The NRA to become the 'Only Ones' with free speech rights?

Examiner" class="imgborder" style="padding: 1px;" border="0" width...

The NRA to become the 'Only Ones' with free speech rights?

June 16, 1:26 PM

St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner

Kurt Hofmann

Oleg Volk
photo (click to enlarge)

NRA endorses anti-gun extremist John McCain in AZ Republican Senate...

The NRA endorses anti-gun McCain

NRA & Shuler torpedo gun rights organizations

NRA Selling Out or Strategy?

NRA deal on campaign finance throws smaller groups under the bus

House Democrats Close to Reinstituting Penalties for Criticizing Co...

NRA flap proves Dems will do anything to keep power

A frequent theme presented by National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea is that of the "Only Ones." The main idea is to counter the
assertion--frequently made by "gun control" advocates--that the police
are the "Only Ones" sufficiently competent, responsible, and of good
intent to be safely entrusted with firearms (or certain kinds
of firearms, or firearms in certain places, etc.). Through the "Only
Ones" files, Mr. Codrea illustrates how often these supposed paragons of
virtue fail to live up to those exalted expectations.

A more general application of the "Only Ones" concept is pointing out the
injustice and illogic of bestowing upon any class of people
greater freedom to enjoy any fundamental right, than is
permitted us "average" folks. Our society was not intended to divide
the people into castes--some privileged, others less so. Liberty for
the elite only is no liberty at all.

A deal worked out between the NRA and House Democrats would bestow upon the NRA just such a preferred status with regard to exercise of the freedom of speech.

House Democrats have reached a compromise that would exempt the National
Rifle Association and some other nonprofit groups from having to comply
with stringent new campaign finance disclosures aimed primarily at
large corporations, sources said Monday.

At last count, those "some other groups" are two in number--the AARP and
the Humane Society. Everyone else would be subject to rules
that NRA Executive Director Chris W. Cox descrbed this way:

H.R. 5175 creates a series of byzantine disclosure requirements that have
the obvious effect of intimidating speech. The bill, for example,
requires "top-five funder" disclosures on TV ads that mention
candidates for federal office from 90 days prior to a primary election
through the general election; "top-two funder" disclosure on similar
radio ads during that period; "significant funder" and "top-five
funder" disclosures on similar mass mailings during that period; and
"significant funder" disclosure for similar "robocalls" during that
period. Internet communications are covered if placed for a fee on
another website, such as the use of banner ads that mention candidates
for federal office. Even worse, no exceptions are included for
organizations communicating with their members. This is far worse than
current law and would severely restrict the various ways that the NRA
communicates with our members and like-minded individuals.

Presumably, Mr. Cox is aware that any other group that wishes to engage in political activism would similarly chafe under such, to
borrow his phrase, "byzantine disclosure requirements," but apparently
that doesn't matter--as long as the NRA is exempt. Mr. Codrea described

that attitude perfectly yesterday:

This is no different than Fudd gun owners throwing Evil Black Rifle owners
under the bus as long as they get to keep their "sporting" arms.
It's the conduct of self-serving collaborators, not of champions

As Red State notes, apologists have leapt to the NRA's defense with "the NRA is a single-issue organization, and cannot waste energy and political capital on fighting every battle that
comes along, for every kind of liberty." That reminds me of Jeff
Snyder's brilliant Nation of Cowards, specifically, the Walter Mitty's Second Amendment chapter
(excerpt):

The enlightened rulers of this great land did not seek to deprive the people of their right to bear
arms. Unlike tyrants of the past, they had learned that it was not
necessary to disarm the masses. The people proved time and time again
thaty they were willing accomplices to the ever expanding authority of
the government, enslaved by their own desire for safety, security and
welfare.

The people could have their guns. What did the rulers care? They already possessed the complete obedience that they required.

In fact, in their more Machiavellian moments, the rulers could be heard to admit that permitting the people the right to
keep and bear arms was a marvelous tool of social control, for it
provided the people with the illusion of freedom.

If the right to keep and bear arms has become the end goal--has become our very definition of "liberty," rather than the last
ditch means to defend liberty against tyranny--it is wasted on us, for
we have shown that we have no intention of actually using it,
no matter how warranted its use has become.

If the NRA, as one of the "Only Ones" with the privilege (because under the "DISCLOSE
Act," free speech will have morphed from a right to a privilege) of free
speech, actually uses that privilege to effectively defend the Second
Amendment (and this isn't the time or place to explore the likelihood of
that), it will only serve to protect our right to be well
armed serfs.

Favorite

0 members favorited this