The part of the NRA's argument that I've underlined above is the crux of my problem with this stance. I left in the final two paragraphs to show that I did read them and fully understand the rationale. However, I disagree with it for these very important reasons: It is NOT POSSIBLE to protect the Second Amendment without the First Amendment and, while the NRA does a good job speaking for its millions of members, it DOES NOT speak for EVERY GUN owner - so some pro-2A voices would be silenced (or forced to join the NRA, which would become the only game in town - a conspiracy theorist would say this was NRA's true goal). Furthermore, by carving out a loophole only for itself and risking allowing this infringement on the First Amendment to pass, the NRA risks allowing FUTURE gun-rights groups to be silenced. No group lasts forever, no matter how strong. Just ask the Federalist Party or the Whigs. If this bill were to pass and be upheld by the courts, then some day if the NRA withered on the vine, THEN who would "protect the Second Amendment"? I'm not thinking of me, or even my children. I'm thinking of my children's children's children. How will they protect 2A?LarryH wrote:This email came from TRSA yesterday:
We didn't "sell out" to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that commitment is honored, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If that commitment is not fully honored, we will strongly oppose the bill.
There are those who say the NRA has a greater duty to principle than to gun rights. It's easy to say we should put the Second Amendment at risk over some so-called First Amendment principle - unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.
The NRA is a bipartisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That's their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.
Above is my rational, long-term practical reasoning for disagreeing with the NRA's stance. But here is my principled, idealistic reason to disagree ...
This quote, rightly or wrongly attributed to the philosopher Voltaire (http://www.voltaire.ox.ac.uk/www_vf/abo ... nt_say.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) is, IMHO, the core of freedom and democracy. It is perhaps the most eloquent expression ever written of the vital importance of free speech. It states simply that the freedom to speak is more important than what is said, and more important than life itself. For without that freedom to speak, to express our ideas, what is the point of life?Though I disapprove of what you say, I will defend to my death your right to say it.
THIS is why the NRA - as a defender of RKBA and thus - by extension - a defender of freedom, should protect not only the 2nd Amendment, but also the First Amendment - and not just for itself, but for all lawful citizens and organizations in this great nation. Because the absolute right of a gun-grabbing, anti-2A libtard organization to speak is just as important to the preservation of freedom as the right of the NRA to speak.
For the NRA not to see this, not to understand this, is thoroughly disappointing. This country, its laws, and its future are not a game. Oneupsmanship and conquering your rival are best left to the battlefield or the football field. Statesmanship and adherence to the defining principals of freedom and democracy are more important to the preservation of liberty.
Give me liberty. Or give me death.