Tag: National Rifle Association

Additional Comments Regarding the NRA Press Release

I got through reading a transcript of the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) press release [PDF]. Everything thing I said in my previous post, which was based on a live blog of the event, still stands. I also have a few additional things I’d like to note. First there was this comment:

A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?

There is a great deal of irony in the NRA discussing the lack of a federal database in a negative light. A federal database for mentally ill individuals would be a disaster. Consider the stigma mental illness has in this country. Many people will not seek help when they are suffering a mental illness because doing so carries a great deal of social consequences. People who received psychiatric help are often seen as crazy. People in the United States also hold a general attitude that a mental illness is forever. How many people suffered from depression, post traumatic stress syndrom, and other temporary mental illnesses only to make a full recovery and lead normal lives? Do we really want these people to be listed in a federal database? Federal databases are already used by employers to weed out potential employees. Creating a mental illness database would likely lead to people in that database being unable to find meaningful employment. Federal databases aren’t a solution for violence and they aren’t a solution for mental illness.

Also consider the ramifications of a mental illness database. Who here could be diagnosed with a mental illness? Most Internet denizens could be diagnosed with some form of autism. If an adult version of oppositional defiant disorder is ever created I’ll be diagnosed with it. I suffer a severe case of psychological reactance (Does it show?), which could easily be labeled as a mental illness. Do we want to base the right to keep and bear arms on a mental illness database? Do we want our gun rights in the hand psychologists who determine what qualifies as a mental illness? What the NRA suggested is a dangerous path, one I don’t want to see this country travel down. We need to help those who need help. This means encouraging those who suffering from mental illness to get help. Considering the social stigma that mental illness carries in this country I don’t think creating a mental illness database is going to do anything but discourage those needing help from seeking it.

Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America’s gun owners that you’re willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care? No one — regardless of personal political prejudice — has the right to impose that sacrifice

This was a good point. The primary issue at hand is that violent criminals know the cost of performing violence in schools is relatively low because there are no armed personnel there. With that said, the NRA’s approach to correcting this issue leaves something to be desired:

Now, the National Rifle Association knows that there are millions of qualified active and retired police; active, reserve and retired military; security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every school. We can deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make America’s schools safer — relying on the brave men and women of America’s police force.

The budget of our local police departments are strained and resources are limited, but their dedication and courage are second to none and they can be deployed right now.

In my opinion expanding the police state into public schools isn’t a good approach. I favor repealing laws that establish gun-free zones so that armed individuals can enter school property without first having to disarm. That solution raises the cost of performing violence in schools by removing the practical guarantee that no armed individuals are within. Having costume-clad guys with badges will further reinforce the police state on children. Furthermore I don’t feel comfortable having children guarded by individuals whose primary job description involves extorting wealth from people. A majority of police time is spent enforcing state decrees against nonviolent individuals who have harmed nobody. Do we want individuals guarding children when their job consists of kicking down doors in the hopes of finding other individuals in possession of a plant?

Putting bureaucracies in charge of protecting children is bound to fail. At the very least repealing laws that establish gun-free zones would allow local communities to develop more appropriate solutions to deal with school shootings. Ultimately though I think Jeffrey Tucker nailed it:

So armed guards it is, at least according to the NRA. Instead of letting school handle their own security and getting out from under the government’s central plan (see my article on this), the NRA is living up to the caricature and proposing that more weapons in anyone’s hands as the solution. The real solution is to deal more broadly with the issue of security itself.

[…]

Contrary to left and right, the solution is not more guns in the hands of the cops and other state officials, much less gun-totting teachers (or disarmed teachers and administrators, for that matter). The solution is to have schools deal with security in the same way that jewelry stores, banks, and private home owners deal with security issues.

One of the biggest problems regarding school security is that public schools don’t have any incentive to provide security. Children are practically mandated to attend schools that are either run or heavily regulated by the state. No consequences befall a school when something bad happens. Will anybody be prosecuted for failing to provide proper security to those children in Connecticut? No, because the state was tasked with that job and the state has a monopoly on determining who can and can’t be sued. Furthermore suing the state accomplishes nothing because it gets its money through extortion. If the state allow you to sue it and it grants you monetary compensation you merely motivated it to extort more money. The primary reason schools fail to provide security to students is because they are state managed institutions, meaning there are no failure conditions.

