The title of an article in Reason Magazine, "Speak Softly and Carry a Concealed Handgun: Would a nicer NRA be more effective?" caught me off guard. I've made little secret of my numerous bones of contention with the NRA, but none of them have anything to do with the NRA being insufficiently "nice."
How much "nicer," after all, could the NRA be than declining to grade senators on how they vote on the confirmation of radically anti-gun Eric Holder for Attorney General? "Well, we'd prefer that you vote against a citizen disarming aspiring tyrant, but if you don't, we won't hold it against you," is pretty darned nice. Contemptible and cowardly, perhaps, but nice.
The Reason article is mostly a discussion of disagreements between Richard Feldman (a former lobbyist for the NRA, with whom he eventually had a messy divorce--complete with book deal). Feldman is the sort who does actually think the NRA needs to be "nicer"--this guy makes Neville Chamberlain look like King Leonidas I.
Come to think of it, I'm not sure I quite understand why he and the NRA can't get along. Maybe it's time for those crazy kids to get back together.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
More effective at what?
Stumble it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
Feldman wasn't so much a compromiser as an appeaser. He was one of the architects of a deal with the Clinton Administration the NRA was very much against. The idea being with concessions being made by the industry on child locks, they could please the administration and get Clinton to take his sights off the firearms industry. This appeasement was answered with massive lawsuits against firearms makers and the S&W shakedown. Compromise is the art of giving up something you don't really care about to get something you really want. That's different than giving your opponent a gift, and hoping that makes him happy and go away.
Post a Comment