Via Uncle I came across a column by NRA president Wayne LaPierre. In the piece he warns about the dangers of Obama receiving a second term and explains many of the potential dangers:
And as I travel the country talking to fellow National Rifle Association members, gun owners, and Americans from all walks of life, it is clear to me that the next decisive date in American history will be November 6, 2012 – the day America must decide whether President Barack Obama deserves a second term in the White House.
I say this because so many Americans genuinely, and rightly, fear that something is deeply wrong in our great nation. We fear that the America we know and love is in danger of jumping the tracks and spiraling out of control. We see a President whose values and goals are, in many ways, the exact opposite of our beliefs and what generations of Americans have fought and died for.
This is why all gun owners and freedom-loving Americans must ask this question: “If Barack Obama wins a second term in office, will my freedom, and particularly my Second Amendment freedom, become more or less secure?”
And then, we must consider the facts.
This is why I’m asking every NRA member, every gun owner, and every patriotic American to view next year’s election through the lens of freedom. If we fail to draw a line in the sand and defend the future of our Second Amendment rights, then we will lose the one freedom that gives common men and women uncommon power to protect all freedoms. And then, it’s only a matter of time before every freedom in our Bill of Rights is scaled back, diluted or even destroyed.
That’s good and all but it’s nothing everybody isn’t already vehemently aware of. Here’s my question, what’s the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) solution? Let’s take a look at the last election and consider what ended up happening. Last election was set between John McCain and Barack Obama, neither of which were good news. Even though McCain proved himself to be no friend of gun owners the NRA gave him the endorsement. I’m sorry but there was no acceptable reason to get behind McCain considering his history and the NRA should have either endorsed a third-party candidate (fat chance) or simply said, “Both major players are horrible, we’re ducking out of this and focusing our efforts on a contingency plan.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) moved in with several high-profile court cases that went so far as to incorporate the second amendment. In other words even under dire circumstances SAF found a different route outside of the decision between rock and hard place. Considering the NRA has far more resources available to them they should have been the ones initiating the lawsuits and moving them through, instead they simply continued with the status quo of endorsing the “lesser” of two evils.
So far the Republicans haven’t selected a nominee and there is a chance for the NRA to make a stand. Of the Republican candidates there is only one who will stand up for the rights of gun owners (and everybody else) and candidate is Ron Paul. Instead of complaining about Obama for the entire column LaPierre could have taken a stance and said, “Due to the threat of Obama to the rights of gun owners the NRA is hereby endorsing Ron Paul for Republican Party presidential candidate.” Unfortunately it appears as though the NRA is going to keep playing it’s old game of simply endorsing the Republican candidate.
As it currently stands the Republican Party appears to be setting up Romney to win by simply ignoring Ron Paul and hyping up each other candidate only to have them torn down (so far they’ve done this to Bachmann, Perry, and Cain with Gingrich being the fourth one receiving this treatment). If the election domes down to Obama versus
Obama II Romney will the NRA give Romney their endorsement? Will that be their way of fighting for the rights of gun owners?
SAF has the right idea, given the futility of getting true pro-gun candidates into office a new strategy had to be devised and utilizing the court system seems to be a fairly effective strategy. I believe the NRA should drop their tried and false approach of giving the “lesser” of two evils an endorsement and focus on a new and potentially more effective strategy. Perhaps they can start working with SAF from the start of each lawsuit instead of hoping in after all the real leg work as been done and claiming the credit. Maybe the NRA can say, “Well Obama and Romney are both bad for gun owner rights so we’re sitting this election out and concentrating on getting pro-gun Senate and House members in office.”
Yeah this is a rather long rant just to say, “Put up or shut up LaPierre” but I’m getting sick of constant compromises when it comes to my rights. Supporting the “lesser” of two evils doesn’t accomplish jack shit, it merely gives your endorsement to evil. When one strategy doesn’t work you need to be adaptive and move to a new strategy. If endorsing a real pro-gun candidate like Paul isn’t in the works then it’s time for something entirely different.
2 thoughts on “Lots of Complaining But What’s the Solution LaPierre”
Well I think they are going anyone but Obama at this point but neither Romney nor Gingrich have a good record on guns. That being said if the NRA hadn’t pushed W (who was a horrible president) the supreme court wouldn’t have been setup for the SAF to win. So think the NRA’s point is even with a Romney he will be forced to nominate judges who would likely be good on the 2nd amendment.
At this point I think they are considering the Supreme court only given that Sotamayor signed on to overturn Heller in the McDonald case (thus perjuring herself based on her previous testomony in the Senate of saying it is settled law). If we wanted to see the NRA grow a pair I think they should push to impeach Sotamayor based on that, bringing an action like that would put other judges on notice about saying one thing in the Senate and doing another.
That’s exactly what I’m talking about, a change of strategy. Really the NRA should hire you as an ideas man just for this one alone.
My main complaint is the fact the NRA seems to be a monolithic beast that’s unable to quickly change strategies to keep the anti-gunners off kilter. While I certainly have no quarrel with continuing renewing my membership because of the great work they do for firearm ranges and firearm safety I do not feel as though they’re strategy in the realm of politics is working all that well.
Comments are closed.