If you want to protect your children remove them from state managed schools. Homeschooling, unschooling, and agorist education solutions will allow you to regain control over your children’s education and safety. Why rely on the state? It has a proven track record of failing in the task of providing education and safety.

The NRA Press Conference

I haven’t had a chance to watch the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) press conference yet but based on the live blog done by Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned I’m not at all impressed. First I’ll point out the following notes:

Wayne now says the media is trying to hide a dirty secret that there are violent video games. He highlights a game called Kindergarten Killers that’s been online for 10 years.

Now he’s talking hurricanes and natural disasters. He then cites music videos that show violence – but who is airing music videos these days? He says that this stuff is the worst form of pornography.

He says that these issues bring cruelty into homes. He says that kids witness 16,000 murders in media by the time they reach 18. He says that the media is to blame.

Is this what the NRA has resorted to? They’re seriously trying to imply violent video games and media is, at least partially, responsible for the real violence we experience? Blaming violent media has been a favorite pass time for many groups over the ages but the simply fact is such blame assumes individuals are incapable of separating fiction from reality. I grew up playing violent video games, watching violent movies and televisions shows, and listening to violent metal yet I have never initiated violence against another human being. This is because I understand the difference between fiction and reality, as do most people. Blaming violent video games for real world violence pissed me off when I was a gamer and still pisses me off today. I’m not surprised to hear LaPierre trying to find something, anything, to blame but he should have focused his blame on issues that can actually lead to violence.

NRA, as the top instructor, is highlighting their law enforcement training programs and offering them to communities. He notes that NRA did use these training programs to help in WWII. He says they are developing a new model call National School Shield. It’s going to focus on many facets – access to schools and teacher training.

They have tapped former Rep. Asa Hutchinson to lead the National School Shield. NRA will pay for it. Schools get it free of charge. No money required by schools or communities to get the materials to get them talking about how to secure their school.

Wayne notes that we should be securing our schools at least as much as sports stadiums.

This concerns me as well. Securing schools as much as sports stadiums requires making schools even more like prisons than they already are. Many major stadiums have metal detectors, cameras everywhere, and guards performing pat downs on those entering the venue. Since stadiums are private institutions I don’t care how they run their operations. In his apparently desperate attempt to the Connecticut shooting on something LaPierre hasn’t considered the consequences of making schools more like prison. If he believes violent media causes violence in society then submitting children to prison style security is likely to make them more subservient to the state. As the state has a vested interest in disarm the populace it would seem counterproductive to the goal of protecting gun rights to instill even more obedience into today’s youth. Maintaining gun rights requires a populace that will stand up to the police state, not submit to it. Having children go through metal detectors, submit to searches of their persons and belongings, and being under the constant eye of Big Brother can only instill authoritarianism, which directly opposes the stated goals of the NRA.

I don’t want to spend all of my time lambasting the NRA without pointing at the conduct of gun control advocates. For some time now gun control advocates have been demanding a conversation about gun. Now that we’re having that conversation how do you think they’re conducting themselves? I’ll let you be the judge:

We have a Code Pink infiltrator getting in the way of Wayne. The Code Pink protestor is getting more attention since he’s being allowed to scream. The security didn’t remove the guy early enough.

[…]

Another Code Pink protester with credentials. She started screaming from the beginning. Now the media is interrupting Wayne on the protests. And he then starts attacking the media again. This is clearly a speech meant for NRA members & gun owners who support the policies of NRA members.

When they said conversation they must have meant a platform from which they could make their demands to a sizable audience while silencing all opposition. Advocates of gun rights have at least, for the most part, conducted themselves in a professional manner and have given gun control advocates the ability to speak their part unmolested. It’s too bad they won’t show us the same amount of respect.

I think the conduct of gun control advocates compared to the conduct of gun rights activists speaks volumes. The goals of gun control advocates are authoritarian in nature. They want to utilize the state’s capacity for violence to disarm non-state entities. Gun control advocates claim to desire peace but rely on the threat and use of violence against gun owners, whether they’ve done something wrong or not. Meanwhile the desires of gun rights advocates are the opposite. Instead of demanding authoritarian violence be initiated against nonviolent individuals gun rights advocates want individuals to go about their business peacefully. Those of us who advocate gun rights oppose punishing innocent people. We believe punishment should be reserved exclusively for those who have done wrong. This stark difference manifestes itself in the strategies used by each side. Gun control advocates attempt to silence any opposition, which is a very authoritarian tactic. Gun rights activists allow their opposition to speak and rely on argumentation, a very libertarian tactic. One side wants to control you while the other side wants you to be in control.

