Sunday, April 21, 2013
Yet another article that I never intended to write...
THIS POST HAS BEEN REMOVED.
Seen in the light of day, the things we did the night before often are revealed as less of a good idea than they appeared to be in the dark. Last night's post came from a very dark place indeed, and upon reflection I think it's beast if I just delete the whole damn thing. Well, not delete exactly, but I have removed that post while saving a copy in case anyone who feels they have a need/right to see it wishes to (family members of the parties involved and such, and providing I agree that they actually have a need to see it).
Speaking of need...I needed to write that article and I'm glad I did, but most of you have no need to see it. I probably should have trusted my instinct not to post it. I apologize form any confusion this may have caused. Admittedly, my forbearance could have been timed more conveniently, but that is what it is.
My sincerest apologies to all. We now return you to you regularly scheduled confusion.
MSR
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
In other news, hell just froze over... UPDATED AND WITH A RETRACTION
UPDATE: 4-19-13 - As I'm sure most of you have heard, this legislation got its vote, and was defeated. More on that later; I am still too furious to be very coherent on that topic.
But I need to point out that I have received some interesting email as a result of this post. Specifically, one email message that I would really like to respond to on-line. However, since it came to me as a private email message I don't feel that I can respond in public without that person's permission, on which I am waiting (but, be fair, I only just sent this person email about this). Stay tuned.
RETRACTION: 4-19-13 - One thing I will respond to is a complaint from one of my oldest friends, and I hope I can still refer to him as such. The comment was the "Valmet/postal worker" crack that I made toward the end. I heard from the former postal worker in question, and he objected to my attempt at humor. And well he should...in retrospect, I have to admit that it was thoughtless, tasteless, and damn near humorless. Or, as I wrote to him:
"That 'Valmet/postal worker' crack of mine was done purely for a joke, albeit a tasteless one and at a friend's expense, and for that I sincerely apologize, both for this use and for any previous reference."
And to you, my readers, friends and otherwise, I do make a similar apology, both for my misuse of a friendship and for my horrible overuse of the comma, both in this sentence and the last, and as well in the next.
Against all odds, against the steadfast and bitter opposition of the NRA, against the wishes of some of the most hard-line Conservatives in Congress, and in spite of threatened filibuster, it looks like new gun control legislation is coming to a vote. It looks that way, anyway...but at least there's reason to hope it might be so.
Think about what this means. Specifically, think about what this means for the NRA.
For years, the NRA has stood as a stalwart bastion of gun rights for all Americans. At least, that's what the NRA wants us all to believe. In actuality, the NRA has continually taken gun rights positions that haven't been supported my their membership. With support for things like universal background checks running overwhelmingly high even among NRA members, the NRA firmly opposes them.
Clearly, the NRA is not responding to the wishes of its membership. Strange behavior for an organization that claims to be working on behalf of that membership. It has to be admitted that the NRA no longer concerns itself with its members; they have, in fact, become nothing more than a lobbying organization for the firearms industry. And until now, a very effective lobbying organization. Until now.
Now, their political control is slipping. Take the NRA's famous "rating system," where legislators are given a letter-grade indicating how NRA-friendly their voting record is. This "grade" is often used like a sledge hammer against pro-gun-control politicians, but of late is being used against legislators with a high NRA "grade," Republican or Democrat. This is new. Basically, if you're not campaigning in Texas or the deep south, having an "A" rating from the NRA isn't as likely as it once was to help a politician, and is often detrimental.
For years the NRA has relied heavily on those who would steadfastly support the NRA no matter what, despite that organization's unwillingness to actually represent its membership. As long as the NRA continued to favor the needs of gun manufacturers over gun owners, and as long as gun owners were wiling to put up with this, the NRA's dominant position seemed secure.
That appears to be changing. The NRA's membership seems to be waking up to the fact that the NRA's leadership is hopelessly out-of-step with its membership while being in lock-step with the firearms industry that it truly represents.
Example: Background checks. With every new poll on this issue, it becomes more apparent that most of their membership, as well as the public at large (80% to 90% of all Americans, as low as 74% among NRA members), supports universal background checks while the NRA itself remains utterly opposed to them. Of course, the NRA and pro-gun advocates say the polls can't be believed, but as far as I have heard they don't say it in any way that holds water.
