Sorry for the hiatus without warning. It started with some family stuff that kept me too busy, and then, once out of the habit of daily blogging, it often takes me awhile to get back into it.
So . . . the NRA has endorsed McCain/Palin. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but when we had gotten to within a month of the election without such an endorsement being announced, I had begun to hold out hope that maybe this time, principles would trump expediency. Foolish of me.
Look--I'm not denying that Obama has proven himself to be a committed enemy of private gun ownership--he clearly has, at nearly every opportunity. I'll also acknowledge that "committed enemy of private gun ownership" doesn't really characterize McCain--he'll only toss us under the bus if he sees a real benefit for him in doing so. Finally, I acknowledge that Governor Palin truly does give me the impression that she is committed to protecting the right of Americans to arm themselves for the defense of themselves and their liberty.
Sorry, but that's not enough to justify endorsing a man who voted to extend the ban on so-called "assault weapons," and who still supports closing the mythical "gun show loophole." Oh--need I mention McCain-Feingold?
With this endorsement, the NRA has sent the message (in case anyone missed it before) that all one has to do to receive the NRA's blessing is to be somewhat less hostile to gun ownership than the opposition is. That means, of course, that the more rabidly in favor of forcible citizen disarmament one candidate is, the more hostile to gun rights the other candidate can afford to be, and still get the NRA's endorsement.
That's a perfect strategy . . . if the intention is to render gun rights irrelevant as a political issue.
We're being told that we need to forget about all that, and realize that an Obama presidency would be such a catastrophe for gun rights as to trump all the above objections to endorsing McCain.
My answer to that is that Obama is not getting my guns while I live--and McCain isn't getting my principles--at any price.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Principles for sale--cheap!
Stumble it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Be reasonable. That's not the message the NRA is sending.
No... the message they're sending is: "we're desperate to keep Obama from being elected".
Obama is SO BAD that the NRA would rather fight McCain. It would be easier, honestly.
Being "reasonable" is what got us into the position of being offered the "choice" of cancer or polio in the first place.
I agree that the NRA is definitely sending a message of desperation--I just don't see how that's useful. Let's fact it, barring something unforeseen (something huge), Obama has this one sewed up tight, meaning that not only is the NRA selling out what's left of their credibility, they're doing so in an effort that looks bound to fail. Consequently, if (when?) McCain loses, that, in turn, gives the Brady Bunch and their ilk the talking point that the NRA's endorsement isn't all that useful.
Finally, I also question whether fighting McCain would be easier than fighting Obama--at least many of the Congressional Republicans (of the few that are left after the election) would be likely to mount some kind of resistance to Obama's agenda--McCain would presumably manage to bring some along, out of "party unity."
P.S. I said "finally" up above, but one more point: even if it would be "easier" to "fight" McCain, I don't agree with endorsing a candidate based on whom you would rather fight--an endorsement is enthusiastic support, and McCain is light years short of earning that. I have no problem with the NRA's campaign against Obama, and I would even let them slide for staying silent about McCain's obvious shortcomings as "a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms," but for an organization ostensibly dedicated to gun rights advocacy to actively campaign for him is . . . kinda pathetic.
Kurt - I tend to agree with you here. The NRA is taking a huge gamble endorsing McCain, one that might seriously damage their political clout in the future.
I understand why they're doing it, because Obama really is that bad, but if Obama wins this could really hurt the NRA in the long term.
Principle is nice until you consider that without an endorsement (of McCain) by the NRA, Obama is surely guaranteed the presidency.
Obama is afraid of the NRA. He has proven that with his threats of legal action against the radio and TV stations in Ohio and Pennsylvania. He's shown that by somehow "stealing" the NSSF's media contact list.
You're not a stranger to the fact that we're facing a reap possibility of a democrat supermajority in the Senate, and easily a democrat controlled house. In the next four years the democrat controlled congress will pass an assault weapon ban, or worse. Perhaps even without a grandfather clause.
Obama will sign it.
McCain gives us a chance of a veto while Obama gives none. Palin gives the possibility of a tie breaking vote against such legislation.
As bad as McCain is in so many ways, he's our last hope for at least a weak check against a runaway congress.
I suppose this discussion matters very little, however, as Obama is likely assured the presidency anyway. And Mike W., you're right: when Obama wins it will, I'm afraid, do significant harm the political clout the NRA has built up.
I'd rank principle rather higher than "nice"--people to whom adhering to principles is no better than "nice" are not the people I want safeguarding my rights.
Besides, as you seem to be acknowledging yourself, the NRA's endorsement isn't going to be enough for McCain (not nearly enough, I predict), so this entire exercise will end up being a "show of weakness," as well as being hypocritical.