Even though I don’t like what the NRA said at their conference they at least conducted themselves in a professional manner. They waited one week before saying anything while gun control organizations moved in immediately to exploit the tragedy while it was still fresh. The NRA allowed gun control organizations to say their piece without interruption while gun control advocates attempted to shout down the NRA. In my opinion the most notable thing about this news conference wasn’t what was said by the NRA, it was what the gun control advocates did in an attempt to silence their opposition.

The NRA Taking Undue Credit Again

The National Rifle Association (NRA) does a lot of things that really irritate me. On top of being unable to adopt new strategies in the fight for gun rights now that their strategy of political action has become less effective they also like to steal credit for that accomplishments of other gun rights organizations. Read the NRA’s press release regarding the gun rights victory in Moore v. Madigan. Do you notice anything missing? That’s right, the press released doesn’t mention the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). Even though the case was initiated and funded by the SAF the NRA is taking sole credit for the victory.

Being dishonest by omitting due credit is a pet peeve of mine. In fact it irritates me to such an extent that I wouldn’t renew my NRA membership if I could do so and still remaining a member of the Oakdale Gun Club. My NRA membership fees would be far more productive in the hands of the SAF. The NRA is continuing to prove itself to be dishonest and incapable of adapting to changing circumstances. Both are unfortunate but I can at least understand the reason for the latter, it’s easy to become fixated on a strategy that has served you well in the past. What I can’t understand is the NRA’s unwillingness to acknowledge the efforts of other gun rights organizations. Far more could be accomplished through mutual cooperation than going it alone.

Comparing Apples to Orangutans

The spillover of politics into circuses continues to approach the level of full retard:

Whitlock spoke out against the NFL’s handling of the aftermath of Jovan Belcher’s suicide and gun issues in his Sunday FoxSports.com column. During Martin’s podcast, he likened the NRA to the Ku Klux Klan and tied the group to the dangerous street culture that unfortunately dominates “so many black youths.”

I’m not the biggest fan of the National Rifle Association (NRA) myself but comparing them to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is, at most, a blatant attempt to use shock and awe in place of actual argumentation. Granted shock and awe is an effective strategy when one attempts to win hearts and minds but it’s a strategy that requires some subtlety and believability. When you attempt to make a connection between a group you dislike and a group that is almost universally disliked you need to find some common ground. In the case of Whitlock’s comparison he attempted to connect the NRA with the KKK by claiming the NRA is responsible for the culture that, as he says, dominates black youths. This comparison, to put it very nicely, is a stretch.

First Whitlock’s implication requires the assumption that gun rights causes the violent culture that, according to Whitlock, dominates black youths. An easy way to test this theory is to see if there are any places where gun rights are severely restricted or nonexistent that also have a high rate of youth violence. Chicago is such a place. Even though Chicago has very strict gun control laws they also have a very high rate of youth violence. Considering this it’s difficult to connect gun rights to youth violence.

Second Whitlock’s implication requires ignoring the starkly different methodologies used by the NRA and KKK to advance their causes. In the name of advancing gun rights the NRA promotes hunting, self-defense, and firearm safety education. The NRA also spends a great deal of time and money lobbying politicians and working to get proponents of gun rights elected into political offices. In other words the NRA uses mostly nonviolent (using the state is almost violent in some regard) strategies in order to advance its cause. On the other hand the KKK has a history of using violent tactics such as lynching African Americans and destroying property to promote its cause of white supremacy.

Third Whitlock’s implication requires ignoring the vastly different causes each organization is attempting to advance. The NRA’s primary goal is to advance gun rights for the entire American population while the KKK’s primary goal is to make other racial and religious groups subservient to white christians. While the NRA is working to expand liberties that KKK is working to retract liberties.

Whitlock’s implication is asinine and fails to even establish a believable connection that would assist him in his desire to use shock and awe. In his zeal to demonize guns and gun owners Whitlock lost focus of his initial cause, opposing violence, and became obsessed with an object that he associates with violence. This is a common trap individuals fall into when they become too obsessed with an object or action they associate with their initial cause. Opponents of violence become obsessed with weapons instead of acts of violence, opponents of human trafficking become obsessed with prostitution instead of sex slavery, and opponents of racism become obsessed with speech instead of the idea that one race is somehow superior to another. Losing focus of your initial cause will lead you down the path to ruin and open you up to scathing criticism from amateurs that operate blogs.

