Quote of the day—Paul M. Barrett

Feldman is trying to organize a politically moderate gun owners’ association as an alternative to the NRA. So far, he has not had much luck with that project.

Paul M. Barrett
Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun page 267.
[Richard Feldman,Esq. doesn’t have anything on his web site about trying to do this but Barrett knows him personally and perhaps has inside knowledge that I am not privy to. That aside, this would appear to be the worst error I found in the book. I have a lot of good things to say about the book and will do so in another post. I really liked the book so don’t let my disagreement with Barrett about the quote above adversely color your thoughts about the book. That would be very unfair.

The error in the quote above is as follows: I know many people who have left the NRA and having nothing good to say about the organization. All of them left because the NRA was too “moderate”. They felt the NRA compromised when they shouldn’t have. The anti-gun groups try to paint the NRA as extremist but that is certainly not the viewpoint from the majority of gun owners that I know. That Feldman hasn’t “had much luck with that project” would indicate to me that there may be a problem with his vision. Admittedly the “market” for political gun organizations is a bit crowded and it is always difficult to break into a new market even if you do have a lot of money and/or an exceptional product. My impression is that Feldman has neither. The “product” Feldman is selling, if he is in fact trying to do this, is not going to find a very large market. The people that yearn for a more “moderate” NRA either advocate against guns and gun owners or don’t care about the issue. Neither of which would join such an organization.

Barrett has done a very good job with this book. He has done a lot of research and he accurately reports on many subtle points that I would not have expected him to have found. I’m a little surprised he didn’t realize the statement above does not match the reality as I know it. Perhaps he does recognize it as an error on Feldman’s part but he didn’t comment on it beyond the “not had much luck” quip.

I found similar things in the book on other topics. He has all the facts right and then fails to draw the obvious conclusion or sometimes a jarringly different conclusion from what seems obvious to me. But these are mostly little things. I really liked the book and will report about it at length very soon.—Joe]

6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Paul M. Barrett

  1. Smells like another AHSA in the making…how convenient is this timing – Obummer’s on the hot seat and the loony left wants him to win re-election (unless Ron Paul can best the Koch brothers at their own game)…

  2. “Feldman is trying to organize a politically moderate gun owners’ association as an alternative to the NRA. So far, he has not had much luck with that project.”

    Ha. Silly bastard doesn’t realize that the NRA IS the politically moderate gun owners’ association…

  3. Opposition to the NRA “paint the NRA as extremist” because that is a standard Alinsky tactic, to demonize and isolate and freeze the NRA from broad support by a public who only hears the charge, not any facts supporting the charge, of extremism. It has nothing to do with NRA at all, actually. It is done because it helps the anti-rights cause.

    It is the same reason the shooter of Rep. Giffords was claimed to be a right winger, when in fact he was at best a reader of leftist literature, and most likely a mental case of no real political persuasion. Demonize the opposition, isolate it from public support, freeze it against taking self-supporting action, and then promoting your own goals are easier.

    I wish there were a simple way, sort of a Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies analogue, where anyone using Alinsky’s tactics could be quickly condemned for doing so. Sort of a “Peterson’s Syndrome” nickname that meant not only was someone using the tactics of Alinsky, but doing so in a manner that should lead to the user, not the accused, being condemned.

  4. The NRA is not a political organization. Certainly not in its founding and charter. Maybe that is a main part of the misunderstanding and confusion over what makes it tick. The NRA was founded by two Civil War commanders in response to their perception that marksmanship skills among the civilian populace were lacking. It is a shooting club, promoting training, range development and competition among the general population.

    The NRA became political only when gun rights were politicized (attacked).

    It seems every bit of the criticism of the NRA from the left is either ignorant of, or deliberately ignoring, the facts. If they’re ignorant, it means they don’t care enough to do the easiest google search on the internet, and that proves they’re not interested in the truth. If they’re deliberately ignoring a known truth, it proves that they care very much about the truth in that the truth is their targeted enemy. (I suppose you can try to moderate between ignorance and willful ignorance)

    If you want to start an organization like the NRA (dedicated to promoting marksmanship skills among the general population by way of improving “…the security of a free state…”) that automatically, in and of itself, places you on the list of enemies of the left. Hence a “moderate” version of the NRA is a logical impossibility and/or a fraud. The security of a free state is why the left exists– it exists to destroy it. Promoting general marksmanship is antithetical to the left, and so is not “moderate” by any stretch of the imagination. It would be like having a Moderate Jewish Organization in the middle of jihad country. You won’t be moderate for long. Oh, no, Precious. Not long at all.

    That and the fact that “politically moderate” is simply a coward’s way of saying “unprincipled” or “lost in a fog”. You may go about flaunting your “political moderation” as though it were a badge of honor and a sign of your open-mindedness and mainstream appeal, but there are those who will see it for what it is– either a transparent ruse or stupidity combined with cowardice. Political moderates are “open to all ideas” except when ideas result in conclusions or are a product of the principled application of logic. Then they’re steadfastly against them (until someone convinces the moderate that taking a different position will improve their polling numbers). Ultimately, the “moderate” in hard times will run off, whimpering angrily and hysterically, and hide behind which ever group or person it is they deem most powerful at the moment.

  5. Barrett is aware of the history of the NRA. He wrote about it in his book.

    What is lost on many people, but I don’t think on Barrett, is that there is N.R.A. and N.R.A.-I.L.A. These are two different organizations. And they don’t necessarily have the same goals and certainly not the same methods.

  6. The NRA is a sellout group they are not working in your interest. They are a political organization they spend enough time begging for money so they can fight the good fight,so where does the money go. I am A LONG time life member and I am NOT a happy camper.

Comments are closed.