Category Archives: Politics

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by


Were there ever any cartoons expressing the view that President Clinton was the puppet of The Brady Campaign? That view certainly would have had more truth to it than President Bush was the puppet of the NRA or Charlton Heston.


But then truth is irrelevant to bigots.

Sex Party

Posted on by

Sex Party? Did someone say “Sex Party”? Where?

It sounds like the type of party Bill Clinton and Al Gore should belong to instead of the Democrat Party.

Oh, it’s in Australia.

Can we export them?

Obfuscation and Delusion as a Way of Life

Posted on by

Someone gave us some “tofu milk” and some “vegan rice milk” they didn’t want.  It comes as a powder.  If we run out of real milk, I’ve been mixing up a batch of one or the other for my morning coffee.  It’s not too bad.  If you’re desperate.


Reading the ingredients on the rice milk, I find one of them is “evaporated cane juice”.  Seriously; who are we kidding, hippies?  “Cane juice”?  I’m pretty sure it’s not bamboo we’re talking about.  It must be sugar cane.  That’s right; we don’t like added sugar, but we like the taste, so we’ll use sugar and call it something else.  It’s not sugar.  It’s “evaporated effing cane juice”.  How dare you say otherwise.  What are you, a racist teabagger?


I’ve seen “evaporated cane juice” listed on some hippie kids’ cereal boxes, along with warnings about how corporations hurt animals and kids!


Call it “raw cane sugar” if you want to be accurate.  But no– you don’t want to be accurate.  You want to be deluded.  You want to fool yourself and hope no one else notices.  It feels better.  And instead of “statist” or “totalitarian” you call yourself “progressive”.  That makes it all better, doesn’t it?  Just use the language differently.  Now it all sounds perfectly wonderful, and anyone who calls you on it is a bad person.


Don’t anyone come on here and say I’m being unfair by conflating the use of “evaporated cane juice” with statism.  Note the aforementioned cereal box– it does that all by itself.  The same people who can’t be honest about adding sugar are warning us against corporations (while profiting in selling sugar-laced cereal to kids).  It’s all part of the same culture, people.

Who Knew…

Posted on by

…that there would be warm water on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, that there would be sunlight on the Gulf, or microbes in the water?


Experts Surprized…Again.


It seems the major catastrophe that was supposed to happen, that the anti capitalists desperately wanted to happen, isn’t happening.  Damn it!


FYI; Diesel fuel, for example, needs to have preservatives added to it, or it will rot in the tank.  Yes, it’s food for little bugs otherwise.  I know that, ’cause I used to run a diesel car.

Quote of the day–Josh Sugarmann

Posted on by

The same industry that has given us armor-piercing ‘cop-killer’ bullets, plastic
handguns, and assault weapons has now added caseless ‘phantom’ ammo to its
litany of assaults on public safety. This is just the latest example of the
failure of a system that allows a virtually unregulated industry to develop and
market hazardous products without the pre-market scrutiny afforded almost all
other products in America.

Josh Sugarmann
July 6, 1993
New Technology–Caseless “PHANTOM” Ammo–Could Devastate Police Investigations
[I
remember when this came out. It was the heyday of gun control in this
country. It’s almost hard to believe I’ve been fighting this guy for
over 17 years.

Just like “cop-killer bullets”, “plastic handguns”, and “assault weapons” Sugarmann had to, and still does, deliberately mislead and lie to the public in an attempt achieve his unconstitutional attack on a specific enumerated right.

At
times I still wonder if it was the enabling of better communication by
the Internet, the success of the “assault weapon” ban which awoke the
voters, the emergence of great leaders, or something else that turned
the tide. A “little bird” told me there is a movie being made the
chronicles the gun rights movement of the last 50 years or so. Although I’m more interested in making history
than documenting it does help to review the diplomatic rhetoric and
saber rattling, as well as the skirmishes and battles from time to time.
We can learn about the ways of our enemies and how our heroes both
stumbled and won battles.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Neal Knox

Posted on by

But Mayor Daley went back to Chicago and pushed through an ordinance individually registering every gun in Cook Country. That ordinance was delayed one day because the U.S. Supreme Court had handed down U.S. vs. Haynes, which held that it was a “justifiable defense” for a criminal, prohibited from possessing a gun, to refuse to register it due to fear of self-incrimination. The Chicago city council found an innovative way to enact their registration ordinance while evading that law: Persons with criminal or mental records which prevented them from legally owning a gun were exempt from registration.