Regarding the Supreme Court

I know one of the biggest concerns the gun rights community has now that Obama will be in office for four more years are Supreme Court nominees. Several of the current robe-adoren ones are getting up there in age and will likely be retiring relatively soon. The main concern gun rights activists have is Obama appointing anti-gun justices who will reverse the decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. While the Supreme Court is potentially worrisome it’s also one of the branches that the gun rights community can, for the most part, control.

The Supreme Court only rules on cases that have been appealed to their level and they are willing to hear. Because of these two requirements, and the nature of the gun control movement, the gun rights community can mostly control whether or not gun rights cases get to the Supreme Court. Needless to say so long as the gun rights community doesn’t appeal cases to the Supreme Court level the Supreme Court doesn’t get to make a decision. Unfortunately this may mean holding off on lawsuits, which have proven to be a most effective tool as of late, if anti-gun justices are seated but it also means that the threat of seeing either previous victory reversed is mostly avoidable. This means that gun rights would not move forward through the judicial system but it also means it won’t move backwards either.

I also mentioned that the nature of the gun control movement plays are part in this equation. When it comes to court cases regarding gun rights the only two sides that are apt to file lawsuits are advocates of gun rights and advocates of gun control. Advocates of gun rights have good reason to file lawsuits against municipalities that violate gun rights but gun control advocates don’t because they want municipalities to violate gun rights. Without some kind of violation there aren’t grounds of lawsuits so it’s far more difficult for gun control advocates to initiate one. Furthermore the gun control movement has more limited resources available to it. The only gun control game in town that still has money is Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which is funded by the personal fortunes of Mayor Bloomberg and his cronies. On the other hand the gun rights movement has the National Rifle Association (NRA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Gun Owners of America (GOA), Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (JFPO), and numerous state gun rights organizations. Combining forces these gun rights organizations have a funding base of millions of members. Considering the expense of hiring a lawyer that has the required credentials to argue in the Supreme Court it’s unlikely that gun control advocates are going to pursue such lawsuits.

If Obama appoints anti-gun justices to the Supreme Court the gun rights community stands to lose one of its most valuable tools, but it mostly control whether or not ground will be lost. The worst case scenario is that gun rights activists will need to pursue another strategy. One of my biggest criticisms of the NRA is their laser-like focus on a single strategy even when it’s ineffective. When one strategy fails or is no longer viable then another must be developed. Innovate or die is the name of the game. Just because the gun rights movement becomes cut off from the Supreme Court doesn’t mean the game is over, it means a different game must be played.

Of course the real problem is the fact that nine robe-adoren individuals can decide what is and isn’t allowed for an entire country but I touched on that argument already so I’ll not repeat it here.

On a Federal Level Nothing Changed

The election may be over but self-declared Republicans and the gun rights community are still angry at Tuesday’s results. Ultimately nothing has changed on a federal level. Looking at Google’s federal election results the Democratic Party has retained its control of the Presidency and the Senate while the Republican Party has retained its control over the House. For the gun rights community this should be treated as good news. As I said, the presidential race was a complete loss as far as gun rights were concerned and that energies would have been better spend on congressional races. Without Congress to make and pass gun control laws the presidency doesn’t matter. This is where some gun rights activists will point out that the president gets to nominate Supreme Court justices but history demonstrates that “conservative” justices aren’t reliable defenders of individual rights anyways.

I know ammunition, gun, and gun accessory prices are going to jump sky high for the next few months because of Obama’s victory. This is an irrational response by the gun community because everything is the same today as it was the previous four years as far as the federal government is concerned. If you’re truly worried about the Supreme Court then you should advocate the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) to cease brining more gun rights lawsuits. The Supreme Court only gets to rule on cases that get appealed to its level so if there are no new cases their previous judgements stand. Gun control advocates don’t have enough money or influence at this point to get cases to the Supreme Court so it’s really up to the gun rights community to decide whether or not new Supreme Court cases regarding gun rights are heard. Avoiding any detrimental affects caused by possible Supreme Court nominations is almost entirely in our hands.