I had a discussion over Facebook with a conservative friend (yes, I have conservative friends) who expressed the opinion that such polls could not be believed, since (as he'd read) such polls are conducted in urban areas where support for stricter gun control runs higher than in more rural areas. Leaving aside the fact that he provided no factual support for this position, and I don't know that he could (I have looked, and found nothing), I found his argument self-defeating. If the polls say that a vast majority of the people polled support a position, but you contend that that is only true in the limited geographical area of the survey, your argument falls apart if that limited geographical area encompasses most of the population.
(And, sadly, that's the most reasonable argument against believeing the polls that I have heard. But I don't watch Fox, I don't listen to Limbaugh or O'Reilly or Hannity or any of the other Conservative voices so prevalent these days...not regularly, anyway...and I'm willing to admit that there might be something out there that I haven't heard, some gem of wisdom that will convince me of the error of my ways and that all polls actually are products of the liberal-biased left-wing media. Unlikely, but hey it could happen...so if you think you can argue me out of my position, please give it a try. Post a Reply to this article (see the link at the bottom) or reply to my blog post on Facebook. Please. If you have a reasonable argument, I really want to hear it.)
Having the NRA "outed" as the lobbyists they are seems to have loosened their grip on Congress. I can only see this as a good thing, as gun owners and sportsmen haven't been truly represented by the NRA for a long time.
Oh, and before you accuse me of being a typical anti-gun liberal, I'll ask you to note that I haven't made one anti-gun statement in this article, not expressed one opinion that is in any way a threat to your second-amendment rights. I have, however, been very anti-NRA. The NRA would have you believe that that's the same as being anti-gun. I don't believe that.
I didn't even say that I thought new gun legislation was a good idea; I merely said that letting it come to a vote was a good thing. That having a public debate on this issue was a good thing. That letting Democracy work was a good thing. I never let on just where I stand.
Just to put the record straight, however, I am going to tell you where I stand. I am a gun owner and a recreational shooter. I currently own several rifles and a shotgun. I once owned a handgun, and I once owned what is commonly referred to as an "assault weapon." (COMMENT RETRACTED - SEE ABOVE) I support universal background checks and cannot see any reason to oppose them. I am less certain about an "assault weapon" ban but I think that may be an idea whose time has come, and if the majority want it then we should have it.
But, like I said, if you think you can change my mind by all means give it a shot. So to speak.
The Blues Viking
The opinions expressed herein are mine and if you don't like them you can get your own damn blog.
Does the NRA Represent Gun Manufacturers or Gun Owners? (The Nation, December 2012)
Leffingwell says NRA members support background checks of all gun purchasers (PolitiFact)
Gun Owners Poll (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, July 2012)
Mayors Against Illegal Guns will counter NRA grades of congresspeople with its own report cards (Daily Kos)
But I need to point out that I have received some interesting email as a result of this post. Specifically, one email message that I would really like to respond to on-line. However, since it came to me as a private email message I don't feel that I can respond in public without that person's permission, on which I am waiting (but, be fair, I only just sent this person email about this). Stay tuned.
RETRACTION: 4-19-13 - One thing I will respond to is a complaint from one of my oldest friends, and I hope I can still refer to him as such. The comment was the "Valmet/postal worker" crack that I made toward the end. I heard from the former postal worker in question, and he objected to my attempt at humor. And well he should...in retrospect, I have to admit that it was thoughtless, tasteless, and damn near humorless. Or, as I wrote to him:
"That 'Valmet/postal worker' crack of mine was done purely for a joke, albeit a tasteless one and at a friend's expense, and for that I sincerely apologize, both for this use and for any previous reference."
And to you, my readers, friends and otherwise, I do make a similar apology, both for my misuse of a friendship and for my horrible overuse of the comma, both in this sentence and the last, and as well in the next.
Against all odds, against the steadfast and bitter opposition of the NRA, against the wishes of some of the most hard-line Conservatives in Congress, and in spite of threatened filibuster, it looks like new gun control legislation is coming to a vote. It looks that way, anyway...but at least there's reason to hope it might be so.
Think about what this means. Specifically, think about what this means for the NRA.
For years, the NRA has stood as a stalwart bastion of gun rights for all Americans. At least, that's what the NRA wants us all to believe. In actuality, the NRA has continually taken gun rights positions that haven't been supported my their membership. With support for things like universal background checks running overwhelmingly high even among NRA members, the NRA firmly opposes them.