Never mind that criminals were the alleged target of that law, and that they were exempted, the city’s new registration law applied only to the law-abiding citizen with a spotless record. And it’s still the same way.…

One thing the late-Sixties gun laws and attempted gun laws accomplished was to make the state’s gun owners nervous. So when the state’s Constitution was rewritten in 1970, they helped put in a clause guaranteeing that “subject only to the police power, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would not be infringed.” That mean, according to the official documents describing the Constitution, that while guns might be subjected to certain regulations, private ownership of handguns could never be banned.

In 1982, the village of Morton Grove banned handguns. A few months ago the state’s Supreme Court, on a split decision, ruled that the ban didn’t violate the new Constitution. They explained that since Morton Grove residents could still own long guns, the prohibition against banning arms hadn’t been violated.

Neal Knox
December 12, 1983
The Drift Toward Prohibition
From The Gun Rights War, page 80 and 81.
[It’s a great book. But if you are like me you probably shouldn’t read it just before you go to bed because you will end up angry and have difficulty going to sleep.

But it’s interesting to know that the methods and attitudes of the bigots haven’t changed over the last 50 years. They lied, they ignored original constitutional intent, and they wanted to infringe the rights of ordinary citizens even though they claimed they only wanted to make it difficult for criminals to possess firearms.

The difference is that we now have a “won game” (is that phrase used outside of the chess culture?) on our hands now. We just need to keep up the pressure and drive these bigots into political and social oblivion.–Joe]

Quote of the day–John Boccieri

Posted on by

In these difficult times, it is vital that Congress maintain individuals’ constitutional property rights. Some property rights are secure; clothing, pets, or crops can be deemed exempt from repossession. Other property rights, however, are ignored, most notably 2nd Amendment rights.


In response, I urge you to join me in becoming an original cosponsor of The Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010. The Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010 will allow consumer bankruptcy debtors to exempt firearms from the claims of creditors.  Specifically, the measure would permit firearms held primarily for the personal, family or household use of the debtor to be exempt from the claims of creditors under federal exemption law.


John Boccieri U.S. Representative (Democrat) from Ohio
Letter to Congress June 2010.
[I’m not so sure I like the idea of exempting all firearms from the claims of creditors. I could see some dollar value exemption, like $10K in guns and ammo but not an unlimited number of firearms or dollar value. If someone owed me $100K I would be pretty upset if the debtor could tell the judge the only thing he owned was just this one gun and the judge was required to let the guy keep it rather than pay his debt to me.


On the other hand it’s nice to see politicians (especially Democrats) thinking of ways to curry favor with gun owners. And of course putting Josh Sugarmann at risk of a aneurysm gets a few bonus points from me too.–Joe]

Quote of the day–U.S. Rep. Debbie Halvorson

Posted on by

We’re one of two states who don’t have concealed carry. Chicago is seeing some of the worst gun violence right now — though it had some of the tightest gun restrictions.

Violence goes down when concealed carry is the law. Illinois should pass common-sense legislation.



U.S. Rep. Debbie Halvorson, D-Crete
July 23, 2010
Gun fight looming — State legislators expected to reload laws
[Yes. Illinois should do that. When I can discreetly carry in Chicago I might actually consider visiting again. The same goes for California, Hawaii, and a few other places that I am interested in visiting.


Notice also the ‘D’ after her name. She is a friend of gun owners even though I’m sure there are some issues we will be the exact opposite of each other. But until the gun issue is settled we can ignore differences. When we have something we agree on we should work together to accomplish things. Don’t look for reasons to reject someone. Look for reasons to take advantage of their offer to help accomplish mutual goals.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Dmitry Orlov