The Failing NRA

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the largest gun rights advocacy group in the United States (and probably the world). They’re feared by gun control advocates and cheered by most gun rights advocates. It’s easy to see why since the NRA has a notable history of success when it comes to fighting gun control legislation. Unfortunately success is often followed by stagnation and it has become apparent that the NRA has become stagnant.

The NRA’s primary power is its influence in the political system. When the NRA throws their support behind a politician gun control and gun rights advocates perk up. In the case of gun control advocates they take the NRA’s endorsement as a reason to oppose a politician while gun rights activists take the NRA’s endorsement as a reason to support a politician. This presidential election is important to note because both of the leading candidates have a history of opposing gun rights. It would seem in order to remain consistent supporters of gun rights the NRA would have to either endorse a third-party candidate or nobody. Instead they have decided to officially endorse Mitt Romney:

NRA Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre and NRA Political Victory Fund chairman Chris Cox will formally announce the endorsement at a Romney rally in Virginia later Thursday evening. Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan will also be on hand.

When all you have is a hammer it’s easy to see every problem as a nail. Let’s consider the situation, the NRA’s most effective tool to defend gun rights cannot be applied in this presidential election because both leading candidates oppose gun rights. Instead of searching their toolbox for a different tool they’ve allowed themselves to give their support to a candidate who open supports an “assault weapon” ban.

I’m glad the NRA isn’t the only game in town. If organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) didn’t exist we would soon find ourselves stuck between a rock and a hard place. The NRA exhibits typic behavior or a large behemoth organization, wild success has cause it to be entirely unable to innovate. While the NRA continues with its strategy of endorsing candidates even though no pro-gun candidates exist SAF has opted for the strategy of filing lawsuits against violators of gun rights. Both District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were SAF lead initiatives (which the NRA later tried to claim credit for) that ended up being very successful. Being smaller and more nimble SAF was able to recognize a failure in the NRA’s strategy and try something else.

It’s come to the point where I wish an NRA membership wasn’t required to maintain my Oakdale Gun Club membership. That requirement is the only reason I keep renewing my NRA membership. Instead of sending additional money to the NRA’s Political Victory Fund I send money to other organizations like SAF. Endorsing Romney is an overt move against gun rights and I don’t support organizations that oppose gun rights.

The Rhetoric Currently Being Used by Gun Control Advocates

I’ve been searching around to see what the gun control advocates are currently saying and I came across some rather questionable content on Joan Peterson’s blog (she’s a Minnesotan who keeps trying to squash gun rights). What I found most interesting was the picture she included in her article to show the equipment used by the Aurora, Colorado shooter:

I recognized that guy from somewhere and after some digging I found him:

It would seem that the shooter in Colorado had access to military equipment that the military itself doesn’t have access to yet. In fact I believe I found the source image and where it was obtained from:

I wonder why they photoshopped his gun out of the picture. Oh, yeah, because that gun is a nonexistent prototype just like the armor but is far more obvious. It would behoove the gun control advocates to do a little research before Googling “scary looking guy in body armor” and using the first picture that appears (in all fairness I had to Google “future warrior 2020” to get the picture because “scary looking guy in body armor” turned up nothing close).

So we have proof that the gun control crowd are circulating pictures of, at best, prototype equipment and passing it off as the equipment used by the shooter in Colorado. The remainder of Joan’s article is nonsensical, mostly accusing the National Rifle Association (NRA) of, well, all of the world’s problems. I’m not sure how the NRA comes into this because they certainly do not advocate the use of firearms to commit massacres. In fact they advocate firearm safety and even host firearm safety training seminars. She also fails to provide citations for any of the numbers she uses. Considering the picture she used to demonstrate the equipment used by the shooter I’m not surprised she failed to provide citations for any of the numbers she use. When you’re stretching the truth or simply making things up it’s difficult to find citations.

The NRA Just Threw Gun Rights Out the Window

It appears that the National Rifle Association (NRA) has decided to surrender on the topic of gun rights this election cycle:

The NRA leadership is throwing its wholehearted support behind Republican Mitt Romney, who once incurred its ire by supporting stiff gun restrictions as governor of Massachusetts. Despite that history, it sees Romney as a vastly better gamble than President Obama, although Obama has done almost nothing to restrict gun use.