Clearly, the NRA is not responding to the wishes of its membership. Strange behavior for an organization that claims to be working on behalf of that membership. It has to be admitted that the NRA no longer concerns itself with its members; they have, in fact, become nothing more than a lobbying organization for the firearms industry. And until now, a very effective lobbying organization. Until now.
Now, their political control is slipping. Take the NRA's famous "rating system," where legislators are given a letter-grade indicating how NRA-friendly their voting record is. This "grade" is often used like a sledge hammer against pro-gun-control politicians, but of late is being used against legislators with a high NRA "grade," Republican or Democrat. This is new. Basically, if you're not campaigning in Texas or the deep south, having an "A" rating from the NRA isn't as likely as it once was to help a politician, and is often detrimental.
For years the NRA has relied heavily on those who would steadfastly support the NRA no matter what, despite that organization's unwillingness to actually represent its membership. As long as the NRA continued to favor the needs of gun manufacturers over gun owners, and as long as gun owners were wiling to put up with this, the NRA's dominant position seemed secure.
That appears to be changing. The NRA's membership seems to be waking up to the fact that the NRA's leadership is hopelessly out-of-step with its membership while being in lock-step with the firearms industry that it truly represents.
Example: Background checks. With every new poll on this issue, it becomes more apparent that most of their membership, as well as the public at large (80% to 90% of all Americans, as low as 74% among NRA members), supports universal background checks while the NRA itself remains utterly opposed to them. Of course, the NRA and pro-gun advocates say the polls can't be believed, but as far as I have heard they don't say it in any way that holds water.
I had a discussion over Facebook with a conservative friend (yes, I have conservative friends) who expressed the opinion that such polls could not be believed, since (as he'd read) such polls are conducted in urban areas where support for stricter gun control runs higher than in more rural areas. Leaving aside the fact that he provided no factual support for this position, and I don't know that he could (I have looked, and found nothing), I found his argument self-defeating. If the polls say that a vast majority of the people polled support a position, but you contend that that is only true in the limited geographical area of the survey, your argument falls apart if that limited geographical area encompasses most of the population.
(And, sadly, that's the most reasonable argument against believeing the polls that I have heard. But I don't watch Fox, I don't listen to Limbaugh or O'Reilly or Hannity or any of the other Conservative voices so prevalent these days...not regularly, anyway...and I'm willing to admit that there might be something out there that I haven't heard, some gem of wisdom that will convince me of the error of my ways and that all polls actually are products of the liberal-biased left-wing media. Unlikely, but hey it could happen...so if you think you can argue me out of my position, please give it a try. Post a Reply to this article (see the link at the bottom) or reply to my blog post on Facebook. Please. If you have a reasonable argument, I really want to hear it.)
Having the NRA "outed" as the lobbyists they are seems to have loosened their grip on Congress. I can only see this as a good thing, as gun owners and sportsmen haven't been truly represented by the NRA for a long time.
Oh, and before you accuse me of being a typical anti-gun liberal, I'll ask you to note that I haven't made one anti-gun statement in this article, not expressed one opinion that is in any way a threat to your second-amendment rights. I have, however, been very anti-NRA. The NRA would have you believe that that's the same as being anti-gun. I don't believe that.
I didn't even say that I thought new gun legislation was a good idea; I merely said that letting it come to a vote was a good thing. That having a public debate on this issue was a good thing. That letting Democracy work was a good thing. I never let on just where I stand.
Just to put the record straight, however, I am going to tell you where I stand. I am a gun owner and a recreational shooter. I currently own several rifles and a shotgun. I once owned a handgun, and I once owned what is commonly referred to as an "assault weapon." (COMMENT RETRACTED - SEE ABOVE) I support universal background checks and cannot see any reason to oppose them. I am less certain about an "assault weapon" ban but I think that may be an idea whose time has come, and if the majority want it then we should have it.
But, like I said, if you think you can change my mind by all means give it a shot. So to speak.
The Blues Viking
The opinions expressed herein are mine and if you don't like them you can get your own damn blog.
Does the NRA Represent Gun Manufacturers or Gun Owners? (The Nation, December 2012)
Leffingwell says NRA members support background checks of all gun purchasers (PolitiFact)
Gun Owners Poll (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, July 2012)
Mayors Against Illegal Guns will counter NRA grades of congresspeople with its own report cards (Daily Kos)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