Posted on by

The mid-1990s did not seem to me as the right time to voice such ideas. The United States was celebrating its so-called Cold War victory, getting over its Vietnam syndrome by bombing Iraq back to the Stone Age, and the foreign policy wonks coined the term “hyperpower” and were jabbering on about full-spectrum dominance. All sorts of silly things were happening. Professor Fukuyama told us that history had ended, and so we were building a brave new world where the Chinese made things out of plastic for us, the Indians provided customer support when these Chinese-made things broke, and we paid for it all just by flipping houses, pretending that they were worth a lot of money whereas they are really just useless bits of ticky-tacky. Alan Greenspan chided us about “irrational exuberance” while consistently low-balling interest rates. It was the “Goldilocks economy” – not to hot, not too cold. Remember that? And now it turns out that it was actually more of a “Tinker-bell” economy, because the last five or so years of economic growth was more or less a hallucination, based on various debt pyramids, the “whole house of cards” as President Bush once referred to it during one of his lucid moments. And now we can look back on all of that with a funny, queasy feeling, or we can look forward and feel nothing but vertigo.


Dmitry Orlov
February 13, 2009
Social Collapse Best Practices
[I had a conversation with a friend earlier this week and he was of the opinion (pharaphrasing) we went from “it was too early to shoot the bastards to it’s too late to do any good and it’s just a matter of riding things out as best we can as we auger into the ground”.


I can’t say that I have any factual basis to refute his assessment.–Joe]

How’s that health care working out for you?

Posted on by

I heard two different stories on the “health care reform” yesterday. I had lunch with an old friend. He has his own small business and with the downturn in the economy he is slowing sinking. He is looking for a contract job writing software and may end up leaving the Seattle area for a few weeks to “go do some coding in Iowa”. The new health care regulations aren’t helping him any either. He pulled out his Group Health identification card and told me, “I was paying $1000/month for this until they passed the bill. Almost immediately it went to $1500/month.”

That evening I had dinner with some other friends. One of them told me about explaining to one of his employees just yesterday that he is now required to offer her health insurance. He told her, “I’m required to offer you health insurance. So I’m doing that now. But if you accept I’m going to have to cut your hours back to 20 per week. At that point I no longer have to pay your insurance. If you sign this other piece of paper saying you don’t want the coverage you can continue to work 40 hours per week.

She clarified, “So I could work 20 hours per week and not have health insurance or I could continue to work 40 hours per week and not have health insurance, right?” “That’s right”, he said. “Unless you can talk Ruth out of her raise. We just don’t have the budget for any additional expenses.”

As Sebastian rhetorically asks on a slightly different topic, “Who could have predicted this?”

Quote of the day–Fred

Posted on by

The Brady Campaign tends to act like a rather dumb terrier and grabs on to whatever scrap they can and not let go until they get their way, regardless of how stupid and pointless it is.

Fred
March 27, 2010
Comment to Guns ‘N Coffee
[After failing with Starbucks it appears the latest scrap they are grabbing on to (again) is the “gun show loophole”.–Joe]

Agenda

Posted on by

It’s as if the NY Times had a conclusion, tried to find evidence to support it, failed, but published it anyway:

Beyond Guns: N.R.A. Expands Agenda

The N.R.A., long a powerful lobby on gun rights issues, has in recent months
also weighed in on such varied issues as health care, campaign finance, credit
card regulations and Supreme
Court nominees

In the health care debate this year, for instance, the N.R.A.’s lobbyists
worked with the Senate majority leader, Harry
Reid, to include a little-noticed provision banning insurance companies from
charging higher premiums for people with guns in their homes.

The N.R.A. worked out a deal last month exempting itself from a proposal
requiring groups active in political spending to disclose their financial
donors. Its push this spring for greater gun rights in the District of Columbia
served to effectively kill a measure — once seemingly assured of passage — to
give the district a voting seat in Congress.

With a push from the N.R.A., a popular bill last year restricting credit card
lenders came with an odd add-on: It also allowed people to carry loaded guns in
national parks. And the gun lobby put potential supporters of the Supreme Court
nominee Elena
Kagan on notice this month that a vote for her would be remembered at the
ballot boxes in November.

The N.R.A.’s expanding portfolio is an outgrowth of its success in the
courts, Congressional officials and political analysts said. With the Supreme
Court ruling last month for the second time since 2008 that the Second Amendment
guarantees an individual the right to have a gun, the N.R.A. now finds that its
defining battle is a matter of settled law, and it has the resources to expand
into other areas.