“We believe Mitt Romney would do a better job than President Obama,” said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA, which claims nearly 4 million members. “We believe that any of the candidates on the Republican side would be better on the 2nd Amendment” — the right to bear arms.

Thanks for nothing guys. I’m sorry but endorsing Romney is not the answer, it’s not even a valid option when it comes to supporting gun rights. I talked about this before but the NRA’s approach of supporting the “lesser” of two evils is pointless. We are all aware of Romney’s track record when it comes to gun rights, it’s abysmal. The very fact that he signed a permanent “assault” weapon ban in Massachusetts should have disqualified him from receiving any support from the NRA. I’d rather see the NRA come up and publicly state a vote of no confidence then concentrate their policial money on the legislature. Better yet move on to a new strategy like emulating the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) tactic of suing state entities that violate the rights of gun owners.

You know what else pisses me off? Not only are the leaders of the NRA supporting Romney but, as I predicted, members of the NRA are now backing the dumb bastard as well. He suckered a huge audience with one speech. One measly speech caused a massive number of NRA members, the supposed guardians of gun rights in this country, to forget Romney’s track record and get behind him. What… the… fuck?

I knew this would be the outcome but it still hurts to see it officiated. Romney isn’t going to be any better than Obama when it comes to gun rights (or anything else for that matter). He’s talking a big game now as he’s trying to gather support from suckers voters but we’ll be tossed under the bus the second he’s in office. Personally I’m not a fan of supporting a man when I know he’s going to run a knife in my back the second it’s turned.

The Empty Words of Mitt Romney Coming to an NRA Convention Near You

It’s a presidential election year and the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) convention is upon us. That can only mean one thing: a presidential candidate will try to win the support of gun owners by speaking at the NRA convention. Lo and behold Mitt Romney is going to be lying at the convention this year:

Mitt Romney will address the National Rifle Association‘s annual meeting later this week, a speech that comes at a crucial time for the candidate who is working to appeal to the conservative base of his party as he inches closer to clinching the Republican nomination.

Romney, who tells voters on the campaign trail that he believes “we have all the laws we need” in regard to gun control, revealed for the first time just over a month ago that he owns two shotguns. When asked about his stance on gun control during a town hall meeting in Columbus, Ohio, in February, Romney said, “I believe in the second amendment, I’ll protect the second amendment. I have guns myself.”

In response to Romney’s quote that “we have all the laws we need” I must say we don’t have all the laws we need, we have too many laws. A presidential nominee isn’t going to win me over… no matter what he says, but really isn’t going to win me over by taking the safe ground on gun rights. Saying we have enough laws or we should be enforcing the laws we already have are two of the biggest copouts in the fight for gun rights. There is no reason the provisions outlined in the National Firearms Act (NFA) should be enforced and the Hughes Amendment should be discarded faster than an unwanted pregnancy on prom night. I would go so far as to say we shouldn’t enforce any laws on firearm ownership as firearms are inanimate objects and the actual issue is bad people using firearms, which requires dealing with the bad people.

Likewise, the mere fact one owns a gun doesn’t mean one is a proponent of gun rights. Sarah Brady, gun control advocate supreme, purchased a rifle for her son. Saying “I have guns myself” is an entirely empty statement as far as I’m concerned. I know a number of people who hunt, owner rifles for their sport, but are supportive of banning any weapon system they don’t own. We need to remember that this is the same Mitt Romney who supporter Massachusetts’s extremely restrictive gun control laws.

It is unfortunate that Romney will likely walk away with a great deal of support from the NRA convention. A large number of gun owners appear to have very short members, especially when a political candidate has an (R) after his name. After his speech I’m expecting a great deal of posts on various social networking sites from convention attendees proclaiming their support for Romney. Some may justify their support by claiming Romney isn’t great but he’s better than Obama while others will outright claim Romney is a strong proponent of gun rights. I do not have a short memory, in fact I rarely forget a transgression. Under no circumstance will I support Romney in any way, shape, or form. He’s scum, in fact he’s worse than scum, he’s a politician.

Don’t fall for the scam artist’s tricks. If you truly believe the Republican Party is our best chance of expanding gun rights then send a message to them, let them know you will not support them unless they have a strong proponent of gun rights. This means refusing to support Romney, even if you believe he’s “better” than Obama. When you settle for the “lesser” or two evils you just encourage both parties to run candidates who are evil.