Is the N.R.A. Un-American? (hint: the answer is yes)

[meow2u3]

The more militant members of the N.R.A. and most of its leaders may be un-American.

By “militant” I don’t mean those who wish to protect recreational shooting and hunting; nor do I mean those who, like Justice Antonin Scalia, believe that there is a constitutional right to defend one’s home and family with firearms. These are respectable positions (although I am deeply unpersuaded by the second). I mean those who read the Second Amendment as proclaiming the right of citizens to resist the tyranny of their own government, that is, of the government that issued and ratified the Constitution in the first place.

The reason this view may be un-American is that it sets itself against one of the cornerstones of democracy — the orderly transfer of power. A transfer of power is orderly when it is effected by procedural rules that are indifferent to the partisan, ideological affiliations of either the party exiting power or the party taking power. A transfer is disorderly when it is effected by rebellion, invasion, military coup or any other use of force.

Those who are engaged in a disorderly transfer believe that their actions are inspired by the highest of motives — the desire to set right what has gone terribly wrong. Somehow the forces of evil have gained the levers of power, and unless they are dislodged, the values necessary to the sustaining of everything we cherish will be overwhelmed. Violence is ugly, but if tyranny is to be defeated, it may be necessary. Given tyranny’s resilience and its tendency to fill any available political space, we must always be ready; the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/is-the-n-r-a-un-american/?smid=tw-share

The more militant NRA members and their leaders MAY be un-American? They're un-American--and anti-American--for sure!

[newmember]

1. I'm about as anti gun as most but what is wrong with resisting tyranny

Arab spring comes to mind

[Lizzie Poppet]

2. Agreed.

The OP's reasoning would call the Founders "un-American," I'd think.

That said, the NRA can go fuck itself...sans lube. And that's from one of the more pro-gun posters around...

[newmember]

8. I don't know if the OP intended to imply that but yeah...fuck the NRA

I just wanted to make it clear that resisting tyranny is not a bad thing by the people

[Hoyt]

12. It depends. If you start shooting/harming innocent people in your quest for power. . . . . . .

But, I don't think most folks arming up for the coming civil war give a crud about that. As long as they gain power, and the rewards, it's worth it to them.

[newmember]

16. Then it's just murder

"If you start shooting/harming innocent people in your quest for power"

[Hoyt]

17. And who is going to enforce that if the right wingers initiate a war against what they perceive as

tyranny (ie, Obama and the "liberal&quot . There are dangerous implications to everyone arming up, as many of our gun cultists promote.

[newmember]

18. You are preaching to the choir here with me

Some gun owners are truly off their rocker.

My post was more about what I saw happen in other countries .

We are not a 3rd world country nor are we as a nation oppressed by a tyrannical government.

It's a fantasy for some NRA members but it can be a dangerous one.

[el_bryanto]

4. Yep - like White Southerners who resisted Northern Tyranny after the Civil War

Thanks to the Klan and various terror organizations resisting tyranny with the force of arms, Jim Crow was preserved for generations.

In fairness, I know that's not what you mean. Resisting tyranny is fine when you live under a tyrant. We don't. Even at the heights of the Bush Administration we didn't.

To declare that the United States is a tyranny, worthy of overthrowing is to spit on democracy, to spit on your fellow Americans and to spit on the principles of representational democracy that we live under. The problem with Democracy is that sometimes the other guys win. We had to live with Bush, they have to live with Obama.

Bryant

[newmember]

6. agree 100% with your post

[mountain grammy]

25. You're right and I am furious

that the president I voted for, along with a large majority of American voters, cannot get his appointees confirmed in the Senate. I am furious that the president we elected to change our justice system can't get judges confirmed in the Senate.
The Republicans have stolen my right to vote along with 65 million more of my fellow citizens and I'm pissed about it.

If these obstructionist fools impeach this president, I will go to Washington and I hope 65 million of my fellow Americans join me.

[premium]

3. Why are you un persuadable on using firearms

to defend your home and family?

[NaturalHigh]

27. I had the same question.

If I protect my home with a samurai swoard, am I somehow more moral than a guy who shoots a home intruder?

[Megalo_Man]

5. Was power "orderly transfered" from the British Crown?

It was certainly "orderly transfered" from the red coats when they all stood in line waiting to get shot in the fucking face from the minutemen that were flanking them.

[The Magistrate]

7. Thank You For The Laugh, Sir

That myth lives on and on, it seems. The Continentals did not start winning battles until they had been trained and drilled in the manner of all regular forces at that time. The system of ranks and volley fire was employed because it was the most effective way to apply the fire-arms of the day. A half company in two ranks, firing three volleys per rank per minute, put out roughly the same number of rounds that would be expected in a minute's time from a well served medium machine gun in the middle of the twentieth century. Skirmishers could harass such a formation, but not break it, or drive it from a position or prevent its advance.