The NRA had success in the courts? What national level gun rights cases has the NRA won recently? Neither Heller nor McDonald were NRA cases. I suggest you ask the lead attorney for both those cases, Alan Gura, what he thinks of the NRA getting credit for those wins–I would advise that you be prepared to treat your ears for blisters afterward. The NRA certainly supported the decisions (as far as they went). But the organizations that deserve the credit in those cases are the Cato Institute and the Second Amendment Foundation.

The NRA’s defining battle is settled law? The right to keep a handgun in your home for self-defense was the defining battle for the NRA? Not even the GOA sell the NRA that short.

Would it be considered “expanding their agenda” if the NAACP or the ADL pushed through laws that prohibited their members from being discriminated by insurance companies, enabled them to visit National Parks, opposed Supreme Court nominees hostile to them, and fought laws that inhibited their lobbying?

The reporter claims the NRA is expanding their agenda but only supplies facts that support the conclusion they are pursuing their agenda–protecting the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. As we all know, being a bigot means the facts don’t matter when they conflict with your agenda. And here the NY Times clear shows they have an agenda and they are bigots.

Update: Sebastian has similar thoughts.

Quote of the day–Lee Harris

Posted on by

The same thing is happening today — and that is our true enemy. The poison of the radical Islamic fantasy ideology is being spread all over the Muslim world through schools and through the media, through mosques and through the demagoguery of the Arab street. In fact, there is no better way to grasp the full horror of the poison than to listen as a Palestinian mother offers her four-year-old son up to be yet another victim of this ghastly fantasy.

Once we understand this, many of our current perplexities will find themselves resolved. Pseudo-issues such as debates over the legitimacy of “racial profiling” would disappear: Does anyone in his right mind object to screening someone entering his country for signs of plague? Or quarantining those who have contracted it? Or closely monitoring precisely those populations within his country that are most at risk?

Let there be no doubt about it. The fantasy ideologies of the twentieth century were plagues, killing millions and millions of innocent men, women, and children. The only difference was that the victims and targets of such fantasy ideologies so frequently refused to see them for what they were, interpreting them as something quite different — as normal politics, as reasonable aspirations, as merely variations on the well-known theme of realpolitik, behaving — tragically enough — no differently from Montezuma when he attempted to decipher the inexplicable enigma posed by the appearance of the Spanish conquistadors. Nor did the fact that his response was entirely human make his fate any less terrible.

Lee Harris
Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology
[It is a bit long (Kevin Baker excepted) if you think of it as a blog post but as Tamara said it is fascinating.

It can be applied to so many things–gun control, government run health care (probably government run almost anything!), “global warming”, recycling, and probably a thousand other things.–Joe]

Update: The broken link has been fixed.

Those Racist Lefties

Posted on by

Michelle Malkin gets mail.


She has obviously struck a nerve.


I’ll keep reminding people that the KKK were virtually all Democrats, until it is taught in public schools nationwide, and Bill Clinton with Obama get together for a national public service ad and apologize to the world for the KKK/Democrat association.


I wanted make a bigger point about the slinging of insults, often including some rather well contemplated sexual insults, when you have no argument, but I just don’t have the energy.  Then there’s the even bigger point of that against which we are fighting.  It doesn’t reason and it doesn’t have empathy or compassion.  It doesn’t even want to be seen as reasonable, if spending the energy to appear reasonable isn’t necessary.  It longs for a situation in which all pretense of reason and compassion become unnecessary.  It’s hate with a life of its own, and it will flow from one person or group to another.  As such we should understand that this isn’t personal.  You can defeat this person or that group of people, and the monster lives on.  Hell, am I starting to sound religious?  You may call it that if it makes you feel better.

Experts Surprised…

Posted on by

…again.  One wonders how often an “expert” can express surprise at an outcome and still qualify as an expert.


Breaking news!  Apparently it can get hot in New York in the summer.  Amazing.

Quote of the day–Robert Bork

Posted on by

In a constitutional democracy the moral content of law must be given by the morality of the framer or legislator, never by the morality of the judge.


Robert Bork
Speech
American Enterprise Institute, 1984
[The dissent in the McDonald case does not seem to have adhered to this principal or if they did they were living in an alternate reality.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Fred Hoyle

Posted on by

I concluded, unhappily, I had been born into a world dominated by a rampaging monster called ‘law’ that was both all powerful and all stupid.