I'm also not so sure that an Obama presidency automatically means a new "assault weapons" ban. The one in '94 barely passed, and did so only with some compromises the other side hated making (the "sunset" clause being one of them)--and that was before the internet helped gun rights activists organize and unite into a potent political force, and also before the AR-15 platform had become so enormously popular across a broad spectrum of American shooters. When the AR-15 types are the biggest selling centerfire rifle in the country, and even Remington is making a variant of them, this is clearly a country that isn't going to submit to such a ban easily.
Wow, not even one comment before the kool-aid man burst through the wall.
It doesn't matter which one gets in. We'll have a NAU with an amero, gun bans, socialism will be advanced (you catch McSame saying he wants to take over the mortgages?)
THE. GAME. IS. RIGGED!
HH, I've "known" Jay S. (via the internet) for years now, and although he's a good deal more "pragmatic" (the standard term these days, apparently) than I am, and more than I would like other gun rights advocates to be, I don't see him as a "kool-aid man."
Every election we go through this--"This election is too important to stand on principles--we have to make a stand, and accept 'allies' of an unsavory nature, or all is lost. We can get back to principles next time."
And of course, "next time," we're told the same thing.
That, I submit, is why we're fighting a rear-guard action now.
Good to have you back, 45...I was getting antsy!
I agree McCain is nothing to get excited about but I think you do reason (not to mention facts) a disservice when you say that McCain is "somewhat less hostile to gun ownership" than Obama.
Cancer or Polio? I think Cancer or the Flu might be more fitting.
At any rate, I'm not voting for McCain...I'm voting for Palin. And it is really more for what Palin represents.
I view the interjection of Palin into the National scene as a giant enema that our elected officials desperately need. The return of 'everyman' to politics.
"[S]omewhat less hostile to gun ownership" than Obama may be a little hard on McCain, but I'll (figuratively) stick to my guns. Just in case this dead horse isn't yet adequately flogged, I'll repeat that the man voted to extend the "assault weapons" ban.
That sounds to me like an act of an anti-gun extremist.
OK, so he's no Sebastian.
I'm really getting fed up with all the BS, THIS election, these so called issues. 90% of what McSame and 150% of what Obomba are offering is socialism. They have no grasp of the constitutional limitations and duties of a president. Congress and the court could use a reminder as well.
The opposite of freedom is slavery; if I am 99% free, then I am part slave, which is like being "a little bit pregnant." Freedom versus slavery is a zero-sum game.
I'd LOVE to be able to vote for McSame/Palin but until I hear he has terminal cancer and less then 3 months to live I can't do it.
I will continue to vote against every single sitting member of government in the hopes of getting lucky with at least ONE of them being thrown out this time. If unopposed I will write in someone.
I live in Ohio, cuyahoga county, the democrat cesspool. We have news reports of people registering to vote in Ohio 70+ times with ACORN. My vote has already been canceled and if it weren't for opposing the incumbents I'd just stay home waiting for the victory "parties" of gunfire, overturned cars, looting, riots, and mass chaos.
Gotta admit I'm pissed at this bailout crap. We are growing the government exponentially just like in the 30s.
Government never shrinks.
Again, McCain is 'only' growing it 'slightly less' than Obama.
Chuck Baldwin, running for president on the Constitution party ticket, has sworn to uphold Dr. Ron Paul’s views on constitutionalism. Dr. Paul has stated unequivocally that he supports our rights protected by the 2nd amendment and that he agrees with the SCOTUS’s Heller decision. Dr. Paul was derided as a kook by the MSM and written off by the Republican party because he refuses to toe the party line. Barack Obama as well as John McCain are lying SOBs who will tell you anything they think you want to hear. Their actions however speak far louder than their words. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
I’ve stated on several blog-sites that I will write-in Dr. Ron Paul’s name even if it invalidates my ballot. I am strongly considering reneging on that statement. If Dr. Paul feels Chuck Baldwin is worth his endorsement, I am seriously considering placing my support with Mr. Baldwin.
I’ve been voting since 1964, and I’m tired of voting for some a**hole who obviously cares nothing for his prospective constituents’ concerns and welfare. This country was founded by people who believed that government exists for the people, not the other way around. They wrote the Constitution to protect the citizens of the united States of America from their government. I am, by God, a citizen not a subject!
I believe in and have sworn to defend and protect the Constitution of the united States of America. I therefore, cannot, in good conscience, vote for either of the major party candidates.
That means, of course, that the more rabidly in favor of forcible citizen disarmament one candidate is, the more hostile to gun rights the other candidate can afford to be, and still get the NRA's endorsement.
Amen! And you can be sure it's PLANNED that way by the Dempublicrat Duopoly! Can you say, "ratchet effect"?
Oddly, I'd never heard of the "ratchet effect" as a political term, but that precisely describes what I'm referring to.
Post a Comment