Uncle links a Brady post. If you really want to read the screed, go through him. I can’t be bothered to divert traffic to that particular puss-filled part of the internet.
But I’ll do up some quotes:
We came across this advertisement, from a 1954 NRA publication, on Ebay. But seeing how representative it is of sweeping historic change, maybe it ought to be in the Smithsonian. Because when this advertisement was designed, the NRA actually thought:
· it was a good thing to be opposed to violent overthrow of the government of the United States, and
· anyone who had been convicted of a violent crime should lose their ability to buy a gun.
Well the first bit I can’t agree with. I live in Massachusetts, I walk and drive by British Army graves EVERY DAMN DAY, and that includes my time in Maine and New Hampshire as well. This is taught in school from Elementary on. The Brits were oppressive jerks who didn’t want to play games with us, so we tossed them out of their own nation and called it our own.
Nobody who was raised knowing that history can’t not think of that when you read the second Amendment, any more than you can think about the Pilgrims landing here so they could practice a religion other than that of the Church of England when you read the first.
I suspect politics at hand for a group that was at the time mostly for hunters (in the mentioned add, all the people holding guns are in hunting attire and scenarios. No need to get people thinking about revolution when they might just want to shoot some ducks and deer. Hell it wasn’t like anybody was looking to take their guns away back then, and the NFA was old news, and not very controversial then.
Still Paul seems to take an interest in the whole “anyone who had been convicted of a violent crime should lose their ability to buy a gun” bit. Why? I really don’t see that being much of a contested point in the Gun Rights sphere, and certainly not anything the NRA has ANY interest in contesting.
Now, the organization’s leaders fight against limiting the access to firearms of people on the government’s terror watch list, and oppose eliminating the loopholes that allow convicted felons from buying guns. And NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre argues that “the people have the right, must have the right, to take whatever measures necessary, including force, to abolish oppressive government.”
OK so the last bit is just showing that the NRA is growing up a bit and realizes that gun rights are under attack, and gun ownership isn’t just fun-and-games. Paul’s only argument against that appears to be its a bit scary. There are a lot of things that are a bit scary, including liars like Paul somehow thinking he can restrict your rights over the above listed crap.
-limiting the access to firearms of people on the government’s terror watch list: ie: People who have committed no crime (otherwise they would be ARRESTING them, not watching them, right?) and are on a secret government list that we have no way of reviewing or contesting. How does that show how things have changed? Yep, a lie!
-eliminating the loopholes that allow convicted felons from buying guns: Link goes to an NRA report speaking out against “Gunshow Loophole” laws. Laws that are a lie at their root, as they don’t concern themselves with gunshows, nor do they address any loopholes. The laws proposed by the Brady camp are elimination of private sales. My Dad was a young boy around the time of this add, and at this time my Grandfather gave him a .22 youth rifle for hunting and target shooting. If the Brady’s had their way Dad and Grampa would have had to go into town and PAY a gun shop keeper (Something that didn’t actually exist until 1968) to transfer the gun, and the transfer would be illegal as Dad was still a minor. I suspect an NRA Member would be pretty pissed if Paul mentioned this proposal to them in 1954, given that family members giving guns as gifts, or friends trading firearms for fun or spending money was and still is a pretty common, and lawful occurrence. And there IS no loophole, because no matter how you slice it, or where you do it, selling a gun to a convicted felon is a federal crime, and both parties can be arrested and sent to prison for it.
Even worse, as many of you know “felony” does not mean “Violent Crime” these days, you can be a felon for lying under oath, landing fish without a permit, owning sex toys in certain places, or brewing too much beer. Hardly what the NRA opposed in 1954, and they should get the lead out and oppose the fact that somebody convicted of a non-violent crime that somebody deemed a felony can be stripped of their rights!
Again blatant dishonesty. But one more:
It seems to me the members of the NRA would be well served by looking at this ad and seeing how far things have gotten off track. Watch that muzzle, boys. And be sure of your target.
Paul is quoting some of the safety measures in the advertisement. Seems Paul might be a bit disingenuous as his group opposes people being taught gun safety!
Of course Paul’s argument is Eddie Eagle was created and is distributed by the NRA. I’m 100% willing to look at safety training the Brady Campaign, or any other anti-gun organization offers to help promote safe gun handling and eliminate gun accidents.
Oh yeah, their idea of “Gun Safety” is pretending guns don’t exist. Yeah that Works GREAT Paul.
This is the only way the anti-rights goons can propose any argument, by openly lying.