Fred Hoyle
[The most recent info about the TSA is what reminded me of this. But every waking minute of any day would also qualify.–Joe]

Judge Faces Death Threats

Posted on by

We learn from Bayoubuzz, via Michelle Malkin that U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman, who told Obama his power is limited, is now receiving death threats;



“Last night, Feldman served as a celebrity judge at a cooking contest at a school gymnasium in Uptown New Orleans. Due to the threats, Feldman was accompanied by a federal marshal security team.

It is a sad indictment of our society today that a judge with such a sterling record of integrity and service to his country would be subject to such threats. Feldman was appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan in 1983. Today, he is in the eye of a political hurricane unlike anything he has ever experienced.”


A sad indictment of our society today?  Not my society, thank you.  Leave me out of this.  This is about the Left.  And it’s not an “indictment” of the left so much as another in a very long string of verifications of the left’s mindset.  It’s also a vindication of the American Founders’ ideas.  See; they knew our government would try to seize power unconstitutionally.  That’s what happens as a matter of course.  That’s why they took steps trying to prevent it.  After having taken these steps, they also knew things would come to blows once in a while.  Those who lust for power simply cannot help themselves, and they routinely resort to threats and violence.  That’s what political power is at its fundamental level, after all– threats and violence for the purpose of taking our treasure and trampling our liberty.


That being said; an actual death threat most likely means that the person making the threat isn’t going to act.  Otherwise they’d just go for it without all the talk.


Judge Feldman; I hope you’re packing heat, and know how to use it.


He’s accused of being a tool for the oil industry.  I suppose anyone who favors liberty and human rights (asuming the judge does– I don’t know) is a “tool” for this, a “tool” for that, and a “tool” for any worthwhile activity, so long as that activity doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.  We’ll see if the good judge can make that argument with such clarity, or if he’ll cough, splutter and squirm like a Republican.

Quote of the day–Adolf Hitler

Posted on by

We are freeing men from the responsibilities of freedom, which only a few men can bear.

Adolf Hitler
[This is attributed to Adolf Hitler by a few people but I am of the opinion that this might be “too good to be true”. I cannot find it in a speech or writing of his. But then my reference materials are limited to English and mostly on the web.

Still it could easily be the slogan of politicians in this country for the last 80 years. The so called “freedom” from want and and “freedom” from fear are the classic examples. The many others which have followed such as the welfare state, government run health care, bans on recreational drugs, and repressive firearms laws are mostly just details of the implementation.

But once the politicians come to the realization some people resist the Utopian vision through their own “selfish desires” and that the ultimate freedom from responsibility is achieved in death we then find ourselves back to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot.–Joe]

Fifty Caliber Institute on the NRA and H.R. 5175

Posted on by

What John C. Sigler of the Fifty Caliber Institute has to say is worthwhile reading. Particularily since his organization is one of those that the NRA “threw under the bus”.


A snippet:



To those who are claiming H.R. 5175 as an “NRA sell out”: Simply put, there was no sell out. And to suggest that there was a “sell out” is to either deny the facts or not be aware of the facts.

On the contrary, NRA does not and will not actively support H.R. 5175, in any form. “But that’s just more political semantics”, you say? Well, if you are a checker player maybe it is. But, if you are a “Spock-level” chess player, it is far from simple semantics.

Chris Cox and his staff have but one loyalty and that is to protect and defend the rights of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms, and to position NRA so as to be an effective advocate for firearms freedom in America. Neither they nor NRA are allowed to be partisans or to tie NRA’s ability to successfully execute its mission to any other group, organization or cause. NRA is and remains a single issue organization – its Bylaws require absolute fealty to that principle.

Before you criticize NRA for understanding that this isn’t your grandpa’s checker game or even your college dean’s chess game, you need to thank them for treating this as an extremely complex exercise more akin to Mister Spock’s three dimensional chess. A chess game demanding a very sophisticated and highly intellectual approach to the very serious problem at hand. We ask you to examine the facts and watch what happens in Congress over the next several weeks and months. Don’t be fooled or misled. Wait until all of the facts are in; watch how NRA’s “Mister Spock” (Chris Cox) moves the various pieces on the political game board we call Congress; and understand that if NRA wins, all gun owners and all those who believe in the entire Bill of Rights – including the First Amendment, will ultimately win.