[Megalo_Man]

10. No, thank YOU!

I know you are educated on this subject enough to know that the war was won using guerrilla tactics, and not conventional warfare, despite conventional warfare being used for the majority of engagements. Almost every critical battle was won by using guerrilla warfare. And saying skirmishers could harass a formation, but not break it, or drive it from a position or prevent its advance is flat out wrong. Go get a real in depth book on the tactics used in the revolutionary war from your local library, and read up about it. If all you learned about the revolutionary war was in Elementary or High school that would explain your dismissal of what I said as a "myth." The British also had plenty of experience fighting guerilla warfare prior to the revolutionary war breaking out because they dealt with it from the Indians. They continentals continued to use unconventional tactics even after Baron von Steuben was involved in training them in the use of conventional warfare. It didn't simply disappear because it was ineffective. It was very effective, for the situations in which it came into use. It was even more effective when they began to combine conventional and unconventional tactics in order to divide British troops and whittle them down into smaller groups. Unconventional tactics decided that war, are you saying that[/u ]is a myth?

[The Magistrate]

11. Good Luck With That, Sir

Because you are flat wrong, and that is even without going into the decisive role played by French regulars and the French fleet, most notably at Yorktown. It is certainly true the English faced daunting strategic obstacles, and were hampered further by some poor command, but these things do not impact on the tactical element of the conflict. Regular forces employed the formations they did, and wielded them in battle as they did, because these worked. They did not cease to work somehow in that special place we like to call North America....

[Demo_Chris]

31. As it happens, yes, this is a myth

Further, the war was never really "won" in any conventional sense. It was, however, won the way most wars are actually decided. That is: the last Army standing wins.

Ironically, this is a lesson we apparently have forgotten. It's the reason we won our independence, and the reason we lost in Vietnam. It is the reason the Soviets and English lost in Afghanistan and why we will as well. You can lose every battle, you can lose a million men and never kill a single enemy, but if the enemy gives up and go home you still win. This is not a call for remaining in our current conflicts, but rather a cautionary note before entering the next.

[Jenoch]

9. I have never been a member of the NRA.

I do not believe they are (who is they?) Un-American. I do not believe the NRA has ever interfered with 'transfer of power'.

[Hoyt]

13. They damn sure tried in the last election, and their leadership are the worst of right wingers.

Norquist
Ollie North
John Bolton
Weapons manufacturers/profiteers/traffickers
Nugent
Larry Craig
And a bunch of other right wingers, spreading their agenda which ain't just guns.

[Jenoch]

14. There was no 'transition of power',

President Obama won re-election.

[Hoyt]

15. No help from NRA and right wing gun lovers.

[Jenoch]

20. I am aware that the NRA supports

candidates that support RKBA. However, that has nothing to do with the phrase 'transition of power'. It's possible the phrase means something different in Canada.

[Hoyt]

21. As long as yahoos ain't trying to "transition" into power by their guns, who cares.

[Jenoch]

26. Words have meaning.

[premium]

23. How did the NRA attempt to impede the transition of power?

Answer- they didn't, not even close, Pres. Obama won re-election and no one tried to impede the transition of power, because there was no transition of power.
They did try to defeat him at the ballot box, which has nothing to do with impeding the transition of power.

[Hoyt]

24. Pretty much same. Kind of like gunners stuck on gun nomenclature.

A "magazine" and a "clip" might be pretty much same thing, but gun cultists will argue ad nauseum they are different.

[Megalo_Man]

29. Well, I guess you won't mind hearing it one more time.

A CLIP is used to load ammunition INTO A MAGAZINE.

"A clip is a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit, ready for insertion into the magazine or cylinder of a firearm."

[Hoyt]

32. They both feed bullets into the guns yahoos drool over. No difference in function.

When you climb out of the minutiae, you might see the real issues.

[Megalo_Man]

33. I just explained the difference in function to you.

They don't feed "bullets" either, they feed cartridges. Bullets are the projectile only. If you're going to argue about banning something at least know what you're talking about.

[Hoyt]

34. Typical gun cultist obfuscation. Heard it a thousand times. Don't care because

the issue is that too many guns get used in ways that kill or maim innocent people, are use for intimidation, end up in wrong hands, and worse.

Bullet vs. Cartridge; magazine vs. clip; assault weapon vs similar lethal weapons; etc., are just BS from people too steeped in guns to address real issues.

If you wish to discuss gun nomenclature, the gungeoneers will entertain you all night.

[Megalo_Man]

35. OK, gotcha. Enjoy your ignorance.

[Riftaxe]

19. You should start a Committee of Un-American activities

and investigate...

[aikoaiko]

22. Actually, the author says "yes and no" is the answer.

Did you read the piece?

[Megalo_Man]

30. Of course not. Hell, read the last paragraph.

It explicitly disagrees with the very thing hes trying to say.

[Jamaal510]

28. I don't know about un-American,

but they damn sure don't seem to care about all of the innocent people who are victims of gun violence on a daily basis. All that is ultimately important to LaPierre and his minions in Congress who are blocking gun laws is money.
When you compare the rate of gun violence in areas abroad vs. the U.S. , it's really easy to feel depressed about how these people are holding us back from becoming a safer nation. For instance, I saw one article that said that London can go for weeks without a single shooting, and London happens to be a rather large city. I'll bet that in many of America's cities, the monthly gun murder rate exceeds that of London in an entire year.
Is it too much to ask for some gun laws so that our murder rate can be as low as theirs (or lower)?