs" quip and continued through his disastrous response to Newtown.

And I think even the current administration would be a little bit less anti-NRA if someone a little less caustic and maybe less anti-Obama were in that position.

I disagree here. The administration needs a strawman to make their narrative work. The story they've built is that they're just trying to do some good, but the supposed Goliath that is the NRA is blocking their efforts in order to line the pockets of the "gun lobby."

Even with a more sensible spokesperson, we'd have that narrative.

 

[zincwarrior]

I disagree here. The administration needs a strawman to make their narrative work. The story they've built is that they're just trying to do some good, but the supposed Goliath that is the NRA is blocking their efforts in order to line the pockets of the "gun lobby."

Even with a more sensible spokesperson, we'd have that narrative.

Indeed. Politicians making hay on this need an EVILZ boogeyman. Its a common tactic on all sides.

 

[zukiphile]

I honestly believe that more D's, and probably even more I's, would join the NRA right now if 'lil Wayne wasn't the face and voice of the organization.

Depends on why an individual identifies as a D. If a person is a D because his parents were or because "dirtyyankee" is one word and he associates it with Rs, you might be right. For a person who indentifies as a D because he considers constitutional rights and checks as undesirable frustrations in the implementation of federal policy, you aren't going to see a lot of enthusiasm for an individual right held against the state.

LaPierre and his mouth have been a recurring problem. It started with the "jackbooted thugs" quip and continued through his disastrous response to Newtown.

I don't write any of this as a LaPierre fan.

How was LaPierre's response disasterous? What disaster ensued?

In the hours following the Sandy Hook news, there were some advocates of more firearms restriction who figuratively ran through the blood to get to a camera and push their policy wish list. They didn't get their way.

LaPierre's observation was factual in that there were staff whose only means of resistance was to soak up a few shots.

Jeb Bush noted a few months ago that the impulse to make a law isn't always the right one. He has been mocked for that too, but there is more than a little wisdom in it.

 

[Tom Servo]

How was LaPierre's response disasterous? What disaster ensued?

He never should have made a statement at all. The NRA wasn't responsible in even the most tangential way.

You have to look at it from two points of view: the anti-gunner and the uncommitted person.

To the uncommitted, the act of giving a speech and proposing policy solutions seemed to imply some sort of guilt. Furthermore, the idea of flooding our schools with armed security came off as opportunistic and tone-deaf.

To the antis, it was a goldmine. They twisted the "good guy with a gun" phrase and used the speech as proof the NRA was somehow trying to take advantage of the situation.

Let's remember that Timothy McVeigh had an NRA membership. So what, right? That's what we think.

At the time, the antis pounced on that. He also had some remote involvement with the KKK, and the media had a field day. They stressed his memberships in both organizations as a way of "proving" some connection between the NRA and KKK.

Public relations were terrible for the gun culture at that point, and what did LaPierre do? He referred to law enforcement as "jack booted thugs." Thanks, Wayne. The backlash was epic.

If there was to be any statement following Newtown, it should have been a noncommittal "our hearts go out to the families, but this has nothing to do with us" sort of thing, preferably delivered by someone without such a poisoned public-relations history.

LaPierre really needs to be replaced with someone with a better sense of public opinion.

 

[zukiphile]

How was LaPierre's response disasterous? What disaster ensued?

He never should have made a statement at all. The NRA wasn't responsible in even the most tangential way.

You have to look at it from two points of view: the anti-gunner and the uncommitted person.

To the uncommitted, the act of giving a speech and proposing policy solutions seemed to imply some sort of guilt. Furthermore, the idea of flooding our schools with armed security came off as opportunistic and tone-deaf.

I think you are quite wide of the mark on this.

In fact, the NRA stood accused. One is permitted to draw an adverse inference against a person who remains silent in the face of an accusation. That part of common-law reflects ordinary human intuition. For the NRA to have failed to respond with vigor would more likely have been interpreted as an admission.

To the antis, it was a goldmine. They twisted the "good guy with a gun" phrase and used the speech as proof the NRA was somehow trying to take advantage of the situation.

Let's remember that Timothy McVeigh had an NRA membership. So what, right? That's what we think.

At the time, the antis pounced on that. He also had some remote involvement with the KKK, and the media had a field day. They stressed his memberships in both organizations as a way of "proving" some connection between the NRA and KKK.

One should hope that his adversaries always offer incompetent arguments.

Proponents for additional firearms restrictions had those restrictions drafted and ready to go. It would be unrealistic to imagine that they would not also make their arguments with vigor. That they incorporated or caricatured parts of the NRA response should not suggest to you that the NRA response was wrong. Indeed, had the NRA been conspicuously silent, don't you imagine that the silence would have been incorporated into gun-control arguments of the moment?

So, we heard derision of "a good guy with a gun", a manifestly true observation. An advocate who derides the truth is unlikely to buy credibility with that derision.

On the other hand, a civil rights organization that remains silent in the face of calls to abridge the right it is charged with defending invites the observation that it is not responding because there is no response and that of the idea the organization represents is itself bankrupt.

Public relations were terrible for the gun culture at that point, and what did LaPierre do? He referred to law enforcement as "jack booted thugs." Thanks, Wayne. The backlash was epic.

That was a couple of decades before Newtown. While some of the language is over the top, the judgment of some of the people in federal government and responsible for some high profile matters was dubious at best.

If there was to be any statement following Newtown, it should have been a noncommittal "our hearts go out to the families, but this has nothing to do with us" sort of thing, preferably delivered by someone without such a poisoned public-relations history.

I believe that would have been demoralizing to the many people who stood in defense of the rights described in the Second Amendment during the Newtown hysteria. "We are the NRA and we haven't anything to do with this" isn't much of a rallying cry.

LaPierre really needs to be replaced with someone with a better sense of public opinion.

If a better sense of public opinion drives one to submit to it or acquiesce when the argument is difficult to make, I do not believe that quality would be desirable in NRA leadership.

Neither of us seem particularly enthused by LaPierre, but for somewhat contrary reasons.