The stakes are high – nothing less than the ultimate survival of American freedom is at stake.


Update: In the comments Boyd points out something I had totally forgotten about. Sigler was president of the NRA from 2007 through 2009.


A source with less potential for bias but in a near identical situation would be Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:



This week’s highly-publicized effort to exempt the National Rifle Association from the effects of the “Disclose Act,” H.R. 5175 shows how fundamentally bankrupt the legislation and its underlying philosophy is, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.


“The attempt by Democrats to essentially buy off the NRA with a tailor-made exemption should be proof enough that the entire measure is morally, if not legally, repugnant and should be rejected by Congress,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “The exemption clause, if it were to be formally adopted as an amendment to the bill, is probably unconstitutional. We think that is reason enough for Congress to stop H.R. 5175 in its tracks.”


The proposed exemption would only apply to the NRA, while essentially sascrificing the First Amendment rights of other effective grassroots gun rights organizations due to their smaller membership numbers.


“This proposed exemption is unconscionable,” Gottlieb said, “but it reveals the desperation of its sponsors to pass legislation that would still silence organizations critical of how the Democrat leadership has mismanaged things on Capitol Hill. We are today urging our 650,000 members and supporters to tell their congressional representatives to derail the Disclose Act altogether.


“Congressional anti-gunners like nothing better than to drive wedges between effective gun rights organizations,” he continued, “and this week’s events prove they can still accomplish that. We are astonished that anybody on Capitol Hill would imagine for a heartbeat that they could buy off one gun rights group at the expense of all the others. To think they could actually get away with such smarmy Chicago-style politics suggests that the Democrat leadership in Congress has not only lost its moral compass, they’ve lost their minds.


“While it is disappointing that the NRA might have accepted the exemption,” Gottlieb said, “it is despicable that the offer was ever made in the first place. If pro-gun Democrats want to shield the NRA from the effects of H.R. 5175, they should simply vote against the entire bill instead of trying to carve out a special exemption. They have insulted and infuriated millions of gun owners who are represented by smaller grassroots organizations, and they need to hear that loud and clear.”


GOA has said something also:



Tuesday, June 17, 2010


“[T]he NRA — on whose board of directors I serve — rather than holding steadfastly to its historic principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for ‘neutrality’ from the legislation’s requirements.”


— NRA Director Cleta Mitchell, June 17, 2010


The above quote — part of an editorial authored by NRA Director Cleta Mitchell — ran in The Washington Post today.


Like Mitchell, bloggers and editorial writers around the country have lit up the Internet with the story that we have been alerting you to over the past 48 hours. Here are just some of the headlines:


* “The NRA sells out to Democrats on the First Amendment,” The Wall Street Journal


* “Conservatives take on the NRA over deal on disclosure bill,” The Washington Post


* “The National Rifle Association’s Excuse Holds No Water,” RedState.org


The conservative movement (and to be honest, many liberal organizations as well) are coming together to loudly protest the DISCLOSE Act — legislation that threatens to gag our ability to effectively hold individual congressmen accountable in the days and weeks leading up to an election.


It is imperative that we continue hammering the Congress. But rather than cry “uncle,” liberal Democrats are now trying to buy off more groups with an exemption for those that have at least 500,000 members (rather than the higher threshold of one million, which would have applied to few groups other than the NRA).


Of course, how is the government going to know how many members an organization has? According to the legislation, each organization will have to certify to a government commission how many members they have. But what if the commission wants documentation; will the organization have to “disclose” the names of their members?


GOA, of course, will never do this. Furthermore, you should know that your Gun Owners of America can NOT be bought off. We will continue opposing this bill on principle, urging all gun groups to stick together in this fight. As we stated yesterday, we realize that: “We must all hang together, or we will all hang separately.”


GOA applauds NRA Director Cleta Mitchell for the courageous stand she took today. (You can read her editorial here.) We hope that the NRA leadership will heed her wisdom and take a stand against this bill. If they don’t, we wouldn’t be surprised if NRA members start demanding a change in their leadership. After all, the NRA has engaged in many good fights over the years, and it would be a shame to lose this VERY IMPORTANT battle because high-ranking staff led the NRA down the wrong path.